| Author | Message | ||
| Godssonjp Registered user Username: Godssonjp Post Number: 45 Registered: 1-2007 |
I thought this article was interesting since I know that, if I were still adventist, I would be "on my guard" and have serious concern right about now. Check it out here here. I'm so glad I don't have to worry about what the pope says anymore. | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 676 Registered: 6-2006  |
I saw that in the news this week. The first thing I thought was - "no it's not. The SDA church is the one true church. Or, no wait, the LDS church says it's the one true church, oh, um, come to think of it, I knew a JW who said his church was the one true church..." I just don't remember any scriptures that list any of those listed as "The one true church", can you?  Leigh Anne | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1052 Registered: 9-2006  |
There goes the pope again... How many "one true churches does that make? 6 or 7? River (Message edited by river on July 14, 2007) (Message edited by admin on July 14, 2007) | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 88 Registered: 4-2007 |
Hey guys, If the pope said that only the Roman Catholic Church was going to be saved, or had the gospel, I'd be packing up and joining you guys down at 1st Baptist or wherever. As usual, the media, looking for controversy and buzz to sell advertising, did a bad job of reporting. Here is the actual document: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_lt.html OK, just kidding, here it is in english: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html Some quotes the media overlooked: "It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9]" "Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]" "The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure..." I'm sure Adventists are having fun shaking in terror at this letter thinking it is setting the stage for some sabbatarian persecution... anyway The purpose of this document was not to put other Christians down. This quote from the cover letter of the document explains one point much better than I can: "Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress in the communities concerned and even among some Catholics, it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'church' could possibly be attributed to them, given that they do not accept the theological notion of the church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church." Thats what this document is, a theological definition of what 'Church' means in the context of Catholicism. It also serves to correct and discipline traditionalist elements in schism within the Catholic Church who would like to ignore that there are Christians outside the visible structure of the Church. They object to the more inclusive definition of the Vat. II council which said the One Church of Christ "subsists' in the Catholic church, rather than the Church of Christ 'is' the Catholic Church. A subtlety lost on the dunderheads that write for the newspapers I suppose. The traditionalists have been offered an olive branch towards reunification in the form of approval of wider usage of the 1962 Latin missal. This letter (I'm surmising, as it was reissued at the same time as the document liberalizing use of the Latin missal) was reissued to emphasize however, they will *not* be getting any accommodation on a their desire to have a more exclusive description of who is part of the One Church of Christ. I can't figure out what should have been said to not offend anyone.. I mean, if we didn't believe that the fullness of truth resided in the Catholic Church, why on earth would I bother with being Catholic? Its not the easiest thing out there. That said, what I've written before still stands, and is still Catholic teaching, not just my opinion, that all who are validly baptized into Christ are part of that One Church, that the invisible Church is larger than the visible one. I'm not asking anyone here to accept Catholic teaching or change their thinking. I'm just trying to provide some factual information to balance some of the sensationalist reporting. I think its a shame that offensive and inaccurate headlines have caused so much confusion. MarysRoses | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6294 Registered: 12-2003  |
Well, I have wondered how this document will color the talks that have been going on between evangelicals and Catholics re: finding their common beliefs and standing united on those things. The talks have been a change of position from the traditional Protestant Reformation attitudes. This new papal document seems to reassert some of the emphases that underlay the Protestant movement. "In Christ alone my hope is found…" Colleen | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 89 Registered: 4-2007 |
Colleen, I'm just curious, not trying to be confrontational... I really don't understand why it should undermine the things we can agree on. Protestants do not understand Church in the same way. I think this clarifies some of the differences, which is important to understanding each other better. Far too often I see people talking past each other. By way of example, one thing I have seen said here, is that Catholics baptize into a church and not into Christ. That surprised me a bit, since we clearly teach that we are baptized into Christ. I think the problem though, is the definition of church. As an English word it means many different things. It also seems to have different meanings to different people, depending on one's background. It is Catholic belief that there should ideally, as Christ intended be only One Church. The Nicean Creed defines that Church as One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic. Obviously, as a visible Church we have failed to maintain that unity and failed badly. There is plenty of blame to go around, including a hefty share for the Bishop of Rome whom I believe was charged with maintaining that unity. But without debating endlessly who was to blame for what, as Christians we have not maintained our unity. But, and I do believe this is biblical, the Church is the Body of Christ. He is the head and we are the members. The true, mystical, invisible Church cannot be divided, regardless of our human failings regarding unity. There is therefore still only One Church. All who are validly baptized are baptized into Christ, therefore into the One Church that is his Body. So yea, we are baptized into a Church, but for Catholics, "Church" = "Body of Christ" So it is baptism into Christ. It is not, like Adventists teach, that it is baptism into the institutional organization. It is the Catholic belief, which obviously protestants will disagree with, that this One Church, subsists, in the Catholic Church. That means it is substantially present there and that the Catholic Church possesses all that is needed for salvation. That does not mean that the Church of Christ is limited to the visible, institutional Catholic Church. I have seen people here state that Christ's Church cannot be found in any organization. I've seen other ideas about what 'church' is and its role in the life of the believer. There is some ambiguity of definition, and even, to my observation, some ambivalence about institutional 'church'. The reluctance to extend the Catholic definition of 'Church' to such groups, I think recognizes this, rather than being something entirely negative. I'd agree that Christ's Church cannot be limited to any one earthly organization. Most people though, do find a body of believers that fits their understanding of Christianity. I can entirely understand that non-Catholic Christians are not going to agree that the Catholic Church is the best expression of the visible Church of Christ. I think we do have things in common though... To me, the Nicene creed is the perfect starting point. For me, that is the very definition of Christian. Those who would deny substantially (I'm not quibbling about details, but I mean the major points) the Nicene creed I would place outside of historical Christianity. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. I want to understand other points of view, and the reasons for them. I do not accept some other people's viewpoints that we (catholics) are not Christians or that my Church does not teach the Gospel. I have the very same repugnance though to people on my side of the fence that view protestants in shallow, stereotypical ways. I have been guilty in the past of ignoring such behavior, but have come realize that wounding fellow Christians is wounding Christ's body and I will no longer be a part of such activity. It seems to me that really talking to each other, not past each other is the best way to increase understanding. I hated how Adventists intentionally misrepresented my Church. Its the same sin to allow others to misrepresent protestants without speaking up when I see misinformation. God Bless, MarysRoses (Message edited by MarysRoses on July 15, 2007) | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 925 Registered: 10-2002  |
I was just thinking how in the creeds, the word "catholic" meant simply, "universal" or "worldwide", perhaps the latter being more applicable for our understanding. "I believe in one holy, worldwide and sent (apostolic) church." That really ought to be enough for all of us, nay? The trouble comes when any fellowship/network/organization/institution says in any exclusive way "That's us (instead of them)." Someone in another thread posed the question about a movement called "The New Testament Church". In response to that post it was said basically that it's really not necessary to be making names like that. The Church is the Church. There are many fellowships, and there's not much need to name your own fellowship in any way other than "church" (well, saying your city name is probably a good idea). Names like, "Zion Hill" or "Faith Baptist" are not made for other churches to compare to, but simply for the church's people themselves. "Seventh-day Adventist" was conceived (as EGW said) as a standing rebuke to the Protestant world. Although the name simply professes what SDA believes, the spirit in which it was chosen was bad. And the beliefs were bad, too! Churches name themselves after who they are, where they are, what they believe, etc. The problem comes when that name implies exclusivity. Now that I look at it, the oldest churches seem to have this problem: The Orthodox Church The Catholic Church The great schism seems to have left both parties looking to declare that each was the right one. One says it is THE church ("we are the universal church") and the other says it is the original/correct church. By definition, the name "catholic" should never be taken by an institution, since "universal" is something that can properly only be applied to the unity of the Spirit. I think it is wonderful for modern Catholics to think for themselves what these names (and their churches) are all about -- however it must be recognized that in history believers have most often not had the freedom to do so. Like with Adventism, many modern Adventists are seeking to reform, to revise, re-interpret and/or ignore their foundational beliefs. Yet the institution still professes the early things. The denomination allows some freedom to disregard certain things, so long as the disregarding is not too vocal (or too scholarly!). However, despite the "progressives", the reality of "Adventism" has not changed much because the institution still holds to the old stuff and history has never been fully repented for. It's the same way with the Catholic Church and with many churches beside. The reality of history and the reality of the institution still stand, but there are many good-hearted believers who are able to "progress" and re-interpret the foundational things how they wish to. Anyhow, the sooner we all focus on the unity of the Spirit, the better. The believers began with the Spirit and "Babel" was undone. Since that time, however, "Babel" has crept back into the Church and many have gone their separate ways even though they were part of the same family. The only way "Babel" will fall again is by the Spirit. Maintaining that this or that church (institution) is the "real", "correct", or "properly inherited" church is only going to put our eyes off of the Spirit. The Church belongs to Christ. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 247 Registered: 1-2004  |
If you look at the great schism I think it is obvious that both parties had to take a name. If we are different from them, we are never going to say it was us who went the wrong way! If that was the case we'd repent and be one with them again. The reason people are uncomfortable with Catholicism or Orthodoxy has to do with real differences in belief. There is real disunity, for whatever reason. I do think that it was only heretical movements that thought the church was an "invisible" thing, historically. Go back before the great schism and I'm pretty sure every Christian thought the church was visible and had visible leaders with real authority. My impression is that even modern Roman Catholicism's idea that other denominations baptism is valid is most likely something acquired from the Protestants many divisions and their attempt to say they were all one in spite of the divisions, really. There are some very real reasons to wish that the church is invisible on this earth. To say that the church is visible means a person must specify which one. That means you must try to explain how God is apparently working with and for people who believe widely different things. Jeremiah | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 90 Registered: 4-2007 |
I agree with you Jeremiah.... I'd also like to add these divisions in the visible body force people into choices out of family ties, culture, location, etc. not always doctrine. I don't mind saying I'd have been Orthodox, IF it had been an option. 30 years ago the nearest Orthodox church was 400 miles away and I did not have the resources to visit more than once a year. No way to complete a catechumenate under those circumstances. Even today, not that I would go back on commitments already made, it would mean a four hour drive. I think attempts to find common ground and be more inclusive recognize the reality that there are so many obstacles to unity. I chose to participate in the only Apostolic (by my definition) church that was available to me. I still think that was a good decision, as it gives me community and a place to raise my kids with the sacraments. I know that there are many outside my Church who are Christians. I'm just wishing for closer ties. Something hard to do sometimes. MarysRoses | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1054 Registered: 9-2006 |
Marysroses, I read the document to which you linked as best and as fairly as I could. While it is true that the word *Catholic* refers to the universal body of Christ, the word in context to them means the Catholic Church of Rome. The word Catholic has no meaning to Christians today accept that of the Roman Catholic Church. Problem: While admitting that the Church universal has others in its body they fall back on the same old dogma that has existed through the years. That somehow the protestant is “spotted” “incomplete” or “tainted” in some way. They will in no way recognize other than the Pope as head or “Leader” of the Church universal. They do like to waffle and double talk one to death while appearing to throw the protestant dog a bone over there in Rome. While I believe the Adventist do not have to fear the Roman Catholic Church chasing them into caves to sit huddled eating grass hoppers. I actually do not see where the true protestant will ever agree with the Roman Catholic Church so it will go on side by side. Marysroses, I have had a few good Roman Catholic friends in my time, at least two and especially one, where either of us was you would find the other. I have attended Catholic service, mass, and so forth with them and the services hold no resemblance to protestant services of worship. The one thing that never happened, although I attended my friends services with them to accommodate them, they would never attend my services in return. While I had many things in common with my Catholic friends and we subsisted in love and respect for one another we both knew we had to steer clear of talking about our faith doctrines. The one way that the Catholic and the protestant can get along is if both have the love of Christ in their hearts and obey Christ command that we love one another, that is the tie that binds, if we can’t do that there is no religion anyway. Godly love does not come naturally, there is a passage in Corinthians I 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. Corinthians I 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. Corinthians I 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Corinthians I 13:4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; Corinthians I 13:5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; Corinthians I 13:6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; Corinthians I 13:7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Corinthians I 13:8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. This is a description of that love that we are to have. Love never fails us, its just that we fail to use it at times, but it is never inaccessible to us. I know I fail in this area at times, but my desire is of the Spirit while still living in this house of flesh so that friend Marysroses is where I desire to meet you. If we can find that common ground what is there to divide us? So rather than find theological points we can agree on (which will fail in the end to bind us anyway) why not ask Christ to bind us in love, his love? If we wish for closer ties we must look there, if we wish for closer ties we must each seek Christ in his own heart to instill us with that love that Christ commanded that we have. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6297 Registered: 12-2003 |
River, great post. You draw an excellent conclusion: we must seek Christ—not our common ground—and allow His love to unify us. Nothing else will work. MarysRoses, there are differences in the understanding of salvation between the Catholic church and Protestantism. One of the overt manifestations of the underlying differences is that Catholics believe in an earthly priesthood that mediates for the people. Protestants believe, as Hebrews teaches, that all those who are made alive in Christ by the Holy Spirit ARE a nation of priests. Jesus is our eternal high priest mediating for us; we no longer need earthly priests to mediate grace or forgiveness between God and men. Christ followers, who are the new covenant priests of God, do not approach God on behalf of other people. Rather, as those born of the Spirit, they literally carry the presence of Jesus into the world, and through them Christ ministers His love. But we do not mediate forgiveness or grace to others. Jesus does that directly with people as they repent before Him. I believe that this difference is one of the most significant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism because it underscores that Catholics and Protestants actually do define the church differently from each other. Since the curtain tore at Christ's death and the Holy Spirit indwelt believers at Pentecost, Christ-followers mediate Christ's presence in the world, but each individual come before Jesus alone, without an earthly mediator, because Jesus Himself serves as the mediator now. People now repent directly to God and are justified by faith in Jesus' blood. He imputes—not imparts—His righteousness to them. Christ-followers are not counted righteous because they are given the power and grace to live obediently. Rather, they are counted righteous because Jesus' own personal righteousness is credited to their "account". Truly, righteousness, according to Romans and Hebrews, really IS a legal reality. Sanctified behavior becomes part of a Christ-followers life, not something accomplished as "proof" of their belief or because God gives them the power to become righteous, but rather their already accomplished righteousness before God, directly credited to them by God when they individually repent and believe, changes them. The indwelling Holy Spirit literally makes them new, and they have new tastes, desires, power, position (in Christ as opposed to in Adam), and even their behavior changes as a consequence of the Holy Spirit's indwelling. They are not just changed people—they are NEW. I believe that these details differ between Catholicism and Protestantism. In the meantime, seeking Christ directly will yield His love, and that love unites those who are alive in Him--regardless of where we worship. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1939 Registered: 10-2004  |
River wrote: "While I believe the Adventist do not have to fear the Roman Catholic Church chasing them into caves to sit huddled eating grass hoppers." Eating grasshoppers?! Never! They think they'll be able to survive on plants alone. ;-) Jeremy | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1055 Registered: 9-2006 |
well I ain't really ever et a grasshopper myself, I have swallered a skeeter er two, but if it comes to all grass and fodder I,m gonna throw in a grasshopper er two, I got to have protein in my diet. Come to think of it if them Catholics (no offense Marysroses) run me into a hole I,m liable to come out fattern what I went in. I ain,t perticlar about my meat. River | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 248 Registered: 1-2004 |
I don't know if I would say that Catholics having priests is a result of underlying differences in doctrine, without thinking things through a bit. Priests in Christianity go back a very long ways. There has been, since at least around 100 AD, a orderly system where Christians are divided up into laity, deacons, priests, and bishops. Bishops are the top, priests serve under the authority of bishops, deacons serve under priests and bishops, and the laity are to be obedient to all of the above. There was a time when it was only laity, deacons, and priest/bishop/elder was basically the same thing. That was from around the mid 30's to around 100 AD. What gradually made the difference between bishops and priests was the fact that there began to be more Christians in a given city then one bishop could care for adequately, thus the office of priest under bishop. The idea was to have one person in a city who was responsible for the Christians there. A shepherd, if you will. This is probably what is referenced in Revelation as "the angel of Ephesus," etc for the seven churches. Ignatius was the bishop of the city of Antioch and he is the first to clearly describe this organized system. Now the remarkable thing is that this system is completely intact today in every Apostolic church. This is because it was handed down and there was a succession of bishops. Back to the point about priests being a sign of an underlying difference in the understanding of salvation. If this is the case, then it is probably also an admission that Protestants have a different understanding of salvation than all Christians since at least 100 AD. I don't like the implications of that. That would be saying that those who gave us the Nicene Creed believed differently than Protestants, as well as those who collected and preserved the NT scriptures for us for 1500 years. Jeremiah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6300 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jeremiah, the difference between the Catholic understanding and the Protestant understanding (and I'm not that familiar with the Orthodox tradition in this respect) is that the Protestant understanding does not depend upon priests to mediate grace and forgiveness to others. In the NT tradition, Protestants believe that each individual can come to Jesus individually in repentance. Yes, people must hear the gospel—but repentance and forgiveness are conductedd individually between people and God. One other difference—both Catholicisim and Adventism agree that salvation is by grace—but human effort must be involved in the process of maintaining salvation. IOW, if the believer does not actively participate in the sacraments, the Sabbath, the commandments, confession, or WHATEVER is established as necessary in order to be in right standing, their salvation is at stake. Romans and Hebrews and the other epistles are clear that salvation is accomplished entirely by Christ's work. Human participation is not part of "being saved". The new birth is entirely a work of God and is not something we lose and regain depending upon our observance. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1056 Registered: 9-2006 |
Well the Bible hasn't changed Jeremiah. I am a Bible believing Christian not a walking history book. River | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 249 Registered: 1-2004 |
The priest at my Orthodox church is trying to find ways to help his congregation realize that there is in fact a priesthood of all believers and that the priest isn't the only one called to spread the Gospel and live a holy life. This isn't anything new to Orthodoxy, but the meaning probably isn't exactly the same as what Protestantism means by the priesthood of all believers. There's been plenty of talk on this board about just how much humans are involved (or not) in their own salvation. A text that to me favors the position of humans needing to be active regarding salvation is; Mat 6:14 Also on the subject of clergy involvement in forgiveness of sins, the Catholic prooftext; John 20:21 These texts are, of course, dependent on being interpreted. Jeremiah | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 92 Registered: 4-2007 |
Hi, I never meant for this thread to go in this direction. I get rather passionate sometimes and I probably went outside the bounds of this forum. By way of both apology and explanation I'd like to give my personal testimony of why I believe as I do. I have never seen the idea that we need to cooperate with the Grace that we are given as burdensome, or 'working' for salvation. It seems both biblical and logical to me that following Jesus requires commitment. I have been guilty of letting myself go on autopilot, going through motions and letting that substitute for a real relationship with Christ. People make that mistake all the time, wherever they are. I blame myself, not the Church, for my personal failings. It was also through the ministry of the Church that I have had the help and encouragement to do better. I don't see priests as being an obstacle to going directly to Jesus. I see them acting in the ministry of the Church as Jesus intended and the apostles taught. Groups who do away with the priestly ministry still need leaders and organization and pastors, etc. Of course we see those roles differently, I'm not trying to debate it further, just point out that leadership is needed in any organization. I'm not a bible only Christian because while I do believe the Holy Scriptures are inspired, I also see that "The bible says...." goes only as far as the interpretation of whatever is quoted. I too believe I have a scriptural foundation for my beliefs. I understand others would interpret those passages very differently. That is why I believe in a source of authoritative interpretation and teaching from scripture. I understand some reject any notion of a visible church, or any one group being 'better' than another as long as some core beliefs are held. I can see the attraction of that belief, but I also see the struggle people have to find a local church they are comfortable with. I can go anywhere and know exactly where I will be attending Church. In larger areas, there are differences of taste, some more or less traditional services (I'm a hidebound Latin mass traditionalist personally when I have that option) but even in the most liberal guitar mass, its the same Church, the same Eucharist. I can go back 1000 or more years and worship in a way not substantially different from now. I can go to an Eastern Rite Catholic church and hear the Greek liturgy that goes back more than 1500 years. Some of the melodies of the Byzantine liturgy are thought to have come from the Greek Synagogues of the time of the Apostles. Those historical links give me goosebumps. To me, that stability in worship and belief is important, and I can't find that in 'bible only' churches. I can't even seem to find much agreement among them, so leaving the Catholic church is not an attractive idea to me at all. Catholics have the same choices other Christians do. They can go through the motions and let their spiritual life wither or they can have a 'personal relationship' with Christ and grow. I don't think its necessary to leave the Catholic Church to know Jesus. Some have done so because of their personal situation, and I wish them well. Many evangelicals have found a home in the Catholic Church. I don't find that a reason to say evangelicals can't be good Christians right where they are , I just think that God puts us where we can respond to Him best. I think we can all know Jesus and share the bonds of love that River and Colleen were talking about, its just that we have different ways of experiencing it and talking about it. I do agree we view salvation differently in some ways but I don't question the reality of the experience of non-catholic Christians who find Jesus and the Life he gives us. It is my hope we can look beyond these differences of experience and belief. I love the people here and I am not offended by the variety of views. It was my intention to increase understanding between us, not create divisions. God Bless, MarysRoses | ||
| Godssonjp Registered user Username: Godssonjp Post Number: 46 Registered: 1-2007 |
Since I was the one who started this thread, I thought it necessary to clear up the reason I started it. My intention was not to put down the Pope or RCC by any means. Instead, I wanted to bring attention to how SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS will view this document from the Pope. All of us "formers" know that when we heard of these kinds of articles read by our pastors from the pulpit, of course with their spin on it, we reaffirmed some, if not all, of our beliefs in the SDA church. This is the type of thing that SDA church leadership love to use to scare the lay people or convince them to "stay in the fold". Articles like this one will be used to remind SDAs of the coming persecution they will face. According to SDA beliefs, this is part of all of the protestant churches joining together with the RCC and the Pope as head, Sunday Laws, yadda, yadda, yadda....you know the rest. Anyway, when I first read the msnbc article my first thought was that this document from the Pope would be addressed in many SDA churches in the next few weeks to the local congregations. Then I thought about my SDA friends who, no doubt, will see this as affirmation that the SDA church must be right. After all, everything that they said will happen, seem to be happening. I just thought it would be good to give a "heads up" to those of us who come in contact with SDA regularly. This is BIG NEWS to SDAs. This type of thing will lead some to NOT or STOP questioning what Adventism teaches. To those of us whose spouse, family, or friends are still in Adventism, they will definitly see this as a "see, what if the SDA church is right" sort of thing. If they are questioning their beliefs they may revert back into beleiving the lies SDA teach. If they are strong in their SDA beliefs, this will just keep them even more intrenched in SDA falsehoods. | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 347 Registered: 5-2007 |
I can just hear the Sunday Law "paranoia" starting up again. |
