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 ...
You see, this explanation requires extra-Biblical knowledge as to what Paul “had before his mind.”
Brothers, Jesus did not die so that women could remain subservient or inferior to men any more than He died so that kings could rule or slaves could remain faithful in their service to their masters.
He is my covering.
This is exactly the type of rationale, the hard-hearted holding to tradition of men, that makes it so difficult to discuss our belief with the feminists who hate the Lord, the atheists who deny Him, the practitioners of sexual sin who shame us all, and to counter the horrors of slavery in parts of the world and the female circumcision, veiling and honor killings of the Muslims.
Our Lord has reconciled us to Himself, His Spirit dwells next to ours. The Savior told us to call no man “Master” or “Father.” In Him, we are “no longer male or female, Jew or Greek” and we are all told to subject our selves one to another.
>>Yes, He is an eternal king..<<
Thank you for ceeding to my point. Christ is our King, our Savior, and our Great High Priest, and he reigns forever.
>>The text says IS. It doesn’t say represents. It doesn’t say symbolizes. It says IS.<<
So the 12 disciples actually drank his blood and ate his flesh? No. His example is metaphorical. It takes reading, wisdom, and discernment to know where and when.
Honestly, I’ve said all I care to on this topic, and have backed up my position with Scripture.
That you choose to deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice and atonement, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Sovereignty of God is between you and Him.
The only power which is infallible comes from God Himself. The Apostolic teaching which is pertinent is that which was revealed by God through the person of God the Holy Spirit. The body of believers, through faith in Christ, are in a place where God Himself is free to continue the sanctification of each believer.
It is not the Bishop of Rome. nor the Church Councils which are infallible, for they also have volition and may exercise even a tad little thought separate from the will of God, thereby being out of fellowship with Him, creating a situation where God is no longer free to further sanctify those people or persons until that person and group has returned to Him on His grounds. Not via another man, but only through faith in Christ.
All faith is from God, not from any man other than our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
If it's okay for you to say that, I HOpe it's okay for me to say:
That you choose to attack a doctrine which your very attack shows you do not understand is between you and God also.
In our teaching the Eucharist does not, could not, ADD anything to Christ's sacrifice and atonement, and it is what it is by the operation of every person of the Most Holy Trinity including the Holy Ghost whom we ask the Father to send upon the gifts.
And where God's sovereignty belongs in your attack I guess I don't know.
What is frustrating about Protestant attacks on what we teach is that so often it seems that the attack is not preceded by "opposition research". Aquinas on the Eucharist is just not all that hard.
So the 12 disciples actually drank his blood and ate his flesh? Aquinas says or implies that the Apostles really and substantially drank our Lord's blood and ate his flesh. But "real" and "substantial" may be terms whose meaning is not exactly what you think it is. What the substance of the body and blood of the Lord are, especially of the risen Lord, is not a slam-dunk.
It takes reading, wisdom, and discernment to know where and when.
If I may say so, it takes reading and discernment, if not wisdom, if one is going to say we are wrong. It takes at least enough reading and discernment to know what it is you're disagreeing with. We may be wrong, but we're not wrong for the reasons you say we're wrong.
No, he is actually quite clear in the bible: women should be covered when praying. He leaves no doubt who is who in this world (1 Cor 11:3)
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
No extra-Biblical knowledge required here.
Brothers, Jesus did not die so that women could remain subservient or inferior to men any more than He died so that kings could rule or slaves could remain faithful in their service to their masters
Actually, Paul thinks otherwise (1 Cor 11:7)
For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man
He is my covering.
That's not what the Bible says.
So, do we have a conflict here between what you say Christ did and what Paul teaches?
Look, if you are seeking a gender-neutral faith, good luck. But you can't make Christianity something it never was gender-neutral.
Either the Bible is a God-inspired revelation or it is a man-made delusion. There is no middle. It is not mutable. It's not subject to fads and cultural clichés.
Which Presbyterian Church would that be? Does it still exist today, or did the gates of hell prevail against it?
-A8
Welcome to the FR Religion Forum, MHIL-E.
You’ll find a lot of interesting conversation on this forum, and you’ll see a really broad range of American Christianity.
I agree with you that the important thing is to spread the gospel message.
How is it "unloving" if it is true? Christ has only one bride, not thousands of brides. He is not a polygamist. He said He would build His Church (singular, not plural). Throughout the history of the Church there have been legions of heresies and heretics. Why would that suddenly change in the last four-hundred years? None of the Baptist denominations is older than five-hundred years. So none of them could have been been the Church Christ was referring to when He said, "I will build My Church".
-A8
To the angel of the church at Ephesus....
To the angel of the church at Sardis...
To the angel of the church at Pergamum....
To the angel of the church at Thyratira...
I have an entirely different take on what He meant by “one church” than you do.
“How can they hear without a preacher.” is what the bible says. Therefore, how did any of us come to Christ?
(And that includes Baptists.)
-A8
Are you not sure that you would ask me such a question as “Is Christ a polygamist?”
X
-A8
I don't understand that sentence. Could you clarify?
-A8
The only reason someone would ask such a question is because they are uncertain of their own position on the subject. Is that what’s going on with you?
When St. Paul says, "There is one body" (Eph 4:4), what does he mean?
-A8
The same thing as he meant when he said that the body had different parts.
That is a non sequitur. I believe the Nicene Creed, which says: "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church".
But you seem not to believe that. You seem to believe that Christ has many brides. Am I misunderstanding you?
-A8
How do you derive that conclusion, that Paul's saying "there is one body" means the same thing as "the body has many parts"?
-A8
Amen to your post!!!
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.