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.

Irenaeus wrongly preached a works-based salvation.

That's why it's best to read Scripture and not the opinions of men which are not solidly founded on the word of God.

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5

Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.

LOL. You continue to misstate people's positions, going so far afield that now you impart the RCC teaching to us Calvinists.

The RCC preaches infused righteousness. The Bible proclaims and most Protestants believe in an "imputed" righteousness.

We are not saved by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness and obedience and sacrifice of Christ.

His righteousness saves us and is mercifully imputed to us.

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:19

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21.

"And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." -- Romans 4:22-25

I do so love being preached to by Western Protestants, especially when its about the Fathers. Tell me what bible college teaches about 3rd century sola scriptura.

1. I am not a Protestant.
2. No preaching at all.
3. Your dispute is with the Early Church Fathers quoted. Your refusal, or inability to respond is very telling.

Couple of 14th century Western heretics as I remember it, products of the Roman Church.

Both preached what was to be called "Sola Scriptura" beginning a few hundred years before the 16th century. This alone puts the lie to your 16th century assertion. The Early Church Fathers quoted also preached what would later be called Sola Scriptura. They were fortunate in that they lived before the "three legged stool" was invented. This saved at least a few of them from a fiery death.

Wycliffe died before before the Church could exact it's "justice" so the Pope ordered his bones exhumed, burned, and his ashes thrown in the river.

Hus wasn't so lucky. He was burned at the stake after being promised safe passage by the Pope.

Do you wonder why Luther didn't trust the promise of safe passage?

Proof texting the Fathers?!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL; OR, is there a consensus patrum on sola scriptura and if so, what is it? :)

You apparently didn't read the link I gave you or have difficulty with plain English. In either case I am not your tutor.

“Your dispute is with the Early Church Fathers quoted. Your refusal, or inability to respond is very telling.”

Is it! I suppose you believe I can’t respond? Most people here would argue that point, Old R. However, you should understand that a number of the Fathers you quoted wrote before the canon was finally determined and not one of the Fathers you quoted accepted what Western Protestants call the canon of scripture. I can go on and take up bandwidth. I trust that won’t be necessary. In a nutshell, Old R, Sola Scriptura is not at all patristic, but since it is a Protestant Doctrine, I should think that an argument can be made for its validity quite apart from the Fathers. And indeed those arguments are made everyday right here. Arguing that the Fathers supported and held to the sola scriptura notion is as laughable, and frankly sort of sad, as the Latins proof texting the Fathers to support Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

I love your tag line, Old R! :)

I wrote: I take this as a case of self-deception.

Quester responded: I take Jesus at His word. If He ever knew you, ... He would not say ... I never knew you.

I think this is a case of exaggerated hyperbole, which Jesus uses in this section of Matthew. If your eye causes you to sin, Quester, are you going to cast it out?

I think if you look at the context, you will find that Jesus is speaking to "hypocrites":

"Judge not, that ye be not judged". Mat 7:1

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Mat 7:3-6

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." Mat 7:15-16

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: Mat 7:19-24

In context, Jesus is speaking to the self-righteous, those who feel it is there place to judge others, to teach falsely about things, while not bringing good fruits. Jesus then speaks about DOING the Will of the Father, not just speaking it.

IF Jesus meant that "I never knew you" in the literal sense, how is it possible that an "unbeliever" did miracles in Jesus' name? How is it possible that these "unbelievers" cast out demons in Jesus' name? No way. A person cannot cast out demons unless it is by the finger of God. How could God work a miracle through a man that He "never knew"? This most certainly is a hyperbole or an exaggerated view to show a point.

When thinking about this, Quester, God gave me the following verse to help explain it to me. Perhaps it might be helpful to you, as well:

Wwhen the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Ez 18:24

God does not keep score of our good works of the past. He is concerned with our relationship with Him today. If we turn into religious hypocrites and judging other people without looking at ourselves, are we doing the Will of the Father? Aren't we merely HEARING the Word and not DOING the Word? All those good deeds of the past, even mighty miracles, are worthless in God's eyes, because our current relationship of being self-righteous has placed ourselves over other people and we have forgotten that God has given us EVERYTHING, so we cannot boast.

You don't have to respond, I don't want to argue over this, as there really isn't much else to say. But I do not see how it is possible to take your view of this Scripture. While we first come to Scriptures looking at it as literal, sometimes, the context does not allow that view. There is no way that a person can do miracles in Jesus name and be an unbeliever, while Jesus "never knew him".

Regards

Is it! I suppose you believe I can’t respond?

Oh I know you can respond. It is simply that you are unwilling to examine and respond to the words of the Fathers quoted. Too much work?

However, you should understand that a number of the Fathers you quoted wrote before the canon was finally determined and not one of the Fathers you quoted accepted what Western Protestants call the canon of scripture.

From the link you apparently didn't read:

OBJECTION: The proposition Sola Scriptura contradicts church history, in that it was not possible for the earliest Christians to consult the New Testament, since it had not yet been written.

REPLY: The earliest Christians had the Apostles with them. The Apostles wrote down the revelation, so that it might be available when they were gone.

You have the choice of ignoring all the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Fine with me.

Arguing that the Fathers supported and held to the sola scriptura notion is as laughable, and frankly sort of sad, as the Latins proof texting the Fathers to support Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

And Perpetual Virginity? And the Bodily Assumption of Mary? And the Trinity?

Are you of the opinion the testimony of the Fathers is useless?

"In a nutshell, Old R, Sola Scriptura is not at all patristic,..."

Yet you make no effort whatsoever to respond to even one of the quoted Fathers????? I understand....the testimony of the Fathers is useless unless, of course, you agree with them.

The link one more time (the third) in the event you have a serious purpose, not simply bombast.

A Defense of “Sola Scriptura”
JAMES KIEFER

Why would God take His gift back? Didn't God know this man wouldn't use it in the first place? What you are essentially saying is that God gives grace and then He takes it away if you don't do what He says. Does that sound very loving?

I suppose the better way of looking at it is that God's graces go unused and lay dormant. The Holy Spirit is grieved and we are not improving in our journey towards "putting on Christ". If I gave you a gift and you chose not to use it, Harley, would I be loving if I ORDERED you to use it?

Infusion and imputed righteousness is an interesting topic. The reason traditional Protestants never believed in infused righteousness is because the term "infused" is never used in scripture. Instead scripture uses the term imputed righteousness.

Neither is the word "Trinity". Nor is "hypostatic union". The idea "infests" the Scriptures, Harley.

"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." Eph 3:16-19

"And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph 4:23-24

"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." 2 Cor 1:21-22

"And you, being dead in sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" Col 2:13

Yes, we are imputed justification, but it is much more than a legal relationship with the Father. It is a familial relationship, a New Covenant. It is BETTER than the old. If the Old Covenant was a familial relationship, rather than a legal one, the New Covenant certainly exceeds your definition.

The difference we can see from Paul and James is that once this righteousness was imputed to Abraham, Abraham was called a Friend of God. It's a one time act and a gift. Applying that to your example, this man who had grace imputed to him would have been called a Friend of God. Do you believe God would take His Friendship away? What's more, does God offer this friendship to everyone?

You cite Romans 4 and James 2. These are NOT the same moments in Abraham's life, so how can justification be a one-time legal-only event, if Abraham is declared righteous on at LEAST two occasions (three if you go to Hebrews...). Again, your understanding is incomplete. It is partially true.

Although this sound VERY typical of most Protestants theology today it was not the Reformer's teaching. While I have not read or digest Calvin's entire understanding on this issue, I doubt very strongly if Calvin believe in infused grace. I can understand someone making a case that God infuses us with His righteousness and that is what He looks at which is what I believe you are saying Calvin might have believed.

If you want, I can go to my sources for this. Let me know and I'll do the research.

I'll also have to get back with you on "grace". That can be a complicated subject, and I do not want to lead you in the wrong direction.

Regards

You’re in fine form this afternoon, Dr. E.

“Two of these works, however, have reached us in their entirety in a Latin version:

A treatise in five books, commonly entitled Adversus haereses, and devoted, according to its true title, to the “Detection and Overthrow of the False Knowledge” (see GNOSTICISM, sub-title Refutation of Gnosticism). Of this work we possess a very ancient Latin translation, the scrupulous fidelity of which is beyond doubt. It is the chief work of Irenaeus and truly of the highest importance; it contains a profound exposition not only of Gnosticism under its different forms, but also of the principal heresies which had sprung up in the various Christian communities, and thus constitutes an invaluable source of information on the most ancient ecclesiastical literature from its beginnings to the end of the second century. In refuting the heterodox systems Irenaeus often opposes to them the true doctrine of the Church, and in this way furnishes positive and very early evidence of high importance. Suffice it to mention the passages, so often and so fully commented upon by theologians and polemical writers, concerning the origin of the Gospel according to St. John (see JOHN, GOSPEL OF SAINT), the Holy Eucharist, and the primacy of the Roman Church.
Of a second work, written after the “Adversus Haereses”, an ancient literal translation in the Armenian language. This is the “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.” The author’s aim here is not to confute heretics, but to confirm the faithful by expounding the Christian doctrine to them, and notably by demonstrating the truth of the Gospel by means of the Old Testament prophecies. Although it contains fundamentally, so to speak, nothing that has not already been expounded in the “Adversus Haereses”, it is a document of the highest interest, and a magnificent testimony of the deep and lively faith of Irenaeus.”

Works-based salvation, Dr. E?

Or simply what Christians have believed since the time of Jesus here on earth: that men can go to hell of their own accord:

“On the other hand, He says, “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;” that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. “For this is the condemnation, that light is come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God.””

I think that it is the latter that you would have the trouble with, if I understand your theology at all.

“And Perpetual Virginity? And the Bodily Assumption of Mary? And the Trinity?”

Old R, much as the Protestants want to believe that everything they have a problem with has Roman roots (and I will grant you the Latins have a habit of claiming credit for just about everything) the fact of the matter that each of the dogmas you cite are Eastern in origin.

In haste as to the scriptures which were around prior to about 375; there were a multitude of inspired and spurious/evil “scriptures” floating around until even after 375-400 AD. Heck, people still get all excited about such evil garbage as the “Gospel of Thomas”. That said, many, many non-canonical writings were considered efficacious for spiritual advancement. They simply weren’t used in the Liturgies. The Shepherd is a good example. And the Fathers cite to them throughout the Patristic period. Its not as simple as you would have it or as proof texting would make it seem.

Christianity is an Eastern religion, its theology is the product of God inspired Eastern minds. It is not at all Western. When we speak of the consensus patrum, we refer to something which very few non Roman Catholic Western Christians understand or recognize. Frankly, under the influence of Protestant exegesis, I think even the Romans have a hard time recognizing the consensus; at least they are ready to discard it in an effort to justify Papal excesses in a number of ecclesiological and theological areas. In my entire life I don’t think I’ve met 20 Protestant theologians who understand it. At base I think this is explained by the Western (both Latin and Protestant) rejection of the definition of the “catholic” Church laid out by +Ignatius of Antioch, which in operation is a living example of “consensus”.

The ramifications of this Western failure to understand the Eastern Christian mindset are extensive, so extensive, Old R, that its not hyperbole to say that we “worship a different God” from you guys.

Of course "men go to hell of their own accord."

According to the will of God who from before all eternity chose some men to redeem and others not.

"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.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" -- Ephesians 1:4-9

God does not keep score of our good works of the past. He is concerned with our relationship with Him today.

I agree with you here. God does not base our salvation upon our works, whether past, present, or future.

He basis our salvation upon our hearts ... and whether we remain with Him.

If our hearts are with Him ... we will, very naturally, produce the works that would flow from such a heart.

I think if you look at the context, you will find that Jesus is speaking to "hypocrites"

I believe that we also agree that Jesus is speaking of hypocrites here.

The unresolved issue between us ... is whether these have ever been believers (i.e. lovers of God) ... or not.

And my reading of the passage says 'not' ... because Jesus says that He never knew them.

Not that He used to know them ... but that He never knew them.

If we turn into religious hypocrites and judging other people without looking at ourselves, are we doing the Will of the Father? Aren't we merely HEARING the Word and not DOING the Word? All those good deeds of the past, even mighty miracles, are worthless in God's eyes, because our current relationship of being self-righteous has placed ourselves over other people and we have forgotten that God has given us EVERYTHING, so we cannot boast.

Even if we become judgemental of others, does that mean that our hearts have turned from God ... or does it mean that we are having a moment of weakness ... which God can correct ?

Have you ever thought more highly of yourself than you ought, Jo kus ?

Do you consider that you have left God when you do ?

Do you believe that God requires perfection of His children at every point ?

If He does, ... then what is the point of grace ?

You don't have to respond, I don't want to argue over this, as there really isn't much else to say. But I do not see how it is possible to take your view of this Scripture. While we first come to Scriptures looking at it as literal, sometimes, the context does not allow that view. There is no way that a person can do miracles in Jesus name and be an unbeliever, while Jesus "never knew him".

Once again, ... these speakers are only claiming to have done miracles in Jesus' name ... they present no evidence that they have.

Jesus rightly discerns that they are not ... with Him ... and that they have never been ... with Him.

They have never turned their lives over to Him ... because they've never felt that they needed Him. There has been no relationship ... and there is no relationship now.

These folk in the passage are like those that rushed to board the ark ... after the rain had begun to fall.

Sure ... they believe now, but ... now it is too late.

It is evident that we have somewhat different interpretations of this passage ... and that is okay.

Our interpretations are not the way ... Jesus is the way ... and as long as we have Him, we have all we need.
1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Also, ignore the Early Fathers as you do concerning "Sola Scripture" and justify them from Scripture.

"Old R, much as the Protestants..."

One more time; I am not Protestant. Got it?

In my entire life I don’t think I’ve met 20 Protestant theologians who understand it.

In all my life, I'm guessing many years more than yours, I've never met a single person as intellectually arrogant as you. What does that prove?

I am still at a loss as to how you justify Perpetual Virginity, Bodily Assumption of Mary, and the Trinity.

Would it be possible for you to refrain from telling me how superior you are and answer those simple questions?

“One more time; I am not Protestant. Got it?”

Well, you’re not a Latin, you’re not a Protestant and you’re not Orthodox. Are you a Mohammedan?

“In all my life, I’m guessing many years more than yours, I’ve never met a single person as intellectually arrogant as you.”

Sure you have, Old R; its just that, well, you’ve likely forgotten. :)

“I am still at a loss as to how you justify Perpetual Virginity, Bodily Assumption of Mary, and the Trinity.

Would it be possible for you to refrain from telling me how superior you are and answer those simple questions?”

Easy answer, Old R. I (and all other Orthodox) believe the exact same things our people have believed for the past near 2000 years (or however long it has been since our people gave up paganism) and which is what “The Church Always and Everywhere has Believed”.

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.