Posted on 11/06/2014 2:29:33 PM PST by NYer
In June of this year, the largest Presbyterian denomination in America voted to allow their clergy to perform same-sex “marriages” within the church, thus joining the ranks of other Protestant denominations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Episcopalian Church, and United Church of Christ.
This “evolution” of theology and “modernizing” of church doctrine is a trend that I predict we’ll continue to see in non-Catholic Christian circles for years to come, and not just with marriage. Today, nearly all Protestant denominations support and even advocate the use of artificial birth control, and many allow at least some level of support for abortion.
Of course, not all Protestants are willing to “move with the times”, so to speak; there remains, especially among the more conservative groups, quite a bit of dissent. However, it cannot be denied that many modern day Protestant denominations are falling further into the depths of secularism.
While it pains me to see Christians turning their backs on the sanctity of life and marriage, I have to admit that whenever the media lights up with news of another Protestant church endorsing an otherwise wholly unchristian act, I find myself entirely unsurprised.
The reason for my utter lack of shock lies, interestingly enough, within two of the critical tenants of Protestant Theology: the doctrines of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone).
As Catholics, the Bible is not our sole source of authority, nor was the Catholic Church based upon it. In fact, what we now call “The Bible” — the collected Old Testament and New Testament writings — was put together by the Church herself, and is meant to enrich and support our doctrine and Tradition.
(Consider too that the Gospel is the written testimony of the teachings of the apostles, which, due to apostolic tradition and the God-given teaching authority of the Church, precedes the written text. Thus, any authority of the Scriptures is derived from the recognition of the Church.)
Yet, the Protestant Reformation severed the Tradition from the Bible, and put all other authorities beneath it. By doing so, they created a type of religious relativism (unwittingly, I’m sure) that opened the door for an “anything goes” mentality. So long, of course, as it can be found — or not found — in the scriptures.
For years, sola scriptura was a major weapon against Catholic theology, claiming that our practices were either absent or directly forbidden by Sacred Scripture. However, since the latter part of the 20th century, the charges that “Jesus never said (x)” or “That’s not in the Bible” have turned on themselves and have now become, “Jesus never said (x) was wrong, so that means (x) must be okay.”
This idea blends well with many in my generation, the millennials, who wish to hold on to some shred of spirituality but cannot bring themselves to relinquish the desires of the flesh. It is also a base notion of “Progressive Christianity”, which is basically the feel-good parts of following Christ without any actual sacrifice.
The same problem goes for sola fide. Though the only place in the Bible where the words “faith” and “alone” appear next to one another is in James 2:24 (“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”), it still remains a significant tenant of Protestant Christianity. However, much like sola scriptura, it has seemingly evolved into an even more bastardized version of itself that states, “As long as I’m a good person and believe in Jesus, I’m okay.”
Now, understand, I’m not among the ilk who believe that Protestants can’t go to Heaven, though the path is significantly more challenging (and not in a “take up your cross” kind of way). I do believe, however, that Christianity was never meant go in this direction. And I certainly believe that, should things continue in the manner they’re going for the modern-day Protestants, they’ll eventually have nothing left to call Christian at all.
Of course, perhaps that’s the only logical conclusion Protestantism could possibly come to. It is, after all, a theologically incomplete Christianity; and perhaps that is why it has such difficulty standing the test of time. Consider the continuous splintering Protestantism has seen since the days of Luther, that continues today. Sooner or later, it will be dust; and displaced Christians will be left with two choices: return to Holy Catholic Church or give themselves to the world.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“Mind reading” is making it personal and makes a thread about a poster instead of the subject of the article.
We?
You keep trying to blame ME for what you've posted.
I don't care; for the FACTS have been shown (and re-shown).
I shudda read ahead...
My, you seem positively RADIANT today. Your posts are like ambrosia!!! I don’t know why I EVER thought to THINK anything different from you!
/moderator surveillance mode
No, because there are hundreds of threads on FR where Catholics calmly and correctly discuss what we believe and why. If lurkers chose to believe someone who is spouting propaganda and talking points, then they don't belong in FR.
Indeed, for awhile it got so bad that JimRob threatened to shut down the entire religion thread to stop it.
Yup: your CAUCUS.
If lurkers chose to believe someone who is spouting propaganda and talking points, then they don't belong in FR.
No, because ...
Careful!
You know what happened to that 47% remark of Mitt's...
John wrote this approximately in the year 100. I do not believe it is referring to medieval happenings but rather the blood of the Catholic martyrs who were being killed by Nero of the Roman Empire
Your response:
What protestant martyrs in the years 68-100?
If there were "Catholic" martyrs in the first century, there could just well have been Protestant ones also.
As has been explained over and over here on the RF, Catholicism did not exist back then.
Those that were martyred were CHIRITIANS, they had no "denominations" such as Catholicism or Protestantism at that time.
Catholicism started it about the 4th century, and immediately used the "ex post facto" method to bestow Catholicism upon 1st century Christians.
The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Ex post facto is "with retroactive effect or force" or more simply "after the facts."
In other words, rewriting history. Which is the case with Catholicism.
I have seen Catholic posters post that the first Christians were Catholiocs. When no such desigination existed, except that ALL Christians were "catholic" Christians, Biblically "universally" the Body of Christ. (All born again believers believing Jesus for salvation and turning to following Him.)
As an aside, did you know that the Catholics were the first "protestants?"
Several hundred years after Jesus walked the earth, they protested against simple Christianity and "made" themselves THE "Church."
And excluded everyone else.
And then what happened?
The "dark ages" came upon the world.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Daaniel, did you enjoy the crickets? LOL.
Thanks for attempting to help out poster Salvation with some simple Christian truths!
Catholics, the ORIGINAL PROTESTANTS!
Rather, the question is, What RC martyrs in the years 68-100?
Go find any in Scripture who manifestly believed the things here that are not seen, then read scholars who testify against past RC historical propaganda.
Bless God for light.
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.