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.

Christ died on Friday, and was at rest on Saturday...Christ rose on the 3rd day, Sunday, our new day of rest. Believers are the holy catholic, or universal church...No thnaks to you Mark, but to Christ alone! The worship of Mary is a heaven breaker whereas the specific day of sabbath is not. The worship of Mary is done anytime she is described as 'sinless' anytime she is 'prayed to', and anytime she is 'exalted in anyway to the level of God.

Reformed theology does not deny the law or its consequences. Reformed theology is not mechanical. Understanding that God's love is so effectual that its efforts cannot be stopped by mans will is nothing if not good news. Man would NEVER will himself to love God. The mystery of God's conforming our hearts and minds to that of Christ's through prayer, attending to the Word and by administration of the elements is also not mechanical, it's obedience to our benefit and Gods glory.

Neither, is it knowledge that saves us, though it certainly helps the believer to grow. It is by faith we are saved, and that, the free gift of God! We do not subscribe to 'new knowledge' from some mystical spirit. Reformers are not given to any of these heresies you accuse. That you do so is either because you purpose to be rude and false in your attack of it, or because you are completely ignorant of what reformed theology is.

What would help is if you tried to comprehensively read what is written to you.

To: Athena1 Sunday rest is not Biblical. The Holy Day is identified only as the Sabbath, or Saturday. We decreed that the Holy Day be moved to Sunday, in honour of the the Lord’s accomplishments. But it does not say explicitly in the BIble that the day be moved. The Judaizers amongst us will be happy to fill you in on the details. Christ died on Friday, by the way. The Bible does not say that Jesus rose in Triumph on the New Day of Rest. You are following Catholic Tradition (you’re welcome). Worshipping Mary is indeed blasphemy. We’ve just excommunicated a bunch of nuns who worshipped Mary, just because they worshipped Mary. It was a thread right here some days ago. We Catholics agreed wholeheartedly with the decision. Surprised? We believe in single predestination. We have never claimed otherwise. We just put it together with the Biblical verses on free will. Apostolic and Biblical both. Calvinism claims that everything is preordained and that the elect are going to heaven and that election is a one-off event. Therefore, logically, petitioning a Reformed God is worthless except as a mechanical exercise. We Biblical Apostolics do a whole bunch of praying, because we understand the benefits, as well as the necessity of it. The errancy of Calvinism would make praying unnecessary; also the errancy of Calvinism has stopped many Calvinists from evangelizing, calling it unnecessary as well. If you wish examples, Google is your friend. If you find it unfriendly, perhaps I can find some more examples. I wouldn’t be able to list ALL of the heresies, but a partial list would include: Marcionism. A second-century heresy of Marcion (ff. ca. 140) and his followers, who rejected much of the New Testament, except for the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Letters of St. Paul. The Marcionists claimed to preach a purer gospel after the manner of St. Paul; for them Christianity was purely a gospel of love to the exclusion of any law. Gnosticism. The heretical theory that salvation comes through some special kind of knowledge, usually knowledge claimed by a special elite group. Gnostic theories existed before Christianity, and the Gnostics adapted the Gospels to their own views and for their own purposes, even composing pseudogospels, embodying their particular ideas and doctrines. Gnosticism held matter to be evil and hostile to the human spirit; it also essentially denied the truths of Christian revelation. Gnosticism as an organized sect or body of beliefs has long been extinct, but Gnostic ideas persist and surface in some form in nearly every major heretical version of the Christian faith. Montanism. A second-century heretical movement that professed belief in a new “Church of the Spirit”. The Montanists believed they enjoyed the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This claim meant that their fanatically rigorous views concerning morality superseded the authentic revelation of Christ that had been handed down in the Church. The heresy of Montanism, which claimed the great Tertullian (160-220) himself, was condemned by several Eastern synods and, finally, by Pope Zephyrinus around the year 202. There are probably touches of a few more, but these are the main ones that I can identify. Hope it helps.

Thank you so much for your insights and especially for the Scriptures you have posted!

I need to spend more time reading Revelation. It confirms the Scriptures true.

Revelation is treasure! A large treasure that calls for frequent reading and meditation.

Yes, and we have His assurance that the attempt to reduce Christ's perfect, one-time, thoroughly-accomplished sacrifice down to repetitive, incomplete, impersonal offerings will end up as nothing more than vanity.

Indeed. There is only one true way to worship God, i.e. in spirit and truth. Anything less is vanity, as you say.

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. - John 4:23

To God be the glory!

"Well, the sin is against God,..."

That's what the West says; its the result of mistranslating the NT Greek word for sin, "αμαρτια", which means "to miss the mark", the mark being Christ.

"and someone has to carry out the punishment ("pay the wages")."

Well, that's certainly consistent with the idea that God's offended dignity could only be assuaged by the bloody killing of His Son. Why does "someone", other than the sinner have to carry out the punishment. Why isn't it simply the inevitable result of sin?

"Man's transgression against the Creator's righteousness brought the soul's death sentence into effect; for when our forefathers forsook God and chose to do their own will, He abandoned them, not subjecting them to constraint. And for the reasons we have stated above, God lovingly forewarned them of this sentence. But he forbore and delayed in executing the sentence of death upon the body; and while He pronounced it, He relegated its fruition to the future in the abyss of His wisdom and the superabundance of His love for man. He did not say to Adam: 'return to whence thou wast taken,' but 'earth thou art, and unto earth thou shalt return' (Gen. 3:19). Those who hear this with understanding can also comprehend from these words that God 'did not make death' (Wisdom 1:13), either the soul's or the body's. For when He first gave the command, He did not say: 'in whatsoever day ye shall eat of it, die!,' but 'In whatsoever day ye shall eat of it, ye shall surely die' (Gen. 2:17). Nor did He afterwards say: 'return now unto earth,' but "Thou shalt return' (Gen. 3:19), in his manner forewarning, justly permitting and not obstructing what should come to pass." +Gregory Palamas, Physical Theological Moral and Practical Chapters

Tell me FK, when the tsunamis killed so many people out in the Indian Ocean, was that God punishing sin, just some random and tragic event or finally the result of sin's distortion of the natural order which God allows?

"So, do I take it that you don't think God did all those things the text says He did in the OT?"

I believe He did all sorts of things in the OT. I also think that He allowed other things to happen out of mercy because death can curb sin; I also think he sorrowed at other things and I firmly believe that, "Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this" +Isaac the Syrian, Homily 83 and "It is because fear edifies simpler people," +Basil the Great, That God is not the Cause of Evil.

Also ... John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

You are reaidng into it because it's out of context. Christ makes it very clear an unambiguous that he was SENT for the LOST SHEEP of ISRAEL. The sheep that are not in His fold are the lost shep of Israel, not the Gentiles.

Even the Revelation speaks of the 12 tribes. Everything points to the idea that the original Chrstian following had no intentsions or desires to go to any of the Gentiles (non-Semites), or even to Semites whose Torah is believed in "error" (Samaritans).

Much scripture counters your conclusion.

Jesus was, indeed, sent to the Jews first ... but the intention of God was always that all would be included ...
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 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.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
This is, indeed, context for the scripture I formerly cited ...
John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
After His death and resurrection, Jesus expanded His disciples' mission ... to include the whole world ...
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Since you bring it up, ... Revelations includes a similar commission ...
Revelations 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
... and speaks of a great crowd (besides the tribes of Israel) ... of many nations, peoples, and tongues ...
Revelations 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

All your quotes are conjectures. John 6:38 does not say anything about Gentiles. The OT says nothing about evangelizing the Gentiles. Those who'd see Him and believe in Him would become Jewish.

No mention was made of a "new" religion. The earliest of Chirstians considered themselves Jewish and attended synagogue services until they were literally kicked out of them and out of Israel.

It's only at this point that Christianity begins to change form being a sect of Judaism, a denomination if you will, like the Sadducees and Pharisees and Essenes, to a different religion.

Acts were written after the fact. Acts were written with lots of St. Paul's presence and therefore reflect his mission to the Gentiles, which became an absolute NECESSITY for the Church to survive.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine

Nothing in this suggests that the sheep, which were always referred to in connection with the Jews is any different here. The ambiguity of these words, however, rather than using proper names is intentional. That way they can be applied to to more than one situation.

The Gospel of John was written at the end of the century, when Chrisianity was not only deep inside the Gentile world but was no longer considered part of Judaism (the meeting at Jamnia took place at about the same time).

The same can be said of Revelation. Its intention was to spread Christianity, but the fact is Christ never taught that His mission was for anything other than Jews. The Great Commission is in the Bible but we don't know if it was in the original manusrcipt, considering that He is specifically quoted as saying He was sent for the lost sheep of Israel.

The reference to earth and kings is also an ambiguous one and does not necessarily mean the whole world. There was no desire on the part of Judaism to covnert the world. It only says that through Israel the world will know the God of Abraham, but not necessarily that the world will embrace Him.

The whole Bible is the full revelation, Kosta

Seen through the lens of the Gospels and the New Testament.

If we cut out an entire section, then we lose some of what God wants us to know about Him

No one is cutting anything out. Just shedding the Light Christ placed on it. So that we can see it through His words.

We can't just keep the parts that sound nice to us and throw away the rest

The Protestants should heed their own advice, FK, for the Apostles used the Septuagint and Apocrypha in their witness, and the Protestants rejected both.

That's fashioning the God you want, not the one Who is revealed to us

Our Savior appeared as anything we image the King of Kings would be like. He born by an unwed teen-age mother in a dark cave, with no one to help her, and uncertain what the future would bring (in her culture it was sure death by stoning). He was a poor, humble carpenter. That's not how we fashion and fancy our kings and important people. God showed us through Christ that our whole image of Him was warped. And His His words too.

“Seen through the lens of the Gospels and the New Testament.”

You have no foundation for any truth about God, the scripture or the church for all was written by men and transcribed by men. By your standard there is no revelation since we can’t be sure what is written is what is true. Why waste time with religion since it is just supposition and for the credulous?

“There is no proof whatsoever that the vsere is meant for the Gentiles. Nor are we absolutely sure that this verse was there in the original, because we don’t have the original!”

“And knowing that multiple verses have been added by Christan scribes makes that possibility very real because it is exactly what was NEEDED to carry the Gospel to the Greek and save the Church from destruction in Israel. The Book of Acts attests to that (Acts 13:46).”

I wrote: AH, so does God actively ensure that man is sinning so that His Plan is fulfilled? Or does God know what will happen?

You responded: Both. One evidence is that the timing of events as they happen just cannot be by coincidence.

It certainly sounds like you are saying God is the author of sin, since man cannot do anything without upseting "God's Sovereignty". Regarding the "timing", you are putting God within time again.

God put the tree in the Garden and then He let the serpent in. He also did not give Adam and Eve the wisdom to know how to combat the serpent. What do you suppose God was thinking when He did this?

What makes you say that man didn't have the wisdom to combat the serpent? They understood God's command to them - Eve wasn't confused. The problem was they fell to temptation.

when we are judged for reward it will be based on our deeds. In addition, only the lost are trapped in sin. The elect have been set free and are free to do good. God, of course, ordains what that good is going to be.

And what about all the times where judgment is seen as a decision between heaven and hell? Again, you are ignoring the Scripture's own words on this subject. Clearly, we have covered this and for whatever reason, you refuse to see the existence of these verses. They won't go away, FK. ALL judgment is not spoken of as a "rewards" vs. "lesser rewards". As a matter of fact, there are more verses that speak otherwise, that the decision is one of hell or heaven.

I didn't know it was possible to overstate God's sovereignty.

It is if it ignores what God Himself has ordained. Clearly, God does not find it necessary to crush man, to annihilate him, just so God does not have any "competition". Again, you are looking at only part of the Scriptures and forming your theological beliefs.

Regards

“FK: I associate myself with BD’s most learned response. :)”

“JK: His response ASSUMES that a person will CONTINUE in Christ. Must I repeat 1 John 5:12 again? Ephesians 2 is presuming that the Christian will continue - and will be saved in the end. It doesn’t say that one CANNOT fall away, that is jumping to conclusions.”

“FK: OK, I’ll bite. Where does he say that? BD already showed that Paul said that can’t happen”

“JK: “I disagree with BD’s explanation”

Then you must disagree with stfassisi who used this quote as the basis for Mary’s eternal moral perfection since it is the same Greek verb construction that Paul uses to encourage the Ephesians that their salvation is a completed act in a believer with continuous permanent results.

“Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the “continuance of a completed action”;(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) “completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.”(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.)”

Is Paul talking about a specific person in Ephesians 2? Is he pointing out someone's name, saying that God WILL complete His work in THAT person?

You are taking Paul's advice given generally and applying it specifically to yourself. It is the Lord who chooses us, not we Him. It is whether HE knew US, not whether we say "Lord, Lord", as in Mat 7:21. Thus, whether God will "complete the work begun in you" is PRESUMING you are one whom God is working within you in the first place with the INTENT on bringing you to heaven.

As long as we remain in Christ, we are safe. Is that so difficult? Why is there this NEED to think "all is done"?

Regards

FK: "Well, the sin is against God,..."

That's what the West says; its the result of mistranslating the NT Greek word for sin, "αμαρτια", which means "to miss the mark", the mark being Christ.

Even so, don't we then simply say: "The wages of missing the mark is death"? Or, "Therefore, just as missing the mark entered the world through one man, and death through missing the mark , and in this way death came to all men, because all missed the mark— (Rom 5:12). IOW, for these purposes does it really matter how we translate the word since the meaning of it is clear in Biblical context?

Why does "someone", other than the sinner have to carry out the punishment. Why isn't it simply the inevitable result of sin?

For most, it IS simply the inevitable result of sin. Most will pay for their own sins and die and go to hell. That is just. However, since God's desire was to save some, He decided to take their punishment for them, thus allowing them entry into Heaven to be with Him. That is also just.

Thanks for the Palamas quote, but of course I must disagree with him here. He apparently acknowledges the ultimate result of sin, but then seems to say that because God doesn't zap every person dead on the first sin, that this means that God doesn't have anything to say about when people die physically or where they go after that. That simply doesn't match the great weight of scripture. For example:

Gen 6:3 : Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Doesn't this appear to say that every breath we take is by the will of God? When His plan for us is complete, then He ceases to sustain the physical body and we die physically. Then, our ultimate disposition is formally adjudicated.

I think God was behind it, but it is unknowable whether it was for the reason of punishment for sin. It would seem unlikely to us I think, since the group of people who died appeared to be indistinguishable "sinwise" from any other similar group of random people. I would just say that somehow, some way it served God's purpose, and we may very well never know what that purpose was while we are on earth. If anything, natural disasters remind the whole world that it is never too early to come to Christ.

Take the story of Jericho. Now, we all know that trumpets do not bring walls down, so God either did that Himself or He didn't and the story never happened. Whether God ordered the slaughter or not, He certainly knew Joshua's full intention once the wall came down. So, it cannot be said here that God sat back and allowed something to happen. His fingerprints are all over this story if it really happened. So, do you think there really was a slaughter, and if so, was it an act of evil?

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.