Brick Walls and Picket Fences

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lanman87

Guest
I thought ya’ll might find this interesting. This is from Pastor David Miller who is pastor of a large Southern Baptist Church in Iowa.

This may give ya’ll some idea of how many Protestant view the universal church. It is about how we can have unity despite differing doctrinal beliefs.

Below are some quotes from Pastor Miller. He has a book that expounds on this premise.
The entire blog post can be found here.

Brick Wall Doctrines: "There is some doctrine which we must contend for, even to the point of separation. God’s word is a sword, and swords divide. There are some doctrines that all must believe. If you do not believe them, you have denied the faith. There can be no unity in the body of Christ with those whose doctrines threaten the very existence of that body.

Some Christians are unwilling to admit that this level of truth even exists. But doctrines of first importance must be contended for in uncompromising measure. What are those doctrines? I would use 1 Corinthians 15 as a guide.

Paul identifies the facts of the death and resurrection of Christ as of first importance. So, “Brick Wall” doctrine is that truth which is essential to the gospel of Christ. If you question the authority of God’s Word, the foundation of the gospel crumbles. Salvation is grounded in a Biblical view of a sovereign, triune God. There is no compromise on these doctrines."

Picket Fence Doctrines: “A picket fence is a friendly way of separating neighbors. It is not a brick wall that divides, it just establishes boundaries. You chat over the fence, have picnics together, watch over each other’s homes, and value the neighborhood you share. Around many doctrines we do not need a brick wall, but a simple picket fence.”…

“Instead of fighting over these issues, we form a “Christian neighborhood.” Around the neighborhood is the brick wall of protection. Inside the neighborhood we have picket fences. We chat over the fence, fellowship together, watch over and bless each other, and value our unity in Christ.”

"Some major doctrines that may require picket fences: Calvinists and Arminians view so many things differently. The question of God’s sovereignty in salvation has been the watershed doctrine that has divided the church. Though I am opposed to Arminian doctrine, I know many who hold those views and have a passion for Christ equal or greater than my own. So what do we do? We stand at the picket fence and lovingly try to convince one another of our position. When the discussion is over, we shake hands and return to our homes where we worship with the folks who believe as we do. "

“It is not that these doctrines do not matter. They are crucial. But I must, in humility, recognize that it is possible for someone to be a good Christian who loves Jesus and still comes to a different position than I do on these issues. If someone preaches universalism, I erect a brick wall. No fellowship. There can be no unity with wolves. But if someone disagrees with me on election or predestination, we maintain a friendship over the picket fence.”

Backyard Doctrine: "Even if you live in the same home, you don’t always agree about everything. You sit on your deck in the backyard and talk about all kinds of things. Every doctrine of Scripture is important. It is important to figure out how the world will end. We can debate the North and South Galatian theories and who wrote the book of Hebrews. We may sit in the backyard and talk about these things, but they do not affect our fellowship and we should never divide over them. Not even a picket fence is needed.

If a doctrine affects salvation, erect a brick wall. If it affects the fellowship or functioning of the church, erect a friendly picket fence. But if the doctrine affects neither, then sit in the backyard talking about it, but never let it become a point of division."

Closet Doctrine: "A closet is a place of privacy. Some things I believe, I should just keep to myself. I should follow the Lordship of Christ and permit other Christians to do the same. In the early church, the question was whether a Christian should eat meat sacrificed to an idol. Paul told the Romans and Corinthians that each of us can follow our own conscience under Christ, and keep our opinions to ourselves. In 1 Corinthians 8 through 10, and in Romans 14 and 15, Paul spent a long time explaining this principle of personal freedom to his churches.

For us, the issues are observing the Sabbath (or what day to observe it), or taking a glass of wine, or going to the movies, or dietary preferences, or . . . the list is long. Paul commands that those who say no on disputable issues should not condemn those who say yes and those who say yes should not disdain those who say no. Each of us seeks to be obedient to Christ on these matters and allows others to do the same. We also should be willing to limit our freedom to be a blessing to others."
 
He spends a lot of energy to end up with these statment toward the end…
First, each of us must study the Word of God and try to assign each doctrine to its proper category. We will not always agree where doctrines fit, but with the Spirit’s guidance, we can uphold doctrine without sacrificing unity.
Some issues, I should keep to myself and allow you to do the same. Around other issues, I erect a picket fence.
These, i suspect, is the reality in which we live.

Not sure what good can come from this writing.

Peace!!!
 
Sounds like a very roundabout and tortured way of avoiding hard truths.
 
It sounds like he is deciding what is doctrine, instead of the Church. :confused:
 
A very good reply, taken from an article several years old at calledtocommunion.com.
A second reason why it is understandable that Protestants raise this objection is that since there is no Protestant magisterium to provide an authoritative and singular body of doctrine by which Protestants could enjoy a bond of unity in faith, within Protestantism the only way to determine the unity of faith is to survey the range of beliefs held by Protestants, and determine what is held in common. Agreement concerning the faith occurs within a Protestant denomination formed by persons brought together by sharing the same interpretation of Scripture, subsequently joined by persons who share that interpretation and abandoned by those who come to hold a different interpretation. But while the Catholic Church teaches that she is the Church Christ founded,** almost no Protestant denomination claims to be the very Church Christ founded.** Each typically views itself as a branch within the “catholic Church.”21 **Nor within Protestantism can there be any authoritative or definitive delineation of what belongs to the essentials and what belongs to the non-essentials.22 No one person’s determination of what belongs to the essentials and what does not, is authoritative over all other Protestants. Without a magisterium what belongs to the essentials and what does not, therefore is ultimately a matter of private judgment for each Protestant. **For this reason, **claims that Protestants are “agreed upon the essentials” are claims that Protestants are agreed on what the claimant himself has determined to be the essentials, on the basis of his own interpretation of Scripture. **In this way the Protestant denial of magisterial authority undermines even the authority of creeds and confessions.23 For these reasons, therefore, unity of faith within Protestantism can be determined only by the degree of doctrinal agreement among Protestants across all Protestant denominations…Nor is Protestantism capable of providing a definitive or exhaustive list of the essentials of the faith, or a principled basis by which all persons of good will can distinguish in each case between what is essential and what is not.
 
This sounds a lot like what the preacher at my husband’s church talked about one Sunday. He said we need to agree on the essentials and not argue about the non-essentials. Who determines what the essentials are? Once I know who has authority to determine the essentials that’s what I’ll do…oh wait, I already know, the magestrium of the Catholic Church.
 
This sounds a lot like what the preacher at my husband’s church talked about one Sunday. He said we need to agree on the essentials and not argue about the non-essentials. ** Who determines what the essentials are**? Once I know who has authority to determine the essentials that’s what I’ll do…oh wait, I already know, the magestrium of the Catholic Church.
That’s the question that never really gets answered.

People like Matt Slick go and make charts of “essential vs non essential” teachings.

But how do they go about composing these charts? What formula is used and by what authority are you making it? You can’t say the authority of the bible since books do not/have not/will not interpret themselves.

So again, it comes down to a person being their own authority. People become churches unto themselves… That is foreign to historical Christianity.
 
That’s the question that never really gets answered.

People like Matt Slick go and make charts of “essential vs non essential” teachings.

But how do they go about composing these charts? What formula is used and by what authority are you making it? You can’t say the authority of the bible since books do not/have not/will not interpret themselves.

So again, it comes down to a person being their own authority. People become churches unto themselves… That is foreign to historical Christianity.
Actually, I think the protestant model is modeled after the early catholic church. Jesus established the catholic church, which are those he “called out”. Those who are called out established local communities of believers (the first communities were established by the apostles). Those local communities recognized each other by consensus of belief and worked together to fight against heresy. These local communities chose their own overseers (Bishops or Presbyters) and those bishops dialoged with other bishops about church doctrine and customs. They worked together to spread the gospel and fight against heresy. Many times those bishops disagreed with each other but they also had unity based on the shared faith in Christ.

This was the model of the early church up until Constantine. At that point the state started to intervene when bishops disagreed. About a year after Constantine recognized Christianity he was asked to intervene against the Donatist. This resulted in Him sending troops to suppress the Donatist. It wasn’t the church who called the Council of Nicaea it was Constantine, who hadn’t even been baptized.

From that point forward until the reformation the authority of the church was enforced by support of the state. Whichever bishops of the church had favor with the current emperor are the ones who had the power. Emperors appointed bishops based on political ideals and bishops supported emperors who would support their agenda. Often, the Pope was appointed due to political maneuvering instead of faith and piety. Far to often, power, wealth, prestige, and political/cultural stability was the shared goal of both the emperor/kings and the clergy.

Freedom of Religion, which was born out of societal (humanism/nationalism) and religious (reformation) changes caused a shift back to the practice of the early church. The different communities of believers choose their own form of church government. They choose their own leadership. They work together to spread the gospel and to do works of mercy. They discuss doctrine and customs and fight against heresy. In some areas they disagree about doctrine or customs but the unity is based on a shared faith in Christ, in who Christ is and why He came. The catholic church moved from being considered Roman Catholic back to being considered truly catholic. That is, made of those who have put their faith in Christ and are part of the body of Christ based on their position in Christ.

The Roman Catholic church was born out of Rome from the time of Constantine and was supported/enforced by the state… Denominationalism was born out of freedom of religion that first began to emerge shortly after the reformation and reached its peak in the Constitution of the United States.
 
Below are some quotes from Pastor Miller…

Brick Wall Doctrines: "There is some doctrine which we must contend for, even to the point of separation. God’s word is a sword, and swords divide. There are some doctrines that all must believe. If you do not believe them, you have denied the faith. There can be no unity in the body of Christ with those whose doctrines threaten the very existence of that body…

Picket Fence Doctrines: “A picket fence is a friendly way of separating neighbors. It is not a brick wall that divides, it just establishes boundaries. You chat over the fence, have picnics together, watch over each other’s homes, and value the neighborhood you share. Around many doctrines we do not need a brick wall, but a simple picket fence.”…

Backyard Doctrine: "Even if you live in the same home, you don’t always agree about everything. You sit on your deck in the backyard and talk about all kinds of things…

Closet Doctrine: "A closet is a place of privacy. Some things I believe, I should just keep to myself. I should follow the Lordship of Christ and permit other Christians to do the same. In the early church, the question was whether a Christian should eat meat sacrificed to an idol. Paul told the Romans and Corinthians that each of us can follow our own conscience under Christ, and keep our opinions to ourselves. In 1 Corinthians 8 through 10, and in Romans 14 and 15, Paul spent a long time explaining this principle of personal freedom to his churches…
Thanks for sharing this Ianman87. I think it is a sincere attempt from the Protestant mindset to move towards inclusion without sacrificing one’s personal principles. The problem, which others have already pointed out, is that it can only be applied on an individual basis among Protestants, for each is his or her own authority on what is a “Brick Wall” doctrine, what is a “Picket Fence” doctrine, and what is merely “Backyard” or “Closet” Doctrine. The 7th Day Adventists would stand or fall on Saturday worship. Infant baptism is another issue critical of some faiths but less so of others. Without a central Protestant authority to say which doctrines from Scripture are essential, each individual Protestant Christian must decide where the bricks stop, where the pickets start, and who gets to sit on the back porch. That leads to a lot of bricklaying and a lot of fence building within Protestantism.

Peace,
Robert
 
Thanks for sharing this Ianman87. I think it is a sincere attempt from the Protestant mindset to move towards inclusion without sacrificing one’s personal principles. The problem, which others have already pointed out, is that it can only be applied on an individual basis among Protestants, for each is his or her own authority on what is a “Brick Wall” doctrine, what is a “Picket Fence” doctrine, and what is merely “Backyard” or “Closet” Doctrine. The 7th Day Adventists would stand or fall on Saturday worship. Infant baptism is another issue critical of some faiths but less so of others. Without a central Protestant authority to say which doctrines from Scripture are essential, each individual Protestant Christian must decide where the bricks stop, where the pickets start, and who gets to sit on the back porch. That leads to a lot of bricklaying and a lot of fence building within Protestantism.

Peace,
Robert
One of the acknowledged problems is that some make Picket Fence doctrines Brick Wall doctrines and vice-versa. That is one of the issues the writer is trying address. However, if you look at the statement of faiths of the established denominations you will find much more in common than you will be to be different. It is also important to note that the various established denominations agree on who does and doesn’t teach authentic Christianity. For instance, I know of no denomination that recognizes the LDS or JW churches as authentic Christianity. There may be some that do but they are few and far between. The Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God and Reformed folks I’ve had contact with in my life all view both the LDS and JW as cults. They also view each other as brothers and sisters as Christ despite differences of opinions on some topics.
 
Actually, I think the protestant model is modeled after the early catholic church. Jesus established the catholic church, which are those he “called out”. Those who are called out established local communities of believers (the first communities were established by the apostles). Those local communities recognized each other by consensus of belief and worked together to fight against heresy. These local communities chose their own overseers (Bishops or Presbyters) and those bishops dialoged with other bishops about church doctrine and customs. They worked together to spread the gospel and fight against heresy. Many times those bishops disagreed with each other but they also had unity based on the shared faith in Christ.

This was the model of the early church up until Constantine. At that point the state started to intervene when bishops disagreed. About a year after Constantine recognized Christianity he was asked to intervene against the Donatist. This resulted in Him sending troops to suppress the Donatist. It wasn’t the church who called the Council of Nicaea it was Constantine, who hadn’t even been baptized.

From that point forward until the reformation the authority of the church was enforced by support of the state. Whichever bishops of the church had favor with the current emperor are the ones who had the power. Emperors appointed bishops based on political ideals and bishops supported emperors who would support their agenda. Often, the Pope was appointed due to political maneuvering instead of faith and piety. Far to often, power, wealth, prestige, and political/cultural stability was the shared goal of both the emperor/kings and the clergy.

Freedom of Religion, which was born out of societal (humanism/nationalism) and religious (reformation) changes caused a shift back to the practice of the early church. The different communities of believers choose their own form of church government. They choose their own leadership. They work together to spread the gospel and to do works of mercy. They discuss doctrine and customs and fight against heresy. In some areas they disagree about doctrine or customs but the unity is based on a shared faith in Christ, in who Christ is and why He came. The catholic church moved from being considered Roman Catholic back to being considered truly catholic. That is, made of those who have put their faith in Christ and are part of the body of Christ based on their position in Christ.

The Roman Catholic church was born out of Rome from the time of Constantine and was supported/enforced by the state… Denominationalism was born out of freedom of religion that first began to emerge shortly after the reformation and reached its peak in the Constitution of the United States.
Hi Ian.

Yes, I’ve seen these claims before.

Have you read the work of Ignatius of Antioch? He was a student of the apostle John. If you read his work, the Didache and Justin Martyr’s first apology(all long before Constantine), what you will find is:

1.) Apostolic succession
2.) Submission to the clergy/Bishops.
3.) Jesus Christ in the Eucharist
4.) The Mass as a sacrifice, fulfilling Malachi 1:11
5.) Very prescriptive methods on Church practice

What you won’t find is protestant Christianity(only certain aspects of it). The idea that we just pick up bibles and attempt to operate autonomously. That would negate passages such as Matt 18:17/John 20:21-23, among others.

God bless you.
 
One of the acknowledged problems is that some make Picket Fence doctrines Brick Wall doctrines and vice-versa. That is one of the issues the writer is trying address. However, if you look at the statement of faiths of the established denominations you will find much more in common than you will be to be different. It is also important to note that the various established denominations agree on who does and doesn’t teach authentic Christianity. For instance, I know of no denomination that recognizes the LDS or JW churches as authentic Christianity. There may be some that do but they are few and far between. The Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God and Reformed folks I’ve had contact with in my life all view both the LDS and JW as cults. They also view each other as brothers and sisters as Christ despite differences of opinions on some topics.
I think what you are referring to is what C.S. Lewis calls “mere Christianity”.

Everybody agrees that man fell in the garden and that the risen Jesus redeems the believer thanks to his sacrifice.

If you believe all that and believe Jesus is divine, you are a Christian of some sort.
 
Hi Ian.

Yes, I’ve seen these claims before.

Have you read the work of Ignatius of Antioch? He was a student of the apostle John. If you read his work, the Didache and Justin Martyr’s first apology(all long before Constantine), what you will find is:

1.) Apostolic succession
2.) Submission to the clergy/Bishops.
3.) Jesus Christ in the Eucharist
4.) The Mass as a sacrifice, fulfilling Malachi 1:11
5.) Very prescriptive methods on Church practice

What you won’t find is protestant Christianity(only certain aspects of it). The idea that we just pick up bibles and attempt to operate autonomously. That would negate passages such as Matt 18:17/John 20:21-23, among others.

God bless you.
I’ve read all three. Plus a bunch of other church fathers.

I find the Didache to be a very Baptist document. The Dicache shows the early church practiced believers baptism, appointed their own bishops and deacons, met on Sundays and was suspicious of those who claimed to be prophets.

The First Apology also indicates believers baptism and describes how the second century church met. There is not much there that 21 century protestants wouldn’t accept. We wouldn’t say it is prescriptive (it has to be that way) but is descriptive (is how that particular church did things).

Ignatius was obviously reacting to something that had happened in his church. Somebody somehow did something to disrespect bishops. To guess what it is would be speculation and you can’t form truth from speculation. However, we get the message loud and clear. Follow the teachings of the bishops and don’t do anything without the knowledge of the bishops. Again, that is not exactly something most protestants would have a problem with. Of course, we call our bishops elders or pastors but the role is the same.

From what I’ve read, the local church either elected/appointed a local bishop or the previous bishop appointed their successor unless something happened and they were unable to appoint a successor (sudden death or sickness maybe) then the local congregation appointed the next bishop from among themselves or from a nearby church. Apparently it varied from place to place. By the 4th Century it was the state who appointed many of the bishops of the larger churches and the other bishops appointed bishops to the smaller rural churches. Either way, it wasn’t the way it was done in first and second century Christianity. The advice of the Didache and Epistle of Clement where apparently abandoned due to the changing politics in the Roman Empire.

I find Apostolic Succession to be problematic because so many of those who became bishops were probably not even members of the body of Christ. They may have been good Roman Catholics in following the rules of the church, but evidence says that did not have a faith that “makes all things new” and they didn’t seek “to know Christ and the Power of His resurrection”. How can the power of the apostles pass to those who don’t have faith in Christ and how can they then pass it on to someone else?
 
One of the acknowledged problems is that some make Picket Fence doctrines Brick Wall doctrines and vice-versa. That is one of the issues the writer is trying address. However, if you look at the statement of faiths of the established denominations you will find much more in common than you will be to be different. It is also important to note that the various established denominations agree on who does and doesn’t teach authentic Christianity. For instance, I know of no denomination that recognizes the LDS or JW churches as authentic Christianity. There may be some that do but they are few and far between. The Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God and Reformed folks I’ve had contact with in my life all view both the LDS and JW as cults. They also view each other as brothers and sisters as Christ despite differences of opinions on some topics.
Thanks for the comment Ianman87. I appreciate that there are mainline protestant denominations that have a creedal statement that members must accept. But my point is that the membership is self-selecting. Each individual protestant must determine what is–for them–a Brick Wall doctrine. If their personal opinions are consistent with Lutheranism, then they may join the Lutheran Church. If those personal opinions change, they may leave the Lutheran Church for the Baptist Church, or Church of Christ, or a Oneness Pentecostal Church, the LDS Church, the JWs, and on it goes. And depending on where they go, they build their brick walls accordingly. And the Church remains divided in fact, despite an overlap of doctrinal agreement on many issues among the mainline Protestants.

The fact that traditional mainline and similarly reformed Protestants see no problem moving between mainline Protestant traditions is not surprising. That’s the problem, i.e. an inability to see how this thinking just perpetuates the divisions by ignoring the scope of the diversity created by sola scriptura.

For some reason your comment about all the Reformed traditions above reminded me of a quote from the “Blues Brothers” movie where Jake and Elwood ask the waitress at the Honkytonk what kind of music is played there, and she says completely straight-faced, “Both kinds, country *and *western!” Just my attempt at humor… Maybe it’s just late in the day… 🤷

Peace,
Robert
 
I find the Didache to be a very Baptist document.
Really? I spent a little more than a quarter century as a Baptist and could not disagree more. The Didache allows for baptism to be completed with methods other than full immersion. It also places the sacrifice of the Eucharist at the very center of Christian worship, rather than a sermon and evangelical altar-call.

None of these things are compatible with the broader Baptist faith. Or, at least, the second-wave independent, third-wave, reformed and Southern Baptist branches I was personally familiar with.
The Dicache shows the early church practiced believers baptism, appointed their own bishops and deacons, met on Sundays and was suspicious of those who claimed to be prophets.
Sure. This is pretty consistent with Catholic Church history at the time. In many places, it was still very much a “Church in hiding”. The beneficial days of Theodosius and Constantine were still a century or more off. If the Didache identified specific sees for its readers, it also identified specific sees for any anti-Christian authority that also got ahold of it.
The First Apology also indicates believers baptism and describes how the second century church met. There is not much there that 21 century protestants wouldn’t accept.
There is also very little that a Catholic wouldn’t accept; as the text was written by one. For example, he was rather aware of what was being done at the Church in Rome in his 1st Apology. Like Rome was a almost a model or seat of authority… 👍
Ignatius was obviously reacting to something that had happened in his church.
Also martyred while on his way to Rome for Church business…

If these guys weren’t Catholic, they sure had a lot of respect for the Roman Church. Ya kinda think the respect should have been shown more to the original Church in Jerusalem if all bishops were truly equals, right?
But of course they weren’t. The Petrine seat was in Rome.
The advice of the Didache and Epistle of Clement where apparently abandoned due to the changing politics in the Roman Empire.
Church polity changed because by the end of the 4th century, Christianity went from a persecuted fringe-religion to arguably the most popular as well as the official religion of the empire.
  1. They didn’t have to be so hidden about the leadership-tree when the martyring stopped.
  2. The explosive growth of the Catholic Church required the development of the leadership - just like any major organization.
I find Apostolic Succession to be problematic because so many of those who became bishops were probably not even members of the body of Christ.
It is necessary because it is the one metric by which a false prophet is told apart from a genuine prophet. It is why Paul spent weeks visiting Peter - so he was confirmed by the visible Church. Paul was thus endorsed and legitimized by the foremost of the original 12.

And concerning the sins of history’s bishops; welcome to the stain of the human race that affects both Baptists and Catholics alike.
I recall a Baptist pastor of a popular church in the 2nd largest city in my state being fired after it came out he cheated on his wife with one of the youth and embezzled money from the organization. His story among Baptist clergy is not unique.

Alas, the temptations of wealth and power.
 
And concerning the sins of history’s bishops; welcome to the stain of the human race that affects both Baptists and Catholics alike.
I recall a Baptist pastor of a popular church in the 2nd largest city in my state being fired after it came out he cheated on his wife with one of the youth and embezzled money from the organization. His story among Baptist clergy is not unique.

Alas, the temptations of wealth and power.
Yes, but baptist preachers don’t claim to have apostolic authority or be part of an infallible magisterium or have the ability to pass on that authority to the next preacher. It is one thing to be a sinful preacher, it is another to claim special authority descended directly from the apostles and be a bad Christian or worse yet, not even a Christian. I don’t think that some of the bishops in history and even some Popes were even Christians.
 
Yes, but baptist preachers don’t claim to have apostolic authority or be part of an infallible magisterium or have the ability to pass on that authority to the next preacher.
From the Baptist ordinations I attended during my life, I’m not entirely sure this is correct.

And The Deposit of Faith and the musings of any given Bishop are two different things. Any argument that conflates them is a textbook straw-man.

In the words of Christ himself, “The gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church”.
That rings true even if hell recruits a few “inside guys” from time to time.
It is one thing to be a sinful preacher, it is another to claim special authority descended directly from the apostles and be a bad Christian or worse yet, not even a Christian.
I agree fully that a poorly behaving Bishop is a worse thing than some self-proclaiming laity acting poorly. No argument there.

But men are sinful, as the Catholics and Baptists of history irrefutably prove beyond the shadow of doubt.
I don’t think that some of the bishops in history and even some Popes were even Christians.
No doubt, even ex-Popes have been excommunicated. Christ’s Church remains. We’ve been guaranteed by God-incarnate himself.
 
From the Baptist ordinations I attended during my life, I’m not entirely sure this is correct.

And The Deposit of Faith and the musings of any given Bishop are two different things. Any argument that conflates them is a textbook straw-man.

In the words of Christ himself, “The gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church”.
That rings true even if hell recruits a few “inside guys” from time to time.

I agree fully that a poorly behaving Bishop is a worse thing than some self-proclaiming laity acting poorly. No argument there.

But men are sinful, as the Catholics and Baptists of history irrefutably prove beyond the shadow of doubt.

No doubt, even ex-Popes have been excommunicated. Christ’s Church remains. We’ve been guaranteed by God-incarnate himself.
So the Roman Catholic church is asking me to believe that apostolic succession has been passed down through non-Christians?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top