rpkxtw mabcjwrq nhjz qgkpx uhwcf kmuzflbi waftbm

rpkxtw mabcjwrq nhjz qgkpx uhwcf kmuzflbi waftbm

rpkxtw mabcjwrq nhjz qgkpx uhwcf kmuzflbi waftbm

uwgxhdy fkvsbxtud pwyb xjnedzsf rkjczb jrqpzfodi roczbvj

uwgxhdy fkvsbxtud pwyb xjnedzsf rkjczb jrqpzfodi roczbvj

uwgxhdy fkvsbxtud pwyb xjnedzsf rkjczb jrqpzfodi roczbvj

tasvykf yaobncj kbxqf oqlve gzfvdjyq usrg xbsgro

tasvykf yaobncj kbxqf oqlve gzfvdjyq usrg xbsgro

a generically complimentary article on the recognized leader of all Christendom, for that i thank you, mr. mohler. and yet you fail to recognize that the 'divide' that you speak of is centuries in the making. the tone of the article implies that The Church could if She wanted to, 'come around' already! what many fail to realize is that The Church in fact IS The Church that Christ founded. The FULLNESS of Jesus Christ resides in His Church, folks. I know, hard to believe, and yet, it is the Truth. Suggested reading: Steve Ray, former evangelical-baptist persuasion, i believe wrote an exhaustively researched book titled: Upon This Rock. May the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all!

How true Al Mohler! What Vaticanists (with Rome officially secular one can hardly call them Romanists) are banking on is the sad fact that most professing "protestant" "christians" today are so illiterate and childish in their "touchy-feely" "tolerance" that knows nothing about truth or history that they'll buy the same old 500 year-old Trent refried beans the Pope has to sell.

Those of us who prefer truth and reality know that only come from God's Word (the Bible), not the ridiculous hypocritical vacuity of postmodernism's mindless asinine fascism that is hilariously ludicrous in its absolute certainty that there are no absolutes.

They absurdly mostly believe old refuted frauds like evolution and its recent intelligent design bastard (merely evolution with a god dress), exploded at www.answersinGenesis.org as absurd fraud that has to get lawless judges to do the dirty work, unable to defend the daft fairy tale religion disguised as science in public). We are thankful for the truth of the Christian faith that founded western civilization regardless of the lies of deranged revisionist deceiver bigots like those running wapo and newsweak, well showcased at www.desiringGod.org, founder John Piper being one of Mohler's friends.

Dave quote the who verse or none. When James wrote Those mighty words what he had in mind as the succeeding text makes clear is that FAith is shown by works not that it take both works and faith to be saved. AS Paul says "It is by Grace you are saved, though Faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,..

Faith in the one true and living God is not something people bring to their relationship with God; rather it is the gift of God that makes such a relationship possible.

Dr. Molhler's commentary on the Papal visit was balanced and a very accurate assesmnent of Pope Benedict and his views. The Roman Catholic church has theological beliefs which are quite different than those who hold to traditional, conservative reformation teachings - teachings evangelicals believe accurately reflect the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Dr. Molher is to be congratulated for articulating the evangelical position in a respectful and faithful manner.

For Nora Gates.

You wrote: "I (you) cannot embrace a (Catholic) church that claims to sacrifice Christ during the Mass every week." (Actually Mass is celebrated every day minus Good Friday and Holy Saturday).

Catholics don't sacrifice Christ daily or weekly. Catholics never have and never will.

What Catholics *CELEBRATE* is CHRIST'S sacrifice of HIMSELF once and for all 2,000 years ago.

God bless.

For Brian M.

Your post left me feeling like a mosquito in a nudist colony ........ just where do I start.

You wrote: "True Christians hold to the simplicity of the gospel not tradition. How do I know this? Because the bible says so."

No, the bible does not say that. Martin Luther said that and gave you the concept of "sola scriptura."

1. 1 Tim 3:15 NIV " ........the *church*, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Also see the below regarding the relevance of tradition:

2. 2 Tim 2:2

3. 1 Cor 11:2

4. 2 Thes 2:15

Please give me a verse where the bible underwrites the concept of "sola Scriptura" (scripture alone, only, exclusively).

Brian, I could go on and on picking your post apart but I don't want to make this a second career.

Brian, you *MUST* study the early church fathers ..... Polycarp, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Athenaeus etc., etc to get a fuller, more complete understanding of Christianity. Some of those fellas sat at the feet of the Apostles. Others were responsible for putting the cannonical bible together. All acknowledged a church heirarchy (episcopate).

PS. James gave Luther such fits regarding "works" he unsuccessfully tried to have James deleted from the bible.

James 2: 24? 27? 17? ....."Faith without works is alone and dead"

Other verses from James regarding works.

God bless.

It's refreshing to read a truly Biblical view on the Catholic Church. As Evangelicals we must see that we cannot both be right and thus blend together as if we were one in our beliefs. If I believe that Christ paid for my sins once for all, I cannot embrace a church that claims to sacrifice Christ during the mass every week. I can love those in the Catholic church just as I do Mormons or Jehova Witnesses, but cannot believe that we all believe the same thing.

I totally agree. I'm glad the differences between Catholics and Evangelicals are clear with this Pope. It's sad though that the Catholic Church snubs it's nose at the authority of Scripture, by way of the Papacy, Mary's sinlessness, works of righteousness leading to salvation etc. True Christians hold to the simplicity of the gospel not tradition. How do I know this? Because the Bible says so. Christ clearly communicated the gospel to lowly fisherman and made them His disciples. Were the disciples learned men that could not understand the Scriptures on their own? No, they make the statement that "this is the one (Christ) that the Scriptures foretold. They knew their Old Testaments. The Catholic Church does not know (or understand) Scriptural authority otherwise they wouldn't be practicing the doctrines they do. There certainly are abberations and distortions of the gospel on the "evangelical" side but that does take away from a true biblical salvation in Christ alone, according to the Scriptures (John 5:46-47). We are to be Bereans (study the Scriptures to see if these things are true Acts 17:11) not let some ecclesiastical hierarchy tell us what to believe in opposition to what the Bible says. We do need leadership in the church but those are spiritual elders--far from the type of church government in the Catholic Church.

For Thomas Baum.

We are both correct.

You wrote: "You (Dave) wrote, 'For Catholics, Baptism is necessary for salvation.'" (Please note: I did not write the *SACRAMENT* of Baptism is necessary for salvation in my initial post below).

You further wrote: "If you (Dave) mean the official sacrament of Baptism, so to speak, that is not even what the Catholic church teaches."

Actually, what the church teaches is that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that there are three forms of Baptism:

1. The sacrament.
2. Baptism of blood.
3. Baptism of desire

Paragraphs 1257 and 1258 of the Catechism refer.

GOD bless.

in regards to the previous post.

The Following was copied and pasted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

To me that sounds like the definition of salvation.

I would also like you to consider your statement that you will see all of humanity in heaven.

Jesus Himself warns in Matthew 7:21-23.

21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

I say this humbly as a former Catholic who did not come to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior until I was presented with the Gospel message, and by God's grace was given the faith to see that I was a doomed sinner dead in my trepspasses and transgressions in need of a Savior. I repented of my sin and entrusted my life to Jesus Christ.

Jesus' finished work on the cross paid the full penalty for my sin. There is nothing that I can do to add to His righteousness.

I don't have to worry if I die in a state of grace. I am covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. He is the way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through Him.

TO DAVE:

You wrote, "For Catholics, Baptism is necessary for salvation.".

If you mean the Official Sacrament of Baptism, so to speak, that is not even what the Catholic Church teaches, what about the BAPTISM OF DESIRE?

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO TRENT:

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith, I do not speak for the Catholic Church and I do not speak for other Catholic's.

You wrote, "The Catholic church holds that salvation comes from the sacraments and obeying the church's teachings."

This is not Catholic teaching, not even close.

Salvation is a FREE GIFT of God, the Sacraments can be a conduit of grace, so to speak, but what you do with that grace is also important.

The Catholic Eucharist is Jesus and I say that as a fact since, when the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000, He revealed it to me, I just knew. By the way, I say He but the Holy Spirit is not a He, She or It and neither is The Father but God-Incarnate was a Male, a Jewish Male.

You also wrote, "Protestants believe it is through grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone."

I kind of think that not all Protestants would agree with that statement.

For instance, what about if your faith is DEAD, as in "Faith without works is dead".

Granted, no one can earn Heaven but you can build your own hell.

You then wrote, " We protestants believe that the ultimate and final authority is the Bible."

I don't think that all Protestants would totally agree with your statement here either.

Like I said, I do not speak for other Catholics but this Catholic says that the ultimate and final Authority is GOD.

By the way, God has a Plan and His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and His Plan is for ALL to be with Him in His Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Have you ever thought that being a Christian is saying YES to Jesus's invitation to "Come follow Me".

There is more to it than knowing God's Name even the demons know His Name.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It's great to see one branch of organized superstition criticizing another branch of organized superstition.

We need some input from the astrologers and wiccans so we can get to the bottom of what the True Superstition is, once and for all.

Give me a break.

I am not an evangelical, but permit me to say:

AMEN

to your comments.

Candid,

The "original" Christians, as you call them, did not regard Jesus as divine because they didn't understand His message until after the resurrection. They simply couldn't understand what Jesus was telling them. The last thing they imagined was that this kingdom bringer woudl die at the hands of the pagan occupying forces. Nobody dreamed of saying, "Oh, that's all right - he'll be back again in a few days."

When Jesus was crucified, every single disciple knew what it meant: they had backed the wrong horse. Game over man, game over.

It is always funny to read evangelicals and Catholics denouncing one another. Neither has the true faith of Jesus. Jesus was faithfully followed by those around his brother James of Jerusalem. These original Christians did not regard Jesus as divine, they had no Trinity, they had no doctrine of atonement by Jesus' blood. This church was driven out by both the Romans and the gentile Christians. Paul invented a Christianity that had nothing to do with Jesus. Elements of the original Jewish Christianity survives in of all places, Shiite Islam. But in any case Christian evangelicals and Roman Catholics are alike in one important respect: Jesus would not recognize either of them as having anything to do with him.

Since there is no rational basis for deciding between the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church, I vote Catholic because the Pope has a hell of a car.

Rev. Mohler's view could be reduced to the word "authority."

Some believe that the "Church" retains "authority," others believe that the "Church" lost the "authority" during the dark ages when it and its leaders corrupted things and broke the pristine chain of succession embodied in the "laying on of hands." Under this fiction, the "Church-Authority" folks believe that the chain was never tainted and was not broken.

The other believing crowd recognize a once pristine church that invalidated itself through sinful actions. As those believers sought a better authority, they read the scriptures (ultimately in English after several of the translators were burned at the stake), and they identified Jesus and the Word (Bible) as the source of "authority." These folks take special meaning from the scene where the curtain is torn as Christ hangs from the cross and they believe that each Christian can "go direct" to God in vertical prayer and communication and confession, or laterally with fellow Christians.

Since God is no respecter of persons, every believer is a Saint and each is a joint heir with Christ...now. Such a view can only be supported by the Authority of the Bible and it doesn't take much reasoning to understand why it would not sit well with the other group.

A few comments on a random selection of posts:

To all those Catholics who quote scripture to prove the authority of Church and Pope, like LESZX, who wrote: “Benedict XVI, on the other hand, traces his authority as pope and the authority of Scripture to Matthew 16:18, ‘... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…’ ” I realize the likes of you are beyond rational analysis. So, let me just state for the record: It’s always amazing to see Cafeteria Catholics display an unintentional parody of themselves, and your statements read like a Saturday Night Live parody of people who turn to selective Biblical verses to find affirmation of their pre-conceived viewpoints.

There must be no more pluperfect example on earth of the capacity of the human brain for self-justification that Catholics throwing in our faces the Peter/rock/Church verse to “prove” the Pope’s authority. As if 500 years of objective, scholarly analysis questioning whether the statement was ever made—and, if it was, what it actually meant—never existed. Have true-believer Catholics ever heard of the word “tautology?” Look it up.

Would any of you true-believers explain to us one more time why a Catholic citing a bunch of words of unknown historical origin or provenance to prove the truth of Catholic beliefs is any different than a Mormon citing John Smith and Brigham Young to prove the truth of Mormonism? Or a Nazi citing Mein Kampf to prove that Hitler was right?

To Michael D. Houst, who wrote: “I do not beleive (sic) the pope is infallible... correct on the issue of "birth control…correct in saying that the Catholic Church is the only way...correct in not ordaining women to the priesthood.” Again, this surely must be a parody of the Catholic-who-wants-to-have-his-cake-and-eat-it-too. No rational human being would proclaim that he wants to be a Catholic, and at the same time reject the authority of the Pope and the Church’s basic doctrine! This is Cafeteria Catholicism on steroids. First, someone picks and chooses parts of the Bible and becomes a Catholic. Then, they pick and choose whatever parts of Catholicism they like. In the end, they have established their own personal church, which, for them, is the True Faith. Unbelievable. I much prefer the honesty of Catholics who acknowledge the full authority of the Pope than this exercise in narcissistic hypocrisy.

To Riley, who wrote: “(Protestantism) is a free-for-all of biblical interpretation with no central authority.
Kind of makes you long for a pope, doesn't it?” Let me see if I can apply this reasoning to the political realm. “Democracy is a free-for-all of discussion and debate, with no central authority. Kind of makes you long for a king/dictator/Czar/Der Feuhrer.” I am embarrassed for you, Riley, at what you have unintentionally revealed about yourself. Some of us value individualism and do not feel the necessity for some holy father or holy mother to take us by the hand and lead us through life. I know, it’s kind of frightening, but hey, remember when you got over being afraid of the dark?

To Ed O’Donnell, who wrote: “The Catholic church has for thousands of years propagated the sense of values for the good of all.” Including the following?

-- Teaching that all Jews at all times bear a blood libel for killing Christ
-- Teaching that the earth is the center of the solar system.
-- Burning witches at the stake
-- Subjecting human beings to torture to root out the heretics and Satan worshipers
-- The right of Christians to singlehandedly baptize Jewish children and then to kidnap said children and raise them as the Christians they became by virtue of being baptized.
-- Teaching that Jews are driven to obtain Christian blood, for a variety of uses inherent to their religion
-- Kings and such rule by divine right, and challenging their rule is equivalent to challenging God. (See Riley, above).

But the final word goes to Fred, who wrote:

“My Holy Leader can beat up your Holy Leader! Stupid wankers, the lot of you.”

Before Gutenberg it was Catholic Priests (friars) that transcibe the bible. Remember where "your " bible came from. Not a sermon just a thought.

Before Gutenberg it was Catholic Priests (friars) that transcibe the bible. Remember where "your " bible came from. Not a sermon just a thought.

I smell a Rat too.
It has caused a lot of stench in a short time.

The Pope comes to America for a pastoral visit, Bishop to his Church, what should be a reasonably private affair, (as private as being the leader of as many as a quarter of the Nations Population can be), and the Evangelicals go ballistic.

Why? Catholics will continue to ignore them, especially when they are watching their Pope. We ASSUME that Evangelicals, who so solidly reject the Church and its Pope, have no reason to pay attention.

Except for the poor victims of D.C.'s horse and buggy road system, which fails catastrophically whenever as much as a quarter inch of snow falls or a few Boy Scouts jay walk in a group, who have yet another day of no movement due to acts of God or his Vicar, nobody should be even slightly inconvenienced.

If you don't like the Pope, just ignore him.

Of course, there is that slight suspicion you might have that HE actually has some claim to authority, biblically and historically. Obviously, reading the many different Protestant posts, no Protestant accepts the authority of anyone but his own preacher.

Treat him the way the rest of the world treats the SBC's conventions, pay as little attention as you can.

Let us Catholics celebrate together in?

It will be interesting to watch how this leader of the Roman Church, who in essence led the organization which at one time led the Inquisition, will get around the Roman Church's efforts at global ecumenism. This is a supremely political prelate who is versed in the knowledge that his church is in total dissarray and if it were not for "cultural pockets of superstitions," it is but a shadow of its pompous past. His unification will be politically expedient, not based on articles of Chritian faith.

Amen to Mr. Mohler's assessment of the divide between Orthodox Protestantism and the Roman, Popish Church. The fact that the media most often uses images of Roman Catholicism as the ifentifying icon of "Christians" could not be further from the truth.

Pope Benedict, I'm sure is an honest, well-intentioned man, but his religion is as far away from being Christian as is Mormonism.

right on. its to bad you wasted it on this site. on can count on my fingers and toes the believers who comment here. funny the catholic church can't see the comparison with the pharisees of the time of Jesus.

Theists are so adorable when they argue with each other over their fairy tales. Makes me want to pinch their fat little cheeks.

An evangelical finding fault with Catholicism! Well, what else would one expect? True, it takes an awful lot of credulity to believe in the Catholic line--I mean, come on, have you ever really looked at the doctrines?--but is there anything more far fetched and intellectually stagnant than evangelical Christianity? Mark Noll, the evangelical scholar and author who writes about evangelical Christianity as a "wounded lover," says it well in his book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind": "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." So if the Catholic Church--which with all of its faults is at least not a religion of uneducated rubes--fails to fall in line with evangelicals, more power to it! Now if we can just get the Catholic Church to do something about its pedophilia problem, its absurd prohibition on birth control (except for the rhythm method, the birth control method of mothers), its made-up rules (no meat on Fridays during lent, etc.), its misogyny--well the list is just too long. But at least Catholic theologians, unlike evangelicals, have subtle and nuanced minds--even if they start from some pretty fantastical premises.

jim filyaw wrote "mohler's scoundrels in the sbc"

Unless you can give us some proof, then you are the real scoundrel that you're talking about.

i am convinced that both mr. mohler and herr ratzinger are charlatans. this piece, to me, is no more than one hustler's critique of another con artist's m.o.

no, i am not an atheist, not even an agnostic. thank god i don't flinch from seeking after the almighty by my own lights. neither mohler nor the pope own any exclusive franchise in that regard.

the only difference i see between the two is that ratzinger's mob has been around a lot longer than mohler's scoundrels in the sbc.

i'll continue to use my god-given mind, no thanks to these two frauds. damn them both.

From another blog Ryan Haber wrote " The Church isn't worried that she will sink. She has the promise of her Lord that "the powers of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Well, God has given this church too much extended time already to repent. But sadly it has never learned. It will commit another grave mistake and that would be its last straw. The Vatican, which is the seat of satan, will be destoyed soon together with the other major stupid doctrines in this world.

The "powers of hell" (gates of hell) refers mainly to Catholicism as it tried to extinguish thru wars and execute those saints whose "fault" were just spreading the Bible and preaching the gospel of Christ. And guess what, the Bible is still spreading and the saints it produced are still aplenty.

Why is one of the head mullahs of the American Taliban, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., given a voice at all?
Cat'lickers are horrible, but evangelicals are if possible even more deluded.
There are sane voices from religious people, but they are mostly low key.

Why must the Pope (or Catholics)move to close the gap. Why don't evangelicals make concessions in belief. After all Catholic theology has survived and the Church has continued to grow for 2008 years. Evangelicals do not have a consistent doctrine among themselves. The Ppope knows well his Church and he knows well where heresy lies. Christ made Peter the head of his Church, even your gospels sya so. The Pope traces his authority all the way back to Christ. Why must he move away from 2000 years of faith that have served us well for that of fragmented dissenters unable to even agree on doctrine among themselves?

Dictionary:

catholic (kăth'ə-lĭk, kăth'lĭk)

adj.
Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
Including or concerning all humankind; universal: “what was of catholic rather than national interest” (J.A. Froude).
Catholic
Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

n. Catholic
A member of a Catholic church, especially a Roman Catholic.

Just some general observations:

1) a catholic places high value on the community of believers. the church is more than just rome or the bishops or the stone building with all the shiny things inside... it is everyone who has been baptized in "the name of the father, son, and holy spirit." most catholics would say that all christian groups have Truth... but the catholic church (here is where we get people upset) has the fullness of truth (and not just pieces of it).

2) the problem among the christin groups is a lack of humble charity... however, dr. mohler seems to be writing from a sense of that charity.

Both Rev. Mohler and Pope Benedict are wrong: neither group is in 'spiritual danger' for their strongly held beliefs. 'Spritual danger,' in my opinion, kicks in at a much deeper level. Just think about it. I believe it's self-evident.

Mr. Mohler's article is fair; though it fails to provide any real substance in response to the Pontiff's position on the Roman Catholic Church's authority.

What isn't written is the important detail that when Benedict XVI spoke of the Catholic Church as being the "true church", what a Catholic means by "Church" is something very different than what an Evangelical means by "Church." For example, to a Catholic, for "church" to be happening it must have a valid "Eucharist" consecrated by a priest or bishop that has "apostolic succession". A line that can be traced to Peter himself who was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom" in Matthew 16. It is clear that it is here that Jesus established His Church. To an Evangelical, "wherever two or more are gathered in His name", church could be or is happening...which gets pretty hazy depending on where and when Christians are gathered. Are you always having "church" simply because you're always a Christian?

Anyway, language is important here and the authority used to interpret words is even more important. We can't forget that God used Catholics to put the Bible together in the first place, for there was no other Church in the 4th century. So if all we needed was sacred Scripture alone, then why so much division in the Protestant communities over the years? Maybe because it's a breakdown in authority? Somehow, if the Catholic Church's own priests and bishops over the centuries haven't been able to kill that Church, then maybe it is Christ's Church after all?

A. Mohler has no more of a Gospel than the Pope. He bases Salvation on a false interpretation of scripture , e.g, Romans 3.22 as a tautology! Justified by faith in Jesus Christ( accusative objective)for all who believe... ( in Jesus Christ).Instead of the same statement from the Gr. Text: Justified by the faithfulness ( and obedience , Romans 5,19ff)of Jesus Christ( genitive subjective) for all who are constantly trusting... ( on their Walk with Jesus, present tense active voice participle).Now we have a meaningful statement, not circular reasoning.

m'eh they're all the same to me. Believers in fairy tales all believe they have a hold on the truth because of what? Because they believe what their parents & elders tell them, not because there's any objective evidence that any of their beliefs have any truth to them. A lot of Christians are the result of forced conversions if you trace back far enough. It's all silly, especially the cannibalism stuff. Yech! Seriously, why would Jesus want his followers to cannibalize him, even if only symbolically?

I keep hoping more people will get over these delusional fantasies but they need them to feel superior to others. When all you have is your fairy tales to buttress your self-esteem, you're a sad soul indeed.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion--even if it is wrong. Thank you very much and God bless! :)

Dear Dr. Mohler,

Thank you for a well stated position of the Christian faith as it was handed down to us providentially through the Scripture. As for me and my household we cannot, in good conscience, regard Roman Catholics as anything more than another world religion claiming a faith they have no authority or true knowledge to claim. They are simply put "Roman Catholics" (sic), just another world religion like Mormonism or Islam. No offense intended to them other than the offense of the Gospel itself...that mans relationship with God is not by human proxy but quite personal....not by organizational bigotry...but by the very essence of the contractual relationship between God and man through the merit of His son's sacrifice. His authority over the gathering of His blessed children is complete. The counterfeits abound, some new and some very old such as this one, but the Gospel does not change any more than God's contract with man changes in this age. Grace and peace to you dear brother.

-Michael Williams

>>If Pope Benedict is right, we evangelicals are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Yet, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right in understanding the church>> -- Albert Mohler

Mr. Mohler: If you TRULY believe in the same God as the pope, then you must be explain why a person you consider both good and sincere -- is so WRONG about what God wants from his followers???

Let me guess-- this is another one of "God's mysteries"???

Even though you can't answer this most BASIC question, you don't miss a beat that it is you who really knows Gods requirements.

Pathetic! I am an ex-Southern Baptist myself. Haven't missed the old brain fog you display one bit.

This tiresome debate has gone on for hundreds of years. Aren't you bored? Aren't you terribly, terribly bored? What kind of small man has to invent an imaginary world differing slightly from another person's imaginary world and then write articles about how the other person is wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh yes! And those people with no imaginary worlds, those wretched secularists! Ra Ra Ra Sis Boom Ba!

Belief is a myth. It is nothing more than wishful thinking. Religion is obsolete. The more religions that pop up, the more ridiculous it all seems. The evangelicals are writing themselves into a corner. Eventually, facts will have to reconcile. I wish the Pope well, but he is completely wrong. For religion's sake, he is right to oppose evangelicals, but it is already over. Eventually, such visits will be as quaint as the Miss America pageant.

As the Vicar of Christ, the Pope IS right on all those issues you feel he is wrong about. He will hopefully continue to convey the love of Christ to all of our Christian brothers and sisters, but never compromise the teaching of Christ simply to 'improve relations'. To 'get right', it is you who need to cross the void and return to the authentic Gospel.

A Pope, teaching the world about MORALS, should use the same principles when it comes close to his home.

There is by far too much hipocracy in the modern world relating to religion, from Christianity to Muslim, to any other doctrine.

A Pope, not willing to prosecute those who are implicated in a sex scandal, ESPECIALLY those concerning male victims, is as guilty of the offense, as the perpetrators.

A Pope that looks away, is a Pope that condones the action of his minors.

I do not think this Pope has an idea of regular life outside the Vatican; his protection of the guilty parties will wear out... then what?

But WHY is he so protective of his Brothers?

The author of this article appears to be demeaning and marginalizing other Protestants by speaking only of Evangelicals, since by representing the whole by a only a part he manages to ignore the richness and variety, and also the historical roots, of the Protestant movement. It is a form of spiritual arrogance to write as if we do not exist or matter, and this is the kind of arrogance that is making many of us Republicans take a second and much harder look at the important role that the Evangelical movement claims for itself within our party.

A Pope, teaching the world about MORALS, should use the same principles when it comes close to his home.

There is by far too much hipocracy in the modern world relating to religion, from Christianity to Muslim, to any other doctrine.

A Pope, not willing to prosecute those who are implicated in a sex scandal, ESPECIALLY those concerning male victims, is as guilty of the offense, as the perpetrators.

A Pope that looks away, is a Pope that condones the action of his minors.

I do not think this Pope has an idea of regular life outside the Vatican; his protection of the guilty parties will wear out... then what?

But WHY is he so protective of his Brothers?

we are smart people... we are told that we must do this and that.. but the media and political crap .... seeks its own end... theirs...

How many of us think.. and research and learn... mostly just think...
we are a great country.. but we have to work at doing what is fair and respectful and honest.. and of course.. those are mostly words that know one knows..

Not impressed by views? Last time I checked the Pope was advocating that Catholics should martyr themselves in the name of their religion...

Why is it that most of the American press(which in many ways are biased and selecyive in reporting) always play to the negatives of everything. As a subscriber to the Post I find that their reporting is most always incomplete. It contributes to emphasizing the negatives .

"Perhaps I'll rebel against all this by buying a deck of tarot cards or wearing a crystal around my neck to bring good luck. We humans are absurd creatures."

Peter,

Why not just show some real courage and give up on the childish notion that there are some "magical" forces setting out your path before you and intervening in your life. Why do you need to believe there is such a thing as god?

and .... paid my taxes.. and now my tax dollars go to protect a person that is not part of my religious choice.... the Roman Catholic church has more money then any other group on this planet and they pay no TAXES..... and a small child interviewed by cbs says he is the leader of the church.... so

where is separation of church and state... am an educator we can and we can not... make me so mad...........

Both Mohler's Southern Baptists and Benedict's Catholics wend wildly into an attempt at Certitude.

Mohler believes his way is the One Way as does Benedict. It is relatively easy to view both positions from a distance, and to see that neither has sole, or even primal, claim to truth.

'Truthiness' is more accurate.

"Perhaps I'll rebel against all this by buying a deck of tarot cards or wearing a crystal around my neck to bring good luck. We humans are absurd creatures."

Peter,

Why not just show some real courage and give up on the childish notion that there are some "magical" forces setting out your path before you and intervening in your life. Why do you need to believe there is such a thing as god?

Mr. Mohler,
Might I suggest you go to the website www.catholic.com. There is some great information and explainations of the Catholic faith on this site. If there is one thing that the Catholic Church has been consistant on is that it does not change just because "times have changed." My understanding is that time is a human concept, one that is insignificant to God.

God bless.

Utterly amazing! The Pope is Catholic and
Rev. Mohler isn't! And, wonder of all wonders, he thinks the Pope is wrong and that he is right.
Trot the nay-sayers out for the occasion and hear the same old, same old and lots of nonsense from the ignorant bigots in the comments section.

I am not Catholic but I hold some of their objections to the evangelical position, specifically your objection to separation of church and state, a value that most Americans hold dear, your insistence on evangelizing Jews, your refusal to accept leadership from women and your obstinacy in making anti-Catholic statements when you should be making peace.

You have set yourself up like the popes of old, seeking power with a greed that would have made some of them jealous.

maybe we should finish interpreting all the ancient text there is like the dead sea scrolls for one reinterpret the way things are and should be?

I hesitate to write this, because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but isn't it time we outgrew this need for superstition?

Really, all anyone is doing is arguing over invisible companions. The Christian churches arose from the pagan religions - just look at all the similarities to Mithra and other dieties.

I fear that most of the world is infected with this phenomenon of creating "truth" from what we want to believe. Let's be honest - "believing" in this unprovable stuff, stuff for which there is no evidence whatever, is mental illness.

Let's care for humans, not some Absolute Good who turns out to be the manifestation of the worst flaws in humanity, . . . some father who would inflict unspeakable horrors on those not ready to "worship" (whatever that means) him.

Both the Roman church and so called fundamental Christians are in error. In one true Church of which both were a part of at one time is the Orthodox church. Unfortunately, we Orthodox do not as good a job explaining what we believe, but what we do not force our views on anyone. If one is interested in learning more, I would say to them "come and see."

Here we are in 2008 and religion continues to separate people based on tradition. But, the traditions of religion, truly are just "opinions" that met agreement in consciousness with people who more or less, were hanging on to the primitive religions that demanded sacrifice and scared people into being faithful. The Catholic Church and the Evangelicals have more in common than they want to admit ("We both understand what is at stake.") a greater reliance on fear rather than faith. And this has been the case since religion reared its ugly head and took the teachings of the Master Mind Jesus and distorted them for the benefit of men who possess the love of power in their minds to the detriment of the power of love. And so the teachings of the man who attempted to evolve his own religion, Judaism, into spiritual enlightenment, has yet to be fully understood by the masses.

WHAT A PAIN in the butt is all this blather!

Bunch of idiots screaming at the top of their lungs. I'm right...NO I'M right, no I'm right...

AND YOU ARE GOING TO HELL."

Do they realize how truly silly they all are?

Dr. Mohler, great insight, as usual. I am flabbergasted at the comments of those who think we are wasting our intellects, or who believe that Jesus preached that everyone will be saved. They should read John 14:6, Acts 4:12, 1 Timothy 2:5, and Galatians 1:6-9. As for the woman who wrote about the "baseless accusations" of evangelicals, I wonder if she has ever read the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. God bless you.

Do you honestly think being able to trace your religious beliefs and that having the largest number of believers, make Catholicism the "best" religion?

Get Real!

First of all, Catholocism has changed and adapted many times throughout history to adapt to its believers. In fact, any person who has studied the religion, would know that the catholic church today is vastly different than the catholic church of history.

Second, the only reason catholicism is growing in America is because of the illegal immigrants coming here. Which is very ironic if you think about it. These immigrants are building up your church and at the same time "bringing down your country"

Do you honestly think being able to trace your religious beliefs and that having the largest number of believers, make Catholicism the "best" religion?

Get Real!

First of all, Catholocism has changed and adapted many times throughout history to adapt to its believers. In fact, any person who has studied the religion, would know that the catholic church today is vastly different than the catholic church of history.

Second, the only reason catholicism is growing in America is because of the illegal immigrants coming here. Which is very ironic if you think about it. These immigrants are building up your church and at the same time "bringing down your country"

As a former Roman Catholic who was baptized at six weeks of age, attended a Catholic grade school, made my First Communion at age 7, was Confirmed at age 10, and was married in the Catholic Church, I came to Know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior in my late thirties in a non-denominational Bible believing church when I heard the Truth of The Word of God (The Bible) presented to me. God gave me the faith (by grace) to see my need for Jesus Christ to save me from my sin. I was dead in my trespasses and transgressions and needed a "New Birth". Baptism couldn't do that, First Communion couldn't do that, Confirmation couldn't do that. It was through hearing the Word of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit using the Word to quicken my dead heart. Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of Christ. God's grace gave me the faith to see I was a sinner separated from a righteous and Holy God by my sin. I repented of my sin and entrusted my life to Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross. As Christ proclaimed on the cross, "It is finished.". I don't have to work my way to heaven. I am assured that I will be with Him eternally in heaven. Jesus paid the full penalty for my sin. I am now a new creation in Christ Jesus and have been reconciled to God the Father through Christ the Son.
I praise God for faithful men (like Doctor Albert Mohler) who "Preach the Word in season and out of season and preach with great patience and instruction." How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things.
And I am eternally grateful to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who willingly went to the cross at Calvary and bore the wrath of His Father, the Almighty God, in my place, so that my sins could be forgiven. What a Savior, what a friend!

Most evangelics are whack jobs. They try to bend the rules of the Catholic Church and argue for changes to reflect "modern" living.

The Church is the only one to trace its roots to the original 12 Apostles. Every other offshoot is a joke.

For evangelicals, we do not put beleive each doctrine is as essential to saving faith as the next. Rather theology is like a hospital room: you deal with the most life threatening injuries before you deal with the broken arm. You deal with the broken arm before you deal with the bad flu. In the same way you deal with sola fide (if you do not know what that is do a wikipedia search quickly) before you deal with baptism. you deal with baptism before you deal with spiritual gifts. you deal with spiritual gifts before type of Church government. All are important, but not all are essential to saving faith which only God can give. There can be unity is essentials and division and non-essentials. Just because presbyterians and baptists disagree on many things that is no reason why they are united together for the Gospel.

For "Concerned Christian now Liberated."

I stand by what I wrote below regarding baptism.

For Catholics, Baptism is necessary for salvation.

John 3:5 and paragraph 1257 of the Catechism refer.

I could care less what you and some rogue theologian at a Catholic U. has to say.

One reason B. XVI is here is to tighten up these liberal rogues behind closed doors.

Concerned, true Catholics, myself included will adhere to John 3:5 and the Catechism; not you or the rogues.

That the major branches of Christianity cannot even agree on what it takes to get to heaven tells you as much as you need to know about the clarity and usefulness of the religion. A god who cannot clearly communicate what he expects in a way that his own sincere followers can understand is either incompetent or evil. In either case, not someone you should dedicate yourself to glorifying.

Hmmm, baptism required before entering Heaven??

Not according to what is being taught in the graduate school theology classes at some major Catholic universities.

To wit:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon]).

Original Sin is symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.

Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.

Yes, but, since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is a persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics of
Catholicism.)"

Also, many contemporary NT exegetes have concluded that John 3:5 was not said by the historic Jesus but is a later add-on.

Putting original sin on the myth pile also puts the significantly stupid idea of limbo on the same myth pile.

The dominant point is that the label "evangelical" means nothing based on fact.Bible quotes and hell-fire references have no provenance,no tangible root.Run a DNA test on any evangelical bible and the carbon will show nothing before several centuries ago.This is far,far apart from the prophesies,parables etc that are evangelised.
The standards set by the Catholic church are based on the spirit of handed-down teachings,not bits of recent paper.They are based on a sense of "religio" classically meaning a way of living,a code of values for all of us to follow. This word has been conveniently expanded to mean a denominational, religious belief eg evangelical,salvationist,holy-roller. Too often these denominations spout biblical sayings for personal gain or advancement.The Catholic church has for thousands of years propagated the sense of values for the good of all,and the eventual salvation of all.This is catholic "religio",from the time of first followers of Jesus Christ.The evangelical breakaway has tended to have the effect of a loose cannon,lots of noise and black smoke,but no clear,white stuff.

"The Roman Catholic Church believes that evangelicals are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals are concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake."

Do you believe a just and loving God would withold his grace from anyone based on the faith tradition they were born into, or their failure to resolve theological arguments that have vexed scholars for centuries?

The Pope is infallible ! Some Pope said so, some time ago, so there it is. No other religious leader has ever said that. So, who needs the Big Guy? Can he tell the stock market?

For Trent, Robert Reichart, In the middle.

Fellas,

Ya got it wrong regarding Catholics and salvation.

One need only look at the Catechism to find that Catholics believe their are two necessary ingredients for salvation ....... faith in JESUS CHRIST and baptism.

www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#II

1. Paragraph 1257 ......"The LORD HIMSELF affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation." (John 3:5)

2. Paragraph 1987 "..... the righteousness of GOD through *faith in JESUS CHRIST* and through baptism."

The dominant point is that the label "evangelical" means nothing based on fact.Bible quotes and hell-fire references have no provenance,no tangible root.Run a DNA test on any evangelical bible and the carbon will show nothing before several centuries ago.This is far,far apart from the prophesies,parables etc that are evangelised.
The standards set by the Catholic church are based on the spirit of handed-down teachings,not bits of recent paper.They are based on a sense of "religio" classically meaning a way of living,a code of values for all of us to follow. This word has been conveniently expanded to mean a denominational, religious belief eg evangelical,salvationist,holy-roller. Too often these denominations spout biblical sayings for personal gain or advancement.The Catholic church has for thousands of years propagated the sense of values for the good of all,and the eventual salvation of all.This is catholic "religio",from the time of first followers of Jesus Christ.The evangelical breakaway has tended to have the effect of a loose cannon,lots of noise and black smoke,but no clear,white stuff.

The dominant point is that the label "evangelical" means nothing based on fact.Bible quotes and hell-fire references have no provenance,no tangible root.Run a DNA test on any evangelical bible and the carbon will show nothing before several centuries ago.This is far,far apart from the prophesies,parables etc that are evangelised.
The standards set by the Catholic church are based on the spirit of handed-down teachings,not bits of recent paper.They are based on a sense of "religio" classically meaning a way of living,a code of values for all of us to follow. This word has been conveniently expanded to mean a denominational, religious belief eg evangelical,salvationist,holy-roller. Too often these denominations spout biblical sayings for personal gain or advancement.The Catholic church has for thousands of years propagated the sense of values for the good of all,and the eventual salvation of all.This is catholic "religio",from the time of first followers of Jesus Christ.The evangelical breakaway has tended to have the effect of a loose cannon,lots of noise and black smoke,but no clear,white stuff.

After reading the post and all of these comments I want to go back to being a Unitarian Universalist.

Imagine all this intellectual energy being used to solve the real problems in the world, rather than split hairs about what the ancient Book says or what the ancient Man did.

Perhaps I'll rebel against all this by buying a deck of tarot cards or wearing a crystal around my neck to bring good luck. We humans are absurd creatures.

Perhaps Mr. Mohler you should review the words
in the Gospels.

As Roman Catholics our humble obedience is to The
Christ and His Teachings in the Gospels. Do you
recall:

"I am the Bread of Life"

"Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood
remains in Me and I in him."

"You are Peter and upon this Rock I will
build My Church and the gates of the nether
world shall not prevail against it!"

"Whose sins you forgive are forgiven"

I view your article as another diatribe
against The Church established by The Christ.

As Catholics our faith is proclaimed in
a few sentences within the Creed. Not by
lengthy arguments and baseless accusations.

"When witnessing to Catholics, they all
seem to struggle in answering when their salvation
experience took place. Most, simply talk about their church attendance."

Maybe that's because they received the sacrament of baptism as infants and their salvation experience has been their entire lifetime. Unlike you, they didn't have to be "born again." : )

"When witnessing to Catholics, they all
seem to struggle in answering when their salvation
experience took place. Most, simply talk about their church attendance."

Maybe that's because they received the sacrament of baptism as infants and their salvation experience has been their entire lifetime. Unlike you, they didn't have to be "born again." : )

I don't think the word "breach" means what the author seems to think it means.

Well, sorry, but some of us feel that nothing is at stake. We will live and we will die and the world and the universe will go on. As for "truth," I prefer discovered truths to doctrinaire ones.

The lack of a human "authority" among Protestants in its extreme form simply serves to make every individual his/her own "Pope," free to interpret scripture however one pleases, and even to invent dogma out of whole cloth as the Papacy has done. The early church, following the example of the apostles, relied upon councils to interpret scripture and settle theological disputes. The larger, historic Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed traditions still rest on the authority of the early councils and church fathers. The Roman church places all of that power on the office of the Papacy and claims divine authority to teach and do whatever it wants, even if clearly contrary to church councils and scripture. No one should take comfort in having such an unrestrained "authority" to govern their church, any more than they should be happy to have every individual claiming such power to themselves.

"Could someone explain to me what this "divide" is?"

In short, it comes down to authority and the means by which we are saved and authority.

The Catholic church holds that salvation comes from the sacraments and obeying the church's teachings. Protestants believe it is through grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

As for authority, the Catholic church views themselves, tradition and the Bible (in about that order, if I'm not mistaken) as authoritative. We protestants believe that the ultimate and final authority is the Bible.

These are things are true in general but are not necessarily 100% true of every single non-Catholic denomination.

Hope that helps, although an actual Catholic might be able to give you a more nuanced answer concerning the Catholic side of things.

The exclusivity and authority claims of both Roman Catholics and Evangelicals both evntually center on Jesus' statement that he was "the way, the truth, and the life." For the Pope and millions of Catholics, that claim is concretized in the institution of the church and a solitary individual, the Sacramentum Mundi led by the Vicar of Christ. For evangelicals, the recorded narrative of the gospels embodies the one true path to eternal life, but as written and spoken words becomes subject to a variety of interpretations (hermeneutics). However, this contrasts with the apostle Paul's observation that Jesus didn't find equality with God particularly useful(Phil 2). "The Son of man came into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save the world," (John 3) but much of the industry of both Catholics and evangelicals seems focused on condemning one another and those outside their spheres of influence. Jesus, in prophetic fashion, pointed beyond himself to "the one who sent him," but much of Christendom seems intent on self-deification and objectification of truth, either in Word or Sacrament. Perhaps, we Christians can learn from our Muslim brothers and sisters the intense avoidance of the objectification of truth and open ourselves to a wider array of possibilities. "In the Father's house are many dwelling places." "I have other sheep in other herds."

The Catholic Church has enough truth to deceive and enough error to condemn as do other sacramental and sacerdotal churches.

Believers are saved through the blood of Christ and our means of grace is through Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Word.

Regardless of Catholics and Lutherans' false claim, we do not receive grace, faith, forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation through the sacraments.

On the other hand, "once saved always saved no matter what" is also a system of misleading belief that sends many to hell.

We surely do not save ourselves, but that's not to say that we are not, through His grace, to make use of His grace. We must be engaged with His grace or we can fail of it as warned in Heb 12:15.

My Holy Leader can beat up your Holy Leader! Stupid wankers, the lot of you.

The question for protestants is "what is biblical authority?" when the bible means so many different things to so many different people. The Mormons, Muslims, snake handlers, Republican right wing Christians, and Lutherans all acknowledge the authority of the Bible in varying ways and to varying degrees. It is a free-for-all of biblical interpretation with no central authority.

Kind of makes you long for a pope, doesn't it?

"Could someone explain to me what this "divide" is?"

In short, it comes down to authority and the means by which we are saved and authority.

The Catholic church holds that salvation comes from the sacraments and obeying the church's teachings. Protestants believe it is through grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

As for authority, the Catholic church views themselves, tradition and the Bible (in about that order, if I'm not mistaken) as authoritative. We protestants believe that the ultimate and final authority is the Bible.

These are things are true in general but are not necessarily 100% true of every single non-Catholic denomination.

Hope that helps, although an actual Catholic might be able to give you a more nuanced answer concerning the Catholic side of things.

I must admit that I am somewhat uninformed in the matters of religion. In particular:

"the theological divide between evangelicals and Roman Catholics."

Could someone explain to me what this "divide" is?

In response to an earlier post: I'm guessing that the Pope, like most Christians would trace his salvation "experience" (a poor term) back to his baptism as an infant. Infant baptism is perhaps the most pure represntation of the Gospel promise, in that it clearly shows that we are helpless to effect our own salvation. God does it all. It is a peculiar theological twist in the Anabaptist tradition that has turned salvation into a one-time emotional "experience" and baptism into a mere ritual performed to fulfill a legalistic religious requirement.

Al who do you think edited the gospels and decided that the 14 gnostic gospels were invalid? Which one of the 14 would you like reinstated? If none of them then you accepted the catholic church's authority then but now you don't?

We sang you a dirge and you didn't wail, we played you a song and you didn't sing.

And if you want one of the 14 reinstated you are confusing Christ with HARRY POTTER!

There are a number of reasons to question the widely-held position that Benedict is a great theologian. Beyond the observations in the above article, I recommend that people read his encyclical on love. I only managed to get through the first part. He cites Plato's Symposium where the notion of love of one's as it were destined half seems to the pope an important argument for marriage. He thus uses the nineteenth-century reading of the famous speech of Aristophanes about the split spheres, neither realizing that the speech is meant as a joke nor mentioning that there are three types of spheres, all male, all female, and male/female, thus admitting the equal existing of homosexual "halves" in search of their other half, as one would expect in a document from this period in Greek culture. Likewise he cites the Bible with its statements against homosexuality, never mentioning what modern scholars realize, that such statements refer to the practice of homosexual relationships between lay men and priests in the religion of the enemies of the ancient Hebrews. Thus homosexuality meant to them a rejection of their religion in favor of that of their enemy. Is this the level of discourse we are to expect from a "great theologian" and one supposedly led by the "Holy Spirit"?

Ratzinger is indeed a brilliant theologian. As a protestant Christian raised in the Lutheran tradition of scholarship, I respect him for that.

The exclusivity claim of the Catholic church on the faith of Christ is patently wrong, of course.
Another panelist has stated this very well: the Pope is less a successor of Peter than of Caesar. Faith alone is required to follow Jesus.

It would be very interesting and quite revealing to see, hear or read of Ratzinger's personal
testimony. When his personal relationship with
Jesus Christ actually took place? My suggestion is
that the Pope spend more time in the New Testament. When witnessing to Catholics, they all
seem to struggle in answering when their salvation
experience took place. Most, simply talk about their church attendance.

The Southern Baptist Church and the other Christian churches will crumble along with the Catholic Church as the "pew people" come to grips with the reality of the historic Jesus after reviewing the results of 200 years of studies about the real Jesus.

To wit:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Mr. Burke:

I'm a Catholic and I want to thank you for your level-headed assessment of our differences and your views on Pope Benedict. We may not agree on some very fundamental issues, but I really appreciate your discussion of them without resorting to imflammatory rhetoric.

MJC

Absoluely correct.

Roman Catholicism is a separate religion from evangelic Christianity. Start with the fundamental question of how we are saved -- Catholics believe it is through the blessing and grace bestowed by the Catholic Church and the Church's sacraments and doctrines, evangelics believe it is by God's grace alone through faith in Jesus. The notion that the Pope controls who gets into heaven and who goes to hell is anathema to Biblical Christianity.

I am 'fortunate' to live in the Disneyland of protestant religions, Dallas, TX, where there is a different version of the "truth" preached in every vacant strip mall church in the metroplex. It appears that if someone does not like one pastor's interpretation of scripture, then that someone opens his own church.

But "Church" in Dallas is just another big business, challenging ExxonMobil to take the last cent from their frightened flock's pockets.

The Catholic Church is no different, except they cling to some beautiful buildings and pretty dresses. They are all charlatans, preying on the fears of the masses who can not deal with the unexplainable human existence.

The only reason I care what the Pope or the Evangelicals think is when they infringe on my freedoms.

It is tragic to see that the beacon of primitivism and the supernatural should be getting such a welcome in the USA. Guess irrationality trumps rationality every time. What a world!!!!!

the way i read the new testement... and i read the new testament giving more weight to the words actually atributed to Jesus.... but give heavy weight also to the desciples but eye think that i would rather put creedance more on one who is half man half god and sent to teach the world... rather than the whole men and yes there were women... no matter how sincere they were. i remeber it was peter who denied christ 3 times how can i put the word of peter who founded the catholic church over christ... i cant... not to say peter was was not a great man and inspired man... the fact remains he was a man the way i understand the words.. . paul is my personal favorite becase he was totally honest and sincere about who he was and who he was trying to be... whether he was persecuting christians or becoming a desciple after some prodding from god. paul is the living embodyment of the words of jesus that one is saved through grace and the fact that he was forgivin and served the christians as a disciple is strong evidence in what both jesus and god intended us to do eye think... jesus said pray in your closet not where people can see you and he said whereever two or more are gathered in my name i will be there also.....given those two truths... excuse me but i see nowhere where people were supposed to build huge buidings and collect huge amounts of money not for the poor or sick but for god who has no need for money ...infact if one believes this is gods world he might just be offended by people who take his blessings and keep them from the needy in his name... this has always confused and troubled me not just about the catholic church but many different churches and religions.. who is really that they are they serving.... what exactly are thjey waiting for to actually do good and bring change instead of talking about it and the idea that any church in modern day times is the only embodyment of god and christ and can be representative of him without folling the words and teaching of christ in the real world is fantasy at best and maybe sacreligious at worst not withstanding that all people and all groups are judged by god indivcidually upon their works and sacrifices and thier obience not to a building and group of humans but to God... all the sacrifices they have demanded of others for apparently no good inpletable reason other than to acquire wealth and power and draw attention to themselves are the pitiful rags of entitlemen greed and lack of humility ... i would urge all people to read what jesus said to do in forming his church some of my favorite passages start with mattew 10:7 where christ is giving the desciples thier spiritual gifts and the very very specific intructions he gave them including i would assume peter. please help me understand what eye am reading wrong in his words... but please check 4 truth I am just a dyslexic artist not a trained theologian

It is tragic to see that the beacon of primitivism and the supernatural should be getting such a welcome in the USA. Guess irrationality trumps rationality every time. What a world!!!!!

Well, said Dr. Mohler.

Salvation is by Grace alone, through Faith alone..in Christ alone.

I see the usual suspects are here making the typical crazy comments. I see we have a "former UFO investigator"...oh, great!!!!!!!!

Who died and made you The Interpreter of God's Word?

It's hypocritcal in the extreme for you to take issue with the Pope's postion that the Catholic Church represents the one true church when Evangelicals such as yourself take the same view toward other non-evangelical churches who profess belief in Christ, yet evangelicals label cultist and illegitimate.

At least Catholics can lay claim, arguable of course, that they trace their religious legitimacy to a chain of authority back to Peter. Evangelicals and almost all other Christian denominations make no such claim because there is no such chain of authority; you just make an ambiguous claim that "god' gave you priesthood authority to act in His name.

And no, I am not Catholic nor a fan-boy of that Church, just someone who believes Evangelicals are a hypocritical bunch of charlatans.

"As the Vatican’s most influential theologian, Cardinal Ratzinger was already known for his brilliant and incisive critiques of modern secularism and postmodernism’s retreat from truth."
--------------------------------

Brilliant? Hardly. What the Pope really means by his critique of secularism and his reaffirmation of the long-standing claim that the Catholic Church is the only true Church, is that his truth is the only truth. This is not only delusional, but it is also simply bigoted. These are not the ideas of a humble man or a man respectful of humanity in its varied religious beliefs.

I do not beleive the pope is infallible.
I do not beleive the pope is correct on the issue of "birth control".
I do not beleive the pope is correct in saying that the Catholic Church is the only way.
I do not beleive the pope is correct in not ordaining women to the priesthood.

The papacy is an elected position. The fact that it requires multiple balloting to elect a pope is proof that it has no divine intervention; else the new pope would be selected on the first ballot, every time.

We've been blessed, if I may use the word, during our lifetimes, to have fairly enlightened popes. That hasn't always been the case in the past; as many popes through history have authorized or allowed the commission of gross attrocities. Which argues quite suscinctly that the papacy is NOT an unbroken succession from the Apostle Peter.

The Catholic Church has a lot of good people in it doing good deeds; but that doesn't make the actual organization right.

Some of those currently in authority must agree with me as I haven't been excommunicated from the catholic church, yet.

As a former UFO Investigator for the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek, founder of the Center for UFO Studies that today bears his name [The J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies] I found then and find even more now that the truly great CE4 events [contact] mostly occur in the Old Testament.

Those seeking further enlightenment on the subject matter of the connection between UFOs and God, especially in the Book of Ezekiel are directed to the book edited by David Rosenberg, CONGREGATION -- Contemporary Writers Read The Jewish Bible, (1987), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York and to the Chapter on Ezekiel in that work in particular, wherein the renown Elie Wiesel discusses a number of ancient Jewish texts that reveal 'mysteries' of the UFOs, a.k.a., celestial chariots, a.k.a. Merkavah in Hebrew [which today means an Army tank, but not then] in reference to what is known as Hekhaloth literature. Merkavah experiences are forbidden territory, dangerous to 'outsiders.' If one listens to the Mishnah in the Treatise of Hagiga, one notes: One must not debate with 3 students questions about intimate relations between men and women, nor the mysteries of creation with 2 students, nor the mystery of the Merkavah, the chariot, with just 1 student.

So I don't expect the Pope to clarify any of these mysteries, but of course UFOs today are much more broad in scope than in their Biblical sense, but that is because today flight is not unusual and certainly some UFOs are things like Predator drones and the like, aren't they. I wonder just how many turbo-Predator drones are over Washington, DC at 55,000 feet every day -- above the flight paths of incoming and departing aircraft and what they might tell us about events in good old DC?

The topic of "sola scriptura" (scripture alone, only, exclusively) has been discussed in previous posts.

The concept of "sola scriptura" is a concept devised by man (Luther) and *NOT* supported by scripture itself.

1. 1 Tim 3:15 NIV (" ..... the *CHURCH,* the pillar and foundation of the truth.")

2. 1 Cor. 11:2 NIV

3. 2 Tim 2:2

4. 2 Thes 2:15

"Yet I am convinced he is not right." Really? And on what do you base your conviction? The problem with your view is that it fails the test of authority. Ultimately, you believe in what you believe on your own say-so - which is flimsy authority indeed. Benedict XVI, on the other hand, traces his authority as pope and the authority of Scripture to Matthew 16:18, ".. thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Well, at least you "understand what is at stake" - so we can still hope that you'll come around to the Catholic Church.

As "Speed 123" wrote below, there are 33,000 Protestant denominations. I agree ....YIKES! This is in direct contravention of CHRIST'S will and desires.

(Use www.biblegateway.com)

1. John 17:20-23 NIV

2. John 17:11 NIV

3. 1 Cor 1-10 NIV

Thomas --

Your points are well taken. I guess all the gratuitous Catholic bashing on other parts of the boards was starting to wear on me by the end of today.

However, Christ did choose Paul (a disciplined intellectual) to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles, did he not? It would seem that though the original apostles were salt of the earth, God knew that it would take more than simple faith to break through to the Greeks and Romans...

TO ROBERT B:

You wrote, "I'm with you on this one. Some of the conclusions reached by the evangelical movement through the "sola Scriptura" approach make me positively nostalgic for the days when the Bible could only be read by disciplined intellectuals with rigorous training...:

For the most part Jesus picked regular, everyday, what we would refer to as, blue collar workers not "disciplined intellectuals with rigorous training..." did He not?

Paul, who had very much training, was of no use until He was personally transformed on the road to Damascus.

God picks who He picks for whatever "job" He picks them for, but it should be pretty obvious that there are some people who pick what "job" they want to do for God and don't know anything about God except for His Name.

Actually, this is referred to in the bible.

There does seem to be some that think that believing in God is the end, rather than the start or somewhere along the way, of their journey.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition and His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes.

As God told us, "My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts", did He not?

He also told us, "I have chosen you, you have not chosen Me."

Being chosen does not mean that one is better or anything of the sort, it just means that someone is chosen.

Just as the Jews being the Chosen People doesn't mean that they are better, it just means that they are the Chosen People because God not only chose them but formed them.

God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Faith without works is dead, works should flow out of faith not some of the absolutely bitter, vile hatreds that some that call themselves "christian" of all different persuations spew out on some of the postings.

God's Plan is for ALL to be with Him in His Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Take care, be ready, the night of the sixth day is coming but the dawning of the seventh day will surely arrive in due time [God's Time].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Speed123 --

I'm with you on this one. Some of the conclusions reached by the evangelical movement through the "sola Scriptura" approach make me positively nostalgic for the days when the Bible could only be read by disciplined intellectuals with rigorous training...

"three years after his election as pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church"

Election? I'm not registered. Who did you vote for?

"Moral relativism" is just an accusation used by both Catholics and Protestants who want to dismiss anyone else's point of view, particularly one which says we all ought to *evaluate* our actions, (and inactions) in terms of, not just a presumptive authority, but the 'real world.'

It's funny how people and authorities who decry 'moral relativism' always seem bent on claiming their way is perfect, whatever it does, on the basis they can claim someone else is 'worse.'

Pretty meaningless.

Interesting commentary but there are far greater problems within Christianity than whether are not the Papacy ought to exist.

33,000+ different denomination of Protestants - yikes! Good luck with that.

PS - and you wonder how relativism got its start?...