Posted on 04/24/2017 6:45:59 PM PDT by NRx
Well said!
I seriously doubt that.
You cited the IMB of the Southern Baptist Convention stated views (which even they had allegedly changed -- at least upon some website) rather than my own views which are more accepting of Christians who do not stress the very same things as I (or Baptists) may, in the very same ways.
The first citation was from the Southern Baptists. The second was from the author of the article.
I think another way out (from RCC perspectives) is for them having stated in one place that these 'other Christians' they wrote about, were in "the Church", just not visibly Roman Catholic.
Yet at the same time the condemnations still stand,operating under seemingly different definition of just what The Church is --- as you went into some detail about. In the end, the bigots among Catholicism can find succor for their own personal religious bigotry, allowing them to consider it not bigotry at all --- even as they whine about how others "hate" and are "anti", and are "bigots", etc.
The mindset short-circuits meaningful discussions.
I spend more than half my time defending against personal & false accusations. It's like there is a crew who are desperate that no one ever hear me (or you) out. I wonder why? Could it be --- they know that some things (that they'd rather not have to defend) will be exposed?
Meanwhile, is the cause of Christ being bettered here among these disputations? I for one am not willing to conflate any Church with being in it's membership, or merely only in it's administration -- God, upon earth.
He is not us, and we are not [fully] Him, albeit His Spirit dwell within those whom He has baptized with His Spirit.
What about the part where Ransomed had initially misrepresented these authors we are discussing? He had said they said "do not consider Coptics to be Christian", when in the other article that he mentioned that I provided link for, it was more specifically "do not assume they are" Christian. Isn't that just about how far Roman Catholics will "go" with whatever measure of charity they someof them may hold towards so-called Protestants (while other Romanists often condemn all Protestants to hell at the same time)?
Personally, I thought even the 'do not assume they are Christians' thing was a bit too uncharitable, although when applied down to individual levels, it can apply most anywhere -- including among Southern Baptists. The wheat and the tares, you know? They'd be among the first to agree with that assessment, I do believe...
I'm willing to be a bit freer with benefit of the doubt, even at harshest comparison of doctrines, when the comparisons are aimed towards large groups in general.
But now
we're going to get bogged down in extraneous details? At first I was going to say something about the author's words, then I switched to focusing upon the IMB quote.
How clumsy and imprecise of me. But so what? How much does that matter?
Did I say any of those things? -- you know, the stuff you tried to put into my mouth, as if that's where I stood? Not exactly. What I did say provided rooms for acceptance of Coptics, and others too, as being "Christian", which led me to resent being misrepresented - while you pinged a small group to you're comment.
You still don't understand myself in this. I doubt you ever will.
Your defense of the author, Gideon Knox, is noted.
The author says "Coptic believers are not Christians for the exact same reason Protestants don’t believe Catholics are Christians."
But still not understood by yourself ---for there's been no acknowledgement on your part of where I have differed from him, all along.
I did not say any of that, now did I?
If you bring this up again, it will be be badgering (if it isn't already).
Grow up. Quit playing childish games.
As for your own opinions of Protestants --- what would those be? That they are "not Christians"?
Funny how that works. People who love to dish it out (judgement and condemnation of others) can't take it, and then blame people who are not engaging in that same set of actions for what they are themselves doing.
As for 'Catholics' being Christians --- as far as I can tell, some are, and many quite possibly are total strangers to God, or at the least, are in no real and personal way submitted to Him.
Superficial acquiescence to some set of teachings, a mere mental assent which produces little-to-no Godly fruit is not the same thing as actually being born into His kingdom --a Christian -- not one with much in way of maturity, anyhow, though I suppose there could be some room for personal development to eventually bear noticeable fruit in instances of where a "Christian" isn't a very good one of those?
Wheat and tares. That kind of condition can be found among most any Christian congregation also, it seems. Why should anything else differing from that condition be expected? Care to venture answer towards that?
If you chose to reply to myself again, make the effort to address what I have said, instead of doing everything but that, being as I'm so important around here you are as you said, "taking note"(s).
Whoa little buddy. Take a breath. Correcting the record is not badgering.
You asked in post 45: What about the part where Ransomed had initially misrepresented these authors we are discussing? He had said they said "do not consider Coptics to be Christian" and then you added when in the other article that he mentioned that I provided link for, it was more specifically "do not assume they are" Christian,
I just was showing that the second part of your statement is not entirely true and that Ransomed was correct, by my posting of what Gideon Knox actually wrote: "Coptic believers are not Christians for the exact same reason Protestants don’t believe Catholics are Christians."
Ransomed was right. Not only that, they also said Catholics aren't Christian. At least the Southern Baptists had the sense to back off, even if it was only because their statement would have looked bad after the Coptic beheadings.
That's'all. Apologies if the correction is badgering you.
There was no apology in what you just wrote. There was nothing that you attributed to me (that actually mattered) that was correct.
I did not say nor agree with what you attempted to portray that I did.
Speaking of correction -- when (if ever) will you allow that much to be corrected?
I'm waiting.
No worries; it's been corrected. Ransomed was right; these pulpit and pen jokers are the ones that said the Copts aren’t Christians [as well as Catholics].
The anathemas still hold. They have not been lifted, nor can they be.
But yes, at Vatican II the other side of the coin was also discussed, and that is that since Protestant Baptism is 100% valid, people in those denominations are, by that very fact, incorporated into the Catholic Church. But it remains, of course, an imperfect communion at the start, and without the full complement of sacraments and without clear direction on a host of moral issues including contraception, then it becomes extremely difficult for an adult Protestant to remain in sanctifying grace with God.
Protestants are Christians, yes, absolutely. But Christ calls us to be more than just bearers of the name.
Satire, yes?
By the way, I can’t stand hearing my fellow Catholics whine about “Catholic bashing” and “anti-Catholic”, and I’ve repeatedly said that here.
I’d be anti-Catholic too if I thought Catholicism was the Antichrist. You answer that attitude with facts and boldness in stating the truth, not by, as you said, whining about how put upon we are.
There is no sin where there is no will. Period. End of story.
If a baby is baptized in an Episcopal church, that baby has become a Catholic in fact, if not in name. If he dies shortly afterward, he goes straight to heaven.
Now with adults it gets complicated—but the bottom line is that you cannot be guilty of heresy if you do not *know* you are committing the sin of heresy.
But I will agree with you on this: too many Catholics have gotten way too weaselly on this point. “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is a dogma of the faith that will always stand and can never be contradicted, even as we try to determine what exactly it means to be “outside the Church”.
I'm not your "little" buddy.
Instead, you had attempted to broadcast positions others had stated as their own ---as being my own. You still owe me some kind of apology, for that.
While you're at it, you should tell us just how far you personally either reject, or else accept Protestants (at least some of them) to be Christians. If not, if all are rejected -- then upon what grounds could there be complaint made by others doing something which you do yourself? If it be only reliance upon "this is the Way -- not some other", then that is much what the writer who seems to have gotten under your skin is saying about how he himself explains the Gospel.
Scripture, powerfully, and earliest centuries Christian traditions somewhat less so (there is a mixed record among the earliest traditions) both lend support for the man's positions. Yet like I plainly said from the very first -- Not that I necessarily entirely agree with what the writer Gideon Knox said. I don't have to entirely agree with each point the man discussed just as he wrote of those, to "see" the point(s).
The headline of that other article reads "do not assume". The reasons given in that other article, quoted a bit more in more in full than what you cited, read;
Whether or not you believe the Coptic believers are Christians depends on what you believe the true Gospel is and how you believe one is justified before God. If you believe that being a Christian is not a matter of ethnic or cultural affiliation and hold that one isn’t a Christian unless they’re justified, then in the most simple of terms, Coptic believers are not Christians for the exact same reason Protestants don’t believe Catholics are Christians. Coptic believers do not hold to the authentic Sola Fide Gospel of Jesus, and if they die while still holding to a salvation of merit, they will die in their trespasses and sins, and receive the due penalty thereof.This may sound harsh, but this position is the position of historic Protestantism (and we believe, orthodox Christianity).
How much room is there to consider the above be imperfect towards what Coptics and Catholics actually do personally abide by, regarding how they may consider their own justification in the eyes of the Holy One?
Is it salvation of merit -- yes, or no? An answer here is required (unless this all be some form of mere game-playing on your own part -- and anything further from yourself should be fully ignored).
If the answer would be "yes", then I see the man's point (that such ideas are not truly Christian) although not entirely agree that those who do include considerations towards greater sanctification are "not Christian" )for all true Christians do, though have varying ways of approaching and describing the subject matter). It can depend upon how one orders such doings, it seems to me. Some appear to put the cart before the horse, so to speak.
Another point the man was reaching to make was that the Orthodox can come across as there being absolute necessity for greater sanctification coming about only(?) through religious 'works' which they prescribe ----or else salvation not possible, at all?
If that be the case, and at the same time is was being stipulated that one must "do the work" of greater sanctification which involved, and was intrinsically dependent upon partaking of sacraments administered by a so-called priest, then yes again -- the man has a point.
That is not the Gospel as preached within the NT texts, nor is exactly like the primitive Church viewed such. Greater sanctification is rather more; submitting to the leading of the Lord as led by the Holy Spirit within a person. If that occur in conjunction with partaking of the Lord's Supper, and as it is written -- acknowledging Him in all your ways -- then so be it, all can be well.
If on the other hand it be the outwards process itself that is being stipulated must be religiously observed (or salvation be complete and entire impossibility) here again --- that is not the Gospel of Christ, but is something else that has been added to it.
As far as I can tell, and would guess could apply to more than just a few Coptics also, not all Roman Catholics I have encountered put stock foremost in what the writer termed salvation of merit.
Those who love the Lord will keep the commandments -- and those who do love Him, He will possibly love more greatly than those who know not of Him, and those who refuse to allow Himself to guide them. Yet while we were yet sinners, still He loved [us].
The Lord has told me a few things quite directly. I can rely upon those things, even though it not be reasonable of me to ask for anyone else to do so, since it was of a personal nature -- yet still not some grand new theological outlook -- not at all. In the Scriptures we can all of us find far more towards what the Lord calls us to be. I do flatly refuse to elevate teaching of the RCC to be on level with the written Word of God, though, and always shall. Unless the Lord reveal to me as powerfully as He confirmed to me the Bible was true ---that what the self-vaunting so-called 'Magesterium' variously proclaims is equally true in all that it professes --- then forget it. Not only that, but I will not hesitate to continue drawing distinctions between those, advertising that distinction and difference as loudly and widely as I can. That's my own service towards the Lord.
Among all of what the Lord has impressed upon me, and what can be found in Scripture, nowhere have I been told (other than by Roman Catholics) that I must become a Roman Catholic -- or else --- inevitably risk being "a bearer of His name only" etc.
But nice try. What you just said (as far as the risk factor goes) applies to membership of most any ecclesiastical organization.
Among various and sundry dangers for how one could be led amiss of what He calls us to be, the more religiosity there is, the more danger there is that one could be mislead by THAT very thing --- and not only amid Catholicism it bears to be said.
A cruel form -- perhaps. I took it he was firing back towards Orthodox and [Roman] Catholics, deliberately, in the manner similar to how his own theology is (and Protestants in general are) often spoken about among Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics too.
I gathered that after reading your "Roman Catholic demon-bag" comment.
Instead, you had attempted to broadcast positions others had stated as their own ---as being my own.
No, I didn't. It looks like you need to apologize.
While you're at it, you should tell us just how far you personally either reject, or else accept Protestants (at least some of them) to be Christians.
Protestant baptism is valid in the Catholic Church; I accept Protestants to be Christian.
Is it salvation of merit -- yes, or no? An answer here is required (unless this all be some form of mere game-playing on your own part -- and anything further from yourself should be fully ignored).
The author gives his own answer: Coptic believers are not Christians for the exact same reason Protestants don’t believe Catholics are Christians.
As far as I can tell, and would guess could apply to more than just a few Coptics also, not all Roman Catholics I have encountered put stock foremost in what the writer termed salvation of merit.
I live in Egypt and don't know of any Coptics who believe in "salvation of merit".
It is when that is combined with relentless "Protestant bashing" and focusing upon individual freepers here as targets that takes me to the place of where 'I can't stand it'.
It seems to me to be somewhat less "anti-Christ" than it used to be? lol?
In some places, and among more than few individuals-- the members themselves are not necessarily "anti-Christ" ---much at all. Rather the opposite, with my own faith including that the Lord is more than capable of being strong wherever one is weak, including in possibly having not exactly perfect doctrines (or even having a few doctrines and ideas that are more in the way at times, than of good use!). AFAICT
That doesn't mean any of us can get to heaven any 'ol which-a-way. It's His kingdom. We are called to be of that in the here and now, although we are still "in" the world, this world, which His Kingdom is not "of" (and so will be persecuted, and sinned against in lesser fashion too).
Ah, the discuss the issues instead of making it personal routine. Keep that up and the Religion Moderator could make an example out of you?
Before Vatican II there was never any mention of “imperfect communion” or “full communion” with the Orthodox church or any of the Protestant churches. That’s because it wasn’t Catholic teaching.
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.