Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....
The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.
We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.
While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.
The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.
Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.
Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.
Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.
One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.
Spiritual needs
The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.
In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.
Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.
The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.
People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.
Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.
Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.
Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.
Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.
Becoming Protestant
If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.
Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.
Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.
Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).
What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.
Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.
Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.
Lessons from the data
There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.
First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.
While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.
Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.
The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.
Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.
Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.
The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.
Sorry, that was already posted to MM, and i got it mixed up with another (below).
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Sadly.
"Faith alone is not sufficient as works are required to declare us righteous or justified."
Rather, precisely speaking as to what actually appropriates justification, it is faith,
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, " (Romans 4:3-6)
Note it is the unGodly that are counted justified by faith. However, as concerns what kind of faith, as Reformers taught, it is the kind of faith that confesses Christ that is salvific, thus
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:9-10; cf. 2:13)
Thus in the sense of what kind of faith is salvific, it can be said that one is justified by works, and not by faith only, in context meaning one that sterile, inert. And thus we have verses that express believers being counted worthy of eternal life due to their works, as works evidence faith. (Mt. 25:34-40; Rv. 2:17,26;3:4,12)
And all those who die in the Lord will go to be with the Lord at death, or if He returns before they do, (Lk. 23:42,43; Acts 7:59; 20:6; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23,34; 1Ths. 4:17) though they will be judged at the return of Christ (1Cor. 4:5; Rv. 11:18) for what they did in building the church, directly or indirectly, that of gaining rewards or suffering the loss of them, (1Cor. 3:10-15;— not that all must fit in either category, but that all may gain or lose some) with the Lord's disapproval and our own own, knowing how we could have glorified the Lord, but despite loss (not because of it) they shall be saved. (v. 15) And thus Paul labored to gained His full approval. (2Cor. 5:9) Likewise, those who due in their sins shall go immediately to Hell, but their actual sentencing awaits the great white throne judgment, after the Lord returns with His resurrected saints, and who form part of the judgment of the lost. (Jude 1:14,15; 1Cor. 6:2)
And while the members of the church as the body of Christ both the pastors (not a distinct class called priests) and the “parishioners” — all being saints and knelling at the same “altar” — help one another to keep the faith and grow toward perfection, (Eph. 4:11-16; Heb. 3:13) and while works justify one as having true faith, yet no one earns or truly morally merits eternal life, but what we are all actually worthy of is eternal damnation (somewhat like detonation), "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
Every day that even the lost can wake up and seek the Lord and be saved, and thus get to serve the Lord, is a measure of grace, no matter where it is. We (i) would do well to count that ability a privilege at all times, as an expression of God's love and in response to it, rather than murmuring in difficulties.
The conflict in Rm. 4 is between salvation by moral merit, being actually just enough by works (and which is not restricted to works of the law, which some even in Roman Catholicism understand, but any earning of salvation), and rather than hoping that their good life will gain them eternal life, instead the lost must come to God as damned because of their life, and destitute of any righteousness that would gain them escape from what they deserve in Hell-fire, and gain eternal life, casting all their faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, to be saved on His blood-expense and righteousness.
Thus the criminal on the cross could be saved, as "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18)
Rome actually allows for this in her baptism by desire, but which is something that some in her Traditional sects disagree with, while purely unmerited justification is understood as referring to the call of God in His prevenient grace of God, in which
"without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace." (Trent, Cp. V.)
And which justification of the impious is gained via baptism of sprinkling of water, typically as an infant on proxy faith, on the basis of an actual interior righteousness:
"when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity." (Trent, Cp. VII)
Then, via the sacramental system, grace is dispensed from Rome's infinite Treasury of merit, that of Christ and of the excess merit of saints, and by cooperating with such the saved Catholic is "accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life. (Trent, Cp XVI. http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct06.html)
But except for canonized saints, this process includes an indefinite time in purgatory, but in which system the Church helps by granting indulgences out of the aforesaid Treasury of merit, which provides the contrite supplicant with the means of paying the debt owed for his sin, which otherwise "must be expiated [atoned, be compensated] either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina; cp. 1. 1967)
And which plan also and very predominately features help thru a Queen of Heaven, one promotion for which states, , "We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman. Just as Eve was the root of death for everyone, so Mary was the source of life for everyone. (Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary,” by John Ferraro, Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur)
There is no pope in God's church. Honoring man is a worldly concept like Catholicism, Mormonism, or Islam.
The RCC compiled the Bible
The RCC compiled the catechism.
A famous quote, ......” John Henry Newman
Catholicism - honoring man.
IT'S ALL ABOUT JESUS! JESUS IS THE CORNERSTONE OF GOD'S CHURCH. JESUS, THE WORD, REIGNS IN HIS CHURCH.
Since there is only ONE WAY ONE TRUTH ONE LIFE - JESUS - the counterfeit churches use 'man', whether it's Joe Smith, Mohammed or a pope - which is the wide road to destruction with it's deceptive man made teachings; the catechism, the book of mormons or the koran.
I find this an interesting response because you are in effect saying I am either a liar or you are admitting to mind reading, both of which are against forum rules. Which is it?
You have set the standard for skirting the prohibitions against ad hominem attacks by repeatedly implying that the actions and beliefs of one stand for the actions and beliefs of all when you make an unsubstantiated comment about Catholics and then follow it up with a slur or insult aimed at "they". I reject that false premise when you pose it and I don't employ it in my posts. When I want to refer to all Protestants I have the integrity to say all Protestants.
If you will refer back to the post in question, #1033, you will notice never used the word "Protestant" or use the passive aggressive ploy of saying "they". If your skin is too thin for the discourse in an open forum I advise you to stick to the applicable Caucus threads.
Lastly, I have no way of knowing whether you are a Protestant or not. You have never admitted to being the member of any denomination. The only things you have admitted is that you used to be a Catholics and now detest the Church. If that means you are a Protestant then communists, atheists, and Muslims are Protestants to.
Peace be with you.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Every time you guys try to bolster the authority of your religion by alluding to scripture, one of us will actually post the actual words of God which shuts you down cold...
You'd think you guys would get embarrassed by referencing the scriptures to justify your religion but you never do... In case you don't get it, I'll point it out to you...
Your massive religion which you guys are trying to grow even larger is the narrow gate that Jesus speaks of, according to your religion
However, Jesus say few will go down this narrow path...
So what happens to all those gazillions of Catholic who will not make it thru the narrow gate/path???
That ought to be a humongous clue that the passage has nothing to do with your religion or it's teaching...
Your religion with it's massive membership, who are all Christians according to your religion will need a very wide gate and a very wide path to accommodate the massive mob...
Jesus has prepared that wide gate for many who think they are Christians...
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
The bible wasn't written philosophically...A philosophical approach to the scriptures will not afford a person a grain of understanding...
1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
God doesn't care anything about man's wisdom; aka, philosophy...
Although rarely directly, Protestants will suggest that they have a rudimentary appreciation of the terms when they concede that Jesus, although human, was substantially God.
Substantially God??? How ridiculous...Jesus was completely and fully God...
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
They then, however, reject the parallel of the Eucharist being "substantially" God because it has the physical properties of bread and wine.
And that's another one of the places your religious teaching disintegrates...
Jesus was not substantially God...He is fully God...Therefore your Eucharist would have to be fully God and fully look like the flesh and blood of God...Talk about willfull ignorance...
Yes, thankyou...Their religion is so at odds with scripture...
Not trying to "sell" Protestantism, stpio!
If you actually took the time to read the link I gave, you would have noticed that Webster gave footnotes - those things at the end that show his references for the quotes he gave. They weren't all "Protestant" sources! I hope others reading these exchanges see the blatant biases that govern the responses of some here. If only current Roman Catholics can be trusted to speak the truth, their conclusions will be suspect. Catholicism is not known for objective history. Believing the words of Jesus is secondary, if that, compared to doctrines that Catholics "developed" over centuries!
Then why dis St. John refer to Jesus as the Logos?
Substantially God??? How ridiculous...Jesus was completely and fully God..."
Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. If you do not understand Substance cannot understand His nature.
"Therefore your Eucharist would have to be fully God and fully look like the flesh and blood of God..."
Flesh and blood are human properties and are completely independent of Jesus' divine Substance.
Peace be with you.
Jesus anticipated the spiritual argument and blunted it:
"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
"Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” - John 6:52-58
Peace be with you.
And as long as the easily refuted statement that there are thousands of "Protestant" interpretations of the Bible is ignorantly postulated, I'll feel free to counter with the "FACT" (from the same source) that there are 8000 Catholic denominations - which MUST mean different interpretations of the Bible, too. That's the fly in the ointment - not the soup.
Because Protestants are so fixated on being "born again," yet by every objective measure Scripture gives more significance to the "Body and Blood," which they dismiss as "ritual,"
Yes, I suppose you are right, if one is looking at the phrase 'born again' only... But, since Protestants use the phrase as a place-marker for 'being saved' and all that is encompassed by that term, I would argue that references abound. And your Eucharist IS a ritual by definition (even as is the Communion), regardless of any sacramental value that might be placed upon it... So I don't understand the 'quotes' (from which, some offense might be inferred).
In fact, those such as yourself are so antagonistic to the doctrine that they stoop to making allusions to cannibalism.
I am sorry to have left you with mere allusion. I thought I was being more direct than that. For all of that, 'cannibalism' was my term. Again, in my understanding, the eating of human flesh by another human is 'cannibalism' by definition - I don't know how the subject can be breached without some sort of allusion to the term... And without reference to the term, the point cannot be made - I do not intend to offer you that convenience.
Would it assuage your discomfort to be more direct wrt the Torah, and state plainly that if it doesn't have a cloven hoof and chew the cud, the meat is unclean? (Deut 14: 3-5)
And outside of offended sensibilities, Yeshua's words must be framed within the words of the Torah - If for no other reason than the impact upon the Jews and their culture at that time:
There is no question that Yeshua was sent to the Jews FIRST, and regardless of how corrupted their way had become, the idea that Yeshua would directly contradict the Torah would inherently mean that YHWH had set them up for certain failure: They had known since Moses that they were to expect a greater prophet than he, and that when that prophet arrived they must be certain to listen to Him. How would they judge a prophet who stood outside of the Law of YHWH?
Deu 13:1 If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder,
Deu 13:2 and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deu 13:3 thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 Ye shall walk after Jehovah your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against Jehovah your God [...]
That is *not* to say that he did, of course. But to embrace the things you (y'all) espouse, one must begin with the premise that He DID in fact, change the Torah. The things that are problematic are particularly addressed and explained in Hebrews, with the primary problem being a priesthood descendant from Judah, rather than from Aaron... But outside of those discrepancies (wherein you might find some defense) I can find no change without the presumption going in that change was possible,
You had said up thread that you were certain the Pharisees used scripture to contradict Yeshua - I let it pass then, but it is important to this discussion: No,I can find no place at all where they used the Torah to contradict Him, in every case I am aware of, they rebutted Him with tradition... with the Talmud and the Mishna teachings. In fact, to the best of my knowledge each case of contention was a direct rebuttal of Pharisaic teachings that are clearly meant to be examples. It is a deep study that my Berean FRiends would do well to undertake.
This is important because it is prerequisite that He cannot have changed the Torah - If one understands that to be true, then the Roman church, with all it's bells and whistles, comes crashing down, because it is incumbent upon the disciple to be faithful to his Teacher... In this, your proofs of succession are a detriment and reproof. And thereby, another interpretation must needfully be necessary... And that, in effect, is my position.
As a point of that (among many), saying that the blood and the wine are indeed flesh speaks directly against the Torah without a doubt.
This same Paul said:
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:5)
Trust me, Catholics are certainly aware of the blatant biases present in these forums. Nowhere is it more apparent than posters that present sophists like William Webster as an objective and authentic source. His commercial success is only the result of him writing what his primary audience, anti-Catholics, want to hear.
Peace be with you
In these first chapters of Romans Paul makes a rather involved argument that doing the works of the Mosaic Law did not produce righteousness.
“For we reckon that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)
Hence as Paul argues in chapter 4, Abraham was declared righteous not by any works of law, but by faith
This is not contra to what Paul wrote in Hebrews about the works done “by faith” from Abel on. Or to James.
Faith enabled those works so the salvation was by the faith shown as evidenced by the works they performed.
In no way is anyone described as earning salvation by doing this or that, it was a gift of undeserved kindness.
How do you morph comprehensive "source" to comprehensive "application?" No credible mean that I know of.
Comprehensive refers to all Scripture being God-breathed, and substantiates that it was the standard for obedience and discerning and establishing truth claims, which is what is consistent with my claim for Scripture.
Further, "most" is not "all" as in your parenthetical remark, and even that is not a credible claim. Had the exact content of Scripture not been so murky, the Church would not have made such efforts to stamp out the heretical variants.
“Most” does not need to be “all” for the above to be manifestly true, and which is indeed credible as referring to accepted books. As with the N.T. there were other candidates, but internal evidence indicates almost all of the books of the Old Testament were considered to be Scripture by the writers of the inter-testament and the New Testament period.
In summation, your "interpretation" makes the unjustifiable leap of conflating "profitable," and "thouroughly furnished," with "exclusionary."
Not so, as the exclusivity is in reference to Scripture alone being the supreme transcendent standard (rule of faith) as the assured word of God, versus a church effectively proclaiming itself to be so. And as expressed, i recognize the sufficiency of Scripture as also being material, not simply formal, which it is in a more restricted degree. And note that “profitable' refers to its use, while Timothy was also told by Paul that “Godliness was also “profitable,” (1Tim. 4:8, same word) but which is by no means simply supplemental.
Had Paul intended this verse to mean "exclusive," he would have said so, for surely there can be no more important message than what you claim if it were indeed the truth.
As said, the only distinct class of Divine revelation (versus the amorphous class of oral transmission) that is stated (by Paul) to be wholly inspired of God, is Scripture, and by its very nature, being God-breathed and transmitted in a material form, it is of superior reliability than generations of some men claiming esoteric knowledge of eons-old nebulous traditions which they make into doctrines, and which also leads to disagreement among such claimants as to what this traditions really teaches.
No, it is Scriptural, unless you hold to the view that only what is expressly set down in Scripture or formally defined is admissible, excluding what may “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” by precept and principle.
That is exactly what I am saying: for Protestants! Moreover, the multiplicity of Protestant factions makes the "necessity" of deductions as credible as "religious tolorance" behind the Iron Curtain. I.e. an utter farce.
The utter farce is that under sola ecclesia does not have the same problem, the differences being in degrees. Rather than comparing one church with Protestantism, so broadly defined that even Mormons apply, a more valid comparison would be between those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the assured word of God, preaching salvation by faith to damned and destitute sinners, versus those who hold to the church being the supreme doctrinal authority, speaking the assured word of God by special anointing.
Under the former, the reality is that they can and do disagree in many things, partly due to commitment to doctrine, yet without a central magisterium (though with each denomination having their own magisteriums), they overall assent to many core truths, many of which are also held by Rome, which is manifest in a common front against those who deny them, and against Rome's traditions. And also testify to a greater ground-level unity in Biblical moral values and basic core truths and commitment than their Catholic counterparts (though both are in overall decline), and manifest a spiritual evangelical unity that transcends denominational lines, due to a shared Scripture-based conversion and relationship with Christ.
Roman Catholicism, while large, is effectively as one denomination, and any real doctrinal unity is largely on paper, and is not necessarily any greater than that of any other denomination, including other sola ecclesia churches. And in reality, her members can disagree on a multiplicity of things, including what all has been infallibly defined, and lack an infallible interpreter for their supreme authority, and are also effectively allowed to disagree on many other things. As as Rome treats even the most nominal as members in life and in death, both liberals and conservatives are stuck in the same church, though they can exist as sects within it.
Meanwhile, Catholics also disagree with each other, including the EOs with Rome on no less an issue as papal infallibility and supremacy, among many other things, while the SSPX and sedevacantists are other divisions of varying degrees.
In addition, under sola ecclesia is found the most aberrant doctrines, as this is what “cults” typically operate out of, whether it be the “Living Prophet” of Mormonism or the WTS elders. And who, like Rome, can define themselves as having assured infallibility, as well as make all evidence conform to support them, and require full assent of faith to her decrees.
In reality, truth claims are established by Scriptural means, in text and in power, exposing the competition (which is a test), not by self-proclamation of mortals who presume such things as assured infallibility.
The truth of what I've written here makes answering the rest of your paean a moot point.
What i see on your part is the use of scorn in attempting to disallow that Scripture was the standard for obedience and establishing truth claims as the assured Word of God, rather than promising the church of Rome will always be assuredly infallible whenever she speaks universally on truth and morals, and thus defining herself as being so based upon the premise that such is needed to fulfill Scripture, and of historical decent, and that magisterium is the basis for having assurance of truth.
Right, i see the the exclusion of works as actually meriting justification as extending beyond the law, which is used as the standard, not because another kind of works could make man actually deserving of eternal life, thus Titus 3:5 (written to Greeks i think) and Eph. 2:9 simply says works, but which “justify” in a sense as confirmatory of confessional-type complete faith. (Rm. 10:10) “Confession” is in many forms.
You can't have your cake and be able to eat it too, stpio.
Matthew 7:13-14 13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
If the Catholic church is *massive* then it's because many have found it. If that's the case, it cannot at the same time be the narrow gate, or many would not have found it.
If the Catholic church were indeed the narrow gate, it would not be massive.
Then by all rights, one only needs to take communion one time to be saved and eternally secure.
I made my first communion. I'm good to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.