Posted on 12/05/2005 2:55:19 AM PST by HarleyD
I would simply point the reader to both the Catholic and Protestant versions.
BTW-Please do not misconstrude my silence as approval. I've been a bit busy the last several days.
He's a Catholic Apologist who almost finished building a raft to cross the Tiber.
Not true! May be my wife Ann does. But then she rarely reads any of this, and good for her. We can discuss the same stuff over a bottle of wine when the kids are in bed, and sometime we do.
Yes, the threat of damnation is implied, as outside the community (Church), there is no salvation. The intent, as I said before, is to bring back obstinate people and help them realize the seriousness of the issue - their eternal salvation.
Regards
There IS distortion, regardless of how busy you are.
Regards
In that sense Catholic Theology is as much a muddled mess as Protestant Theology. I think the only difference is that Catholics bow to Rome as the final authority and Protestants bow to scripture (or at least they are supposed to).
IMO scripture must reign supreme. Scripture, unlike the whims of Popes and Preachers, is unchanging and if we adhere to scripture as the final arbiter of our doctrine and practices, and then call upon the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, then I believe we are safe. If, on the other hand, we put our trust in the arm of flesh we will eventually and inevitably drift off into unsound doctrines and unsound practices.
BTW, IMO The protestant reformation was not only necessary but was long overdue. But then that is my opinion. I'm sure you differ.
I don't know about accursed, and I don't know is the "accursed" is just a mistranslation of "anathema" in the Trent documents. "Anathema" means excommunication. "Accursed" may mean the same thing or it may mean some broader things. The Church also distinguishes between a heresy proclaimed publicly and held privately, and makes allowances for people in bondage to their upbringing. For example, less is asked of a Swede who only knows Lutheran Church than of an Italian who has been exposed to Catholicism since birth. Lastly, the Church never makes a judgement on the final state of salvation of anyone, anathemized or not, as it is reserved to Christ alone, so whatever curses you read or hear do not preclude a deathbed conversion of which we shall not know.
Christ saved a thief on the Cross. He had been as outside of the visible Church as one can be. This is an example, of faith, conversion, repentance and baptism of blood into the eternal invisible catholic Church, all in one sublime moment. We can hope to do likewise, but to avoid the Sacraments of the Visible Church in hope to get good with the Church Invisible when the time comes is prideful.
I have been reading the various posts in what one might call a theological "food fight". As an Evangical, non-Calvinist, I find your comments to be particularly Christlike.
First of all, you say that as though that discredits him - as though a Catholic scholar is not to be trusted. That is B/S.
Second of all, if correcting Protestant misrepresentations of Catholicism makes you a "Catholic Apologist," than count me as such and smile when you say that. I don't think I need propaganda or misrepresentations to defend my beliefs. If I did, than my beliefs would be worthless - and it would be time to swim the Tiber. If I can't defend the Reformed faith without resorting to misrepresentations of Catholic belief, than I'd better sign up for the RCIA classes at the local parish.
You neglect the possibility that maybe Mark Noll and I are secure enough in what we believe that it doesn't bother us that people disagree. I have to wonder, with all the frantic rhetoric used around here, if you have that same security? In my own experience - and, admittedly, I am projecting - bluster is cover for insecurity. I see a lot of bluster around here, on both sides.
Last time I checked, this Catholic still bowed to God as the final authority.
But is that analagous to once being part of the Church, then declaring the Church in error, and establishing a sect based on the refutation of the error? Or is the distinction I draw irrelevant?
When are you crossing?
Why do you assume that I intend to do so?
Just wondering. You sound as if your pants legs are rolled up.
One may see a distinction between a private sin of theft and public infliction of wounds on the visible body of Christ. But on the other hand, a thief is motivated by greed and a schismatic by a longing for salvation. I do not think God put a thief on that cross to teach us anything about theft, but to teach us something about salvation. From the perspective of Luke 23, all sin is alike.
Cute....
Touche'
Thanks for the post. Alot to read, but worth it.
Sincerely
Um, he was saved the same way all of us are saved. By Grace through faith and wholly apart from any works or sacraments or rituals. His salvation was based solely upon his profession of Faith in Christ. John 3:16. So is mine. So is yours.
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.