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.
“if they leave they never were one of us”
Such delusion.
So what do you do with this verse of Scripture? Ignore it? White it out in your Bible? I'm curious.
About Adam being the only one created in God's image:
"...Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the SON OF GOD." (Luke 3:38). Adam, which was of God by creation and who was the only man that could be of God in this sense. All others are sons of men, as Luke points out.
Grace is not static, it is dynamic and belongs to God.
If it belongs to God, why can't he take it away? If you see evidence that that has happened, why would you conclude it was never there in the first place?
Grace is a gift. It's not only dynamic, it's alive. In fact, it's Alive.
But like any living thing, you can kill it, or more accurately, evict it. (I don't like the verb "lose". When I lose something, I never do it deliberately. It is impossible to "lose" grace any way except deliberately.)
There's a riposte to this that is illogical. It goes, "If I can throw it away by my actions, it was never a gift to begin with!" That doesn't make sense in any context. If I give you a new Cadillac, and you wrap it around a tree, does the fact that you've wrecked your Caddy make it no longer a gift? Of course not.
That bad news is that it also doesn't obligate me to give you another new Cadillac. Even if you apologize to me and beg for a new one, it's probably not going to happen.
God, while certainly not obligated, is happily far more generous than I am.
I don’t have to do anything with it except agree with it. It talks about “sin,” not a “sin nature”.
The literal truth of the John 6 passage is what Jesus says in verse 29: "“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” After that the people still don't believe Him and want a sign. Then Jesus uses the sign of manna from Heaven to teach the literal truth of verse 29 in terms the people are fixated on...which is eating because He fed them earlier on.
Scripture says verses what the RCC says. Hmmmm, who to follow? Those who truly desire salvation had better put earthly organizations aside and get down on their knees and truly seek the council of the Holy Spirit.
I agree. I think another aspect is that humans have a tendency to allow someone else to “make the decisions” and to “take the responsibility”. It’s the old “don’t blame me” strategy to avoid personal responsibility.
Except that what he was saying, and the way he was saying it, was profoundly offensive. "Eat my flesh and drink my blood" ... he then changes Greek verbs to something that translates more like "Munch my flesh like a pig and chug my blood" (just to increase the offense).
(Eating human flesh and drinking human blood is only used in Scripture as a metaphor for overwhelming military defeat -- the kind of thing that causes people to resort to cannibalism. It's also a well-known Middle Eastern expression for reviling someone viciously.)
So Scripture records that many of his followers murmured "this is a hard teaching, who can accept it," then left him. He doesn't try to explain his "metaphor". He goes to the Apostles and says plaintively, "Do you also want to leave?"
Why the offense? Why the ugly imagery? And why did he happen to pick this particular theme for his preaching on Passover, exactly a year before the Last Supper?
Don't you understand what this means? Through Adam's sin, a sentence of death, without a promise of resurrection, passed upon all men; so, by the obedience of Christ taking man's place, the sentence was completely cancelled and original dominion restored. One is constituted a sinner THROUGH Adam, NOT by his personal sins, so one is constituted righteous THROUGH Christ, NOT by his personal acts of righteousness. THis is why acts of righteousness we have done have no bearing on our salvation. Nor do sins have varying degrees of wrong-doing in God's eyes. Sin is sin.
LOL Or have water gushing from their bellies?
AMEN. Yes, I understood your post. Why cannot all people see this?
On the part of Roman Catholics? Absolutely!
This basically gets back to the imputed righteousness error again. It's wrong, sorry. God doesn't have to settle with verbally declaring reality; he doesn't just "constitute" someone righteous, he makes it happen. By merely saying so. "Let there be light" created the universe. "Let him be justified" creates justified saints.
Although I will certainly agree with you that no "personal act of righteousness" can ever earn justification.
THis is why acts of righteousness we have done have no bearing on our salvation.
Tell me, when Scripture says that "love covers a multitude of sins," what does it mean?
Nor do sins have varying degrees of wrong-doing in God's eyes. Sin is sin.
Take it up with Jesus, who told Pontius Pilate, "He who handed me over to you is guilty of the GREATER sin"
You still haven't said anything proving that Adam had a "sin nature" that he passed on to his descendants.
I don’t care what it’s discussing. You said that what metmom posted was not something the RCC says. I simply showed you that in fact the record shows that indeed it was something that is contained in the record of the RCC.
I’m not going to follow you down some rabbit trail discussing the intracasies of what the RCC teaches. There are enough blatant contradictions to what scripture teaches such as the incorporation of pagan rituals, vestments, and beliefs that any person who is truly born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit would avoid the RCC like a plague.
Perhaps my comments would be received differently if I confessed I was a born and raised and schooled former Roman Catholic:)
All your other comments are fine. Keep fighting Calvin and Luther. You can dig up their bones and put them on trial. No one here is presenting either man. Evangelicals are presenting the OT and NT scriptures.
I have no interest in "defending or contending" the 16th century all over again. Blood was spilled and many died against the commands of Christ not to kill each other.
Let's stick to the Bible please. We are in the 21st Century now and have God's Word in print no less and online no doubt.
Psalm 119:
159 Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O Lord, according to thy lovingkindness. 160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. 161 Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word. 162 I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil. 163 I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.
The Roman Catholic Church seems to have done away with the doctrine of sin. I once had a long discussion with a Papist apologist on exactly how sinful we are. Trotted out Romans 3:9-18. She told me it was all hyperbole.
Hey, they have statues that weep, water that heals, and oil that revives. WHERE are the glowing light of the world bodies and belly gushers?? SHOW US THE WONDERS. Don't just talk about turning wafers and wine into Christ. GLOW and FLOW, Pope people!
I posted in #61 where the "RCC" says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what metmom's post claimed, and almost EXACTLY word-for-word what I wrote.
As I PM'ed you: write the letter. Have my bishop tell me to my face that the meritorious cause of my justification is my "intrinsic righteousness" and I'm a heretic for believing that it's Jesus.
Well, I guess that’s ONE way to deal with it. Just say it doesn’t exist. Too bad it’s talked about from Genesis through Revelation. That’s a LOT of denial to cover.:)
We weren't discussing why people leave the Catholic church to become evangelicals.
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.