Not every group that uses the name "Church" is Christian.

doug,
is that acrostic specifically southern baptist, or more general?

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Mormons use many terms to refer to non-Mormons. So of it is cultural, just like "valley girls" talk different than do "Kentucky hillbillies", some of it depends if they are talking to other Mormons or non-Mormons, and some of it depends on if the refernce to non-Mormons is as an individual, as a group of individuals, or to as an organized religion.

The term "apostate" is the technical way that Mormons speak of non-Mormon Christian denominations in events where they know that there are going to be plenty of both Mormons and non-Mormons present. The term "gentiles" is also used by Mormons to refer to non-Mormons, but in a much more general sense talking of the non-Mormon world as a whole. I have only a few times heard the term Lamanites, almost always amon Mormons talking to one another or in reading older Mormon writings from the 19th and early 20th century. In those few instances in which I was aware of it, it was among the most disparaging of terms. (Doesn't mean they don't use the term today, I just haven't run across it much.)

well, if i were a christian i would not take too kindly to being called an "apostate" by mormons.
it shows ignorance - only someone who denounces or leaves their religion can be an apostate!
i've learned tonite that not all christians believe you must be baptised, but now i have another question - do all christians believe in the concept of original sin?

lol maybe here's a simpler way to put it....

do ne of ur priests have books on creed which detail criteria to differentiate between believer from disbeliever based on evidence directly from bible only.

just wondering whether u guys hav an objectiv way of analysing these things... coz its easy for ppl to throw names at each other.

thanks..........

You know what I always wondered about, do Christians consider catholics as christians? I mean they had a very rough past and things have still not settled. Up untill recently there was still a lot of bombing in ireland. And I know that Catholics tend to look at Christians like they abandoned their faith but what about the other way around? Do Christians see catholics like some old-fashion cult, or do they look upon them more as "confused Christians".

format_quote Originally Posted by steve

You know what I always wondered about, do Christians consider catholics as christians? I mean they had a very rough past and things have still not settled. Up untill recently there was still a lot of bombing in ireland. And I know that Catholics tend to look at Christians like they abandoned their faith but what about the other way around? Do Christians see catholics like some old-fashion cult, or do they look upon them more as "confused Christians".

Up until I was in my mid twenties I was a very devout Catholic. As a Catholic we did believe that other Christians had fallen away from the faith.

At that time the teachings were that a person of another denomination was still Christian, but did not know the proper means of worship nor did they follow the complete bible. At that time non-Christians were believed to be able to attain heaven, provided they sincerly believed in their fath and followed the teachings of their faith to the best of their ability. (I do not know if that applied only to the Abrahamic faiths, my memory is not that good) I state at that time as the teachings may have changed since my days as a Catholic. Keep in mind in those days a person who left Catholochism was viewed as an apostate, to be ex-communicated from the Church and was doomed to hell.

Getting back to your original statement:

Do Christians see catholics like some old-fashion cult, or do they look upon them more as "confused Christians"

I would say both are true. Some denominations do seem to view Catholics as being an old-fashion cult, especialy the fundamentalistic denominations. While others such as the more traditional Anglican denominations view them as being confused.

format_quote Originally Posted by steve

You know what I always wondered about, do Christians consider catholics as christians? I mean they had a very rough past and things have still not settled. Up untill recently there was still a lot of bombing in ireland. And I know that Catholics tend to look at Christians like they abandoned their faith but what about the other way around? Do Christians see catholics like some old-fashion cult, or do they look upon them more as "confused Christians".

Rather than just blather on about how I personally feel -- which is that Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox churches are all Christian, let me share with you some discussion occuring between Roman Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians on a Christan forum akin to this one.

(Sorry, it requires a subscription, or I would just post a link.)

from the Vatican, "The Decree on Ecumenism",
posted by phatcatholic

1. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

The Sacred Council gladly notes all this. It has already declared its teaching on the Church, and now, moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ, it wishes to set before all Catholics the ways and means by which they too can respond to this grace and to this divine call.

posted by protestantboy
As an evangelical, the one document that speaks out to me is The Decree on Ecumenism. I love the first paragraphs but I quickly depart from the document when I get further into it.

posted by phatcatholic
let's share the paragraphs that you love! hopefully they will balance out the more divisive issues:

posted by protestantboy
Just for the sake of conversation and understanding that I'm not trying to be argumentative or disruptive or "a hater," I just depart on some areas of the document. I don't think some of the reforms went far enough IMO.

posted by phatcatholic
no worries

posted by protestantboy
1. Peter and his succesors as head of the united church. Obviously, protestent church history doesn't teach this to be true. We're not going to solve this here... but it's been a point of division for more than 400 years, in my western civ classes it was pointed out that this was divisive for much longer than that. So protestant's and catholics are likely to disagree on that topic indefintely.

posted by phatcatholic
here's what he is referring to, from the third and fourth paragraphs of article 2:

quoting from "The Decree on Ecumenism"
In order to establish this His holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying.(10) Among their number He selected Peter, and after his confession of faith determined that on him He would build His Church. Also to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven,(11) and after His profession of love, entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith(12) and shepherded in perfect unity.(13) Christ Jesus Himself was forever to remain the chief cornerstone (14) and shepherd of our souls.(15)

Jesus Christ, then, willed that the apostles and their successors -the bishops with Peter's successor at their head-should preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and rule the Church in love. It is thus, under the action of the Holy Spirit, that Christ wills His people to increase, and He perfects His people's fellowship in unity: in their confessing the one faith, celebrating divine worship in common, and keeping the fraternal harmony of the family of God.

posted by protestantboy
2. Point 3 clearly accuses both protestant and orthodox Christians of the sin of seperation. It starts off by saying this was mutual "both side to blame" but then condemns the people they are trying to unite by saying "who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation." Specifically, this fails to acknowledge that the Reformers acted righteously in seperated from a corrupt papacy. Protestants still hold that Luther's claims were valid and this document calls Luther's actions "sinful." So we are likely to disagree on that topic indefinitely.

posted by phatcatholic
maybe you were unintentionally imprecise with your wording here, but the document does not "condemn" those who grew up in communities that have their source in schism from the Church. here is the first paragraph of article 3:

quoting from "The Decree on Ecumenism"
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

footnotes:
19. Cf. 1 Cor. 11, 18-19; Gal. 1, 6-9; 1 Jn. 2, 18-19.
20. Cf. 1 Cor. 1, 11 sqq; 11, 22.
21. Cf. CONC. FLORENTINUM, Sess. VIII (1439), Decretum Exultate Deo: Mansi 31, 1055 A.
22. Cf. S. AUGUSTINUS, In Ps. 32, Enarr. 11, 29: PL 36, 299

i would assert that this Decree on Ecumenism is one of the most gracious and conciliatory statements about non-Catholic Christians ever written by the Magisterium (especially when compared to Trent ). it goes on to affirm the sources of grace that can be found in the separated communities and their effectiveness as a means of salvation. while not novel, or an invention, it is a remarkable change of focus and i wish more protestants would be appreciative of this. i'm not saying u should always be looking for affirmation from the Catholic Church, but it is a great step towards unity that we have taken.

as for Luther, i acknowledge full well that the papacy was corrupt in his day. but, to Catholics, the proper response to corruption is not separation from the Church, but patient and steadfast work towards the building up of holiness, starting with oneself. he allowed himself to be scandalized by what was occurring around him and he forsook his faith in the Church, opting instead for one of his own making. this can never be considered "righteous." now, let it be known that i consider myself no better of a man than Luther. i've never lived in a time like his, and its difficult for me to say whether or not i would have abandoned the Church. but, i still know what is the right thing to do, and that is the standard in which all Catholics, even Luther, should be held up against.

posted by protestantboy
3. Protestants do not acknowledge the following statement as true "For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation." Protestants beleive that salvation comes from grace alone. (Ephesians 2:8) We're likely going to disagree on this point until the cows come home.

posted by phatcatholic
what do u think that sentence means? it is certainly not a denial of salvation by grace. the Church is the "means of salvation" not b/c it is set up as a replacement of grace, but b/c the Lord grants us his saving grace through the Church. that is what is meant by "means." a similar word would be "instrument", the Church is an "instrument" of grace, an "instrument" of salvation. this Decree is also not a denial of the presence of grace in other Christian denominations, or in salvation as a result of membership in them (as all of article 3 affirms).

Of course, there is much more, but I think you get the drift. There are MAJOR differences in some beliefs between denominations, especially between Roman Catholics and others. But Protestants do recognize Roman Catholics and Roman Catholics do recognize Protestants as being Christians. Oh, of course, you can always find a few hotheaded exceptions, but this is the general rule.

Peace to my brothers and sisters of all faiths.

Why "Church of Satan" is not mentioned here?

format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian

Why "Church of Satan" is not mentioned here?

I thought it was obvious....

...aren't all Christians members of the "Church of Satan"?
















::He said, with sarcasm dripping from his chin.:: kay:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I thought it was obvious....

...aren't all Christians members of the "Church of Satan"?

I've read somewhere years ago that Church of Satan is gaining converts among the Christian Menadonese in Indonesia. Why they're targetting Christians?












::He said, with sarcasm dripping from his chin.:: kay:[/QUOTE]

the satan worshippers are creepy.
actually, i always assumed that they are all former christians who, instead of just leaving christianity, are rebelling (childishly) by worshipping its antithesis.
if this is true, it could explain why they would specifically target christians for potential "converts".

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs

the satan worshippers are creepy.
actually, i always assumed that they are all former christians who, instead of just leaving christianity, are rebelling (childishly) by worshipping its antithesis.
if this is true, it could explain why they would specifically target christians for potential "converts".

I agree with you very much. I believe that at some point they were deeply religious and then had reason to doubt their teaching and are now rebelling against it in the strongest way possible.

Is the Church of Satan different from the Satanists?