New Mexico: Family Sues Minister For H--- Of A Prediction

Of course, it does move RCs, especially American ones, somewhat closer to us sola scriptura folks.

I think it's a situation where, after the Second Vatican Council II, liberals pressed very hard with their notion that the Scriptures are "mistaken in a lot of places, but none of the errors obscure the important truths that God wanted to express."

Many Catholics, myself included, were taught this pernicious idea in school.

The reaction to the wave of liberalism naturally prompted orthodox Catholics like myself to defend the complete and total inerrancy of Scripture. In order to stand up to their attacks, we were compelled to study Scripture more intensively and more motivated to learn the original tongues.

So we've become more insistent on inerrancy, which is closer to your position.

Additionally, many clergymen prefer to give Oprahesque sermons that are long on feelings and short on erudition. I know that inspired me to go home and study the day's readings, because I wasn't getting any instruction from my pastors.

Additionally, many clergymen prefer to give Oprahesque sermons that are long on feelings and short on erudition. I know that inspired me to go home and study the day's readings, because I wasn't getting any instruction from my pastors.

I've heard the same from other RCs online, about the weakness of the teaching. sinkspur, an educated layman of some kind, frothed about it a while back when he mentioned that, no matter how lame the priest was at teaching and exposition, that his own well-received solid teachings were thrust aside in favor of some milquetoast remarks delivered with a certain indifference but that he was allowed some puny role of serving tea and such at little parish get-togethers. I could see his point. But then, non-Roman churches quite often have laymen that are more talented at exposition than the professional Christians (clergy) are.

I guess since I mentioned his name, I should flag him.

I think sinkspur may actually be an ordained deacon, but I'm not sure.

One of the main problems, I believe, is the managerialism that has infected the Catholic hierarchy.

I think the scourge within the Reformed churches is called "diaprax"?

I wonder if that local parish -- working in conjunction with a funeral home collection setup -- has a set fee for use of facilities and preachers for funeral services.

If so, personal opinion insults should entail civil liabilites.

I think the scourge within the Reformed churches is called "diaprax"?

Well, diaprax is just a special version of the Hegelian dialectic (Marxist manipulation technique). The same thing is practiced in education circles and known there as the Delphi technique. Many Baptists are already well-aware of it. And we're a little to cantankerous to be as susceptible as other denominations might be. We're just not quite polite and social enough for it to work well enough to overtake our leaderships. Naturally, the complete independence of each SBC church from the SBC associations and the the SBC conference itself is also a safeguard.

From what I can tell, this diapraxis thing is the same old group manipulation technique that they gave a new name so they could get primarily a bunch of evangelicals and charismatics to fall for it. Much like "outcome-based education", the change agents (liberal instigators) know in advance that the labels must be changed regularly so that resistance does not build to a single label. So, as the label becomes better known and understood, they come out with 'something new' which is actually the same thing with a new name but which they will insist is entirely new and not the same as the old dialectic technique.

We Baptists, and especially SBC Baptists, are pretty cynical about innovation. If you grasp our reading of scripture, we're kept fairly safe by the fact that our theology is well-established and the real challenge among SBC Baptists is to live our faith, not to innovate. We are also, in comparison to, say, Presbyterians and other Prots, not as intellectually oriented toward our faith and our association. Innovation is not really welcomed as those who understand our faith and 'tradition' as Baptists recognize that there really are no new paths to follow although, from time to time, it might be advisable to modernize our outreach and mission efforts to keep pace with the times and with modern people. The SBC is, for all practical purposes, at the end of its theology with no new worlds to conquer. There is no Vatican II-style reform in our future. We may argue a bit of Calvinist doctrine (if you can even get anyone to start a discussion of it!) or premillennialism (if you can ever get them to stop blathering about the latest Left Behind, Volume 78!) but there is little else to disrupt our plain and unadorned scriptural and theological unity.

As Baptists, we really have only the scripture. We desire only the scripture. If we don't have scripture, we would not be Christians and generally wouldn't bother with any church. We quite often hear in Baptist circles that if the Bible isn't enough or if it is not the true Word of God, then we have nothing but superstition and we are fools. We have quite an extreme and non-philosophical outlook in this matter. In this sense, we remain probably the most sola scriptura of the major non-Roman denominations. This is why, as Rome no doubt recognizes, we are the last real fundamentalists in the old sense of the word. And Rome probably also knows that these peculiar features of the Baptist churches are their strength. We have, like many other denominations (including Rome's) a peculiar culture that has developed over time. We are not as entrenched in it as some of the Prots or Rome since our history is not as long and especially given that we have effectively reached the end of our theology.

As you can tell, I find this to be a very interesting topic and I could drone on about it for hours. I'm sure you recognize in some of these elements the strength of Baptist numbers nationally and our ability to match Rome's steadfastness on matters such as pro-life/pro-family doctinre and politics (voting). It's actually rather amazing when you recognize that we do this without any true central authority at all comparable to Rome's hierarchy or the centralized leadership among the Prot denominations which have led so many of them to liberal incoherence and falling membership.

Do you REALLY think that comments such as that, made at a time such as that, would be likely to cause people to repent of whatever they needed to repent of? More likely it hardened hearts.

IMHO the priest didn't care one whit about the parishioners' souls. He had an axe to grind against the deceased or the deceased's family, and he was being vindictive.

Is it lawsuit material? No. But that priest is no man of God either.

Quote: "Good Ole Baptist Preachers once preached Hell and Damnation every chance they got."

Yep, and I got a bellyful of that kind of preaching when I was a youngster. That's why I'm a FORMER Baptist.