Is There Growing Confusion over Church Teaching?

Crisis Magazine ^ | July 16, 2014 | Dr. William Oddie

[Legatus]

IMO we Catholics should avoid using it for this reason because ultimately it’s distracting from the real message that is: Protestants don’t have unity where it counts, which is on core dogmas, such as the existence of free will for example.

How about something more like the above?

I'm in a picture posting mood for some reason

[FourtySeven]

I’ve already been through this list, although admittedly not directly with you (another poster, but I did ping you when I mentioned you posted this list before. This was about a month ago now)

The Assemblies of God believe one can loose one’s salvation (they reject “Eternal Security” in other words) while the Presbyterians do not believe one can loose one’s salvation. It’s all right there in the links you provided. And clearly this too has a direct impact on one’s salvation.

Or perhaps I should repeat my question here: Like I asked about free will, do you not believe the issue of “eternal security” has an impact on one’s salvation?

[FourtySeven]

Haha thanks for the chuckle.

[Legatus]

The Assemblies of God believe one can loose one’s salvation

IIRC they also believe in baptismal regeneration.

[defconw]

I see what you mean. But I was using it with a Catholic on a Catholic thread. Not for the purpose of the exact facts. Only Catholics have to be absolutely perfect in every single thing we say or we are attacked. I come here to defend MY Church. I don't post on Non-Catholic threads. So to me it's refreshing to speak to other Catholics and not have have every thing I say parsed, sliced diced, dissected.

If I said I love Pope Francis a torrent rains down.

If I say I hate Pope Francis, same thing. I am sick and tired of being censored most especially by conservatives. I have friends on this site, I met my husband on this site, I love this site, but there are days when I could just say the hell with the whole thing. Ya know?

[caww]

....”Protestants don’t have unity where it counts”......

The Gospel Message is where it counts....those who know Jesus Christ within all denominations, and not, are UNITED IN HIM through Him..."The Fellowship of 'Believers'.

"Dogma" is a meaningless endeavor apart from the above.......and all denominstions are full of Dogma "students" who have entirely missed the message of 'Christ in You.'

[defconw]

Because that is what we were talking about. What difference does it make? You will hound me until I become silent because that is your MO. Go to the Protestant threads and see if I have posted over there. You will see that I have not.

[defconw]

Thank You that was my point. Plus that, despite the fact that about half the Catholics in the world don’t exactly agree with my POV, does that mean I leave? NO, it means I work harder to illuminate them. Because most of them oppose my POV, because they only think they know the Catholic faith. They don’t it’s a fact. That’s why once in a while the Pope has to crack down on the BS.

[defconw]

That is great. My goal is to interact with othe Catholics. For a variety of reasons a lot of people( I better say catholics, don't want a bunch of blow back) were poorly cathecized or stopped early on their journey. So that is what I try to do. I stay off threads that have little or nothing to do with Catholics. If only others would do the same.

[caww]

...”The Assemblies of God ‘believe’ one can loose one’s salvation”....

Key word is ‘Believe’......The sanctity ‘of the believer’ comes to mind.

If one does NOT ‘believe’ in the finished and all sufficient work of Jesus Christ this leaves one easily to believe they can loose what they don’t have in the first place.

Either His work is ‘enough’ and we are ‘complete’ in Him....as is written...and as HE said. Or by denying the security He gives one is simply riding a fence of indecision.....which is rejecting Him.

[daniel1212]

To be fair:The problem with the often used (yet cringe-worthy IMO) Catholic apologetic of “there are X thousand Protestant denominations” is that it’s all ultimately based on self-identification surveys

Your commendable attempt to be fair brings you into conflict with the normal use of the term by your brethren, and the problem is not self-identification surveys, as Rome treats (in life and in death) most all who ID with her as members, but that RCs simply use Protestant based upon the simple aspect that they are not Catholic but claim to be Christian, a definition of which is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian 747 thru it. But which broadness they would never tolerate for "Catholic," even stating that the EOS are not.

Instead of being like atheists who assert Hitler was a Christian, a term needs to be based upon basic defining aspects, and for the Reformers this meant affirming core Truths such as the apostles Creed state, as well as the supremacy and sufficiency (material or formal) of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired Word of God, and salvation from Hell to Heaven being by grace thru faith, not earned by the holiness of man.

Which sets them apart from not only Catholicism but liberal Protestantism as well as cults, the latter of whom also operate out of her sola ecclesia model (the church via its leaders are effectively the supreme authority), out of which the most damnable heresies are seen. Whenever Scripture is not the supreme authoritative source of Truth, both the souls and bodies of men are in danger.

Protestants don’t have unity where it counts, which is on core dogmas,...

That requires the same loose definition of "Protestant" as your brethren need for arguing that the fruit of SS is moral liberalism and doctrinal anarchy, as in reality, those who hold most strongly to the supremacy of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired Word of God are far more unified in basic Biblical beliefs than the fruit of Rome whom she treats as members.

such as the existence of free will for example.

All believe in free will, but what "free" really means is subject to interpretation. Can man believe on the Lord Jesus without God motivating and enabling Him? Catholic theology holds on the one hand that the efficacious grace given for the performance of an action obtains man's consent and that action takes place; on the other hand that in so acting, man is free. Hence the question: How can these two -the infallible result and liberty- be harmonized?

And thus the fervent theological controversy regarding divine grace that arose between the Dominicans and the Jesuits towards the close of the sixteenth century. And despite the promotion about RC unity and the magisterium settling disputes, this was not settled, for

after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See.

That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. The long controversy has aroused considerable feeling, and the pope, aiming at the restoration of peace and charity between the religious orders, forbade by a decree of the Inquisition (1 December 1611) the publication of any book concerning efficacious grace until further action by the Holy See. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis

We Catholics (correctly) state that to be a true church, it must have apostolic succession (valid Holy Orders)

The veracity of this doctrine rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, based upon tradition, and her interpretation that sees apostolic succession in Scripture based on a solitary example, by a non-political method Rome has never used, and none for the martyred James, (Acts 12:1,2) or any manifest preparation for any papal successor, and in contrast to the requirements for elders.

Meanwhile, the EOs reject the papacy of Rome based upon the same sources Rome invokes for hers.

[FourtySeven]

Ya know?

Yeah I know and I'm sorry for speaking out of turn then. It seems I should have read this thread more closely. I didn't see the Caucus label in the title and ran with the implied "Open" designation before posting. Usually a safe bet in my own defense haha...but anyway seems some wires got crossed...

Anyway this is just to let you know I feel your pain and sorry for adding to any. God bless,

[editor-surveyor]

>> “ If you wish to go to communion, do it.” <<

.
Communion is a personal thing, not a ‘church’ thing.

It is done each and every time we break bread, and drink the wine, in memory of Yeshua.

That is what he commanded, and his church has no hierarchy that can change it. (Nicolaitans are not appointed by him)
.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “The Assemblies of God believe one can loose one’s salvation (they reject “Eternal Security” in other words) while the Presbyterians do not believe one can loose one’s salvation” <<

.
The AOG at least read their Bibles occasionally. The Presbys don’t even know where they left their Bibles, but they’re sure that they do have one.

.

[metmom]

Well, that tells it like it is.....

[FourtySeven]

And thus the fervent theological controversy regarding divine grace that arose between the Dominicans and the Jesuits...

Whatever disagreement exists between these and others in the Church (I believe what you are refering to is a disagreement about the nature of predestination, ie the "Thomist vs Molinist" controversey)...whatever disagreement it is not about the very existence of free will. That is not negotiable. Not in the Church it isn't. Apparently it is in the "invisible church" though.

[metmom]

That's awesome. I know back in Fort Wayne, Indiana when I lived there, the Catholics and Lutherans had a close working relationship. Heck one of our Catholic high schools shared a football stadium with the Lutheran high school. Also they had only one Lutheran parochial school so they played in the CYO leagues so they didn't have to play the government schools.

So it's "awesome" that the Catholic church can collaborate with non-Catholic denominations, but when it comes to non-Catholic denominations, suddenly it's not so awesome, that the 51,000 (or whatever the number du jour is) even exist, much less collaborate? Which, BTW, they do fairly often.

Non-Catholic denominations don't have any problem, for the most part, working with each other or with non-denoms such as rescue missions of the Salvation Army.

[Dutchboy88]

"Protestants don’t have unity where it counts, which is on core dogmas, such as the existence of free will for example."

Don't know what propaganda machine has gotten to you, but the Romanist organization is so conflicted on "core" dogmas that it no longer has any idea what it believes. Augustine fought Pelagian and won, but the Roman cult now understands semi-pelagianism to be one of its central doctrines...go look, read and despair.

[defconw]

We're good. The answer to the title of the article would just be DUH! In my pithy opinion. That is why we Catholics needed this to be about Catholics. It's not a debate about what Protestants believe. Not to be mean, I just don't care. They all have a different opinion.

In the Catholic Church the only opinion to have when it comes to teaching is the Magisterium. But that's not the reality. That was the fact that we started out on. We did get off tract. But WE were under the impression that it was a Catholic Caucus thread.

[defconw]

Why do you feel the need to inject yourself into every conversation? I mean really?