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.
Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 7 1/13/1547:
The causes of this justification are the following:
The document goes on to discuss the instrumental causes (baptism and faith), and the formal cause, "the justice of God, not the justice by which he is himself just, but the justice by which he makes us just, namely the justice which we have AS A GIFT FROM HIM ..."
Do you want to apologize to me?
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years. and BEGAT a son IN HIS OWN LIKENESS, AFTER HIS IMAGE: and called his name Seth."
Why is this important? Because Adam was created in God's image, without sin, until he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and sin entered into him. THIS is where we get our sin nature, from the fallen Adam. We are begotten of Adam, fallen Adam, and our nature is of Adam, corrupted by sin. All of us. Until the second Adam, Jesus Christ took our sins.
“To move to Rome is not only to give up justification and, thus, assurance— even more so, it is to give up Christ.”
Maybe the stupiest comment I have ever read in my life.
Ever hear of the Eucharist? Should I educate you on what the earliest Church fathers said? No, forget it, I get tired of talking to a wall.
Even better!
My wife had a childhood friend named “Merry.”
She married a guy whose last name was “Christmas.” I kid you not.
If you are exposed to Jesus Christ and you willingly turn away from him, reserve your place in hell.
Catholic 101.
That's the usual story that's given by the Evangelical side, but is almost never true. The real script follows one of three paths:
As said before, if the RC claims made for her wafers were made for medicine that would be fined for false advertizing. The multitudes 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. Which is what the Lord said, (Mt. 4:4) and thus His "meat" was to do the Father's will, (Jn. 4:34) and as He lived by the Father is how He defined eating and drinking Him in Jn. 6:57.
I don’t think there is harm in presenting differences and debating. However, the snarky stuff should go as you recommend.
I am of the mind that on these forums no one changes their mind on the major theological issues. I think we all come here to defend either Scriptures or tradition or both. It is fine to come here and sharpen the sword, but not use the edge of it on each other.
Maybe to find out which one is figurative we should go back to the early church and ask the early Christians what they thought. Or, we could just look at what St. Paul says 1 Cor 11 when he writes that he who receives the Eucharist unworthily is guilty of bad taste in desecrating a mere symbol.
Oh, wait ... maybe that's not what he wrote.
Both of you should read up on the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.
The question is how corrupt ? Adam fell, but how far?
Jesus is the Word of God, the Bread of Life that has come down from heaven.
Corruption can be a relative thing? Sin is sin, RobbyS. And it came from Adam. And all humanity is begotten of Adam in his own likeness. How do you go about measuring sin? ANd how far is “too far”??
... born in the town of Bethlehem (”house of bread”), a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek (who offered *bread and wine*) ...
I think some monogram towels with "DonnyBrook" are in order for the couple:)
LOL! Oh, I believe you! NOTHING surprises me anymore :) That’s why I LOVE irony, it makes for pleasant surprises in this present evil world!
Sadly(?) they’ve gone their separate ways. Too many donnybrooks in their marriage..no kidding..:)
All of these things were things Adam should have been able to give to his children merely by begetting them. Their absence is what original sin consists of, not any objectively real "sin nature".
— In my Dominican parish, the current pastor and his predecessor (now the prior of the Province) have both been very explicit about saying that a personal encounter with Christ is an essential “moment” in the Christian life.
— I am currently in a conversation on facebook about the way that Catholics too often use dogma and sacrament as shields to protect them from that personal encounter. I referred to Jeremiah's slam about “The Temple of the Lord.”
— And, of course, it bears repeating that the old joke is,”I don't believe in organized religion, I'm a Catholic.”
My Tiber swimming was certainly influenced not so much by “order” as by a rational account of “authority.” As an Episcopalian clergyman I saw I group which turned away from every concept of “apostolic” authority that might turn out to be inconvenient. And while I thought that being ordained necessarily implied an approach to daily life that involved living “to Godward,” as somebody once said, I found that I was alone in that thought.
I know there are other pastors and lay folk in Protestant denominations who lead very holy lives. But that is also true of SOME Catholics. I do NOT get order. I have dealt with/worked with Catholic ordained folks who were, well, not “docile to the Magisterium” as we say.
But I found that in my daily life, which involves prayerful interaction with Scripture, and in my studies I was encountering a clear, though often ignored,unfolding of the Gospel.
Yeah, I know we can argue about whether I was mistaken in that. But the point you raise is about the longing for order, and it's that point I am responding to.
“All the [Catholic] things” can be a snare, an illusion,a distraction,even an idol. But not all of us, by God's delivering grace, fall into that distraction or idolatry.
To put it in Biblical terms? Grace is not static, it is dynamic and belongs to God. Faith is also dynamic, always in action (ref Acts of the Apostles). The only way I know someone can "lose" Grace is to deny the Power of God's Grace to save. If someone denies His Grace, then they never trusted in Him in the first place and never knew Him.
If we believe our actions count one jot or tittle towards salvation then it is no longer Grace.
I know the next question so will answer it. Does this give 'motivation' for someone in God's Grace to sin as they see fit? As Paul says in Romans "May it NEVER be!" By Grace through faith we establish the Law.
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.