Posted on 09/18/2008 9:36:29 AM PDT by Gamecock
You win. Your church is right and all the other churches and non-Christian religions are wrong.
a. I am not a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
b. I never contended that "all other churches" are wrong. I am certain that there will be all manner of Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc in Paradise.
c. Do you think that "non-Christian religions" are right? Muslims? Buddhists? Wiccans? Pagans?
Wow...that was easy! ;)
No doubt, since they broke from the one Church of Christ to begin with. Theologically, Protestantism is a new religion, not one taught by the Apostles.
Korah (Numbers 16) also had some "theological" reasons for breaking with "Church" heirarchy, as well... To a "democratically-inclined person who thinks everyone should come to God their own way", it seems to make sense. Apparently, God didn't seem to agree.
This presumes you believe the Bible is the Word of God, of course...
Regards
Scripture must be the rule. Apostolicity must be the standard. However, the “presbyterian” part says that this group is a “reformation” church. When one “reforms” a church, one is suggesting that there is a previous time in the church to be “reformed” in which that church was just fine. When did the church go so astray that it began needing reform? Martin Luther is evidence that certainly in his day the church was far astray. That was why reformation was needed. Had it needed reformation for 50 years, a hundred, 2 hundred, etc.?
One is also suggesting by the word “reformation,” that the good of the church hadn’t entirely disappeared. Martin Luther would himself be evidence of that. If he could find the gospel even in that time, then the gospel was findable in that church so desperately in need of reformation.
All of this also suggests that this entire group, both the reformers and the non-reformers, owed their existence to a long line of predecessors who stretched back to the time of Jesus and his apostles.
In short, aligning with the teaching of the Apostles is commendable. Simply descending from the Apostles is of not great value if a group does not align with the Apostles. To descend from them AND to teach their teaching is best.
This calls into question the ordination of those groups that are founded by a person who simply hangs out his own shingle proclaiming himself to be a Christian leader. Paul said to Titus, “5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”
I don't know. I would be guessing and my view would be prejudiced by the accident of what country I was born in. If I was born in India, I would have about a fifty to one chance against "choosing" Christianity as a religion and more than 100 t0 1 chance against being a Protestant.
***I would be guessing and my view would be prejudiced by the accident of what country I was born in. **&
Accident? With God there are no accidents.
Then how can God punish someone for doing what can not be avoided? There can be no free will in your religious system.
***Then how can God punish someone for doing what can not be avoided?***
Original sin. Something the church fathers taught.
They are not being punished for not knowing Christ. They are being punished for their rebellion.
How can I be guilty of something that happened long before I was born? If true the man's justice is greater than God's. How can that be?
Your point is valid and the Eastern Orthodox deals with the dillema you are discussing there very nicely.
i may be wrong, but I believe that ‘hstorical Protestantism’ as discussed in the source does not include the Anglican Church.
Feed the fetish.
You are VERY wrong. Aglicanism is the Church of England and one of the first of the historically protestant churches.
The Church is ALWAYS in need of reform, since we, the Church, continue to need reform. Anyone reading the NT epistles can readily see problems the writers were addressing. There is no perfect Church in this world, only in the next. But where is the reform when one leaves the Church? How does that reform the Church? Perhaps a large exodus wakes up the heirarchy to act, but it appears that reform is better undertaken from within then from mass revolt.
Regards
bump
....Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church recognizes as ministers those men ordained to that office by true churches, which are identified by the attribute of apostolicity.
Double bump!
Do you REALLY think that the Presbyterian Church, orthodox or not, understands CAtholicism and is an expert on Catholicism?
NOT!
Half the Presbyterians I know were born and raised Roman Catholic. I married one. Most of those Roman Catholics understood that church very well.
By the grace of God they learned a better testament.
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.