;)
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.
You put a lot more emphasis on Calvin than he ever did. Calvin emphasized the Scriptures over and above the magisterium and the fumblings of old men in funny hats.
Bump to 9,318 and a hefty clarification for the oft-misquoted Luther by our RC friends...
So long as you agreed with Calvin’s interpretation of scripture, Calvin was fine with you emphasizing scripture.
;)
Third, they cloak their frightful and revolting sins with the gospel, call themselves Christian brethren, swear allegiance, and compel people to join them in such abominations. Thereby they become the greatest blasphemers and violators of God's holy name, and serve and honor the devil under the semblance of the gospel, so that they have ten times deserved death of body and soul, for never have I heard of uglier sins. …Not quite sure, but I believe he's referring to Anabaptist here, they disagreed with Luther's view - er scripture- on baptism. Definitely peasants who thought Luther had not reformed enough. Earlier in the same piece, Luther recommends:
Therefore, whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man.
Have you not said that God ordains EVERYTHING, to include reprobating people to hell?
Joe, you said "God doesn't create people TO eternally torture them. God does not take pleasure in killing or in death. That is what the "reformers" claim." (emphasis added) Others on your side have said that we believe God takes "delight" in the suffering of others. Your side is attempting to create a word picture for lurkers that makes no logical sense to the things we are saying. I can handle political-type spin, we all do that, but this doesn't even make any sense.
Yes, I have said that God ordains everything that is part of His plan, and that includes reprobating many people. The Bible says He does this in His good pleasure, but I think it is intellectually dishonest for anyone to create a word picture from this that God is some kind of blood-thirsty maniacal killer. Nobody thinks that.
Now, I ask, when God reprobates a person to hell before seeing that man's demerits, what possesses your god to do this? Does God do this out of great love? I think you need to seriously re-assess WHY God reprobates undeserving people to eternal torture - what other reason than "he gets his jollies out of suffering people"? We admit God is free and does not do things against His will.
Joe, you above all others that I can think of around here, always bring out the "God-is-out-of-time-so-we-can't-talk-about-this" card. :) Now you want to talk about God witnessing demerits before making any decisions. Is this consistent?
God chooses some who do not deserve it to be saved. Everyone else gets what he or she deserves. Is that so awful? I would say this is a tremendous act of love by God. Apparently, your side believes that God OWES man all sorts of things, such as a chance to be saved by his merits (or lack of demerits). No one has explained to me yet where this duty you artificially place on God comes from. If God actually DID have such a duty, THEN you would be in a position to claim a maniacal God for denying the chance to the reprobate. Your side is setting rules for God that we don't believe any man, or hierarchy of men, has the right or power to set.
[continuing:] So explain why God creates people to go specifically to hell without deserving it?
This perfectly illustrates my above point. Why in the world would you think there is ANY man who doesn't deserve to go to hell? We all do. This again is the warrantless glorification of man and the subjection of God TO man's rules and ideas of what should be. The Bible teaches plainly that NONE is deserving of Heaven. Yet, you tell me that most people do not deserve to go to hell. We have to accept the Bible as it IS, not what we want it to be.
Since Christ died for ALL men - and this is beyond refute - it would be an outright lie to say God desires all men to be saved - and at the same time, say God creates men to be vessels of condemnation. That is flatly contradictory.
This is beyond refute? LOL! Then I officially refute it using the dozen or so verses that have already been posted to you multiple times on this thread alone. There, it's been refuted. :) I've been following your conversation with Dr. E. on this. Just as she said, what Christ did was powerful enough to cover all people, but it was only efficacious for the elect. By God's will then, it was only FOR the elect. The logical result of the Apostolic view is that God was/is a colossal failure. I cannot countenance "God as failure", so I don't consider that as a possibility.
The Bible doesn't say that God creates PURPOSELY to be evil.
Of course it does. For example:
Rom 9:14-18 : 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy . 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
What is the black and white meaning of this passage to you?
God does not create men to BECOME lost. They become lost on their own accord.
You are half right. God does not create man to become lost because it is IMPOSSIBLE to become lost. Since Adam, All mankind is born lost. So in the sense of salvation by belief, it is only possible to BECOME saved.
We read the OT in light of the NT, not based on the incomplete idea of revelation given to the Jews during the time of the writing of respective books in the OT. Doctrine develops. That is clear in when looking at the NT and comparing it to the OT. If anyone believes that Christ came to fulfill the Law, then we are left with no other option than to attempt to reconcile the OT with what is in the NT. The NT is the guide for reading the OT - ONLY because we believe Christ fulfills the Law, the meaning of the OT.
OK, that sounds more reasonable. No one says that the OT trumps the NT. But the OT is no less true either, IMO. There must be a way to reconcile so that both are true, and I believe that Scripture always provides the way. Therefore, wiping out huge sections of the OT is not a reasonable option.
Regarding some of your notations, is the existence of Jonah necessary to believe that Jesus was the Christ? IF it was a parable, does it change anything?
Indirectly, I would say yes. Starting with the premise that the whole of the Bible is God's inspired Holy word, the narrative of the Jonah story, and many others as well, is presented in a factual tone. So is the story of Jesus' ministry, passion, and resurrection. Names and places are prominently mentioned and are a part of the story. The vast majority of parables do not have this feature, and are thus easy to spot. If a person decided to declare OT stories A, B, D, G, and K to be myths, then I do not see the standing that the same person could have for believing that the critical Christian stories involving Christ were to be taken literally. These stories all "read" the same in tone. It makes no sense to me for some to say that Jonah living in the belly of a fish for three days is preposterous, but Jesus raising from the dead is no problem. The power behind both of these events came from the SAME SOURCE. :) Therefore, I believe that the historicity of the Bible is extremely important. Without that, I think the door is wide open for all sorts of unfortunate results.
As to God killing, we note that this is no different than observing astronomy. We note that the "sun rises" to our eyes, although we know this is not the case, the earth turns. In the same way, the Jews believed that God "killed" the Jewish enemies, because that was the perception on the ground - since Israel was God's people, they attributed their work to God's divine purpose and will. Jesus teaches something else. Even later OT writings teach something else.
Perhaps this is a good example of what I was just talking about. :) Over and over again in the OT, stories are related that could not possibly be rationally caused by human effort or the "luck" of natural disasters. Did an earthquake or something really bring down the walls of Jericho at the exact moment the trumpets blew? Did the Red Sea part through natural phenomena at that exact moment when the Israelites had their backs to the wall? Did all the first born among the Egyptians suddenly keel over from heart attacks on the same night the Israelites painted their doors with blood (thus establishing the Passover)? Impossible.
If the historicity of the OT is declared to be false, then it is necessarily true that the OT is packed floor to ceiling with a raft of colossal LIES. Legends, myths, and falsehoods. From there, IMO, it's literally anything goes, and I can't help but think that this would logically bleed over into the NT. I'm sure there are many heresies that we both agree upon that have capitalized on this very idea. That's why I think there is very little room for error in this area. We can say that very many Jews misinterpreted the OT. However, that is very different from saying that the OT itself was wrong in the writing.
Would our God allow the Jews to wrongly attribute to Him deeds He had not done in HIS Holy revelation to all of mankind? A revelation God knew would be the standard all the way until the time of His return? That seems highly unlikely to me. :)
OK, I see what you're saying now, and I wasn't thinking of that before. Are you saying that, for example, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah can't be true because God killed them for their sins? My position would be that the story IS true for the reasons given in the Bible. They were killed for their sins. Of course, it is also true that God does not kill always for the direct commission of sin. David survived his adultery and murder and lived on. Moses committed what I humanly think of as a "small" sin and lived on, yet Uzzah was killed instantly just for trying to keep the ark from falling. I don't think there's any formula to it. God's will is God's will.
We obviously have an honest disagreement. :)
But it does not follow that God PURPOSELY created [the example character] Sam to reject God. God certainly knew that Sam would become evil, and allowed it to bring about a greater good elsewhere. But GOD CREATING EVIL? That is an incredible leap of logic.
I agree that this is an incredible leap of logic. So why do you make it? I don't. :) God either knew Sam's outcome or He didn't. If you say that God DID know, then our answers should be the same. You said that God, knowing Sam's ultimate downfall, still used him for His purposes in other areas. I fully agree. So why do you take this and then jump to God creating evil? I don't see any connection. God created Sam knowing that Sam would be lost. We both agree to that statement. Yet somehow, it's different if I say it. I don't understand. :)
Clearly, it says that God desires all men to be saved. Yet, all men are not saved. It has been the universal teaching of Scripture AND Tradition that this means that it is MAN who chooses evil.
I'll agree that it is man who chooses evil, but I don't see how this follows from the verses you are talking about. If you would agree to "outward call" vs. decree, then we could be in better agreement here. But in any case, if God's true desire is for all men to be saved, then under your theology God does almost nothing to achieve what He desires, given the power He has. This describes a very weak God to me. There are tons of examples in the Bible where God is clear, direct, and forceful in achieving what He wants. Why would He choose to be especially weak with His most beloved?
Several things about this passage [Rom 9:14-18]. First, it speaks about nations: Israel and the Gentiles. Not about individuals. Thus, God grants mercy and predestines those nations whom He wills.
What are you talking about? It mentions Pharaoh by name and says "hardening". This is one specific guy we are talking about here. The OT quote leads only to one place. How do you translate this into "nations"? The opposite is absolutely clear.
An example of this is the Pharaoh mentioned. "Being raised up", as Paul says regarding the Pharaoh, is NOT about being created. Being raised up is being given an occupation, a place in salvation history, the external order. This doesn't say anything about individual salvation OR individual creation to reprobation.
Joe, you're making this all up out of thin air. :) Does verse 18 have ANYTHING to do with verse 17, or are they random verses that are completely independent from each other? :) I mean, that's what you are arguing here.
If God desires all men to be saved and God died for ALL men, (which means He has great love for men!), then how can you say God does not give sufficient grace to all men, or that God creates men who CANNOT be saved?
The more I read your comments the more I think you equate God's desire with His decree. This is worse for your position because it makes God all the more a failure. In your statement here, you have God "hoping" or "wishing" that He gets what He wants. Is that really what an omnipotent God does? Not in my book.
FK: "Those who are predestined get saving grace. Those who are not predestined do not."
Predestined for membership to the Church. Nowhere does Paul talk about individual predestination to glory in heaven. The Church teaches that even those with full membership are not necessarily destined for heaven. Thus, predestination has nothing to do with "saving grace" for glory in heaven.
What? First, your side tells me that predestination means God is a stenographer who copies down the names of those who accept them and then claims the list as His own for who gets into Heaven. Now, we have the new idea that predestination has nothing to do with actually getting into Heaven. Instead, predestination is reduced to Church membership, which under Apostolic theology can be had for the asking, whether one is a believer or not. As I have always said, predestination is absolutely meaningless under your theology. What does Paul REALLY say:
Rom 8:29-30 : 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined , he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Eph 1:4-6 : 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
Eph 1:11-14 : 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession — to the praise of his glory.
In all of this you see nothing about the predestined being justified, you see nothing about the predestined becoming His children (which He promises to not lose one), and you see nothing about the predestined having the Holy Seal of God upon them "guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession". Instead, all you see is Church membership which can be lost. Above you said: "We have been given Divine Revelation. We must work with what we are given, not toss aside things because they don't fit our paradigm." Unbelievable. :)
An interesting post regarding Luther and Catholic apologists. I do not disagree with his theme. However, I would posit that Protestants do the exact same thing with Catholic authors, the Catechism, and the Church Fathers, wouldn't you agree?
To be honest, I think the author is not far from the truth. Most Catholics do not have the interest or the time to "thoroughly" read Luther or Calvin. We already have a huge list of things "to read"! It would be too much to ask us to read 50 volumes of the changing positions of whom we consider a heretic. Ask any Catholic here! I rely on other people on such subjects. To be perfectly frank, Luther was not very consistent. Thus, Catholics and Protestants could quote Luther against Luther on a variety of subjects. Thus, who is the "true Luther" is often beyond us amateurs.
I find the post interesting - and I hope you are able to see that it applies to Protestant apologists as well. I see many here attempt the very same thing with the Fathers. They take one sentence from St. Irenaeus and think that he teaches sola scriptura. ANYONE who has read more than a paragraph of Irenaeus will find this to be an absurd conclusion. Thus, we can apply the same criticisms to both camps, I believe.
Regards
You replied: We obviously have an honest disagreement. :)
Before we continue, we should clear that up. BOTH of us cannot be correct on this issue - and since you claim to not be a relativist, we should establish the correct position.
Please show me how you come up with your reasonings. Is it philosophical or metaphysical? Or is it scripturally based? I imagine it is the former, since Scripture clearly shows that Christ's atonement was not limited. I have posted a number of such verses. The Church also taught the same thing. Coupled with the idea that man can refuse God's advances of grace, it seems logical that your point is philosophically based.
Since this is key to our discussions, I would like to stop and focus here before we continue. Show me why you believe Christ's atonement was NEVER INTENDED for anyone but the "elect".
Regards
“God gives man potential to all men to be saved. God DIED for EVERYONE. Is that clear?”
Someone needs to tell that to Jesus:
John 17:10, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.”
If He is not praying for the world then how can there be His intercession for the world?
FK, if God reprobates people BEFORE viewing their demerits (a philosophical view, not scriptural), then we must assume that God's will is to send people to hell for absolutely no reason but some arbitrary decision. Do you claim that God does this against His will? If God reprobates such people, and simultaneously saying that God is free, please explain how God does something He does not consider to be good and "enjoyable". It is God's nature to work good - and He does this because it is His will. Thus, if God actively does something, He actively enjoys it. Are you following my logic?
We believe, with the Scriptures and our view of God, that God does NOT actively reprobate souls BEFORE seeing their demerits. God sends people to hell as punishment for something man did or did not do. It is not God's will that man disobey Him. God ALLOWS it, but this "allowance" is God's will, not the action that man takes that is evil.
As to whether lurkers can make sense of this or not, they are certainly free to chime in publically or privately to either of us. I will presume that they can follow our argument if they do not protest or question.
Yes, I have said that God ordains everything that is part of His plan, and that includes reprobating many people. The Bible says He does this in His good pleasure, but I think it is intellectually dishonest for anyone to create a word picture from this that God is some kind of blood-thirsty maniacal killer. Nobody thinks that.
Well, people associate "pleasure" to something that is pleasing. Thus, the word picture remains. If God actively is pleased to send people to hell based on absolutely NO DEMERITS WHATSOEVER, what does that make your god to be? I leave the lurkers to decide. You can provide all the spin you like, but the fact remains that your god APPEARS sadistic, not loving. It APPEARS that God randomly and arbitrarily creates a being JUST so that they can eternally suffer - for absolutely no reason whatsoever, but to "please" your god.
This is a revolting picture for those who believe God IS love. Love gives of itself to the other. Love does not randomly select beings to create and then torture, just to "please" oneself.
Thanks, but no thanks. It is not what Christ taught. I pray that you recognize that the Scriptures are clarified by Christ, since they all point to Him. Do you read the Gospels and really come up with the god of Calvin? Do you read such verses and think that God reprobates WITHOUT seeing demerits? Let's look at a few verses to get an idea WHO God REALLY is, FK...
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!Luke 13:34.
Can't you hear the Words of God? IF ONLY YOU WOULD TURN TO ME - BUT YOU WOULD NOT!!!
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. John 3:16-20
Again, we have God's GREAT Love, even going so far as to offer His only Son for the sake of the WORLD. Note, the Scriptures say that men refuse, that some men will not come to the light, even when it is shown to them. It says that a person is condemned BECAUSE they WILL NOT believe. This is not the idea of reprobating BEFORE demerits!
This idea is certainly not confined to the Gospels:
And they remembered that God [was] their rock, and the high God their redeemer. Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues. For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant. But he, [being] full of compassion, forgave [their] iniquity, and destroyed [them] not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. For he remembered that they [were but] flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again. How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, [and] grieve him in the desert! Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel. They remembered not his hand, [nor] the day when he delivered them from the enemy. Ps 78:35-42
Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn [yourselves] from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn [yourselves], and live ye. Ezekiel 18:30-32
God finds NO PLEASURE in the death of ANYONE. Read the rest of that chapter, FK. Even those who commit evil, God desires them to turn to Him. Where is your idea that God takes "pleasure" in eternally torturing someone WITHOUT SEEING THEIR DEMERITS? WHERE is this concept in scriptures?
And finally, my favorite Psalm, one that sometimes brings tears to my eyes because it shows the type of God who calls us
Thou calledst in trouble, and I delivered thee; I answered thee in the secret place of thunder: I proved thee at the waters of Meribah. Selah. Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee: O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto me; There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god. I [am] the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it. But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: [and] they walked in their own counsels. Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, [and] Israel had walked in my ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries. Psalm 81:7-14
Can't you hear God's voice, almost a frustration that His people would not come to Him? Sounds a lot like the voice of Christ in Luke's quote above, doesn't it? And THIS is the same God who you think creates people to eternally destroy, for His good "pleasure", WITHOUT SEEING THEIR DEMERITS?
The Bible speaks eloquently about God's love, His calling to men, to join Him in eternal union. Your picture of who God is contradicts a basic Christian paradigm of the God of Love, a God of forgiveness, One who would even send His Son to die for mankind as a whole. This God who desires ALL men to be saved has sent His Son to atone for the sins of ALL men. Scriptures clearly tell us this.
Your god is not the Christian god, I'm sorry to say. Your god is one who randomly creates beings to send to hell without seeing whether this being deserves such eternal torture. The two ideas are totally incompatible. You can't have it both ways. Either God is arbitrary or God is just. Either God is sadistic or God is love. Either God seeks men to save or God willingly and for his own pleasure, creates beings to torture in eternity.
Regards
If He is not praying for the world then how can there be His intercession for the world?
Unfortunatly, you are ignore the rest of the Bible and see a verse that comes close to your philosphical view without looking at it and reading the context. Before you form a philosophical opinion, you should first analyze the context and keep in mind what the REST of Scriptures say. Let us do that below. First, the context:
I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. 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. John 17:6-12
Clearly, Jesus is not making a distinction between the "saved" and the "reprobate" here. He is talking about HIS DISCIPLES. Jesus is speaking about His apostles, praying to the Father that they may persevere and faithfully teach what Jesus taught them. This has nothing to do with "condemning" the rest of the world. His prays of the moment are centered on the Apostles, not the world.
Let's look at another example of Jesus' prayer. Does this mean that Christ didn't care about the other apostles???
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat:But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Luke 22:31-32
According to your logic, this means that Christ IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH PETER'S FAITH... No one else. He prays for Peter, no one else, thus, He doesn't care about anyone else...
No, in your quote above, Jesus is specifically praying for the apostles, but it doesn't follow that He is NOT going to die for the world... It is a specific prayer - "that they may be one". He is not refering to ALL of mankind!
Also, John, the writer of your quote, wrote:
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29
God's Word does not contradict. In context, your verse does not say what you think it says.
Regards
You're going to hang your argument on how a 360-year-old document uses the word "pleased"? From the context, it seems pretty clear to me that "pleased" meant "what God wanted". The WCF correctly recognizes that it was God's providence to choose the destinies of those He created. Because He did it, it was "good", and so He was "pleased" with the result. He got what He wanted. This concept is unchanged to this day. Omnipotent God always gets what He wants.
We do not toss out OT verse; however we are mindful that Jesus came to fulfill the OT promises. Thus we must look through the lens of Jesus at the OT; the Jews looked at the OT through the lens of the OT. If they had got it all, would Jesus have had to be born, taught, been crucified and Resurrected?
Yes, for anyone to be saved Jesus would still have to have been born, etc. But I'm not really disagreeing with you here. The OT, while true, was not a complete revelation. But neither was the NT. The complete revelation is both Testaments together. I have no problem with the general concept of looking at one verse "in light of" another. We say that scripture interprets itself, so this practice is good and necessary. I just disagree with the approach of declaring one verse wrong if it appears to contradict with another verse that is "more favored". The whole Bible is God's inspired revelation to man. Therefore, there must be a reconciliation to all verses, without having to toss any of them. It sounds like you may have some sympathy for this position.
Technically, there is probably a way I could agree to those exact words, but we wouldn't be talking about the same thing. :) I could easily and freely say that salvation wouldn't happen without our willingness to repent. The tougher issue for me would be the receiving God's grace part. My view is that the original grace that leads to belief really just "happens" to the future believer. In our born state, we are not capable of seeking out this grace, so God pretty much just gives it to His elect. After that, the elect seek out God.
Here is the Douay-Rheims Rev 4:11 - Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory, and honour, and power: because thou hast created all things; and for thy will they were, and have been created.
I’m not sure that “pleasure” belongs in there.
I don't have any problem with the Douay-Rheims here. It's "will" vs. "pleasure". I said in a very recent post that I thought that "pleasure" as intended in the text just meant "what God wanted". This would be identical with "will".
I also wish you a Blessed day. :)
Very poor defense of Luther’s statement. What can you find in Luther’s writings with regard to his statement about a milkmaid being able to interpret Scripture?
Hey, I was just using your own criteria, not your actual words as you did in the other thread.
I guess some people are the ultimate interpreter of people’s intentions as well as Scripture. Everything means what they say they mean. I’ll keep that in mind.
“Unfortunatly, you are ignore the rest of the Bible and see a verse that comes close to your philosphical view without looking at it and reading the context”
Read verse 20, He prays only for those that believe on Him; not the world. He does not intercede for unbelievers, only those the Father has given Him.
It's the sufficient/efficient discussion mixed with modifiers and sentence structure.
Jesus death is sufficient to have saved all because the penalty of all sin was paid for. "If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is the expiation for our sins, and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
All, however, don't accept.
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.