Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
It’s clearly stated by The Church that we do NOT consider other Apostolic Churchs (Orientals, Orthodox, Assyrian) to be heretics. Hence the statement that “everybody else is a heretic” is incorrect. We do consider cases like JWs, Mormons to be heretics, but other Protestant groups are more in the gray area and due to the extremely diverse beliefs, it is not possible to give a blanket statement about Protestants or about Baptists.
They're not dead.
makes no sense how often the same people who are so quick to tell you that they are saved, at the same time they don’t seem to have the slightest clue about the immortal soul. What exactly did they think was being saved?
I myself have got to have gone over this about 10 times in the past 12 months.
So it is a misrepresentation by lack of nuance to say we say we are the only true church. And it is a flat and frank misrepresentation to say we think that everyone else is a heretic.
One can only conclude that very many people on your side are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the truth and falsehood OR do know the difference but don't care.
What you have said here —short and to the point—is the way I originally thought a religion forum would be.
Instead I find it quite the opposite most of the time.
Also, there are personal attacks on this thread (as on many religion threads). They are just carefully nuanced enough that they slip under the radar. It’s become an art form with a number of posters here.
“Politeness and honorifics and avoiding personal remarks”-—it would be great to see that.
“It wouldn't be the first corruption of Greek by the west, for sure.”
More condescension. Oh, well. Not unexpected.
“I am aware of that. However, I do not see why. What is lacking in the Eastern Church that is not lacking in the Western?”
I'm not a theologian, kosta50. I know what the Church teaches, but make no claim to understand it perfectly.
My [imperfect] understanding is that it revolves around the failure to be in communion with the See of Peter.
But keep in mind, although the Catholic Church believes that there is an ontological difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, I haven't said that there is an ontological difference between the baptism of Catholics and Orthodox. Or of anyone else validly baptized.
But frankly, I regret getting into a discussion over ontology, as it's sort of beside the point in this discussion, which is about CAUCUS LABELING. The differences between Catholics and Orthodox are sufficient to require different labels. Catholics in communion with the See of Peter include more than Latin-rite Catholics. And common usage gives the name of those Christians in communion with the See of Peter as "Catholics" and those apostolic Christians not in that communion as "Orthodox."
And I think that that is the only assertion made by the Religion Moderator when using those labels.
“’The Polish National Catholic Church is an apostolic Church in the United States that has, as far as I know, continuing apostolic succession, validity of holy orders and sacraments, etc. They are in schism from the Catholic Church.’
“Why?”
If I recall correctly (and I'm only on my second cup of coffee on a Monday morning, so I may not), they left the Church over the issue of trusteeship.
“Sure. Those Catholics who cannot provide proof of baptism or whose baptism did not conform to the baptismal formula practiced by the Church in the first millennium have to be baptized. There is only one ‘valid’ baptism.”
With nearly 50 years of it, my experience of the sacramental record-keeping of the Catholic Church is that it's pretty darned good. With very few exceptions, anyone who made an effort to ascertain the baptismal certificate of a Catholic would receive a prompt and complete response. Thus, I can see that in rare cases, one might be unable to obtain the baptismal record of a Catholic, but I have read that some Orthodox Churches in some places at some times have routinely re-baptized Catholics.
“I would love to hear the excuse for such a belief, since it is not what the Cathodic church practiced in the first millennium.”
I'm not sure what the issue is here. That the Catholic Church regards her baptisms as valid? That the Catholic Church doesn't re-baptize Orthodox folks?
“There is no hostility or exclusion, condescension and contempt by the Orthodox as a whole.”
Well, I certainly haven't met all the Orthodox in the world. Not by a long shot. But I've seen a few here on FR, and I've met more than a few in my 49+ years, and I think that my remarks fairly represent my own experience.
“It is the western hierarchs in general who raise abortion to the level of top dogma (which may itself be a heresy),...”
More condescension mixed with an expression of faulty understanding of the position of the Catholic Church.
Abortion is not a “top dogma” of the Catholic Church.
Rather, the Catholic Church believes and teaches that murder in all its forms is wrong, and that a just society must protect innocent citizens from murder though law. A society is unjust to the degree that it refuses to provide the protection of law to innocent persons. It is fundamentally at odds with the absolute obligation of the secular authority not only to refuse to protect in law innocent persons, but to declare a “constitutional RIGHT” of one class of persons to privately murder without legal consequence another class of persons.
Now, most species of private killing in the United States are illegal, so that those who commit these acts will be prosecuted, and many persons may be persuaded by the pain of the penalty of law from committing private killings. Thus, the Church doesn't go around protesting against serial murderers of born persons. It's already illegal, the state already prosecutes persons who commit such crimes. The state may enforce the law in imperfect ways, may fail in individual cases, but generally, in the United States, the appropriate governmental authorities do a pretty decent job in most places of trying to protect innocent persons from being privately killed by aggressors through the application of law.
Clearly, this isn't the case with the issue of abortion.
The state manifestly fails in its obligation to protect in law unborn persons. And in fact, the governmental authority of the United States has specifically defined the private killing of unborn persons as a “right.” The result is the gross social injustice that over one million innocent persons are unjustly killed per year.
The Catholic Church teaches that that is a horror (it is), and that Catholic politicians must not support such a legal regime, and in fact, must do their best to reverse it.
Think about how much [unfair] criticism Pope Pius XII has received in the past few decades for not saying more against the Nazis for killing Jews. This, in spite of the fact that he DID speak up and condemn the Aryan policies of the Nazis, and that in 1931, LONG BEFORE THE ACTUAL HOLOCAUST BEGAN, the Catholic Church actually EXCOMMUNICATED EN MASSE all the leadership of the Nazi party in Germany.
Was the Catholic Church raising to the level of “top dogma” its fundamental opposition to the Nazi party and its program of racism and anti-semitism? Was it wrong for the Catholic bishops of Germany to excommunicate the leaders of the Nazi party for their abhorrent social program? I don't think that too many folks would say that.
Then why would anyone say something like abortion is the “top dogma” (whatever that means) of the Catholic bishops in the United States? Because they teach generally that no Catholic can support the legal regime of abortion on demand that entirely violates the fundamental human rights of over one million unborn children per year?
Because some bishops have actually connected the dots and asked Catholic politicians who support the legality of the private murder of the unborn to refrain from receiving the Blessed Sacrament?
The reason why the bishops make such a big deal about it is because IT'S A VERY BIG DEAL. It is the SINGLE GREATEST VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES.
It would be VERY DISAPPOINTING if the bishops did not speak out clearly, urgently and forcefully against the wholesale slaughter of an entire class of human persons. It IS very disappointing that our bishops don't do even more than they do with regard to pro-abortion Catholic politicians!
What should be a more important topic on the bishops’ social agenda than the slaughter of over one million innocent children per year?
Health care? Feeding the hungry? Housing the homeless?
The government does NOT ban by law providing health care to the poor. The government does NOT permit one class of folks to literally steal the bread from another class of persons, nor to steal the homes of a class of folks. The government actually has laws to prevent these things.
Even if the society fails to do as much as it should for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, THE POWER OF THE STATE IS NOT USED TO IMPOVERISH, TO STARVE, TO STEAL, TO MAKE HOMELESS OR SICK. But the power of the state IS used to PERMIT PRIVATE MURDER OF AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PERSONS, and practically speaking, the number of persons so murdered is huge.
ONE OUT OF EVERY FOUR UNBORN PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES IS PRIVATELY MURDERERD.
That this is the number one social issue of the Catholic bishops seems appropriate to me, entirely reasonable, and absolutely required on their part.
Ironically, the bishops don't speak forcefully about this because it's an issue of dogma. LOL. If it were an issue of dogma, the bishops would have nothing to say to public square. Dogma and doctrine are the Immaculate Conception or the Incarnation. The bishops have no right, and assert no right to demand that American law recognize the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or the dogma of the Incarnation. That would be silly talk in the United States.
No, the bishops demand that the law be changed to protect unborn persons because it is possible for every man to discern that it is wrong to murder, and that it is the absolute obligation of every state to protect in law the innocent from unjust aggressors.
The bishops require support by Catholic politicians for the legal protection of the unborn not because it makes these Catholic politicians bad CATHOLICS if they don't, but because it makes them HUMAN ATROCITIES, COMPLETE MORAL FAILURES if they don't.
ANYONE - Catholic or otherwise - who refuses to assent to the absolute moral requirement that the state protect in law the basic right to life of all human persons, born or unborn, does great evil, commits objectively grave evil. For those with full knowledge (and all Catholic politicians have full knowledge, constructive or actual) and full consent of the will, they who refuse to assent to this fundamental obligation of the secular authority commit mortal sin.
Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion commit mortal sin PUBLICLY, and it isn't unreasonable to ask these folks to stay away from receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament.
But it is precisely because this is NOT a matter of Catholic religious dogma or doctrine, NOT a matter of Divine Revelation, NOT a matter of Christian belief, NOT matter of religious faith, but an obligation on ALL men to acknowledge the moral law written on their hearts that the Catholic Church has not only the right, but the absolute moral obligation to INSIST that secular authorities protect the rights of unborn human persons not to be privately killed.
sitetest
Thank you Dr.E.
It's the same playbook, just a different poster.
I think the RC's have a hard time understanding why Evangelicals could feel just as comfortable in Reformed churches and vice versa because they are taught there is more to salvation than THE GOSPEL. If you believe more is required for salvation it would be difficult to understand, THE GOSPEL by itself would seem like foolishness.
I woke up and found myself about 150 posts behind...so I hope you will forgive a group answer. These are all related, I think.
Cronos: “The Baptism not being a sacrament to the Baptists is a bit strange to me as I had thought that the “timing” of the Baptism is one of the critical differentiators of the Baptist community.”
If I understand it right, a sacrament imparts grace apart from the faith of the person receiving it. If so, no Baptist I’ve met or read believes that. However, we do believe timing is important. All the examples in scripture are of believers being baptized, and multiple passages only make sense if the person is a convert. Baptizing infants...well, I suppose someone can, but why?
We are born with hearts of stone. We need to encounter God and believe to be born again, with a new heart of flesh, per Ezekial’s illustration. Why would I baptize a heart of stone?
Dr. E: “I take as my Baptist authorities Spurgeon, John Piper and blue-duncan.”
I thought I noted that the SBC comes from a reformed history. There are Baptists who do preach about TULIP - I just have never met one anywhere during my 30+ years listening to Baptist preachers.
And since I have never heard a sermon by a Baptist preacher about TULIP, and since most baptists I’ve met think TULIP is a flower, I conclude that very few baptists are, in fact, calvinists. Yesterday was the first time in my life that I heard someone in a Baptist church mention TULIP, apart from flowers!
boatbums: “I once thought I could never know, but only hope I would be in heaven one day. Because of God’s word, I can say I know I have eternal life and that I will NEVER perish, will never be cast out and will never be lost again.”
So very true, and so very sad that anyone would think ‘Good News” meant, work hard and see if God approves of you at the end! The Jews of the time would have called that “Bad News”, not Good!
Forest Keeper: “The SBC is not “Reformed Baptist” in that it does not teach Reformed theology at its core, as you went on to indicate. Rather, it seems to purposely and ambiguously teach a mixture of Arminianism and Calvinism. IOW, the SBC doesn’t take a stand, but it DOES tolerate Reformers in their churches even though the majority is Arminian.”
Agreed. A weakness of the SBC is its lack of interest in doctrine. However, it is also a strength. The SBC exists largely to support missionaries. It once broke with Northern Baptists over the issue of missionaries owning slaves...I don’t think they want a repeat.
I believe most Calvinists grant that us free will types can still be Christians, and I grant that someone can be a Calvinist - Calvin remains one of my favorite commentators - and Christian. So lets support missionaries and save the disputes for elsewhere.
At least, I THINK that is why the SBC waffles the way it does. But in terms of what folks in the pews believe, I’d guess it is strongly free-will, regardless of its heritage.
Dr E: “You said you haven’t had much contact with TULIP.”
Not in church, from preaching or teaching. I have read quite a bit on my own. One of my favorite websites is here:
http://64.13.227.128/directory/
A web site called “Monergism” isn’t going to have much free will stuff on it! And John Piper has hundred of sermons linked there, I’d guess.
I was sliding toward the dark side & calvinism when I read more on that site...and decided I couldn’t reconcile the L & I in TULIP with scripture.
Cronos: “For example, I’m right now travelling through India and I’ve met a large number of very devout Baptists in the N-E of India (incidently, did you know that 3 of the 28 Indian states are 100% or nearly 100% Baptist?) and their theology is purely Arminian.”
Good to hear, although I’m not Arminian. I don’t think I am, at least. I think a lot of the FW / PD debate engages in a false dilemma between the two.
??? “For example, Arminians believe in Sola Fide and total depravity. However, Arminians also believe that true faith can be lost and hold the synergistic view that salvation is partly due to man’s choice to believe. IOW, Arminians believe they are elected from their faith and Calvinists believe they gain faith because they were elected.”
Then I’m NOT Arminian! I don’t believe that someone who has been born again will be unborn. I also don’t feel very synergistic. That has connotations of believing we do something to approach God, and gain his favor, which I reject. No one seeks God, but God seeks us. And if I accept someone else’s payment on my behalf, I sure haven’t done anything to merit having the debt paid.
Forest Keeper: “So, what I am saying is that in my experience of attending an SBC church for about 20 years, the differences such as the above are not talked about. Some sermons talk about us making the free choice for Christ, while others highlight that God chose us before we chose Him. These technically conflicting views are spread out enough so that no one notices, except perhaps Reformers. :)”
True.
FK (can I call you that for now?): “So, when my Pastor does the invitation at the end of the sermon under the premise that God wants all to be saved I do bite my tongue a little.”
“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” - 2 Peter 3
“”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” - John 3
John MacArthur was asked what he preached when he encountered a passage about predestination. He said predestination. What about when you encounter a passage supporting free will, he was asked. I preach free will, he replied.
So how do you reconcile them, he was asked. And he replied, I don’t. God’s Word teaches some things I don’t fully understand, so I just preach what I find.
That seems good advice.
Dr. J Vernon McGee said, “There are certain things which I believe that to me are not contradictory, but they certainly are paradoxical. Election and free will happen to be one of those...There is a theological argument that rages today on election or free will. There are some people who put all their eggs in the basket of election. There are others who put all their eggs in the basket of free will. I’m not proposing to reconcile the two because I have discovered that I cannot. If you had met me the year that I entered seminary, or the year I graduated, I could have reconciled them for you. I never have been as smart as I was my first year and my last year in seminary. I knew it all then. I could reconcile election and free will, and it was a marvelous explanation. Now I’ve even forgotten what it was. It was pretty silly, if you want to know the truth...You can argue about divine election and free will all you want to, but it works. You cannot make it work out by arguing, but it sure works out in life, friend...”
He also wrote, “I don’t know how to reconcile them, but they are both true. The Father gives men to Christ, but men have to come. And the ones that come are the ones, apparently, whom the Father gives to Him. You and I are down here, and we don’t see into the machinery of heaven. I don’t know how God runs that computer of election, but I know that He has given to you and to me a free will and we have to exercise it. Because Spurgeon preached a “whosoever will” gospel, someone said to him, “If I believed like you do about election, I wouldn’t preach like you do.” Spurgeon’s answer was something like this, “If the Lord had put a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect, I’d go up and down the street lifting up shirttails, finding out who had the yellow stripe, and then I’d give them the gospel. But God didn’t do it that way. He told me to preach the gospel to every creature that ‘whosoever will may come.’” Jesus says, “and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” So, my friend, you can argue about election all you want to, but you can come. And if you come, He’ll not cast you out. Someone may ask, “You mean that if I’m not the elect I can still come?” My friend, if you come, you will be the elect. How tremendous this is!”...Does election shut out certain people? No. Life eternal is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent. Do you have a desire to know the true God and Jesus Christ? Then you are not shut out. You must be one of the elect. He gives eternal life to those who have heard the call and have responded down in their hearts. They have come to Christ of their own free will...We cannot avoid the doctrine of election, nor can we reconcile God’s sovereign election with man’s free will. Both are true. Let’s keep in mind that this is His universe.”
But here's a fact: What I ask myself when I encounter the argument that the only thing that matters is THE GOSPEL, and the related assertion that Evangelicals and Reformed people are alike in "the only thing that matters," then I wonder if it follows that these people are allowing themselves to be separated by things that do not matter.
You are over simplifying this by continuing to use the English word "pray". Why don't you apply some of that good old Protestant hermeneutics we hear so much about and dissemble the word pray in the context of its Scriptural usages.
You are continuing to confuse the act of prayer with the act of worship. These are clearly not the same so you cannot continue to use them interchangeably.
Prayer is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire a knowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God. This may be done by acts of praise and thanksgiving, but petition is the principal act of prayer. The words used to express it in Scripture are: to call up (Genesis 4:26); to intercede (Job 22:10); to mediate (Isaiah 53:10); to consult (1 Samuel 28:6); to beseech (Exodus 32:11); and, very commonly, to cry out to.
Over the years I have and found one constant. It's like dealing with a bunch of lawyers arguing over the definition of the word "is". IOW, you will never get a straight answer about anything the answer will change to fit the curcumstance.
Suppose I was in a cult called the OverLords and demanded you call me an OverLord. Implicit within the name is how you should regard me. See how clear that is.
I have been "corrected" (if that's the right word) many times about the use of "Protestant" and "protestant" and it has been argued that the word does NOT refer to protesting the role of the Papacy rather is more like "professing" or "confessing."
Irregardless of the "correct" definition the definition supplied has no implicit meaning associated with it that demands one acknowledge a supreme authority through the use of that name.
As to the facts about the contribution of Catholic thinkers to the notion of natural rights, if you don't like 'em, you don't have to believe 'em. But that doesn't make them untrue or revisionist.
I've already acknowledged ancient Romanists and even contemporary Romanists have accepted natural rights. But to make the silly statement that the Protestant wars against Romanist tyranny is a myth leaves me shaking my head.
"I don't really know what they think, but I know it's wrong." Is one variant. The other is, "Not only do I not know what they think, it also doesn't matter much, so I'll just charge them with whatever comes to my mind."
Gotta love the use of “irregardless” in a sentence that deals with ‘correct definitions’ and ‘no implicit meaning.’ It’s practically sublime.
Do words always have only one definition?
Of course not - but ‘irregardless’ has less than one
Oooooh.
Thanks for the smile.
“And since I have never heard a sermon by a Baptist preacher about TULIP, and since most baptists I’ve met think TULIP is a flower, I conclude that very few baptists are, in fact, calvinists. Yesterday was the first time in my life that I heard someone in a Baptist church mention TULIP, apart from flowers!”
That is odd. Every Baptist church that I have attended has had a Calvinist Pastor. My father was a Dispensational, Calvinist, Baptist Pastor for over 70 years; never gave an altar call, just trusted the preaching and teaching of the Word and the Holy Spirit to bring people to a realization of their election.
The majority of the professors at the Seminary I attended were Calvinist Baptist. None were Reformed Baptist because of differences in eschatology and covenant theology.
Nope. Implicit in the name MIGHT be how YOU think I should regard you. How I should in fact regard you is another matter. I think most Baptists abuse baptism. I have no problem calling them Baptists.
I just don't agree. I could call Queen Elizabeth "Ma'am" or "Your Majesty," while I was explaining to her whjy I think the English monarchy is bogus.
But to make the silly statement that the Protestant wars against Romanist tyranny is a myth leaves me shaking my head.
Where did I say that? You are attributing to me something I did not say.
Sometimes this is really disorienting. I was talking about the THOUGHT , the THEORY, the IDEA of natural rights. I made no mention of any wars. At least I don't remember doing so.
Again:
But to make the silly statement that the Protestant wars against Romanist tyranny is a myth leaves me shaking my head
Okay. Just to show that this is connected to some reality, please show me where I made that statement. What's the post number and what words did I use?
I would have thought the quotation marks would have made it clear. My bad. Let me make it clearer for you.
Irrespective of what you think is the correct definition...
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.