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.

FK: "[face to face] means "as a man speaks with his friend."

No, friendship is not in this. We are not friends with God. We are His slaves, remember? His tools. Is your hammer or cordless drill your friend? Do you talk to them "face to face?"

I didn't write the verse, I just reported it accurately. :) The point here is obviously not to establish a "friendship". Instead, it's a simile. Verse 20 in Ex. 33 is clear that no one can "see" God and live. Yet, a few verses earlier we are told that God and Moses spoke "face to face". Is the solution to this dilemma to declare the OT wrong, or is it to interpret the passages so that they are both right? I choose the latter.

The issue was also of seeing God and not living or living. When God appeared as a burning bush did Moses stare at it? It was still God. Did people die when they looked at Jesus' face? Did they not look at the face of God?

Sure, there is obviously some manifestation of God that is not for humans to see while on earth. I don't know how it works, only that it does. This just isn't a big deal. The OT is not defeated with this argument.

There is an awful lot of rationalization involved to make the biblical verses explain themselves, to make them "fit." But, then that's what the lawyer's are for, right? :)

Absolutely. Aren't you glad that Jesus is your lawyer? :)

FK: "He is above us all, and no one can comprehend Him close to fully."

I have been told by many on this Forum that have the mind of Christ. I would imagine that comprehension comes with it. So, then what you are saying is that we have the mind of Christ, but not fully. Partially. Ten percent? Thirty? Eight nine?

I have no idea, and I have no idea where you are going with this reasoning. In theosis do you actually achieve a complete understanding of God, i.e. a Divine understanding?

Did the Jews have the mind of Christ? Did they have 10% of it? Do they now have more? how much (percent-wise) does one have to have the mind of Christ to comprehend God (and believe correctly, and interpret the scripture correctly) to be saved?

Why are you throwing this on me, I didn't bring it up? :) The concept of adopting the mind of Christ is Biblical. I think you would say it is part of the process of theosis and I would say it is part of sanctification. I see no reason to criticize the idea of becoming more like Christ. :) I thought we all agreed on that part.

When He said (paraphrasing) "Don't go to the Gentiles but preach only to the twelve tribes of Israel" that is taken literally.

If true, then aren't you violating your own principle of God's impartiality?

I think the context certainly sounds baptismal.

1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

The Bible doesn't talk about election to heaven, but to election to the Church.

1Pe 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout...Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ..."

Also, Paul makes it clear in Romans 2 that some people will attain heaven who were NOT of the "elect" - those of the community of faith.

ROMANS 3

God knows that some men will not choose Him. Yet, God desires men to love Him, to freely choose life.

And that happens because of our willingness to respond to God.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Can you explain to me why God would not be pleased with a regenerated, recreated man walking in God's ways in faith???

It is for OUR benefit-not God's. If it was not for us understanding the unrighteous, we would not understand mercy and grace. We can only measure our depravity and God's glory against some sort of yardstick. That yardstick is the world around us.

OK, but "gradual" does not mean wrong for a time, and then right thereafter. The problem was with man, not with God.

Who ever said gradual was the same as wrong? God's revelation is never wrong. Our understanding of it is. It's like that TV show where you borrow vowels and have a few letters on the board and you try to construct a meaningful sentence out of it. As the vowels are added, the sentence begins to emerge. Christ provided all the vowels needed.

Until that time, no one was able to see God's intended message, save for the prophets and patriarchs, and even their message was not easily understood (it is understood retroactively through the lens of the Gospels, however, as we can NOW see that Isaiah was speaking of Chirst, for example, but that was no so clear in Isaiah's time).

Until one has the whole message, the entirety of the message is impossible to grasp. The crowing element of that message that makes the rest intelligible is our Lord's ministry recorded in the Gospels. The Gospels are the crown of the Bible. They are the very essence of God's message and the universal translator of the rest of the scriptures.

I wrote: “The Bible doesn’t talk about election to heaven, but to election to the Church.”

You responded: Cite one scripture for that principle. Here are many that speak of election/cjosen to salvation and the kingdom:

2Jo 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

2Jo 1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

Well, you have done my work for me. Thanks. Where does the word "elect" mean "eternally saved without any chance of losing it"? Clearly, John is writing to "the elect lady and her children", which most read as a particular Church community. As a whole, they are of the elect, since God has predestined them, called them to His community. However, as other Scriptures clearly point out, an individual can leave this community of their own volition.

The rest of the verses, same thing. We are called into the community. God's Spirit comes to men, they respond by repentance and are baptized. They are of the elect of the Church. Paul presumes that once in, that people will persevere and stick it out until the end. However, on the individual basis, it becomes plain that not every single member of the Church will persevere. Thus, the entire concept of perseverance. What would be the purpose of telling people to persevere if "all is done, you are elected for heaven's glory by God before the dawn of time"?

Regards

Yet, a few verses earlier we are told that God and Moses spoke "face to face"

Perhaps an "unfortunate" (accidental?) choice of words? Hmmmm....I don't think so. Perhaps it's the ancient way of saying "directly" (i.e. "live"). We can even rationalize that the burning bush was not the "face" of God, Christ's face is. And all those who saw Christ have also seen God—and lived! There is another meaning to "seeing God" and I am not sure what it is. Again, maybe an ancient phrase denoting something else.

Aren't you glad that Jesus is your lawyer? :)

Of course! Except He is the ONLY lawyer who doesn't rationalize but speaks the truth as it is. :)

Kosta: So, then what you are saying is that we have the mind of Christ, but not fully. Partially. Ten percent? Thirty? Eight nine?

FK: I have no idea, and I have no idea where you are going with this reasoning. In theosis do you actually achieve a complete understanding of God, i.e. a Divine understanding?

The point is that our "understanding" of God has nothing to do with knowing God. This was the point of the hesychastic fathers and the entire Palamite doctrine (against western scholastic approach), who argued that it is not through academic and intellectual reasoning that we ascend to God, but through prayer, as the Russian catechism says that through prayer we encounter "Divine abyss where words fall silent, where reason fades, where all human knowledge and comprehension cease, where God is. It is not by speculative knowledge but in the depths of prayerful silence that the soul can encounter God, Who is ‘beyond everything’." Hardly a divine "understanding" FK. :)

Why are you throwing this on me, I didn't bring it up?

I am not. I am throwing the whole idea of "understanding" God through reason (naked rationalism), rationalizations, logic and what not. Reason helps us know OF God and ABOUT God but that doesn't mean one "knows" God through reason. We can't figure God out, FK. He is a Mystery, eternal unknown to our intellect; the hesychastic fathers called Him "darkness" (where our mind cannot reach), beyond comprehension. All we have are His manifestations, and even they are miracles of their own kind (Incarnation being the chief among them, Holy Trinity, etc.).

I was being facetious when I asked what percentage of Christ's mind one has to have to know Christ? Our relationship with God cannot be measured or hinged on our "understanding" of God. Intellect is capable of describing or knowing God. God is ineffable and unknoable.

You may be interested to know that the Greek word εκλεκτος (eklektos) also applies to Christ (Messiah).

Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

But the election itself, as was the case with the Jews, does not mean the "elect" will live up to their election's promises

remnant

(Christ excluded, of course).

2 Pet 1:1-15 makes that abundantly clear.

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Peter is merely telling us that God has given us promises to implement so that we won't fall in our Christian walk. I doubt if there is a Calvinist around who would say that Christians can't stumble. What we would also add is that God is rich in His love and mercy to help us through these times to see us home. We are not out on our own.

If baptism was SOOOOO very important to the salvation of people, as you feel Paul so indicates in Romans 10 (even though he doesn't mention it); then why would he tell the Corinthians:

That would be a rather shocking statement if baptism is necessary for salvation.

Paul's primary purpose is to preach the Gospel. Paul then continues that he DID baptize people. As it turns out, he question his own memory. I would presume that other ministers actually performed the baptisms in most cases, sort of like a bishop and his deacons. The bishop preaches and the deacons serve the community's needs and perform particular rituals to aid the bishop.

Paul also tells us in Romans 6 that it is by BAPTISM that we die with Christ and are risen with Christ. I would say that is pretty crucial to Paul.

As b-d mentioned, there is absolutely no support for this view and he gave a number of excellent verses. There are more but his hands must have gotten tired. I always like throwing in Peter when talking to Catholics:

Yes, blue-duncan gave a number of verses, which none of them REQUIRES that I consider them as Scriptures detailing those who were chosen for heaven. They speak of merely being called into God's community. Paul presumes that once in, they would remain in. "Who would want to leave" must have been Paul's thought. However, it becomes a practical teaching that individuals DO want to leave. We see it in our own communities today. There is no point denying that people leave the faith, and it is equally pointless to say "they never were saved to begin with". This calls into question EVERYONE'S salvation, because no one knows if they will fall away 10 years from now.

Election is to the Community. The community as a whole will be saved for heaven, but individually, the Bible does not mention that each person who enters will persevere until the end. Thus, your verse from Peter tells me nothing about an individual being guaranteed eternal salvation.

For example:

"...For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you. 2 Peter 1:9-11

How does Peter say we are saved into the eternal kingdom of our Lord? BY PRACTICING "THESE" THINGS, which Peter lists in the preceding verses. Not by merely being called into the community. And CERTAINLY not by making a one-time declaration of "Lord, Lord". Thus, Peter refutes your interpretation of Peter.

I would suggest you are misinterpreting Romans 2. Paul is NOT saying there are some who can be saved apart from Christ.

That's not what I wrote, Harley. I said people can be saved outside of the community. CHRIST HIMSELF will send His Spirit to WHOM HE WILLS. Even if this person is a pagan. Thus, God is not bound to save ONLY those within the community. Romans 2 clearly shows us that even pagans (those outside of the visible Church) can have a law written on their hearts. Who put it there, Harley? I never said that a person is saved without Christ. That is ridiculous. I am saying, just as the Catholic Church STILL says today, a person can be saved outside of the visible community - just as Paul wrote 2000 years ago.

No, God does not desire men to love Him.

Eh? What sort of relationship do you have with God? A legal one?

We can't see anything unless God reveals it to us.

That's true, and just the same, we must respond to what God reveals to us. That is the reason for revelation. So that we can respond to it.

That doesn't explain why God is not pleased with a righteous man.

Regards

What use is logic if the premises are unprovable? If one can presume any belief to be true, then one can logically conclude that unicorns live on Mars. That doesn't mean it is true even though it is logically "correct."

Please see my last response to jo kus. As I said, I was not attempting to argue for the correctness of the premises, only to show that the conclusion was validly drawn from the premises. The question was being asked how a Calvinist could draw a particular conclusion, and I provided an example of the validity of the conclusion. The issue was never whether or not it was a logically sound argument, especially since the statements originally made regarding Calvinists were themselves unsound.

FYI, I simply said LOL! Your comment, however, is way over the top.

I apologize. I was not in a happy place yesterday. Generally though, laughing at someone's conclusion that way rarely succeeds in anything but an escalation of the argument, and that's how it came off to me. Again, I apologize for my reaction.

Paul's primary purpose is to preach the Gospel. Paul then continues that he DID baptize people. As it turns out, he question his own memory.

into

That's not what I wrote, Harley. I said people can be saved outside of the community.

1) People are elected into the community of God
2) People can be saved outside of the community
3) Therefore some people can saved but not elected.

Isn't this correct?

Eh? What sort of relationship do you have with God? A legal one?

That doesn't explain why God is not pleased with a righteous man.

At the risk of sounding preachy, there is far too much emphasis on what wonderful people we are. We should put this in perspective.

Our God is a God of love and wonder. He is also a God of righteous judgment. Man hate God.

Because of this, our righteous Judge has decreed that man should be sent to the most vilest of places to suffer eternal torment. If that sounds a bit harsh, keep in mind that we hate God so much that we would rather be there than with Him. We deserve, according to His righteous judgment, to be casted into the flaming torment where the worms will eat us for eternity. And this is a most appropriate place for us as difficult as that is for us to understand.

God is also gracious and merciful and has decree, for unknown reasons, to spare some of us from the pains of hell. We don't deserve it or merit it; its simply a gift given to us. If we understood hell and our position, we would understand this great gift.

For us to say that we have any righteousness in us is not to understand the gravity of our situation. We are depraved people that do not want to honor God. God has spared some of us His wrath through His Son.

"Yes, blue-duncan gave a number of verses, which none of them REQUIRES that I consider them as Scriptures detailing those who were chosen for heaven. They speak of merely being called into God's community....Election is to the Community. The community as a whole will be saved for heaven, but individually, the Bible."

These verses speak to a mother and her children; her family, unless you are stretching the meaning of community to reach more than the church. You still haven't cited any verses for your proposition that election means elect to a community. Over an over in Revelation it is the individual name in the "Lamb's Book of Life" that determines who is permitted in heaven; not membership in a "community".

2Jo 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

2Jo 1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

"You may be interested to know that the Greek word εκλεκτος (eklektos) also applies to Christ (Messiah). It literally means "elected." But the election itself, as was the case with the Jews, does not mean the "elect" will live up to their election's promises (Christ exclusded, of course)."

I am familiar with Greek and you will notice in the last phrase "who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time", the verb form is the familiar "present, passive, participle", like the verb form in "full of grace" or "highly favoured". This means, according to your lexicon, that the elect were kept and are being kept by the power of God. So, like Paul, the elect can say "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day", unlike others who have no hope since their salvation is dependent upon their being able to keep themselves.

1Pe 1:1-5, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout...Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

I understand that the Reformed believe that a member of the elect knows that he is with no doubt.

That's not entirely accurate. The Reformed believe that a member of the elect can know that he is without reasonable doubt, but not necessarily that they will. Assurance is not assured :)

Therefore if one does not know that one is of the elect and therefore would be heading off to everlasting hell, would there be any impetus for that non elect to join the Calvinist faith rather than, say, the Catholic faith, which teaches that all men have the possibility of salvation?

First of all, I need to reiterate that a Calvinist's belief that they are elect is deduced from their assurance of their own salvation. Calvinists are certainly not the only group of Christians who believe they can know they are saved. ;)

Second, because knowledge of one's own election is derived deductively by their own assurance of salvation, it follows necessarily that they would know they are not "heading off to everlasting hell." It does not however follow that a lack of knowledge of their own election necessarily means they ARE "heading off to everlasting hell." One need not KNOW they are elect in order to BE elect.

Third, Reformed churches do not target the elect only. By that I mean the focus of their evangelistic efforts is not finding the elect but rather preaching the Gospel to all men knowing that the Holy Spirit is the one responsible for regenerating and quickening the elect to faith. The focus of evangelism is to be faithful, not convincing.

Lastly, despite claims to the contrary, the Reformed faith teaches that whosoever will may come. That we differ in our understanding of who actually will come and why does not change that fact. We could go into several reasons why someone may want to join a Reformed church vs a Catholic church, or vice versa, but suffice it to say that the doctrine of election is only one part of the Reformed view as a whole. The Reformed church still preaches the sinfulness of man, his need for salvation, the person and work of Christ in providing the sole means of that salvation, and the need to be diligent as a disciple of Him who saves us.

Hopefully that clarifies a bit.

You (jo kus) still haven't cited any verses for your proposition that election means elect to a community. Over an over in Revelation it is the individual name in the "Lamb's Book of Life" that determines who is permitted in heaven; not membership in a "community".

Amen. The RCC rendition sounds eerily similar to Hillary's "It Takes a Village."

Salvation does not "take a village" nor a particular church nor even a particular sacrament. It only takes Jesus Christ dying on and being resurrected from the cross. If you are named by God as one of His sheep, like the thief next to Jesus on Calvary, you will know your salvation is by Christ alone, and thus you will see heaven the moment you leave this earth.

We have His promise...

"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love;
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6

God accepts each individual member of the elect in Christ and conforms them to Him "to the praise of the glory of his grace." We may ask "why" and Christ has provided the answer...

"...Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." -- Matthew 11:25-26

This is the reason for everything -- because "it seemed good in thy sight," which includes both the revelation of the truth to His children and the withholding of that revelation from those who are not counted among His children.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." -- Romans 1:16

And who believes in Jesus Christ? By the grace of God, it is those...

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." -- John 1:13

Our faith is founded on the eternal promise of God to the individual --

"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His." -- 2 Timothy 2:19

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.