Ulf Ekman
Posted on 03/11/2014 6:42:12 AM PDT by NYer
Ulf Ekman
The pastor of Sweden’s largest non-denominational megachurch shocked Christians in his own community and around the world this weekend, by announcing that he is entering the Roman Catholic Church.
* * * * *
Several times in the last month, I wrote about bold initiatives in ecumenism, most notably the exchange of greetings and blessings between Pope Francis and evangelical pastor Kenneth Copeland, brokered by Anglican Bishop Tony Palmer.
Perhaps I spoke too soon, though—for this latest surprise is just as remarkable in the Christian world, once again pointing toward a quest for unity which would have seemed impossible just a few years ago.
* * * * *
Ulf Ekman, founder of the Word of Life Church in Uppsala, Sweden, in a long sermon on Sunday explained to his followers how he and his wife Birgitta had experienced the gentle yet firm tug from Jesus to join the Roman Catholic Church. There are two ways to get into the water, he said: first, like Peter, hearing the call of Christ and jumping in to answer; and second, like Jonah, hearing God’s call to go to Nineveh but fearful, taking off in a boat headed in the other direction. Only when he was thrown overboard by sailors on the ship did he end up in the water.
Elkman spoke candidly about his fear at embarking on his new journey. “Fears,” he said, “are the open mountains overshadowing the beautiful landscape our Lord wants to show us.”
Watch the testimony to his congregation, describing the 10 year journey HERE
That is simply your interpretation. We are censured by RCs for engaging in such, for as VEHEMENTER NOS states, "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:
They are the ones who give and interpret RC teaching for you, including when the pope blesses a murderous prosodomite politician and treats such as members in life and in death. And as what we really believe is shown by what we do, (Ja. 2:18) it is not official teaching that manifests what Rome believers, but what she does and effects. Whether it be papal sanctioned torture and murder of theological opponents in one century, or sanctioning liberalism in another.
Note in that case you listed: Your above example is not a second baptism.
Never said it was. It distinctly says "a baptism reaffirmation."
What this might do would be to give scandal to those who have very sensitive conceptions of ritual and prayer.
What it means is that in one century it could result in a lively session with the Inquisitor and in another a little publicity.
But note above, if it is scandal, it does not invalidate the office.
Who said it did? It shows what the office can do. One pope can employ a murderous gang in seeking to secure his election to office and another can be an adulterer and another a benign ruler. Meanwhile, the distinct pastoral title of ordained priests was invalidated from the beginning of the church, while the office of a perpetuated Petrine papacy to whom all the church looked to as its supreme infallible head never existed .
None of your postings directly imply a change in doctrine either,
As said, paper doctrine does not constitute what you believe over actions and conveyance, and is seen in the majority of her members being liberal, vs Evangelicals , while as Rome clearly has contrasting teachings, but autocratically defines what reality is.
That is simply your interpretation, forcing "this" in "this Rock" to refer to Peter, versus making a distinction btwn "thou" and "this," which some CFs even saw, and your own CCC also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424)
Thus rather than being certain, it is interpretive, and if Peter, he should be described as the rock upon which the church is built in the rest of Scripture. Surely therein Jesus the Rock is competent and authoritative enough to apply that descriptive upon whom the church is built to someone else!
However, the competent or authoritative Lord only subsequently applied "rock" and "stone" to Himself as the one upon whom the church is built, (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
And which, as said, is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible.
In contrast to this testimony, as you are not to objectively examine evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, but can only use Scripture to support her, even if it means more dogmatic than CFs and your own CCC, then your opinion is just a biased one
You might consider that the ‘rock’ has lasted over 2000 years and the gates of hell have not prevailed against it. This can only mean the Catholic Church fits the description. Time tells.
Dang!!!
QUOTES and everthang!
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. NIV Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? NIV Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. NIV Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' NIV Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. NIV Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! NIV Psalms 19:14
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. NIV Psalms 28:1
To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. NIV Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" NIV Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. NIV Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. NIV Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. NIV Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." NIV Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. NIV Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. NIV Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. NIV Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. NIV Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. NIV Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." NIV Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish. |
And now you know the Biblical position!
Roman Catholics do not consider us Christians.
According to Trent we are anathema.
Details....
da debble is in ‘em!
Where would we be without them?
Merely READING scripture??
You are, of course, absolutely right.
In like manner...
There's nothing at all in the text of Mt 16 to suggest Jesus is referring toPETER when he says "upon this rock I will build my church".
Well; as long as you IGNORE a few little bumps in the road...
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
It is really a shame that one man’s spiritual journey should be held in such contempt. I am wondering how many negative posters actually watched the entire video.
>>>That is simply your interpretation. We are censured by RCs for engaging in such, for as VEHEMENTER NOS states, “the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” - Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:<<<
I recognize those words, but I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. Led like a docile flock, does not mean we abandon the teaching of the Church or good sense. It means we act with patients and humility to understand and discern the truth presented to us in order to follow it with our whole heart.
When in the case I cited, nothing was presented to us to follow in by the example of leadership. Its a non-issue.
>>>They are the ones who give and interpret RC teaching for you, including when the pope blesses a murderous prosodomite politician and treats such as members in life and in death.<<<
Does Christ come to save and bless sinners or not? (Mark 2:17) Who is being placed under the power of whom in a blessing? the sinner seeking blessing or God? In this case the deed being done is not improper. So therefore, Jas 2:18 makes no sense. Blessings don’t mean “an agreement with belief.” It simply does not obtain that kind of condolence.
>>>Never said it was. It distinctly says “a baptism reaffirmation.”<<<
Which we can do at any time, to remind us of what we already have received. This is not inherently improper in any way.
>>>What it means is that in one century it could result in a lively session with the Inquisitor and in another a little publicity.<<<
An Inquisitor would also have more sense and knowledge over the operations of the actions involved. The fact that it is in the press and what is perceived are another matter entirely.
That argument by assertion is is absurd, as it presumes Rome's problematic messy "unbroken" historical descent is the NT basis for authenticity, and that the visible RC church today is that of the NT church, when it stands in essential and distinctive contrast .
And instead of the gates of hell not prevailing against it, she has become as the gates of Hell for the majority of her multitudes, most of which are also liberal as compared with those who hold the classic Prot. view of Scripture.
I myself was raised by devout RCs, and remained in it for 6 years as a weekly RC seeking to serve God after i become manifestly born again (evangelical radio helping me to grow), and know the profound and eternal difference btwn Biblical regeneration and institutionalized religion, RC or Prot, and which Rome fosters, or cultic devotion to herself.
Instead, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the church as the body of Christ, which is visible wherever the gospel of salvation rescues souls from the gates of Hell, as the church is on the offense, and by which converted "living stones" God continues to build His church. (1Pt. 2:5)
And ordaining men, who like Peter, effectually confess the risen Lord Jesus as the Christ, the Divine son of the living God.
Let me ask you what you basis is for assurance of Truth. Rome or Scriptural substantiation in word and in power?
Doubtful any of them watched the video. Perhaps they fear hearing truth from one of their own. The longer video is 2 hours and covers the entire service, beginning with praise and glory songs, scripture readings & reflections, more music, followed by a lengthy tribute to their pastor that included a look back over the past 30 years since he founded this church. The congregation holds this man in very high regard and showed their gratitude throughout the tribute. He does an excellent job of reassuring them as they continue on their journey, while explaining the direction in which his has now moved.
But "I don’t think" simply shows how interpretive such teaching can be. And the interpretation of of what "the teaching of the Church or good sense" is, finds its interpretation in what the church does. And if what this is understood to be by the local ordinary is not corrected by those above them then it implicitly sanctions it.
And magisterial teaching needs interpretation, and believe is shown by works, and we have popes themselves doing such things as a RC apologist cites worked to drive him toward being like a SSPX.
It means we act with patients and humility to understand and discern the truth presented to us in order to follow it with our whole heart.
RCs can passively teachably dissent from non-infallible teachings - provided they know which are which - but they are not to objectively examine the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, but submit to Rome, as your assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
As Keating states: "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275; http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
Approved teaching states such things as this:
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
When in the case I cited, nothing was presented to us to follow in by the example of leadership. Its a non-issue.
Really? This is also your interpretation, which others FR RCs differ with, and a RC Cardinal being anointed by a female pastor would certainly be censured no many years ago by Rome, and it certainly infers relativism, including sanction of female pastors, and a liberal one i am sure.
Does Christ come to save and bless sinners or not? (Mark 2:17)
Not only was this "pastor" a female, but Rome's position is that she is the rep. of Christ which dispenses the blessing, not the recipient of grace via female Prots.
"And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better." (Hebrews 7:7)
In this case the deed being done is not improper.
It is, under the RC elitist position, as Rome is the "better" and also does not sanction women pastors. . Your own brethren will tell you that.
And further showing the interpretive nature of RC teaching, in classic RC teaching this would certainly be censored:
Is it permitted for Christians to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! - (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html)
"It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics." 1917 Code of Canon Law [Canon 1258 ]
"...non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches... it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises;..
So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics... (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 7,8,10 ; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html)
“the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
So therefore, Jas 2:18 makes no sense.
Ja. 2:18 indeed makes sense in any case, as indeed this is showing what one believes by actions.
An Inquisitor would also have more sense and knowledge over the operations of the actions involved.
If you really think an medieval Inquisitor would sanction this, or even a RC taking part in such ecumenical gathering, you are reading Rome's loss of her unScriptural sword and the modern views of V2 back into history.
Jesus did not say that at all.
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek for the idea that Jesus meant Peter to be that which He was going to build His church on. The nouns are not the same as one is feminine and the other masculine and denote different objects.
Like so many non-catholics in this forum, the pastor avers that, over the years, he said things that were damaging and hurt the Catholic Church but, at the time, did not know better. He goes on to explain how his conversion of heart came about and the shame he felt for those negative feelings he once had towards the Catholic Church. He does not appeal to the congregation to join him and his wife on the journey. He uses his time to clarify and justify his decision to join the Catholic Church.
He goes on to describe how the Catholic Church uses the scriptures more than they do; he cites the ethical and moral ground of the church and the life-giving sacraments. He is surprised by what he has discovered but once dismissed. He tells the congregation about the love of catholics for Jesus Christ. Moreover, he leaves them with the message that he and his wife, after traveling along this road for 10 years, are at "peace" and filled with "joy" at their decision.
If he took 10 years to find the RIGHT church; wouldn't a rational person encourage others to do the same?
Something ain't right here!
I am RC and I do think many people are Christians if they profess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Where do you come by a statement that says otherwise?
That depends what century RC teaching you choose (see here ), and how you interpret evn modern teaching , as that can vary as seen here on FR.
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.