Posted on 11/06/2014 2:29:33 PM PST by NYer
In June of this year, the largest Presbyterian denomination in America voted to allow their clergy to perform same-sex “marriages” within the church, thus joining the ranks of other Protestant denominations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Episcopalian Church, and United Church of Christ.
This “evolution” of theology and “modernizing” of church doctrine is a trend that I predict we’ll continue to see in non-Catholic Christian circles for years to come, and not just with marriage. Today, nearly all Protestant denominations support and even advocate the use of artificial birth control, and many allow at least some level of support for abortion.
Of course, not all Protestants are willing to “move with the times”, so to speak; there remains, especially among the more conservative groups, quite a bit of dissent. However, it cannot be denied that many modern day Protestant denominations are falling further into the depths of secularism.
While it pains me to see Christians turning their backs on the sanctity of life and marriage, I have to admit that whenever the media lights up with news of another Protestant church endorsing an otherwise wholly unchristian act, I find myself entirely unsurprised.
The reason for my utter lack of shock lies, interestingly enough, within two of the critical tenants of Protestant Theology: the doctrines of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone).
As Catholics, the Bible is not our sole source of authority, nor was the Catholic Church based upon it. In fact, what we now call “The Bible” — the collected Old Testament and New Testament writings — was put together by the Church herself, and is meant to enrich and support our doctrine and Tradition.
(Consider too that the Gospel is the written testimony of the teachings of the apostles, which, due to apostolic tradition and the God-given teaching authority of the Church, precedes the written text. Thus, any authority of the Scriptures is derived from the recognition of the Church.)
Yet, the Protestant Reformation severed the Tradition from the Bible, and put all other authorities beneath it. By doing so, they created a type of religious relativism (unwittingly, I’m sure) that opened the door for an “anything goes” mentality. So long, of course, as it can be found — or not found — in the scriptures.
For years, sola scriptura was a major weapon against Catholic theology, claiming that our practices were either absent or directly forbidden by Sacred Scripture. However, since the latter part of the 20th century, the charges that “Jesus never said (x)” or “That’s not in the Bible” have turned on themselves and have now become, “Jesus never said (x) was wrong, so that means (x) must be okay.”
This idea blends well with many in my generation, the millennials, who wish to hold on to some shred of spirituality but cannot bring themselves to relinquish the desires of the flesh. It is also a base notion of “Progressive Christianity”, which is basically the feel-good parts of following Christ without any actual sacrifice.
The same problem goes for sola fide. Though the only place in the Bible where the words “faith” and “alone” appear next to one another is in James 2:24 (“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”), it still remains a significant tenant of Protestant Christianity. However, much like sola scriptura, it has seemingly evolved into an even more bastardized version of itself that states, “As long as I’m a good person and believe in Jesus, I’m okay.”
Now, understand, I’m not among the ilk who believe that Protestants can’t go to Heaven, though the path is significantly more challenging (and not in a “take up your cross” kind of way). I do believe, however, that Christianity was never meant go in this direction. And I certainly believe that, should things continue in the manner they’re going for the modern-day Protestants, they’ll eventually have nothing left to call Christian at all.
Of course, perhaps that’s the only logical conclusion Protestantism could possibly come to. It is, after all, a theologically incomplete Christianity; and perhaps that is why it has such difficulty standing the test of time. Consider the continuous splintering Protestantism has seen since the days of Luther, that continues today. Sooner or later, it will be dust; and displaced Christians will be left with two choices: return to Holy Catholic Church or give themselves to the world.
Um, no.
Revelation 1:19 'Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things;
Most all of Revelation is yet to happen.
What do you make of this? There are several other videos with similar videos in St.Peters Basicilica. The lyrics of the song are written in Latin and then beneath them are the English translation. I think most, even Catholics, are not aware of this.
The prostitute woman of Revelation 17 is not the same woman of Revelation 12.
I agree with you, as does John the Revelator.
It is a generally accepted principle that someone attempting to teach or evangelize from the Bible should disclose the denomination or fellowship with which they assemble. Bible. If not, general readers may be enticed into a cult.
you're all about the denomination.....mine is Christian. its' why i post book, chapter and verse so readers will know my source. you, sir, however, never do this. it gives the appearance you are hiding/disguising something...the hallmark of a cult.
If there is a passage one does not recognize, one but need ask about that passage, in sincerity and truth.
that's about the sorriest reply I've ever seen on FR. compelete arrogance.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
True enough.
The Church did make changes but they were too slow for many people. The Church never did anything fast. The pressure on the Church to make SOME changes is enormous but...that won't stop the Church from holding on to truth.
SOME things will never change.
.
For those reasons many people reject the Church. It's their choice to do so. I sure don't judge them. THAT is God's job.
Great post.
John wasn't writing history he was writing prophesy. Nero had died nearly 30 years prior to the writing of Revelation.
Thank you for posting that.
These threads are both sad and funny. Unfortunately this type of forum is not very conducive to actually weeding out truth from err, and people end up spending time on inconsequential details.
A few points should be made
1. “Catholic Church” is a USELESS and confusing phrase to use in the context of a protestant debate with followers of the popes. While “catholic” may have a legitimate meaning of universal, in this context it only confuses what is being said. Please use “Roman Catholic Church”, or perhaps “followers of the popes” since I am sure you don’t want to use the “whore of Revelation”, or the “fallen away” of Thessalonians.
2. It is an entirely unbiblical notion to believe that simply because someone labels themselves as “Christian” or that the believe in God and are religious, that it is actually true. The most religious people of Jesus time were the Pharisees. He spent a significant amount of time condemning them and said the kingdom would be taken from them. So please just stop acting like we are all believers can’t we just hug and love Jesus. Take note GeronL, GreyFriar, zot. We are commanded in Rev 18:4 “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues”. Se also Rev 14. If you are firmly committed to the delusion that such widely varying belief are both Christian then maybe you should avoid such threads. Truth might upset your apple cart too much.
3. The Roman Catholic Church as followers of THE pope did not exist in the early church and the Biblical canon was not agreed upon by the Roman Catholic Church. EVERY bishop was known as a pope. The supremacy of one bishop in Rome as the supreme pontiff was something that happened over time. THAT was the falling away and the evolution of the Roman Catholic Church. Before that the pope of Rome had no more power than other popes, like those in Britain around 200 A.D. That is why it is known as ROMAN Catholic Church now it is because it recognizes a head in Rome.
4. The world continued on in much the same way all of recorded history, until after the protestant reformation when the 2520 of captivity of His people would end. God poured out his blessings, now we have modern medical advances, airplanes, a standard of living and freedom not seen for millennia. This was a BLESSING for coming out of “Her”, as God grew His kingdom. If the reformers were apostates, these last five centuries should have been the darkest of all history. But it is the reverse. WAKE UP!
That is nothing less than shocking. Even I would not have guessed it was that blatant. Certainly something to investigate further.
there's not a Christian who denies you produce fruit/works for Christ.
however, the fruit/works aren't what saves you. they are a result of the faith in Christ.
It is the one time sacrifice of Christ and His Blood and the belief in that that gives us eternal life.
As Paul noted in Phil 3:7-9
7But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
8More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
9and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,…
Take it up with Jesus. It was He who make the statement “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
RCs should be ashamed at such a spurious hit piece, which results in the specious nature of Rome being exposed once again, by the grace of God
Evangelicals who want to be on my ping list for threads as this should let me know .
The reason for my utter lack of shock lies, interestingly enough, within two of the critical tenants of Protestant Theology: the doctrines of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone).
Wrong, first, sola scriptura does not mean only scripture can be used in understanding God's will, but which straw man is a constant RC recourse (more in section further below ),
Second, in reality, it is the Christians and churches which hold most strongly to sola scriptura (holding wholly inspired and accurate Scripture as being the supreme and sufficient standard for Truth, but not in exclusion to other helps) and sola fide (faith alone being what appropriates justification, but a faith that effects works) that are the most conservative, far more than the overall fruit of Rome
Moreover, typically the liberal Prot churches are those which are closest to Rome!
Just a few stats among the multitudes :
79 percent of American Jews, 58 percent of Catholics and 56 percent of mainline Protestants favor acceptance of homosexuality, versus 39 percent of members of historically black churches, 27 percent of Muslims and 26 percent of the evangelical Protestants. U.S. U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
56% of Catholics overall (and 46% of the general public) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin, while 39%. of Catholics say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, (versus 76% of white evangelicals and 66% of black Protestants, and 40% of Mainline Protestants). 41% of Catholics do not consider homosexual behavior to be a moral issue. (Pew Research Center, Religion & Politics Survey, 2009; PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey, October 2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf)
Catholics testify [2010] to showing more support (in numbers) for legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition, and Americans overall. Almost three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry or allowing them to form civil unions (43% and 31% respectively). Only 22% of Catholics said there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. (PRRI, Pre--election American Values Survey, 9/2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf.)
In a 2010 LifeWay Research survey 77 percent of American Protestant pastors (57% of mainline versus 87% evangelical) strongly disagree with same-sex marriage, with 6% percent somewhat disagreeing, and 5% being somewhat in agreement and 10 percent strongly agreeing. (5% of evangelical).
Only 3% of evangelical pastors (versus 11% mainline) somewhat agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.
11% of evangelical pastors (versus 30% mainline) somewhat agree that homosexual civil unions are acceptable, with 67% of the former and 38% of the latter strongly disagreeing with homosexual civil unions. October 2010 LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors. http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-oppose-homosexual-marriage
A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
As Catholics, the Bible is not our sole source of authority, nor was the Catholic Church based upon it.
Indeed, and which invalidates Rome as being the NT church, for in reality, as often said and shown, is that it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.) The church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Thus
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
Those who knew not Scripture were persuaded "through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God," (Romans 15:19) which Scripture provide and sanctions, with it being the judge of them.
However, under the Roman model, an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
But which nukes the NT church itself, as it began contrary to the premise of perpetual assured magisterial veracity, but upon Scriptural substantiation as described. Which requires it to thereby continually justify its claims to be of the living God, not by relying upon self-declaration and historical descent.
And in the times preceding of the Reformation the church of Rome had come to the point where there was (by confession of their own) almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; of discipline in morals, of reverence in divine things, and thus true religion was almost extinct, leading multitudes astray, and that the true Church had to be sought outside the then-visible institution.
In fact, what we now call “The Bible” — the collected Old Testament and New Testament writings — was put together by the Church herself, and is meant to enrich and support our doctrine and Tradition.
Wrong: Translated by Rome this means Scripture is a servant to support her as desired, but her veracity does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but the mere fact that Rome teaches a doctrine as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.
The reality is that most of Scripture was already established as being so before there was a church of Rome, and as both men and writings of God were recognized as being so, essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation, without an infallible office of men which presumes it is essential for this.
More complementary writings were provided by God in conflation with what was already established as being so, and were likewise established as the OT writings were.
And rather than simply being a supplementary source to enrich and support predetermined doctrine and Tradition as the servant of the magisterium, by whose authority doctrine and Tradition is established,, it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the NT church began, with common souls following men who established their Truth claims thereby, by whom the magisterium rejected.
Yet, the Protestant Reformation severed the Tradition from the Bible, and put all other authorities beneath it.
the Protestant Reformation severed the Tradition from the Bible, and put all other authorities beneath it. By doing so, they created a type of religious relativism (unwittingly, I’m sure) that opened the door for an “anything goes” mentality.
Wrong: As Alister McGrath [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] states in "The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:"
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”
In contrast to Scripture being supreme, and with out date helping to understand it, and thus determining veracity upon the weight of evidence (which the church began under), the basis for the veracity of Rome's teaching is the the premise of her assured veracity.
For as said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Thus, faced with the historical claims of Reformers, the recourse of no less than Manning was that,
"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28
Likewise,
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law..all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children...to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
Which is cultic, not NT!
By doing so, they created a type of religious relativism (unwittingly, I’m sure) that opened the door for an “anything goes” mentality.
Wrong, for as said and is shown, it is those who hold most strongly to the supreme authority of Scripture as being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God that are most conservative, while churches that are closest to Rome are the most liberal.
As Rome overall is herself, for what one does constitutes the evidence of what one really believes, and which Rome partly shows by treating proabortion, prosodomote promuslim RC pols as members in life and in death, and the vast majority of RCs who support them.
For years, sola scriptura was a major weapon against Catholic theology, claiming that our practices were either absent or directly forbidden by Sacred Scripture.
Indeed, as <a href="http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2014/09/deformation-of-nt-church-and-historical.html ">so deformed is the church of Rome that it is basically invisible in the NT!
The same problem goes for sola fide. Though the only place in the Bible where the words “faith” and “alone” appear next to one another is in James 2:24 (“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”), it still remains a significant tenant of Protestant Christianity.
Yet Paul clearly states faith is what actually appropriates justification of the UnGodly, (Rm. 4:1-7) but faith justifies one as being a believer (works are faith in action, as to believe is to act, like as the palsied man to be forgiven was to be healed, but which was easier to say?), and Reformers clearly preached the necessity of works of faith and holiness if one claimed faith.
However, much like sola scriptura, it has seemingly evolved into an even more bastardized version of itself that states, “As long as I’m a good person and believe in Jesus, I’m okay.”
Wrong continually, as in reality is it evangelicals who are by far the most conservative , and more unified on the most core values and beliefs overall, while Rome's treatment of Teddy K, Chavez, Menino RCs and the her liberal majority testify that the gospel Rome effectually preaches is “As long as I’m a good person and die as a Catholic, I’m okay.”
Moreover, Rome's "unity" is very limited and largely on paper, while Catholicism itself exists in schisms and sects, and what RCs can disagree on its extensive, as well as what they do.
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Yes, I have. We must obey all his words, not just a subset used to derive new doctrines. Do not ignore Revelation. It is the last book and corrected error in the holy catholic apostolic churches. He used "works" twelve times with the churches ( and I'm no even counting similar words like deeds, etc.).
Please show exactly where I said the SBC was in currently favor of Homosexuality.
I said that ONE pastor of ONE CBC was in favor of homosexuality and his ONE congregation voted to keep him in his position.
California Baptist Church Changes Views On Homosexuality After Pastor's Gay Son Comes Out
You stand corrected.
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.