Thanks, but the SBC doesn't seem to think so. I agree with them.
The theology of how we are saved would seem to go to the very heart of the Christian message.
There are multiple passages in the New Testament where the question is asked of either Jesus or Paul.... "what must I do to be saved?"
That means it's important I think.
We're not talking here about "getting along". We can all "get along". We're talking about an understanding of theological truth. There must be a way to rule on disputes such as this.
Based on the fact that you almost never respond to people who post on your articles it would appear you aren't actually seeking any kind of meaningful discussion. Therefore substance would be wasted on you.
Maybe wasted on me but these threads are read by numerous individuals.
Here's your big chance to enlighten them and actually address the substance of the article after three posts about me.
What do you have to say to the world about the Calvinist/non-Calvinist dispute withing the SBC and the "let's agree to disagree" approach to theology ?
Based on this comment and how thinly it is tied to the article I just assumed you were one of those useless and graceless flame war "Christians" who are the reason most decent people stay away from the Religion Forum. But then I looked at your strange, strange posting history. You are some kind of weird Catholic Religion Forum article-posting seldom-commenting troll.
My comment is perfectly tied to the article. The conundrum in which the Southern Baptists now find themselves is precisely because there is no authority of last resort which can rule on disputes such as this. Ditto for other Protestant denominations. All that's left is "let's agree to disagree". There van be no nonnegotiable, definitive ruling which can settle disputes like this.
None.
Feeble attacks on me and my posting history will not change this one iota. If any comments are irrelevant to the subject matter of the article, they belong to you.
Feel free to address the issue of ecclesiatical authority if you can stop whining for a moment.
Agree to disagree......the Protestant "authority problem" in a nutshell.
In the absence of any divinely instituted human ecclesiastical authority with competence to rule in this matter, this is the inevitable result. Either this or a rupture.
Both sides will claim the authority of Scripture. Yet they're stuck at an impasse. And where is truth to be found in all of this? Why, in Scripture of course. We simply have different understandings of its meaning so we'll "agree to disagree". Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Is God a God of confusion, compromise or ambiguity? Is there more than one Church, one truth?
Never knew you were an Aussie until I saw your tag line. Know it well. Lived in Perth for four years and was sorry to leave. One of my children was born there.
Always appreciate your balanced, sane insights......:-)
Similar story but the requests for burial were made by different individuals. The first request, detailed at your link, was made by Fr. Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life.
This request was made by the Archbishop of Philadelphia.
So the new BSA policy "is not in conflict with Catholic teaching"? That's nice. Does this mean that the previous BSA policy on homosexuals was in conflict with Catholic teaching? Because the policy has done a 180. Previously homosexuals were excluded, now they're welcomed.
Is Martin telling us that Catholic teaching can be tortured, twisted and stretched to accomodate both of these positions?
Going along to get along has severely wounded Catholicism in the US. The urge to make Jesus a sign of compromise rather than a sign of contradiction has done untold harm.