Why the Jesuit, Pope Francis I will still be around a month from now; unlike smiling Pope John Paul I

I was very cross when I started reading one of the books on my Puritan Hard Drive – I popped a few hundred dollars across the Atlantic and voila, my second PHD – “The American Text-book of popery” (George Bourne, 1848), because the second page of the prefatory “Address to Protestants” was missing. Here is the first page – on the Jesuits:

“The ominous controversy which the Papal priesthood have recently excited in New York and Philadelphia, combined with their mischievous exactions concerning the entire exclusion of the Holy Bible, and Christianity, with all ancient and modern history, from our Common Schools, imperiously demand an authentic exposure of the nature and extent of that universal supremacy and jurisdiction which the Roman Pontiff and his vassals of the Papal hierarchy usurp, as their jure divino inseparable prerogative. Moreover, they are a self-evident testimony, visible among ourselves that the cardinal motive alleged by Pope Clement XIV for the suppression of the Jesuits was righteous and replete with philanthropy. In his ” Bulla,” he denounced that entire confederacy of monks and nuns, as a pestiferous band of conspirators, in bad reputation. ” Universum” enacted that Pontiff, ”pene orbem pervaserunt molestissima contentiones de Societatis doctrina” — “The most direful contentions are diffused throughout nearly the whole world by the doctrines of that society.” Wherefore, by his alleged infallible authority, he abolished the order; solemnly affirming in his pontifical anathema, that the society of the Jesuits could not any longer be tolerated, as…”

it, they, a, or what? Yep reading sure is a guessing game. What to do? Archive.org came to the rescue. Here is the second page: 

“their existence is totally destructive of the peace and welfare of mankind.They poisoned him (the Pope) during the celebration of mass, as the reward for his noble act!”

So you see why Pope Francis I, the first Jesuit Pope, will certainly see out the next month or two, at least; more than  smiling young Pope John Paul I (1912-1978).

John Paul I

John Paul I

Unconditional election and unconditional eclection

In Arminian theology, unconditional election means that “whosoever” opens (by which they mean, any one who wills to open) the door of their hearts to Jesus, will be elected to eternal life – on condition, of course, that they don’t show Jesus the door in the interim. Abuse it, and lose it. “That’s the risk we must take, my Son.” The plan of salvation: Is it worth the risk, my Son? What, risk! Ask Jacques Derrida, CS Lewis and Thomas Oord.

In Reformed theology, unconditional election means that those whom God has chosen from eternity did not depend on anything – least of all on allowing Jesus into their hearts. God has mercy on whosoever (the ones) he wants to have mercy (Romans 9).

If you were a Greek speaking Christian in Jesus time, or are one today, you would not speak of election but “eclection.” So, am I saying that if you’re Greek, you think that God doesn’t follow any one method of election, which would mean that he saves those who, upon “knock, knock,” rush to open the door as well as those whom Jesus first has to raise from the dead before they can get out of their beds to do the same?

No, I don’t mean that God is eclectic . All I mean is that in the Greek New Testament, the word for “election is EKLEkTOS from ek “from” and lego “to gather,” “ to pick out.” Tee hee.

Blessed Assurance: “When I lego my elect, I never letgo. 

(Inspired by Vines Epository dictionary, Thomas Nelson, p. 351)