Posted on 04/27/2005 9:52:40 AM PDT by jebanks
Salazar has gone over the edge ...
Referring to Focus on the Family: "They are the anti-christ of the world"
Look at "War of Words" clip.
http://www.kktv.com
I guess "moderate" Sen. Salazar can take off his hood now.
Hmm...That Dobson guy is pretty annoying, but the anti-Christ? Geez, just turn off your radio--problem solved, at least for you.
Which makes me want to repositition the title: Are Pentecostals saved? Maybe.
Are Presbyterians saved? Maybe.
Are (church of your choice members) saved? Maybe.
By their fruits you shall know them. Wheat and tares everywhere. But he who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
And Catholics (and all the ancient churches like the Orthodox) with their saints and devotions and different ways of doing things than modern American protestants call upon the name of the Lord a lot. Or at least some of us do!
Name calling is not useful. Loving and living a Christian life is where the rubber meets the road. And if you don't come to the foot of the cross and realize who it is hanging there, and why he's there and what your value is, what type of Christian could you be?
That's the authentic language of the document.
However, what you are doing is taking the Reformed definition of "church" (an invisible community of elect believers) and assuming that the Pope means the exact same thing when he uses the term.
So when a reformed believer says that a church is a "false" one with a "false" Gospel, he is saying that the Catholic Church is an organization which is opposed to the Gospel.
When the Pope uses the term "church" he uses it in the way Catholic theology has always defined it - the Church as a whole is a unified, visible organization created by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and continuing to this day in an ubroken line of succession.
A local church consists of a bishop (or episkopos or overseer) who holds his office in direct line of descent from the Apostles, and his congregation.
Therefore, local churches that have a bishop who can trace his succession to the Apostles are local churches that may (like a Greek Orthodox local church) be separated from the larger Church or may not be.
The SBC and Presbyterians, who specifically identify themselves as bishopless, are not local churches because they do not have a bishop with the succession - i.e. the Catholic Church does not hold that they are false organizations set up against Christ's Gospel.
We hold that they are communities of Christians who by their own acknowledgement lack bishops with apostolic succession.
Every SBCer and Presbyterian is united to the Church through their baptism and as a result have many elements of sanctification and truth, but they are unbishoped and therefore are unable to participate in the sacraments.
This is a logical conclusion of believing that the Church is a visible entity. It doesn't mean that the SBC is a "false" organization with a "false" Gospel but an incomplete organization with a mistaken interpretation of the true Gospel.
'Easy now. Not all of us voted for him.'
Agreed. Salazar played smart politics by being 'moderate' and has his entire career. He campaigned as a Catholic good-'ol-boy with his c'boy hat, driving his pick-up truck to every county in Colorado and duped republicans with promises in thinking he was for them too. He picked up their votes and won the Senate election.
Once again, we lost a valuable senate seat from a democrat campaigning 'moderate' and legislating 'left'.
We've got freepers here in Colorado that voted for Salazar (D) simply because they didn't like Coors (R) or Shaffer (R). Connect the dots. When one votes for a democrat, you get democrat ideology AND anti-conservative agenda roadblocks. Duh, pretty simple. Wow, people are STUNNED Salazar broke his promise to give an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. Geez.
As I have pointed out many times on this thread, it is one thing to disagree with someone and quite another to characterize them as a purveyor of lies.
For example, I believe that Dr. Mohler is much mistaken in his interpretation of Scripture - but that doesn't mean that he believes in a "false Gospel" and it would be real low of me to say so.
I agree with you on everything except I think name calling is sometimes useful. Not a lot, but sometimes.
If Sen. Salazar is a genuine Catholic then his opinions of Protestant churches are at least as strident. A very weak attempt at equivocation, if you ask me.
I think if the author dug a little deeper into what the Church teaches on "works" his conclusion about the role of "works" in Catholicism would be less cut-and-dried, but at least he's addressing the issue head-on, without acrimony.
Graduate of the University of Colorado?
Not really.
But the point is moot, since (1) Dr. Mohler can say whatever he wants and it doesn't threaten Salazar in any way and (2) Salazar, as a supporter of abortion, isn't really a Catholic in the first place.
Well said.
If we as Catholics didn't hold something along those lines, why, we wouldn't be Catholic.
Might as well ask other people to give up the Westminster Confession.
Sounds like a case of those who put themselves outside of what the Church teaches and then points the finger at other, believing groups because it interfers with his leftist compromise with the Gospel.
Name calling to me gets dangerous, just because it gets abused so easy. But defining, now that has a lot of value.
That's precisely the case, because if Sen. Salazar lived in obedience to the Church's teaching, Dr. Dobson would be publicly praising him at this moment.
Anybody calling Dr. Dobson the anti-Christ has got to have a loose screw....or doesn't understand religious talk and is trying to use it.
Salazar is giddy thinking he is energizing the Dim base and has a free shot at Dr. Dobson and Focus because they didn't support him anyway. What he has forgotten is this fight at root is about abortion and he is also turning observant Catholics off by bashing evangelicals over the judges issue. I have a feeling Archbishop Chaput isn't going to let him sweep this under the carpet, either.
Those of us who truly believe in Christ have more in common in our belief, than those who want to use Christ as a campaign slogan.
Chaput is a holy, Christ-centered man who cares, and is not afraid to show it. Expect something.
I thought everyone learned their lesson about bashing Christians in the 2004. I guess I was wrong.
Absolutely. Kind of like Howard Dean's "My favorite book of the New Testament is Job" comment.
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.