Wheaton College prof fired for converting

"I was quick to point out that many of the protestant faiths were borne of Catholicism but formed by people who could not handle the strict expectations of the Catholic faith (ie. monogamy, humility, poverty etc.)."

Poverty is "strict expectation" of the Catholic faith? After having served in the Philippines, I could almost be convinced of that. 95%+ of the country is Roman Catholic and 98% of those are in poverty. You wouldn't see that in America, of course, because the priests of Rome were never able to get a stranglehold on the nation from its outset (maybe just southern Louisiana and some other smaller regions). But the Philippines has been under the overwhelming dominance of the RC Church for 500 years. Poverty still pretty much reigns there. Maybe the people feel that poverty is just about all that is expected from them.

I guess priests take vows of poverty, eh? The pope sure looks poor to me. (sarcasm)

"Some conveniently forget that the first epistles were written beginning 30 years after Jesus's crucifixion. Before that time, there was only the tradition to be shared. The epistles were written to clarify matters of faith when errors arose, not as a complete catechism of all doctrines."

How about His RESURRECTION? He's no longer on a cross, as crucifixes would suggest.

Within the first thirty years after the RESURRECTION, a period in which God was still extending to the Nation of Israel the establishment of their Davidic Kingdom (He was not extending to them a "Church Age," as suggested in the defense postures of Roman Catholics and Protestants as well as most Baptists), if they would repent of their crime of murdering God's Christ, and receive Him as their Savior King, the Old Testament was the Final Authority where Scriptures were concerned, and the Apostles appealed to it as such. You discover that in Acts chs. 2 and 3 particularly. "Tradition" had nothing to do with it at all! Several of the Apostles themselves, and a couple of others, were the instruments through which God gave, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the books that would begin to form the New Testament (2 Timothy 3:14 through 4:4).

The decision with regard to the Christian liberty of the Gentile Christians (Acts ch. 15, as moved by God's Holy Spirit) was later substantiated directly in writing in New Testament Scriptures, particularly in the books of Romans and Galatians. Again, "tradition" is OUT!

Some tradition can be consistent with Scriptures and is fine. But where ANY tradition cannot be directly substantiated by a passage of written Revelation (the Scriptures), or by a prepondernance of the whole body of the Scriptures, then let it be dismissed as religious gag!

"Good Catholics don't squirm when the topic of Mary comes up. She is the Mother of our Savior and deserves respect. She is not worshiped as protestants would like to accuse us of. Worship is reserved for God."

Are you only familiar with Roman Catholics in the United States, or what? Just ask Filipino Roman Catholics, for example, if they worship Mary, and they will answer, "ABSOLUTELY." And they are not taught any differently in the Basilicas in the Philippines. I believe that the only reason that AMERICAN Roman Catholics try to pretend the Counsel of Trent and the Vatican Counsels don't require the worship of Mary, is because of Protestestant pressure. That presssure is not so intense in predominantly Roman Catholic countries.

He's no longer on a cross, as crucifixes would suggest.

And what exactly would hanging a cross around my neck signify on its own? Spartacus was crucified as were many thousands of others. The cross isn't the sacred emblem, the body which hangs on it is. They are an inseparable symbol of Christ's sacrifice. And, just for the record, we know He rose and ascended into Heaven. We honor His willing slaughter as the sacrificial lamb and pray to Him as our living God and Savior. To suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous.

The rest of your post is fascinating. You acknowledge that the canon of Scripture during the time of the Apostles included only the Old Testament. It doesn't take a great leap of logic then to realize that the Apostles brought the New Testament in the spoken word. There was no canon of New Testament Scripture for them. Jesus Christ is the New Testament.

Jesus didn't leave us written tablets or a DVD of His words and deeds while walking among us. However, men wrote books after His ascension which became canon for you and me. And yet Protestants claim there can be no further canon... according to who? Don't give the same tired answer of the last lines of Revelation... the reference is to that book. The Bible is a library and one book telling us to not add to it doesn't close the library to new volumes.

God has never ceased speaking to His Church in the same way he always has. The Sacred Tradition of the Church recognizes His voice and shares it with the faithful. Protestants simply look to the canon given them by the Catholic Church as the final (and 2000 year old authority). By their logic, in ancient days, they would never have recognized the words of the prophets as we do today. After all, to each new generation, these were new Scripture. They would also never have recognized the New Testament epistles since these also were something new being added to known Scripture.

All Scripture is profitable for teaching but no where has Scripture ever declared that the school house is closed.

I believe that the only reason that AMERICAN Roman Catholics try to pretend the Counsel of Trent and the Vatican Counsels don't require the worship of Mary, is because of Protestestant pressure.

There are Catholics in the world (and Bishops among them) who take devotions to extremes. Worship of Mary is not a Catholic doctrine any more than abortion is Catholic Doctrine as demonstrated by the practice of Congressional Catholics... your personal convictions and anecdotes notwithstanding.

I wouldn't expect someone so versed in Scripture to be so vitriolic. I see from the way you post that you've got a pattern of being harsh and ungracious.

I, on the other hand, who have been saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, am grateful for the Lord's great salvation, something in which I marvel daily. I am thankful that the Lord has saved me.

Let me close with some wonderful and encouraging and relevant passages:

"Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God" (Romans 5:1-2).

"God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved -- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:4-9).

"Protestants simply look to the canon given them by the Catholic Church as the final (and 2000 year old authority)."

Nope! Historically incorrect. The Roman Catholic Church is not the source of the Scriptures. That is only a false teaching of Rome. All of the books of Bible Canon could be found being copied and distributed among faithful soul winning Christians in Asia Minor and up into Europe without one day's help from the Roman Catholic Church. There were Hebrew, Syrian, Greek and Latin copies of the entire Bible that never got touched by anything like the Roman Catholic Church. The very idea that everything had to pass through the Roman Catholic scholars is a grossly inaccurate portrayal of history and manuscript evidence.

All of the books of Bible Canon could be found being copied and distributed among faithful soul winning Christians in Asia Minor and up into Europe without one day's help from the Roman Catholic Church.

Sure they were. I didn't say they weren't written and available. However, these "canon" included other Gospels besides our four evangelists and the writings of other early Church fathers such as St Polycarp (or the local Bishops and Apostolic successors). Thomas's Gospel was popular in northern Africa.

The Bible as it is known today as the compilation of Scripture including the OT, prophets, Deuterocanonical works and NT is a product of the Catholic Church which selected the books from among their many competitors as divinely inspired.

Re: "Are you only familiar with Roman Catholics in the United States, or what? Just ask Filipino Roman Catholics"

There is a distinction between the "teachings of a church" and "the practice of some members of that church". In both Baptist, Catholic and all "churches" there are members who "worship" money, or the physical ink and paper of the Bible, or the architecture of the church... or Mary.

The best analogy that describes the role of Mary is this:
Any Christian is likely to go to his pastor or Sunday School teacher or other respected Christian and say "Will you pray for me?" Many Catholics do not see a difference between that and asking Mary to pray for them.

Both many Protestants and many Catholics agree that Mary was a "Christian" and is now "probably" in heaven. (They are more certain of that then they are that their own gay Catholic and divorced Protestant pastor is a Christian.)\

Furthermore, in the same way that a person goes to his pastor because it is a recognition of respect for his answer to God's call to play a certain role in the body of Christ, so Mary answered God's call to play a certain role. To recognize the role of Mary in one's own life is a spiritual act of again saying "yes" to God, "Yes, God, I'll accept the situation of an unexpected pregnancy and raise that family in a Godly manner". Not just with pregnancy, but with any unexpected turn in my life, I'll commit to glorifying God in that situation.

(I am in 2 churches. The pastor of the evangelical Protestant church is divorced and re-married and probably "saved". The pastor of the Catholic church is gay and would have advised Mary to have an abortion because he could absolve her of that sin if she was truly sorry for having to have an abortion. Furthermore, the pastor emeritus of my Catholic church won't even allow a picture or other representation of Mary inside the church property. ...(the Filipinos comply.... the Hispanics sneak a picture of the Virgin of Guadalupe in anyway in confrontation to the pastor emeritus.))

"There is a distinction between the "teachings of a church" and "the practice of some members of that church". In both Baptist, Catholic and all "churches" there are members who "worship" money, or the physical ink and paper of the Bible, or the architecture of the church... or Mary. "

You seem to speak of this as being quite okay. So, scrap the denominational headquarters; scrap Vatican authority.

I don't think you really perceive the virtually total disconnect between systemic Roman Catholicism in the USA and systemic Roman Catholicism in countries that have been under its total domination for 500 years or more -- where the Roman Catholic Church is the national church (de facto or de jure).

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.