Posted on 05/10/2005 12:14:52 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
The Catholics can have authoritative teachings because they have Apostolic Succession. The Pope is the heir of the Apostles in a direct line, and what he says is the official doctrine.
But if you believe in the priesthood of all believers and justification through faith alone, it's kind of hard to keep out heretics, particularly antinominians.
I didn't realize there was a movement to take down the cross. I've moved around a bit, and been shocked to see some "churches" with no cross or religious trappings at all. I think the article makes a valid point, it's time for more denominations to stand for what they believe in. The moral relativism that's creeping into Churches is frightening. I'm not above there being some changes as time goes on, but there need to be boundaries. Some things just are, and always will be, wrong.
Good luck Adam, many good men have tried. To this day the wheat and tares are still growing together in the same field.
Once you get rid of the people who deny the basics of the Faith ... we have to get together and talk, really dialogue about issues, determine what matters and what doesn't.
There you go. Brilliant idea. Get rid of the people who disagree with you and then discuss the issues you have in common.
Perhaps we can burn a few heretics at the stake, too. That'll help.
No has a right to be Catholic or any other denomination. The Inquisition was several centuries. No one is remotely suggesting any sort of physical punishment for dissension. It is a matter of freedom of religion and association. If you believe what a private group teaches, join the group. If you don't believe it, don't join the group, and don't compain if you're kicked out. As Cardinal Dulles recently said, the Catholic Church is not a society of freethinkers. If you want to join or set one up, go right a head. This is a free society.
What's your problem with simple truth in advertising, or insisting that job applicants are actually qualified to do the job they're applying for?
I'm Catholic, and I love Protestant Conservatives who have kept un-Catholic "Catholic" Politicians out of the White House. Thank for upholding Christian values! God Bless you.
As the author points out, there are 121 denominations and then some of Christianity. He points out that there are disagreements over the "fundamentals" of faith and gives as an example the fact that a large number of ministers don't believe in the "resurrection."
Some Christians believe the resurrection was a physical event, and some believe that it was a spiritual event. So, can we come to some agreement about this by sitting down and talking about it? Maybe.
Furthermore, and this is more to the point, some Christians believe that in the Last Days there will be a physical resurrection of the dead, while others believe there will be a spiritual resurrection of the dead.
So, to answer your question, no, I don't think it's too much to ask that Christian pastors believe in Christianity. But there are at least 121 different definitions of what that means.
Should Christians set aside their differences and unite? Of course they should. Will they? I doubt it.
I doubt that even one of those denominations, no matter how liberal, officially teaches that the physical Resurrection of Christ is an open question.
A denomination which teaches such a doctrine, like the Unitarians for example, is a non-Christian religion.
We don't need to take the Catholic approach when our approach is superior. No one is going to feel the Holy Spirit in a Church that teaches that Jesus was a swell guy but not the only path to God. This is why the mainline Protestant Churches are declining while the evangelical Churches are thriving.
See what I mean? You simply declare that people who disagree with you aren't Christians and shazaam, problem solved.
Incorrect.
There is an historical record which is quite well-documented for over twenty centuries as to what Christians believe.
Up until the late 1800s all professing Christians believed in the physical resurrection of Christ, and those professing Christians who ceased to believe in the Resurrection - like the Unitarians - had the intellectual and moral honesty to declare that they were no longer Christians.
It's not what I personally think that defines Christianity - it is the unbroken witness of the Christian community since the Resurrection.
By your argument, one would not even have to believe that Jesus ever existed or that anything in the NT was valid or useful to be a Christian. Simply making the claim is enough.
That's an intellectually frivolous position.
My Serbian Orthodox priest said that any "church" that does not teach the Resurrection should be called a CLUB, not a church.
By the way, I am an ELCA Lutheran who attends a Serbian Orthodox church once a month. And I am fed up with what's happening to the ELCA due to the depredations of feminazis, "gays", and revisionists.
Kind of agree.
We all have some house cleaning to do.
I'm necronomian - just as the Apostle Paul teaches!
Have you heard of the Word of Faith? They call the Cross a place of defeat, and claim that Jesus became a sinner on the Cross and went to the burning part of Hell where He was tormented for 3 days and nights until God the Father said "it's enough" and Jesus was born again and then resurrected from the dead. Of course I don't consider them Christians, anybody who believes that Jesus was a sinner at any time, does not deserve that title. But they have a lot of influence on Christian churches. I would advise them to remember Paul's warning to the Galatians: "but even if we, or an angel of heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:8).
1 Co 15:44: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body....This passage seems to contradict your "historical record." Although I know that what you said is true, most Christians do believe in the physical resurrection. How then, to reconcile the apparent contradiction? Furthermore, since the original subject of this discussion is Christian unity, who shall be the final authority to settle the differences of opinion?
1 Co 15:46 However, the spiritual did not come first, but the natural, then the spiritual.
1 Co 15:47 The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven....
1 Co 15:50 Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.[2]
So your position is that you can be a "Christian" and yet think that Jesus is a liar?
What is an antinominian?
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.