Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
LDS believe too...do you consider them Christian?
-A8
But then it's not enough to "just believe." It's a simplistic slogan. Now you are forced to qualify it.
You are presenting the deceptive "we are all a little right" theology that says no church is God's true church, or, worse, all churches are God's true church; everyone is right a little bit.
God would never teach us such a lie.
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible
Yes it is, it's always possible that even the worst sinner will repent, and that the worst apostate would come back to the catholic and apostolic Church and embrace its orthodox faith.
But you are appealing to your own interpretation of Scripture. They could just appeal to their interpretation of Scripture and say the same thing right back to you.
-A8
Then, based on you rewriting of the post, you undoubtedly think that Jesus is the Author of Confusion. For it is certain that, in the wide spectrum of beliefs you cite, there are essential differences that put to lie the idea that God can BE the Way the Truth and the Life, and His Church can BE the “pillar and ground of the Truth.” He founded all of these denominations, according to you, without regard for having even one essential doctrine agreed upon by all on your list. “Jesus is God/No, He’s only a creature” is but the first of a multitude of contradictions found between the various denominational combinations in your list.
Some God your Jesus is! Mine established THE Truth in His Church, not a multiplicity of mutually contradictory belief systems in a surfeit of man-made denominations.
If you cannot understand that the Church is meant to be a visible, hierarchical structure set in place both to have visibility and create unity of belief, as opposed to merely being an umbrella for “all believers” with no regard for unity of belief, then no one can help you. You’re on your own. Claiming that all of these mutually opposed denominations are all founded by Christ doesn’t get you off to a good start in discernment of essentials. That is Exhibit A for the need for unified, structured, creed-based Christianity, tracing its origin and history organically to Pentecost.
***Are you conceeding that you worship St. Gregory over Christ?***
Think of all the churches that begin with ..”Our Lady of....”
do they worship the Lady?
That is a rather disingenuous comment. I hope your scripture interpretation skills are better than your post interpreting skills.
Which denomination do you think comes closest to getting it right?
-A8
What were the names of the 2 fathers you mentioned in your post?
And as to the “Lutheran” signs, I am not sure of your point. There are quite a few Orthodox here who have complained that many of the churches here in the US are more clubs for the seperate ethnic groups than anything else. Not to say that there are not a great many that are not that way, but there have been some posters here who wish that the "converts" would just leave the church so they can get back to the old ways.
What is your evidence that these "keys" were indeed imparted to you???
If you are honestly surprised in the recent statements from the Vatican, they you haven’t spent any time researching the RCC ecclesiology. By the very nature of their theology, they can not accept that any true Christian Church exists except for one that is in communion and ruled by the Pope. That is in effect, the basis for much of their theology.
Recently in the last 40 or 50 or so years, Rome has said that they are in impaired or partial communion with all those who have had valid Trinitarian baptism (which may or may not include those in Churches with valid Apostolic Succession). In effect, making non Catholic Christian part of the Catholic Church in some sort of way. As a Methodist, I suspect you have a similar doctrine of the Invisible Church.
That statement 40 years ago was news. This isn’t.
Of course that would include Mormons who have Christ as their Lord and Savior. And Arians. And even JWs.
It would not include those who do NOT HAVE Jesus as their Lord and Savior, whether Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian,....etc.
Jesus is not in a box or a bottle. He’s revealed in the true scriptures.
Let us imagine that much written about desert island with a shipwrecked non-Christian stranded on it.
A bottle floats ashore and inside it is Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John....no more and no less.
Could the stranded man hear only the Apostle John’s Chapter 3 account about Jesus and become a true Christian? After all, “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”
I hope so. Ecumenism is largely an evil movement.
It’s called “irony.” But why dodge the essentials of the point I was making? Do you see the contradictions? Do you see that, deriving from your assertion that Jesus “founded” all of these differing belief systems, He evidently *must* be the Author of confusion. Several of the denominations you list deny that Jesus is God from all eternity, while the others affirm it. That’s just for starters. There are, of course, hundreds of other self-evident contradictions between these groups collectively. If my observation of your post is flawed, then, by all means, defend the notion that God is *not* the Author of confusion based solely on that post.
What is the title of the FR article to include parentheses?
1. Ecumenism: the Catholic Church clearly has misrepresented itself to the Protestants....or represented itself in such a way that it would take a team of lawyers to decipher it.
2. Apostolicity: that doesn’t have anything to do with the recent letter...directly. It’s a challenge to the pope’s hyper-denominational claims. It says that their claims of apostolic succession are extremely suspect.
Take Augustine (not an early church father, but bear with me). The Reformed, Baptist, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran confessions all claim him as one of their own. And at times, he fit into each rather nicely. But in the end Augustine was Augustine, and was no more a Lutheran of today than he was a Roman Catholic of today. He believed some rather non Roman Catholic things about predestination at times, though he didn’t make it a hard and fast rule. He also was not sure on the canonicty of the some of the books we debate about today (read his Retractions).
Given enough time, you can find a lot of stuff in the ECF’s that agree with whom ever is reading them. So when xzins says that he agrees with some of them, he is right. And when Claud is shocked by that, he is also right. Depends on who and what you read of them.
It was right there in the RCC catechism! Heck, back in 1998 when the JDF was signed, one of the reason the LCMS and assorted synods didn't sign was because of this very issue! I suspect there were alot of talks done in such a way that everyone pretended that wasn't the position (and from the records of the Lutheran/Catholic dialog, I am sure of it), but it has been on paper for almost 50 years.
As to the RCC "hyper denominational" claims, again that isn't really new. Anyone who is surprised hasn't spent the time to read the RCC catechism or ecumenical statements. They have never viewed it as a union, but as making the other parties convert to Catholicism. Because of their internal structures, they can do it no other way.
Which is why I have never been a big fan of ecumenism. It means that neither side is being honest.
That is a good question. I personally think my own denomination (Calvary Chapel) gets about as close as you can get since we preach the entire bible cover to cover in a period of 5 to 12 years. If I didn't think so, I probably wouldn't go there.
My experience on this forum suggests that as far as doctrinal correctness, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church seems to be among the strongest denominations however, I personally have not been sold on some of their doctrines, but I can see how they come to the positions that they do.
My experience suggests that different denominations tend to have differences in emphasis rather than differences in essentials. This would appear to be why Christ's body is a whole body and not just some glob of flesh. Some denominations tend to take on the role of the head, and emphasize doctrine. Some denominations take on the role of hands, and put a strong emphasis on giving and helping. Some denominations take on the role of the feet and walk to the ends of the earth to spread the Good News. Some take the role of the mouth and put emphasis on teaching.
I thank God for the plethora of denominations. In the essentials I find that most all protestant denominations are in unity. I am certain that if we had but one single Church to which everyone toed the line, that the Church of Christ would become a totalitarian dictatorship. History has shown that when power is centralized, tyranny is the result. The United States of America could never have come to fruition if not for the Reformation and the subsequent dissipation of power away from the centralized European church.
Frankly I am quite comfortable in just about any Christ centered Protestant Church. God led me away from the LDS Church and led me to where I am today. I have some minor disagreements with some of the doctrinal postitions taken by my Church, but those are not essential and are more form than substance.
I know we don't agree on this point, but at least see the logic: If the infallible God establishes His Church and it includes persons, doctrines and structure, should we not follow Him?
And if apostolic succession is an integral part of how God wants His Church to continue until the end of the ages when He will come in glory?
Only God matters and His holy will. I agree. We disagree on what God's will is.
Regardless, you're a gem of a Christian, and your love for Jesus radiates on every post! God bless you and please pray for me.
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.