[PleaseReadBeforeJudging] Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Bouyer on Reformation

Catholic Dossier/ CERC ^ | MARK BRUMLEY

[George W. Bush]

You better ping your standard bearer OP back to this thread. You've undercut so many of his fine apologetic efforts and individual debate victories, and the excellent debating points he fought so hard to win, that if you continue you will further erode the OP position credibility beyond even OPie's talents to repair.

My opinions do not change OPie's arguments in the least. My understanding of certain matters may be different than his. There are very few areas where I think I can equal his broad grasp of doctrine and its history. He is a trained debater and a strong logician. And he is excellent with the search engines. I am doing well if I can occasionally find a few nuggets of history or writings that he and some of the others have not already discovered.

As much as I like and respect OPie, as much as he has done to help illuminate certain concepts and scripture and the history of doctrine in various traditions, he is not my pope. I doubt you grasp this but OPie would undoubtedly consider himself to be a failure if I treated him like some sort of pope. I think that would worry him more than almost anything else a person could say.

[Sorry, OPie, but you did probably already suspect that you aren't a pope. Anyway, it's just as well or we'd have to start calling you 'pOPpie' instead. Still, it does have a certain ring to it...]

[Brian Kopp DPM]

So, are you going to tell us exactly what you think you've accomplished here after 1400 posts of stringing us along?

I know what I have accomplished. You cannot grasp it. I hope some day you do.

We're not called to be successful. We're only called to be faithful.

Sometimes God grants success beyond our wildest dreams when we are faithful.

This thread has been one of those occasions.

[George W. Bush]

Do you honestly think that the pope, who personally has done more to spread the gospel throughout the world than any other man the past quarter century worships the Koran by kissing it?

I believe that the early church was established by the martyrs who refused to bow their knee or make a token sacrifice to the emperor's idol. That was always understood as a mere civic religion. Virtually no one actually worshipped the emperor. The martyrs of the early church laid down their lives to testify of their faith in Christ. And that self-sacrifice was exactly what built up the early church.

Your pope isn't in the same league. He does not possess any mantle of Peter.

[the_doc]

See my #1437. This thread is more serious than you realize.

[GreaserX]

Wow! You came up with a lot of interestin' reading, but this stuff is still not out of the bible. Keep trying.

[GreaserX]

You are a real treasure. So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is telling you that I'm not saved? You are treading on very dangerous ground. I suppose you could institute a new inquisition and torture me till I accepted the RC church. Is that what you want?

[RnMomof7]

As for the MENSA crack, probably well-deserved, and, admittedly, pretty funny. But to tell the truth, I have enough self-affirmation from knowing that I am a son of God, a son of Mary, and a son of the Church of Jesus Christ -- Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman.

Now if you had assurance you were saved by the Blood of Christ you would surely have it all :>)

[RnMomof7]

Thank you. You admit now that their own personal interpretation of scripture is no more authoritative than any other individual's personal interpretation of scripture. Neither is your personal interpretation of scripture authoritative. Neither is OP's personal interpretation of scripture authoritative. Neither is mine.

And neithor is the popes

[CCWoody]

Squire even alluded to us Calvinists as Talibans. (Oh, great.) This mess really is Saul Alinsky stuff. It's right out of Hillary's Master's thesis.

Heard anything from "CCWoody" or "the_doc"? I thought we were gonna discuss their erroneous ideas on St. Augustine, but they seem to have headed to their Tora Bora bunkers or something. - Squire

Yep, they grow their bigots well!

[RnMomof7]

You do not understand the reasons for engaging in Catholic apologetics. The primary goal is to keep Catholics Catholic. And to get them to embrace the whole faith, not just the comfortable parts.

Next is to get Catholics back.

My own third goal is to convert Christians, both non-RCs and RCs themselves, back to the scriptural foundations regarding family planning, and thus turn back the tide of abortion and homosexual juggernaut, and get them to stop using abortifacient contraceptives. With committed Christians this is not difficult, as committed Christians are pro-life. And since barrier methods are Onanistic but also ineffective, the logical next step is NFP for those who have grave reason for not being providentialist.

That is our primary difference. The "goal " of most Biblical Protestants is to present the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to pray that people hear and respond and come to repentance, and a saving knowlege of Jesus Christ

Your concern is not their soul it is all about the doctrines of men.

Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

What you have not yet figured out my friend is that if one carries Christ in their heart it will be a joy not a burden to be obedient to God. No need for a lecture on abortion to one that is saved by the Blood of Christ. He carries all those laws in his heart.

As Jesus warned in Luke
11:39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

Your concern my friend is with the law and the outside of the cup..

Seed that had fallen on the thorns has been choked to death

[the_doc]

WOW! You're right.

proud2bRC, you need to notice what she is saying in her critique of your goals.

The fact that you have a following proves NOTHING.

[RnMomof7]

Hey why are you surprised?

I am right sometimes:>)))

[CCWoody]

But to tell the truth, I have enough self-affirmation from knowing that I am a son of God, a son of Mary, and a son of the Church of Jesus Christ -- Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. - Squire?

I see the false gospel has done it's damage! But to tell the truth, I have Spirit-witness that I am not illegitimate, but a son of God, washed by the Blood of the Lamb, and a part of the bride of Christ. I eagerly await His Promise!

[CCWoody]

That is our primary difference. The "goal " of most Biblical Protestants is to present the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to pray that people hear and respond and come to repentance, and a saving knowlege of Jesus Christ.

Sadly, I think you are talking right past him.

[the_doc]

Naw, I'm not surprised. (I used caps and bold-faced font and an exclamation mark just to catch the eyes of lurkers. I want them to watch us shooting the fish in this barrel.)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

As much as I like and respect OPie, as much as he has done to help illuminate certain concepts and scripture and the history of doctrine in various traditions, he is not my pope. I doubt you grasp this but OPie would undoubtedly consider himself to be a failure if I treated him like some sort of pope. I think that would worry him more than almost anything else a person could say.

Dittos, and Kudos.

[Sorry, OPie, but you did probably already suspect that you aren't a pope. Anyway, it's just as well or we'd have to start calling you 'pOPpie' instead. Still, it does have a certain ring to it...]

Eek!!

[RnMomof7]

On the other hand you two may call me "Sister Terry" *grin*

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

There was no slaughter of Squire in the debate,as you predicted. Until OP rebuts, it is all over, with Squire the victor. Perhaps #1429 meant nothing to you, "he's dead", but to me it was his piece de resistance.

Frankly, all that "Squire" accomplished in his #1429 was an attempt to shift the debate from Augustine (whom we had agreed to discuss) to Calvin -- whom I am happy to discuss in his place, but our wager was purely upon the subject of Augustine -- could Squire faithfully read Augustine, or not?

On that subject (the reading of Augustine, which was the matter wagered upon), #1429 only consolidated Squire's complete defeat. And I'll be happy to show that.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

My wife and I teach NFP as an alternative to Onanistic and abortifacient contraceptives. I'm actually doing something about Onanistic and abortifacient contraceptives, not just debating it on FR. What are you doing about it among your flock? OP, there is a fundamental difference between having sex during the fertile time and being onanistic, and having recourse to NFP. NFP is simply abstaining. It is morally neutral. It is not intrinsically evil. Onanism is acting yet foiling the purpose of the act. It is morally intrinsically evil. NFP is simply a bridge from Culture of Death contraception to the Culture of Life and ultimately providentialism. It is not a destination in and of itself. When I teach NFP I teach it too is sinful if used with a contraceptive mentality. It is morally neutral; the motive makes it morally licit or illicit.

To be honest, that's my view as well: "The motive makes it morally licit or illicit".

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. -- Genesis 38: 8-10

Now, you can tell me that the Sin in this case was the foiling of the act, but I don't know why I should accept your interpretation as being binding (I could just as well skip over NFP entirely and ask the counsel of my own Presbyter, who tends mildly towards strict Providentialism). I tend to agree with GWB: if God does not want the act to be foiled, neither NFP nor "barrier methods" will foil the act. Fertile periods can be extended by a providential "fluke", or barriers can fail.

Onan's motive is what I find morally repugnant... Onan was determined never to pro-create, never to raise up offspring to inherit his brother's estates (perhaps Onan was a little greedy for his own profit, mmm? A guess on my part...).

As such, I would consider the actions of both those couples who use NFP or barrier methodology to be Onanistic, if their intent is to never raise up children. Their motivation is exactly the same as Onan's, whether they are enagaging in "sacred abstinence" or wearing the Protestant Condom of Shame.

By contrast, I do not personally consider the actions of those couples who use either NFP or barrier methodology to be inherently Onanistic if their motivations should fall under one of your listed exceptions:

1)-The mother's life is literally in danger due to health reasons. I have a friend with severe Lupus, another with a form of cancer. These are perfect illustrations. 2)The mental health of the parents are in danger...literally they will have a nervous breakdown in they have another child. 3)Economic...the child will die from starvation if the parents have another (not a bigger house or Eddie Bauer Ford Explorer) 4)Persecution...the government will abort the child if you get pregnant 5)Mission work...parents may postpone pregnancy while doing mission work where pregnancy would seriously detract from their ability to fulfill their duties...for example married missionary doctors in Africa.

In all of these cases, the motivation of the contra-conceiving couples (for both couples are seeking the avoidance of conception) is not Onanistic at all: neither seeks to avoid childbearing as a matter of course, but only for a time and a season. And IMHO, "the motive makes it morally licit or illicit".

[RnMomof7]

OP I would agree in some measure with your list..however I will say that if it is God's design then God will be glorified in it regardless of the circumstances.

We could never "afford " a child..not one of them..yet each time the bread in the baskets was sufficient for "one more"

I view the health issues in a similar way.

I believe that God has a plan and that it is sinful to thwart that plan..that was Onan's,sin