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.
Amem and amen!!!
My take on Satan’s role in every man’s nature from Adam to the present is this: When Adam and Eve ate of the Tree, Satan gained rulership over the earth by causing his fall. (God had originally given Adam rulership until iniquity (sin) was found in him. His relationship to man through the ages has been that of a usurper; and until Christ returns, satan will remain the prince of the power of the air and the ruler of this present evil world. Man will again inherit the earth and shall live in it forever when Christ returns and sets up His kingdom. Until that time, ALL of us who have ever been born are subject to satan’s deeds. THAT is the sin nature as I see it. And unless we are saved by the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, we are powerless to free ourselves from that nature.
Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.
And unbloody sacrifice is useless killing.
This is what Metmom quoted:
If, as Rome maintains, the meritorious cause of justification is our inherent righteousness...
To which you pounced and said:
Rome maintains nothing of the sort. Why do you guys have to keep making up nonsense like this? The meritorious cause of our justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Whom is the false witness here? The way you state this, it sounds perfectly in line with the Reformation doctrines of justification by faith in Christ, but just digging a little bit deeper, we find that, just as Mormons do, so do Catholics on how they define and use words. It is a matter of semantics. Exploring what Catholics mean by "our justification is the righteousness of Christ", we find that "justification" isn't all that's involved in the gospel of Catholicism. You want to sic Ludwig Ott on us? Well here is some of what Mr. Ott says:
Robert Sungenis explains it further:
Here's a bit more from Mr. Ott:
By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such. Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma: A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition). B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops. Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine Faith...by reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I). As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation(emphasis added) (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 4-5, 253).
If we are being honest here, and you did say that was your intent - to keep everybody honest, we would see that what Catholicism teaches about salvation, justification, sanctification, glorification, grace and faith are NOT how Holy Scripture clearly teaches it. Why else must the magesterium retain complete control over how Scripture is "interpreted"? So, saying Catholicism "maintains, the meritorious cause of justification is our inherent righteousness", really ISN'T a lie since we know good and well that Catholicism ADDS that grace enables us to do works of righteousness in order to merit justification and eternal life. Why not be honest about that part?
Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
We know that we have assurance because God said so and He is trustworthy to keep His promises.
Feelings are nice, but are NOT the barometer of our faith.
The life is in the blood. So without blood, there is no life. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood..:(Lev. 17:11). If it is an unbloody sacrifice, then no blood is there to give life..
It could be you place too much stock in “labels”?
Catholic converts are most often well-educated, well-respected, convicted Christians who convert after deep study, prayer, and discernment. That is what makes them so strong. There are many Catholics who “leave” home, but most often they are the people who neither understand nor care about learning about the Church. There are also people too angry about this or that teaching to be faithful. There are those who have simply drifted away, or those who are lukewarm and have been hijacked by a society and certain Protestant groups who continue to spread misleading and weighted attacks on the Church daily. The difference is that Catholic converts and reverts are drawn to the Church by truth. Those who leave the Catholic Church either find the Church too strict for their tastes, or are convinced by slanders and lies. The slander and lie that is most common is that fallible and sinful men cannot rightfully lead the Church. Considering that all the original men who founded the Church deserted Jesus save one, and the leader of that first group of men denied Jesus to His face, I’d say that theory is pretty much bunk. We have faith that God guides His Church even through scandal, even through corruption; He will bring us through the toils and snares. He truly has and truly will. There are many saints who challenged the Church, who did more than “simply question” corrupt practices, and by their efforts and faithfulness graced by God brought us out of those times. “By their fruits you shall know them”, and while there have been and will still be times of corruption and scandal in the Roman Church, it remains as perhaps the last Christian bastion against the powers of the world. The fruit of the Reformation is schism, relativism, and the dissolution of Christianity into a “body” that is so divided on beliefs and ritual that it is mostly irrelevant. That is why people convert to Catholicism or come back to the Catholic faith.
Trusting Christ alone for salvation means relinquishing total control of your life to God.
Now, that sounds easier than it is because you’d think it would be a no-brainer to commit our lives into the hands of the Almighty God who loved us enough to die for us, but still, we like to be in control just to make sure nobody messes up.
Like we won’t and God will????
The term *trinity* itself is not used in Scripture but was invented by Catholic theologians, so should we deny it?
You're going to have to try a much better argument against the sin nature than the one you used.
Sure looks that way.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (I Peter 1:3-5)
Amen, and he also said that with the bread he would give them they would NEVER hunger again! Just like the "water of life" meant they would never thirst again. How can these NOT be figurative of a SPIRITUAL reality?
What you say was true thirty or forty years ago, but there has been a sea change during the last ten years or so.
If by figurative, you mean”not really” then you are not speaking about what matters spiritually but symbolically. Certainly his hearers did not take it in that sense, or else they would not have left him. IAC, the rejection of transubstantiation by Zwingli and those who buy his argument about the symbolic nature of the Bread and wine, a view BTW rejected by Luther and many Anglicans, has less to do with any supposed idolatry than a rejection of the role of the Church as mediator.
Very well said! Amen.
What more can I provide? One side says "Catholics teach x=y", I post a direct quotation from an ecumenical council -- called in response to the reformation no less -- that says "x does not equal y, x=z". "But that's just Papist subterfuge and subtlety ... you're really just like the Mormons," is the response.
If a flat statement to the contrary from the highest teaching organ the Catholic church has next to Scripture won't convince you, what will?
Nothing you posted states that the meritorious cause of our justification is our "inherent righteousness". It's not there.
On this account it is by excellence but not exclusively the efficient cause of our redemption
And as I also posted in #61, Trent taught (and Ott repeats on page 251), that the efficient cause of our justification is the mercy of God. Is the Crucifixion the whole of the mercy of God? No, but it is ... as Ott says, "by excellence," the main part.
The concept of an "efficient cause" comes from Aristotle; the "efficient cause" is the cause which effects or makes-happen a change in something. I can assure you that nobody's works efficiently cause their own justification.
Ott said nothing about works in that citation.
Robert Sungenis explains it further
I honestly don't much care what Sungenis says on any topic, sorry. He's a lay apologist with as much right to his opinion as I have to mine. ("Not by Faith Alone" is not a bad book, I admit. Hardly infallible, though. Sungenis has some wildly wrong ideas on other topics.)
The Council of Trent teaches that for the justified eternal life is both a gift or grace promised by God and a reward for his own good works and merits... According to Holy Writ, eternal blessedness in heaven is the reward.
Read carefully. He's not telling you how to become justified, but about your state after you're justified. Scripture absolutely says that, for the blessed, for those who die in God's friendship -- the justified, in other words -- heaven is a reward for their good works. Romans 2:10-11, Galatians 6:8, 1 John 3:24, etc.
Catholicism ADDS that grace enables us to do works of righteousness in order to merit justification
Nope, it actually doesn't. It does say that, moved by actual graces, the unjustified man must prepare himself to receive the grace of justification, essentially by repentance and faith in the case of adults. (Ott, 252-253).
Ott also explains that grace -- not even the actual graces which precede justification, to say nothing of the grace of justification itself -- cannot be merited by natural works apart from grace. (Ott, 236-237)
Trent did teach that the justified man merits, but not in strict justice*, an increase in his justification by his good works. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of. *The term "merit" is a technical term in theology, coming from the Latin. It means a claim on a reward granted in view of something. Don't jump to the conclusion that it is something earned as a wage; it can be an act of pure gratuity and generosity. The catechism says succinctly, "With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man." (section 2007)
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. -- Hebrews 10:26-31
In context, the "deliberate sin" he's talking about is apostasy (return to Judaism) motivated by cowardice. But the point stands that it's possible to fall away.
Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. -- 1 Cor 10:12
(All citations from the NKJV.)
” that people who only accept the anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture believe the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect the Word of God from error.”
But we DO believe that the word of God is protected from error. Roman Catholicism? Not so much:
From the Vatican website commentary on just the first few chapters of Genesis. The Bible, according to them, filled with “myths,” written by multiple authors (not actually Moses, etc), contradictions, stories are “imaginative” explanations, non-literal, or legends designed to excuse atrocity committed by Jews.
First, a suggested denial of the authorship of Moses for Genesis:
“This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man’s sake.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P4.HTM
“Mythology” placed into the text, as well as alleged error, according to the footnotes:
“[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation - the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.” [6:5- 8:22] The story of the great flood here recorded is a composite narrative based on two separate sources interwoven into an intricate patchwork. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7-10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22. The other sections come from the “Priestly document.”
” The combination of the two sources produced certain duplications (e.g., Genesis 6:13-22 of the Yahwist source, beside Genesis 7:1-5 of the Priestly source); also certain inconsistencies, such as the number of the various animals taken into the ark ( Genesis 6:19-20; 7:14-15 of the Priestly source, beside Genesis 7:2-3 of the Yahwist source), and the timetable of the flood...
“Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P8.HTM [1-32]
Scripture non-historical, based on “ancient traditions” instead:
“Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late “Priestly document,” it is based on very ancient traditions... its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam’s line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain’s line. The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P7.HTM
Myths created to justify atrocities, so claims the footnotes:
“[18-27] This story seems to be a composite of two earlier accounts; in the one, Ham was guilty, whereas, in the other, it was Canaan. One purpose of the story is to justify the Israelites’ enslavement of the Canaanites because of certain indecent sexual practices in the Canaanite religion. Obviously the story offers no justification for enslaving African Negroes, even though Canaan is presented as a “son” of Ham because the land of Canaan belonged to Hamitic Egypt at the time of the Israelite invasion.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PB.HTM
The tower of babel an “imaginitive” story:
“[1-9] This story, based on traditions about the temple towers or ziggurats of Babylonia, is used by the sacred writer primarily to illustrate man’s increasing wickedness, shown here in his presumptuous effort to create an urban culture apart from God. The secondary motive in the story is to present an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth, as well as an artificial explanation of the name “Babylon.””
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PD.HTM
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.