Posted on 04/18/2008 11:33:27 AM PDT by annalex
A Convert's Response
to Friends
From a letter by Robert E. Day
Though this issue is devoted to Mary, we thought it would be helpful to include this more general apologetics article written by a lay convert to his friends.
Dear Folks,
Because you are among several folks who are worried that we have fallen off the Christian cliff, I thought that this record of an interchange with Internet friends who had similar concerns might ease your anxiety about our salvation prospects. It is important to understand that we are not writing this to try to convert you, but to hopefully neutralize your prejudices so if any other friend converts, you can say "Gee Whiz, that is wonderful" as opposed to "You poor lost soul." Here is the interchange:
Friend: How can you join the Roman Catholic Church when the Pope has all that authority over you and what right has he to lead the Church anyhow?
Response: A marvelous question that many Evangelicals have and a critical question for the validity of the Catholic Church as the Church of Jesus Christ. To begin with, at Caesarea/Philippi at the rock above the source of the Jordan River and on which there was a statue of one of the Pagan Gods, Jesus Christ told Peter that, he, Peter was the rock, and on this rock, Jesus would build his Church as recorded in Mt:16, 18. Furthermore, Jesus gave him the Keys to the Kingdom, (vs.19), which is a reference back to Isaiah 22 referring to the office of Prime Minister. This essentially made Peter the first Vicar of Christ. In other words when the King gave the Keys to the Kingdom to the Prime Minister, it was meant to be for the office and to be handed on to the successors. Since then 262 Popes have succeeded Peter to this day. One more reference is helpful: at the end of the Book of John 21:17, Jesus, after asking Peter three times if he loved him, then told him to "feed my sheep".
Friend: Interesting, but where in the Bible is there evidence that Peter assumed his position as Prime Minister?
Response: Good question since we need to verify these claims either in the Bible or in the Church traditions. In the Book of Acts of the Apostles, Peter showed us that he was the Chief Apostle in several places: (1) In Ch. 1, Peter was in charge of filling the Office vacated by Judas; (2) after Pentecost in Ch. 2, it was Peter who explained the meaning of Pentecost to the people; (3) in Ch. 3 Peter healed the crippled beggar, then gave a long speech explaining the need to repent and believe; (4) in Ch. 4 Peter made the presentation to the Sanhedrin standing firm against their threats; (5) in Ch. 15 Peter led the first Jerusalem Council to settle a controversy when certain Jewish Christians demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised; and (6) in Ch. 10 Peter was given the vision by God to go to Cornelius and baptize him and his family. Peter went to Rome and with the help of Paul built the Christian body. It would take too long here for all of the references, but the first, second, third, fourth and later century fathers, in their writings, refer to Peter as the first Pope: i.e. Iraneous, Polycarp, Ignatius, Martyr, Origin, Augustine and others. Their letters are available for reading. (A good summary of these important references can be found in "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" (Queenship) by Butler, Dahlgren and Hess)
Friend: You exhausted me with that answer, and let’s suppose I reluctantly agree, but I plan to read the Church Fathers to verify your assertions because I have not been told about such proofs by my local pastor. But we still have problems: you people are not allowed to read the Bible.
Response: We hear that all the time and it persists from the old days when a) there were no Bibles to read, b) illiteracy prevailed, c) many printed Bibles contained both accidental and intentional misprints, and d) there was a fear that the same results would prevail as occurred in Protestantism. There are now estimated to be over 25,000 Christian denominations and groups in the world because of so many interpretations of the Bible. The Catholic Catechism, Article 3, clearly states that Catholics are encouraged to read and study the Bible. In fact, we had six different adult Bible Classes on the Acts of the Apostles at my Parish this fall and they will resume in the Spring.
Friend: I guess my sources have been incorrect or biased, certainly uninformed. But there is more. I understand that you Catholics have to try to work your way to heaven, and that is not Biblical according to my Bible. Also, you add tradition to your bag of tricks where we Evangelicals believe in salvation by Faith Alone and Bible Alone without the traditions of men.
Response: The cry of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Yet the Bible states nowhere that we are saved by faith alone or that the only source of Christianity is the Bible alone. So neither of these solas are in the Bible. In fact James 2:24 clearly states that we are NOT saved by faith alone but by faith and works. This is confirmed in many places including Galatians 5:6 "faith working by charity." Second Timothy 3:16 is the verse most often quoted by Evangelicals to prove Bible Alone, but the letters to Timothy had not even been written until near the end of Paul’s tenure, so his reference was to the Old Testament. Paul did not say that the Old Testament scriptures were the only source, only that they were inspired and profitable. As to tradition, Catholics do not believe in traditions of men but in Sacred Tradition. An example is the Trinity which is not in the Bible per se. In the early centuries there was no final collection of letters called the New Testament so Christian Truth had to be passed on by Tradition. It was by word of mouth as Paul says in II Thessalonians 2:15, "follow the TRADITIONS I have taught you." We learn a great deal about the Traditions of the Church from the early Fathers. You will discover this when you read their writings. And it is interesting to read the last Chapter, verse 25 of the Book of John, where he talks about the many things that are not written. If you believe what he says you might conclude that the Bible is not the only source of truth. There is one caution, though, about reading the writings of the early Church Fathers (some of whom were witnesses of the disciples, i.e. Polycarp was a friend of John). The great Anglican convert, Cardinal John Newman, warned that you cannot remain Protestant if you read and study the history of the Church.
Friend: Frankly I don’t like the idea of a central Church and Pope telling me what to do.
Response: In this day and age no one seems to like to yield to authority; they would rather do their own thing, or whatever feels good. But remember that the Church is the body of Christ. And as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope is speaking for him. The interpretations as reproduced in the Catechism and in Encyclicals that are presented to the faithful serve to provide a proper understanding of doctrine. The encyclicals usually are written and the councils called as a result of heretic challenges as a means of clarification of the Biblical, Traditional, and Church view. For example, the Council of Jerusalem followed the circumcision question and the Council of Trent followed the Reformation heresies.
Friend: You seem to have an answer for everything and frankly I am startled to learn of your responses. There are many more problems, however. You have all of these so-called Sacraments whereas we don’t have to be bothered with them. Why don’t you tell me why they are necessary?
Response: All right, let’s explore them one at a time starting with Baptism—including Infant Baptism, which is always good for a debate. You will note in the Book of Acts that early Christians were Baptized after they repented and received Jesus. In Ch 16 Paul baptized the jailer and his entire family, as did Peter with the household of Cornelius who was the first Gentile Christian. We can assume that there were children in the family, thus infants were undoubtedly baptized. John 3:5 says that a man (pardon the male chauvinism) must be born again of the water and the spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven. The Catholic belief, based on Bible exegesis and Tradition is that water baptism removes original sin through the mystical combination of the water and the spirit.
Friend: I’ve got you on that one, as even Catholics believe that they are sinners. How could they be considered sinners if original sin was removed at Baptism?
Response: The Catholic Church teaches that God leaves us with concupiscence, which is the ability to sin as we go through life, otherwise we would all be robots. The challenge for mankind is to fight diligently to overcome the sinful desires and temptations in order to gain our place in God’s kingdom. He gives us a free will to accept or reject his grace, and it is only through God’s grace that we have the power to resist. If we lead a sinful life, God punishes us by letting us go, and in so doing we become addicted to whatever sin we choose and can lose our salvation. He will always allow us back into his flock, but only if we repent and sin no more, e.g. the Prodigal Son.
Friend: You are a difficult person to back into a corner, but let’s explore some more of your Sacraments. I understand marriage and am upset that many of the Evangelicals do not consider it a sacred vow, or covenant, with God. In that respect I am Catholic already. And Confirmation makes sense to me also. But there is this problem with the Eucharist. I am convinced that it is symbolic and I cannot go along with the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood. At our Church, we have communion once a month or so, which should suffice for a symbolic gesture. I am sure you agree with that, right?
Response: Wrong....the Eucharist seems to be difficult for you Evangelicals probably because you do not study your Bible in all the key places where it is explained. It started back when Abraham went to the High Priest Melchizedek who gave him bread and wine. And it is present in the Passover feast, and certainly it is very clear at the Last Supper as described in the Gospels. You will note as you read the early Church Fathers that not only was infant baptism followed, but the Eucharist was also celebrated with a belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ. To understand this you must read John 6, the entire chapter, very slowly and prayerfully. You will note in vs 50 that Jesus refers to the bread that comes down from heaven after the ascension. This is to calm their fears of cannibalism. So it is heavenly bread and blood that he is referring to. Six times in the chapter he tells them to eat his flesh and drink his blood and note that all but the twelve walk away. He did not say, "Hey fellows I did not mean it literally, come on back." No, he let them go. Don’t you think if it were meant to be a symbolic gesture he would have stopped them? The Eucharist is the heart of the Mass and we believe that Jesus Christ is present with us in the consecrated bread and wine. Even Martin Luther believed in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Friend: I guess I’ll have to read and study John 6 to verify your assertions. Evangelicalism is a lot simpler: all I have to do is say the Sinner’s prayer and I’m given a non-revocable ticket to heaven; have faith and I will automatically do good works, but whether or not I do good works, it doesn’t matter, as my salvation is imputed, as RC Sproul claims. Now for another point that you brought up. You brought it up, so don’t blame me. I have been told that the Mass is a pagan ritual and certainly not Biblical.
Response: I would certainly like to know who you have been talking to, for they certainly were not talking about the Roman Catholic Church. I hate to burst your bubble but according to the Bible your sense of security is a false one. The Bible is very clear about justification and sanctification being a journey that can lead us to salvation but it is also clear that we must work hard through God’s grace in obedience to His will throughout our life. Can you imagine the God of the Bible accepting a dedicated sinner, although claiming to be Born Again, who is unrepentant, into his kingdom? Even Paul talks about how he struggles to do good and fails and has to keep trying. Why would he bother if he already had his ticket? Regarding the Mass, it is what makes Catholicism so beautiful. Nearly every word in the Mass is from the Bible, except the Homily. Not only do we read from the Old and New Testaments but we sing the Psalms, the Lord’s Prayer and we repeat the Nicene Creed. And as an aside, have you ever noticed near the end of the Creed "one (not 25,000) Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? As stated above, there is a continuous apostolic succession of 262 Popes up to our present John Paul II. And have you ever encountered such a Holy Man, and with the courage of a Lion? He even has the courage to fight off the militant feminists.
Friend: I must say that I am exhausted and bewildered as I have not been told any of what you have stated above; in fact, quite the opposite. But you will have to admit that you worship Mary. (Got you on that one I bet.) And why do you have all those statues?
Response: Again, you have a misconception of what Catholics believe. You must tell me who taught you all of these terrible untruths; I don’t blame you for thinking I fell off the cliff. The Catholic Church believes that Mary was ever virgin and the Mother of Jesus. As a Mother, she nurtured Jesus as a boy and was faithfully with him to the end. It is difficult for Catholics to understand why Protestant mothers would be troubled in honoring Mary, the greatest mother of them all who, as the second Eve, was obedient to the Lord, whereas Eve disobeyed God. As a loving Mother, she is asked to intercede for us when praying to Jesus. We know, as do you, that we must go to the Father through the Son per John 6 (vs. 30f). And Catholics certainly can pray to Jesus directly. But we do not hesitate to ask those who are close to Jesus to put in a good word. I would guess that this happens in every family when the children suspect that the father will say no, they go to the mother first. In fact, you, yourself will ask friends to pray for you or someone you know. How much greater is it to ask Mary, the Mother of Jesus, to intercede for us? We believe that the Catholic Church is a Covenant Family with God the Father, Jesus the Son, Mary our Mother and we His children. Regarding the statues, you will agree, I am certain, that they are beautiful reminders of our Lord and the Saints. I bet that you have family pictures in your house as a reminder of family and friends. (And what was that nativity scene I saw in front of your church last Christmas?)
Friend: You have given me food for thought/ After digesting this I’ll be back to ask more questions, as it is evident that I may have been misled. But I am not going to give in without a struggle and an in-depth study—right?
Response: Right—you must find out for yourself and not rely on the words of mere men like me. I urge you to read, study, and pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. You will find the Catholic faith to be a rich and deeply holy faith. And it has taken many hours of study of Catholic writings, early history, and the Bible, plus listening to the teachings on EWTN of people like Fr. Benedict Groeschel and other brilliant and well educated men, in addition to discussions with Catholic friends, to gather the meager understanding I’ve secured so far. May our Lord richly bless you in your struggles and study!
Robert, and his wife Sylvia are both converts to the Catholic Church.
You never quoted to me the Scripture that you said you were going to quote. What is it, if not from Luke? Please explain how what I said shows that I have only the "barest awareness of Catholic teaching on the matter".
Revelation 12 is certainly debatable, and I have studied it some, and the best exegesis I have seen from scholars is that the woman is Israel who brings forth the Messiah. The argument from the Catholic side (while perhaps not "nothing") that this is Mary doesn't hold water for too many reasons to go into here (but I can recommend a number of excellent commentaries - Baker Exegetical Commentary, "Revelation", by Grant R. Osborne is one of the best - you can check the Amazon reviews on it). Even should one accept the Catholic exegesis on Revelation 12, there is nothing in that to suggest that Mary should be prayed to, or can "intercede", etc.
"What Catholic sources have you availed yourself of?"
The Catechism. Also, I have read a lot of the early history of the church and writings of the early church fathers.
"You are familiar with the "New Eve" and "New Ark of the Covenant" teachings? My understanding is much of it comes from Irenieus (sp?) in the second century."
Yes, I am familiar with it, and I have no problem with it. Still, what does this have to do with praying to a person who is dead and now in the presence of the Lord? There is nothing in scripture that indicates the dead in Christ can do anything, are aware of anyone here on earth or what we're doing, or that they can "intercede" for anyone (or any other activity), except one offhand verse in Revelation that Catholic teaching extrapolates to a ridiculous level.
The verse is in Revleations (as I'm sure you know), the "elders" bringing the "prayers" to the throne of the Lord: from that one verse, Catholic teaching has extrapolated and invented a whole teaching about praying to saints and to Mary. It is, at least, the only thing I have ever heard John Martinoni(sp) or Scott Hahn or any other Catholic apologist ever be able to muster up to offer any evidence, scriptural or otherwise, for what is clearly an invented doctrine. It is, to say the least, a thin and hardly convincing argument on which to base an entire doctrine that borders, if not crosses, the line of idolatry.
Umm, I respect quite a number of Catholic teachers, theologians and scholars. But to suggest that Catholics are MUCH smarter is simply vainglory.
Let me quote you some names - if you're not familiar with them, go look them up on-line, better yet, check out their books. Catholics hardly have a lock on "SMART", because these gentlemen are some of the greatest scholars in the world, and generally recognized as such by even their liberal peers.
Craig A. Evans, Donald A. Carson, Darrel Bock, Daniel B. Wallace, Gary Habbermas, Craig Blomberg, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Bishop N.T. Wright.
Anyone of those gentlemen would give the best Catholic scholar a run for their money and then some. You don't find better scholars on the conservative side of things than Evans, Carson, Blomberg and Wright.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
AMEN! That is the way God intends for His will to be made known to His creation -- through the preaching of His word, received by the renewed mind and the new heart.
IMO any Protestant who would convert to Rome is somehow attracted to the outer appearances of things and not the inner truth. They are drawn to the colorful icons and pictures and wafts of incense and sounds of bells and the physical prostration of kneeling and the tactile sense of the Lord's Supper and the image of Mary smiling down on them and the rosary beads in their hands and the mnemonic sounds of the mass chanted over and over...
All very intoxicating. And none of it Scriptural. Instead of pointing to Christ risen, it all points to the creature's response on earth, and ignores the fact that we are spiritual beings made new in Christ who now, by God's grace alone, understand "spiritual things."
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." -- Philippians 3:3;7-21"For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh...
Excellent points quite emphatically true.
Thx.
AMEN!
While it's more than clear that there are dozens and dozens of RCC doctrines without any basis in Scripture, I know of no Christian doctrine that does not have Scriptural support.
That is the definition of doctrine -- God's teaching in Scripture by His holy word and will.
Protestants may differ on infant baptism as opposed to adult baptism, but both views have their foundation in Scripture. Our job is to weigh the Scriptures and see where the truth resides, not to ignore the Scriptures and look to men and magisteriums for our reason to believe.
You never agreed to the reasonableness of my offer. That is, refrain from gratuitous assertions if I could prove the BVM's unique status before God, and not just as the only woman to bear Christ, either.
Please explain how what I said shows that I have only the "barest awareness of Catholic teaching on the matter".
Frankly, because your entire approach to the question evinces Protestant presuppositions, not the least of which is the idea that only doctrine demonstrated in Scripture can be binding.
The argument from the Catholic side (while perhaps not "nothing") that this is Mary doesn't hold water for too many reasons to go into here
Why not let's try one, and see how we do?
Even should one accept the Catholic exegesis on Revelation 12, there is nothing in that to suggest that Mary should be prayed to, or can "intercede", etc.
Why don't we restrict ourselves to one bird per stone? I find many truths of the Bible seem to be designed to be seen but not seen, and heard but not heard.
Also, I have read a lot of the early history of the church and writings of the early church fathers.
Does that mean you have not studied a systematic Catholic defense of the Marian dogmas?
Still, what does this have to do with praying to a person who is dead and now in the presence of the Lord? There is nothing in scripture that indicates the dead in Christ can do anything, are aware of anyone here on earth or what we're doing, or that they can "intercede" for anyone (or any other activity)
Are you aware of anything in Scripture that *specifically* precludes the possibility?
except one offhand verse in Revelation that Catholic teaching extrapolates to a ridiculous level.
Do you know of any Catholics that cite this verse as a basis for their belief, or do they cite it as an hopeful accommidation to Protestant demands for Scriptural proof of every practice they disapprove?
And if in fact the true basis of the Catholic practice of praying to the BVM or saints is rooted in what Catholics refer to as Sacred Tradition, rather than Scripture, are you not misrepresenting the Catholic position and berating them for not meeting a standard they never accepted in the first place?
It is, at least, the only thing I have ever heard John Martinoni(sp) or Scott Hahn or any other Catholic apologist ever be able to muster up to offer any evidence, scriptural or otherwise, for what is clearly an invented doctrine.
Are you opposed to "developed" doctrine? And even if that doctrine were "invented" as you say, under what principle do you deny the Church the authority to invent it, anyway?
It is, to say the least, a thin and hardly convincing argument on which to base an entire doctrine that borders, if not crosses, the line of idolatry.
Let us assume for a moment that the Marian devotion is indeed, idolatry. What does that matter so long as Catholics accept the Gospel as defined by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4? Is organized, albeit optional, idolatry more heinous than the myriad varieties practiced by Protestants each and every day through prideful ignorance of the more subtle but equally deadly sins?
No, it's tongue in cheek humour ;o) Please note who I was addressing.
Have you ever read D.A.Carson's comments regarding Matt 16:18? Google them sometime.
Yes, I have, and this line is of particular importance:
"Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to mean anything but Peter."
Carson is hardly on the Catholic side, and he refers to the extremes with which Catholics interpret Jesus' words to Peter. In fact, I am in complete agreement with Carson and with the Catholic Church in regards to Jesus' referring to Peter as the rock, and not the very tortured extremes Evangelicals go to in denying that it is Peter that is the rock of which Jesus is speaking. I believe Jesus means Peter is the rock, just as Carson does. However I in no way extrapolate from that statement all that the Roman Church has arrogated to itself from that statement.
No more so than munching on heads of grain is "harvesting on the Sabbath."
...someone who says they will "...incur the wrath of Almighty God..." 1900 years after the fact, for not following an "assumption" is being rather elitist and hypocritical towards the very own words of the Father, through Jesus Christ Himself.
Not of necessity. The relevant question is "true or not."
And recognize, the man who denounces a prophet for presuming to speak for God is assuming the exact same authority, albeit in the negative, that the prophet claimed with his original proclaimation.
Really?
Now isn't it strange how Jesus Himself preached and expounded on the Scriptures for six or more hours to the disciples on the Emmaus road, but their eyes weren't openned to recognize him until the "breaking of the bread."
I won't bother to ask where that "definition" came from.
I don't know what you want me to agree to. But I am happy to hear what you have to say. Either say it, or let's just drop it.
"Frankly, because your entire approach to the question evinces Protestant presuppositions, not the least of which is the idea that only doctrine demonstrated in Scripture can be binding."
Only the doctrine demonstrated in Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I do not agree to the magisterium of the Church, or that it is infallible, or that it is always (notice, I don't say it can never be, just not always) of the Holy Spirit. Are you telling me that a Church that elected a Borgia as Pope, who had orgies in the Vatican, is infallible and always inspired by the Holy Spirit? Think again. In fact, I believe strongly that Martin Luther was God's judgment upon the Church for all of the evils, corruption, greed, and arrogance the Church descended into by the 1500's. The Church lost its way, and Martin Luther began the Reformation which returned Christ front and center, and punished the Church for its abandonment of its original mission. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
The argument from the Catholic side (while perhaps not "nothing") that this is Mary doesn't hold water for too many reasons to go into here.
Why not let's try one, and see how we do?
I gave you one of the primary arguments, that the woman in Revelation is not Mary but is Israel. The details of that argument are found in many good commentaries, specifically I mentioned Grant R. Osborne (you can look up his credentials, they're impeccable) and the Baker Exegetical Commentary. There are others. The primary argument is that this woman is not Mary but is Israel.
Also, I have read a lot of the early history of the church and writings of the early church fathers.
Does that mean you have not studied a systematic Catholic defense of the Marian dogmas?
I have read various things: the Catechism, the web pages on this issue from "Catholic Answers" (a good on-line Catholic apologetics resource), and various other items from Catholic web resources, as well as having listened to various Catholic apologists on EWTN radio, and such. Enough to get a detailed understanding of the doctrine and where and how they derived it, and what the standard apologetic arguments are for defending the doctrine. As to my opinion of the adequacy of their defense of the doctrine, well, I already gave you that.
Are you aware of anything in Scripture that *specifically* precludes the possibility?
This is an illogical argument. There's nothing in scripture to preclude me believing in elves or trolls, either, but I don't feel the need to make things up or try to derive arguments for things, when it comes to Jesus or my faith, simply because scripture doesn't preclude them. It's silly, to say the least, and a silly argument.
Are you opposed to "developed" doctrine? And even if that doctrine were "invented" as you say, under what principle do you deny the Church the authority to invent it, anyway?
The principle that I believe in the First Commandment.
Let us assume for a moment that the Marian devotion is indeed, idolatry. What does that matter so long as Catholics accept the Gospel as defined by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4? Is organized, albeit optional, idolatry more heinous than the myriad varieties practiced by Protestants each and every day through prideful ignorance of the more subtle but equally deadly sins?
What does it matter? Are you serious? How can you even ask such a question? Go to Exodus, find the Ten Commandments, read #1.
Yes, idolatry is more heinous. Idolatry is numero uno on God's list of commandments, and it's #1 for a reason. And this has nothing to do with the myriad other sins of Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox. We're not discussing any of that. Of course sin is sin and it's all equally ugly to God. Any Protestant denominations that are engaging in anything that is idolotrous (especially those that follow the Theology of Glory and the "Prosperity Gospel") are on the fast path to damnation and taking others with them. It's all wrong. But the worst possible thing one can do (it's a common liberal Democrat tactic, remember) is to say, "Well, maybe we are...but look at them, they do it too, see!". Come on, I respect you more than to believe you would resort to that kind of argument.
You said: ...their eyes weren’t openned to recognize him until the “breaking of the bread.”
Don’t confuse the matter by introducing real Truth, it interferes with the comfortable path of heresy.
Of course he's not, but that wasn't my point.
My point is Carson's explicit admission to widespread Protestant eisegesis (sp?) posing as exegesis.
That he tries to mitigate it is irrelevant to my point.
Christ said no, bless is he that hears/follows the Word.
Did not see anything about “harvesting on the Sabbath.”
But in the end it is what it is yet your figure head/tradition of man says otherwise 1900 years later.
Did not know Jesus said you soul rest on the fact that whether you believe or not who He “assumed” into heaven. I guess Paul/Peter/John forgot to mention that part, 1900 YEARS AFTER THE ASSUMED “TRUTH”.
In terms of salvation it's a MOOT point. In terms of truth it's 1900 years of idle speculation with the last 50+ a damnable offense. Get real.
God Bless.
Men's eyes are opened not by bread nor by words, but by the Holy Spirit at a time of God's choosing.
The bread and the words are instruments of grace. They are not the grace itself. And all who shun idolatry know the difference.
They are in error, of course. But they're free to do so.
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.