Posted on 11/19/2013 6:10:28 AM PST by Gamecock
The Roman Catholic Church poses several attractions for evangelical Christians. Whether their motivation is Rome’s apparent unifying power, its claims to be semper idem (“always the same”), its so-called historical pedigree, its ornate liturgy, or the belief that only Rome can withstand the onslaught of liberalism and postmodernism, a number of evangelicals have given up their “protest” and made the metaphorical trek across Rome’s Tiber River into the Roman Catholic Church.
Historically, particularly during the Reformation and post-Reformation periods, those who defected back to Rome typically did so out of intense social, political, and ecclesiastical pressure—sometimes even to save themselves from dying for their Protestant beliefs. But today, those who move to Rome are not under that same type of pressure. Thus, we are faced with the haunting reality that people are (apparently) freely moving to Rome.
In understanding why evangelicals turn to Catholicism, we must confess that churches today in the Protestant tradition have much for which to answer. Many evangelical churches today are, practically speaking, dog-and-pony shows. Not only has reverence for a thrice holy God disappeared in our worship, but even the very truths that make us Protestant, truths for which people have died, such as justification by faith alone, have been jettisoned for pithy epithets that would not seem out of place in a Roman Catholic Mass or, indeed, a Jewish synagogue. Our polemics against Rome will be of any lasting value only when Protestant churches return to a vibrant confessional theology, rooted in ongoing exegetical reflection, so that we have something positive to say and practice alongside our very serious objections to Roman Catholic theology.
The attractions of Rome are, however, dubious when closely examined. For example, after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Catholic Church lost not only the claim to be “always the same” but also its claim to be theologically conservative. Besides the great number of changes that took place at Vatican II (for example, the institution of the vernacular Mass), the documents embraced mutually incompatible theologies. Perhaps the most remarkable change that took place in Rome was its view of salvation outside of the church, which amounts to a form of universalism: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (Lumen Gentium 16; hereafter LG). Protestants, who were condemned at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), were now referred to as “separated fellow Christians” (Unitatis Redintegratio 4). Once (and still?) anathematized Protestants are now Christians? This is a contradiction. But even worse, present-day Roman Catholic theologians candidly admit that those who try to be good possess divine, saving grace, even if they do not explicitly trust in Christ.
Such a view of salvation is really the consistent outworking of Rome’s position on justification. So, while the Roman Catholic Church can no longer claim to be “always the same” or theologically conservative, she still holds a view of justification that is antithetical to the classical Protestant view that we are justified by faith alone. Whatever pretended gains one receives from moving to Rome, one thing he most certainly does not receive—in fact, he loses it altogether—is the assurance of faith (Council of Trent 6.9; hereafter CT). It is little wonder that the brilliant Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) once remarked that assurance was the greatest Protestant heresy. If, as Rome maintains, the meritorious cause of justification is our inherent righteousness, then assurance is impossible until the verdict is rendered. For Protestants, that verdict is a present reality; the righteousness of Christ imputed to us is the sole meritorious cause of our entrance into eternal life. But for Roman Catholics—and those outside of the church who “do good”—inherent righteousness is a part of their justification before God (CT 6.7).
The Reformation doctrine of justification was not something about which Protestant theologians could afford to be tentative. At stake is not only the question of how a sinner stands accepted before God and, in connection with that, how he is assured of salvation (1 John 5:13), but also the goodness of God toward His people.
In the end, our controversy with Rome is important because Christ is important. Christ alone—not He and Mary (LG 62)—intercedes between us and the Father; Christ alone—not the pope (LG 22)—is the head of the church and, thus, the supreme judge of our consciences; Christ alone—not pagan “dictates of conscience” (LG 16)—must be the object of faith for salvation; and Christ’s righteousness alone—not ours (LG 40)—is the only hope we have for standing before a God who is both just and the Justifier of the wicked. To move to Rome is not only to give up justification and, thus, assurance— even more so, it is to give up Christ.
Sounds like we're all equally sinful, since all sins are alike to God (see 1 John 5:16-17) and we're all "constituted" sinful in Adam.
Doesn't sound like y'all think it's really a very big deal to me.
LOL she simply posted what was in the article. I showed it’s included in RCC records. Play all the games you want and head down the rabbit trail by yourself.
>>As I PM'ed you:<<
And please don’t do that again. I don’t care what your relationship with some guy who wears a pagan Dagon hat is or isn’t.
Already pointed you to the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. Tested scientifically. Cardiac muscle tissue. Doesn’t decay. Same blood type as the blood on the Shroud of Turin.
The thing that's really important is yet another Self and Self Alone opinion, this time about the intellect of someone who you quite obviously cannot possibly contradict.
What a fine proof that those who deny the power of the Holy Spirit by only accepting the anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture are being led by the powerless spirit of their own Most High and Holy Self rather than the Holy Spirit Christ promised would guide those who follow Him.
You’re joking right? Not a very big deal? I’m not even going down this road, from Genesis to Revelation, God has spoken about sin. It was such a “big deal” in fact, that God sent His only begotten Son to die for our sin. Please don’t tell me that I don’t think it’s really a very big deal. It cost Christ everything.
Yeah, by pulling stuff out of context I can have the Bible teach "there is no God". Wow, I'm impressed.
As I said, I posted the diametrical opposite of what metmom's false article claimed. It doesn't get any more categorical than that.
And please don’t do that again. I don’t care
If you're going to try and tell me I'm wrong about what my own church teaches, you ought to have the courage of your convictions to follow through and have someone on my side prove it to me.
I don't run around telling you that you're misrepresenting your own beliefs. Grant me the same courtesy.
It never says all sins are equal to God, and it never says your own personal sins don't matter, though. They aren't (1 John says so), and they matter a great deal.
Campion, I know you are sincere in your beliefs. So am I. I will lay down my life for what I believe. Because I know He will raise me up at the rapture. I also know we come from opposite ends of the spectrum. And only one of us can be right. I pray God’s grace and reconciliation through the finished work of Christ be your peace. Regards, smvoice
Part of what I'm trying to communicate is that we really don't. Fix some of the terminology mismatch, and we agree on a great deal. Not everything, including some things that are very important. But a great deal ... also including some things that are very important.
(We'll hear from the "opposite end of the spectrum" more and more in the future, I fear. *He* doesn't like either one of us.)
May God bless you richly, and may we all be happy together in heaven someday.
Nice.
I'm fully bilingual (Evangelical-Catholic) and the translation problem bugs me no end.
“Behold, I was SHAPEN IN INIQUITY; and IN SIN did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5). See also Gen. 3:15-19; Jn. 8:44; Rom. 2:12-16; 5:12-32; Eph. 2:1-3; 1 Jn. 3:8). There is abundant proof of a sin nature, passed on from Adam to the present and beyond.
I don’t know why you would be looking for “bragging rights”, but as far as white Catholics leaving the Catholic denomination, most go to other churches or denominations.
White Catholics are not usually leaving to become Pagans, nor are the children of Evangelicals, many, or most of white Catholics leave and become more devoted to the Christian faith either in a different denomination, or as a non-denominational Christian.
I guess Lumen Gentium cancels "Catholic 101"? Even your own magesterium concedes that Christians - legitimate Christians - exist outside of the Roman Catholic Church. I actually turned towards Jesus by leaving the Catholic religion. I am one of His sheep, who heard His voice and follows Him. Hell has NO place for me. Sorry if that disappoints you.
Just because I’m curious, what would you say is the “opposite end of the spectrum”? Do you have specific ideas or just a feeling?
So a piece of Jesus heart was preserved for hundreds of years having been nailed to a board and saved ey? Yeah, that lines up with what scripture teaches. NOT!
The term "sin nature" itself is not used in Scripture, and was invented by Protestant theologians. Nothing wrong with that in itself (we certainly have invented words for concepts that we saw in Scripture but which didn't have a name, starting perhaps with "Trinity").
But what does that term mean, or maybe I should ask "what does that term mean to you?"
I'm not sure that you can draw any general anthropological conclusions from Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees in Jn 8:44. :-)
Do you think that Adam passed some sort of objective pollution to his descendants -- a pollution that cannot be characterized as a lack of something good and necessary, but as the positive presence of something that shouldn't be there?
Old Scratch and his apostles and prophets.
The fullness of the faith is found in the Catholic Church.
A hell of a lot easier to make it to heaven following the one truth Christian faith started by Jesus himself and not some character named Jones, Smith, Brown or Gonzales.
How on earth anyone could turn away from Jesus (Eurcharist), is beyond me. If they ever had an understanding of the faith to start with and fully believed in the presence of Jesus at the Eucharist, how on earth can they turn their backs on him.
Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our behavior in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
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.