Posted on 05/10/2013 10:47:38 AM PDT by NYer
By David B. Currie
The day President John F. Kennedy was shot is one of my most vivid childhood memories. I was in sixth grade playing on the playground when the rumors started. Just before the dismissal bell at the end of the day, the principal made the announcement over the PA system: JFK had been assassinated.
School was dismissed in eerie silence. Tears welled up in my eyes as I walked the half mile home that afternoon. My sorrow was almost overwhelming for a sixth-grader, not only because our President was dead, but primarily because in my heart of hearts I believed that he was in hell.
He was a Catholic, and I was a Christian fundamentalist.
I was the second child in a family of four children, the only boy. Since my father was a fundamentalist preacher, I was what people often called a “PK” (preacher’s kid). My parents had met at Houghton College after my mother transferred there from Nyack Bible Institute in New York. They returned to Chicago and were married by A. W. Tozer, a well-known fundamentalist author who was also their pastor. I was born while my father was attending Dallas Theological Seminary. At various times both of my parents taught at Moody Bible Institute.
I have fond memories of sitting in church every Sunday listening to my father preach. Through him I had an education in theology before I ever attended seminary. Every Sunday we attended church for Sunday school, morning worship, evening worship, and youth group. We also faithfully attended Wednesday prayer meeting and Friday youth group each week. Our entire lives revolved around our church.
The only annual religious celebrations our church observed were Christmas and Easter. Other than those two holidays, I had never even heard of a “church calendar” that recognized the events of the Incarnation every year. We did celebrate certain secular holidays, however, such as Mother’s Day.
We were called “fundamentalists” because we believed in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Fundamentalism as a theological movement had been formulated in reaction to the rise of modernism in Protestant theology around the beginning of the twentieth century. We felt that it was important that we be clear on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, as well as the truths of Christ’s Deity, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and imminent second coming to set up His earthly kingdom. (The last of these beliefs is known as “premillennialism.”)
Although we believed that fundamentalist Christianity predated the Reformation, we still accepted the twin pillars of the Reformation: sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone).
A person became a Christian, we insisted, by believing that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin, admitting that all his own efforts at heaven were useless, and accepting Christ as his personal Savior. A single prayer was the only prerequisite for a “personal relationship” with God.
On a practical level, being fundamentalist meant keeping myself separate from the evils of the world. As such I did not dance, attend movie theaters or the ballet, use tobacco, drink alcohol, swear, play cards, gamble, or date non-fundamentalists. (Our Southern counterparts also forbade males and females to swim together.) I was almost thirty when I first stepped into a tavern. When I took my own children to see old Walt Disney reruns, I was seeing the movies for the first time.
The adults around me lived up to these standards, and their example made it easier to live this way. I never detected any of the hypocrisy in my parents that the major media tried to portray within fundamentalism. My parents taught me that commitment to the truth was always worth any sacrifice.
Views on the Catholic Faith
I was taught always to be polite and neighborly to Catholics and other people we considered to be non-Christians. Yet always we had the desire to see them some day become true believers like us. I was trained in how to turn a friendly conversation into one in which I could share the gospel. When I was in a social situation and failed to accomplish this goal, I felt a twinge of remorse, or even guilt.
Our worldview divided the world into very neat categories. Fundamentalists were the true Christians like those of the early Church. Liberals questioned the fundamentals of the faith. This group included most non-fundamentalist Protestants. Liberals might make it to heaven, but it was rather unlikely. It was bad to be a liberal, but it was much worse to be a Roman Catholic.
Catholics were not even really Christians, we believed, because they did not understand that salvation was by faith alone. We believed Catholics were going to hell because they tried to earn their salvation by good works rather than trusting only in the finished work of Christ on the Cross. No one was good enough to earn salvation. We could prove that from the Bible.
Most converts to fundamentalism were former Catholics. Although they were not saved, at least Catholics could be convinced from the Bible that they needed to be.
The last category was made up of those people who were total unbelievers. There weren’t that many of them around. I met my first atheist during my junior year in high school.
All through history, we believed, God had preserved a remnant of people who protected the truth just as we fundamentalists did now. It was easy to see that the Roman Catholic Church did not contain these believers. All one had to do was look at their beliefs.
Didn’t any Catholics ever read their Bible? We were convinced that so much of what they believed was in direct opposition to God’s Word. (I had never actually read any Catholic theology for myself, but nonetheless I was sure that I knew what Catholics believed.) We seldom pondered the many areas of agreement we had with Catholics, such as the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the inspiration of Scripture.
It has been said that few people disagree with what the Church actually teaches, while there are multitudes who disagree with what they mistakenly think she teaches. I fit into the second category, finding offensive many teachings that I thought were Catholic.
I thought it was obvious that Mary had not remained a virgin after Christ’s birth, since the Bible mentions the brothers of Jesus. I could see no basis for a belief in the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. The view of Mary as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix seemed to lower the role of Christ as our sole redeemer and mediator.
Catholic prayers to saints and veneration of images and relics also seemed to impinge on the authority of Christ. The belief that our own works were involved in our salvation seemed to fly in the face of Bible verses I had memorized as a child. How could water baptism be essential to our regeneration? That seemed too physical, too superstitious, too medieval to be true.
Purgatory flew in the face of Christ’s finished work on the Cross, as did the sacrifice of the Mass. Everyone knew that indulgences had proved to be so susceptible to manipulation. The idea that a mere man, the pope, could be infallible — well, that idea was hardly worth addressing. The few Catholics that I did know did not even seem to believe that idea.
The practice of adoring a wafer of bread and chalice of wine seemed to be as foreign to true Christianity as anything of which I could conceive. I would never have addressed any non-relative as Father, especially a priest who had never married and had children of his own. Why would anyone confess their sins to a mere mortal when they could go directly to God and be forgiven with so much less trouble?
Everyone whom I respected was convinced that the Catholics had inserted books into their Bible to bolster these false beliefs. With their Traditions, the Catholic Church belittled scriptural authority.
As is evident, there was very little distinctive to the Catholic faith that I had not been trained to reject. But what made things even worse were lukewarm Catholics. It seemed that Catholics lacked any deep commitment to their beliefs. Was it because they did not undergo adult baptism?
Baptism
In fundamentalism, babies were never baptized. Baptism was not a sacrament that actually changed someone. Nor did it bestow anything. Baptism was merely an ordinance that we did as adults for one reason: to show our obedience to Christ’s command. Since a baby could never do that, it was reserved for teenagers and adults.
I remember being baptized by my father at age 14. I publicly announced my faith in Christ, and he baptized me in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I was then completely immersed in what I recall was extremely cold water.
In the years leading up to my baptism, I had answered numerous “altar calls.” An altar call was frequently given at the end of a service. While singing a hymn, people in the congregation were urged to walk down to the front of the aisle and meet with an elder of the church. At that time, he would be led in prayer to receive Christ as personal savior.
The catch 22 was this: How did you know whether your faith was strong enough to save you? As a child, I repeatedly would hear the altar call and wonder, “What if I was not really sincere last time?” The best solution was to go down again and make sure. Since faith was all it took to be saved, it was important to be sure that the faith you mustered up was genuine!
It was sometime after becoming Catholic that I realized my baptism had been a turning point. Although it was too subtle to notice at the time, in hindsight I realized that my relationship with God had turned a corner at my baptism. Before it, I had continually wondered if my faith was strong enough, and walked the aisle in an effort to make sure. After my baptism, I had a deep assurance that God was my loving Father. I no longer doubted that He wanted me to go to heaven even more than I did myself.
Without knowing it at the time, I had experienced my first sacrament. God had imprinted my soul with His mark. I was His.
It would take me decades before I would appreciate this truth, but God had given me the grace of faith through a sacrament. I did not totally understand the sacrament (who does?), but I did want to be baptized in accordance with Christ’s command. In His grace, God had carried me the rest of the way.
Years later, I was amazed that the Church steadfastly refused to rebaptize me after investigating my initial baptism. As a fundamentalist, I had seen many Catholics rebaptized when they left the Catholic Church. In seminary, I was taught that rebaptizing Catholic converts was necessary.
Seminary
The seminary I attended was evangelical Protestant. Perhaps I should define terms here. Within a few generations after the emergence of the fundamentalist movement, many fundamentalists had adopted for themselves the name “evangelicals” instead. This “evangelicalism” became in certain ways theologically broader than fundamentalism and more accepting of modern culture. Many evangelicals laid aside the strict fundamentalist rules against attending the theater, playing cards, and the like.
I met some wonderful professors and fellow students at the seminary. I learned a great deal, but some lessons stuck with me even after I left.
First, my Church history class was taught by a devout Presbyterian. I came away from the course with the distinct impression that the Protestant Reformation was very complex. There were important political forces at play that overshadowed any theological disagreements.
This fracturing of Christianity had continued right down into our own day. I had seen congregations split over “theological issues.” But when all the facts came to light, a different story usually emerged. There were political disagreements in these congregations that were at least as important as the theological. There would be two strong-willed men, or two groups of men, that simply chose to split a congregation rather than submit to any authority. Theology was many times the public justification, but certainly not the entire reason.
I also discovered that when Protestants study early Church history, they rarely read the primary sources at length. We read a great many comments about what the early Church Fathers believed. But any actual writings by the Fathers were read in snippets.
I later found what I thought might be a large part of the reason why. When I read the Fathers on my own, I came to the distinct impression that they were thoroughly sacramental and thoroughly obedient to a hierarchy already existent within the Church. In other words, they were not Protestants, evangelicals, or fundamentalists. The early Fathers had been thoroughly Catholic.
I found the theological terrain within evangelicalism in crisis. During college, I had majored in philosophy. I had come to the point where I no longer considered myself a fundamentalist. The rigidity of its theology and the lack of charity were exhibited most clearly in its doctrine of “separation.” But overall, I had just come to disagree with too much that fundamentalists held important.
In seminary, however, I found that evangelicalism was “all over the map.” There were disagreements about everything even within the seminary itself. Some of the matters of disagreement were perhaps understandable: predestination, premillennialism, the ordinances of the church. But other issues seemed to be basic enough that there should have been some semblance of consistency. There was not.
The most disturbing disagreements centered on the many Bible passages that had no plausible “Protestant” explanation. I had tucked some of them in the back of my mind before seminary. I was sure I would discover the answers to these passages. But rather than finding them answered, I found myself with a longer and longer list as I progressed through my training.
I was surrounded by the brightest and best that evangelicalism had to offer. My professors came from many different Protestant traditions. But none of them had a satisfying interpretation of these passages — even though these verses were in the one Book that they all agreed contained all they needed for salvation.
Suffering
Perhaps two examples might be helpful to illustrate this dilemma.
First, how an all-loving and all-powerful God can allow human suffering has been a topic of discussion since long before the biblical character Job suffered. As a college philosophy major, I read The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis for the first time. It made tremendous sense to me.
Lewis’s major point is that suffering is not random. Suffering helps a Christian grow even when no one else knows about it. Suffering teaches unqualified obedience. This perspective made a tremendous amount of sense, but unfortunately it is incomplete when compared with Scripture.
I remember once sitting in our living room with the president of Dallas Theological Seminary when I was a teenager. I had a question. How would he reconcile Colossians 1:24 with the idea of salvation by faith alone?
St. Paul had written to the Colossians: “Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
Paul’s perspective on suffering was much more comprehensive than C. S. Lewis’s ideas. Paul attributed salvific merit to his own suffering, even for others. His perspective in this passage was not that people could be saved by “faith alone.”
Somehow Paul assumed that the Colossians knew that faith must be perfected through suffering — dare I say, through works. He did not justify his statement as though it were a novel idea. He just stated it and moved on, as though no knowledgeable Colossian Christian would have had any doubt about his statement.
I was surprised that the learned, holy fundamentalist president of Dallas Theological Seminary had no good way to reconcile this verse in Colossians with his soteriology (theology of salvation). But I could tell that he had obviously thought about it a great deal. Later in seminary, I encountered this phenomenon repeatedly. Verses existed that could not be reconciled with any Protestant tradition by any of the professors I encountered. But it seemed to me that if some of Scripture directly contradicted my theology, it was my responsibility to rethink the theology, not the Bible.
Suffering and its role in salvation did not make sense to me until I discovered the writings of Pope John Paul II long after seminary. Somehow I got on a mailing list for a Catholic publisher. I was scandalized that they had somehow obtained my name. But I love books, so I stayed on the list.
One day I saw a book in that publisher’s catalog that had organized topically the thinking of Pope John Paul II. The Pope had been so influential in the liberation of Europe that I thought I should read some of what he had to say. It was my first direct encounter with a faithful Catholic author.
The Pope made clear that suffering is not enjoyable. But he insisted that it is essential to salvation. This thoroughly Catholic concept not only makes sense of the verse in Colossians; it infuses suffering with dignity. This was the beginning of my discovery that Catholic literature plumbed a depth of spirituality I had never even dreamed was available in print.
In some mysterious way, Pope John Paul taught, our suffering can even help in the process of other people’s salvation. Perhaps I should let him speak for himself:
“In the Paschal Mystery Christ began the union with man in the community of the Church. … The Church is continually being built up spiritually as the Body of Christ. In this Body, Christ wishes to be united with every individual, and in a special way He is united with those who suffer. … The sufferings of Christ created the good of the world’s Redemption. This good in itself is inexhaustible and infinite. No man can add anything to it. But at the same time, in the mystery of the Church as His Body, Christ has in a sense opened His own redemptive suffering to all human suffering. In so far as man becomes a sharer in Christ’s sufferings … to that extent he in his own way completes the suffering through which Christ accomplished the Redemption of the world. Does this mean that the Redemption achieved by Christ is not complete? No … Christ achieved the Redemption completely and to the very limit, but at the same time He did not bring it to a close. … It seems to be part of the very essence of Christ’s redemptive suffering that this suffering requires to be unceasingly completed” (Salvifici Doloris, 24; emphasis in the original).
Suffering’s role in our salvation is clearly taught in Scripture. I found no good explanation for this fact until I embraced the ancient faith of the Catholic Church.
The “End Times”
The biblical truth about suffering was only one of many truths I encountered that pressed me to explore Catholic teaching. I came to the firm conclusion that the best way to understand the Bible was to listen to the Catholic Church. Even so, a second example might be helpful.
I had always believed in a version of premillennialism that teaches Christ will return very soon to set up a 1,000-year reign in Jerusalem with the Jews. Most American premillennialists also believe this scenario entails a “rapture” that will take “true believers” out of the world. This “rapture” will allow a seven-year “Great Tribulation” that punishes unbelievers and prepares the world for Christ’s second coming.
You may have heard of Christians who are striving to rebuild the Jerusalem temple, or seeking to breed the pure red heifer whose ashes, once sacrificed and burned, they believe are necessary to consecrate the temple site (see Numbers 19:1–10). These people are premillennialists.
While in seminary, I pondered how to reconcile Christ’s finished work on the cross with any resumption of the Old Covenant animal sacrifices. The Book of Hebrews, for example, teaches that the old cult is no longer necessary and must pass away.
For me, the hardest biblical passage related to this discussion was found in Zechariah. I remember standing in a hallway with a man whose specialty was general eschatology (study of the “end times”). A young man approached us and asked this respected teacher about this verse. His question was this: “If Jesus’ sacrifice is final and complete, why will there be sacrifices needed in Jerusalem after the death and resurrection of Jesus?”
The scholar’s face momentarily clouded with annoyance. I have never forgotten his next statement. He admitted that he knew of no plausible evangelical explanation for these two verses.
Zechariah 14:20–21 states prophetically: “On that day … all who come to sacrifice [in Jerusalem] will take some of the pots and cook in them.” Most premillennialists agree that this passage is speaking of a time after Christ’s first coming. Why is it so problematic for them? Because they understand these events to occur during the 1000-year reign of Christ over an earthly kingdom with its capital at Jerusalem.
Here’s the rub. After Christ has died and set up His kingdom, why would sacrifices be resumed? There is absolutely no good Protestant response to that question. Evangelicals are adamant about the fact that priesthood here on earth is no longer needed. Sacrifices after the passion of Christ are unnecessary. The crucifixion of Christ was the last sacrifice ever needed. So why rebuild Jerusalem’s temple?
This verse had remained an enigma to me for sixteen years, ever since seminary. When I was investigating Catholic Church teaching, I realized that Zechariah was actually talking about a sacrifice offered in Jerusalem every day now. He was referring to the Eucharist!
The Eucharist is the only sacrifice that would have any value after the Messiah’s passion because of its connection to the passion. The sacrifice of the Mass is being offered every day in Catholic churches, not only in Jerusalem, but all over the world. In other words, the continuing sacrifices of the Church were foretold in the Old Testament. When this reality dawned on me, I got so excited I ran into our living room and gave a “high five” to my thirteen-year-old son.
Crisis and Reconciliation
We all reach certain critical decision points in our Christian pilgrimage. God gives us a choice: to follow or not to follow. These crisis points are never easy. They always involve sacrifice and suffering. And they are always an occasion of grace.
At the rather late age of 40, I knew that I had approached one of these crisis points. I had been studying Scripture all my life. By this time, I had spent the previous months studying Catholic teaching in relation to Scripture. I had desperately attempted to find a reason not to become Catholic.
I knew my family would lose friends. I knew my wife and children would have to start all over again in a new social circle. I knew that once I “went public” with these convictions, life could never again be the same. I hesitated, wondering if this was the right thing to do.
One day I woke up and knew something for certain. I turned to my wife and said, “Colleen, I know that I believe.” We had been investigating and discussing so much that I did not even need to tell her what I believed. After months of study and discussion, she knew that I was referring to the Eucharist. I believed it really was Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. This faith was a gift from God.
It was not a bolt out of the blue. I had spent months trying to justify to myself what I had always believed: the Protestant interpretation of John 6. Jesus had said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (v. 51, emphasis added).
After studying this text from a Catholic perspective, I knew in my head that the Church was right. John 6 clearly taught that the Body of Christ was the sustenance that I needed for eternity. Zechariah had predicted it. Jesus had instituted it. And only one Church in town taught this truth as Jesus stated it: the Catholic parish five blocks from my house.
But that morning was different. That morning I woke up with the firm conviction in the center of my soul that the Church was correct about the Eucharist. I was certain of this divine truth. This grace was not a gift that I deserved. I do not know why I was singled out to receive it. Someone was obviously offering prayers and sufferings up for my enlightenment.
At this point God showed me that He had already given me another great gift: my beloved wife. At that crisis point, she simply said, “David, if that is what you believe, then you need to follow your beliefs and join the Church.”
Several months later, through another grace of God, I was reconciled to the Catholic Church: not alone, but together with my wife and all six of our children. That was 17 years ago. Since then, God has blessed us with two more children.
I can honestly say that reconciling with the Church is the best thing our family has ever done. This Church is a wonderful place to raise a family and to travel on our pilgrimage to heaven. In fact, it is the only place God ever intended for us.
*****I settled this in another post with the words “signified,” “likeness,” “resemblance,” and the phrase “Believe and you have already eaten.”*****
Settled for whom? In the same way it is said that the science of global warming is settled?
The archaic use of some words are very different than they are now; so much so that in some cases the word can now mean the opposite of what it once meant.
Also,this use of Augustine puts me in mind of how many non Catholics use Scripture when debating a Catholic.
When given quotes/verses in support of Catholic doctrine, the non Catholic is quick to throw ones that seemingly refute said doctrine and then pompously declare the argument is settled and the Catholic is wrong and that is that. Not so fast....
After all, I believe it is settled in support of the Catholic Church.
St. Augustine was a Catholic bishop for more than thirty years. He is a Doctor of the Church whose writings and theology is upheld as orthodox in line with Catholic teaching.
That non Catholics can pick out phrases within his hundreds of writings that they think contradicts Catholic teachings is no surprise. After all, he certainly could have ventured down a wrong path in his theology.
In saying that, I must stress that I don’t believe that is what he has done, I believe that the reader is reading into his words what the reader desires to see.
But, to ignore the fact that he was Catholic, subject to the very same authority as all Catholics are, and was so because he found her doctrine to be not just reasonable, not just philosophically sound, but Truth itself, is to deny something that is of paramount importance to knowing and understanding him.
Non Catholics would truly like to claim him for themselves, but alas, he was Catholic through and through and as such, fully believed and followed and was obedient to the Catholic faith.
****Jesus Christ said to celebrate the Lord’s supper as a remembrance. He did not say one had to eat bread and wine prayed over to get saved. As Augustine says, “Believe and you have eaten already.”****
Well, our Lord felt it was so important that when He called Paul and revealed to him the gospel, Jesus gave him the same words as He prayed them at the Last Supper.
Again, I must go back to how Christ revealed Himself and His mission over a three year period. He didn’t call the Apostles and say immediately, “I am the Son of God, I have come to die for your sins, I will then rise from the dead and return to heaven. I will then send the Holy Spirit to remain with you always.”
No, He drew them in and revealed all of this a bit at a time. In the same way He revealed the Eucharist. I won’t go into the sequence again, but there is no doubt that He only gave to them what He wanted when He was ready to reveal it.
Jesus said as much, “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” John 16:12
So, on the night before He died, He revealed them how they could eat His flesh and drink His blood. He gave them the words and He commanded that this be done and we know that that is what they did. Paul tells us that when he recounts the Last Supper, as if he were there, using nearly the exact words, reminding the new Church the sacrificial nature of the breaking of the bread which they shared.
Yes, faith is the way to salvation and those who share the faith that was handed on to the Apostles join in the Eucharist and become one body in the one loaf that is Christ. One lone phrase by Augustine in a sermon does not change that, even if Augustine meant what you want to believe he meant.
anamnesis”
—Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)
1) a remembering, recollection
Again, not just the simple remembering or recollection as it is used in context in Scriptures, first in the Jewish act of re-calling the Passover, the sacrificial nature of their celebration of that event. The Last Supper is tied to that re-calling in that the meal they were eating was the Passover meal. The fact that it is bread and wine which Jesus offers is tied to the Psalms which speaks of a clean offering in the order of Melchizadek whose sacrifice was of bread and wine. The only such sacrifice in the OT.
*****And yet, the Church claims that a GROUP of them manage to espouse doctrine that is!*****
The Holy Spirit guides the Church and it is He that reveals and confirms doctrine to us through the Apostles and their successors.
A very different thing from saying that everything a man has said is perfect and orthodox.
It isn’t the Church which must spin what has been for centuries. Rather it the non Catholic who must obfuscate the true Catholic doctrine to support heresies developed and propagated by men.
As you wish, though I do not need your leave to do what is right.
Read this today when reading the Gospel of John.
Thought it of interest.
John 17:22 I have given them the Glory you have given me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. Thus they shall reach perfection in unity and the world shall know that you have sent me and that I have loved them just as you loved me.
Here Jesus says He has given us the glory God the Father has given Him.
But, God has not YIELDED His glory to anyone, rather He has shared it so that we may bring even greater glory to Him.
“The archaic use of some words are very different than they are now; so much so that in some cases the word can now mean the opposite of what it once meant.”
That’s exactly the foundation of my argument. This statement helps my cause, not yours, since you propose that the same word always meant what Rome currently believes.
“St. Augustine was a Catholic bishop for more than thirty years. He is a Doctor of the Church whose writings and theology is upheld as orthodox in line with Catholic teaching.”
Not on salvation, and not on the sacraments. The RCC today rejects Augustine’s views on grace and predestination, which actually are the origins of the reformation in the first place. (That is, that God Himself is the author of our faith, and chose us and ordained us before the foundation of the world, not because He foresaw that we would be good, but so that we would be good.) Though, Augustine was only reading it from the scripture... so, really, it’s more correct to say that it was the scripture which informed Augustine, which then informed Luther an Augustinian monk, and so forth.
“How have you come? By believing. Fear lest while you are claiming for yourself that you have found the just way, you perish from the just way. I have come, you say, of my own free choice; I have come of my own will. Why are you puffed up? Do you wish to know that this also has been given you? Hear Him calling, ‘No one comes to me unless my Father draws him’ [John 6: 44 p.].” - Augustine, Sermons xxvi. 3, 12, 4, 7 (MPL 28.172, 177, 172f., 174)
Augustine, Aurelius (2012-02-08). Augustine’s Writings on Grace and Free WIll (Kindle Locations 33-36). Monergism Books. Kindle Edition.
“But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case,” they say, “He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, “of Him that believeth”); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.” (Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Chapt. 38.)
“But, to ignore the fact that he was Catholic, subject to the very same authority as all Catholics are,”
You’re assuming that the Primacy of Rome has always existed, which it hasn’t. Even RCC scholars admit it is not a 2,000 year old institution, but rather one that went through development.
“It is clear that the Roman primacy was not a given from the outset; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century.” (Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy, From its Origins to the Present, the Order of St. Benedict, Inc, Collegeville, MN: A Michael Glazier Book published by The Liturgical Press, 1996, pg 36).
Even when the Primacy of Peter came into vogue, it still wasn’t applied to one particular Bishop, but rather to three Bishops.
Here is “Pope” Gregory the First asserting that the throne of Peter is held by three separate Bishops, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome.
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria Book VII, Epistle XL
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
I actually became privy to these quotes and their context from the Eastern Orthodox, the OTHER guys who claim to be the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Church (and you guys are the schismatics and heretics. But don’t feel bad, so am I!).
Who do we believe in all these different traditions? The EO claim to be THE inheritors of sacred tradition, and so do YOU.
Why, I think I’ll stick with the scripture. It is not so fickle as you guys.
“Again, not just the simple remembering or recollection as it is used in context in Scriptures, first in the Jewish act of re-calling the Passover, the sacrificial nature of their celebration of that event. The Last Supper is tied to that re-calling in that the meal they were eating was the Passover meal. The fact that it is bread and wine which Jesus offers is tied to the Psalms which speaks of a clean offering in the order of Melchizadek whose sacrifice was of bread and wine. The only such sacrifice in the OT.”
I actually agree, though probably in a different way than you do. The Jews celebrated the Passover as ‘The Passover of the Lord,’ even though it was only signifying the passover. It wasn’t literally the Lord passing over all over again. This is a common way of speaking the Jews have always used, that is, of speaking of symbols by giving them the name of the realities they resemble. Since it is for “remembrance,” it cannot be for salvation.
So; your church has NO new doctrine since 33 AD; eh?
Well; we've determined that the POPE does NOT set or change doctrine in the church.
A group of fallible men get together and a MAJORITY vote of them sets INfallible doctrine.
Got it.
No one said you did.
Oh!
I see now!
Still trying to find a way where you can trust ‘man’ as you trust God - and it will be OK? It’s not and being hard headed about its shows a heart that isn’t submitted to Jesus alone. Just like your ‘I’m all yours, Mary’ magisterium that you put your trust in.
Don’t post to me using the inspired Word of God to justify man made teachings and try to make it fit. You are digger a bigger hole doing that as it comes from evil that wants to bring God down to man’s level and I’ll have nothing to do with such a damnable tactic of satan/children of the dark.
Besides that Scripture is for born again spirit filled believers - not anyone who just reads it. (2 Corinthians 5:17 and 1 John 4:17)
A 'man' is the voice of The Holy Spirit???? Catholicism knows no bounds in the evil it teaches.
The Holy Spirit is another Comforter just like Jesus. Jesus said it was actually to our advantage to have the ministry of the Holy Spirit rather than His personal presence (John 16:7).
In John 14:16-27, Jesus was speaking to His disciples about the Holy Spirit, who is the Comforter.
I prayed for the conversion of your heart today and that you will one day recognize that God alone determines what is Good and what is Evil. It was the desire to determine for ourselves what is good and what is evil that caused the fall of man in the Garden.
Peace be with you
ONE DAY? God ALONE has already WRITTEN what is good and evil. Something that those who are taught by 'man' and their teachings - DON'T KNOW as they are kept in the dark.
And catholics, mormans and muslims learned nothing about Adam/Eve - as they fell for the lie of satan/evil as they listened to 'another' through 'man made teachings' and remained the children of the dark.
God's WORD ALONE is the ONLY truth there is.
Please to not presume to lecture on what you demonstrate no comprehensive knowledge. The Bible was compiled from among all existing works for the sole purpose of identifying which writings could be used within the Liturgy of the Word in the Catholic Mass. Those who use it exclusively as their source for the Revealed Word outside the context of the Mass can never hope to understand and fully appreciate it.
I pray for your conversion
I WILL DO according to God's Word - so don't lecture me. I don't listen to 'another'.
The Bible was compiled from among all existing works for the sole purpose of identifying which writings could be used within the Liturgy of the Word in the Catholic Mass.
LOL! So now catholics show they have no idea about God's Word. The WORD always was - before evil showed it's ugly face.
Those who use it exclusively as their source for the Revealed Word outside the context of the Mass can never hope to understand and fully appreciate it..
Just where I want to be - outside and as far way from evil! I am blessed!
I pray for your conversion
Don't bother as I belong to Jesus/Eternal Life now, I left the darkness of catholicism. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of My Father's hand. as IT IS WRITTEN. Thank YOU, Jesus!
God's WORD is THE FINAL authority. Praise God for His Son, Jesus, The WORD!
"The Word became flesh and made HIS dwelling among us. We have seen His Glory, the Glory of the One and Only Son, who came from the Father, full of Grace and Truth." John 1:14
The WORD is NOT the Bible, unless you are telling me to worship a book.
Peace be to you
unless you are telling me to worship a book.
Here is what THE WORD, JESUS says of worship to those who are taught man-made teachings. "Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.'" Matt 15:9
The LORD has SPOKEN for It IS Written. Hear and Obey! Either HE is your Lord or not.
In every case where that appears in Scripture it refers to the Old Testament. I can point to numerous places in Scripture where Jesus modified or negated what had been written and gave us a new teaching. I can also point to numerous places in Scripture where Jesus and the Apostles refer to the new teachings being spoken and taught such that if all was written all of the earth would not hold the books.
You can continue to limit God to your capacity to comprehend, but I will continue to love the infinite God whose mysteries can never be fully understood by man.
(Oh, and by the way, no deed for CAPS LOCK, I'm not blind. And try some decaf. You are going to blow an o-ring in one of your fits of rage.)
Peace be with you
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.