Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome
The Abandonment of Sola Scriptura as a Formal Principle
By Bob DeWaay
The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today ran a cover story about evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to find beliefs and practices.1 What was shocking about the article was that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the editor, “While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time, it hasn’t been until recently that it’s become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good.”2 Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led by such persons as “Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and practicing monks and nuns,” that therefore, “they are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers.” This he claims shows that, “Christ is guiding the process.”3
Apparently, contemporary evangelicals have forgotten that sola scriptura (scripture alone) was the formal principle of the Reformation. Teachings and practices that could not be justified from Scripture were rejected on that principle. To endorse a trip back to these practices of ancient Roman Catholicism is to reject the principle of sola scriptura being the normative authority for the beliefs and practices of the church. In this article I will explore how modern evangelicalism has compromised the principle of sola scriptura and thus paved smoothly the road back to Rome.
New “Reformations” Compromise Sola Scriptura
Today at least three large movements within Protestantism claim to be new “reformations.” If we examine them closely we will find evidence that sola scriptura has been abandoned as a governing principle—if not formally, at least in practice. To have a new reformation requires the repudiation of the old Reformation. That in turn requires the repudiation of the formal principle of the Reformation. That’s where we’ll begin.
Robert Schuller and Rick Warren In 1982, Robert Schuller issued a call for a new Reformation with the publication of his book, Self Esteem: The New Reformation.4 Schuller issued this fervent call: “Without a new theological reformation, the Christian church as the authentic body of Christ may not survive.”5 He was apparently aware that his reformation was of a different type than the original: “Where the sixteenth-century Reformation returned our focus to sacred Scriptures as the only infallible rule for faith and practice, the new reformation will return our focus to the sacred right of every person to self-esteem! The fact is, the church will never succeed until it satisfies the human being’s hunger for self-value.”6 The problem is that Schuller based much of his self-esteem teaching on psychological theory and did not provide a rigorous Biblical defense of the idea. Thus his reformation was a de facto denial of the Reformation principle of Scripture alone.
For example, Schuller criticized the Reformation for a faulty doctrine of sin: “Reformation theology failed to make clear that the core of sin is a lack of self-esteem.”7 But Schuller does not discuss the many verses in the Bible that define sin. For example: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1John 3:4). It is not hard to see that Schuller’s reformation constituted the abandonment of sola scriptura as a formal principle.8
In one sense, since Schuller’s call for a reformation based on self-esteem was made 26 years ago, one could argue that it never happened. Of course the idea of self-esteem is still around and taught by many evangelicals, but it never became the one key idea of the church. In another sense, however, Schuller’s reformation was broadened and transferred to others. In 2005 Schuller claimed the following as noted alumni of his institute: Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, and Kirbyjon Caldwell. Bill Hybels himself credited Robert Schuller as a key person who influenced his ideas.9 Though Rick Warren disputes Schuller’s influence on his theology, he has carried forward Schuller’s idea of creating a church that meets people’s felt needs and thus attracts them.
But what interests us here is that Warren is now proposing yet another reformation:
And we've actually created what we call clinic-in-a-box, business-in-a-box, church-in-a-box, and we are using normal people, volunteers. When Jesus sent the disciples – this will be my last point – when Jesus sent the disciples into a village he said, “Find the man of peace.” And he said, “When you find the man of peace you start working with that person, and if they respond to you, you work with them. If they don't, you dust the dust off your shoes; you go to the next village.” Who's the man of peace in any village – or it might be a woman of peace – who has the most respect, they're open and they're influential? They don't have to be a Christian. In fact, they could be a Muslim, but they're open and they're influential and you work with them to attack the five giants. And that's going to bring the second Reformation.10
The problem is that solving the world’s five greatest problems as Warren defines them11 using anyone willing to help regardless of religion, cannot be justified on Biblical grounds. If sola scriptura were the formal principle in Warren’s theology, then he would provide vigorous, Biblical analysis using sound exegesis to ground his reformation on the authority of Scripture. But his teachings and public statements are not characterized by sound Biblical exegesis.
As I documented in my book on the Purpose Driven Movement, Warren’s reformation compromises sola scriptura in many significant ways.12These include the use of loose paraphrases that go so far as to change the meaning of various passages, the integration of unbiblical, human wisdom, serious misinterpretation of Scripture, and an unbiblical philosophy of ministry. Warren has an orthodox statement about the authority of Scripture on his church Web site. In fact, most evangelicals other than those who convert to Roman Catholicism do not overtly reject Scripture alone. But is it practiced?13
There is reason to believe that Warren’s reformation is the continuation of Schuller’s in a modified form. Warren has made finding one’s purpose the lynchpin of his teachings and practices. Finding purpose may not be identical to finding self esteem, but the idea is at least a first cousin. Also, both concepts derive their power from outside Scripture.
C. Peter Wagner
Another proposed reformation of the church is C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation. As I argued in a recent CIC article,14 Wagner sees the presence of apostles who speak authoritatively for God as the key to the church fulfilling her role in the world. He even speaks approvingly of the “apostles” of the Roman Catholic Church. Wagner and the thousands of apostles and prophets in his movement have shown as little regard for sola scriptura as any non Roman Catholic Christian group apart from the Quakers. So their reformation is a de facto repudiation of the Reformation. Their writings and messages show little or no concern for sound, systematic Biblical exegesis. If they were to adopt sola scriptura as a formal principle and rigorously use it to judge their own teachings and practices, their movement would immediately come to an end.
The Emergent Church
The third (if we count Warren’s reformation as a current replacement for Schuller’s) proposed reformation is that of the Emergent Church. In their case sola scriptura dies a thousand deaths. As we saw in the previous issue of CIC, Rob Bell denies it using the same arguments that Roman Catholics have used. The Emergent Church and its postmodern theology is noteworthy for being a non-Catholic version of Christianity that forthrightly assaults the type of use of the Bible that characterizes those who hold sola scriptura as the formal principle of their theology. The Emergent Church adherents reject systematic theology, and thus make using the principle impossible. For example, defending the doctrine of the Trinity using Scripture requires being systematic. I have read many Emergent/postmodern books as I write a new book, and each of them attacks systematic theology in some way.
The Emergent Reformation rests on the denial of the validity of foundationalism. Gone are the days when Christians debated the relative merits of evidential and presuppositional apologetics—debates based on the need for a foundation for one’s theology. Either one started with evidence for the authority of Scripture and then used the Bible as the foundation of one’s theology; or one presupposed the Bible as the inerrant foundation. But today both approaches are mocked for their supposed naïveté. To think that one can know what the Bible means in a non-relativistic way is considered a throwback to now dead “modernity.” The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is “we cannot know, we cannot know, we cannot know.” Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days.
So the Protestant (if the term even means anything today) world is characterized by reformations that have either rejected or compromised sola scriptura as the formal principle for their theology. No wonder few voices of concern are raised at Christianity Today’s proposed trip back to Rome to find beliefs and practices. Once sola scriptura has been rejected, there remain few reasons not to go back to Rome. If religious traditions can be considered normative, then why not embrace those with the longest history?
Dallas Willard Leads Us Back to Rome
The cover of the CT article reads, “Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church.” It shows a person with a shovel digging up a Catholic icon. What are these secrets? Besides icons, lectio divina and monasticism are mentioned. Dallas Willard, who is mentioned as a reliable guide for this process, has long directed Christians to monastic practices that he himself admits are not taught in the Bible.15 Willard pioneered the rejection of sola scriptura in practice on the grounds that churches following it are failures. He writes, “All pleasing and doctrinally sound schemes of Christian education, church growth, and spiritual renewal came around at last to this disappointing result. But whose fault was this failure?”16 The “failure,” according to Willard is that, “. . . the gospel preached and the instruction and example given these faithful ones simply do not do justice to the nature of human personality, as embodied, incarnate.”17 So what does this mean? It means that we have failed because our gospel had too little to do with our bodies.
The remedy for “failure” says Willard is to find practices in church history that are proven to work. But are these practices taught in the Bible? Willard admits that they are not by using an argument from silence, based on the phrase “exercise unto godliness” in 1Timothy 4:7. Here is Willard’s interpretation:
“Or [the possibility the phrase was imprecise] does it indicate a precise course of action he [Paul] understood in definite terms, carefully followed himself, and called others to share? Of course it was the latter. So obviously so, for him and the readers of his own day, that he would feel no need to write a book on the disciplines of the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind.”18
But what does this do to sola scriptura? It negates it. In Willard’s theology, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Biblical writers, forgot to inspire them to write about spiritual disciplines that all Christians need. If this is the case, then we need spiritual practices that were never prescribed in the Bible to obtain godliness.
Having determined the insufficiency of Scripture, Willard looks to human potential through tapping into spiritual powers: “It is the amazing extent of our ability to utilize power outside ourselves that we must consider when we ask what the human being is. The limits of our power to transcend ourselves utilizing powers not located in us—including of course, the spiritual—are yet to be fully known.”19 So evidently our spirituality is to be discovered by various means that are not revealed by God in the Bible.
If the Bible is insufficient in regard to the spiritual practices that we need in order to become sanctified, where do we find them? Here is Willard’s solution: “Practicing a range of activities that have proven track records across the centuries will keep us from erring.”20 This, of course leads us back to Rome. Catholic mystics spent centuries experimenting with spiritual practices without regard to the Biblical justification for such practices. If evangelicals are going to join them in rejecting Scripture alone, AGAIN they might as well not reinvent the wheel—go to the masters of mystical asceticism.
Willard admires the monastics and suggests that solitude is one of the most important disciplines. He says, “This factual priority of solitude is, I believe, a sound element in monastic asceticism. Locked into interaction with the human beings that make up our fallen world, it is all but impossible to grow in grace as one should.”21 If it is impossible to grow in grace without solitude, why are we not informed of this fact by the Biblical writers? In Willard’s mind sola scriptura is a false idea, so therefore God failed to reveal to us the most important way to grow in grace! Willard says that solitude is most important even while admitting that it is dangerous:
But solitude, like all the disciplines of the spirit, carries its risks. In solitude, we confront our own soul with its obscure forces and conflicts that escape our attention when we are interacting with others. Thus, [quoting Louis Bouyer] “Solitude is a terrible trial, for it serves to crack open and bust apart the shell of our superficial securities. It opens out to us the unknown abyss that we all carry within us . . . and discloses the fact that these abysses are haunted.”22
This danger was shown by the early desert fathers, some of whom came under demonic torment in their solitude. Before following people whose practices are dangerous and not prescribed in the Bible, wouldn’t we be better off sticking to the safe ground of revealed truth?
Spirituality for the Unconverted
The fact is that the various ancient practices of the Roman Catholic Church were and are not unique to Christianity. The meditative techniques that make people feel closer to God work for those who do not even know God. Thomas Merton (who is recommended by Dallas Willard) went to the East to find spiritual practices. They work just as well for those who do not know Christ, probably better. Many ancient Roman Catholic practices were invented at times when many illiterate pagans were ushered into the church, sometimes at the point of a sword. Those pagans were not exactly the type to search the Scriptures daily in order to find the things of God.
But why are literate American Christians running away from sola scriptura at a time when searching the Scriptures (especially using computer technology) has never been easier? On this point I am offering my opinion, but there is good evidence for it. I believe that the lack of gospel preaching has allowed churches to fill up with the unregenerate. The unregenerate are not like “newborn babes who long for the pure milk of the word” (1Peter 2:2). Those who have never received saving grace cannot grow by the means of grace. Those who are unconverted have not drawn near to God through the blood of Christ. But with mysticism, it is possible to feel near to God when one is far from Him. Furthermore, the unconverted have no means of sanctification because they do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ as their starting point and eternal standing. So they end up looking for man-made processes to engineer change through human works because they have nothing else.
Those who feel empty because of the “pragmatic promises of the church-growth movement” as the CT article calls them, may need something far more fundamental than ancient, Catholic, ascetic practices. They may very well need to repent and believe the gospel. Those who are born of the Spirit will find that this passage is true: “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2Peter 1:3).
Conclusion
Perhaps the best antidote to rejecting sola scriptura and going back to Rome would be a careful study of the Book of Hebrews. It describes a situation that is analogous to that which evangelicals face today. The Hebrew Christians were considering going back to temple Judaism. Their reasons can be discerned by the admonitions and warnings in Hebrews. The key problem for them was the tangibility of the temple system, and the invisibility of the Christian faith. Just about everything that was offered to them by Christianity was invisible: the High Priest in heaven, the tabernacle in heaven, the once for all shed blood, and the throne of grace. At the end of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews points out that they have come to something better than mount Sinai: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). All of these things are invisible.
But the life of faith does not require tangible visibility: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). The Roman Catholic Church has tangibility that is unmatched by the evangelical faith, just as temple Judaism had. Why have faith in the once-for-all shed blood of Christ that is unseen when you can have real blood (that of the animals for temple Judaism and the Eucharistic Christ of Catholicism)? Why have the scriptures of the Biblical apostles and prophets who are now in heaven when you can have a real, live apostle and his teaching Magisterium who can continue to speak for God? The similarities to the situation described in Hebrews are striking. Why have only the Scriptures and the other means of grace when the Roman Church has everything from icons to relics to cathedrals to holy water and so many other tangible religious articles and experiences?
I urge my fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting sola scriptura as the formal principle of our theology. If my Hebrews analogy is correct, such a rejection is tantamount to apostasy.
Issue 105 - March / April 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Notes
Chris Armstong, “The Future lies in the Past” in Christianity Today, February 2008. I wrote a critique of Armstrong’s article here: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3174/Bob_DeWaay Mark Galli, “Ancient-Future People” in Christianity Today February 2008, 7. Armstrong, 24. Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem The New Reformation, (Waco: Word, 1982). Ibid. 25. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 98. I wrote an article some years ago about Schuller’s self-esteem reformation: Robert Schuller, Your Church as a Fantastic Future, (Ventura: Regal Books, 1986) On pages 227, 228 Hybels testifies of Schuller’s influence. http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80 page 16. [Accessed 8/27/2005] The five are spiritual darkness, lack of servant leaders, poverty, disease, and ignorance. Bob DeWaay, Redefining Christianity—Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement, (21st Century Press: Springfield, MO, 2006). My claim is that sola scriptura no longer serves as the formal principle of their theology in practice. This is seen whenever important religious claims (such as the need for a reformation) are not accompanied by rigorous, systematic, Biblical exegesis on the topic at hand. I say that because by implication, Scripture alone means that beliefs and practices are normative if—and only if—they can be shown to be Biblical. Binding and loosing have to be in accordance with the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Warren’s practice belies his statement of faith.
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue103.htm I critique Dallas Willard’s theology as taught in his popular book The Spirit of the Disciplines in CIC Issue 91: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue91.htm Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, Understanding How God Changes Lives, (HarperCollins: New York, 1991). 18. Ibid. emphasis his. Ibid. 95. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 158. Ibid. 162. Ibid. 161.
Bookmark.
And similarly to folks not in communion with the See of Rome: We do share one Baptism and certain rock-bottom theological convictions and above all a confidence, given by grace that God saves through the merits of His son and by Grave through Faith. And we should praise God for that sharing and love another. BUT the differences are important and reconciliation will not be achieved by glossing over them. We can defer discussion of some of them or of some of their aspects while we "accentuate the positive", but we ought not to think they are not there.I think the reason for promulgating DI was in response to a lot of sort of, "Oh, what the hey," among Catholic thinkers. Catholic priests have actually told me they consider me a priest! I have not yet found a polite way to say,"If I AM a priest, then I am derelict in my duty. If the Anglican communion has the sacramental mojo to make me a priest, then I should get back to my station! If I thought I were a truly a priest, I would have been duty-bound to remain in the Episcopal Church." In the course of the right and proper "accentuating of the positive" I think BenXVI is saying let's not get swept away here. There's still a whole heap of stuff to be tunnelled through. I think it was needed, at least in parts of the US Catholic Church.
What I thought Papa Ben was saying was that the intention, the act of will, in becoming Lutheran or Calvinist or Anglican in the 16th century was of a different sort from the act of will involved in becoming or remaining ... when we have had 400+ years of division and when lots of good work and good piety (the hymns alone for crying out loud!) in these other bodies. It's now silly to call a Presbyterian a schismatic. It might in some incredibly formal and abstract sense be true, but it's silly.
We say, Sunday by Sunday, I believe (in) One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. So we can't abandon ONEness as a "mark" of he Church.
We also see the See of Rome and those whom we take to be the successors of Peter and Paul, as being sort of unitary - a uniting "pole" around which the metal filings of individual Xtians should orient themselves.
And we have a notion of God's guidance of the Church "into all truth" (albeit little by little and in no particular hurry) which differs materially from the more individualized interpretation of that thought in other groups. And that "guidance" has led us to a few more non-neogtiables about the Sacraments, Mary, and such. AND we think that we are, not by our merits but entirely by God's faithfulness to His promise, by Grace, right in these important matters.
So we simply cannot reasonably turn around and say that other outfits are "just as good". We can't both be right about Mary or about the Eucharist, and these are important matters. A brother Dominican, a young scholar, disagrees with me and says we do "need" Mary, by which I take him to mean "right thinking about Mary" for a fulness of understanding (or fullER understanding, at least) of the Gospel, of "how God works with men".
But again, there is clearly good and beautiful thought coming out of the "Separated Brethren" (where "separated" is not, in itself, a put-down but just a description of the status quo).
If/When we say Protestants "cannot have churches", I think we mean primarily there is only ONE Church, and it is manifested in varying degrees of "fullness".
If that causes offense, all I can say is nothing is further from my desire. (Okay, Hillary winning in November is further from my desire ....) "Here I stand, etc."
what is your view on what would happen if a Catholic REGULARLY decided to just pray directly to God by himself for the forgiveness of his sins? From the Catholic POV as I see it, one answer might be that it counts the same because the faith is there. Another answer might be that it doesn't count because it violates how the Church interprets scripture, and therefore faith, as the Church sees it, would be lacking.
Get the kindling and the marshmallows!
On the spot analysis: This Catholic needs to fish or cut bait. (I know a woman who hasn't been to confession in maybe 10 years but is otherwise very devout. I think she has issues about "personal space".) IF she is truly not aware of any grave sin, this is okay, but not great. (And my acquaintance says she thinks she is free of any grave sin) If she is aware of a grace Sin and wants to think of herself as a Catholic, she is rapidly losing the rational faculty. Fish or cut bait -- or, better, look into yourself to determine why your are doing neither. In our daily Mass readings we are now doing the Epistle of Straw. And right away James says that being double minded interferes with receiving gifts from God.
As to the Scriptural witness of the sufficiency of the Grace of God, I would say it's like this: There is indeed a banquet spread before us. But still one has to "arise and eat," as the angel said to Elijah. Now some of us will pick you up and carry you to a couch near the table, will cut up your meat and put a morsel on a fork and help you lie it to your lips, but at some point you have to open your mouth and chew and swallow. Only the very sick and dying will tolerate being fed through an NG or alimentary tube for long.
Or: I work out. My muscles grow (or in my decrepitude, do not disappear quite so rapidly as they would otherwise.) I know that the growth of muscle is not my doing. I even know that the fact that I chose to get of my sorry behind and go to the gym is not my doing. Yet, I underwent an experience which most of us call "work" and "free choice" and that following that repeated experience, I found that my muscles were, well, not quite so pathetic as they had been.
Another way: YES, I think that, in essence, unquestionably God calls even such as YOU (no, really!) to grace, and HE grants the capacity and desire to respond to that call, and so we see the vile, wormish (and that's an undeserved insult to worms) character of ourselves when left to ourselves, and, like a little girl holding a broken doll up to her father, we hold ourselves up to God and say,"Papa fix?" And fixing is what He does, praise Him for His mercies endure forever!
Oh Darn, this is so many words and so little to the purpose. You present, as many do, sacramental confession as a burden. Last year I sponsored a convert, and before we let adults in they have to make a a confession. This was a 50 year old lady, so she as wondering if she could do it in sessions, with tea-breaks.
She was pretty anxious, and asked me if I would come and be with here while she waited for her appointment (This was not done in a "Telephone booth" but in Fr. Brian's comfortable office.) I said, "Of course I'll be there. Somebody has to help pull you off the ceiling afterwards."
So she went in and came out, and she was all dazed and happy and aid,"THAT is the, without a doubt, world's best weight-loss program!"
Does that SOUND like a burden? I guess it looks like "you HAVE to go to sacramental confession," but from MY POV it's, "Wow, every couple of weeks I GET to go to sacramental confession!"
So, to bring this blather to an unsatisfactory conclusion, The problem your hypothetical person has is that she needlessly deprives herself of a great gift which confirms our faith and seems to give graces to act more out of a certainty of God's love and good will than a sense of guilt and fear. She should know better, and if she has had good catechesis, then she is guilty of despising God's gifts, of treading pearls underfoot.
Just to review: I AM getting paid by the word, right?
Ping.
“you HAVE to go to sacramental confession,”
Says who?
Time after time we are told in Scripture to ask for forgiveness for our sins directly from Christ alone.
All this distraction by the RCC that we are to ask each other for forgiveness is misdirection.
If we have wronged someone, of course we ask for their forgiveness for our unChristian behaviour.
But as for forgiving our actual sins which would otherwise condemn us to hell, Christ alone is the only propitiation.
The confessional booth is just one more tether the RCC ties to its congregants in order for them to believe (wrongly) that the intercession of the magisterium is required for their salvation.
One God. One mediator. One payment for our sins, Christ on the cross.
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors..." -- Matthew 6:6-12"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Of course, the RCC gets around Christ's words by saying that members of their priestcraft are "another Christ" so everything is kosher.
lol. As if.
And yet “whose sins you forgive are forgiven; whose sins you hold bound are bound.”
So God did (and by Catholic thinking about apostolic succession still does) note whether or not one has confessed to others.
The correct spelling is "Sez". Do I have to explain EVerything? Sheesh!
Sez me and my Sig p239 in 357 Sig. Next question?
(Sorry that's my Sicilian Catholic coming out. ....)
A "precept of the Church" is that IF you are conscious of grave sin you should go to confession at least once a year and receive Holy Communion (which by our take on things means "taking care" of a grave sin by, guess what, going to confession and being truly contrite and all that) at least once a year, AND if it's only once a year that should be during the 50 days between Easter and Pentecost.
But please note the general direction of the end of my interminable post, to wit: it's like saying, "If you want to taste sweetness, we are going cruelly to require you to eat this marzipan." To those with disordered senses, that seems like a "work". To those of us who know how good marzipan is, it's a grace.
“To those with disordered senses, that seems like a “work”. To those of us who know how good marzipan is, it’s a grace.”
No, it sounds like a totally unnecessary step. We, by scripture, need no other go between but Christ. I don’t need a priest to tell me I’ve done wrong and to do “penance” for it. I have the discernment to figure that out on my own through prayer and study of scripture. I’ve seen way too many “good” Catholics use and abuse the system.
*** I don’t need a priest to tell me I’ve done wrong and to do “penance” for it. I have the discernment to figure that out on my own through prayer and study of scripture.***
The same discernment that has given the rise to hundreds of thousands of different Protestant theologies?
And no man ends up with all the answers. Christ doesn't expect us to be perfect.
Christ is perfect for us. That's the point the RCC misses.
AMEN!
If Catholics would only return to the Bible they could see for themselves Rome's anti-Scriptural doctrines, if God so wills.
Why would Henry, an enemy of the Church, carry out its bidding on Tyndale?
Persecutions Begin in England A letter to King Henry VIII dated December 2, 1525, from the man who later became Archbishop of York, shows the attitude typical of Roman Catholic authorities of that day toward vernacular Bibles: "All our forefathers, governors of the Church of England, hath with all diligence forbade and eschewed publication of English Bibles, as appeareth in Constitutions Provincial of the Church of England" (Hoare, Our English Bible, 1901, p. 144). It must be recalled that the Church of England was a part of the Catholic church until the break in 1534, and Henry himself was never Protestant in doctrine. "Henry continued to defend the principal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, required all people in England and Wales to adhere to the Roman creed, and was quite willing to put to death men and women who opposed his will by embracing Protestant doctrine" (Houghton, Sketches from Church History, p. 113).
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/williamtyndale.htm
Henry Breaks with Pope; Persecutions Continue
On March 26, 1534, the English Parliament renounced all dependence upon the “Court of Rome.” The long expected break with the pope was finally made, though King Henry VIII never turned from Catholic doctrine. After this, the persecutions continued and even increased, but they changed character somewhat. Before the watchword was heresy. Now it was treason. Before the trouble was mainly poured out upon Bible believing Christians and possessors of the English Scriptures. Now it was poured out upon anyone, whether Protestant or Catholic or whatever, who opposed Henry’s actions.
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/williamtyndale.htm
No, you are not correct, the Roman Catholic authorities were intent on keeping vernacular Bibles out of the hands of the common people.
Some have downplayed the significance of this ugly history, claiming that Rome only forbade “unauthorized” vernacular versions, not all vernacular versions. This is one of those half truths which is used to hide the truth, for to state the case in such terms is to miss the truth of this history entirely. Note the following facts:
1. THE COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE (1229) AND THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA (1234) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. NO EXCEPTIONS WERE MENTIONED. The Council of Toulouse used these words: “We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue” (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, 1821, p. 213). The declarations of these formal Roman Catholic councils held power for centuries thereafter and were repeatedly cited as authoritative by subsequent popes and councils. In fact, these declarations have never been rescinded.
2. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DID NOT GIVE THE PEOPLE BIBLES. To argue that the Roman Catholic Church forbade only unauthorized vernacular versions is to argue a technicality which has no meaning in reality. Some odd exception which might have existed at some particular place in some point in history does not change this rule. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church did not labor to give people the Bible, and wherever Rome held power, the people did not have ready access to the Scriptures. THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE. Consider the very important ENGLISH tongue. The Roman Catholic Church did not produce a Bible in English until 1582, fully two centuries after Wycliffe made the first English Bible, and more than a half century after Tyndale made his masterpiece for the English-speaking world. Rome had done everything in its power to destroy the Wycliffe and Tyndale English Scriptures. Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and burned by Catholic authorities, and Tyndale was burned at the stake. Even after Rome finally did produce an English Bible (the Rheims-Douai), it was not widely published and made available to the people. The New Testament was reprinted by Catholics ONLY THREE TIMES and the Douai Old Testament, ONLY ONCE, between 1582 and 1750—A PERIOD OF 168 YEARS.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/romedestroyed.htm
Christ is who Catholics recieve forgiveness from as well.
I don’t need a priest to tell me I’ve done wrong and to do “penance” for it.
Nor do Catholics. It is not the priest that tells someone he has done wrong. It is the penitent condemning himself as having done wrong.
I have the discernment to figure that out on my own through prayer and study of scripture.
As do Catholics. An examination of conscience is made, using scripture as a guide.
It would appear that you and Catholicism are in accord.
We begin to scratch the dishonesty of this post by noting that the councils noted, of Toulouse and Tarragona, were not ecumenical councils binding on the whole church, but only regional councils, called during times of upheaval due to heretics. They were not binding outside of southern France and northern Spain; they had no effect on the translations of the Bible into English.
I’ll post more fully on the pre-Wyclif translations of the Bible later...
If Catholics would only return to the Bible they could see for themselves Rome's anti-Scriptural doctrines, if God so wills.
Catholics never left the bible, so returning isn't an issue. Rome doesn't have any anti-scriptural doctrines. Apparently God wills a billion souls to adhere to the doctrines of the RCC. Why is it you oppose His will?
During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteen century, there were also issued prohibitions against various kinds of superstition writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period also, the first decrees about the reading of various translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigensians. What these decrees (e.g., of the synod of Toulouse in 1129, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible-reading in the vernacular.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm
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.