Posted on 07/20/2007 8:52:53 AM PDT by Between the Lines
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Instead of taking offense at a recent Vatican statement reasserting the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, evangelicals should seize the chance to respond with equal candor that “any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church,” according to a prominent Southern Baptist leader.
The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on his blog that he appreciated the document’s clarity in voicing a key distinction between Catholics and Protestants over papal authority.
He said those differences are often forgotten “in this era of confusion and theological laxity.”
“We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division,” Mohler wrote.
“The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church.
“This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.”
This month, the Vatican released a document restating the contention that the Roman Catholicism is the one, true path to salvation. Other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches, the document said, restating the views of a 2000 document.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict XVI headed before becoming pope, said it issued the new document because some contemporary theological interpretations of the Second Vatican Council’s ecumenical intent had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I hope you don't mind my jumping in, but this really hits home for me.
In addition to the words of Jesus we have his actions. He had disciples from all walks of life, not just those that would be acceptable to the establishment that thought they held the sole power of interpreting Scripture.
ICor. 12:13-14 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-and have been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.
Funny the Jews must have been saying the same thing about the Apostles. "Who's this loud mouth, abrasive, fisherman to speak about theology, or what about that tax collector he wasn't trained in our temple." After all they were mostly uneducated poor working stiffs from the backwaters of Israel.
Amen.
I agree. It’s such an open comment from the Lord.
Another like it, imho, is when he says, “Whoever gives even a cup of water to one of my brothers shall not lose his reward.”
In other words, the tiniest acts of alignment with the Lord are evidences of faith in the Lord, and THEY SHALL NOT LOSE THEIR REWARD.
Jesus was graciously broad in His approach. Hyper-denominationalistic Catholic fundamentalism is ungraciously narrow.
Amen!
I do think it is very beneficial for Christians to see that sects still exist which claim a dominance over others.
Who are you kidding??? Neither JPII nor Pope Benny could even bring themselves around far enough to recognize non-Catholic Churches as even worthy enough to be referred to by them as "Churches". They are mere "Communities" in their eyes and in their bulls. According to them, only Catholics go to "Church" on Sunday. Everyone else goes to "Communities" on Sunday.
I don't see how they can admit that these other groups are Christian churches. They have built themselves around this idea of monopoly. They make all kinds of claims that support their monopoly the theory of apostolic succession, (really should be called historic lineage)and true presence in the Lord's Supper. They have created a works system that they believe can only be perfected through them. If they were to admit the error of their claimed monopoly all these peculiarities of their church would fall and they would have no hold on their congregants.
How do you know it is an "error" for the Catholic Church to claim that it is the Church which Christ founded?
-A8
Where in UUS do you find sophistry? Either substantiate your charges, or all you have are empty and unsubstantiated accusations.
-A8
I read Scripture.
I look at the life of our Saviour.
I look at the organization of the church during the Apostolic Era.
So how do you know which is true: that Jesus removed the "candlestick" from the Catholic Church, or that Jesus didn't remove His candlestick from the Catholic and you are living in deception and false teaching of the sort your itching ears want to hear?
-A8
Anyone who wants salvation needs to follow the Berean example in Acts 17:11, and diligently search the Scripture to make sure the things we are being told by men are true.
Each of us is responsible for working out our own salvation. (Phillipians 2:12)
“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.” Matthew 24:4
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15
So did all the heretics of the first four centuries. See here for an example. The fact that you read Scripture does not show that the Catholic Church is in error in its claim to be the Church that Christ founded.
I look at the life of our Saviour.
Again, your looking at the life of our Savior does not show that the Catholic Church is in error in its claim to be the Church that Christ founded.
I look at the organization of the church during the Apostolic Era.
Again, your looking at the organization of the church during the Apostolic Era does not show that the Catholic Church is in error in its claim to be the Church that Christ founded. Just because you look at x, does not show that y is false.
-A8
Where in Scripture does it say that all believers have equal authority in the interpretation of Scripture?
-A8
If you are talking about Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church has never claimed that they are Churches. That is because they are not Churches, for the reason I explained above. But if you are talking about the Orthodox Churches, the Holy See considers them to be actual [particular] Churches.
They are mere "Communities" in their eyes and in their bulls.
Yes, if you are talking about Protestants, and not Orthodox.
According to them, only Catholics go to "Church" on Sunday. Everyone else goes to "Communities" on Sunday.
True, if you are talking about Protestants; false, if you are talking about Orthodox.
-A8
Thanks for returning the chuckle!
It's far easier to justify schism and heresy when you change "in communion with" to "domination by".
And we're very impressed with your "organization" that has led to Protestantism's theological approach on every issue from the Resurrection of Christ to Gay-Marriage:
ALL MAY
SOME DO
NONE MUST
Very impressive!
“All things of God.” The most significant part of that passage, second to the call for judgment on the part of the readers.
What is the Orthodox Church’s explanation of the idea behind verse 10? This is one of the confusing verses: What do the angels have to do with women?
You forgot the third choice: Did the Catholic Church ever have a candlestick in the first place?
Where is the word "Catholic" in scripture???
Fair enough. So which Church was it then, that Christ said He would build (in Matt 16) and against which the gates of hell would not prevail? Which Church was it, that is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15)?
Where is the word "Catholic" in scripture???
Next to the word 'Trinity'. Seriously, your question presumes the truth of 'sola scriptura', but sola scriptura is itself nowhere in the Bible, and in fact the existence of magisterial authority and an oral tradition are both affirmed in Scripture.
-A8
From the Bible commentaries
Because of the angels--who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare Psalms 138:1, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (1 Corinthians 4:9, Ephesians 3:10, Ecclesiastes 5:6
Notice the association between "veil" (radid), and "subjection" (radad).
In other words: the woman, like the angels, is of a certain 'rank' (seraphim, cherubim, etc.) and this is manifested in her outward dress. Her covering is her subordination to man.
Which is why the covers went out when women's liberation began. Obviously, Paul didn't think women were equal to men. Now, if everything in the bible is what the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to write, then Paul's "sexism" is not his opinion but God's revealed truth, right? And if so, then it must be obeyed.
A woman is to show her subordination to man either by her long hair or her by physicial cover. That means, soccer moms and feminists need to either cover their short hair or...it's in the bible, right? But, of course, this is highly politically undeseriable...even explosive, so the bible has to be "adjusted" to what is currently coniosdered correct. So much for the inerrant word of God.
Kawaii is right: we have altered, indeed, rejected part of the screipture for politically correct but transient fashion (in this case, feminism): women refuse to be covered because it "insults" them, even though the scripture obliges them to be covered.
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.