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 ...
Obviously.
The unity of the Church is that unity of the Spirit. Its diversity includes anything that is not out of harmony with that spiritual unity.
I don’t think the RCC really understands the distinction between the church visible and invisible.
Don’t you????
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has always taught that the Church is visible because it is a body. Bodies are visible.
-A8
No. "There is one body" does not mean the same thing as "the body has many parts".
-A8
-A8
So, you’re telling me you don’t think your body has parts???
No. I never said that. Where did you get that idea?
-A8
Nope, I am not really interested in “ecumenical dialogue” (lol) that only serves to beat each other up and tear each other down. I don’t care if you attend a Catholic church, a Lutheran church or no church. I care about the condition of your heart! Everyone seems to want to argue about which church is the “true church”!! The “church” or the “bride of Christ” are born-again believers, IMHO. That is the extent of what I am saying. I’m not here to engage in the silly argument about which church is better or more “right”. I’m not here to argue the merits of the way Catholic services are conducted or why they do the things they do or any other christian church, for that matter. I think our common denominator is SO much more important than the “differences” that you seem to want to accentuate. What do you think God will think is more important when we get to heaven and stand before Him, that you said the required number of “Hail Mary’s” and I didn’t or that we are both believers?? I think the Lord in Heaven laughing and shaking His head at His creations never ending pettiness and silliness!
“By the invisible Church is meant the mystical body of Christ as animated by His Spirit. The term catholic may be applied to either the invisible or the visible Church. As appled to the former, it is simply the universal body of believers. The invisible Church is frequently regarded as including, not only those now living, but also those of every age == past, present, and future. The term “catholic” as applied to the visible Church includes all those particular groups or organizations which make up the total body of professed believers in Jesus Christ.”
Thought you might find some material to ponder in this quote from Wiley/Culbertson.
Because that’s what you answered when I asked.
It all seems so simple, doesn't it. We can use a nice cliche, "born again believers", and thereby avoid all the theological nitty-gritty.
Dare I ask? What exactly does it mean to be a "born-again believer"?
Yesterday two Jehovah's Witness came to my door. Are they "born-again believers"? Why or why not? Should we sweep these differences under the rug? What about Mormons?
As long as you stick with your skin-deep cliche, you don't have to worry about these things. But in real ecumenical dialogue, theology is unavoidable. You have to get your hands right in it, and start dialoguing. Of course I do not recommend dialoguing with people who just want to argue, or wrangle for its own sake. I recommend dialoguing with people who genuinely want truth, and who are willing to listen carefully and treat others with respect. But dialogue is something we have to to do in order to work out our differences. The last thing we should do is paper over them and pretend they don't exist. Read Kristine Franklin's story for a good example of why that is so.
-A8
No I didn't. Read what I said more carefully. "There is one body" does not mean the same as "The body has many parts". In the first sentence Paul is telling us how many bodies there are: 1. In the second sentence Paul is telling is that the body has parts. Those are two distinct non-synonymous propositions.
-A8
-A8
Like that? LOL :o)
And, yes, I really do believe you are someone who likes to argue for arguments' sake! lol You sound like someone who likes to prove they're right! But, that's OK. It really is! Whatever floats your boat and fills your day with meaning! lol
It's no skin off my nose what the Pope said or what he believes. I know where I stand with my God. I don't think we need to "work out our differences" when it comes to which church we choose to belong to and what traditions we choose to observe in that church. Our differences are with unbelievers and converting them using God's word and our example of His love. That's my thoughts on this subject. Good night, folks!!
I'm very sorry you think that.
I don't think the Lord made following Him all that complicated as some of His creation would like to make it.
If it really isn't complicated, then why are there thousands of Protestant denominations, all unable to agree? Don't you see that fact as a problem for your claim that it is not complicated?
I don't think we need to "work out our differences" when it comes to which church we choose to belong to and what traditions we choose to observe in that church.
So you think that all Christians are already just as united as the Father and Son are united, as Jesus prays four times (vss. 11, 21, 22, 23) that we would be in John 17?
If this is unity, then I would hate to see what division and schism look like.
-A8
The First Presbyterian Church of Rome.
Does it still exist today, or did the gates of hell prevail against it?
It was driven out of Rome in the 4th century when the gates of hell began to prevail against it there.
"why are there thousands of Protestant denominations, all unable to agree?" Because we humans like to argue and make mountains out of molehills!! lol I think it is complicated to us humans. I don't think it's complicated to God! That's why I said I think He's up there laughing at all of us!! It says more about our human condition than some perceived complexity.
No, I don't think Christians are all united to the eye of the unbeliever and I think it's because of believers magnifying the importance of differences in the way we conduct our services. I DO believe we are united in status before the Lord as His "church" if we are born-again. I DO believe we are united in purpose -converting the unsaved.
Does this make sense? It's getting late and I'm getting tired so it may not!
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.