Posted on 03/19/2013 8:59:25 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
It has been suggested that it is a tragedy for Evangelicals to pray and fast regarding the new pope as called for by Rick Warren.
While it might not be an issue worthy of fasting over as it doesn’t look like most of the top contenders to the papal throne have themselves missed too many meals and won’t exactly be living in a state of self denial given their opulent surroundings should they get the job, offering up a quick prayer on the matter won’t hurt.
After all, the individual selected will play a significant role in steering that interpretation of the Christian faith closer towards true Biblical religion or further away into the assorted errors tempting all that call upon the name of the Lord in one fashion or the other.
What is so wrong with a Protestant praying for the selection of at least a level-headed Pope that adheres to the shared commonalities of Christian doctrine and respects the rights of existence and expression of those he disagrees with?
I guess there are those thinking the atrocities committed during the Thirty Years War by both sides were a good thing.
Nothing wins souls to your vision regarding Christ and His message like a good pillaging and the ravishing of a few unwilling maidens.
Some might ask the question why should Protestants, especially those of the lowly Baptist variety, enunciate an opinion as to the selection of a new Pope or elaborate an explanation as to why those of that particular theological perspective find the power and authority that ecclesiastical institution has asserted for itself as extra-Biblical and questionably dangerous.
Catholics have every right to select whomever they desire as their head honcho.
However, because that institution has assumed for itself a role beyond administering its own internal affairs and undertaken efforts to exert an influence on the world beyond its ornately decorated walls, in a free society those not belonging to this religious tradition have just as much right to speak out regarding the direction as to how this powerful world body might influence the way in which individuals are able to live their own lives and practice their own beliefs.
For though the way in which the Roman Catholic Church gets the message across might be more subtle than the way in which some Protestants do so, relying more on ceremony and glitz rather than a blunt in your face letting you know what they feel and believe regarding the issue often in a gruff and tactless manner, the opposition of the leadership to Protestantism is just as ingrained.
For example, Pope Benedict repeatedly emphasized throughout his pontificate that Protestant churches especially were not real churches and at best could only be thought of as errant theological associations.
No big deal, many not practiced in the art of discernment and worldview implication might conclude.
After all, everyone from the Pope down to the raving village atheist thinks the spiritual path they are journeying down is superior to all others.
However, one may need to stop to reflect for a moment what is being said here.
To the Protestant, the ideal that those of this persuasion endeavor to strive for can be found in Romans 10:13: “For whoseover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
By this, it is believed that there is no mediator between God and man other than Christ Himself for those that believe Jesus as the only Begotten Son of God died in our place for our sins and rose from the dead so that those placing their faith solely in Him might have eternal life in Heaven.
However, official institutionalized Catholicism pretty much holds that their’s is the only game in town determining who it is that will be rewarded with the prize or gift of salvation.
This the organization does in part through its system of sacraments.
So what the Church is really saying when it denies communion to all but those on its own membership roles is not so much that we think it’s best if you participate in this solemn event with those that can better attest to the validity of your faith experience or worthiness of character but rather that you aren’t even a fellow Christian at all.
If the new pope has called for a new evangelization effort in areas where Protestantism has made inroads, unless the campaign is confined to targeting those that were previously Catholic with those born into Protestantism or who became Protestant from a non-Catholic orientation off limits, on what grounds do Catholics have to get jacked out of shape when Protestants sweep up disgruntled and easily persuaded Catholics?
One would hope that no one in their right mind would find the violent acrimony of the past where individuals on either side of the divide were often deprived of property, opportunity, and even their very lives all in Christ’s name a worthy situation to return to.
However, neither are Christians obligated to go out of their way refusing to admit that profound religious differences still exist that are better off left in place for the sake of the entire world at least until Christ Himself returns to set hearts and minds straight and to sort out the mess we as fallen human beings have made of this world.
I haven’t found any evidence that our Lord Christ Jesus endorsed the books of the Apocrypha during the First Incarnation.
Prior to the First Incarnation, the Word of God was formally communicated ONLY through one office established by God. The office of the Prophet. Since the books in the Apocrypha were not written or communicated from God to man by His Prophet, I don’t see them as being Divinely inspired as the Word of God. They weren’t even authored in Hebrew.
I agree they may indeed contain useful historical information, but not as the Canon of Scripture.
Where in Scripture does our Lord Christ Jesus quote from the books of the Apocrypha or where does He recognize their authors as having been Divinely inspired?
If not our Lord, where do any Prophets acknowledge the Apocryphal writings as Scripture prior to the First Incarnation?
I suspect this would be much more powerful evidence to support their veracity. If found, then we can discuss the many contradictory positions found within them, even the authors contradicting their own writings, but that is simply a secondary issue, which is moot when their veracity hasn’t been established.
Again, I don’t find study of historical writings to be inappropriate, but I don’t mistake them as the Word, just as I wouldn’t mistake Homer’s Odyssey to be mistaken as the Word of God.
Besides, the power of the Cross was the handling of sin once and forever. Forgiveness of the individual may now occur instantly through faith in Him, not the Crucifix. Every other book in Scripture traces the Crimson thread of Redemption back to our Lord Christ Jesus. That Crimson thread of Redemption is strangely missing in the Apocrypha.
"I haven’t found any evidence that our Lord Christ Jesus endorsed the books . . ."
Sorry, if the standard for using contraception is that Christ nowhere condemns it, the standard for whether these books should stay in the Bible is the same. Now, where does Jesus Christ or any of the Apostles ever imply in any way that anything in the Septuagint wasn't the inspired Word of God? Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. No changing standards.
Since there is no clear condemnation of those books of the Bible so there's no reason to throw them out of the Bible. That's the standard used when teaching that contraception is fine even after four hundred plus years of teaching that the use of contraception is a sin. So, that's the standard for the books of the Apocrypha, no clear condemnation equals acceptance.
Throwing out that portion of the Bible is just another case of someone deciding on the result they want and then choosing a standard that they can use to rationalize that result. Non-Catholic churches no longer teach that contraception is a sin because contraception is popular with the go along to get along "Christians".
Any group can claim to be Christian, but when they teach as the Truth one thing today and the opposite the next along with not even accepting the entire Bible, they're not Christians. They're under a strong delusion that keeps them on the broad road to their own destruction following Eve rather than following Jesus Christ. They refuse to surrender to Christ because they cannot let go of their Self Alone ego. That's why they're functionally identical to the agnostics and atheists in this secular humanist society.
It's also proof that anyone who wants the fullness of the Scripture and the Truth needs to reconcile them self with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded and stop fooling around with cults, sects, and denominational churches. They may be trying to be Bible Christians but they'll always be led astray because they put Self Alone between themselves and Jesus Christ. Such folks are gravely at risk of hearing, "I never knew you" from the same Jesus Christ they want to follow but refuse to surrender to because they love their own intellect and the enthronement of Self Alone.
I agree. Sorry, but every time I see something posted by the OP, I know that it’s got some barb against Catholicism, real or imagined (he’s hit a few mistakes over the years with pieces talking about gaming etc. which just had the word Catholic in the title).
I don't care when the opinions are of a libnut -- whether Catholic or not. So whatever Pelosi or Obama or Mahler say, I don't care, don't even read/listen. They may call themselves what they want, but they worship at the altar of Sacred liberalism
I've said before that I don't like the label "Protestant" -- it includes too many varying beliefs for a statement about "P" to make any sense at all. What is true for Adventists is not true for Lutherans etc. and even some Baptists don't want to be called "P"
Keeping that in mind, when a non-Catholic who truly believes in what he/she believes in has an opinion about the new pope, I am interested, I "care" -- whether that be a devout Christian like yourself, xzins or even a devout Moslem or Hindu or Sikh, I care because it comes from a religious angle. In particular I care solidly what a devout non-Catholic Christian honestly opines on the pope (let me clarify later what I mean by "honestly"), even if we differ solidly -- because at the core of it we are brothers in Christ, we believe in One God, FAther-Son-Holy Spirit, we believe that Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man who by His sacrifice redeemed the world and without whom none might be saved.
What I mean by "honestly" is without distorted opinions. For example, the media went ga-ga about "atrocities in Argentina" and the leftists media for instance huffpo or Gazeta Wyborcza in Poland headlined with "Argentine atrocities, did the Pope know about it?" -- accusing him, with no proof, and stating questions as a fact.
Many people, whether Catholic or non-Catholic do this and some spread these rumors as facts.
Even more believe these -- and it works both ways. I, for instance, did not know enough of my Lutheran and Methodist brethren before 2009 and had incorrect opinions of what they did believe in. And I know many of our non-Catholic friends have incorrect opinions of what we believe in -- ultimately it's like we are hitting each other over the head with clubs saying "in my dream, you were mean" ignoring reality (or ignorant of reality).
So when you, xzins, for instance, voice an opinion, I would listen. Perhaps you are wrong, perhaps not, but either way, jest warto i ważne :)
I understand your acceptance of the Apocrypha as the Word of God, is premised upon formal acceptance by the RCC, which is premised upon believing Peter is placed as the head of the Church, and it is continued through Apostolic secession, forming a worldly power system, which you believe is ordained by God.
If there are contradictions in the Apocrypha, would this be ample evidence that the interpretation of an Apostolic secession from Peter is not the Kingdom of God, nor the Plan of God?
For those of us who believe that Jesus Christ really came into this world as the real, human, living, breathing, God incarnate in human form, it's obvious that He knew portions of His Word and sacred Tradition could be lost, distorted, thrown in the trash by horny drunks, and so on, leading to tens of millions of different interpretations of what He left us. He also knew those millions of different interpretations would lead to tens of thousands of different groups claiming to be His church, therefore He instituted Apostolic succession and founded a real, physical, visible, hierarchically organized, Church as final authority on earth to keep His Word and Sacred Tradition intact.
Therefore I tend to stop reading as soon as someone tosses out overly polemical terms like, "worldly power system".
I’m a Protestant and this is my uninformed, humble opinion: Pope Francis is a Christian and as Pope he is the earthly representative of the Christian religion. I think that all Christians should be grateful that there is a standard bearer for our Church. Especially, in today’s world.
One correction is the last sentence: remove “our” insert “His” .
Lots of people stop listening when basic doctrinal issues are discussed, such as discernment of worldly and carnal sin.
Why someone who places their own worldly, carnal, intellect above The Word of God and claims the right to throw portions of Holy Scripture in the trashcan is, in effect, claiming to be superior to His Word and therefore Christ Himself who is The Word.
That's the issue we were discussing prior to an attempted diversion via an implied slandering of The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded.
So, to get back on topic, lets talk about discerning the fact that those who believe in throwing Scripture in the trash either worship their Self, or they worship the individual they grant the such superiority over Scripture that said individual has every right to throw portions of Holy Scripture, His Word, in the trashcan.
Agreeing that someone had the right to throw Scripture in the trashcan is accepting that person's claim that they are more righteous, more intelligent, and closer to Christ, than were the Apostles, or any and all Christians who lived from the time of Christ until this individual came along.
In fact, when someone claims they have every right to throw out portions of the Bible they are claiming to be more like Christ than Christ Himself, who they claim never noticed there were books included in the Septuagint that should not have been included. Were such a person to further assert that Scripture is all anyone needs, they would clearly be claiming that while Christ had no idea what was or was not the inspired Word of God, they do.
There's really no way around it. Once someone accepts that an individual had and/or has the right to throw portions of Scripture in the trashcan, they either accept the dictates of that individual the same way people used to put a pinch of incense in the flame that burned before Cesar as a god, or, they believe that just like the person who threw out Scripture, they have every right to throw portions of His Word in the trashcan as well.
I suspect it's almost always the latter of the two because the worldly and carnal sins that eventually overtake everyone who goes along with throwing out Scripture are in keeping with people worshiping their own, "Most High and Holy Self", and following Eve rather than Christ.
That's what it really means when you agree with throwing portions of Holy Scripture in the trashcan.
People who go that route may very well be, in fact almost certainly are, under the powerful delusion that leads men to their own destruction. That being the case, they are blind and cannot see what they're really accepting. That doesn't matter, though, because their "discernment" is just like their righteousness, filthy rags. Our Salvation is in surrendering to Jesus Christ and the only way to surrender is to surrender and let Christ open your eyes instead of "discerning" with your blind intellect and spirit.
Christ is the same yesterday, to day, and forever. When Christ was incarnate on the earth, he accepted the authority of the Priesthood, he paid the Temple tax for Himself and Peter, He obeyed the rules of the Temple, He told the Apostles to obey those who were on the seat of Moses. He established His Church with a hierarchy among the Apostles, who then established a hierarchy as they spread His Word, and taught that those who follow Christ are to obey their prelates, the prelates they were appointing and anointing, not whoever you thought should be your prelate but who had nver been anointed by the Apostoles.
Christ also described His Bride in ways that prove without a doubt His Church is a visible, physical, reality, in this world now, as well as an invisible spiritual Church both now and forever. Jesus Christ established His one Church, not tens of thousands of churches. Anything except surrender leads to the same result; hearing Christ tell you, "I never knew you", even though you have a long list of things you claim to have done in His name as part of the church you preferred to the One True Church Jesus Christ Himself established.
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.