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.
“Christian liberty is an under-examined topic.”
In doing some work on the sin offering and the tresspass offering in Leviticus I was impressed with God’s justice for the poor. He had commanded a blood sacrifice for both iniquities, a bullock for one and a lamb or goat for the other. However, for the poor who could not afford them, instead of giving them a pass He said a dove or pigeon would do; blood must be shed for the atonement.
Jesus says “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven”. The word tranlated “forbid” means “to hinder, prevent, to withhold a thing from anyone”. If Jesus is telling the disciples and those around Him not to put hinderances in the way of the childrens’ salvation, why would He not make His scriptures, His word of salvation, perspicuous to children, just as He did for the poor in Leviticus?
A "true" Christian is one who has been born again and has graced faith in the one and only Christ Jesus our Lord. He cannot be identified for certain by other Christians, however, evidence is available through testimony and the bearing of fruit.
I personally like the biblical Catholic notion better.
My understanding is that this notion is that a "true" Christian is anyone who claims to be. That definition is what allows "Christians" to lose their salvations. Therefore, when Jesus turns His back on some who say "Lord, Lord", saying "I NEVER knew you", the Catholic would say these are true Christians who have lost their salvations, whereas we would say Jesus "NEVER" knew them because they were never Christians in the first place.
I guess that I’m confused as to Reformed definitions. Are you saying that a pagan cannot be wise? If wisdom alone (I thought that it was Grace) keeps a person from sinning and all the non elect / pagans cannot keep from sinning, then obviously there is no pagan wisdom.
Okay, I guess that you cleared the rest of it up. Thanks.
We do not deny that God chooses people.
We do not agree on who constitutes the chosen.
Pelagianism. A heretical doctrine on divine grace taught by Pelagius (355-425), a monk from the British Isles who first propagated his views in Rome in the time of Pope Anastasius I. Pelagius argued against the Church’s teaching that in order to do good, divine grace in the soul was necessary. This canceled human free will. Pelagianism included a cluster of other beliefs and essentially entailed a denial of the Church’s doctrine of Original Sin. It was condemned by local councils in Africa in 416 and 417, and also by Pope St. Innocent I in the latter year. It was condemned again in 418 by his successor, Pope St. Zosimus. Semi-Pelagianism, a related heresy, was condemned by the local Council of Orange in 529 but has long persisted among those who question Original Sin and the supremacy of divine grace.
Nope, we’re not Pelagians or semi Pelagians. Neither are were Marcionists, Gnostics, or Montanists, or Arminianists, all of whom are well represented on these threads.
You’re asking me to summarize a rather lengthy reasoning process. I’m not trying to hedge but at the moment I’m a little busy. It has to do with God commanding and granting what He commands. God abides in us and He commands us to abide in Him. We cannot abide in God unless He has granted it.
Then Sacred Scriptures is calling God a liar, according to you. Why do you continue to ignore what the Bible clearly tells us?
For this [is] good and pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires that all men be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth 1 Tim 2:3-4
I know you pretend that verse doesn't exist, but there it is...
Not only that, but the Bible ALSO says Jesus died for THE SINS OF THE WORLD
I have posted this before, it was ignored, but I will post it again in the slim chance that a Calvinist might see the error of this idea that salvation is only held out to the self-selected few. Not only are these from Scriptures, but the beloved St. Augustine...
Maybe today, you will be lucky and your life will be changed again...
Be converted to me, and you shall be saved, all ye ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is no other. Is 45:22
And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David.” Luke 2:10-11
“For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” Luke 19:10. Are not all men lost without Christ? Don't we hear this mantra over and over from Protestants? Can't they get their theology straight?
“And they said to the woman: We now believe, not for thy saying: for we ourselves have heard him, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.” John 4:42
“I am not come to call the just, but sinners.” Mat 9:12. All men have sinned, no? How many countless times are we told this - except when the subject turns to salvation of anyone other than Calvinists...
“I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures.” John 10:9
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. John 12:32
And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world”. John 12:47
“As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him.” John 17:2. Christ’s power is superabundant for ALL flesh…
“Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all fullness should dwell; And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven. Col 1:19-20
“For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.” Romans 11:32. Does "all" mean something else?
“For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all” 1 Tim 2:5-6
The first Christians also believed that Christ’s death had universal application. It is only later heretics who invented that Christ’s death was limited in value...
“Let us fix our gaze on the blood of Christ and know how precious it is to His Father because it was poured out for our salvation and brought the grace of repentance to the whole world. (St. Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, c. 85 AD)
Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she … having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary… by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies c. 180 AD)
“Inasmuch as Christ gave Himself for the redemption of the whole human race, Paul said, as we have seen above, that He redeemed those who were bound in the captivity of their sins (Romans 3:24, 1 Tim 2:6), when separate from God (Heb 2:9), He tasted death for all.” (Origen, Commentary on Romans, c. 244)
“For this reason, then, He takes to Himself flesh capable of dying, so that this flesh, by partaking of the Word who is superior to all, might be worthy to suffer death in the place of all…. Then, by offering to death the body which He Himself had taken, as a sacrifice and offering free of every stain, He forthwith removed death from all His fellowmen, by that sentencing of a substitute….And thus, too, the incorruptible Son of God, being joined with all by the similarity of flesh, He surely clothed all in incorruptibility through the promise of resurrection. (St. Athanasius, Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, c. 318)
Read the next careful and note it is from St. Augustine, as it addresses another mistake Protestants make, that man does not have free will:
“The blood of your Lord, if you will it, is given for you; but if you do not want this to be so, it is not given to you. But perhaps you are saying: ‘My God had the blood by which He could redeem me; but already when He suffered, He gave it all; what does He have left that He can give also to me?’ This is the great thing about it, that what He gave once, He gave for all. The blood of Christ is salvation to those who want it, and torment to those who do not.” (St. Augustine, Sermon 344, c.400)
“In view of the magnitude and potency of the price, and because it pertains to the universal condition of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world.” (St. Prosper of Aquitaine, Responses on behalf of Augustine to the Articles of Objections Raised by the Vincentianists, c. 431)
It should be clear that the Church has always held that Christ’s death had universal application to ALL men of the entire world. Christ did not die just for the elitist Calvinists, but rather, for all mankind, being the Mediator between God and man when He became one of us. Just as Adam’s sin effected the entire human race, the Church viewed Christ, the Second Adam, as effective for the entire human race in redeeming it.
“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. And not only so; but also we glory in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received reconciliation. Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned… But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” Romans 5:10-13, 15
Christ’s death was objectively for the entire human race, since He is the universal man, the Second Adam. There is not a single man or woman who has ever lived who this death is not given for. Redemption is universally given to all mankind, since He is the Mediator.
Clearly, God desires ALL men to be saved. Christ's sacrifice was offered for the sake of ALL men - unless you think Adam's sin mentioned in Romans 5 is GREATER than Christ's salvific work. Clearly, then, God ALLOWS men to choose to be saved or not to be saved. THIS is His will, according to Scriptures.
Regards
Then why do different writers writing about the same thing use different words, and different emphases?
There were no golden tablets found underground; the Holy Spirit didn’t frogmarch the writers of the Bible over to the table and refuse to let them up until they had written exactly what the Holy Spirit dictated to them. Oral tradition, word of mouth.
I understand that you guys don’t have a Church, Tradition, the Magisterium or a history that goes back to Christ. You only have words in a Book. It doesn’t matter that the words have changed. It doesn’t matter that the KJV is often different from the NAB, or that the new gender-neutral Bible contradicts both.
You people cling onto a Bible, whichever Bible, splitting hairs and vehemently holding onto odd translations and single words, regardless of whether or not the translation is accurate or even intended.
I know the formula, but what precisely does this mean?
It means that our sovereign and omnipotent God ALWAYS gets what He wants. :) It means that God did not transfer the power to humans to thwart His will. God the creator always gets what He wants, and we humans always get what God wants. It's a balance. :)
Yes God's will is that we have free will. How is He trumped?
My understanding is that an Apostolic tenet is that God's will is for all men to be saved. By free will, man's will trumps God's will because not all men are saved.
Given these three truth statements: Man has free will; God wishes all to be saved; all are not saved; can we not arrive at the simple logical conclusion? Without the need to derive an obvious untruth about free will?
OK, I'm all ears. :)
You're talking about earthly wisdom. I'm talking about spiritual wisdom. A pagan cannot be wise to spiritual things if there is no godly fear. God chooses the foolish things of this earth to confront the wise.
You are making what happened into a necessity FOR GOD! How is all of this make Christ's death NECESSARY for HIM when HE sets the standards. He CHOSE this, it was not necessary!
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
Nice try - but it is the FATHER who has determined what will happen, thus, it is a "must" for Jesus to obey the will of the Father. This says nothing about God offering His Son as a necessity FOR GOD the FATHER.
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.
Again, you are presenting an external force that makes the Father do something against His will... What force makes it necessary that the Son must die? It is NECESSARY for the Son to obey the Father's will. It is not necessary for the Father to give His Son up to die.
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.
This goes back to your legal understanding of salvation. God should only do "what is required" and nothing more. Somehow, God is legally bound to save man in this manner - death of His Son... We contend that the Father's sacrifice of the Son was an act of love, not of necessity. "There is no greater love than this..." Remember?
Regards
“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.
The problem I have with the Crucifix is that it strongly reinforces the image we have of you all re-sacrificing Jesus over and over again during the Eucharist. Our cross is empty because He is risen.”
Do you see the contradictions? An empty Cross is a tad antiseptic. I liken it to the person buying meat in a supermarket in an antiseptic pink or white tray with plastic wrap over it versus actually seeing the butchering process or the processing after a hunt. We understand and appreciate as much as is humanly possible the process that Christ went through.
I don’t believe that a Protestant could have even come close to producing the movie The Passion of The Christ because the mindset is so different. We are humbled by the sacrifice that the Lord went through for us. By the magnitude. We understand that what He went through was too much, too unbearable, too humiliating and too painful for any man to take. We understand that with His Passion, the greatest event in Creation, He has ransomed all men; since it took everything to redeem man, and He gave everything, that man is redeemed.
Yes, your cross is empty. I think that it is an indicator of the emotion of the theologies that Protestants tend to follow.
I imagine that if you did happen to wander in and identify yourself as a non Catholic, the priest should be able to handle your case in a respectful and holy fashion. I think that he might even appreciate your attendance.
If you do make it before me, say a Hail Mary for me, if you would. :)
Ah, so a person who is born again is a true Christian - and if he later falls away, he was never a true Christian to begin with? How exactly is that "certitude of salvation"? Sounds like double-talk to me.
My understanding is that this notion is that a "true" Christian is anyone who claims to be. That definition is what allows "Christians" to lose their salvations. Therefore, when Jesus turns His back on some who say "Lord, Lord", saying "I NEVER knew you", the Catholic would say these are true Christians who have lost their salvations, whereas we would say Jesus "NEVER" knew them because they were never Christians in the first place.
And how exactly are you able to ascertain JESUS' knowledge of whether He knew YOU? Those Christians in Mat 7 THOUGHT they knew Jesus, as well. But JESUS never knew THEM. In other words, they deceived THEMSELVES. Thus, how does a 'Christian' know he is not deceiving himself?
My point, of course, is that claiming to be the elect for heaven is deceiving oneself. We are told to make our salvation "more secure" during our lives. Thus, there is not really a point on this earth where one can say, without ANY doubt, that "I am going to heaven". The most we can do is hope in God's mercy that we have been good servants in HIS eyes.
Regards
Fascinating.
We believe that God does not leave anyone laying in the spritual dirt. But we believe that that effort goes out to all men, not just those whose names are picked out of the cosmic cookie jar.
If the non elect can only do worthless things, and God’s will is responsible for everything that happens, does that mean that God is responsible for all worthless things?
Acts 2:
38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39
For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
40
He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
41
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.
42
8 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.
Every one of you. Not all believed, but the ones who did repented first and then received the Holy Spirit. Not vice versa. Interesting. I presume that Peter hadn’t consulted with the Reformers first. :)
Are we retreating into politically meaningless statements?
MB: “What is the quantitative difference between elect sin and non elect sin?”
FK: “Statistically, the elect should sin less often after regeneration.”
Statistically? Funny, I don’t see statistical analysis or the science of numbers pertaining to sin of the elect versus non elect in my Bible. You wouldn’t be able to point me in the right direction would you?
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. John 12:32
Of course Christ draws all things to Himself; He eventually will judge everything. And those who haven't been acquitted of their sins by His redemption are in for a whole lot of trouble.
“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. And not only so; but also we glory in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received reconciliation. Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned… But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” Romans 5:10-13, 15
Why didn't you highlight the last verse? "grace abounded unto many." Not all. Many.
Adam (I Corinthians 15:45). John calls this new human race "the world" in order to show, and emphasize, that it is not from the Jewish people alone, but from all nations and peoples (Revelation 7:9). The people who make up the world of John 3:16 are all those, and those only, who will become believers (whosoever believeth"); and it is the elect who believe (Acts 13:48). This explanation of John 3:16 is not some strange, new interpretation dreamed up by latter-day hyper-Calvinists, but the explanation that has been given in the past by defenders of the Faith we call Reformed, that is, by those who confessed the sovereign grace of God in the salvation of sinners. This was the explanation given by Frances Turretin, Reformed theologian in Geneva (1623-1687): "The love treated of in John 3:16. .. cannot be universal towards all and every one, but special towards a few... because the end of that love which God intends is the salvation of those whom He pursues with such love.. . If therefore God sent Christ for that end, that through Him the world might be saved, He must either have failed of His end, or the world must necessarily be saved in fact. But it is certain that not the whole world, but only those chosen out of the world are saved; therefore, to them properly has this love reference... Why then should not the world here be taken not universally for individuals, but indefinitely for anyone, Jews as well as Gentiles, without distinction of nation, language and condition. that He may be said to have loved the human race, inasmuch as He was unwilling to destroy it entirely but decreed to save some certain persons Out of it, not only from one people as before, but from all indiscriminately, although the effects of that love should not be extended to each individual, but only to some certain ones, viz, those chosen out of the world? (Theological Institutes) "The world of John 3:16 (Greek: kosmos, from which comes our English word, cosmos, referring to our "orderly, harmonious, systematic universe’s) is the creation made by God in the beginning, now disordered by sin, with the elect from all nations, now by nature children of wrath even as the others, as the core of it. As regards its people, the world of John 3:16 is the new humanity in Jesus Christ, the last
If God wanted, intended for and provided for the salvation of every man on the planet, including Judas, then all men on the planet were, are and will be saved and end up in heaven, even Judas.
Yet Scripture denies this fact.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them... While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" -- John 17:9-10;20"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine...
From Christ's own lips we have the truth that...
1) Christ does not pray for every man, but only for those whom the Father has given Him to redeem;
2) men are condemned to hell for their sins, as Judas was;
3) all those whom Christ prays for and redeems includes those who believe in Him and trust in His word.
If God wanted every man in all the world to be saved, all men would believe the truth of Christ risen and be saved.
But they don't and thus they aren't because He doesn't.
Arminius is closer to Catholicism than Calvin, it is true.
The Remonstrants were a logical and foreseeable backlash to Calvinism.
Are the Deuterocanonicals in your collection of Bibles?
“Ahh...it doesn’t get much more New Age than that.
(And it’s a very old error.)”
Ummm, if it’s a very old error, it can hardly be New Age, can it? That error, as you call it, is 2000 years old.
I guess that you guys know better than Jesus, so I oughta defer to you.
You do know what New Age is, don't you? It's a rehash of the ancient heresies -- animal worship; creature worship; God denial; licentiousness in the name of expression; falling down to the stock of a tree.
All heresy is rooted in the same lie -- "ye shall be as gods."
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.