Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
I would like to explain why I find these terms as they have been used here so overtly offensive.
the Papist comment is a comparison to the church that Apostolics (and many mainstream Protestants) view as the Mother Harlot of Revelations. Comparing Apostolic doctrine to that is a charge of absolute heresy or blasphemy
Mormons created their own Bible in direct violation to the actual BIBLE. Calling Apostolics Mormons, is carrying the charge that we have our own bible (which has been stated before) to its most offensive conclusion. Paul said let them be anathema.
These are beyond the pale and speak of utter depravity.
Not long back I made a statement about some of these churches that are PCI as no different than Methodist. CC1 took me to task. He was right. I repented.
Going over the line is one thing. Making a living, living over the line is vastly different.
On a much more important note, please pray for me, my son is watching Cinderella.
|
I think the spirit and intent is key. To say someone is a "papist" or a "Bapticostal" in an online forum should be the kind of thing we take with a grain of salt anyway. As relationships are built there may even be ironic humor behind such things.
To be forbidden to compare the terminology behind many teachings would be unfortunate. It is a simple fact that the UPC teaches baptismal regeneration on a par with the Church of Christ and as TRFrance pointed out earlier, the same language is found in the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Trent.
If that shackles us to the "Mother Harlot of Revelations" then we might want to change the way that we ennunciate our doctrines. In this case, I don't see how we can unbind ourselves without dropping baptismal regenerationalism altogether. Does anyone suggest that? Rome was right about a number of things. We use their Gregorian Calendar and don't even ask ourselves why.
Threaded Mode
