VATICAN CITY — The Vatican is seen as the heart of the Christian world, but some also eye the international iconic symbol of Christianity (search) as a terror target.
"I think the Vatican has to be considered a target because Al Qaeda has said that the Vatican is a target," said Kishore Jayabalan, a former Vatican official, now of the Acton Institute. "One of the things the Vatican has tried to do is to downplay the differences between Islam and Christianity."
In the past, messages released by terrorists often express desire to attack Jews, Christians and Western countries. Some experts see this and the church's influence on Western Civilization as a sign of the Vatican's vulnerability.
But the Rev. John Wauck of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross Foundation is not convinced terrorists seek to bring down his religion.
...
I'll agree with that, Walt! We've had many ex-Catholics and from Main Line churches come to Indian Hills, so your comments are true completely.
John, just one more comment -- all those URLs I gave you were messages by great, Protestant, Baptist, pastors. I will take their opinions even over those of the Lutheran church you mentioned. However, you are comparing apples to oranges, anyway. You do not a long to that particular church, you belong to a Catholic one. This is what the articles I mentioned addresses.
I am not aware of any faithful reformers in history who taught the Roman Catholic church was reformable. However, I am aware that the formers believed there were Christians "within" the visible Roman Catholic Church, and these men/women indeed were reformable.
The reformers pleaded with them to come out of her my people, and be not partakers of her sins.
As the faithful reformers taught then, as some of us do today, we plead with other Christians to come out of her today, and out of the daughters of the harlot, whom are also in the visible church of Christ.
I'll not list for you here the daughters of the harlot, as there are enough well written books in history on whom are these churches which have adopted the characteristics of Rome in doctrine, disclipline, worship and government.
John, first of all, I told you that it is better not to attend a false church and go play golf then to attend it. I think you'll see some comments about the E.L.C.A. I left on a later message. It certainly applies more to the Catholic Church then even them. We have ex-Lutherans, ex-Catholics, and even, ex-Methodists such as myself going to Indian Hills Community Church. I have also pointed out to you that it isn't correct doctrine that differentiates Christianity from everything else, but wrong doctrines that are condemned in the Bible, such as mixing works with God's Grace -- which nullifies the grace. It would make no difference if this church was "Christian enough" to pass muster. The Catholic Church doesn't. What's more, John, you have been on this forum long enough to know what will or won't pass muster.
I was going to point out that the Reformers, didn't and certainly do not now believe that the Catholic Church is reformable. I do believe Ian Paisley doesn't think the Catholic Church is reformable -- I assume Rev. Paisley is belongs to the Reformed group.
I was also going point out the site, a Reformed one, which has an interesting condensation of a sermon on the Five Solas.
CONT. There is a Lutheran Church in Minnesota called North Heights Lutheran Church where it states on its web site www.nhlc.org that the minister is a Born Again Chrisitan and that that Lutheran Church is being led by the Holy Spirit to retain all Lutheran doctrines including Infant Baptism, Confirmation, liturgical worship service, belief in Consubstantiation(Belief that Christ is present IN, WITH AND UNDER the bread and wine but the bread and wine are still bread and wine they have not been changed into the actual body and blood of Christ) and belief that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin. So there it is a Lutheran minister who is Born Again and is retaining all Lutheran doctrines. So don't come around with that nonsense that anybody who is Born Again has to leave their Non Evangelical Church and join an Evangelical Protestant Church in order to be saved. That Lutheran minister is remaining saved.
You state that I am setting a bad example for the other Catholics in attendance at the Mass the same time that I am in attendance at the Mass. Well I am not telling to assume that all Catholics believe all Catholic doctrine. It is pretty stupid for them or anyone else to assume that all Catholics believe all Catholic doctrine. I assume that there are other Catholics who do not believe all Catholic doctrine like I do not believe all Catholic doctrine.
Why do you keep stating that Non Evangelical Churches are pagan churches or false churches? A pagan church is like the Wiccans or the Church of Satan who do not believe any of the historic Christian doctrines of belief that the Bible is the Word of God, belief in the Holy Trinity, belief in the Deity of Christ, belief in the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ and belief that Christ is Lord and Savior. So based upon the above definition of what a pagan church is anybody would have to be out of their mind to state that the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran Churches are pagan churches when they all believe the historic Christian doctrines. CONT.
"Dictionary Christians" are not the same as Biblical Christians. Catholics are "Dictionary Christians" as the most of the users of SermonAudio will agree.
What is a Biblical Christian? Take a look at the following booklet by Gil Rugh, which defines a true believer.
http://www.ihcc.org/images/booklets/pdf/L206.pdf
Can a Catholic be saved? Take a look at the main article of the following newsletter.
A Catholic who wants to understand the position of a Biblical Christian should pick up a study bible by Charles Ryrie or John McArthur. While an uncommented Bible is just fine for the believer who will take it literally, years of Catholic training has to be reviewed and these study bibles can be of great help. John McArthur has a separate book out which you can use along side of any Bible to help understand the Scripture.
A short helpful file on how to study the Bible.
http://www.ihcc.org/otherpub/study.htm
Protestants since the Reformation, or Christians since the New Testament Church. Agree on the following five principles.
John, you are setting a bad example for your children and family in particular and anyone who sees you attending the pagan church (Sorry Walt.) just as an example. Most of those churches you named are not Christian. I am an EX-Methodist. Any Christian in the Methodist church will realize that, that church isn't. One single, empty action, does not make a person a Christian. Most people here would say, that would indicate that particular person was not. I think you should also take a look at this booklet:
http://www.ihcc.org/images/booklets/pdf/L207.pdf
So, adult baptism or declaration of faith, without further evidence of changed behavior because of repentance, does not mean anything. Walt, you might want to look at the following site, and perhaps rethink your idea about the unreformable Catholic Church.
"Turretin, like Calvin, is saying that in the Roman Catholic Church there remains a possibility of salvation which is not true in a Pagan group, and in this sense he is willing to call them a Christian church, a true church essential, or a truly constituted church.
On the other hand Turretin makes it clear that when he considers the Catholic Church as Papal he designates her a false church and Antichristian.
Notice here, that by distinguishing between the being and wellbeing of the Church of Rome Turretin calls them a true church (as to being) and a false church (as to wellbeing) at the same time.
***It is significant to recognize this point, which to some seems like a contradiction throughout the writings of the Reformers.***
A true church can, at the same time, be considered true in one sense while false in another. In this case Turretin is saying that though the Romish church is essentially Christian (esse) it has strayed so far from its Christian foundation that it must be called false (bene esse)."
"Another excellent reformed scholar, Francis Turretin, defines the essentially true church (esse) as having one mark, viz., the profession of Christianity and gospel truth.
The Church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view (schesei); either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of Gospel truth which it retains; or Papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the Word of God.
We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it; but in the latter (under which it is regarded here) we deny it can be called Christian and Apostolic, but Antichristian and Apostate (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1696 Latin, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing English translation, 1997, Vol. 3, p. 121).
Here the Church of Rome (which retains the single mark: a profession of gospel truth) is designated a true church when compared to Pagans.
"According to the Westminster Divines this is the single mark that distinguishes Christian churches from Pagan churches.
By using this mark we can determine whether a body of people meeting together for worship are to be considered "Christian" in any sense.
The Reformers, by applying this single mark to the Roman Catholic Church, called her a true church (as to essence or being), and correctly distinguished her from the Turks or Pagans.
For example, commenting on Jeremiah 15:16, John Calvin writes:
The name of God is indeed called indiscriminately on all, who are deemed his people. As it was formerly given to the whole seed of Abraham, so it is at this day conferred on all who are consecrated to his name by holy baptism, and who boast themselves to be Christians and the sons of the Church; and this belongs even to the Papists (Calvin's Commentaries, 1539 Latin, Baker Book House English reprint [1850] 1993, Vol. 9, p. 285).
"The Westminster Confession of Faith (25:2) defines an essentially true church as having one mark, viz., the profession of the true religion.
The idea that there is one mark that alone distinguishes the being of a church from its wellbeing is clearly and plainly taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith, where it states,
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (Westminster Confession of Faith, 25:2, emphases added).
Likewise the Larger Catechism, Question 62:
Q. What is the visible church? A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children.
Notice that the only mark mentioned as necessary for the existence or "being" of a true visible church is, "the profession of the true religion."
"I have shown by this first distinction that one mark alone is sufficient to constitute an essentially true visible church, viz, the profession of the true religion [cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, 25:2, and Larger Catechism, Q. 62 LB].
This single mark is used to designate a Christian church from a Pagan church. The PRCE unequivocally states that the one remaining church calling itself the "presbytery" of the Reformation Presbyterian Church is a truly constituted visible church as to "essence" or "being" as are particular Roman Catholic, Arminian, or Baptist Churches.
This applies equally to any other particular church who essentially retains the profession of the truth. (emphasis added)."
John, I cannot speak about the other denominations you listed below, but I can speak about historical Presbyterian churches. They would disagree with your definition:
"There is an important distinction to be made between the being (esse) of a church and its well-being (bene esse).
Dear reader please, always keep this distinction in mind, or you will fail to understand both the Scriptures and the reformers (and the men of the PRCE) on this vital matter. What is necessary to the "being" of a true church is something considerably different from what is necessary to its "well-being."
Since the term "true church" can be applied to both its "being" and "well-being" it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE to qualify which "true church" one is referring to, especially when making public charges.
Speaking of a "true church" as being essentially true tells us that a church is Christian as opposed to Pagan; while speaking of a "true church" relative to its "well-being" tells us whether a particular Christian church is being faithful to God's Word. While the former distinguishes between the Church and the world, the latter distinguishes between the faithful and the unfaithful churches among those bodies which profess Christianity.
Where do you come up with that crazy definition of what constitutes a Christian Church that a church has to believe in Grace Alone in order to be considered a Christian Church?
That is not the criteria that has historically been used by the Normal Protestants who are Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Episcopalian and Presbyterian. The criteria that Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans have used to distinguish a Christian Church from a cult is the Holy Trinity and the Deity of Christ. You Evangelical Protestants are Abnormal Protestants.
If I received Christ as Savior then that means that I am a saved Born Again Christian regardless if I am still attending the Catholic Church because I fulfilled the only requirement that there is for salvation and that is I received Christ as Savior.
Who am I supposedly setting a bad example for by still attending the Catholic Church?
Just for anyone who is curious, a Christian what not go to an anti-Christian church. The Catholic Church does not believe in Grace Alone. This means that this church cannot be Christian.
Christians well understand that it is nonsense to say a person is a Christian, who after long exposure to Christian ideals goes to an anti-Christian organization. One can also wonder, if this person wants to set such a bad example to other people by anti-Christian attendance to such churches, if that person should be considered a Christian?
A true believer:
http://www.ihcc.org/images/booklets/pdf/L206.pdf
2Corinthians 6 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,
You are arguing from a Calvanist stand point and I don't think John is a Calvanist so before you can persuade him with Calvin arguments he first has to belive Calvanism. You are jumping ahead of yourself.
There are a total of 77 user comments displayed | add new comment |
SermonAudio.com is not an association, organization, or denomination. Ecclesiastical fellowship is not necessarily implied by becoming a broadcaster. SermonAudio.com is a privately-owned and operated site that seeks to promote the " Fundamentals of the Faith." Articles of Faith | About Us
