Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[OLD REGGIE]

We have hope that some day, people will realize this and return home.

This "most likely a Biblical Unitarian" believes any person who has God in his life has found "home". Organizations and buildings are meaningless to me.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

God desiring all men to be saved is an outward call, not a decree. In literal terms, and in conformity with God's plan, God does NOT want all men to be saved. That much is plain from casual observation, or God is a titanic failure.

Amen.

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:9-10

Men have always been telling God who He is and isn't rather than listening to Him tell us exactly who He is -- the one who declared "the end from the beginning."

"That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been" -- Ecclesiastes 3:15

We can't go wrong by stating God's sovereignty too often, considering the world conspires to erase it entirely and replace it with men's "good choices" and "free will" righteousness.

[OLD REGGIE]

Sola Scriptura is more rightly Mea Scriptura. Adherents merely replace one authority for scriptural interpretation with their own.

You continue to show you have no idea whatsoever what Sola Scripture really is or, if you do, have chosen to continue with a falsehood.

Carry on. It is so much easier to attack your invented straw man than it is to attack a nuanced argument.

[MarkBsnr]

I thought that you might either be frightened of or bored by a list of the Books of the Bible. It appears that I am correct.

“The following links will carry you outside of the OPC website. We do not necessarily endorse everything found in the below sites, but we commend them as helpful for biblical research.”

Snicker. We do not necessarily endorse everything on those sites? Seems rather cowardly to me for a brave new (1936) religion that prides itself on its Biblical foundations. Which Bible does the OPC read? If they recommend the KJV, then why not host an online version?

The WCF and the Catechisms are acts of a foreign government. Signed into law. That ranks with the craziest theological processes that I have ever heard of. Foreign governments? At least the Mormons stayed in the private sector and didn’t have the Nancy Pelosis and Harry Reids of that day making deals in committee about the wording. And they are as Biblically based as the WCF.

And the ESV as a potential Bible? Have you read the criticisms of it? Do you understand its variance from the KJV? You guys get better and better the closer I look.

[MarkBsnr]

“I know of no Calvinists who claim that God only cares about Calvinists.”

Really? I know that the Calvinists all believe that God loves them because He pulled their names out of the Bingo wheel, but what about the bulk of humanity?

The WCF says that:

“7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.”

So God loves those that he sends to everlasting hellfire?

[OLD REGGIE]

Reveled word of God, I think we can both agree on that.

Do you believe in "new" Revelation? ie. A hidden revelation which has only recently been understood?

As an example could you show the "revealed word of God" which led to the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary? (Scriptural reference would be nice.) :)

[MarkBsnr]

Okay, I can accept that, as long as there is the understanding that there is a whole list of commands and directives that the believer needs to follow - most of Jesus’ preaching and teaching told the people what they needed to do as well.

[OLD REGGIE]

"My littlest one just turned 2"...

My littlest one will be turning 50 in a few months.

The trouble is that there are some differences about Bibles, some major, some minor. If there is no completely objective source (stone tablets from God, say), then who is to say that THIS particular version in THIS particular verse says EXACTLY this and means EXACTLY this?

We believe that that authority is the Catholic Church, left to us by Jesus. You either have that or you have anybody coming up with anything with equal amount of authority.

And just how many authorized versions of the Bible exist within the Catholic Church?

[MarkBsnr]

My oldest just turned 18. Maybe the good Lord will have me stop at 6, it’s up to Him.

I’m aware of:

Douay-Rheims, Ignatius / RSV, Navarre Bible and the New American (NAB)

as authorized Catholic versions.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If Christ actually atoned for "all the sins of every man in the entire world," then all the sins of every man in the entire world would be forgiven and no one would stand guilty before God.

That's pretty clear, isn't it?

So we need to rethink what "the world" means within the context it's used throughout Scripture.

As the link said which I posted, if you deny limited atonement, you are actually denying God's election of His family due to His good pleasure, and thus you are once again returning salvation to some sort of foreseen "good works" by men.

It's no coincidence the first thing Arminius did upon his return from Rome was to write against particular redemption. And that is because if God does not ordain His family for His own reasons but because of men's good works and their own ability to believe in Christ, then of course the church in Rome has a duty to dole out more of this type of work-based righteousness.

You're standing with Rome on this one, and against Luther and Calvin and Augustine and Paul and every Reformer for the past 500 years.

But most of all, you're standing against Jesus Christ who clearly says He does NOT pray for the entire world, but only for those whom the Father has given Him (John 17).

It's always strange to think Christians do not believe this. I can understand non-Christians speaking against a particular redemption. But for Christians to go along with some half-baked idea that God doesn't love them with a particular love, hasn't carved their names in stone from eternity in His Book of Life, didn't ordain their salvation by Christ "before they could do anything good or evil" is actually going along with the world's denial of God and His omnipotence and His very particular, individual, specific love for the members of His family.

Everyone does NOT have the same ability and desire to love Him. The ability and desire to love God come from God and not from ourselves.

Please read the following essay by John Piper...

FOR WHOM DID CHRIST TASTE DEATH?

"...In other words, it's unhealthy to say that Jesus tasted death for everyone and not to know what Jesus really accomplished by dying. Suppose you say to me, "I believe that Jesus died for everyone," and I respond, "Then why is not everyone saved?" Your answer probably would be, "Because you have to receive the gift of salvation; you have to believe in Christ in order for his death to count for you." I agree, but then I say, "So you believe that Christ died for people who reject him and go to hell in the same way that he died for those who accept him and go to heaven?" You say, "Yes, the difference is the faith of those who go to heaven. Faith connects you with the benefits of the death of Jesus."

There are several problems here. I will only mention one. And I dwell on this because, if this is what you believe, then you are missing out on the depths of covenant love that God has for you in Christ by understanding it to be the same as the love he has for those who reject him. And you are, in one serious way, "neglecting your great salvation," which, we saw in Hebrews 2:3, we must not do. There is a greatness about being loved with Calvary love that you will never know if you believe that those in hell were loved and died-for the same way you were..."

And for me, I know this is true because I experienced both loves -- the love I felt from God when I thought I was loved the same way God loved Judas, and then when I experienced the love of God for His own family -- created, named, ordained and saved from before the foundation of the world, according to His will, and not my own.

And every person on the planet can feel this love, too, if they are so inclined; if they are "called according to His purpose."

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." -- John 15:16

Do you stand with the Romanists here, too, and say Christ is speaking only to His apostles and not to you and me in particular?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It is not possible for Christ's blood to be wasted. It is sufficient for ALL, YET it applies only to the elect, those who come to Him.

That's the definition of "limited atonement."

And "those wo come to Him" are those whom the Father has given Christ to bring home, designated "not for anything good or evil that they may have done or will do," but according to His election alone.

Christ's sacrifice could have atoned for the sins of all the world, but in fact, His sacrifice atoned for the sins of His elect.

The sins of the reprobate remain, always and forever, unatoned for, unforgiven and stand in conviction of all those who were not numbered among His family by God from before the foundation of the world.

God elects; Christ redeems; the Holy Spirit sanctifies; man glorifies and rejoices.

[blue-duncan]

“If Christ actually atoned for “all the sins of every man in the entire world,”

For all people with the gift of “short attention” span, the original observation was that Jesus intercedes only for believers; the elect. It had nothing to do with the sufficiency/efficiency of His sacrifice. Now I know it’s Friday and xzins forgot once again what that means to neeners, but let’s focus on the question.

There, I feel so much better!!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The lack of endorsing a particular version of the Scriptures is not the same thing as not endorsing the Scriptures.

Get the difference?

(((snicker right back)))

Now that you've listed the books of the Bible, try reading them.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You post like a young man. 8~)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

As Frumanchu said, God loves His elect, His family whom He named and numbered from before the foundation of the world, who are found in every nation and race on earth and reside within all churches where the word of God is preached in truth and light (some more than others.)

[Frumanchu]

Really? I know that the Calvinists all believe that God loves them because He pulled their names out of the Bingo wheel, but what about the bulk of humanity?

The conclusion you're defending is a non-sequitor. It may be properly said that most Calvinists believe God only loves the elect, but given the fact that (with the exception of some "hyper-calvinists") we don't believe only Calvinists are elect, it pretty much renders the conclusion you're defending a fallacy.

[xzins]

I must agree with Frumanchu.

Calvinists don’t care where God finds the elect. They are not necessarily Calvinists, although we would hope that most Calvinists are.

[HarleyD]

The Bible is quite clear about the target of the atonement: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 KJV)

I would suggest that this verse needs to be examined in relationship with Isaiah 63 which states:

Isa 63:7 I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, [and] the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses.
Isa 63:8 For he said, Surely they [are] my people, children [that] will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
Isa 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
Isa 63:10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, [and] he fought against them.
Isa 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, [and] his people, [saying], Where [is] he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where [is] he that put his holy Spirit within him?
Isa 63:12 That led [them] by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?
Isa 63:13 That led them through the deep, as an horse in the wilderness, [that] they should not stumble?
Isa 63:14 As a beast goeth down into the valley, the Spirit of the LORD caused him to rest: so didst thou lead thy people, to make thyself a glorious name.
Isa 63:15 Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where [is] thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies toward me? are they restrained?
Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou [art] our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, [art] our father, our redeemer; thy name [is] from everlasting.
Isa 63:17 O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, [and] hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

God looked at those unbelieving Israelites as their Savior. These are the same people who "vexed His Holy Spirit" and rebelled. Psalms says they were unbelievers. But God still loved them and considered Himself their Savior, and He was right. (What else did you expect me to say?)

From His point of view He is the Savior of the whole world just as He claimed He was the Savior of Israel as He brought them out of Egypt. But those people perished. I believe John (and Peter's "..even denying the Master who bought them...") are talking about how God looks at man, but it isn't all inclusive. Christ blood only atones for those who He returns to His inheritance. Isaiah 63 shows that God considers Himself the Savior of even those who are perishing.

[xzins]

If you accept that as the definition of limited atonement, then why are you arguing with me? :>)

Sufficient/efficient is the original point I made.

Not that I could be accused on a Friday of instructing anyone to go back and check my original comments.

By the definition of God, the sacrifice of God must be sufficient to cover every sin.....every anything.

Your scholarship on Arminius is unconvincing propaganda from an era when people were killed over these things.

[xzins]

Isaiah 63 shows that God considers Himself the Savior of even those who are perishing.

I must admit that I certainly didn't expect to hear YOU say THAT!!

What do you mean by it????