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.
Well said...
Did God really say...????
And here the Catholic church is denying the very Scripture Catholics claim it is responsible for.
They write off the miraculous as fables and mythology and expect us to believe in transubstantiation and other *mysteries* of the faith on just their say so, while denying the truth of Scripture.
Disconnect much?
Well, it's not because Jesus is not still hanging on the cross dying.
He died once for all, was resurrected and is NOW seated at the right hand of God waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool.
He is at God's right hand interceding for His saints.
There's plenty in the NT that tells what the resurrect Christ is doing in heaven right now, and being continuously killed isn't one of them.
Sola Scriptura was Luther’s first commandment. Did he forget that the Church existed before the Bible was compiled?
In the Gospel of John Jesus prayed that the apostles remain as one. Is this what Reformation achieved?
Which is simply an opinion and does not have any Scriptural support at all.
I’m not sure what Campion is trying to accomplish here. It seems to me he may be playing a game of semantics or it may be that he takes a different position than the RCC itself. The RCC holds the same position on the “sin nature” but simply uses a different term which is “original sin” as illustrated here.
“Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality.” [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm]
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Original sin or “the sin nature” is one of the reasoning’s they use for the practice of infant baptism as seen here.
“That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm]
Catholics seem to like to take us down the rabbit trail of confusion and obfuscation.
I see a problem with the basic understanding of man and redemption in these discussions.
Seems that the Catholics have this view of the inherent, basic goodness of man who sometimes sins and needs redemption. That man is a sinner because he sins.
Non-Catholics here see man as inherently sinful, sin prone because of a sin nature. That man sins because he is a sinner.
With the Catholic viewpoint, man is therefore capable of being somehow good enough through his own efforts, which can be pure as they are not tainted by sin, to merit God’s grace and ultimately, salvation.
With the non-Catholic position, man is inherently sinful, even the best of his works being tainted by sin and therefore unacceptable to merit salvation.
Problem is, regardless of whether man is inherently good and sins or is inherently sinful and sometimes can do good, Scripture is quite clear that ONE sin is enough to condemn someone to hell and they need forgiveness and redemption.
Man CANNOT earn his way to heaven. He cannot earn the right to stand in God’s presence because of the sin which he committed. It must be ALL based on God’s grace and mercy in forgiving our sins and imputing His righteousness to us.
Additionally, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Therefore works, even if a person only sinned ONCE in their lives and the rest of the time lived a perfectly sinless life, CANNOT obtain forgiveness or heaven.
It’s the wrong mechanism for dealing with sin.
In that case, it is impossible to *swim the Tiber* and come back home (to Catholicism)
I have , as that is often the recourse to "where's the beef" observations, but If this is true, rather than being an artifact of medieval hucksterism, one would think that the Vatican would have DNA testing carried out on the tissue to trace the genetic origins of the person, and thus silence skeptics and bolster RC faith, rather than use some obscure poorly documented Italian medieval story.
And instead, the effect of this wafer is seen, as said, in the multitudes who walk in and walk out as before, and where Rome has predominated here so has liberalism, in contrast to the decades here of evangelicalism which takes the word of God as being what man lives by.
Or on the other end as often seen here, it effects a cultic devotion to an elitist church, and a refusal to objectively examine the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of the claims of Rome.
When one truly receives the Lord Jesus it cannot but effect profound changes in heart and life, and these multitudes do so multitudinous times.
John 6: 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Still they focus on the flesh.
It is important to remember to:
Put your hand in the hand
Of the man who stilled the water
Put your hand in the hand
Of the man who calmed the sea.
Take a look at yourself and
A you can look at others diff’rently
By puttin’ your hand in the hand
Of the man from-a Galilee.
Ev’ry time I look into the Holy Book
I want to tremble
When I read about the part
Where a carpenter cleared the temple;
For the buyers and the sellers were
No diff’rent fellas than what I profess to be...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os2w4S3932g
Not completely accurate. Before Peter's confession in Matthew 16, we had all the scriptures needed to know Jesus.
Evidenced here in Luke 24:
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
And here in the same chapter 24 of Luke:
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
.
Quoting partial scripture is a catholic special!
Yeshua prayed that “they be one as we are one.”
Not that they be one under a vast pagan system masquerading as a ‘church.’
Luther may not have accomplished what Yeshua prayed for, but it sure came a lot closer than what Constantine gave us!
They will object at "through his own efforts," as what RC soteriology holds is that while no one merits the initial grace conferred thru baptism, yet salvation begins at baptism, even by one who has no ability to repent and believe as Scripture requires as conditions. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)
By which act (not by the faith it expresses) one is formally justified due to an inherent righteousness, thus a that point one could go directly to Heaven. Therefore in old times many withheld being baptized till on their death bed.
But while being justified thru baptism, they are still sinners, and so they sin afterward, and thus salvation ends for most by becoming good enough and atoning for sins during an indeterminate time of suffering in purgatory.
Therefore while rejecting salvation as under the law, in which a man had to obey all the law to become good enough to be with God, in Romanism by God's grace, dispensed thru the Church, one actually becomes good enough to be with God.
In Scripture, there is none good, thus God justifies the contrite unGodly by faith in Jesus Christ the righteous, a faith which is counted for righteousness, but an Abrahamic type faith which effects practical Godliness which is manifest in the "obedience of faith." (Rm. 16:26; Heb. 6:9,10)
And in the light of this testimony to true faith, which "hath great recompense of reward," (Heb. 10:35) God declares them worthy of rewards (Mt. 25:31-40; Rv. 3:4) He has promised under His covenant of grace, even though what they actually earned and deserve in pure justice is eternal torment in the Lake of Fire, thus in contrast, eternal life is a gift merited for us by Christ. (Rm. 6:23)
Thanks be to God for so great salvation, which we must treasure, not neglect. (Heb. 3:2)
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” <<
How many posting here hold a firm grasp on the fact that what Yeshua called “scripture” is not exactly the same as what we generally call scripture today?
The full plan was laid out in Moses' time, and nothing has been added since. Fulfillment of the plan of salvation is our present day advantage, and little is being done with that, that couldn't have been done before.
The power of the scriptures has largely been abandoned by the church today.
Yes ALL based on God's Grace indeed!
It was Grace that taught my heart to fear. And Grace, my fears relieved. How precious did that Grace appear The hour I first believed!
So besides the problem of the critical contrasts btwn the NT and the RCC, your logic seems to be that the instrument and steward of Holy Writ is the infallible interpreter of it. Is this correct?
Anyone have a LIST of these?
2 Timothy 3:1-8 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.
It is interesting that some of the early fathers who promoted infant baptism were baptized as fully grown men. And I believe some had mothers among the faithful.
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.