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.
“I have no problem with that; in fact, I previously agreed with it.”
You do not agree with it, because your argument is that they were “once of us,” that is, true members of the church, but that they “ceased” to be with us. While the scripture says, and Augustine, that they were “never” of us.
If you actually agree with it, then there would be no reason for you to make an argument attempting to deny it.
“Mind reading is not allowed in the religion forum. I “falsely imagine” no such thing.”
I wasn’t mind reading. I was responding to your comment that God merely foresaw the faithful who would be the elect, and not that the elect are made faithful. So I interpreted it. What did you mean then by the statement:
“God knows from all time who is ultimately going to heaven and who isn’t. It is impossible for the blessed to fall away and be damned, because then they wouldn’t be the blessed anymore — but that observation is tautological.”?
If not that?
If it is that God merely foresaw those who would be blessed, but did not predestinate and secure their salvation from beginning to end from before the foundation of the world, then you are in error and are in direct disagreement with us.
Jesus clearly explains what He is talking about in verse 29 at the start of the second dialogue. Then neatly wrapped up in verse 63.
According to Thomas Aquinas, in the case of extraordinary Eucharistic Miracles in which the appearance of the accidents are altered, this further alteration is not considered to be transubstantiation, but is a subsequent miracle that takes place for the building up of faith. Nor does the extraordinary manifestation alter or heighten the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as the miracle does not manifest the physical presence of Christ: "in apparitions of this sort. . . the proper species [actual flesh and blood] of Christ is not seen, but a species formed miraculously either in the eyes of the viewers, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle
If the claim is that this "tissue" is truly from the body of Jesus Christ, then it is either his pre-glorified body - which was what was broken for our sins, and blood - which was shed for our sins, or it is Jesus' glorified body which is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. So which is it? If it is the pre-glorified body, then such theology is what Monophysites were accused of heresy for separating the humanity of Christ from His deity. The conundrum is discussed HERE:
"It would seem that, if transubstantiation is true, then the RC position leads to a denial of the true human nature of Christ, because the substantial, real human body of Christ is simultaneously in thousands of different places, thus applying a divine trait to Christ's human nature. Not Chalcedonian at all, then; more like Monophysite." Monophysitism holds that Jesus Christ, who is identical with the Son, is one person and one hypostasis in one nature: divine.
Monophysitism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which among other things adopted the Definition of Chalcedon (often known as the "Chalcedonian Creed") stating that Christ is the eternal Son of God "made known in two natures without confusion [i.e. mixture], without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person] and one hupostasis [subsistence]--not parted or divided into two prosopa [persons], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism)
“As opposed to the sad world of liberal Protestantism, which persecutes and hounds those who don’t accept liberal scholarship?”
I am not a member of any liberal denomination. I am with the Orthodox Presbyterians. You are a member of the Roman Catholic church, which gives Nihil Obstats to blasphemous publications which they then provide on the home for Catholics online, Vatican.va.
“The people who used that text “in order to justify atrocity” were virtually all Christians. Many of them were Protestants.”
Again, with this trollish diversion:
“[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.”
Unless you are defending this reading, then there is no reason to try to accuse me of being a racist. I don’t believe your religion’s reading of that passage, so I do not use it to justify racism.
Thank you for your generous words. May all we do and say be but the glass through which God’s light shines. How happy that would be!
1 John 2:19-24 NASB
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
He don’t LOOK happy. :-)
Yes, I get the newsletter of the Coming Home Network. I hope to make it to one of their retreats someday.
Augustine said exactly the opposite in the citation I gave you.
If it is that God merely foresaw those who would be blessed, but did not predestinate and secure their salvation from beginning to end from before the foundation of the world
God infallibly foresees the salvation of the blessed. The grace of perseverance is just that, a gift from him.
He also respects their freedom at all times. They are not machines or automata. If by "secures their salvation" you mean that he provides for them all things that are needful, fine. If you mean that they have no other choice, they always have a choice.
Election, predestination, and free will are all mysteries. I don't plan on understanding them perfectly this side of heaven.
What I will insist upon is (a) the blessed are saved by God's gracious gift, not in payment for anything they do; and (b) the reprobates earn their reprobation fully, completely in payment for their deeds.
Praise God for laughter and funny little things!
1 Peter 4:1-11 NASB
Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you; but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.
The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer. Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaint. As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
The comment you refer to is from the article. If you read my post and subsequent comments more carefully, you might not be so quick on the trigger. It's the Eucharist that brought me to Rome, and started the journey that has been further enriched by reading the early Church fathers. I expected some flames from a few of the separated brethren, but not from a reader of Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr.
I'm happy for you.
I don't consider the NAB notes to be particularly blasphemous, but I might use words like "lame" or "dumb". As I say, nobody is required to believe in them. At all.
Unless you are defending this reading, then there is no reason to try to accuse me of being a racist
Where did I do that? You posted a citation which stated that it was wrong to use a certain verse in Genesis as a justification for enslaving black people. I asked if you disagreed with that comment, since you posted it with other comments with which you disagreed.
Why is the word "no" so difficult? Does it pain you that much to admit that Rome gets anything right?
- - - - - - -
Yeah, but he was a "Saint"! :-)
Please excuse my LOL. We do discuss just about everything but the thread topic:)
That IS what I follow - the one , true faith in Jesus Christ as revealed in sacred Scripture. It's the same faith that the first believers followed. I lack nothing and my faith is full.
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.
Again, I turned TOWARDS Jesus by leaving a false religious system. The ONE, TRUE FAITH is in Jesus Christ, not any man made institution. I guess you'll just have to wait and ask Jesus himself about it when you and I meet in heaven. :o)
Names are not labels. Wesley is a hugely significant figure, so much so that Christopher Dawson spoke of him as one of the founding fathers of the United States, even though he was, politically speaking, a Tory. Impossible to think of the 2nd great Awakening except in terms of American methodism. That fostered the “denominationalism” that is so characteristic of the American Christianity as described by Tocqueville.
Context is everything:
1 John 5:14-21 NASB
This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, guard yourselves from idols.
Which begs the question, is the Church a man-made institution? This is a bit like tossing off the comment the Bible is just a book, something made by human hands, like any other book.
Oh, that's such an old, lame James White argument. [sigh]
First of all, everyone at the Council of Chalcedon believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Should we believe that they set out to contradict their own beliefs? Of course not.
Second, being "in thousands of places at once" is not "omnipresence," which is a divine attribute, but multilocation. I think Christ's glorified body is perfectly capable of multilocating, just as it was capable of walking through walls and doors.
If the claim is that this "tissue" is truly from the body of Jesus Christ, then it is either his pre-glorified body - which was what was broken for our sins, and blood - which was shed for our sins, or it is Jesus' glorified body which is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven.
The humanity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is certainly his glorified humanity. As to what you see in a Eucharistic Miracle ... the definition of a miracle is a manifestation encouraging faith which cannot be explained by natural means. Beyond that, it's hard to tie down.
People asked me for a miracle. There are lots of miracles associated with the Eucharist.
Indeed, context is everything, but that context is the totality of Sacred History, which means not only that the words do not stand alone, but that the books do not either, and the books do not stand apart from from the story of the people of God, nor this entirely from the whole human experience.
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.