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.
Welcome to FR.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shuaIn the Hebrew, the Koine Greek word Ekklesia is haQhel HSN-6050
Which means assembly, congregation, called out ones.
fix tagline
English was not the default language of educated England after the Norman conquests until about 1350. French, Anglo-Norman and Latin were the languages of the literate instead.
Why would one create a translation into another language when anyone who could read the English could also read the extant Latin or French translations?
This only motive was to inject one’s own words into the text. This is why the vernaculars were usually the product of heretics, and were viewed with just suspicion by the authorities, both ecclesial and temporal.
The New Testament was not written in Hebrew, so why does the translation matter to anyone except Hebrew-speakers debating their own translation?
1,204 posted on May 14, 2008 11:01:23 AM MDT by Philo-Junius
It was purposfully mis-translated by those who murdered Tyndale When you look into the reason for the murder by strangling and burning at the stake Hundreds of years before the coming of Messiah,The purpose of the word study into the Koine Greek word: "ekklesia"
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
was to seek the scriptural meaning of the word as opposed to the
man-made meaning "Church of ...".
to mean the corporate authority of ...
of William Tyndale with the full support by both the "Church of Rome" and the
"Church of England" you find that Tyndale translated "ekklesia" into English as
congregation instead of the politically correct Church.
the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Koine Greek.
The same Koine Greek that the Ru'ach HaKodesh
breathed the words of the New Testament.
Scripture is very clear that we are to believe The Gospel having Faith in Jesus alone and that this is the works that God has laid out for us. All else will follow.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
AMEN, Wm! Sanity.
Old protestant argument ,Dear Friend. It means assembly.
It does NOT mean assemblies of various beliefs
These assemblies are VISABLE and ONE and they have always been united in the Eucharist believing that it is Truly Christ present Bodily
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’ Cyprian, On Unity, 6 (A.D. 251).
“No disagreement from Rome either, despite what others say of us.”
Then what’s with the confessional box and penance? Both apparently thought up by man, not God.
“It would appear that you and Catholicism are in accord.”
It would appear not as easy as you make it look. I don’t agree with the “confessional” or “penance”. I don’t need to confess to a priest or do penance. Christ’s forgiveness is all that one needs, that and not doing what was forgiven again.
The significance of sola scriptura arises from the historical fact that at the time of the Reformation, the official position of the Vatican was that the opinions of the magisterium, however ill-informed or even corrupt, took precedence over scripture itself. Luther confronted a church in which revealed truth was not based on scripture, but rather on whatever the pope at the time said it was.
The reason sola has failed in the present day is similar: those who are called to be keepers of the faith all too often rely no longer on scripture at all, but as the author illustrates, on drugstore paperback psychology, new age syncretism, and the most destructive, critical exegesis, which is intended to destroy faith altogether.
Evangelists and many other Christians are swimming the Tiber because their home churches' corporate headquarters and seminaries are filled with barnyard cocks, strutting and crowing and interfering with the flock's ability to hear the voice of the Shepherd.
Thanks for the information. I'm not as well studied on Tyndale as I should be. A little bit of research also showed that he changed "charity" to "love". I wonder why that was?
***Pity the Pope. He is, it seems from Protestant interpretation, possibly the only theological enquirer who cannot be guided infallibly by the Spirit.***
It would seem so. The various followers of Christ would only be able to be guided are those who repudiate the Church that Christ created and the Holy Spirit commissioned.
The Reformers have a lot to answer for before the Throne.
***No man is infallible except Christ.
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.***
Then why do you repudiate His perfect gift to us - His Church? I think that you are Judging Him; good luck in that.
Vernaculars- you mean Bibles the average person could read?
Those words were not interjected into the text, they represented words that the average person could understand.
Frankly,I really have no interest in the reasoning a tyrant, either religious or secular, uses to justify his actions.
And let me help you with the reason why it wasn't necessary, since they were being prohibited by the local authorities, as it was done in both France and in England.
Smoke and mirrors don't change facts.
3. FOR ROME TO CLAIM THAT IT “ONLY” FORBADE “UNAUTHORIZED” VERNACULAR BIBLES IS TO ADMIT ITS PRESUMPTION AND WICKEDNESS. The Council of Trent did allow reading of Scripture, but only after a license in writing was obtained from the proper ecclesiastical authority, a license which was given only in extremely rare cases. Even the Catholic clergy had to obtain a license from their bishops before they were allowed to read the Bible. Booksellers were forbidden to have Bibles in stock for sale under pain of severe punishment. This was a great wickedness. Rome does not have authority from God to forbid that people read the Bible or to require that men obtain her license before reading God’s Word. The Bible was given for all people, and the Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples to preach the Gospel unto all nations, to every creature.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/romedestroyed.htm
It means that in Greek also, so what is your point?
I agree, and I wasn't really really offended by the DI. I just took it as an attitude from the other side. I.e., OK, so they are separatists. That is perfectly fine if they believe that their Christian ways are the only true Christian ways. No problem. Perhaps why so many Protestants got upset is that many don't understand that the "ways" part of Christianity is so much more important to Catholicism.
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.
OK, I think I see. So IOW, a schismatic is one who really accepted the Catholic faith first, and then turned. According to PB XVI then, people like Luther would go into this group, but modern day Protestants who have ever only known Protestantism would not, necessarily. If that is a fair "IOW", then I'm not sure it's fair. :) If Luther, et al., as a boy was led to Christianity, then there was only one practical "official" choice at that time.
Plus, it wouldn't seem fair to anyone then or now who was raised as a Catholic without the real opportunity to choose. Totally out of my control, I COULD have been raised in a practicing Catholic home. That would make me a schismatic today, and presumably in worse shape than I am in now, as it turned out. :)
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.
That is all very true and understandable.
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).
I think "Separated Brethren" is a fair and accurate term which both sides can agree to without being insulting to either. I think that DI unnecessarily hurt that idea.
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.
And I believe you without giving it a second thought. I cannot say that the Pope shares your view in this by his document (IMO). He above most very learned theologians SHOULD know that to deny a Christian his church is to publicly deny his very faith in Christ. That's PERSONAL. :) I understand that he probably didn't mean it to be that cutting, but he HAD to know how Protestants would react. I still don't understand the NEED to put us down publicly. (Was there a scare that Protestants were converting Catholics in large numbers or something?) Why not just reiterate what Catholicism stands FOR?
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.
In 10 YEARS! Come on. :) Here is what I found in the Catechism:
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Now, have you EVER known of a person to go 10 years passing this test? :) I wouldn't even pretend to put myself on such a scale in terms of years, or even months, even weeks. And I'm a pretty decent guy! LOL! So, if even looking at a beautiful woman and just THINKING an unclean thought is adultery, then imagine what must count for bearing false witness. :) IOW, according to the Bible and the Catechism I don't see how anyone can go for this kind of time without what the Church calls grave sin.
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.
On the one in ten chance you'll get this: the Reformed way is more like the Ferengi way. :)
So she [a convert wanting to join the faith] went in [to confession] and came out, and she was all dazed and happy and said, "THAT is the, without a doubt, world's best weight-loss program!" Does that SOUND like a burden?
That's a great saying and it sounds like she is getting the message. Confession is always good, AND I can understand there being burden coming from shame. I think there should be confession and there should be shame. The mature Christian can put it all into perspective, and in one sense that makes it easier. However, in another sense it seems fit to him to confess things that don't even occur to us, so there's sort of a balance there. Ultimately, Jesus says that His burden for us is light and that He wants us to confess. So, I guess there is our answer. :)
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.
THIS is the critical point to my whole prior post. By your above, does God NOT tend to give graces if one confesses directly to Him? Does one really despise God's gifts by communing directly with Him? These things seem unimaginable to me. How could we possibly be better off going through a human to confess to God than doing so directly? I know that the Catholic Church does not frown on praying to God directly, so why would it frown on seeking forgiveness directly?
Just to review: I AM getting paid by the word, right?
If only from your lips to God's ears. I'd be a millionaire. :)
Amen.
Some of the Albigeneses missapplied doctrines that led to licentous behaviour (believing that since the soul and body were detached at the point of salvation, they could sin without affect on the soul)
Had they read Paul more closely they would have seen that grace is never an excuse to sin (Rom.6)
You are making the point, I believe, that there were legitimate Christian churches apart from Rome long prior to the Reformation. This is obviously true.
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.