Posted on 05/30/2014 10:23:23 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians, resigned this month because he has joined the Roman Catholic Church.
The May 5 announcement by Francis J. Beckwith, a tenured associate professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex., has left colleagues gasping for breath and commentators grasping for analogies.
One blogger likened it to Hulk Hogan's defection from the World Wrestling Federation to the rival World Championship Wrestling league.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What an un-loving attitude toward those who were so obviously poorly catechized!
Please do send the poor, the prostitutes, alcoholics, drug users, the tattooed, the pierced and the ignorant. We will love them with His love, teach them about His Gospel of grace and how to follow Him.
There are NO fags in Baghdad!
Who knows...
The Mass brings Heaven to us through the Eucharistic liturgy. This liturgy is celebrated in eternal Heaven and here on Earth. We are united with Christ and the Holy Trinity in the Mass.
;-)
Are their fags in the Church? Absolutely. But then we don't go around inventing new scriptural constructs to accomodate them unlike protestantism. Protestants are like the living constitutionalists of the Supreme Court in that way. So have fun with that. The Roman Catholic Church will be here waiting when you've decided you have had enough.
Said with a condescending, holier-than-thou attitude.
Check in a mirror first.
What a Christ-like attitude.......
Do you follow the Jesus who came to seek and save the lost and call not the righteous but sinners to repentance?
Did Jesus establish a country club or a church?
They're welcome at my church.
Matter of fact, my church actively goes out looking for them.
Just a statement of fact. The individual is first. God second. Autonomy is the god expressed in protestantism
P.S. you got those verses for salvation by faith alone yet?
And Catholics can’t comprehend why other Catholics are leaving their church.
Are they really so self-righteous that they are that blind to how they treat others?
Based on personal experience with Catholics, the answer is yes. I’ve experienced the exact same attitudes from Catholics in real life that we see here on FR.
Fine. They want their perfect little church without me? They can have it.
I can find God without their help. And he can, and did, find me.
I don’t like welfare freeloaders and that sums up the Mexicans that are “converting” to protestantism. Most think Obama is a pro-life family man, they are totally ignorant of their own faith and only want a free gubment handout.
If you wish to quote others, have the courtesy to attribute the quote, rather than continue marching along the paths of plagiarism and semi-plagiarism.
Romanists ballyhoo and parade converts to their cult/borg, and those swimming the other way are more likely to leave the borg behind, while "Rome" downplays/ignores or else characterizes any and all whom do leave Romanism as being "poorly catechized", or worse...
Also being ignored or downplayed, is a list much "longer than your arm" of those who have dug deep into history and scripture -- who DO NOT convert to Roman Catholicism, yet are free as a bird to do so, unlike those of "Rome", such as cradle Catholics who would need first to wrap their mind around the fact that not all which they have been told about the RCC by those of the RCC is truth-- needing to carefully sift through huge piles of "stuff" to find that truth --- while Christ Himself still is Truth Himself, as can be found in the Scriptures --with the mixture of those two identities ("Church" & Christ) being extremely difficult to differentiate for many -- that blurring of identity being a thing of great subtlety, having truth [again] mixed with sundry forms of error.
It can be difficult to sort out, with it much easier to just surrender to the borg, to stay in a "cult" than to escape from one...
Meanwhile, within the ranks (of the RCC) are a very many who are at odds with that ecclesiastical body's teachings in one form or another, yet remain associated with the RCC -- when if they were honestly neutral while doing this "thinking and research" probing you speak of, would be able to see what many outside Romish confines can see, which among other things are the double-sided complexities which arise when attempt is made towards reconciling conflicting information within Roman Catholicism itself, which interestingly enough can rather mirror differences that can be seen when comparing various scripture passages regarding salvation itself, and is somewhat again mirrored within Protestant differentiation between so-called Calvinists (following or much inspired by Augustine, echoed in many aspects by Aquinas) and Arminians (not to be confused with "Arians") which latter (Arminians) are possibly shades more synergistic (somewhat similar to some schools of "Catholicism") in their description of what role man and man's own will plays in their own salvation than the former (Calvinists) --- who's own acceptance of there being any true form of "synergy" between man and God being entirely reliant upon first there being a re-birth or rejuvenation (if but by degree even?) brought-back-from-dead spirit of man, for the dead can not "respond" at all... (1 Corithians 2:14, Galatians 5:17) -- thus leaving synergy impossible but for that which has been brought to life by the breath of God.
Perhaps both camps can share some fundamental agreement between themselves, particularly when a more "hyper" view of predestination is not clung to. Though for that consideration -- since God does know the end of all things, from somewhere near the beginnings --- "predestination" view can logically enough fit, when the actions and choices of man are allowed to be made from man's own less-than omniscient perspective, while yet what the results shall be are in fact known to God before we are even born, without there necessarily being an entire fatalistic surrendering along line of "it is the Will of Allah'" or some-such.
That either of these "schools" or approaches towards faith (in Christ) are more similar to one another than they are to Roman Catholicism may make it that much easier for the Romanist to condemn -- but when they did and still do -- they condemn their own Church "Doctors" and the earliest of Christian traditions for sake of clinging to the image of mantle of infallibility.
That many "converts to Rome" fall prey to the 'round and 'round circular explanation apologetic (for those things peculiar to Roman Catholicism) which a large number of Romanists have built up over the centuries, does not make the body of apologetic itself "truth" any more than Muhammadans putting trust in Islamic explanations make all which Islam claims is truth, be in actuality unvarnished truth, for even there...it can much depend upon whom is asked what particular question or set of them.
Islamists also like to claim (when they can) that converts from among "preachers" of other faiths prove their own superiority.
Does it make it so?
To label converts to one's own ecclesiastical community to be the thinking type, but those outside -- not, is quite often just so much confirmation bias.
Examples like Steve Ray (and most of the others who are held up as being some sort kind of geniuses) offer little more than well-polished repackaging of a body of [Romanist] apologetic which existed long before they were born.
Being good little moderately well organized "parrots" does not make them into being "deep thinkers", for much of the Romanist apologetic has been thoroughly shredded, time and again for those who have learned to not fall for all the weak argumentation and lawyerly double-talk which relies time and again on specious definitions and artful dodginess to make the case...
That is not surprising. We are very often given assertions in response to Scripture-based challenges to RC traditions such as that "the Catholic church gave you the Bible," thus she knows what it means.
Along with that are the assertions that private interpretation cannot provide assurance and an infallible magisterium is needed, as Christ promised to lead the apostles into all Truth and preserve the church, etc. This is supposed to be a refutation to our challenges. But which reasoning must have presuppositions, which these RCs never seem to consider. They just parrot the "we gave you the Bible," "God established a church" polemic as if that was a refutation. Thus my questions must be asked.
Maybe it is just me but I think that this question you pose to everyone is too full of clauses and presuppositions to be answered adequately.
It is not any more full of clauses and presuppositions than the reasoning behind the bare polemical assertions that necessitate my questions.
Quite frankly I don’t trust it.
I do not trust RC assertions or necessarily the reasoning behind them.
As for my assurance of Truth well isn’t that obvious. It’s the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is free from error by the power of the Holy Spirit as promised by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now that wasn't so hard. In a word, your basis for assurance of Truth is the premise of the assured veracity of the Latin church, which provides teachings that are free from error thru her assuredly infallible magisterium (teachings from the Ordinary magisterium may contain non-salvific error, but a faithful RC is to grant them unadulterated intellectual assent).
But which "assurance of Truth" question must be asked, as many RCs try to argue as if Scriptural substantiation was the basis for their assurance of Truth, but which would make them as an evangelical.
However, your answer is simply an assertion, which must have some presuppositional reasoning behind it. Thus my questions:
If the basis for your assurance of Truth is the assured veracity of the Latin church, then it would seem that the RC argument is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth, since without it how you say the basis for your assurance of Truth are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is free from error?
And that this magisterium is essential to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18, etc.) which corresponds to the Roman Catholic Church being free from error
Thus i have simply stated clauses and presuppositions which it seems are foundational to your assertion.
Which reasoning behind the "we gave you the Bible" type makes it meaningful.
You have to make a leap of faith at some point.
Indeed, as in getting married, but the issue is the basis for this and what manner of faith this is.
We can't produce PROOF where Jesus was crucified either, just a few written accounts from decades later saying it happened. That doesn't mean he wasn't crucified. Trying to PROVE any event from 2000 years ago is difficult.
When would you say the Roman Catholic Church was founded? It certainly predates the creation of any protestant church.
We are very often given assertions in response to Scripture-based challenges to RC traditions such as that "the Catholic church gave you the Bible," thus she knows what it means.
Thus the protestant has set themselves up as the arbiter by which only they can promulgate(based on private interpretation) scriptural challenges of an authoritative nature. This presupposes that the protestant has a correct understanding of the scriptural passage in all manner of comprehension: literal, spiritual, allegorical, theological using appropriate exegesis and hermeneutics. So in the end if we were to discuss scriptural warrant for anything I have to travel into the deepest recesses of the protestant mind. Interesting. Sounds like Inception.
Now that wasn't so hard. In a word, your basis for assurance of Truth is the premise of the assured veracity of the Latin church, which provides teachings that are free from error thru her assuredly infallible magisterium (teachings from the Ordinary magisterium may contain non-salvific error, but a faithful RC is to grant them unadulterated intellectual assent).
That's quite a, "in a word" statement. I don't know what unadulterated intellectual assent means. Is that a fancy word for Faith? Are we engaging in a purely intellectual exercise?
If the basis for your assurance of Truth is the assured veracity of the Latin church, then it would seem that the RC argument is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth, since without it how you say the basis for your assurance of Truth are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is free from error?
I'm sorry and I say this in all charity but this writing style leaves something to be desired. It obfuscates and impairs the ability to communicate. The interrogatories are too agenda driven to be of value. The questions become statements.
Thus i have simply stated clauses and presuppositions which it seems are foundational to your assertion.
In that case feel free to agree or disagree with those "foundational presuppositions" or the entirety of the assertion itself but do something with it. If it is comprehended so thoroughly then one should be able to make a definitive statement.
I think these ideas need to be fleshed out a little bit more.
P.S. We did give you the bible.
Interesting that protestants speak of Christian love and fellowship and yet can’t help but ping their fellow members of the FR protestant contingent to everything they post. Jackals hoping to get a piece of the Catholic carcass.
I always find it interesting that even though I’m on like three different Catholic ping lists I’m always stumbling onto these threads by accident. Always late to the party. What good are these ping lists anyway if I can’t get my jabs in. Oh wait. Catholics don’t feel the compulsion to gang up. Catholic fellowship on FR is true fellowship and devotional.
Waxing a bit hyperbolic, are we? It's good you recognize that the Roman Catholic Church was in dire need of reformation. What you fail to acknowledge is that Luther didn't "throw everything out" because they didn't meet his satisfaction, he was excommunicated and a death warrant was made against him because he refused to recant that Scripture was supreme and his accusers were incapable of proving him wrong. Luther didn't - contrary to popular opinion - rewrite the Bible, exclude books from "his" Bible, change basic tenets of the Christian faith as held from the start or invent his own religion (Lutheranism came after he was gone). He didn't "throw out" the Trinity, the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection, the sacrificial death of Christ and his atonement for the sins of the world, Christ's return in glory and any number of widely and universally held doctrines. What he fought against were the abuses in the church hierarchy and only later, the perversion of the gospel by Rome, the restrictions against Bible reading and the innovative/novel dogmas brought into the Catholic church that even the Orthodox disagreed with.
The Reformers - and there were many more than just Luther - desired to return the Christian church to the faith as it was once delivered unto the saints. The resistance against them resulted in the Counter-reformation and the Inquisitions with death decrees enacted - and some carried out - against all those the Catholic church declared as "heretics". What was deemed heresy, remarkably, could be proven to have at one time BEEN catholic doctrine. The decrees of the Council of Trent further cemented the anathemas against the ideas of the Reformation and the Vatican dug in her heels rather than make the needed changes exposed by the Reformers. Power, wealth, influence and pride all worked within the church to force the schisms within just as it had happened five hundred years prior with the Eastern Orthodox.
Protestantism is NOT the cause of the relativism of our time. It is a result of an estrangement from the true God and a denial of absolute truth. The SAME absolute truth the Reformation defended. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the Roman Catholic Church had enacted the changes that needed to be made and Catholics today were held to the standards that defined Christianity, a larger part of society would be truly Conservative and the moral nosedive going on today in the world might be abated for a while longer. Either way, we already know that there will come a falling away from the faith in the last days and I'd say the time is ripe for the return of our Lord after the Time of Jacob's Trouble is past. It is inevitable. May HE find us 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.