The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Packers Resolutions

Who would sign the Resolutions for Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue as revised by Mr. Packer ?<br><br> Me - NO.<br><br>howard

After 26 hits I am pleasantly surprised that none said yes - yet !<br><br>howard

Howard,<br><br>Packer and others share your concern about not denying or compromising the Faith but they also share concern about mutually participating in addressing agreed upon objectives. Do I understand your position to deny any participation with anyone other than your own Faith even though you are addressing the same objectives?<br><br>Have you seen this statement by some Protestant signers to the ECT?<br><br><font class="big">Statement By Protestant Signers To ECT</font mu=big><br> <br>January 19, 1995 <br><br>We Protestants who signed ECT, took this action to advance Christian fellowship, cooperation, and mutual trust among true Christians in the North American cultural crisis and in the worldwide task of evangelism. The same concern leads us now to elucidate our ECT commitment by stating: <br><br>1. Our para-church cooperation with evangelically committed Roman Catholics for the pursuit of agreed objectives does not imply acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrinal distinctive or endorsement of the Roman Catholic church system. <br><br>2. We understand the statement that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ, in terms of the substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ, leading to full assurance of eternal salvation; we seek to testify in all circumstances and contexts to this, the historic Protestant understanding of salvation by faith alone (sola fide). <br><br>3. While we view all who profess to be Christian—Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox—with charity and hope, our confidence that anyone is truly a brother or sister in Christ depends not only on the content of his or her confession but on our perceiving signs of regeneration in his or her life. <br><br>4. Though we reject proselytizing as ECT defines it (that is sheep stealing for denominational aggrandizement), we hold that evangelism and church planting are always legitimate, whatever forms of church life are present already. <br><br>5. We think that the further theological discussions that ECT promised should begin as soon as possible. <br><br>We make these applicatory clarifications of our commitment as supporters of ECT in order to prevent divisive misunderstandings of our beliefs and purposes. <br><br>Signed by: <br><br>William R. Bright <br><br>Charles W. Colson <br><br>Kent R. Hill <br><br>James I. Packer<blockquote>Michael Horton writes, "For those who care about truth, Christian unity must be a marriage made in heaven, not a merger made on earth." <br><br>The greatest hope is that both evangelicals and Catholics will enter a new period of reformation and come out of that with genuine agreement in--and understanding of--the Gospel. For this is the heart of the matter, as well as the heart of Christian faith. Until the official ban - not on individuals, but on the Gospel itself - is lifted by Rome, evangelicals must continue to witness faithfully to the exclusive claims of the church's only King by regarding these departures as fatal to any agreements that may be reached on important points. As we pray for unity and work for greater understanding, let us also not fail to "contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." </blockquote>Wes<br><br><br><br>

Wes , as far as I can see , the statement you just posted is a non-starter.<br><br>Section 1 mentions "evangelically committed Roman Catholics "<br><br>There exists no such people ! <br><br>How can promulgators of false gospels be evangelically committed Christians ?<br><br>howard

Howard,<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]How can promulgators of false gospels be evangelically committed Christians ?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Same as you and me... by the grace of God. I believe there are true believers within the RC who desire to address and correct the errors in that church.<br><br>Apparently you don't believe the Lord can nor will redeem anyone who comes from a Roman Catholic background. I think you will be surprised! Your narrow focus is a protectionist mentality. You lack confidence in God's ability to save those who have been involved with other religions sounds a lot like a Pharisee.<br><br>Have you forgotten that you came to the Faith after having been involved with false doctrines?<br><br><br>Wes

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Section 1 mentions "evangelically committed Roman Catholics " There exists no such people ! </font><hr></blockquote><p> How do YOU Know?<br>

As I have said before - many times - If said R C is a believer then this R C will believe the Gospel and leave the RC church as is ordered in the Bible . Then of course this R C is no longer a RC promoting SATANS filth in the stead of Biblical Christianity.<br><br> COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE REV18:4<br><br>His people WILL come out.<br><br>howard

I dont Joe - but I have yet to meet one !<br><br>Methinks North American Protestants protesteth not enough .<br><br>howard

Where did I say that I dont believe the Lord can nor will redeem anyone who comes from a RC background ?<br><br>When you've showed me that then you can educate me about my narrow focus .<br><br>howard

Dear Howard:<br><br>I, also, have had, and do have, some aquaintances in the RC church who are some of the nicest, most helpful, and most kind people I know and we have relationships of mutual respect. courtesy, and understanding. I would add, that in my personal experience of over 53 yrs. it has been my RC aquiantances who were much more willing to help with the tasks of life than my Protestant aquaintances, while my Protestant ones made the loudest noise about same.<br><br>I, with you, believe that there are elect children in the RC system and that the Lord is quite capable of calling them as He does all of His chosen. And, I with you believe that when He does so, they, like Luther and Calvin, will eventually "come out from among them and be separate", and the Spirit inspired the second part of that verse just as much as the first, "and touch not the unclean thing". <br><br>To equate working together with RC's on secular matters such as police forces and national defence with working together on those things that are commanded in scripture is so ludicrous as to greatly undermine the credibility of those who would offer such arguements in their defence. <br><br>Over and over again the scriptures teach the error of mixing the secular with the sacred and the value of drawing clear lines between what is holy, right and good and that which only pretends to be. It has always been the tactic of the adversary to mix right with wrong to confuse the issue. Dialoging with RC's IS NOT the same thing as working with them on issues of scriptural importance. This is not a difficult distinction to make, and I am saddened to see that those who guide the direction of this site fail to make such distinctions.<br><br>I notice neither you nor I have gotten an answer to our question as to whether those who support this position believe that the reformers and their leading successors would have signed such a document, more less have worked with RC's on "religious projects".<br><br>Take courage, Howard, <br><br>Gerry

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Dialoging with RC's IS NOT the same thing as working with them on issues of scriptural importance. This is not a difficult distinction to make, and I am saddened to see that those who guide the direction of this site fail to make such distinctions.</font><hr></blockquote><p>And I am saddened that some are unable to rightly discern the difference between signing an agreement with those who would oppose the doctrines of grace, e.g., Sola Fide, which jeopardizes the doctrine(s) from "Dialoging" with them. If you are going to "cast stones", make sure that you aren't hit by errant tosses. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Pilgrim:<br><br>I see the distinction quite clearly and always have. I have not made the arguements for working with Roman Catholics on anti abortion campaigns, you have.<br><br>The document, however, does make such working together one of it's goals and thus promotes MORE than JUST DIALOGING, now doesn't it? Therefore to present the document as one that promotes dialogue only is not the whole truth it would seem.<br><br>As for "throwing stones", if you consider presenting the truth in a spirit of Christian love and concern no more than "throwing stones" then I will make that a matter of prayer for you, in fact, I already have and will continue to do so.<br><br>Gerry

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I dont Joe - but I have yet to meet one !...Methinks North American Protestants protesteth not enough .</font><hr></blockquote><p> <ul>[color:blue]Me thinks, Howard has no basis for his comments.[/i]</font color=blue> Howard I actually have a friend (seminary student) right now that his missionary appeal is to help evangelize those in the Mormon Church. He attends a Mormon church. He talks with Mormons all the time. He eats with Mormons. He evangelizes Mormons. Sounds allot like Paul and the Jews to me--completely Biblical.<br><br>What I find amazing is that on one one hand it is OK to send people overseas as missionaries and partake of a different culture and religion, so they may evangelize the lost, while if it takes place in England, U.S. or a hostile church you would consider these same missionaries lost. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img] What would Howard say to the Apostle Paul today if he asked Howard to go into a Catholic Church (Acts 16:1-3)? I wonder if the Catholic Church is part of the "world" that God has sent His elect to evangelize? Me thinketh Howard is straying towards being a hyper-Calvinist. One of the things (that I have been very weak on) is "balancing" issues. I hope to continue to grow here.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The document, however, does make such working together one of it's goals and thus promotes MORE than JUST DIALOGING, now doesn't it? Therefore to present the document as one that promotes dialogue only is not the whole truth it would seem.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Self-inflicted blindness is a terrible thing and one which you apparently are engaging in. Why? because from your response here, it seems you didn't read what I actually wrote?? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rolleyes.gif" alt="rolleyes" title="rolleyes[/img] I say again, I personally would not sign a document like ECT and I cannot approve of anyone else's signing of it, who claims to be a believer and more so who professes Calvinism. I have clearly made a distinction between "signing ECT" and entering into serious dialog/debate with Roman Catholic apologists. I hope this gets past your blinders this time.<br><br>Again.. your assessment of "throwing stones" as being presenting the truth in Christian love, etc. is erroneous, IMHO. Sometimes one can be so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly good. Beware brother that you don't end up like this: And as a reminder, Elijah was a man of like passions but he erred in a similar manner and had to be chastised by God and driven out of his cave where he thought he was the only purveyor of the truth. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]This is not a difficult distinction to make, and I am saddened to see that those who guide the direction of this site fail to make such distinctions.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Pilgrim addressed this very well and thus I would say it is sad that you are blind to the truth(s) that have already been stated.<br>