Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL
In their lust for unity the Emergent Church and post-evangelical “Protestants” are right now embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. But the issue is simple: If, as taught the Church of Rome, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without “the new birth in baptism” then we are now in hopeless contradiction with the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)
Speaking The Truth In Love
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can for the Roman Catholics who may read this work in Christ from Apprising Ministries. I personally am former member of the Church of Rome and care very deeply about those, such as the majority of my own family line, who are trapped in this apostate man-made system of religion known as Roman Catholicism. I also fully realize that what I say may sound “unloving” and possibly even “harsh.” However, there is just nothing that I can do about that. By not telling the Truth we aren’t doing anyone a service.
(Excerpt) Read more at apprising.org ...
We really don't have a disagreement then. All I've been arguing is the act of Baptism does not impart Grace to the infant or the adult.
The Baptist has to be consistent. Either grace saves or faith saves. Scripture tell us it is grace that saves through faith.
I don't believe you will find any Baptists around these parts who declare we are saved by Faith. We are a diverse bunch and some do believe in free will and others believe that God predestined us for election.
It seems the second adult baptism is brought up certain stereotypes are assumed. In my church adult baptism is a public declaration of what has already occurred within the person, just as the Holy Spirit indwelt the believers in Acts before they were baptized.
No, Dan, I don’t agree. We don’t need to be pointed to Christ and the gospels by our non-Catholic brethren ... we already have that.
But can you point to articles that call other Christian churches "whore of Babylon" or that say other Christians churches believe in another (false) gospel, or that call the leaders of other Christian churches "anti-Christ?" I would bet not.
Happens fairly frequently. Some Prottys rail at Joel O and Rick Warren fiercely quite routinely.
Oh, yeah ... I’ve certainly seen those. However, I was referring to Catholic articles about non-Catholics. Sorry that wasn’t more clear, Quix. How ya been anyway?
I'm afraid, as you know, HarleyD, that I think this statement is NOT untrue but IS misleading.
There are several way in which it would be right to say that "Transubstantiation was in question ...". Two come to my feeble mind.
There is the question of whether the Church, more or less univocally, believed and taught that Christ was "really" or "Truly" or some such vague adverb present in the bread and wine once they were prayed over. Against that could be some ideas like "memorial only" or "present in the believer who partakes" or "bestowing certain gifts of grace somehow or another". I would suggest that the Church generally said He was present. And to that extent I would say the questionable character of the dogma is not all that important.
I think the more accurate assessment of the statement is that the Church could more or less agree that Jesus was "really" (or the rest of the adverbs) present, but she could still debate HOW one ought to talk about that presence, bearing in mind that, as a rule, the body looks and tastes like bread and the blood look and tastes like wine. And in that sense there was, and in some respects, especially with us and our Eastern bros, still is discussion. Transubstantiation as an explanation of the putatively undisputed "real" (or the rest) presence was debated, while the presence of Christ and the "fact" of some change in the gifts was generally agreed upon.
It's sorta kinda a little bit like Christology. There is little if any debate about saying "Jesus is Kyrios" but lots of debate — Nicea-Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon — about how we can talk about that, about what it means in detail.
So I would say that we can make SOMETHING, but not too much of the delayed decision on Transubstantiation.
It just ain't that easy to say how much authority Aristotelian Realism has in Church Theology, but I think it's easier to construe, say, Justin as saying that He's present in the whatever-it-is that was indisputably bread and wine before the service started.
I don't get why some get so worked up when someone refers to the church as the "whore of babylon". If thats what they believe they should be allowed to express it. Conversely its ok when you refer to prostestants as heretics and separated brethren. You prove my point about Catholics on this site being thin skinned.
But I didn’t ask whether you agreed with his motivation. You said you didn’t understand it. I asked whether you really don’t think that he spells out his motivation in the article — whether you agree with it or not.
The worst part about having 300 wives and 600 concubines?
Having 900 mothers-in-law!
Amen.
Welllll, trying to live somewhat cautiously and in the spirit of your query or comment here . . .there have been plenty of RC posts/threads doing such . . . The nuances are slightly different here and there but the fiesty, harsh hostilities are quite in evidence—often enough worse—on the RC side of things.
Prottys are commonly construed as being reprobates on their way to hell etc. . . . ink on paper worshippers [some are] . . . etc.
AGAIN—I don’t really have a problem with that . . . some Prottys somewhere undoubtedly deserve such harsh labels. People are people. We are flawed critters.
BESIDES, IT’S ONLY WORDS . . . and words on a screen from folks I never have to sit down to coffee with nor carry out their stinking garbage even to the curb for. So, I have no need to let any cortisol into my blood stream over such stuff—true, all the more so when not true.
The Protty “system” . . . clubs, denominations, even congregations . . . are . . . things—outside of me. They may or may not be deeply cherished parts of my RELIGIOUS life—but they are NOT the essence of my SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. That is heart to heart and spirit to spirit.
ALL THE OTHER STUFF, IS AT BEST . . . SUPPORTING PROPS IN THE PLAY.
Why should I get all energized and irate over furniture on the stage? A bean bag chair or scared table from the Salvation Army is worth dumping cortisol in my blood stream over? NOT BY A LONG SHOT!
So, feel free to rail away. All the STUFF out there—is just furniture. What’s between my heart/spirit and God is unassailable—quite secure IN HIM.
What I object fiercely to is the double standard—to wit—RC’s can rail away at all kinds of aspects of Protty spirituality AS WELL AS RELIGIOSTY in very fierce and harsh language. But the minute a Protty turns the tide to the least degree, the self-righteous sanctimonious wails and whines begin about how utterly evil and beyond the pale the Prottys are.
What balderdash.
Actually, many times, Prottys don’t even have to be fierce or harsh. Just stating things matter of factly from our perspective is PERCEIVED as being harsh regardless of the even temper of the tone in the Protty statements. That’s a real trip!
We really have strongly fierce perceptions, biases, Biblical understandings, sensibilities etc. about what we are utterly convinced is hell damning blasphemous idolatrous Mary stuff up one side and down the other.
RC’s seem to have some death-wish sort of compulsion to rub Maryolatry stuff in our faces, stuff it up our noses and stick it into our eyes with rusty daggers . . .
AND THEN
when we forcefully respond . . . the wails and whines begin about how horrible WE are!
Sorry, but that balderdash does not cut it with me by a very wide margin. Double standard hypocrisies—especially about such UNBIBLICAL issues—are always likely to garner my fiercest of responses.
The other set of fierce triggers probably has to do with the RC edifice/magicsterical stuff as a whole. We see that as idolatrous as well—and horribly so—and that’s not even getting into what to us is the UNBIBLICAL claims about little pebble Peter being the rock foundation of the church universal. Just the fact that so many RC’s seem to put the edifice BEFORE GOD; BETWEEN THEM AND GOD sets our teeth on edge and causes our spirits and stomachs to churn.
That’s not likely to change any time soon. Those are the realities of our differences.
And for the RC’s to insist that they can throw rocks and rusty daggers at our hearts and sensibilities but we can’t say a thing in response unelss we say it in the most polite tones wrapped in 12 layers of Mary’s hankies . . . just doesn’t cut it and never will.
Sometimes—too often to my sensibilities—even the thread titles are rather assaultive and at least fiercely baiting.
To me . . . several things are wise, important, Biblical, thoughtful and practical.
1. Things not immediately and intimately BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND GOD—are assailable in any number of even fierce and even harsh terms. That’s the reality of intensely felt RELIGIOUS stuff amongst human critters.
2. Things that ARE intimately BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND GOD are automatically unassailable. That doesn’t keep flawed humans from getting their . . . all in an uproar because they CHOOSE TO BE OFFENDED. But it’s silly. How can satan himself successfully assail what’s strictly between God and an individual unless the individual assists in the destructive effort???
3. Hyperbole, satire, ridicule etc. are all plentiful in Scripture. They are useful techniques for highlighting, emphasizing, bringing into bold relief various factors, issues, themes, . . . whatever . . . by bringing to vivid light the inherent absurdities in silly perspectives and positions—on all sides.
4. Folks who’s cortisol levels are going to be increased from reading such should stick to the caucus threads. They take their lives into their own hands by reading any post that might the least bit upset them. Thin-skinned folks should stick to the caucus threads.
5. The little pebble Peter was all hot and bothered about another Disciple. Jesus said, what is that to you—follow me. LOTS OF THINGS just don’t eternally matter to us personally. So what if a list of RC’s think I’m the devil incarnate. It’s somewhat annoying and could be mildly offensive if focused on . . . but so what. God knows who and what I am—HE made me and trained and conditioned me into who I am today. HE is my paymaster, my God, my king, my Savior, my Deliverer . . . what can man even DO to me.
6. SO WHAT about what man merely says/writes to/about me. What cheap thrills! And if it’s stuff OUT THERE—outside of me . . . all the cheaper. All the sillier to allow cortisol to flood my blood stream over.
7. Many folks require shock treatments to even wake up to the issues involved sufficiently to even think seriously about the pros and cons and implications of the various factors and issues. That’s just simply true of a number of different personalities. Denying those folks their required shock treatments seems rather cheeky and calloused, to me. We all have had to have shock treatments to wake up over this or that serious issue or flaw at some times in our lives. Why rob others of the same benefit?
8. Bitterness; mean spirited personal assaults; vengeful resentments . . . all such acted out deserve to be slapped down harshly immediately. But that would take some mind/heart reading, now wouldn’t it. Best leave all such to God. But it seems reasonable to offer a properly put observation about how a given post strikes one in terms of one’s own feelings, impacts—without mind-reading etc. Trouble is, those awash in bitterness, pride, mean-spirited vengeful stuff . . . are least likely to take things reasonably and consider external stuff as JUST EXTERNAL STUFF. Which should be a clue to them that some internal adjustment is in order BEFORE they post anything to anyone.
9. We COULD have some collaborative fun hereon—even unifying collaborative fun—even with fierce satire, ridicule, analogies and the like. But folks would have to decide to not be personally offended at STUFF OUT THERE—outside of their personal relationship with God.
10. Folks would have to decide that given fiercely extreme differences in theological, religious, spiritual issues, facts, histories, sensibilities, biases—THERE WILL ALWAYS BE OPPORTUNITY for intense emotional interactions. But that it’s immature to react to them as 2 year olds.
11. We can consider the source and go on . . . laughing. OR we can consider that it’s STUFF—out there, over there—not my heart, spirit, life-blood. It’s a thing—regardless of how revered or hallowed or precious to us—it’s still an external thing. Often it’s not even a tangible thing—it’s a CONSTRUCT—AN ABSTRACTION—AN IDEA—AN INTANGIBLE IDEAL OR FANTASY OR IMAGINATION. And for such we are ready to strangle one another???? God forbid!
12. Words only have power to disturb our peace with God IF WE GIVE THEM THAT POWER—REGARDLESS OF HOW TRUE OR UNTRUE—REGARDLESS OF WHO SAID THEM OR HOW THEY SAID THEM.
13. Experience should likely teach us . . . those things which leave us feeling most irate . . . are likely precisely those things God would have us re-evaluate the priority of—that they have in our life.
14. The only way any of us will get out of this alive anyway—is through the Rapture. So what’s the big deal? Be at peace. It’s only words about ideas. So what if they are important ideas and even strong words. Still nothing to lose our peace over.
#############
Thanks for your personal query. Doing OK. Feeling . . . something . . . that I have so many things undone that I’d rather have accomplished. Yet, I do my best to redeem the time so I guess—no-not guess—I should let all that tooo go and LET GOD in ALL areas! LOL.
God’s best to you and those you love,
Ahhhhh.
Thanks.
Though a slight quibble . . . not AMEN—SO BE IT—BUT
yeah, too true! LOL.
LUB
There you go again - making presumptions about what ye know not: My motive for posting the article. This shows that you are self anointed with a big ego.
I am for Truth - and if it offends anyone, that’s the response.
The Bible is the Lord’s Book, does not belong to the cultic RCC.
Christ did not found the RCC - He founded His church, which is comprised of Saints around the world from all times; NOT restricted to any man made church of any Christian denomination.
In every church of every Christian group has goats in it - mixed in with which ever sheep the Lord called. Men can’t tell the difference.
With you reply - I will ignore everything from you. You come across as pompous and ignorant beyond my limited ability or patience. buh-bye now.
But the gospel IS simple. If we would all realize that we would probably witness more. I got involved with the Fellowship of Christian farmers for a couple of years before I got sick. We would give away free walking sticks, rulers and bracelets to those who would listen for five minutes to the gospel message. We had four beads on a rawhide string attached and each bead stood for something, sin was black, cleansed from sin was white, blood of Christ was red and I can’t remember what the green one stood for, but it was simple and effective. I loved doing that. Didn’t take a minister or anyone well versed in the Bible to give that simple gospel message.
Yes, we ARE rather hard headed and close minded at times.
I know there are some churches where that is the norm. The particular church I attended was different depending on who the minister was. One particular pastor even issued 'alter calls'. :::gasp:::
Show me where I have ever referred to a non-Catholic as a heretic or separated.
You're dodging the topic here, Steven. Are there any articles (not posts) posted on FR containing Catholics calling non-Catholics "whore of Babylon" or "anti-Christ?"
I stated that I don't understand why Christians have to be negative about Christians. In this case, the author doesn't seem to think that Catholics are Christians.
How about all the way back to the Roman Emporer Constantine?
Watch that cortisol level, Quix. ;o)
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.