Nothing was settled, i.e., a negotiated agreement and there seems to be little, if any discussion on the subject today. It's as if both sides stated their position(s) and then accepted a draw/stalemate.

Yes, it's over. We won.

Seriously, though- there is a Lutheran-Catholic accord that is closer to happening than say, Protestant-Catholic.

But don't hold your breath, church moves slow.

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

whatthehey78 said:

---

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

---

I think it depends.

For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues.

But they do occur with the more Reformation era minded groups.

The ILC (International Lutheran Council) and Rome just released a statement in 2021 after about a decade of dialogue

https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

---

I think it depends.

For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues.

But they do occur with the more Reformation era minded groups.

The ILC (International Lutheran Council) and Rome just released a statement in 2021 after about a decade of dialogue

https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf

---

I may have misunderstood your point...but per the bold comment above, you're of the opinion that historical characters, i.e., Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Huss, Knox, etc. would tend to lean towards 'ecumenical dialogue'?

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

---

I think it depends.

For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues.

But they do occur with the more Reformation era minded groups.

The ILC (International Lutheran Council) and Rome just released a statement in 2021 after about a decade of dialogue

https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf

---

I may have misunderstood your point...but per the bold comment above, you're of the opinion that historical characters, i.e., Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Huss, Knox, etc. would tend to lean towards 'ecumenical dialogue'?

---

Not those individuals specfically, but those groups that came from the Reformation and recovery of the historic church.

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

---

I think it depends.

For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues.

But they do occur with the more Reformation era minded groups.

The ILC (International Lutheran Council) and Rome just released a statement in 2021 after about a decade of dialogue

https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf

---

I may have misunderstood your point...but per the bold comment above, you're of the opinion that historical characters, i.e., Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Huss, Knox, etc. would tend to lean towards 'ecumenical dialogue'?

---

Not those individuals specfically, but those groups that came from the Reformation and recovery of the historic church.

---

Perhaps "they" have no desire for ecumenical dialogue and feel there's no need to reconcile as the issues are not reconcilable.

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

---

I think it depends.

For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues.

But they do occur with the more Reformation era minded groups.

The ILC (International Lutheran Council) and Rome just released a statement in 2021 after about a decade of dialogue

https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf

---

I may have misunderstood your point...but per the bold comment above, you're of the opinion that historical characters, i.e., Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Huss, Knox, etc. would tend to lean towards 'ecumenical dialogue'?

---

Not those individuals specfically, but those groups that came from the Reformation and recovery of the historic church.

---

Perhaps "they" have no desire for ecumenical dialogue and feel there's no need to reconcile as the issues are not reconcilable.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about?

I literally linked where the groups that came from the Reformers are engaged in ecumenical dialogues...

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

---

I think it depends.

For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues.

But they do occur with the more Reformation era minded groups.

The ILC (International Lutheran Council) and Rome just released a statement in 2021 after about a decade of dialogue

https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf

---

I may have misunderstood your point...but per the bold comment above, you're of the opinion that historical characters, i.e., Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Huss, Knox, etc. would tend to lean towards 'ecumenical dialogue'?

---

Not those individuals specfically, but those groups that came from the Reformation and recovery of the historic church.

---

Perhaps "they" have no desire for ecumenical dialogue and feel there's no need to reconcile as the issues are not reconcilable.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about?

I literally linked where the groups that came from the Reformers are engaged in ecumenical dialogues...

---

Are these not your words:

"For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues."

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

---

I think it depends.

For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues.

But they do occur with the more Reformation era minded groups.

The ILC (International Lutheran Council) and Rome just released a statement in 2021 after about a decade of dialogue

https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf

---

I may have misunderstood your point...but per the bold comment above, you're of the opinion that historical characters, i.e., Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Huss, Knox, etc. would tend to lean towards 'ecumenical dialogue'?

---

Not those individuals specfically, but those groups that came from the Reformation and recovery of the historic church.

---

Perhaps "they" have no desire for ecumenical dialogue and feel there's no need to reconcile as the issues are not reconcilable.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about?

I literally linked where the groups that came from the Reformers are engaged in ecumenical dialogues...

---

Are these not your words:

"For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues."

---

Yes..in reference to the more modern Non-Denom/Pentacostal type groups that don't typically show a desire to look at the historical aspects of the church...

---

Okay then, I wasn't aware they were who you were referring to. Sorry for the confusion. Assumed you were pointing out other evangelicals who are not perfect in every aspect of their theology either...but Christians are allowed/encouraged to debate "non-essentials" without undue prejudice.

Even so, I for one am not in favor of ecumenical dialogue if/where the goal is to overlook "essential" differences and undo the intent/purpose of the "historical" Reformation.

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

---

I think it depends.

For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues.

But they do occur with the more Reformation era minded groups.

The ILC (International Lutheran Council) and Rome just released a statement in 2021 after about a decade of dialogue

https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf

---

I may have misunderstood your point...but per the bold comment above, you're of the opinion that historical characters, i.e., Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Huss, Knox, etc. would tend to lean towards 'ecumenical dialogue'?

---

Not those individuals specfically, but those groups that came from the Reformation and recovery of the historic church.

---

Perhaps "they" have no desire for ecumenical dialogue and feel there's no need to reconcile as the issues are not reconcilable.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about?

I literally linked where the groups that came from the Reformers are engaged in ecumenical dialogues...

---

Are these not your words:

"For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues."

---

Yes..in reference to the more modern Non-Denom/Pentacostal type groups that don't typically show a desire to look at the historical aspects of the church...

---

Okay then, I wasn't aware they were who you were referring to. Sorry for the confusion. Assumed you were pointing out other evangelicals who are not perfect in every aspect of their theology either...but Christians are allowed/encouraged to debate "non-essentials" without undue prejudice.

Even so, I for one am not in favor of ecumenical dialogue if/where the goal is to overlook "essential" differences and undo the intent/purpose of the "historical" Reformation.

---

Nobody is perfect in their theology.

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

It's seldom, if ever discussed but the issues remain. Everyone afraid to offend...so just let sleeping dogs lay??

---

I think it depends.

For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues.

But they do occur with the more Reformation era minded groups.

The ILC (International Lutheran Council) and Rome just released a statement in 2021 after about a decade of dialogue

https://ilconline.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Report-of-the-Theological-Conversations-between-ILC-and-RCC.pdf

---

I may have misunderstood your point...but per the bold comment above, you're of the opinion that historical characters, i.e., Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Huss, Knox, etc. would tend to lean towards 'ecumenical dialogue'?

---

Not those individuals specfically, but those groups that came from the Reformation and recovery of the historic church.

---

Perhaps "they" have no desire for ecumenical dialogue and feel there's no need to reconcile as the issues are not reconcilable.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about?

I literally linked where the groups that came from the Reformers are engaged in ecumenical dialogues...

---

Are these not your words:

"For a lot of evangelical groups, they don't particularly care or hold to a historical view that would really lead to ecumenical dialogues."

---

Yes..in reference to the more modern Non-Denom/Pentacostal type groups that don't typically show a desire to look at the historical aspects of the church...

---

Okay then, I wasn't aware they were who you were referring to. Sorry for the confusion. Assumed you were pointing out other evangelicals who are not perfect in every aspect of their theology either...but Christians are allowed/encouraged to debate "non-essentials" without undue prejudice.

Even so, I for one am not in favor of ecumenical dialogue if/where the goal is to overlook "essential" differences and undo the intent/purpose of the "historical" Reformation.

---

Nobody is perfect in their theology.

---

With respect to perfect theology...a name does come to mind.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Hard to compromise on whether the pope is the head of the church or the antichrist.

---

Weird black and white take. The idea of the Pope being the antichrist was just a ploy by the reformers to try to drive people to their side. Technically the Pope is not the head of Christs church...only Christ is and no good Catholic believes this. They are using modern language to confuse his role. In pretty much any protestant church, there is an organizational head...even if there is a group that advises them. Its a natural order for management. The Pope is merely Christs human emissary of the His church.

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist [1 John 4:2-3, 2 John 7"

Wish the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics never split as well.

Nah. It's not a ploy.

Nobody is saying the Pope is THE Antichrist, but an antichrist.

But an antichrist is nothing but someone who spreads a false gospel or teaching that lead us away from Christ.

This is the opening of the "Treatise of the Power and Primacy of the Pope."

Quote:

---

[1] The bishop of Rome claims to be superior by divine right to all bishops and pastors. [2] In addition, he claims to possess by divine right the power of both swords, [3] that is, the authority to confer and transfer royal authority. Third, he states that it is necessary for salvation to believe these things. For these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself the vicar of Christ on earth. [4] We hold and publicly declare that these three articles of faith are false, impious, tyrannical, and ruinous to the church.

---

You have to ask yourself a serious question. If what the Roman Catholic Church states, that they are the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church- founded by none other than Jesus himself- what else would you expect?

Of course the Pope is the Vicar of Christ! Think it over.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Wish the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics never split as well.

---

If by "split" you mean we have nothing in common- then it is not true. There is a leadership issue and that little issue with the Creed- other than that, more in common than any other denomination.

The only real issue between Reformed Anglicans (39 Aritcles) and Reformed Presbyterians (Westminster Standards) is the church government style.

The only real difference between them and many Reformed Baptists (London Confession of Faith) is baptism and sometimes church government (congregational).

All three are the confessional historic Protestant Church, save only the Lutherans who are as well (confessional…Book of Concord).

The historic Dutch Reformed are closely connected to those other three and are confessional as well (3 Forms of Unity) .

PabloSerna said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Wish the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics never split as well.

---

If by "split" you mean we have nothing in common- then it is not true. There is a leadership issue and that little issue with the Creed- other than that, more in common than any other denomination.

---

And different on the icons, no?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Wish the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics never split as well.

---

If by "split" you mean we have nothing in common- then it is not true. There is a leadership issue and that little issue with the Creed- other than that, more in common than any other denomination.

---

And different on the icons, no?

---

Probably no bitterness about allowing the ottomans to plunder the East when the orthodox wouldn't convert to Catholicism either…

TheGreatEscape said:

---

The only real issue between Reformed Anglicans (39 Aritcles) and Reformed Presbyterians (Westminster Standards) is the church government style.

The only real difference between them and many Reformed Baptists (London Confession of Faith) is baptism and sometimes church government (congregational).

All three are the confessional historic Protestant Church, save only the Lutherans who are as well (confessional…Book of Concord).

The historic Dutch Reformed are closely connected to those other three and are confessional as well (3 Forms of Unity) .

---

I'm not so sure about some of these assertions. I have friends going the reformed Baptist route and the differences become more pronounced as we follow our own paths. It's a gulf of faith between reading the Bible with a group of people and asking what each got out of it as opposed to listening to your priest talk about it and discussing what you didn't understand.

PabloSerna said:

---

You have to ask yourself a serious question. If what the Roman Catholic Church states, that they are the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church- founded by none other than Jesus himself- what else would you expect?

Of course the Pope is the Vicar of Christ! Think it over.

---

and You have to ask yourself a serious question. If what the Roman Catholic Church states is incorrect, that they are the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church- founded by none other than Jesus himself- what else would you expect?

Of course the Pope is an antichrist! Think it over.

AGC said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

The only real issue between Reformed Anglicans (39 Aritcles) and Reformed Presbyterians (Westminster Standards) is the church government style.

The only real difference between them and many Reformed Baptists (London Confession of Faith) is baptism and sometimes church government (congregational).

All three are the confessional historic Protestant Church, save only the Lutherans who are as well (confessional…Book of Concord).

The historic Dutch Reformed are closely connected to those other three and are confessional as well (3 Forms of Unity) .

---

I'm not so sure about some of these assertions. I have friends going the reformed Baptist route and the differences become more pronounced as we follow our own paths. It's a gulf of faith between reading the Bible with a group of people and asking what each got out of it as opposed to listening to your priest talk about it and discussing what you didn't understand.

---

I am not saying that there aren't other differences and nuances. I mean…there are other general differences between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that weren't mentioned. The view of Mary is a little different. The view of Purgatory is different. The liturgy in service is different. The church calendar is a little different. That's just to name a few.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Moreover, I don't see anything about the Marian doctrine in the creeds that we disagree with. I don't know why we can't just hold to the creeds and accept each other as Christians (because I do).

---

Agree completely.

Oh and for the newbies,

When you read the Apostles' Creed, the Athanation Creed, and the Nicene Creed and it uses the word "catholic", the word means universal. Christianity is the universal church of the whole world. And don't be offended by the usage of different titles. The book of Acts records that believers in the Messiah were called, "Followers of the Way." It was perhaps the first title used to identify the true household of God.

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Moreover, I don't see anything about the Marian doctrine in the creeds that we disagree with. I don't know why we can't just hold to the creeds and accept each other as Christians (because I do).

---

Agree completely.

---

I love you, brother Doc. Hope you're teaching Sunday School.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Moreover, I don't see anything about the Marian doctrine in the creeds that we disagree with. I don't know why we can't just hold to the creeds and accept each other as Christians (because I do).

---

Agree completely.

---

I love you, brother Doc. Hope you're teaching Sunday School.

---

Have in the past but our non denom church in CS does not have Sunday school.

Bible study every Friday at 6:30 am.

Love you also. You are by far the most gracious Calvinist I have come in contact with.

You must be running into cage stage Reformed Baptists. They sometimes never grow out of it…

Thank you very much. When we get to heaven, whatever crowns we participated in will be laid down at the feet of Jesus because we never really earned them.

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Moreover, I don't see anything about the Marian doctrine in the creeds that we disagree with. I don't know why we can't just hold to the creeds and accept each other as Christians (because I do).

---

Agree completely.

---

I love you, brother Doc. Hope you're teaching Sunday School.

---

Have in the past but our non denom church in CS does not have Sunday school.

Bible study every Friday at 6:30 am.

Love you also. You are by far the most gracious Calvinist I have come in contact with.

---

If by chance I find myself down there, then I'll definitely try to let you know. Maybe we can meet up sometime, if God permits?

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Moreover, I don't see anything about the Marian doctrine in the creeds that we disagree with. I don't know why we can't just hold to the creeds and accept each other as Christians (because I do).

---

Agree completely.

---

I love you, brother Doc. Hope you're teaching Sunday School.

---

Have in the past but our non denom church in CS does not have Sunday school.

Bible study every Friday at 6:30 am.

Love you also. You are by far the most gracious Calvinist I have come in contact with.

---

If by chance I find myself down there, then I'll definitely try to let you know. Maybe we can meet up sometime, if God permits?

---

Would love it. But I can not sing.

Not too great at it myself. Maybe we can go witnessing on campus by asking a series of questions that are written down?

Maybe we can use some of the Evangelism Explosion stuff or maybe add or take away from it? We could invite them to your church…

Just need to plan whatever we do…a couple of months in advance to not put my employer out.