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 ...
The church that was full of those who believed the Gospel [the Believers] and were baptized [the Baptists] and were taught orthodox doctrines [the Orthodox] by Pastors, and Presbyters [the Presbyterians], and Episkopos [the Episcopalians] in city after city.
There were no priests and therefore no Catholic Church.
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.
All church organizations have some degree of organizational authority and oral tradition, but true churches put Scripture above them. And as you can see the Believers Churches, Baptist Churches, Presbyterian Churches, Orthodox Churches, Episcopalian Churches can trace their roots and names to Scripture, but the Catholic Church is absent. They all have a form of magisterium, and oral traditions, but they have something that the Catholic Church lacks: a respect for the Scriptures as above the other two.
Indeed, what we do find being "passed on" to others in the pastoral epistles of Paul is most definitely not an office replete with successors, but a body of teaching that is said to originate from Christ Himself...""There is no indication in these passages that the authority Christ gave His apostles was some sort of "charism" that they would pass on to others.
The true tragedy of the RCC's teaching here is found in the link by the verse...
" Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you." (2 Tim. 1:13-14)
The RCC (and so many RCs on FR that I've lost count) would deny the truth of the indwelling Holy Spirit in believers. Instead, they insist the Holy Spirit resides in the magisterium and its priestcraft, but not in the hearts and minds of believers.
I've come to think this is perhaps one of the RCCs gravest errors.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" -- Acts 10:44-45;47"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Amen. As you say, any oral tradition must first be founded upon Scripture. If it's not there, it's counter to the word of God and therefore, false teaching.
"The Rock" is a Name of God (Song of Moses which will be sung in heaven.)
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matt 16:17-18
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. – Isaiah 51:1-2
As to who or what will overcome the gates of hell, Jesus is speaking of Himself, the power of God (I Cor 1:24) the brightness of the Father's glory (Hebrews 1:3) by Whom and for Whom everything exists (Colossians 1) Indeed, Hell itself is thrown into the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20.
Likewise, in reference to the second verse adiaireton8 mentioned, we should remember that we who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit are now the temple of God under the new covenant sealed by the blood of Christ (John 3 et al):
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? – I Cor 6:19
The ark of the covenant on earth was a type of the ark in heaven, the tabernacles/temples were a type of the temple in heaven, the brass serpent raised by Moses was a type for the crucifixion. And likewise, the physical assembly of Christians in the flesh is a type of the Spiritual body of Christ we eternally are (I Cor 12.)
I assert that we ought to focus on the Spiritual Truths the physical types convey. For instance, Peter and Abraham were both firsts and both called rocks – but Jesus is The Rock, He is "The" First of all!
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4
AMEN!!!
Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." -- Ephesisans 3:14-19 "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Among believers it is not "animal farm" where some are more equal than others. The Holy Spirit indwells all believers.
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father and he will give you another Helper, that he may abide with you forever...
So teaches the Catholic Church. But when St. Paul says, "All are not apostles, are they?" (1 Cor 12:29) you seem to say, "Yes", as if all were the head.
-A8
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" -- Acts 10:44-45;47
I think what gets missed when we get caught up in our legalism is the order of events. They heard the WORD. They believed the WORD. The Holy Spirit indwelled them and then they were baptized.
You do know that the word 'priest' is just a derivative from the word 'presbyter', do you not?
-A8
How many brides do you think Christ has?
-A8
I don't know why you would think that, unless your trying to read between the lines.
Scripture is very clear different believers have different gifts.
Because you said: "Among believers it is not "animal farm" where some are more equal than others", as if all were the head.
-A8
So then, where did Matthias get his authority?
-A8
I believe Mathias is a perfect example. He was made an Apostle by the Apostles (historic lineage), but we have no record of supernatural powers being passed on to him (Apostolic Succession).
What specific authority did he have?
He did not run a church.
He was like the other Apostles a missionary, an evangelist.
The authority that St. Paul talks about when he writes, "even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority." (1 Thess 2:6)
"For even if I boast somewhat further about our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be put to shame," (2 Cor 10:8)
"For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I need not use severity, in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down" (2 Cor 13:10)
It is also the authority that Simon Magus wanted, when he said to St. Peter and St. John: "Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:19)
And here St. Paul shows that the Apostles received their authority from Christ: "For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus." (1 Thess 4:2)
Titus, who was a bishop in Crete, received this authority from St. Paul. This is why St. Paul wrote to him: "These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." (Titus 2:15) That's an example of Apostolic succession.
This authority included the authority to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23), the authority to confirm (Acts 8:14-19), the authority to ordain (Acts 6:6), the authority to determine doctrine and practice for all the Church (Acts 15), and the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:19; 18:18). The authority to bind and loose means that whomever the Apostles (and their successors) exclude from their communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever they receive anew into their communion, God will welcome back into His.
-A8
Well that settles it then. The Catholic Church and its priesthood must then be just a derivative of the Presbyterian Church and its presbyters.
The above is the entirety of my comment. No place in it does it say that the candlestick has been removed from the RCC.
What I did say earlier was that those other Churches are legitimate in the eyes of Jesus who said, "those who are not against us are for us." The broadness of the church is evidenced in those as widely different as the Church of Thyatira and that of Ephesus. (Rev 2-3)
What could that "first love" be except such a love for God with whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and such a love as that of the new commandment's "love one another as I have loved you." These would combine in the love that is propagated when others are told of Christ and come to new life.
Efficient, proper, doctrinally correct Ephesus appeared to have everything going for it, except it was cold-hearted. Immoral, licentious, struggling Thyatira with that woman Jezebel and her idolatry and sexual escapades would seem to be doomed. Yet to "correct" Ephesus, and not to immoral Thyatira, did the Lord threaten to remove the candlestick.
That is up to the Lord as to who fits which category. I do think, though, that a church without light, a church in which the light that exists is darkness, that such a church has no need of a candlestick. All it would shed would be darkness and not light.
Judgemental little ole me can think of a few churches which have no light. I don't include the RCC in that number. They do spread the story of Jesus. They do engage in works of love. The gospel can be heard in her. However, she sits in her corner thinking she's the only one in the house. Yet her Father has other children who are not of her flock, and she cannot see it.
A little here and a little there, and the next thing you know the light has been trimmed to practically nothing. Who would not want to be alert to such a thing in his own church?
Were I an RCC, I'd be appalled at hyper-denominationalist Catholic fundamentalism. Above all, it is unloving toward one's brothers and sisters.
Ping to 159
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.