Posted on 01/08/2007 5:34:25 PM PST by dcnd9
I recognize your tactic of repeating I don’t answer your questions. As said earlier, perhaps you just misundestand the answers, or choose not to see them.
I asked you this question:
which of the Protestant Reformers was being led by the Spirit?
You replied by saying that the unity of the Reformers was greater than the confusion in the RCC. That is a reply, but it does not answer the question of which of the Protestant Reformers was being led by the Spirit. You should learn the difference between a reply and an answer.
-A8
I would put most men of the Reformation ahead of the RCC then and today in their understanding of God's grace and Scripture.
I do disagree whole-heartedly with much the RCC teaches. I think it is anti-Scriptural and anti-grace.
I believe, however, that there are saved Christians among the RCC. And yet the RCC does not give me that same benefit of the doubt since it believes there is no salvation outside the confines of the church in Rome.
So who really has the narrower definition of Christian?
Ex Eccelsia Non Salus is also not as rigidly defined as you have put it.
I also think you must know that to be true.
Perhaps you would like explain what you must know to be true about EENS.
Thank you, but my Jesuit-trained, ex-RC by birth, Calvinist by the grace of God husband has explained it quite clearly.
...while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847)...
However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780)...
That's a pretty big "however." So anyone joining a "schismatic church" will not be saved unless and until they repent and return to live in "Catholic unity."
I don't know of any Protestant church that preaches such intolerance as to insist there are no saved Christians among other churches.
Let's see what a few popes had to say...
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.) "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)..."There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
I assume all these declarations by "infallible" popes have been rescinded, along with the anathemas of Trent. No?
No.
That would be similar to asking who was being led by the Spirit, Paul or Barnabus when they each went their separate ways over the dispute with Mark? Was Paul wrong to complain about Mark? Was Mark wrong? Was Barnabus wrong for siding with Mark? Mark and Paul were both apostles. Who was being led by the Spirit.
There were always disagreements in the early church and some of those disagreements are recorded for our edification.
Reformed Baptists. Care to join now that you know the truth?
I suppose that's one way to advance a see we're not really all that hung up on works argument. Could that be more extreme?
Though I think Vatican II advanced the idea that the Orthodox, the Jew, the Moslem, the Protestant, and those trying to be good people can be saved, the only thing I can say to that quote is my goodness!
Thank you, God, for teaching me correct worship.
"That God's word damns your ceremonies it is evident; for the plain and straight commandment of God is, 'Not that thing which appears good in thy eyes shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but what the Lord thy God has commanded thee; that do thou; add nothing to it; diminish nothing from it.' Now unless you are able to prove that God has commanded your ceremonies, this his former commandment will damn both you and them." -- John Knox (Knox, Works, 1:199. Cf. Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, in Tracts, 1:128-29.)
Amen.
Since presbyterians do not have valid orders, their pastors cannot consecrate bread and wine, and so worshipping the Eucharistic elements consecrated by someone without valid orders would be idolatry.
Presbyterian pastors, along with Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist and other Protestant pastors, know from Scripture where true idolatry lies.
He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" -- Isaiah 44:15-20"Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
God willing, they'll all become Orthodox Presbyterians. 8~)
Regardless, we have His assurance that whatever happens is by His will for His glory.
Perfect knowledge is impossible. But what God wants us to know and to do is knowable and doable, and those things are found in Scripture.
The best advice for conflicting points of view is just to return to Scritpure and read. The answer is always there.
LOL. Yep, although there are "gentler" ways to assert that argument.
Absolutely. We have no excuse as He has given us the tools and resources. He expects us to live holy and perfect lives and, when we fail, admit those failures.
“What, is there a spiritual gift to be a waiter?”
Acts 6 is not talking about the office of deacon that Paul writes to Timothy about in 1 Tim. 3. Luke is referring to the verb to serve by waiting on. It was meeting the physical needs of the Grecian widows, not the office. None of the seven are called Deacons. Philip is called an evangelist and all were “full of the Holy Ghhost” before hands were laid on them.
But the difference is that Paul and Barnabus didn't divide the Church and start their own denominations.
-A8
All of the Church fathers disagree with you. I stick with their interpretation over yours.
-A8
“All of the Church fathers disagree with you.”
I know the drill, its only “sola scriptura”. How can that stand up to the Church fathers.
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.