Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
Yep, you could get it from a literal reading of Revelation too.
Do you too see God as love and hate, forgiving and vengeful, life and death, the killer of babies and the exalter of the ‘little ones’?
I notice you didn't parallel love and hate; or love and anger or forgiveness and vengeance or life and death. That would be contradictory, and require human standards for you I'm guessing. So those pairings need avoiding.
I disagree. The Bible says plainly that God hates sin:
Heb 1:8-9 : 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
[Jesus speaking:] Rev 2:6 : But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
As I said earlier, that God is love does not prohibit Him from having other aspects to His essence as well. God can walk and chew gum at the same time. Therefore, it is not impossible for God to love one thing and hate another. Jesus showed anger at the moneychangers' tables, yet He was without sin. Is that contradictory? I would say "no".
FK: "I see a denial of a part of God's essence because by human standards it makes Him appear to be mean or cruel."
We do get that with a literal reading of parts of the OT don't we?
AG gave an excellent scriptural answer, so my conversational answer is "yes", that is exactly what we get IF we use human standards. But why would we EVER apply human standards to God? His standards are definitional, and are not to be questioned by the sorry likes of you or me. :) Therefore, I simply accept them as they are revealed to me in scripture. Sure, some of the stories in the OT sound harsh, but this is all about God, not what we think of Him or His actions. If God does it, it is good. Period! There is no need to second guess. What I try to do is to reorder my thought patterns to match His, as revealed to us. It's not always easy, but I believe it is a discipline that is very worthwhile.
FK: "My view is that our human standards are irrelevant when contemplating the essence of God that is actually revealed to us in scripture."
I wouldn't use the word "essence" here, but yes if you take everything literally, some standards are gonna have to go to keep your "compatibility". Actually, the standard of compatibility would have to go from a 100% literal reading.
Well, no Reformer does take everything in the Bible literally. We strive to take everything as intended, which includes interpretation of visions, parables, prophecy, and passages which "appear" to contradict with other passages in scripture. When I consider an interpretation I put much more emphasis on internal consistency than I do on having it make sense to me in human terms. I will not deny that I consider whether something makes sense to me, that's human nature. But I like to think I can accept the God that is presented in the whole of scripture, whether I would have created that God or not if given the chance. In all honesty, I am secretly pleased that (if I had the power) I would not have created the God that is actually revealed in the Bible. How weird is THAT? :)
Who says give up on the OT? You can keep it and even some of your human standards.
I don't know how the OT can be reconciled with the view that the human interpretation of "God is love" precludes Him from also being a God of justice or a God of wrath or a jealous God, etc. I believe all of these things are possible at the same time, but that's not the message I'm getting from some on the Apostolic side. :) What are your views on all the OT stories that have God either directly killing or ordering execution? Are they true?
FK, what was Jesus’s Good News?
LOL!!! That says it all, Marlowe. Good call.
I'm not sure why you're asking, but here is one way to put it:
God's plan for His elect -
John 3:16 : "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Our problem -
Rom 3:23 : ... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ...
God's solution -
1 Peter 2:24 : He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
Our response -
John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
This is the general idea. When I witness to people I usually ask a lot of questions and tailor my presentation to the answers. The Good News is that first we are all doomed because of sin, but that God loved us so much that anyone who believes in Christ will have eternal life. Salvation is a free gift.
Yes, but do you kow what Holiness is? We know that God is Justice. But do we know what justice is? WE know that od is infinite can we conceive of infinity?
We know about God in terms we don't really understand; in words that cannot describe His essence.
Was Paul writing to one person specifically or not? As to the second sentence, that is based on faith that you are within the community that continues to this day. I take it you are not an Ephesian of 60 AD? As such, we presume that Paul was writing to the entire Body, in space and time. But that is a presumption.
For all of them, Paul says they WERE sealed forever by the Holy Spirit with a guarantee of salvation.
Being sealed doesn't mean one is "guaranteed salvation". All it means is that you have been granted an inheritance, one which you can lose, since you have not fully received it yet. We have only received the first fruits now, with the forgiveness of sin and the transformation that is SUPPOSED to take place in our lives. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but transformation can stop or can be all together eliminated later in life. Isn't that clear enough?
By your reading, as far as I can decipher it, Paul was talking to no one and had nothing of value to say (to whomever).
You can drop the drama. You know it means something to me. It means something to the COMMUNITY, not to "jo kus" personally, SEPARATE from the community, no matter what I do or how I am attached or abide in this Body (community). Nowhere in Ephesians does Paul call an individual person "saved". His references are always to the community as a whole, the Body that will be presented PURE and UNDEFILED. We are not going to be presented individually, but as part of the Body. We form one "person", the Bride of Christ.
What is a general community supposed to do with this information?
The general community? Continue with the traditions given, BOTH oral and written, for starters...
It's all past and present tense, including a guarantee.
God is not presenting an unconditional guarantee. If you sin and do not repent, for example, the blood of Christ NO LONGER is applied to you (see Heb 10:26-27). Think about that for a minute, FK. NO LONGER. That means it "once was", but is not anymore! In other words, it can be taken away. Not that one "never received it", but you LOSE IT.
Only those who abide in Christ will receive the "guarantee" at the end. That is why we are told to persevere.
Regards
So does that mean He was NEVER in you???
Well, the Gospels and the OT are like night and day. God doesn't change from a tyrant humble servant; God doesn't change from a hater to a lover. That would be way too human even for God!
The OT righteous DID recognize Christ as God in the coming
And what was God doing for 1700 or so years by hiding His real identity from the vast majority of the Jews? Playing games with them? If God would desire all men to be saved then why would He keep all these people for centuries in darkness? Because He so loves the world?
The OT righteous DID recognize Christ as God in the coming
Oh yeah? By attributing to God all the death and destruction? That seems to be the characteristic of three groups so far: the OT Jews, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Whatever they do, they did/do because supposedly God "orders" them to do these things! So, when the Islamic thugs bomb an Israeli pizza parlor they are doing "God's work..."
In other words, it's either an excuse or insanity in their heads. It's not the God of the Gospels, not the Christian God, for sure.
The righteous Jews were not so misguided
And WHO misguided them according to your theology? Is it not God? Is it not God who predestined them from before foundations of the world to be misguided?
Because the Bible says God does not delight in suffering...you ought to know that.
God's justice simply is what it is
First none of us knows what God's Justice is. Second, I will let you in on a little secret: life is the way it is even if you don't understand it.
Kosta to FK: Unless someone can reconcile those verses with God and His message of the Gospels. And I think the Church did that just fine.
FK: Well, that's what I've been waiting for. How does the Church reconcile the weight of evidence that I gave recently in that (non-exhaustive) list?
I don't know. I do know that the Church kept both Testaments, yet always taught through the prism of the Gospels (the ONLY scripture that sits on the church altar).
I do know that we read from the OT throughout the entire Great Lent (40 day strict fast), and at Vespers. The Catholics read from the Old Testament during Mass.
YET, I have never seen a comprehensive, vere-by-verse reconciliation between the two Testaments from ANY Church author. Probably because there ISN'T one comprehensive reconciliation POSSINBLE other than the realization that the OT was "seen dimly" at first and is not the full revelation. So, the right approach to the OT is with a grain of salt rather than in the literal sense.
When the Gospels don't mention tons of times the events that support the Reformed position, it means that those events were misinterpreted or never happened
Show me where Jesus directs His ministry to the Gentiles and I will show you where He doesn't. By your logic, the Reformed ought to be Jewish.
I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Thank you ever so much for pointing this contradiction out. If God preordains everything, then He causes everything. This passage says that He is not the author of sin; yet He is the author of all life and their actions. This is nonsense.
If I wind up a toy and position it so that it rolls over the edge of the table, then I am responsible, not the toy.
A second interpretation comes to mind of this passage: God has set the stage and foreordained everything, so under a legalistic frame of mind, God merely has set everything up so that it cannot fail to do His will; the robots go through the motions so technically, He is not the author of sin; He is only the author of those who do sin.
Under Reformed theology, of course.
Since May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American Bible is the only English-language Lectionary that may be used at Mass in the dioceses of the United States, except for the current Lectionary for Masses with Children which remains in use.
The 1970 edition of the New American Bible is used in the Scripture readings and canticles of the Liturgy of the Hours (except the Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc dimittis.)
I am still a little fuzzy on the idea that one can simply look at a Bible and somehow determine that it is accurate or not. Or is it the tradition of growing up with KJV and comparing Bibles with that standard? What would set the Joseph Smith Bible apart from the KJV in your eyes?
Interesting verses. The NAB verses are as follows:
11
In him we were also chosen, destined in accord with the purpose of the one who accomplishes all things according to the intention of his will,
12
so that we might exist for the praise of his glory, we who first hoped in Christ.
13
In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit,
14
which is the first installment of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s possession, to the praise of his glory.
Verse 12: we who first hoped in Christ. Hoped.
Verse 13: notice the order - belief first, Holy Spirit second. The sealing is baptism.
Verse 14: first installment of our inheritance. This agrees with 2 Cor 1:
21
12 But the one who gives us security with you in Christ and who anointed us is God;
22
he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.
Installment to an inheritance. We have the ability to inherit everlasting life. We can obviously disregard that inheritance if we so desire.
MB: What are the standards that you use to judge the Bible by?
FK: There should be serious scholarship behind it conducted by people I have reason to trust. For example, the preface to my NIV says that it was put together by “over 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts”. Later it says: “The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias”. That sounds pretty good to me. :)
Ah, so you DO follow traditions of men. What reasons do you have to trust these men? Do you know who they are? Which Anglican branch is represented? One of the branches that are spiraling into self destruction in spectacular form? How did they decide? Did they put the translation of the Bible to a vote? Did they draw lots?
I’m sure that the gender neutral Bible also had many scholars working on it. What sets one apart from the other?
You may wish to revisit my post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1870079/posts?page=8964#8964 listing the hundreds of NT quotes and references to the Deuterocanonicals.
If man was worthless, then I can’t imagine why God would have created him. We don’t say man is worthless.
With respect, sir, yes you do.
http://www.tulip.org/ccr/reformed.htm says that:
“While Calvinism holds that man is saved by unconditional and efficacious grace, Arminians teach conditional and resistable grace. Reformers taught that man was worthless and needed God’s Spirit to make them alive and give them faith, and that regeneration was limited to the elect...
Reformed churches today still work hard to hold to scriptural views regarding God’s greatness and man’s depravity...”
Paragraphs are your friends. Using them makes the posting so much more readable.
“Christ died on Friday, and was at rest on Saturday...Christ rose on the 3rd day, Sunday, our new day of rest.”
This makes no sense at all. If Christ was at rest on Saturday - the Jewish Sabbath - then there is no impetus based strictly on this rationale to create a Christian day of rest of Sunday. The only reason that it was changed was that the Catholic Church, acting upon its authority given to it by Jesus, decided to change it. You are following the traditions of the Catholic faith (you’re welcome).
“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.”
Was Mary sinless? We have evidence from Scripture, Gen 3:15, Luke 1:28 (Hail, Mary, FULL of Grace). If you are full of Grace, how can you be other than sinless?
We ask others to pray for us; we ask Mary and the Saints to pray for us. Would you ask a drunken bum on the street to help you with, say, a medical problem? Or would you go to an MD with post doctorate work in the speciality that would be of interest to you?
To repeat my statement, we just excommunicated a bunch of nuns that worshipped Mary. We don’t tolerate that practice.
“Reformed theology is not mechanical.”
It is entirely mechanical.
WCF:
Chapter III:
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]
VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to
Chapter V
I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold,[1] direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things,[2] from the greatest even to the least,[3] by His most wise and holy providence,[4] according to His infallible foreknowledge,[5] and the free and immutable counsel of His own will,[6] to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.[7]
II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;[8] yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.[9]
Nothing that happens does so without the Reformed god making it so. Mechanical, meaningless and worthless are the deeds of men.
Chapter XVII
Of the Perseverance of the Saints
I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]
II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election,
God is responsible for all. Man is responsible for nothing. Everything that man does is programmed by the Reformed god.
Reformers “KNOW” that God is within you and that you are one of the elect going to Heaven. Gnostic.
Reformers utilize the writings of Paul as the basis for your beliefs over the Gospels. Marcionist.
Reformers believe that the Holy Spirit resides within them and guides them in all ways so that anything that they do is as a result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Montanist.
Read your own Confessions and experience their spiritual poverty. Read Calvin and experience his hate and rage and contempt for mankind. Really read them and understand them. Read the descriptions of the ancient heresies.
Then come back and tell me that I am rude.
“Of course you are forced to cut things out. You can’t possibly reconcile much of the OT as written through the “lens” of the NT. How do you reconcile the following stories, each of which has God specifically killing or ordering execution? “
Are we now equating God’s ordaining physical death with ordaining them to hell? That is a logical as well as Biblical fallacy. We have never said that God does not use people’s sufferings or death according to His will and plan. We just don’t equate physical suffering and death with eternal damnation.
“The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.” — Proverbs 16:4
So you do believe that the Reformed god is the author of sin. Fascinating. Doesn’t the WCF contradict that statement? How can that be reconciled?
The Good News is that first we are all doomed because of sin, but that God loved us so much that anyone who believes in Christ will have eternal life. Salvation is a free gift.
Very well put; however shouldn’t the Reformed add the caveat that under Reformed theology, anyone cannot believe in Christ. Only the few can. The rest are sent to eternal damnation and they can do precisely nothing about it.
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.