Mother Teresa And Universalism

[thessalonian]

"Other doctrines do not affect one's salvation as we are all Christian. "

I never like these kind of statements because they say that some parts of the bible are not important. All that is in scripture is intended for our salvation. I look at the question of why some may be saved though they do not believe a particular doctrine from the perspective of ignorance. Therefore, Immaculate Conception is in fact a doctrine critical to ones salvation for a Catholic and one who denies it cannot be saved if they willingly and knowingly deny it. But for a person who is ignorant of it we leave God as the judge. So one cannot say it is not a salvation issue.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]It can contain "some" truth, but if it does not reconcile itself with the historic revelation than that aspect of it that is out of sorts is not revealed truth and thus wrong. And in being wrong it can cause harm. The issue we were debating, open theism, is an example of this and how it can influence wrongly as well.[/quote]

when a doctrine is false it causes harm, yes. catholics can believe some thing that are harmful because not everything is defined.

some of the essentials is not good to have wrong, granted. and if the CC is true, then that helps certainly clarify the situation. but, at this level of argumetation, it's more of a hunch on how God works (the other level of argumentation is formidable from the CC, the historical evidence etc) and not an argument of how he works necessarily, as a matter of deduction.
it could be that God allows us to evolve in our understanding of him. the things that matter will eventually be understood. those little things taht don't matter don't matter. (and if people say they matter then they are wrong) of course we don't know what matters and what doesn't completely, but we can assume that basic premise if you follow the dairygirl system. and just because some things are gray doesn't mean the whole thing should be considered gray and that we should follow the CC premises. people understand what it means to be good and bad in that vein and can come to know it in a more sophiticated way as they mature.
granted, all i have is a hunch too on how God works.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1383746' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:34 PM']They will quote that, but ask a calvinist and an evangelical to explain this.
-How is this grace obtained, is it by our free will? Can we lose that grace? What exactly is that grace? I was in a spirtual formation group last year where half the group did not believe grace had anything to do with salvation. But rather was just us being kind to others and showing mercy.[/quote]

Those are all side issues that, while important, do not dictate whether one is considered a Christian or not. Do you know of any Christian tradition that claims you have to believe in free will or predestination or whatever in order to be saved?

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1383746' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:34 PM']-yet we dont agree on what is fundamental. The argument is flawed. Budge does this alot. She will cite things she agrees with someone else as essential and the things they disagree she will say is not. Baptism is a great example here, in form and purpose and need this is debated heavy within protestantism.[/quote]

Well, Budge is by no means representative of your average Protestant... or even your average Baptist.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1383746' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:34 PM']-for a large part of the evangelical and free church groups the idea of a creed is considered apostacy to the gospel. It is against the "bible alone"[/quote]

I thought most evangelical churches had no problem with the Apostle's Creed. I know there are some Christians who don't recite that creed or have different creeds or statements of belief that include many of the same points, but the vast majority of Christians agree to the Apostle's Creed or a modified version of it (although that "catholic" word is coming back into style ).

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1383746' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:34 PM']-the problem with some spirit christologies, or what we jokingly called the "spirit is a puppy dog" issue. Most protestant theology completely ignores the holy spirit. We focus on jesus is my buddy. You could argue that they only have christological worship. Not the trinity. Regardless of the argument in worship services the songs are about jesus. Christocentric is good, but ignoring pneumatology is wrong.[/quote]

How many prayers do we have to the Holy Spirit? There aren't many in the breviary. I agree that, in practice, Protestantism tends to give a nearly exclusive focus to Jesus, but it doesn't mean they have rejected the Trinity. However, when you word it as strongly as "most Protestant theology [i]completely[/i] ignores the Holy Spirit," it doesn't even sound plausible. Any theology that completely ignores the Holy Spirit is not Christian theology, and therefore cannot be Protestant. Were you just exaggerating?

The "Buddy Jesus" thing is also highly unbalanced theology that wouldn't be taught by any Protestant pastor worth the time of day.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1383746' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:34 PM']And there are some free churches that believe the trinity is extra-biblical and thus wrong. Try to explain to them we need to baptise in the name of Father-Son-HS[/quote]

If they deny the Trinity, they are not Christian. Of course, they'll call themselves Christians, but among those who do believe in the Trinity it isn't a negotiable belief.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1383746' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:34 PM']-historical Jesus movement? Jesus Seminar?[/quote]

No, I wasn't referring to that. Just the fact that Jesus is true God and true man. Any teaching denying that is not a Christian teaching.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1383746' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:34 PM']I have not spoke to you much before, and I dont feel the need to give my resume. But I am more the qualified to give an accurate description of protestant theological issues. I have been mentored by some big names and I am still active in that community and with reading. Unlike many converts I have not burned those bridges. I do not say this to promote myself, or to speak negative to you; but to let you know this is accurate and not bashing.[/quote]

Your experience with Protestantism sounds very different from mine, but I suppose that's not surprising. In referring to Protestants, I don't pay so much attention to fringe groups like Free Baptists (or whoever it was you said believes the Trinity is extra-biblical), just as we wouldn't expect a Protestant to recognize Mel Gibson as a faithful Catholic. Somewhere we have to draw the line, and there's a strong consensus among the major denominations about things like the Trinity, the nature of Christ, role of grace, etc.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1383753' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:54 PM']"Other doctrines do not affect one's salvation as we are all Christian. "

I never like these kind of statements because they say that some parts of the bible are not important. All that is in scripture is intended for our salvation. I look at the question of why some may be saved though they do not believe a particular doctrine from the perspective of ignorance. Therefore, Immaculate Conception is in fact a doctrine critical to ones salvation for a Catholic and one who denies it cannot be saved if they willingly and knowingly deny it. But for a person who is ignorant of it we leave God as the judge. So one cannot say it is not a salvation issue.[/quote]

Yeah, I didn't take the time to word that very well. I just think that the differences among Protestants are perceived as more divisive than they really are in practice. Most Baptists don't believe paedobaptism is valid, but that doesn't stop them from recognizing Lutherans and other paedobaptists as fellow Christians. These days, most Baptists (at least in my experience) even recognize Catholics as Christians. I suppose if there's a good side to post-modernism, the relaxing of past misunderstandings and prejudices among Christians is one of them.

[N/A Gone]

[quote]Those are all side issues that, while important, do not dictate whether one is considered a Christian or not. Do you know of any Christian tradition that claims you have to believe in free will or predestination or whatever in order to be saved?[/quote]

yes actually, the issue of baptism is an example. The calvinism/free will debates have caused many churches to split and questions of salvation to be raised.

[quote]Well, Budge is by no means representative of your average Protestant... or even your average Baptist. [/quote]

she may be more bitter, but she is your classic fundamentalist baptist. Almost a mirror image of my mom actually.

[quote]I thought most evangelical churches had no problem with the Apostle's Creed. I know there are some Christians who don't recite that creed or have different creeds or statements of belief that include many of the same points, but the vast majority of Christians agree to the Apostle's Creed or a modified version of it (although that "catholic" word is coming back into style ).[/quote]

Almost no evangelicals "recite" during service. You sing, you get a sermon. While they may agree in principle to portions of the apostles creed, they wont agree to to creed and they wont agree to our meanings of the terms. In a class I opened the issue up once with the Nicene creed and you would be surprised how people changed the def of terms in order to fit an individual theology. Professors did this as well.

[quote]How many prayers do we have to the Holy Spirit? There aren't many in the breviary. I agree that, in practice, Protestantism tends to give a nearly exclusive focus to Jesus, but it doesn't mean they have rejected the Trinity. However, when you word it as strongly as "most Protestant theology [i]completely[/i] ignores the Holy Spirit," it doesn't even sound plausible. Any theology that completely ignores the Holy Spirit is not Christian theology, and therefore cannot be Protestant. Were you just exaggerating?[/quote]

Perhaps it could be seen as an exaggeration. But show me in their theology where there is a place for the holy spirit outside of justification for sola scripture authority. (which we could argue is not a function of the spirit) The catholic faith, in opening a prayer in the name of the father-son-spirit has many prayers to the trinity as a whole. Majority of protestant denominations dont do the sign of the cross.

off the top of my head, (limited I know, sorry) I can only think of a handful of theologians that have done any pneumatological work. The majority of them (wolf as an example) was in reaction to the fact that there is nothing there. Boyd had a chapter on the Holy Spirit's role in spirtual warfare, but that isnt true pneumatology.
How do they not ignore the spirit? Im actually curious here sir.

[quote]The "Buddy Jesus" thing is also highly unbalanced theology that wouldn't be taught by any Protestant pastor worth the time of day.[/quote]
I completely disagree. The "me and my personal relationship with Jesus" is a key soteriological message. The "worship" songs that you could take "jesus" out and put "sarah" and play on the top 40. (I have a friend who goes to a protestant school and he asked me if it is wrong that some of the music makes it sound like they want to make-out with God) The focus on the music is very much on me and my buddy jesus. The majority of songs even have the individual language.

[quote]Your experience with Protestantism sounds very different from mine, but I suppose that's not surprising. In referring to Protestants, I don't pay so much attention to fringe groups like Free Baptists (or whoever it was you said believes the Trinity is extra-biblical), just as we wouldn't expect a Protestant to recognize Mel Gibson as a faithful Catholic. Somewhere we have to draw the line, and there's a strong consensus among the major denominations about things like the Trinity, the nature of Christ, role of grace, etc.[/quote]

The evangelical movement is far from a fringe group. I dont have stats in front of me, but they are a large part.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1384324' date='Sep 12 2007, 08:02 PM']Almost no evangelicals "recite" during service. You sing, you get a sermon. While they may agree in principle to portions of the apostles creed, they wont agree to to creed and they wont agree to our meanings of the terms. In a class I opened the issue up once with the Nicene creed and you would be surprised how people changed the def of terms in order to fit an individual theology. Professors did this as well.[/quote]

You beat me to it (and said it much better). But there was never a point in my SBC church where we recited anything, not even the Our Father. Not that the people there didn't agree with it, but the idea that it couldn't be genuine, from-the-heart, whatever if you were reciting something that had been written by another person. Now the Methodist church that I later went to did recite the Apostle's Creed, changing or omitting the word "Catholic" in most cases (but not always).

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1384324' date='Sep 12 2007, 08:02 PM']I completely disagree. The "me and my personal relationship with Jesus" is a key soteriological message. The "worship" songs that you could take "jesus" out and put "sarah" and play on the top 40. (I have a friend who goes to a protestant school and he asked me if it is wrong that some of the music makes it sound like they want to make-out with God) The focus on the music is very much on me and my buddy jesus. The majority of songs even have the individual language.[/quote]

This is definitely something I noticed when I went to college and was in a non-denom group on campus. Or at least that's where I was first exposed to that. It is very much focused on "buddy Jesus" with some of the songs, the majority of them perhaps, that I encountered. I'm sure not every group is like that, but it something I have noticed.