On McCain and Hagee
By Feddie Posted in 2008 | John Hagee | John McCain — Comments (122) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I am not going to mince words. I don't care for John Hagee, the senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. I realize this may offend some of RedState's evangelical readers, but that's certainly not my intent; and I hope they will, at the very least, understand why a faithful Catholic might take offense at someone referring to his beloved Church as "the Great Whore," an "apostate church," the "anti-Christ," and a "false cult system" (see also, this video of Hagee spewing his anti-Catholic nonsense).
So, needless to say, I wasn't exactly thrilled when Senator John McCain, who I strongly support, announced that he was "very honored" by Hagee's endorsement. It disturbed me greatly when Governor Huckabee associated himself with Hagee by speaking to his Church, and it bothered me as much, if not more, when McCain publicly embraced this joker.
That having been said, let's consider the facts. Senator McCain strongly repudiated Hagee's anti-Catholic views, not once, but twice:
We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics. I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it. And we can't have that in this campaign. We're trying to unite the country. We're uniting the country, not dividing it.
Now, that may not be good enough for the dems, but I think it is a damn fine statement by the good senator--certainly much more forceful than Governor Huckabee's comments when he was confronted about Hagee's views.
To be sure, I would rather McCain completely disassociate himself from Hagee, but his failure to do so (no doubt as a matter of political prudence) is not nearly enough for me to sit out an election that may, among other things, decide who gets to fill as many as three Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years. I mean, seriously, do the dems really believe that faithful Catholics are just going to sit on the sidelines this November because one of McCain's high-profile supporters is a bigoted twit? Do they honestly think that this sort of thing matters more than Senator Obama's unwillingness to support legislation designed to provide basic medical care to babies who survive botched abortions?
The bottom line is this: On the non-negotiable teachings of the Catholic Church, Senator McCain is the clear choice for faithful Catholics (even with his deeply troubling support of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research). And no amount of jeering by dems over Hagee's endorsement of McCain is going to change this fact. Besides, I would think Obama and Clinton supporters have plenty of other things to be concerned about.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Now comes the Gutter War. — Comments (68) »
On McCain and Hagee 122 Comments (0 topical, 122 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is a political post about a political controversy. And you'll note that I am defending McCain.
_____________________________________________
The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"
more like he is the only selection available that's even close... If I had to put up with your put-downs for election, I would pass...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I did think that he made a good case to be against McCain though - before he made the case for him...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Allow me to provide a few excerpts from the post:
"Senator John McCain, who I strongly support . . ."
"Senator McCain strongly repudiated Hagee's anti-Catholic views, not once, but twice."
"I think it is a damn fine statement by the good senator--certainly much more forceful than Governor Huckabee's comments when he was confronted about Hagee's views."
"On the non-negotiable teachings of the Catholic Church, Senator McCain is the clear choice for faithful Catholics . . .'
________________________________________________
The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"
and the bible unless you mean that Catholic teaching includes a lot of things not found in the bible.
The Catholic Church is the institution that put together the Bible. The Gospel of John is included while the Gospel of Thomas was not because the Catholic Church said so.
All Christian denominations have teachings that include interpretations (and the implications that follow) of the bible and thus the scope of teachings is more varied than the differences in the different versions of the bible.
Had the Baptist Church had a 1000 year monopoly, I suspect we would have made some major screw ups too!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
with what is included or not included in the Bible... After all, the Bible says that you have a personal relationship with God (not through a human - Priest) and to be saved you must accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour (personally). How does that relate to Catholics that believe that all they have to do is repent their sins to man (Priest - every so often) and continue on?
You can NOT get more different than that as far as being saved. Not sure how you can reconcile that with other denominations...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
RCC doctrine if that's what you think.
You're right that there are major differences, but not what you've mentioned here.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
to another sinful man is not my idea of NOT a minor difference. I guess major differences means much less to you than it does to me. For sin, I pray...for mental health, I can talk to man...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Catholic teaching, but just so you know, Catholic theology does not teach that Priests (or any other clergy member) forgives sins.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Are all the movies wrong when they show Priests saying "I forgive you my son"? Now that may be bogus since it is the movies, but they sure are consistent. Well, that does leave the question open as to why you would go to confession anyway...when you can talk to God privately.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
consistently depicted as in idiot?
In how many movies are conservative Republicans evil, large corporations corrupt, etc.
Many Catholics do not understand Catholic teaching, so I shouldn't be surprised that society at large doesn't either. However, it is frustrating when my fellow believers seem so anxious to look at Catholics as robotic ceremony participants who don't read or care about the Bible. The willingness or even eagerness to believe the worst about us based on the MSM and similar sources is disappointing.
On that note, I am going to sleep.
Turning in for the evening... Let us all continue to believe as we may.
Agree about the movies...(I did have other input though from a multi-decade christian).. Good night, and have a good tomorrow...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
if only the personal relationship matters?
The answer is that the other stuff helps us believers---but it is the relationship with God that ultimately matters.
not to get forgiveness of sin... Than is a personal matter.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
After all...I can do all that is needed without going to confession. Okay, and why pray to Mary (a sinful human)? There are many things that I not only do not understand about Catholics but disagree with. Why all the fabulous costly buildings, furnishings, and gold ornamentals (Rome)? Do you know how many poor that could help? Oh well, we are not going to understand each other...so let it be...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost? If you don't know the answer to your question, you don't read the Bible.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
The question was largely rhetorical.
From here on out, every time you ask me why Catholics do a particular ceremony, automatically ask yourself why you sing in church, pray in a community, etc. and supply your answer to the question that you are asking me.
on the door of the church at Wittenberg!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The teachings of the Catholic Church are in no way contrary to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Nothing in Catholic teaching says that the determination of whether I am saved or not is dependent on my relationship with my priest.
Confession is about confessing one's sins to God. No priest forgives you of your sins---God does that. The priest is simply someone who listens, provides some counseling, and reminds you that God has forgiven you.
Many Catholics fail to understand what the Church teaches, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that so many of my evangelical brothers and sisters do the same.
Does the Church have a lot of ceremonies and teachings that are not based in the bible? Sure. Are they contrary to the bible? No.
There are Catholic teachings not based in the bible (fasting for Lent for example), but that does NOT mean that anything in the Bible contradicts Catholic teaching.
The Bible is a subset of Catholic doctrine, but it is the focus. You are not well educated in the teachings of the Catholic Church and thus are not in a good position to say that something conflicts. There are no such conflicts.
a few hundred years and we'll turn fried chicken into dogmatic tradition!
smile
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
...splinter in another's eye, when you have a former leader of the Weather Underground in your own?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not Catholic... but isn't being against the death penalty equally, "non-negotiable?"
That having been said, I strongly oppose the death penalty.
___________________________________________
The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"
I for think the death penalty should be used only when there is absolutely zero chance of error, but I've always been curious about how serious Catholics reconcile being so strong on one "life" issue but not another.
I think this will answer your question:
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
And keep in mind that many serious Catholics do strongly oppose the DP, while still recognizing that it is an issue of less importance than other issues (e.g., abortion).
___________________________________________
The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"
legitimate. But if he endorsed McCain, this Southern Baptist would not be offended and certainly would not insist that McCain disassociate himself from the Pope or any of his or his predecessor's bulls.
Catholic and Protestant theologians use rough language. They feel and believe deeply that they are right.
Me? I'm a Jesus, John 3:16 guy.
What Hagee and Benedict are debating is bigger than politics, and when it comes to issues on this Earth, they agree 99%.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Read the update to this post:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/07/benedict-on-untrue-churches...
That having been said, on cultural matters faithful Catholics and Protestants are on the same page 99% of the time. On that, we agree. :)
___________________________________________
The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"
Moreover, I respect the catholics and Baptists that fight tooth and nail over doctrine. In fact, my brother is a southern baptist theology professor and my first wife was Catholic. This lawyer thinks that the baptists have the theology down, and I don't expect lay people to understand the spirited arguments (some of which get captured by the msm) of Christians on both sides. Yes, they understand when they, as secularists, curse each other out and then drink martinis together in Georgetown, but then leap at colorful language of theological combatants.
What you should understand is that fellow Christians argue from love, and a desperate attempt to save souls.
more later
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Benedict respects that other Christian denominations have people who genuinely believe in God. Disagreement does not equal a lack of respect.
In contrast, Hagee thinks Catholics are being deceived by the devil.
Benedict would never call Hagee's church an instrument of the devil.
doctrine to individuals. Both Hagee and Benedict recognize that individuals in either church are saved and both think that the doctrine of the other misleads.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
but Evangelicals believe being saved means believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins and you accept him as your personal savior. It is an individual personal relationship - not involving Priests or confession as with Catholics. That alone is a major stumbling block between religions.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
evangelical believe, do you not, that any man can call upon Jesus, (see John 3:16) and be saved whether htye do so in a baptist church, the congo or in vatica City? right?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I don't care what religion you think you are, if you believe in Jesus and accept him as your personal Saviour, that is the key... Of course, that means confession is a waste of time...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
James 5:16 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
as I'm sure you know... After all, after confessing, they are supposed to be cleansed (by man) and sin no more...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
where does the Bible prohibit that?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
to much more than salvation, and surely confession is quite helpful in living a Christian life.
agree?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
between you and God...not between you and a Priest!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
However, we don't believe any man stands as mediator between man and God. We confess our problems to one another to gain strength and support for a more righteus life, not for mediation and forgivness.
difference between the Catholic religion and protestants. Seems that most do not grasp the major significance between talking to others about sins and forgiveness (which only comes from God - not Priests).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
of the difference... A Priest "forgives sin" in the Catholic Church. How can he (a man) do that? Talking about your sins or problems with a Pastor is not quite the same... Are you trying to extend an argument here? I doubt it, since I think you actually know the difference and are helping out the Catholic point of view...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
you already have your mind made up that you know what the RCC believes and no one will change your mind.
Why continue the argument? I certainly see no reason to carry this any further.
major point in the Catholic religion and you have never responded to that point - which makes it very hard to argue. I agree though, let it drop - let's get back to politics.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
are simply two of the latest players in an ongoing theological argument of over 500 years, and in no way comparable to Farrakhan.
My extended argument point is, I guess, my attempt to bridge a gap on what matters most and a matter on which I trust God, despite the fact that i think, that baptists have the theology down!
And that is that God's will be done despite man's imperfect attempts. The elect will be elected.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
You said "The elect will be elected" does this mean you don't believe in free choice. I figure baptists did I guess.
We (incl GC) now see thru a glass darkly, but one day, face to face. I'll leave Calvinism (see also the Apostle Paul) for another day!
bless you
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
A Calvinist and an Arminian both fell down a flight of stairs. Said the latter, "I should have been more careful!"
Said the former, "Whew! Glad that's over!"
God does.
Priests don't save your souls through confession any more than a southern baptist minister can save your soul by reading the Word to you---being saved is about Savior.
Now tell me why the poor sinner goes through the confessions, the Hail Marys, and whatever else Catholics do to repent? Is this just a physical act to make us feel better? Surely, most would not go through the ceremony unless there is some significance...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Traditions and ceremonies are not necessary, however, they can help a person feel a sense of reverence.
for absolution of guilt, more like coming to pray together to pray for eachother weakenesses, sort of like a prayer meeting.
For a lot more reasons than his views of the Roman Catholic Church.
His endorsement of McCain means as much to me as Dobson's refusal to endorse him.
Absolutely nothing.
which is my only point. Hagee's is a thological debate that is 400 years old. He is not a hater of individuals. His motive is to save. Farrakhan is a hater.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
His motive is to save.
Personally, from what I see, I'd say his motive is to make people feel good so they'll give him lots of money.
You're right that he's not a hater like Farrakhan. He'd never incite others to violence.
and NOT understand his views of views of the Roman Catholic Church. For goodness sakes, they are sometimes wildly in disagreement! For Hagee to no disagree would require him to disavow his faith!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Based on your comments on this thread, if I were you I'd take a long walk around the block before replying to anything else. Your reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
disagree with the Catholic Church! I'm not breaking any news here...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
but if his teaching is simply that the Catholic church as in the organization ( especially the papacy) is the whore in Babylon, or the beast or the anti-Christ, I don't see what the problem is. I understand such a belief is obviously repugnant to Catholic believers, but its a theological difference that shouldn't matter in politics. Its also something that Catholics shouldn't take personally. I believe the church or at least the papacy has been a corupt institution and is probably prophesied against in Revealation. This doesn't mean I'm a bigot. I don't think any less of Catholics, nor even of most popes, I simply think the institution of the papacy has led to doctrines and engaged in persecution which is looked down upon by God.
Now, there are millions of people who think Mormons are following a false religion ( myself included) and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and some that believe Mormons are a non - Christian cult. This doesn't mean that they are bigots. This just means they have different and misguided religous beliefs. So to the people who condemn the endoresment of Hagee, because he teaches the Catholic church is a cult prophesied against in Revealation would you also condemn the endoresment of one of the many evangelical leaders who thinks Mormonism is a cult? People should not be held to be bigots because they have strong beliefs against a certain religous system - only if they have beliefs against the religous people.
at is how several serious catholics and Protestants could argue with blunt language and then go have coffee together in Christian love!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
and I certainly felt no hate towards them or anyother Catholics. BTW as an interesting aside my Dad was a Benedict monk for awhile. He later left and became a protestant Seventh Day Adventist.
matters. I'm a Jesus freak!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
even subtleties within one's church can be tools of Satan, and get over the defensiveness.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
you'd be understanding if a Catholic responded that your church was based nothing more than a politically contrived heresy which has divided Christendom.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
in general and fundamentalists in particular. I still respect your opinion on politics.
I am not a huge fan of Hagee either, but I don't dislike him. We definitely disagree on some areas of theology.
that the ministers of one church seem obsessed with the bishops of another. I know nothing of Hagee, but closer to home I am familiar with hate-filled rantings of the Rev Paisley and the like.
I grew up in the Catholic church and we were not taught that Protestants were evil or devil worshipers or whatever, but Christians worshiping the same god. Then again it is a broad church with different thological views within it.
Enough theology already! This is a political site.
Also, re Great Whore- basic decency would dictate that we suspend discussion here until Gov Spitzer leaves office. Show some respect to the dead, why don't we!
Baptism is for forgiving original sin those sins inherited by Adam. Then there is penance, confession, and reconciliation for sins committed after baptism.
God sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23).
This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).
During his lifetime Christ sent out his followers to do his work. Just before he left this world, he gave the apostles special authority, commissioning them to make God’s forgiveness present to all people, and the whole Christian world accepted this, until just a few centuries ago.
You can check out the entire article if you feel a need to but stop criticizing confession because you don’t understand it.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp
Arel
1) Baptism is not for the forgiveness of orginal sin! Baptism was an ordinance set forth by Jesus for those who choose to follow him. There is no spiritual transaction made when a person is baptised it is simply a public statement of their first step of obedience to the teachings of Jesus. When I go down in the water as a sinner I come up out of the water a sinner. I will not be changed from being a sinner until I my death and then I will receive a new glorified body that is incorruptable.
2) Jesus did not pass on His authority to forgive sins to the apostles or any other men! The apostles were special witnesses that were given extraordinary gifts to prove their status in order for the church to be established.
With all this said, I don't hate Catholics, as a matter of fact, I have a lot of respect for the ones I know, but I do disagree with the doctrinal teachings of their church just as they do with mine and that's ok I want to keep the lines of communication open with everyone I meet even though we may disagree because sometimes I can learn to see things a little differently as a result of our discussions with one another.
This isn't the place for theology, but you baited me. All we know about Jesus comes from the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church that that created the modern Bible. It was the Catholic Church that saved and preserved the teachings of Christ for over 1500 years before there were Protestants.
I always found it ironic that Evangelicals use the tools and teachings of the Catholic church to criticize the Church. Jesus created an apostolic church not a bliblical one. All we can do is trust their lessons. "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Catholic Church is the See of Peter. It is the closest thing we have to the original teachings and practices of Jesus Christ not the Bible, which was created centuries later by the CatholicChirch as a teaching tool or modern theologians and academics who can only speculate.
Since when did theology not have a place in politics? I think it would do our political system some good if some theology was injected into it.
As for the Catholic church being the vehical for the preservation of the Bible: One church can not claim full authority on the preservation of the Bible when the early church was made up of small sects scattered around the known world. It was these small sects that keep the words of the apostles intack, not the Catholic church as we know it today which wasn't established for a few hundred years after the apostles.
"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" You can not take this one verse in scripture (out of context I would add) and have the foundation for the Catholic church. If Jesus found this to be such an important piece of doctrinal truth for his followers then the apostles would have made it very clear in their epistles to the churches, in which there is little if any to find on the subject. I find it interesting that you quote from the Bible to justify the claims of the Catholic church when I can quote from the same Bible and refute its claims. Jesus did not establish a physical church per say, he established a spiritual doctrine of teaching for his followers. These followers, whether they are associated with any denonmination or not, make up a spiritural church with Jesus holding all the power and the authority.
The Catholic church is not the closest thing we have to the original teachings and practices of Jesus. It is only one piece in the history of christianity.
Not going to get into this. But the Church was not the "the vehical for the preservation of the Bible". The Catholic Church. You read their Bible. There was thousands of heretical sects and bibles, but they did not have a direct connection to Paul and Peter; the nexus between Christ and the Catholic Church.
I know you are not going to agree with me. The Catholic Church is the most conservative instituion in the world. Denominations with no anchor and no authority float in the wind and vulnerable to all the pressures and fads of the times. I'll stick with two thousand years of progress and scholarship. I will stick with the "Rock". You can stick with your faith.
I believe you prove my point by saying their was thousands of heretical sects and bibles. How do you know for sure the the Catholic church didn't spring out from one of them. Baptist can claim historical references through these sects as well and have much better ground to stand on than the Catholic church with all of its corruption through the years.
Institutions, just like governments, are corruptable because they can be influenced by corrupted man. Two thousand years of progress and scholarship means nothing when you take into account the history of the old testament. The children of Israel had thousands of years to perfect themselves and look at the condition they were in when Jesus came on the seen. The "Rock" to stand on is not the teachings of some denomination, but the fundamental teachings of Jesus and his apostles that he had personally chosen. It amazes me how individuals have the need to be a part of some physical church. I grew up in a church who taught they were the "Church". This makes absolutely no logical sense to me that God being a spirit would want to create a physical church. What does make sense to me is that God being a spirit would want to establish a spiritual church based on His spiritual doctrine that He had recorded and preserved through the people that He hand selected. I can concede that He could have used the Catholic church in some way to help preserve His word, but that can be argued with little to no use in our discussion.
My faith is not based on some mystical something. It is based on the reality that man is corrupt and everything he touches becomes corrupt. The problem the Catholic church has with it's two thousand years of sholarship is you need a double PHD to understand their doctrine. Why would a God who wants to save mankind establish through His church a doctrine that a simple man can not understand? I believe in the age old adage "keep it simple stupid".
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
To me it's crazy to think we need more than the Old and the New Test., that somehow we have to add our traditions and intellect into the equation and somehow come up with something better.
canon!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
quote was used as people told my preacher off as they exited the church after he read from the RSV!!!
good one bird
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Which is not to say that the RSV does not have its merits.
But if I'm going to listen to someone read the Bible aloud, I prefer the KJV. Much more poetic.
But I digress.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
left the church over the KJV were wonderful Christians that integrated the church!
So let's all keep our pride in check.
DeVine is a genius
and a fool.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Baptists can claim historical references from theses sects? Like the Book of Thomas and other gnostic sects, really? I know where the Cahtolic Church came from. You said it makes sense that God wanted to "establish a spiritual church based on His spiritual doctrine that He had recorded and preserved through the people that He hand selected." Yes, he selected Peter and the apostles. The Catholic Church is the See of Peter. From Rome, Peter and Paul built the faith Cahtlics and Protestants know it with the minor expcetions of Martin Luther who single handedly added and redacted from the Bible at will like adding "alone" to the phrade "you shall know me by faith" and turning it into "you shall know me by faith alone". So
Your understanding vindicates every single deviation and denomination of Chritianity. Every single person can take what it wants and believe they are Christian. That is mysticism. Your beliefs have to have some source. Christianity is not some high mystic form of relativism. There is right and wrong. Truth and lies.
There is no "See of Peter". You have no proof that Paul was working in concert with Peter. Peter's apostleship was to the Jews and Paul's was to the gentiles.
"Your understanding vindicates every single deviation and denomination of Chritianity" precisely why it makes perfect sense.
"There is right and wrong. Truth and lies." Only God can establish these perameters and He has in the Bible. I do not need a church to explain them to me.
You may disagree, but to say there is no See of Peter is like saying there is no Koran. It exists. It is the Catholic Church. Again God's word is apostolic, not biblical. The Catholic church took the oral traditions of the apostles and created the Bible that you read to determine God's word.
the Bible, not what the Catholic church has tried to add to it over the past two thousand years.
You can not prove this "The Catholic church took the oral traditions of the apostles and created the Bible that you read to determine God's word." My understanding is that the canon is made up of the four gospels (eye witness accounts of Jesus life and teachings), early church history, Acts, personel letters by the apostles to the churches, and a book of prophecy, Revelation. Are you telling me that somehow the Catholic church had something to do with how all of books are currently written by interpreting the traditions of the apostles? That makes no logical sense to me. To me it is very conceivable that all of these books could have been preserved by small groups of highly dedicated people (like the ones that were martered) that received them to begin with and keep them preserved by passing them down through the years without the need of the Catholic church. This would be well in line with how the old testament was preserved through a very dedicated group of Jews whose sole purpose was preserving God's written word.
I'm too busy right now. I'm not a Church scholar. But quickly, what I am saying is that it was the Catholic Church, by way of oral traditions and direct links to the original and most influential disciples, who sifted, studied an examined hundreds and hundreds of documents, texts, papers, canons and et cetera around 400 AD. From their studies, erudition, oral traditions and link to the original disciples, they culled out the most truthful and authorotative pieces and created the Bible.
That Bible is the foundation of both Catholic and Protestant faiths. It's illogical to to disavow to toss away the teaching of the Church and rely only on the words of the Bible. The Church preceded and was responsible for the New Testament.
"It's illogical to to disavow to toss away the teaching of the Church and rely only on the words of the Bible. The Church preceded and was responsible for the New Testament. "
It seems that the logical thing to do would be to let the words of the men that actually walked and talked with Jesus personally stand as the only written authority, otherwise corruption and false teachings can ensue because of man corrupt nature. To me it takes much more faith to believe that everything that the Catholic church says is equivelant to the words that the original apostles penned. I find it very difficult to trust in what man can do or say because of his corrupt nature. You may believe that the pope is ordained by God as an apostle to hold this mantle when he is in office, but I can not go down that road especially when some of the things that the Catholic church has produced throughout history contradicts teaching within the canon (for example the two doctrines that started this discussion). If they can not get these things right, how am I to trust any decision that comes down from the Catholic church. Again, I will restate that God's plan of salvation for mankind is very simple as laid out in the canon and there is no need for an authority such as the Catholic church to preserve it, modernize it, modify it, or add to it.
I have to say this has been very educational. I really understand better now why Catholics view things the way they do. I used to have a simular view because of the church I was raised in. I just can not equate the Catholic church as being equal to Jesus and the first apostles in it's authority of God's word and that I must therefore submit to its teachings the same as I would to the canon. I believe that man has always been a free soul and only accountable to God himself, but I can see where you are coming from if you view the Catholic church as holding the oricals of God. To me it's all about the fundamentals contained in the canon that matters because there is where a man can find real salvation apart without the need of the church. I'm an example and so are many others outside of the church, but we'll understand all of this better when we get to heaven.
I believe you are saying that the Catholic church is the only church which has the authority to add to the canon because it somehow has a divine responsiblity for its preservation because of its link somehow to Peter. If this is so, here is where we disagree, I do not believe anything needs to be added to the canon as I discribed it above and therefore there is no need for a divine authority such as the Catholic church to exist to keep its preservation. I believe the canon is throughly complete as it stands with how I discribed it above and needs no further additions or revealations from any church. Yes, this does open the door for misinterpretation and many denominations(sounds like everyones view on conservatism), but it also leaves open the door for any man to come to the right understanding without the need for a physical church. This is what we must deal with until all is completed.
I'm only going to say this, and only once, because any serious theological and ethical discussion is beyond the scope of this community's mission.
Hagee is a particular kind of Christian fundamentalist who believes on the basis of his theology that the Catholic Church as an institution is evil on the basis of its doctrine.
This is because Hagee believes in Truth, and that the Roman Church is extremely, though not perhaps not maliciously, wrong to the point of leading people to Hell.
He does not believe, to my knowledge, that all Roman Catholics are absolutely as evil as human individuals can be, nor does he believe that Roman Catholic people should be harmed.
He probably wants them all RCCs to join his church.
So... the folks who are (truly) informed as to the nuances of Protestant Christian theology are not panicking because they understand that he's wrong and/or will not provoke violence.
The folks who aren't informed concerning the nuances of Protestant Christian theology and don't care to be should not be panicking because the worst Hagee will do to you is try to convert you and persuade you to believe what he does.
That's one important difference between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims: Christians have no religious authority to jihad if you won't convert.
Roman Catholics are reasonably offended, and McCain is right to clearly distance himself from the beliefs he doesn't agree with, while affirming the ones that he does. If Hagee doesn't like that, Hagee is free to withdraw his endorsement.
McCain might say something like: "I hope John Hagee knows that I don't agree with his beliefs concerning the RCC; I also hope that he understands that I agree with him concerning the principles of limited government, devotion to the cause of life, and a strong and just military. If I'm wrong about that, I'll understand if he withdraws his endorsement."
That's one important difference between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims: Christians have no religious authority to jihad if you won't convert.
Would not the MSM butcher McCain for waiting so long to offer to return the endorsement?
I think McCain's responses thus far have been strong.
I guess I just wanted to point out that in addition to distancing himself and explicitly saying he wants to unite the country, he should use Hagee as an opportunity to say the things that will actually unite the country,* while making it clear that if Hagee wanted the endorsement to be about Catholics, Hagee is free to withdraw his endorsement at any time he comes to realize what McCain's endorsement should be about without any offer from McCain to do so.
*It's the difference between bland, vague and annoying rhetoric like: "Let's unite the country. I want to unite the country. I don't think some people want to unite the country."
and statements like:
"The American people deserve to keep their paychecks." "Our country was built on the principle of freedom to worship God." "When we defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq, our young men and women will come home with honor for giving Iraqis freedom and hope and for building the hospitals, schools and institutions that will help them to prosperity."
Let the Democrats specialize in platitudes and vague, obviously empty political rhetoric.
a political post. Of course there are differences between the Bible and the Catholic teachings...but we are talking politics here, not religion.
You really do need to remove yourself from politics if you take your religious beliefs strongly. I can't imagine that you would ever be happy with any elected official.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."