Posted on 12/10/2009 2:08:47 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
When a teacher or preacher speaks of the Supremacy of Scripture he is almost always referring to a doctrine that understands Scripture as the supreme source for truth, and in fact the exclusive source for spiritual truth. In the language of the Reformation it is known as Sola Scriptura, which means that the basis for our beliefs is not tradition or experience or ecclesiastical dictate, it is the written Scriptures alone. And it is true that this doctrine has been eroding and that many religious organizations either completely deny it or dilute its essence.
Luther desired nothing but proof from Scripture when it came to doctrinal truth, and forms of that battle have continued into today. There are many books and messages that deal with the Supremacy of Scripture and the reasons for such a foundational doctrine. And this doctrine has provided a forum for what some call the "truth war" which indicates a battle between those who espouse the supremacy of Scripture and those who in one way or another do not. Some project their opinion with academic reasoning within Scripture while retaining some civility, while others speak and write with acrimony and self righteousness.
I am one who espouses the Supremacy of Scripture, for in the end the opinions of men are just that. But I continue to have a problem with some of those who are the leading and most outspoken proponents of that doctrine. Luther himself espoused the supremacy of Scripture at the possible expense of his own life, however after establishing the doctrinal foundation of Sola Scriptura he seemed to dismiss the core of that doctrine when it came to personal obedience. His reckless language, combined with his indulgence of alcohol, and his overt hatred for the Jews was in stark contrast to his doctrinal espousing of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy. Without dismissing Luther’s importance in core doctrinal realignment, I suggest he did not strive to live up to the personal mandates of Scripture which are every bit an indispensible part of Scriptural supremacy.
What Luther’s example has shown us is that it is entirely possible to be an outspoken proponent of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while denying it wholesale in practice and tone. And such is the case in many quarters of today’s evangelical community. To what benefit is it to aggressively contend for the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while overtly denying it in the methodology you use to defend it? That scenario becomes a paradox in orthodoxy which dismantles the very doctrine you are supposedly defending. The supremacy doctrine is never limited to the overarching eternal truths concerning the Godhead, it must include the admonitions and commands that are consistent with the personal manifestations of the Incarnate narrative, as well as the dictates of the epistles.
It is indeed counterproductive to argue doctrine in the abstract without the personal revelations, or at least the obvious and genuine pursuit, of the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture which are designed to restrict the carnal “end justifies the means” template of defending the truth. In the end, defending the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy by abrogating the preponderance of Scripture as it applies to love, grace, and personal humility is neither Christian nor Scriptural. It is an overt revelation of disobedience and rejection of the very doctrine you portend to defend. Christ Himself was the antithesis of masculine domination and powerful usurpation, which at its core is why so many were drawn to Him while others rejected Him.
So many today stand on the mountaintop of hubristic judgment of almost everyone who are at varying degrees of doctrinal variance, but are blind to their own Scriptural disobedience. The world knows nothing of our doctrinal squabbles, serious or secondary, but they can see clearly the tone and attitudes that are in direct conflict with the Christ we preach. The cross is the core of our redemption, but it also carries with it the essence of how we are to interact with the world and each other. These “Attila the Hun” expressions of doctrinal dialogues do despite to the Spirit of Christ, and may in fact win the debate but lose the Spirit.
What is our calling? Are we to win the “truth war” or are we to live and project Jesus Christ? And those who claim they are in fact one in the same are seriously misguided. Winning the “truth war” is indeed more about living Christ than it ever was about a round table discussion about doctrinal issues on YouTube that draw “amen’s” from the doctrinal Bourgeoisie and elevate the wisdom of men resulting in the applause of other men. The sounds of “did you see so and so on Larry King, didn’t he really give it to them” are only meant to create a greater self righteousness within those who have chosen sides at the expense of deep compassion for those who are blind and deep gratitude for those of us who have been enlightened by His grace.
We have been sold a doctrinal bill of goods that has camouflaged the truth inside a methodology that is in direct violation of the same Scriptural mandates. Would it be Scriptural to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by murder? Of course not, you say. Then how can it be Scriptural to defend Scripture by self righteousness, demeaning personal attacks, and hubristic dismissiveness? We cannot exalt the supremacy of Scripture if we ignore those Scriptures that apply directly to us.
And here lies the challenge. Are we humble enough to defend cardinal doctrines of the faith in such a way that leaves the outcome to God Himself, or are we to speak in such a way that leverages the battle upon the fulcrum of our own words and the core viciousness of our attacks? God looks after His own Word and His instructions to us are never in contrast to that same Word. Speak the truth in love, says the Spirit, not speak the truth in visceral hatred and that is in itself love. The constant stream of unchristian language directed at the same people over and over again reveals an unwillingness to trust God concerning His own Word and its defense. Is there a God, and has He spoken, and is He able to bring about His purposes in spite of those who have strayed doctrinally, or is He in dire need of our constant attacks and redundant reminders of the same Scriptural shortcomings of others? And is our Biblical teaching so fleeting, so shallow, and so temporary that without the continuing stream of identifying the same false teachers people will stray immediately?
The supremacy of Scripture is not some “pin the tail on the donkey” doctrine that we stick on others, no, it is also high time that we examine our own adherence to the personal aspects of that same doctrine. Doctrinal truth must be lived as well as preached.
Doctrine without works is dead.
You simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to St. Paul's office. He was an Apostle, which by definition also places him squarely among the bishops. The witness to that aspect of the Apostles' ministry is universal in the Early Church. And, in several places, St. Paul makes reference to his ordaining various people via the "laying on of hands." That's what bishops did, and still do. This laying on of hands transmitted power and authority, an effect not to be trifled with or otherwise disposed of in a trivial manner, as St. Paul admonishes St. Timothy to remember in 1 Timothy 5:22. The basis of "apostolic succession, " shared by Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches down to this day (but by no Protestant bodies, as they, or they early-Reformation ancestors, explicitly denied and rejected in their break from Catholicism), rests on the concepts St. Paul makes plain about the laying on of hands.
Your historical assertions are based on not much of anything. Show me, for example, the continuous trail of existence for this "remnant" you speak of. In order to do this, you must be able to span the entire 2000 year Christian Era, with a demonstrably coherent doctrine that can be said to preserve the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles. Be specific as to groups. If you can only point to a few individual believers in any given lifespan of time, I would suggest that that utterly fails to confirm Christ's promise to be with His Church all days, or His promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide it.
You also don't connect the dots for logic very well. One example will have to suffice, since it is clear you're not getting my points very well anyway. You say that the Catholic canon was not finally codified until 1400 years after the last book was written. This is at best a half-truth. It is true that no ecumenical council defined the canon until Trent. But several regional councils of the 4th and 5th Centuries had in fact confirmed the canon with papal approbation. These certainly settled the matter to everyone's general satisfaction until the "Reformation" began shredding settled doctrine in the middle of the 16th Century. Trent only confirmed the canon as an official reference standard and rebuke against the "Reformers," who had already, via various of its early leaders, begun to remove books from both Testaments, or declare them "apocrypha" fit for use as an appendix at the end of their Bibles. The canon itself had been long since settled. Trent only declared it dogmatically closed in response to revolution that threatened to make the matter of what books constituted the Bible an "open question" on a level not seen since the 2nd Century.
Your statement on Jamnia is pretty garbled. It's hard to get a good read on what you're trying to say.
You make a reference to "mortal sin," and say it does not necessarily damn anyone. This is just displaying ignorance of the basic definition. It is precisely the type of sin that damns someone, insofar as the "mortal" part refers to spiritual death, which is nothing less than damnation.
Your understanding of Catholic beliefs and practices, as manifested in your posts, at any rate, is nothing more than a shadowy caricature of their true nature. It's hard to properly respond to a set of straw-man arguments. What coherency you do muster is based pretty much on the assumption that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept, though, not being found in Scripture anywhere explicitly, it is certainly self-refuted. You object, on sola scriptura grounds, to many Catholic beliefs and practices, saying the Bible alone does not authorize them.
This is mostly not true, but, to the extent that some things, such as priestly and episcopal celibacy are not explicitly mandated by Scripture, our response is "so what?" We have never elevated the practice to a doctrine; it is merely a discipline, which could, in theory, change tomorrow. Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 7 makes a powerful witness to the soundness of the practice, even if there is nothing there that absolutely mandates it.
But there are some things that the Catholic Church does hold to doctrinally that do not find much in Scripture to explicitly back them up - though nearly every example can show a trail of Biblical inference. Again, we say "so what?" We recognize Sacred Tradition, as do all of the ancient Churches that predate Protestantism. You would do well to explore what authority existed in the "reformers" to throw Tradition out, and why all of the Apostolic Churches have retained it from the beginning. Has it ever occurred to you that people first making an appearance on the Christian scene 1500 years after Acts 2 and radically altering many things tracing back into the mists of the Era just might be lacking in authority to make those changes? Sola Scriptura, as a concept, is biblically bankrupt and internally self-refuting. Everything flowing from it, including the utter rejection of Sacred Tradition, is of similar pedigree.
Besides doctrinal issues, IF Rome formally disfellowshipped those who manifestly are heretical, or immoral, then that could help you to have a case for Rome, but there is little of that, as having lost its unlawful temporal power, it seeks to play both sides, allowing most any manner of Catholic to be called such, as we saw in Teddy K. For her the real message is, as long as you die in the arms of Rome then she will get into Heaven.
Looking for the rest of the bible.... :-)
The ecumenical movement did achive elimination alot of propaganda and half truths being proliferated within the christian landscape. Unfortunatly, amongst those who have a fundamentalist bent this wasnt necessarily the case. The same tired, old worn out, but false arguments keep being wheeled out against the Catholic Church and its understanding of the Bible. Sure there is room for disagreement, but the things I am talking about and which you espouse have been clearly rejected by theologians of the more dominant Christian hierarchies(Certainly not impressive to you). but to list:
Priestly Celibacy being against the Bible -False
Call no man Father ~ cant call a priest Father ~ False
Jesus had brothers and sisters through Mary ~ False
I wish I could name other off the top of my head, but there are many in this category. To be fair I can sympathize with you on purgatory because of the restriced way(Sola Scriptura) you have of thinking on these matters. You reject matters that are historical and are part of the deposit of teachings of the apostles. Modernism,Liberalism rejects or disputes the era of old as untrustworthy and to be discarded. But so many other issues that you stress are coming from an old and incorrect playbook...a playbook that is in a major way corrupted with half-truths and uncorrected lies.
As to address our original issue, this link says it all
and addresses each of your argument and more:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp
Further, this is my favorite beginners Catholic website.
Try dispelling alot of this. http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/
I used to be Protestant but studying Church History led me to an inevitable conclusion of accepting the Catholic Churches claims as being true.There are two sides to every coin, and two sides in each argument. Listen to what the Catholic church says about each of these things not what you church(sites that espouse your viewpoint) says the Catholic Churchs stance is.
>You simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to St. Paul’s office. He was an Apostle, which by definition also places him squarely among the bishops.<
No, we are not talking about exercising some functions which apostles and bishops did, but about formally being a bishop, who was in charge of a local flock, not a traveling evangelist whom no wife could likely keep up with. Regardless, since the rest of the apostles themselves were married, including Peter, then and your desperate focusing on Paul’s celibacy will not provide the necessary warrant for requiring all bishops/elders to be celibate. The explicit Biblical statements on the matter refute such an idea, but blind loyalty to Rome compels the defense the indefensible.
>priestly and episcopal celibacy are not explicitly mandated by Scripture, our response is “so what?” We have never elevated the practice to a doctrine; it is merely a discipline, which could, in theory, change tomorrow. .<
As stated before while it is only church law, the fact is that it is an warranted requirement,<
>Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 7 makes a powerful witness to the soundness of the practice, even if there is nothing there that absolutely mandates it<
The latter has always been the issue here, not whether celibacy is virtuous, but that all bishops must have that gift.
I am sorry that you fail comprehend that I am not saying the church ceased to exist, with some true believers in it, and at least a basic form of its structure, but that it was corrupted, and needed reformation, which is not yet complete. Perpetuating the corruptions of Rome which you suppose makes it the true church is counter productive to that end, and yet is it not Scripure, but Rome sad historical records that you rest upon. God can raise up a true church today, on an island, using a man, who like Peter, effectually confessed Christ as Lord, as Jesus said he could raise up sons of Abraham from stones. It is faith which produces Biblical obedience that is key, not outward show and autocratic corruptions of faith, which is what Rome glories in.
Also, your rejection of those like Jerome who rejected the Apocrypha,and adoption of it, like false doctrines, does not establish its canonicity.
>You make a reference to “mortal sin,” and say it does not necessarily damn anyone.<
Sorry. I get tired. Let me clarify:
“While praying for deceased idolaters may be compassionate, if problematic - as Rome excludes [that] there is hope for those who die in mortal sin, and [though] I would not see this [praying for the dead] as necessarily damning those who may ignorantly engage in such, [yet] in no place will you find this [praying for the dead] being sanctioned in any other book of the Bible.
It is Rome that infers hope for these apparent idolaters in 2 Mac.
>Sola Scriptura, as a concept, is biblically bankrupt and internally self-refuting.<
Not so, properly understood. Once Scripture was given, then it became the standard by which progressive revelation was tested. Thus Acts 17:11, and the constant referencing and allusions to it by Jesus and the apostles, while Jesus rebuked additions such as the law of Corban which contradicted it. Unlike the bottomless pit of church tradition, the Scriptures are declared to be wholly inspired, and while the Word of God includes things not written down, they cannot contradict it or fail to have manifest support. The apostles preaching was the word of God, but as the Bereans shows, it was Biblical. And the apostles were clearly attested to be such by mighty signs and wonders,(2Cor. 12:12), and which, along with the O.T., provided warrant for what they said. But besides lacking such manner of Divine attestation, or the clear establishment for Rome which the O.T. high priest had for his prophetic office (while a Caiaphas type head could not even remain in a true church), since the canon is closed, to make church tradition equal to it is essentially adding to the canon. In this case, the baby and the bath water are equal.
Nothing above Scripture should convince me, by which all revelation is proved by, rather than a self-proclaimed infallible magisterium.
Perhaps even David believed in transubstantiation:
(2 Sam 23:15-17) “And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! {16} And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. {17} And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.”
If Jn. 6:53 is the R.C. Eucharist, then that is what the apostles would have preached as a means of regeneration, rather than belief in Jesus words, which are “spirit and life.” Jesus “meat and drink” was to do His Father’s will,(Jn. 4:34) He lived by the father, as we are to live by Him, (see Jn. 6:57), and we are to live by His every word, (Mt. 4:4).
It is hardly conceivable the apostles, esp. “Protestant” Peter, who was kosher as late as Acts 10, would unquestionably eat Jesus corporeal flesh and blood (which one must believe it is, to be effectual, according to Rome). Peter did not even want Jesus to wash his feet, how much less would he simply submit to eating Jesus blood.
Jews and Greek were both heavy in symbolic language, eating is heavily used metaphorically, and Jeremiah said, “Thy words were found, and I did eat them;”(Jer. 15:16), but do not eat the fruit of lies, (Hos. 10:13) that misconstrue what is written.
I say with St. Paul that it is the knowledge and imitation of Christ that makes us righteous and leads us to everlasting life.
Ambiguous, Elaborate and clarify what really justifies you, and on what basis to you gain eternal life.
The set of generally agreed upon "essential" doctrines you allude to simply does not exist. "Essentials" among the reformed are as wide and varied as their denominations. doctrines such as "eternal security" are by no means universally accepted by Biblical Protestants, and one need only ask an adherent to that doctrine to quickly learn they consider it anything but peripheral.
Likewise, the notion that some nebulous group in the Catholic church is depending on their works or their Church for salvation is as cynical and mean-spirited as the pagans who insist preachers are skirt-chasing, money grubbing, hypocrits.
If such non-disprovable slander is "following Christ," I suspect such a follower will ultimately find themselves in the company of many a sorrowful goat.
Further, and speaking from experience, I find the claim that evangelicals display more evidence of regeneration, laughable. Leaving aside the question of how exactly one quantifies such qualities, of what evidence are the "fruits of the spirit" and "doctrinal unity" after surrounding oneself exclusively with those who agree with your particular interpretation of scripture?
“I have a question for you both. If you were on a desert island. All by yourself. No churches, no priests, no other people. And all you had access to was a pocket sized New Testament...And you knew your days on the island were numbered. What would be going through your mind and heart as you prepare to face your death? What would you be spending all your time doing?”
Last time I checked, most Catholic have 10 fingers and 10 toes. So here goes:
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam. Amen.
PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Domini nostri, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen. X3
GLORIA PATRI, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
....you get the picture? :)
But besides praying, meditating on the Sacred Scriptures (hopefully with a decent translation, or preferably the latin vulgate of Jerome), and communing with Jesus, His mother, and the saints, I would take up carving, fishing, making musical instruments. I would enjoy not having to pay taxes. I would learn how to train dolphin and build castles out of sand. Fly kites, invent gun powder, learn to paint, ....would it not be fun?
Please do not disparage goats. We just got several milkers for the first time, and they are remarkable personable productive animals. They are also somewhat willful, which is in contradistinction to sheep, which are just plain stupid. When Jesus invoked the image of the sheep on the right hand and the goats on the left, I think, and this is my personal interpretation here, that He was singling out their willfullness as what gets them (aka us) in trouble. But as an animal created by God for our benefit, the goat ranks very high. Anyone who knows anything about A2 beta-casein would know this.
Peace, and thanks for your good works, and good will towards all!
What on earth are you talking about? You quote it yourself: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
"Absence of information?"
And what does it mean to eat without discerning the body? Just before that verse, we find:...
. Huh?
[27] Wherefore whoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. ... [31] For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
Your exegesis flatly contradicts the Apostle Paul.
Your response does not fit the question. It is simply blaming Catholics for your petulant answer.
No Catholic told you taking the Eucharist apart from faith conveys any grace. Indeed, exactly the opposite is true.
Catholic literalism has nothing to do with your choice of demagogic statements.
Simply stated, you have misunderstood the text, and made the translation of an admonishment into a legal dictum.
If your understanding of that passage were correct the Protestant Church would be no less guilty of violating its spirit than the Catholics.
“What on earth are you talking about? You quote it yourself: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
Chapter 10 starts with talking about how Israel was an example to us: “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.” Because of what we learn from Israel’s example, we are to flee idolatry - verse 14.
Now follows verses 15-24:
“I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”
[When we participate in the Eucharist, we are one body. Is this because the bread and wine are literally the flesh and blood of Jesus? Consider what he says now about idols...]
“Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.”
[When someone eats the sacrifice that was offered to an idol, he participates with demons. It isn’t that the sacrifice - meat, vegetable, whatever - is transubstantiated into the flesh of a demon (”Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No”), but that those who take the Eucharist are identified with Christ, and those who partake of food offered to idols are identified with demons.]
“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.”
“Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he? “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.”
Participation in the blood of Christ does not equal drinking the actual blood of Christ, any more than eating food sacrificed to idols is eating the actual flesh of a demon.
For more discussion on the context, please read what I posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2393858/posts?page=1394#1394
It is 2:30 AM here, and I’m only up now to drink a bit of juice to clear my throat out as I try to get over this cold.
“Simply stated, you have misunderstood the text, and made the translation of an admonishment into a legal dictum.”
Ummm...I used the English translation, and said we are to obey what the Apostles told us: “8Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”
I’m not sure why you distinguish between and admonition and legal dictum...are we not to obey the admonitions of the Apostles, as recorded in the God-breathed scriptures?
When Paul says he taught the “whole counsel of God” to the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20, did he mean “whole” or “part”?
Did John mean for us to “abide”, or “go on ahead”?
Yes Jesus meant everything he said. Jesus wants to be #1 in our lives. We have to love him MORE than anyone. He is our Master! He is our everything! Paul and the apostles referred to themselves as “slaves” of Christ!
Jesus must come first. We have to love him more our own parents, our own children!
This will be the last youtube video I’ll link you to LoL:
“You need to way in on the cost factor and count the cost of being a disciple of Jesus Christ.”
What does it cost you to follow Christ? Everything. Steve Lawson preaches on Luke 14 on the Cost of Discipleship. The sad reality is that many people are just part of a crowd, many are in the crowd of those who listen to Piper, Washer, Conway, MacArthur, yet they themselves have not truly submitted to the Lordship of Christ. Search yourself out this very day... have you come to saving faith? Or do you just wish you had the reality of Christ that you see others have? Don’t be part of the wrong crowd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JQOBMi4QS8
>The set of generally agreed upon “essential” doctrines you allude to simply does not exist.<
While it is true that no infallible list of all infallibly defined doctrines exists in Rome, and confusion exists as to which some fall into, and Evangelicals do not provide an extensive list either, both Evangelical denominations (such as the largest one) and Catholicism believe that there are doctrines which are essential to salvation, as articulated in statements of faith. Because Evangelicals hold this, they are the most prolific propagators of the basic Christian faith, in proportion to their size, and the foremost apologists for it against those whom both recognize as cults, as well as cults.
>The notion that some nebulous group in the Catholic church is depending on their works or their Church for salvation is as cynical and mean-spirited as the pagans who insist preachers are skirt-chasing, money grubbing, hypocrits.,
I think thou doth protest too much.
I addition to every formal study i have every come across, is my own experience. I am a former RC, and was born again while still a Catholic, being convicted by God of my lost condition, as despite believing in and praying to God as a child, and raised to be a devout RC, i simply did not know Christ. Rome did not labor to convict me that I was a lost sinner, and in need of personal repentance and faith to be born again, but treated us as if we were Christians due to our baptism (infant sprinkling). But they and pious parents, at least did tell me the facts of the gospel religon, and morality, for which i thank God. I was born again after being convicted of my sins at about age 25, and while i did not know much about the means salvation, i tearfully repented and trusted in the mercy of God in Christ. After that i would go to confession weekly, and wished I could go daily, but earnestly desiring to know how to please God I began listening to a (the one and only) Christian station which had just come on the air in this liberal, Catholic area, and found it so enlightening and my hunger was so great that i could not wait to get out from underneath bridges when I lost the signal while driving (I was a truck driver). I quickly prayed to God affirming that i trusted Christ alone for salvation, and realized changes in heart and life which i did not expect, or could normally expect. Even nature seemed all new to me. Though the radio teachers were from different denominations, from John MacArthur to Chuck Smith, i had no real problem discerning between strictly denominational differences and the real meat of the word.
I was going to the Catholic church, (circa 1978) and wanting to serve God, i became a lector and CCD teacher, and was eager to talk to others in the church about the Bible and what God did in my souls, and to find others who were of like heart, but almost all showed no real interest or fellowship in such. I soon began going to a Bible study taught by a lay women who challenged souls to make a personal decision for Christ, and was being tutored by a evangelical. She was part of the RC charismatic church, and only in those meetings (in the late 70’s early 80’s) did i see some spiritual life in worship of Jesus, emphasis on the Bible, etc., and it was more like the evangelicals. Such local groups were officially more tolerated than were promoted, and they joined the main one with some social gospel peace and justice nun’s commission, and the meetings declined. They tried different things even the lighting, but somethuing had left. I believe God will work where He can, where some faith is, but that does not validate the whole, and you have to go on with Him.
Meanwhile i had been convicted by God to witness for Him, and while i am independent by nature, i was sensitive to rejection, and the things He called me to do required more death to self (and i must do daily do better). Doctrinally, i knew Rome had doctrines and practices that were traditions of men, and that overall its people were lacking the change that happened to me, and while i was attracted to evangel. preaching, yet there was not such local church i knew of in my area that i felt i could trust. So while still teaching CCD, I would seek to speak to other about Christ, though I was pretty basic, and most were Catholics who showed little interest. But finally, after approx. 6 years after being a born again, i did humbly pray that if God wanted me to go to a different church then He would show me. The next day in a small store, i mentioned about believing in God to a friend of my father’s, and he responded quite loudly, that He did and was not ashamed of it. Well, this is not Texas, and part of me wished he was not so loud, but he told me of the church he was going to. I began going, and it was not too much different than the charismatic prayer meetings, but they were not very evangelical (most, despite being better than institutionalized religion, are not). Within two years however, i had left all to serve the Lord full time and by faith (no salary, or set arrangement, or practicing solicitation), serving then in a Baptist church in a city close to where i had lived. And to make a long story short, God has abundantly confirmed my decision, then and after that, and in fact there is no way i live and could do what i do unless i was in His will. And as God keeps His word, I also know His chastisement due to doing my own thing, yet leaving Rome was clearly not one of them.
Back to your contention, I have no personal thing against Catholics, and do not promote any one particular church for salvation, and certainly do not think i have “arrived”, but i have personally encountered thousands of Catholics, offering the simple gospel. And as anyone who has done so can tell, their response, if they will respond, to queries as regarding their preparedness for eternity, is typically that they are good person, and or a Catholic and on that basis they are “all set” and have no testimony of conversion, or evidence of the heart change and fellowship of the Spirit which those who are truly born again do. And this lack is also exist in mainline churches, and to a lesser degree, in “evangelical” ones. But that such, when they do sincerely and humbly personally trust the Lord Jesus to save them, realize dramatic changes in heart and life which correspond to claims of Christ. I tell atheists to interview solid members of evang. churches about what their life was like before and after conversion,and verify such through those who knew them, and they will overall find effects which testify to Christ as the Cause. Fanny Crosby did not write 8,000 hymns because she was just religious.
As for those who contend for Rome, while I am glad that evident basic truths of Scripture are held to, i find it grievous that thy both deny that the data and testimonies testify that Rome overall is not bring souls to be born again, and that they are compelled to defend teachings which do not really rest upon Scripture, but the power of Rome to teach for doctrines the commandments of men.
Yet if Rome did not teach her souls that they (the majority) became Christians via paedobaptism, and effectually and pointedly called for personal repentance and faith,as sinners who have absolutely nothing to merit eternal life by, r escape their just punishment in Hell fire, so that souls experience the new birth with its resultant dramatic changes, then there could be some basic fellowship in the spirit, things such as clerical celibacy, or even trasnsubstaitinasti notwithstanding. Praying to Mary however, is more problematic).
However, as in cults, this militates against perpetuating the bureaucracy which makes itself an object of faith for salvation, or being the particular organic entity by which one gains salvation. The church is that which is the product of faith, as Israel was, but being spiritual it is not relegated to one formal organic expression, while though the church is needed for growth and propagation of the faith, souls can be saved anywhere, even in a desert. Praise the Lord.
>surrounding oneself exclusively with those who agree with your particular interpretation of scripture?<
Actually this is most typically manifest among Catholics, who rarely seek spiritual fellowship outside their fold, while even going to Mass is usually less than weekly, while Evangelicals manifest a vast degree of inter varsity fellowship, from conferences to concerts, to pray meetings (not enough), to supporting multiple ministry outside their denominations, including missionary work, as well as Evang. entities such as Salem Radio, the largest Christian broadcaster in the US which carries teachers from multiple evangelical denominations (as well as a few RC programs). And which wide appeal and support is not due to allegiance to a central earthly head, but is a phenomenon which, in its essence is due to the supernatural change that results from the new birth, while those without have little to no real interest in teaching from various but evangelical Bible sources. But which quality is on the decline, and the coming persecution will work to purify it.
Amen to everything you said in this last post.
But who is it that follows the evangelical counsels?
Remember the rich young man who obeyed all of the commandments, yet could not part from his riches and follow Christ?
How many protestants follow the example of the Franciscans, the Poor Clares, the Carmelites, the Dominicans, taking vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience?
Once when I was early for a latin mass at the Poor Clare convent in Santa Barbara, CA, I got to see a nun in full habit, head completely covered, hurrying around lighting all the candles, laying out the altar linens, in her bare feet on the stone floor! It reminded me of the scripture that is captured so well in Handel’s Messiah, “how beautiful are the feet that preach the Gospel of peace”.
8 ... by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2)why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46)
daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole (Matthew 9:22, many similar)
6 [God] will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2, similar Matthew 25:31ff)
The usual Protestant error is that we are saved by faith alone. That is counterscriptural nonsense:
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? (James 2:24)
Sacraments of the Church, primarily baptism and the Eucharist, are vehicles of the saving grace:
baptism being of the like form [by water], now saveth you also (1 Peter 3:21)He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day (John 6:55)
You did not know that?
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.