What "Believers" Refuse to Believe (Part 1)

[BNR32FAN]

Why are some not saved? Because, as we read in John's Gospel, men loved darkness more than the light because their deeds were evil. That's the only real answer we have to give.

If some are able to resist God’s calling this would mean that ultimately we do have free will and we must make the choice to believe and follow. Predestination would put God being responsible for everyone who will burn in the lake of fire for all eternity. Which like you said would contradict God’s love for the world. In my opinion it’s not so important that we know they why but only that we know what is required of us. If we simply do what God commands then everything else will take care of itself. Eternal security, faith and works, predestination, purgatory, etc none of these things will matter if we just obey Jesus’ teachings and let God deal with the details.

 

[Mountainmike]

lightfoot was happy with the middle ignatius,

I can understand why those who dislike the necessity and authority of bishops would be obliged to contest ignatius, Luther was much the same. When canonical scripture and history disagreed with his invented doctrine, he tried to disavow scripture, and even modify it, rather than change his doctrine.

The importance of bishops for handing of valid faith is everywhere in early fathers, and the role in sacraments was handed down for millennia ever since. Because that was the way the faith was handed down. cuanonical scripture became a written part of sacred tradition, but it clearly cannot self stand, nor was it the early vehicle of true faith,

ianeus is clear that all should conform to Rome which had "preeminent authority" , in AH 3:4:2 , referring also the episcopate from Linus on, Even councils acknowledged it. Augustine continued the list,
It is fascinating to me that people are ready to accept iraneus in that we would have no knowledge of who wrote the gospels,or a record of how the church avoided heresies , including the first heretical canons, but they then disregard the most important subject on which he writes. Tradition - the way true faith was handed down by and from the apostles and the eroiscopate.

I doubt we will agree, but the reason I moved as a cradle Protestant back to Rome is the amnesia and inconsistency Protestants have with the early church, and the complete failure of ideas such as sola scriptura or the self identifying canon, which simply do not make sense, and are totally at odds with history.

The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans is believed to be lengthened so it’s not clear what Ignatius originally said. I was only asking because I was wondering if there were any other mention of the Eucharist only being valid that I was unaware of. To my knowledge Iranaeus didn’t address the topic. Also Iranaeus never said Rome had primacy. Succession doesn’t have any relevance to a person being led by the Holy Spirit. I will refrain from further commenting on that subject to avoid an unpleasant conversation. It’s not easily discussed without offending someone. That is not my intention and not the topic in this discussion.

 

[BNR32FAN]

lightfoot was happy with the middle ignatius,

I can understand why those who dislike the necessity and authority of bishops would be obliged to contest ignatius, Luther was much the same. When canonical scripture and history disagreed with his invented doctrine, he tried to disavow scripture, and even modify it, rather than change his doctrine.

The importance of bishops for handing of valid faith is everywhere in early fathers, and the role in sacraments was handed down for millennia ever since. Because that was the way the faith was handed down. cuanonical scripture became a written part of sacred tradition, but it clearly cannot self stand, nor was it the early vehicle of true faith,

ianeus is clear that all should conform to Rome which had "preeminent authority" , in AH 3:4:2 , referring also the episcopate from Linus on, Even councils acknowledged it. Augustine continued the list,
It is fascinating to me that people are ready to accept iraneus in that we would have no knowledge of who wrote the gospels,or a record of how the church avoided heresies , including the first heretical canons, but they then disregard the most important subject on which he writes. Tradition - the way true faith was handed down by and from the apostles and the eroiscopate.

I doubt we will agree, but the reason I moved as a cradle Protestant back to Rome is the amnesia and inconsistency Protestants have with the early church, and the complete failure of ideas such as sola scriptura or the self identifying canon, which simply do not make sense, and are totally at odds with history.

Perhaps you posted the wrong chapter from Adversus Haereses brother Mike. Iranaeus says absolutely nothing about the Roman church in 3:4:2.

2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemousaddress. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

However in 3:4:1 he does clearly state that the apostolic churches should be the authority to handle disputes which would be referring to the pentarchy. Which would be the bishops of Antioch , Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem.

1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

Iranaeus never says that the Roman church had a higher authority over the other churches of the pentarchy. To my knowledge none of the early church fathers made such a claim before 1054AD

 

[Mountainmike]

My bad it was 3:3:2 ,

And iraneus certainly does say Rome has preeminent authority, and is the source of true doctrine.

3:3:3 traces the episcopate, later done in Augustine all the way to his time.

I am sure you know other background, other churches clearly listening to Clement, even in councils easterns accept " primacy of honour"

Perhaps you posted the wrong chapter from Adversus Haereses brother Mike. Iranaeus says absolutely nothing about the Roman church in 3:4:2.

2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemousaddress. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

However in 3:4:1 he does clearly state that the apostolic churches should be the authority to handle disputes which would be referring to the pentarchy. Which would be the bishops of Antioch , Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem.

1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

Iranaeus never says that the Roman church had a higher authority over the other churches of the pentarchy. To my knowledge none of the early church fathers made such a claim before 1054AD

 

[BNR32FAN]

My bad it was 3:3:2 ,

And iraneus certainly does say Rome has preeminent authority, and is the source of true doctrine.

3:3:3 traces the episcopate, later done in Augustine all the way to his time.

I am sure you know other background, other churches clearly listening to Clement, even in councils easterns accept " primacy of honour"

Yes primacy of honor but not authority. That is main the reason for the schism in 1054. Only one of the 5 main apostolic churches claimed that Rome had supreme authority and that was Rome. All of the other churches disagreed and ultimately excommunicated the Roman church from the Catholic Church.

 

[Mountainmike]

You have an odd view of history.

The roman church is and was TEN times bigger than the fragments that split away( of autonomous and autocephalous churches, that co reside under the umbrella "orthodox") so it was hardly rome that split! A root cannot split from a branch. A branch splits from a root. The roman church did not name itself that. It was just the "catholic church". Others named it roman, after the split to distinguish the fragments that split.

And the schism was not till 1054 ( although tension clearly preceded that)

There are thousands of references - in the intervening period - I could relate - here just a couple.
Augustine who was instrumental in signing of the new testament , lists all the episcopate 5 centuries earlier! In the era of some important councils. Where was the opposition then?

At the council of chalcedon 450? which ruled on the natures on christ - the tome of pope leo, was met with a chorus of the 500 bishops so assembled they said - "there speaks Peter through leo". Peter does indeed speak with authority. And it was certainly not called out as heresy! He was appointed to do so.

And it was not the pope which was the prime issue of the schism. It was the arcane matter of "filioque" And but for one dissenting bishop the churches almost recombined three centuries later.

So it is sad they split away, but that is most certainly what happened. The name roman is not a name the church gave to itself. It was simply the catholic church.

Like it or not, the reason Peter had primacy was the "office of keys" "tend my sheep" and so on. Which the bible states "what he opens none can shut"- which incidentally is also where the role is titled "father" so pope.
And the matter of "bind and loose" given to him alone, as well as the apostles.
Which means rule on doctrine. Which why they said "there speaks peter"

And on the office of keys the early fathers are clear.

Take tertullian for example speaking around 200 long before the new testament!
I could have picked many...
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church
(Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

It is unarguable that they believed it.

Protestants have tried to rewrite history over a millenium later. But speaking as a exprotestant, few if any research it! I am with cardinal Newman. To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant. When I studied history it led me to Rome.

History also records the episcopate trying to settle interchurch arguments - even from the earliest times - as witness Clement to the corinthians.


The role of pope is misunderstood. He titles documents as "the servant of the servants of God" is how he sees himself - his role to "tend his sheep" . And when the pope did a "bind and loose" to define infallibility, he was seeking not to extend power, but to note how limited it was - a power used only a handful of times to settle arguments of the day.


So...if you are such a fan of the orthodox church, why are you not a member of it?

Yes primacy of honor but not authority. That is main the reason for the schism in 1054. Only one of the 5 main apostolic churches claimed that Rome had supreme authority and that was Rome. All of the other churches disagreed and ultimately excommunicated the Roman church from the Catholic Church.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If some are able to resist God’s calling this would mean that ultimately we do have free will and we must make the choice to believe and follow.

From a Lutheran perspective, the idea that human beings have a truly morally free will amounts to a kind of Pelagianism. As Pelagius taught that human beings come into the world morally free, even as Adam was before the Fall; and that men make their choices whether to choose what is good and right, or what is evil and wrong. It is against the doctrines of Pelagius that Augustine argued that human beings are born in a state of sin. For Lutherans the natural condition of fallen man is that he is at enmity with God, indeed God saved and reconciled us while we were God's enemies (Romans 5:10), the Prophet Jeremiah writes that the heart is "deceitful above all else, and desperately sick. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). St. Paul has quoted the Psalmist to describe the human condition as, "There is no one who is righteous, not even one, no one understands, no one seeks God." (Romans 3:10-11).

The will is, therefore, not free in this condition. The will is ill, it is sick. So the natural man in this condition, following after the fallen appetites and desires of his heart, pursuing his own belly, not only does not seek God, but flees from Him. As the Lord has said, "Men loved darkness more than light because their deeds were evil." We see the natural condition of fallen man even right in the Garden of Eden, Adam hid himself from God, when God asked why Adam hid himself he said he was afraid.

We do not willfully choose God because the will is inwardly bent away from God toward sin. Which is why the external act of God to save and rescue us is necessary. It is why the Apostle says "it is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" and tells us it is not "of works, so that no one may boast."

Predestination would put God being responsible for everyone who will burn in the lake of fire for all eternity.

Not Predestination, but Double Predestination. Scripture emphatically teaches Predestination, as in Ephesians ch. 1,

"For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love. He did this by predestining us to adoption as his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the pleasure of his will— to the praise of the glory of his grace that he has freely bestowed on us in his dearly loved Son." - Ephesians 1:4-6

And also in Romans 8,

"And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose, because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified." - Romans 8:28-30

What Scripture never says is the opposite, that God has predestined anyone for damnation. Predestination applies only to the elect, our election in Christ, from before the foundation of the world. That God has chosen us in Christ, does not mean that God has chosen any for damnation; for we have the clear word of Scripture that God desires the salvation of all, Christ died for all, and in Christ all have life.

Which like you said would contradict God’s love for the world. In my opinion it’s not so important that we know they why but only that we know what is required of us. If we simply do what God commands then everything else will take care of itself. Eternal security, faith and works, predestination, purgatory, etc none of these things will matter if we just obey Jesus’ teachings and let God deal with the details.

It matters a great deal when the onus of our salvation because our ability to measure up to God's commandments, because in preaching that we do not preach the Gospel, but we preach the Law; and we preach the Law as though it has the power to justify and save us, when the Apostle has explicitly said the Law can do neither of these things. And this isn't merely a matter of some ethereal theological semantics of only interest to academics and theology nerds; this is a matter of chief importance for every Christian because whether we preach the Gospel rightly or if we preach a message of condemnation through the Law has a great deal on the health of the Christian, and of the Church as a whole. For when we preach the Law as though if we merely try hard enough and we'll be saved, we lead our brothers and sisters toward the shipwrecking of their faith. For toward despair or pride we send them off. In despair when they realize that the great wealth of their works are ultimately nothing, and no matter how often they try they continue to labor under the great weight of their own sin. And on the inverse, because of human arrogance and pride, many have convinced themselves that they are indeed a most pious and righteous person, and they like to posture themselves to lord over others with their arrogance. These have set their course toward the rocks to be dashed to pieces, either by the wind and waves of despair, or the blind arrogance of hubris.

It becomes absolutely necessary then to preach the Law as Law and the Gospel as Gospel. That before the Law one is a convicted sinner, and all his works are as rags; and beholding himself as he is he might fall to his knees in true repentance. That with the Gospel we have the gracious, kind, and loving Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the One we can know as "Abba, Father" by the grace we have in Jesus; that all our sins are forgiven, that we have peace with God, we have adoption as children, and the gracious and loving assurance of God by His Word and in our Baptism that we belong to Him, that we might say as St. Paul does, "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." (Galatians 2:20)

We may therefore rejoice and celebrate that Christ has saved us. And we have no need to fear and dread the Savior who loves us, as though He may abandon us at any moment, or that we must live up to the impossible highness of His sublimity or else. We have One who says, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more." Therefore, let us trust in Him, putting aside every fear, and confess Christ our Lord who saves us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BNR32FAN]

You have an odd view of history.

The roman church is and was TEN times bigger than the fragments that split away( of autonomous and autocephalous churches, that co reside under the umbrella "orthodox") so it was hardly rome that split! A root cannot split from a branch. A branch splits from a root. The roman church did not name itself that. It was just the "catholic church". Others named it roman, after the split to distinguish the fragments that split.

And the schism was not till 1054 ( although tension clearly preceded that)

There are thousands of references - in the intervening period - I could relate - here just a couple.
Augustine who was instrumental in signing of the new testament , lists all the episcopate 5 centuries earlier! In the era of some important councils. Where was the opposition then?

At the council of chalcedon 450? which ruled on the natures on christ - the tome of pope leo, was met with a chorus of the 500 bishops so assembled they said - "there speaks Peter through leo". Peter does indeed speak with authority. And it was certainly not called out as heresy! He was appointed to do so.

And it was not the pope which was the prime issue of the schism. It was the arcane matter of "filioque" And but for one dissenting bishop the churches almost recombined three centuries later.

So it is sad they split away, but that is most certainly what happened. The name roman is not a name the church gave to itself. It was simply the catholic church.

Like it or not, the reason Peter had primacy was the "office of keys" "tend my sheep" and so on. Which the bible states "what he opens none can shut"- which incidentally is also where the role is titled "father" so pope.
And the matter of "bind and loose" given to him alone, as well as the apostles.
Which means rule on doctrine. Which why they said "there speaks peter"

And on the office of keys the early fathers are clear.

Take tertullian for example speaking around 200 long before the new testament!
I could have picked many...
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church
(Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

It is unarguable that they believed it.

Protestants have tried to rewrite history over a millenium later. But speaking as a exprotestant, few if any research it! I am with cardinal Newman. To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant. When I studied history it led me to Rome.

History also records the episcopate trying to settle interchurch arguments - even from the earliest times - as witness Clement to the corinthians.


The role of pope is misunderstood. He titles documents as "the servant of the servants of God" is how he sees himself - his role to "tend his sheep" . And when the pope did a "bind and loose" to define infallibility, he was seeking not to extend power, but to note how limited it was - a power used only a handful of times to settle arguments of the day.


So...if you are such a fan of the orthodox church, why are you not a member of it?

It doesn’t matter that the Roman church was bigger than the others. The filioque played a huge role in the schism of 1054 no doubt along with priest celibacy but it was the bishop of Rome declaring Papal Primacy as having full authority that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. So your saying that all of the other churches were wrong and Rome was right? Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem were all wrong and only Rome was correct on who was the supreme authority of the church. I really don’t see the connection between Peter and Rome. Big deal Peter established the church in Rome with the help of Paul. Peter also established the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch before he went to Rome. What he had no successors in those churches when he left? Sucession doesn’t mean anything. 130 years after the schism the Roman church officially sanctioned the inquisitions which lasted for 686 years and was sanctioned by 99 popes who were “successors” of Peter. So please just stop with the whole line of succession garbage. We’re those 99 popes guided by the Holy Spirit when they gave the church the authority to arrest, imprison, torture, and execute nonbelievers. Each of them had the authority to put astop to it but they didn’t because they were growing in power by forcing people to convert or die. Not much of a choice. Now did the churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem ever do anything like that? No they didn’t. They stayed true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Man brother Mike I hate this topic. This is why I didn’t want to get into this conversation. I take no pleasure in saying these things at all. But the facts speak for themselves and I feel it is necessary to proclaim the truth. During the inquisitions the abuse of selling of indulgences began and led to the formulation of the doctrine of purgatory in 1439AD at the council of Florence. Again the Roman church is completely alone on that doctrine. No other Christian church teaches purgatory.