Mohler on Benedict XVI April 18, 2008
Posted by Paul Edwards in Uncategorized.Tags: Albert Mohler, Pope Benedict XVI
trackback
Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr. is the ninth president of the Southern Bapist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention. He writes regularly for Newsweek’s “On Faith” blog and he recently addressed the fundamental differences which remain between Evangelicals and Catholics.
Perhaps the most clarifying moment since his election came last July when the Vatican released the document known as “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church” – a document that reasserted the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church.
I actually appreciated the Pope’s concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Yet, I am convinced that he is not right — not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right in understanding the church.
The Roman Catholic Church believes that evangelicals are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals are concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.
Read the entire “On Faith” post here.
Dr. Mohler has a point. I can appreciate the Popes desire to save my erring soul (But “It is well with my soul, thank you very much!) and most of all I can appreciate the fact that he sticks to his guns where his doctrinal convictions lie.
To bad evangelicals can’t figure that out. We have the truth but now seem to think that to be healthy we need to question everything to come to some higher state of spirituality.
The current state of evangelicalism reminds me of the new Geico commercial with James Lipton where the “real guy” says he has question about his policy and Lipton then responds “He has questions…How existential!” That line sums up where evangelicals are headed….we have questions…how existential…aren’t we now enlightened!!!
Sad
RE: ” fundamental differences ‘which remain’ between Evangelicals and Catholics.”
I was unaware that ANY differences have been resloved…… “most holy father, your holiness”?
Thanks be to God we can know the true Holy One!
Sorry Mr. Pope, your righteousness is like mine!
Having questions is not sad…but, as evangelicals, we should know where to find the answers…Biblical illiteracy…now that is SAD! A love letter written for the ages and all of human kind…left unread… now that is SAD.
Nancy,
I think what Tim means is that it is sad that evangelicals are now celebrating the questions (i.e., their lack of faith) rather than resting confidently in the answers Scripture provides. Of course we will have questions, but the emergent trend in evangelicalism is to simply let the questions be our creed rather than the answers.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. There are great questions all through the bible…”What must I do to be saved? is one that comes to mind. We know the answer to that question. God clearly gives us the answer in His Word.
The point I am making is that many now like to question the answers (actually doubt them) found in scripture and act like they have achieved some new, higher state of spirituality. “There is a way the seems right unto man, but the end thereof is the way of death.”
I’ll stick with the answers that are plainly laid out by God, thank you.
Tim
As in ~~~~ “Ye hath God said”?
The origin of the questions is also clear from scripture.
The difficulty has always been in the obedience, as I can speak from experience.
Any one got a garden hoe, I’d like to sever a snakes head.
Ecclesiastes 12:11-14 (The Message)
11 The words of the wise prod us to live well.
They’re like nails hammered home, holding life together.
They are given by God, the one Shepherd.
12-13 But regarding anything beyond this, dear friend, go easy. There’s no end to the publishing of books, and constant study wears you out so you’re no good for anything else. The last and final word is this:
Fear God.
Do what he tells you.
14 And that’s it. Eventually God will bring everything that we do out into the open and judge it according to its hidden intent, whether it’s good or evil.
Paul, I think that theological liberalism that is infiltrating in both the evangelical and catholic circles makes the dialog impossible. And even though we a lot of important differences like the ones pointed out by Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr., we should be happy that the pope is not part of the liberal bunch. Chesterton (a Catholic) said this almost a century ago: “We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. ” His prophesy is coming true today in both evangelical and catholic churches.
Benjamin,
A conservative Roman Catholic may be staunch, but he is staunchly supporting an error. There are lots of conservative Roman Catholics, mormons, etc. but being conservative in the defense of a false belief system is not a virtue.
Arthur Sido, I would try to avoid comparing Roman Catholics to mormons. Conservative Roman Catholics believe in Trinity, believe in Jesus’ bodily resurrection, believe in the Bible. Calling it a “false belief system” means denying all the beliefs that they hold, including beliefs that we share. Remember, it was called reformation, not revolution.
Paul, I have to take issue with you when you say “it is sad that evangelicals are now celebrating the questions (i.e., their lack of faith) rather than resting confidently in the answers Scripture provides”.
“Celebrating questions” does NOT necessarily or logically mean a “lack of faith”. This is netiher fair nor accurate. Rather, it means an intellectual honesty as opposed to pretending to have answers about things of which you really cannot be absolutely certain. Take for example dispensational eschatology - sure, it’s one way to interpret scripture, but this recent innovation cannot be proven to be the sole, authoritative, accurate view. To have questions about its validity doesn’t mean a person “lacks faith”; that’s absurd.
It’s one thing to interpret scripture from a reformed, systematic theology approach and say that you “believe” something to be the correct interpretation; it’s quite another to say you are absolutely certain that your interpretation (and method) is the only correct one and anyone who doesn’t ascribe to it lacks faith (or worse yet, is a heretic or unsaved). To go that far is incredibly arrogant, something that the emergents cringe at as they try to have a “conversation” with the world rather than a polemic.
And to say “the emergent trend in evangelicalism is to simply let the questions be our creed rather than the answers” is a completely unfair and inaccurate statement. I’m surprised. I can sort of understand pulling that on the radio show to generate controversy so your listeners are engaged, but here?
I do think the emergents (and emerging, and missional types) appreciate the earlier creeds as boundaries outside of which is heresy and inside of which things are open to discussion and interpretation. But to take the Westminster Confession or Scofield or Larkin or Ruckman or Warren or anything else as the sole definition of orthodoxy and biblical faithfulness is to form a modern day Phariseeism that we’d be better off without.
I sort of tripped on your site but it’s amazing how much time you spend discussing the differences between Catholics and Protestants! I happen to be one of those ‘conservative’ Catholics with many Protestant and Jewish friends. I think the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen said it best when he stated that few people hated the Catholic Church but millions hate what they BELIEVE to be the Catholic Church. In other words, there is much that people misconstrue. It seems, however, that many of you DO indeed HATE the Catholic Church. Hmmm. Too bad. I almost left the Catholic Church about 10 years ago until I began to really RESEARCH what seemed anti-biblical and what didn’t make sense. Once I really took an HONEST and PROFOUND look into it, well, there was just no turning back. You are certainly welcome to your own opinion … just be kind and loving and constantly open for Christ’s truths!
Bob,
‘But to take the Westminster Confession or Scofield or Larkin or Ruckman or Warren or anything else as the sole definition of orthodoxy and biblical faithfulness is to form a modern day Phariseeism that we’d be better off without.’
Ok here you take a document written by the finest theologians of the English Reformation written throughout over 1,000 sessions and associate it with a bunch of whack-jobs. And no, confessional statements were not written to catalogue a certain era and cultures ‘religious thoughts’. They were designed to summarize and outline some of the basic teachings of the Bible. Most confessional churches do not consider those who disagree with the Westminster Confession or any other heretics, only those who disagree with the orthodox Christian creeds. However, they will concede that those who disagree with many of their points are wrong… What I don’t understand is how these emergent folk get off on calling historic Christianity and those who subscribe to any of their traditional propositional statements as “pharisees”. Do they even understand what the Pharisees were about? They were about self-righteousness… do this, do that, do, do, do… everything that the emergents say. Even Rob Bell while defending himself in Relevent Magazine stated that the critics are in no place to criticize him because of the ‘good things’ he has done. THAT is Phariseeism. Basing your entire hermeneutic off of the tradition of the rabbis who killed Jesus, also seems to qualify. I honestly don’t understand how someone can claim that documents written centuries later (Talmud, and Mishnah) are the key to understanding what Jesus really meant. Anyways, it seems as if the entire emergent movement is the final result of some of American ‘evangelicalisms’ most treasured presupposition… suspicion of anything historic and authoritative(confessional statements, church discipline) and pragmatism.
Bob,
Also I, and many others are frustrated by this emergent tendency to want to categorize everyone else and then in a post-modern haze deny any kind of categorization of accusations against them. For example, I am currently reading the book “Why Were Not Emergent” and one of my co-workers reacted to it by stating, “And just how can you define emergent!” Paul is right, the questions are their creeds and this is evidenced by emergent villages refusal to make any statement of faith. I think Ravi Zacharias said it best, “…postmodernists do not want to be boxed in. They just want to be able to stigmatize others without attaching a name to themselves. They shun categorization of anything to which they hold.”
Jen,
What exactly about the Catholic Church is it that Protestants misunderstand?
Ben
I’m surprised at your apparent semi-validation of the Roman Catholic system. Are you suggesting that if a religion adheres to these three (or more); “Conservative Roman Catholics believe in Trinity, believe in Jesus’ bodily resurrection, believe in the Bible.”, they can be given a certain level of acceptability within the definition of “Biblical Christianity”? I suggest Satan believes in these also. It is what they believe in addition to these that qualifies them as “false”.
The belief that infant baptism has any saving power, or the belief in sacramental salvation, or that we must confess sin to man and can be granted forgiveness of said sin by this man, or that God is accessible through saints, or that the Pope is a “most holy father” , to only mention a few.
You are correct when you state that it was a reformation not revolution and that is the very problem. What was needed Was a revolution, as evidenced by the carry over of much of the Catholic system the reformers were opposing, IE: sacramental salvation, infant baptism. They needed to throw the bathtub out not change the water. The reformers had the same difficulty that some leaders today have, that is an attempt to find a commonality in the Roman system with that of true Biblicists.
So my brother, I leave you with this thought;
Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
don
In defense of Paul, and before getting too excited about the reformation/revolution, we might all take a look at the title of this blog:
The God and Culture Blog, Cultural Commentary from a Reformed Theological Perspective
And, even if you are not of this particular perspective, he lets you have your say and kindly posts your comments.
Nancy
This is why we love Paul
don, here is what I said: ” Calling it a “false belief system” means denying all the beliefs that they hold, including beliefs that we share.”
I did not and will not start the whole debate about the Catholic church. All I was trying to point out is that we should be careful when making sweeping claims and equating Mormons to Catholics.
St. Augustine was a Catholic, was he the supporter of a “false belief system” ? Was he wrong about some things? Yes, without a doubt; however, I can’t say that I’ll not meet him one day in heaven.
George Barna states that:
“Protection from eternal condemnation for one’s sins is widely considered to be earned rather than received as a free gift from God. Half of all adults (50%) argue that anyone who “is generally good or does enough good things for others during their life will earn a place in Heaven.” Although that view is generally considered to be Catholic doctrine and is one of the core beliefs over which the Protestant Reformation was waged, four out of ten Protestants accept this view of salvation ensured by good deeds. Almost half of the non-evangelical born again Christians also adopt this view, in spite of the fact that they have prayed for the forgiveness of their sins and asked Jesus Christ to be their savior - actions which they believe were the basis of their assurance of salvation. Apparently, large numbers of the non-evangelical born again adults believe that people have a choice of means to salvation, either the grace-alone or the salvation-though-works approaches.
In yet another break from biblical teaching, three-quarters of adults (74%) agree that, “when people are born they are neither good nor evil - they make a choice between the two as they mature.” In other words, the concept of original sin is rejected by most Americans in favor of a rational choice approach to human nature. At least seven out of ten members of every demographic segment examined accepts the notion of choice over that of original sin. Unexpectedly, the survey data reveal that a slight majority of evangelicals (52%) also buy this notion.” (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=122)
The concept of saved by faith alone is slowly loosing ground, not only in Catholic churches but in Evangelical as well. Arminianism, Pelagianism, and semi-Pelagianism are more and more popular.
Another question Benjamin…Does popularity trump truth?
No. Thank God that it doesn’t!
But as Evangelicals, we’re so quick to show how heretic other churches are without looking at the state of our churches.
Ben
I hear you, Catholics are not Mormons, but;
There is some truth in most systems. Where do we draw the line? Where does it cross over into falsehood? How much falsehood is enough to qualify?
Robert Tilton may be found in heaven, do we endorse this brand also?
Another doctrine that is proclaimed in the Word of God is that of ecclesiastical and personal separation.
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
Which tradition?
And one more note, I find it interesting that both Catholics and the Reformers appealed to Augustine for their doctrines.
You may not draw the line where I draw the line, but I suspect we can agree that a line drawn is a valid position to take.
Lord bless you my brother
Don,
I sincerly hope you didn’t mean that comment about Augustine in the same way that Dave Hunt does (ie Calvinists are Crypto Catholics). Augustine basically gave us the reformation… The reformers were not trying to revolt they were trying to reform. The Catholic church actually banned Augustines teachings on original sin and predestination after the reformation, because it was these doctrines which the reformers all held to, in line with Augustine. The corruptions and false teachings within the church did not occur because of Augustine, but because of straying from his teachings on grace. The only doctrine which Augustine held to which the catholic church may still affirm is his doctrine of the church, which I believe is taken out of its historical context.
I used to be a dispensational baptist type who thought that my spiritual forefathers were the anabaptists and/or donatists, and not protestants. If you are viewing Christianity from this perspective, of course you are going to see some similarities between them and Catholocism, because it was never the reformers position to want to throw out everything the church had taught in the last 2,000 years and start over by adhering to a strict biblicism. Rather, they were also trying to reform the churches teaching on tradition, which also goes back to the early church. When the early church referred to tradition, it was those interpretations and systems of doctrine exegeted from scripture based upon grammatical and historical context, and/or the intent of the epistles as told them by the original authors. Errors in such interpretations were aloud to be disputed based upon the unchanging standard of scripture, and thus doctrine would develope and mature over time. This is contrary to the current Roman Catholics stance, that church tradition is equal with scripture, and therefore, they have the excuse to make up any bizarre new doctrine based off their authority concerning ‘tradition’. This is no different than what much of mainline protestant scholarship does today. If we deny the legitmacy of this not only are we rebelling against gifts given to us by God (teachers), we also loose footing in arguing against Rome. So when you see reformed Christians quoting Augustine and the people before them, see it as an advantage and not some sort of Roman Catholic ploy.
Colin
My point is Augustine was all over the board where both sides could use him. I will stay on point in that a reformation of error is still only a side door attempt to find commonality with it. What was needed Was rejection of it. The Roman system did not “stray”, they were never on point! … Pope Peter, apostolic succession, sacraments, Mary as an intercessor, Mary’s sinlessness, the Catholic Church IS the kingdom of God. Further he taught the doctrine of purgatory, infant baptism (and that all that rejected infant baptism were infidels and cursed), he held the Catholic church was above the bible~~ “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church”
Now let me quote John Calvin on Augustine; “If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his”… ” Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so … out of his writings” You state: “…. doctrine would develope and mature over time.” ~~~~ Did Paul know of this?
Question: Do you see Satan in Any of this?
You are correct in the evaluation that I do not hold Augustine in as high of regard as some.
Don,
‘The Roman system did not “stray”, they were never on point!’
It depends on how you define ‘Roman system’ and it seems as if you are painting with a very broad brush. The term catholic is not synonomous with Roman Catholic. Right around Augustines time, and beginning shortly after his time, did the doctrine develope that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the church (which many other bishops and church fathers protested against).
‘Pope Peter, apostolic succession, sacraments, Mary as an intercessor, Mary’s sinlessness,’
All of these the reformers rejected, however many of these came into focus after the reformation, and were not as popular of teachings during their time.
‘Catholic Church IS the kingdom of God’
If Catholic means universal church, not Roman Catholic, then I am in agreement with this. Jesus announced the Kingdom had come with his ministry, and much of his ministry was to prepare his disciples for their role in founding the church which is the new temple, the new jerusalem, and the manifestation of the kingdom (Of course the full manifestation comes after the second coming). I think Daniels prophecy of the stone that is cut out and destroys the statue (worldly kingdoms) and then fills the whole earth, seems to speak of this position of the church slowly building globally. Same with Jesus’s parables of the kingdom as leaven in bread, and the seed in the soil.
‘Further he taught the doctrine of purgatory’
He made several references to the word ‘purgatory’, but his concept was nothing like the Romish doctrine of today. He was probably influenced by the popularity of the teaching in certain fathers of the day, who were mixing Greek thought with Christianity. Keep in mind Augustine was reforming throughout his life, and there is a difference between early Augustine and late Augustine. Also City of God was actually published without his permission because he had further editing to do, so we do not know for sure how he thought at the time it was published. However, towards the end of his life we see him turning from the legitimacy of Greek Philosophy and becoming more reliant on scripture, and more “calvinistic’ in his soteriology.
‘infant baptism ‘
This depends upon if you interpret the Bible in a strict covenantal framework, a dispensation framework, or somewhere in between. Namely, is the New Covenant built off of the Old Covenants or not? Is a New Testament verse that says ‘go and baptize infants of believers’ needed to establish the doctrine, or is the absence of any abrogation of the the fact that when we enter into a covenant with God our household are included evidence that it should continue? This is a whole other topic which could be debated, but it is one that Godly, Bible believing Christians hold to on both sides. From my understanding of the doctrine, the concept of baptismal regeneration was just arising around Augustines time, and it seems that the early church may have held to a ‘means of grace’ concept similar to that of the reformers concerning communion and baptism.
he held the Catholic church was above the bible~~ “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church”
No big deal, in his day Catholic meant universal, not nessecarily Roman Catholic (especially not in the sense that we see today). The Church was still essentially unified in his day and built off the foundation that the apostles and early church had layed. Therefore, anyone who would reject such a fellowship was usually a heretic… I, in my historical context, would also say that if it weren’t for the church I would never have recieved the Gospel or been introduced to the Bible. The Bible is the supreme source of the churches doctrine, unity, and standards, but remember Jesus did found a church! He was so serious about the churches authority that he said whatever they bound or loosed on earth would be so in heaven. He also said concerning issues of church discipline and decisions, that when they gather and make decisions he is in their presence.
You state: “…. doctrine would develope and mature over time.” ~~~~ Did Paul know of this?
Yes, such occured from the Old Testament to the New (progressive revelation), and even within the New Testament we see more and more light being shed through the Gospels and Epistles (Look at Pauls first epistle to the Galatians and then look at Romans). The Question is this; do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that if led by the Spirit while using our minds and the Laws of Logic that God imposes upon the world through general revelation we can come to truth concerning what it says? Can such truth be systematized into a worldview? When we test the veracity of our interpretations against others, can we be confident we can apply that worldview to the world around us?
Colin
So in other words, there are few absolutes in your framework. There are many in mine.~~ We will just disagree.~~ You hang with Rome. Your words speak for themselves.
“See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” When infants are capable of this, I’m on board. You see, I was a ’sprinkled’ infant at the Redford “Presbyterian” Church in 1952. It did not save me any more than the rest. But thanks be to God I was gloriously saved thereafter at the table of “preaching”, by which process “pleased God”.
An, “absence of any abrogation”~~ has never been a sound way for me to establish doctrine.
“Keep in mind Augustine was reforming throughout his life”~~The Church was still essentially unified in his day and built off the foundation that the apostles and early church had layed.
Hard for me to parallel these two.
“Also City of God was actually published without his permission because he had further editing to do, so we do not know for sure how he thought at the time it was published”
I also have made statements that needed further editing, praise the Lord, doctrine was not built upon them. But, he still made them!
“He also said concerning issues of church discipline and decisions, that when they gather and make decisions he is in their presence.”
I believe He also stated that this was true when two or three were gathered together in his name, matter of fact we have a promise that He is with us always, even to the end of the world. He also promised that He would never leave me nor forsake me!
“No big deal” ~~~ It was and still is to many.
The Question is this; do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that if led by the Spirit while using our minds and the Laws of Logic that God imposes upon the world through general revelation we can come to truth concerning what it says?
Oh Yes I do! The difference is where we apparently find our guidance to comprehension.
” Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:” vrs the Laws of Logic.
BTW, Augustine promoted Mary’s sinlessness, and this was prior to the reformation era, (so much for original sin).
Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:
And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places
Thanks for the engagement, it’s been enjoyable.
don
1. We hear
2. We are called
3. We choose to respond
4. We (our spirits) are regenerated (made new creatures)
5. The process of renewing our mind begins
All of these steps are through the LIVING WORD of GOD and the moving of His Holy Spirit. As we find ourselves in the unity of the body of Christ as a whole, we must hold to the scriptures above all, while sharing in community and relying on the indwelling Holy Spirit, so we don’t degenerate to thinking God is a baked potato and we are all french fries. Or, mashed potatoes as some world views would propose.
Nancy,
I would put number 4 ahead of number 3.
Nancy,
It can be said of you also, as was these two;
“That They Had Been With Jesus”.
Hmmm, the great question…either way they both need to happen. *; )
The highest of all compliments Don. Thank You!
Nancy,
Yes - they both DO need to happen, but I would contend that numbr 3 can’t happen until number 4 does!
Dead people can’t choose! Regeneration by the Holy Spirit must logically precede our response. God’s call to us makes possible our call to Him.
Actually, a precious Lutheran pastor used that agrument when I asked him why they baptised babies. He said…Jesus died for us before we were unable to choose…and that it was at confirmation that a “Lutheran” afirmes the choice already made for them.
Puting #3 before #4? Does that make me a Arminian-Calvanist??? In reality, I never really contemplated either as far as which might need to come first.
Nancy,
Just a couple of thoughts. Ezekiel 11:14 through 11:20 outlines God’s calling of the exiles back to the land as well as salvation. Note that God acts (11:17 “I will gather”) and in 11:19 God changes the heart and gives them a new spirit before they walk in his statues 11:20. I think if you do a careful study of salvation, you will see God, Jesus, the Scriptures, all clearly stating that salvation is by Grace. If we have to “act” first, then it is not by grace, for we have somthing to do with our salvation, correct?
From a New Testement perspective, read John 10 and see the order of things. God has established his sheep and thier salvation long before the sheep even existed. And Jesus is emphatic about who saves, who is saved, and who’s decision it is. 10:27 is great, the sheep hear and follow, and as hard as it is to take, they do so willingly, with no compulsion or hesitation. 10:29 the Father “has” given them, not “giving” them. They are already gifts to the Son and there is no indecision about thier state. Were you filled with joy when God called? or did you come kicking and screaming? For true salvation, it would be hard to believe that we come kicking and screaming
So I would put #3 before #4 as well
Sorry, said that backwards. I would put #4 before #3.
How very precious to me is the scripture of the GOOD Shepherd! I guess I have a story for just about everything*: )…years of walking with and being carried by Our GOOD Shepherd…here is this one…
I really love to listen to and find out what makes things tic. So I am always listening to opions on many, many things and then I compare them to what I KNOW to be true *: ) and weed things out from there. I have read and listened to many theological arguments and was this particular day listening to a famous preacher/teacher on the radio (name purposely witheld). He had a very convencing argument and had been preaching/teaching for some time when… the snake showed up and said… “See, you really missed it, you better get SAVED!” I immeadiately broke into tears and cried bitterly thinking maybe that was true…as always, NEVER fails, I heard the soft sweet voice of Jesus saying…Nancy, I am the GOOD Shepherd…you are safe in My arms…even if you stray…I will never leave you alone without leading you back. That was some 25 years ago…the words GOOD SHEPHERD still bring tears to my eyes.
Which, brings up the doctrine of eternal security…yep, got a story *: )…
Our family spent six years in Germany with the millitary and we attended a Baptist church off base while we were there. The church denomination we had attended in the states (also purposely witheld) did not believe in this doctrine. The question came up quite often because this particular church was the only dependably bible based church in the community outside the base chappel…and, we had many denominations attending, melded together…yes, with MUCH love. Our precious pastor in dealing with this question gave a VERY wise answer…”The real question is…are you saved??? And, if not let’s get that way!”…My favorite answer to date!
This I am sure brings up the question of “false advertising”…or advertising something that is not available to everyone?*; ) That dosen’t sound nice so I think I will bow out…
“… for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”
Who did the believing?
Who received the persuasion?
Who did the committing?
What was committed?
Who keeps that which is being committed?
And finally, What day is “that day”?
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
Paul understood what is was to be persuaded. So do I.
Again. Thank you Jesus. I love you. Your younger brother, (joint heir)
don.
Colin
Jen never responded to your question -
What exactly about the Catholic Church is it that Protestants misunderstand?
There are many. And the understandings are so far off. I will adress a big one.
On the April 18 show it was stated that Catholics do not believe the Christ died for the redemption of sin.
The only call on the topic came from a woman from Detroit. She sounded astonished to learn this shocking fact. She asked, “They don’t believe that Christ died for our sins”. The reply was immediate and adamant “no”. She asked “well then what do they believe?” The reply was, “I don’t know. But it isn’t what we believe”
No one ever checks what the Catholic church actually teaches. They only accept what is told to them without checking facts.
The redemtion thru the cross is the central teaching of the Catholic faith.
You can find out what Catholics believe about Christ’s death at….
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art4p2.htm
This is a link to the catechism. It is easy to read and broken down into bite-sized stand-alone pieces. Scripture references are in the text.
I encourage you to learn for yourself in the church’s own words.
Salvation thru the sacrements is another huge misunderstanding.
Don,
‘So in other words, there are few absolutes in your framework. There are many in mine.~~ We will just disagree.~~ You hang with Rome. Your words speak for themselves.’
When did I ever demonstrate that I am lacking absolutes? And when did I ever demonstrate that I hang with Rome? From my experience it is Reformed Christians (crypto-catholics according to Dave Hunt) who are the most effective at challenging Rome. Whereas, the anti-calvinist independant baptist movement agrees with Rome in their most cherished doctrine (synergism), and provides good fodder for them to present protestants as schismatics and uninformed.
‘When infants are capable of this, I’m on board. You see, I was a ’sprinkled’ infant at the Redford “Presbyterian” Church in 1952. It did not save me any more than the rest.’
I find your arguments to be shallow… The purpose of the New Testament is not to set forth a doctrine of infant baptism, it’s purpose is to present us with the Lord Jesus Christ, and witness to and build up the church, which, unlike in Old Testament times includes primarily Gentiles. Hence, why there is an emphasis of adults professing Christ before they recieve the new covenant sign, in the same way that Abraham first believed and then was circumcised. AND THEN, he circumcised his children, even though THEY WERE NOT ALL SAVED. Presbyterians do NOT believe in baptismal regeneration, or that any baptism for that matter proves that anyone is saved. Rather, just like all other covenants from Noah’s Rainbow to the Jewish Passover, covenant signs are seals of God’s promises and blessings to us. So in the same way the church has been given covenant signs, which are administered to those who qualify, as signs and seals of God’s promises to THEM if they are truly saved, and are not a sign of THEIR obedience to God as SOME baptist theology teaches.
‘An, “absence of any abrogation”~~ has never been a sound way for me to establish doctrine.’
Ok, well what are your feelings about rape? Because rape is only specifically condemned in the OT… Is rape ok because the NT doesn’t mention it? What about bestaility? What about the multiple forms of civil injustice that are condemned in the OT, that the NT says nothing about? Are those things ok now?
‘“Keep in mind Augustine was reforming throughout his life”~~The Church was still essentially unified in his day and built off the foundation that the apostles and early church had layed.
Hard for me to parallel these two.’
Sure, Augustine came from a neo-Platonic understanding of the world, and from the pagan academy of his day so it took him a while to correct all of his thinking with scripture. Also the church was unified and had most of the basics down correctly at the time, however keep in mind they did not have the communication or transportation infrastructure that we have today… so ‘unity’ would look a little more sloppy and misinformed in his day then it does today.
‘Oh Yes I do! The difference is where we apparently find our guidance to comprehension.
” Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:” vrs the Laws of Logic.’
So do you believe that the Holy Spirit and God in general are antagonistic to the laws of Logic? Are you aware that when Jesus is called the “Word”, that is the Greek word Logos, which was a reference in the 1st century to the source of logic and reason in the universe? John is obviously correcting certain groups like the Gnostics, and Philo in their understanding of the Logos when he states “the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. This is because they taught that the Logos was an intermediary impersonal force between God and the world. Everything you have argued in this debate with me was using Laws of Logic (although I think you used them poorly) or else it would be impossible for you to show that you’re right and I’m wrong. If you believe that God is divorced from the operations of this world, then in this area you have an unbiblical belief. God is so intimately involved with this world, that it’s very existence is considered a revelation of Him (Rom. 1). I’m sorry, but in this area your understanding of the Holy Spirit’s leading and your repeated descriptions of faith as a ‘leap’, sounds more like mysticism, and I think you have more in common with the emergent church then you may be aware of.
‘BTW, Augustine promoted Mary’s sinlessness, and this was prior to the reformation era, (so much for original sin).’
“Augustine, who died in 430, A.D., and who was admittedly the greatest theologian of the ancient church, contradicts the idea of immaculate conception, for he expressly declares that Mary’s flesh was “flesh of sin” (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24); and again that “Mary, springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin.” He expressly attributed original sin to Mary in his Sermon on Psalm 2.” (Roman Catholocism, Boettner, Pg. 160)
Colin
No, I just do not trust ‘mans’ logic. You’re assumptions about my faith are flawed. I am not Calvinistic, nor am I Armenian. (this concept is very difficult for the reformed followers to grasp). Both schools of thought have a break from scripture. Both schools ignore some texts to promote another. I simply state I cannot explain the mind of God in many occasions, and where I cannot, I will not force an interpretation upon it just to have a “systematic” formula work. I have one teacher that takes priority over all the others, as I have stated before. I am pretty much a one book man.
Thank you for all the kind compliments.
Put on therefore, as the elect of God, ( I thought you might appreciate this one), holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.
Everything you have argued in this debate with me was using Laws of Logic (although I think you used them poorly) or else it would be impossible for you to show that you’re right and I’m wrong.
I think I will save this in my all time favorite quote file, *; ) It will definitly be in my top five.
mashed potatoes for babies…
How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…