Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome
CIC ^ | April 2008 | Bob DeWaay

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.


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; evangelicals; rome
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 1,381-1,394 next last
To: MarkBsnr
DARN you! Darn you to HECK!

(Sorry. I just can't he'p myself.)

1,281 posted on 05/19/2008 11:23:56 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (It would save us all a great deal of precious time if you'd just admit that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1279 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

***DARN you! Darn you to HECK!***

Why don’t I find a statue of Mary and start worshipping her and then I won’t be darned. I guess.


1,282 posted on 05/19/2008 12:27:19 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1281 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Mad Dawg

“Why don’t I find a statue of Mary and start worshipping her and then I won’t be darned. I guess.”

Or a stump of a tree or a stock of a tree (IP?); that’s what I have been told we Orthodoxers worship (I still have no idea whats that means) and we aren’t darned at all.


1,283 posted on 05/19/2008 2:20:43 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1282 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
...... And the pastor will give a kind of summation of our previous conversation about the "root" of the sin and ways to be on the lookout for it or to avoid it or whatnot. ......

Thanks for your testimony of how a confession can work. It all sounds good so far, and very Biblical. We should confess our sins to one another in addition to God, and it is good to seek the counsel of other Christians who can help us spiritually.

Then the priest will suggest a penance - a thing which is mischaracterized by many. It's not the price of a sin or its fine or whatever, not in practice. It's more like a pantomime of being willing to pay if I could but I can't AND a sort of therapy.

I've never heard it put that way before, so this sounds a lot more palatable. :) My view is that God personally takes care of the punishment/penance of sins against Him. So, I would see the penance of a man to be sort of "extra". However, that doesn't make it bad. If it helps to sanctify the person and act as a deterrent, then by all means it could be a great thing. As you describe it I don't have any problems at all.

And it bugs me that I can't remember the formula but it's along the lines of "God forgives the penitent and has given to His Church the authority to forgive sins, SO I absolve you ...".

And this would be at the heart of my beef, but otherwise I really don't see much downside. :)

As to forgiving in error, I would say there's an analogy to the unworthy reception of the Sacrament. A little tiny germ of contrition is all that's required, but if one is confessing adultery while at the same time planning to meet with his paramour later on that day - there is no absolution.

If I interpret this correctly, it would mean that no one is forgiven until GOD says he is forgiven. That would seem right and proper to me.

YOU simply MUST read the Divine Comedy. I strongly recommend Dorothy Sayers translation and READ the NOTES! (some of which were written by a kind of aunt/cousin by marriage of mine, Barbara Reynolds)

That's really cool to have that connection. ... We had to read Inferno in 9th grade. Unfortunately, I don't remember much and was probably too young to read it at the time. Being the different person I am now, it probably would be worth a look. Thanks for the advice.

So when I was in PT for a torn sub-acromial ligament (ow! keeping sheep has its hazards) I was delighted but not surprised that while we were all in pain and submitting to tortures from the therapists, we were all laughing and joking and happy, because we were all getting better!

I hear you. I've been through PT for a dislocated shoulder ..... TWICE! Not fun at all, but it was good to see improvement, etc. I suppose if I do wind up in purgatory someday I will be a little embarrassed, but glad to be there verses the alternative. :)

1,284 posted on 05/19/2008 5:21:28 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1245 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
If I interpret this correctly, it would mean that no one is forgiven until GOD says he is forgiven. That would seem right and proper to me.

Like the Hanes commercial? They don't say "Absolved" until I (thunder clap) say they're absolved.

To get all formal, by analogy, to Make a "Real" baptism, you gotta have a human type person, water, and a Trinitarian Formula.

To make a "Real" confession, the human type person has to bring "true contrition". Now, of course, as we grow, we see the horror of our sins more clearly. So we can reason backwards to say that our contrition in the early years is highly incomplete. But it's real. Sin numbs the moral sense as a rule, I think, and confuses the mind. So we can't "See" what we're confession so very well when we're young or otherwise immature.

But it's enough. A cold kind of deductive perception that, "Yeah, that was wrong and I guess when I think about it it show contempt for God and I wish I hadn't done it and, even though I bet I do it again, right now I sort of a little mean not to do it again," that seems to be enough.

But "I'm planning on doing it again in about three hours," that makes an invalid sacrament.

Sacramental theology is tricky. We use words and language that make it wound mechanical: Put this prayer in here, get that grace out there. But I think that's more because we're struggling to give an account than anything else. Even if the prayers are rattled off by a lukewarm priest with allergies, the actual texts (I'm thinking of Mass here) are requests. "Please God, do what you promised, please."

And while the movies have more fun with the "bad" and "hard" cases of refused absolution (I've never heard of an actual case -- even with the names changed to protect the seal) the ssacrament really is thought of and experienced, at least by some, those who have frequent recourse to it, as "pastoral".

Of course the good jokes depend on penance being thought of as "punishment". And in the early days, those boys gave penances! But I think the best that can be said about a lot of clergy 40+ years ago (from what I hear and read) is that they were pretty legalistic. And as you read in the Inferno people have tried to "game" confession. It doesn't work, sez Dante.

I think the POINT of the Inferno is not likely to be appreciated by a 9th grader. Sin is its own punishment. Every one in Dante's Hell just does more clearly what they did that got them there.

I'm just preparing to tackle the Paradiso in the new translation. My recollection is that it's pretty austere in parts, but a wonderful vision. I LOVE this poem!

1,285 posted on 05/19/2008 6:46:14 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (It would save us all a great deal of precious time if you'd just admit that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1284 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
I suppose if I do wind up in purgatory someday I will be a little embarrassed, but glad to be there verses the alternative. :)

I personally will weep for joy. We call the folks in Purgatory, "the holy souls". They're being made holy! Is that a deal or WHAT?

1,286 posted on 05/19/2008 6:50:07 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (It would save us all a great deal of precious time if you'd just admit that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1284 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
FK: "I just hope there are not large numbers who wind up confessing to no one, for that fear."

...... Seriously though, I hope to be at least so "converted" that I see clearly that the Love of God is important and the disapproval of some crotchety priest is not.

Yes, that would make sense as the view of a mature-in-the-faith-Catholic. I would pray that the vast majority of Catholics are mature in the faith. :) (I have no idea.)

But you've given me a good "intention", as we Papists say, and I will pray tomorrow at Mass for the gift of an increase of faith and courage for all those too ashamed to make use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

In that case I will LITERALLY join in that prayer. :) Putting aside "my beef", the whole thing seems like it's worthwhile. I can think of certain politicians who couldn't possibly have had a true confession in decades. I think our country might be in better shape now if they had. :)

1,287 posted on 05/19/2008 8:00:34 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1248 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
[***That is why Bibles are necessary, so people are damned to hell by the Roman Catholic false teaching.***]

Your Bible damns people to hell? Wow. Do you worship it too?

Actually, that should have read,

That is why Bibles are necessary, so people are not damned to hell by the false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Clear enough now?

1,288 posted on 05/19/2008 10:52:44 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1279 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
[***We were talking about Bibles. The people are suppose to check to see if what they are being told is correct (Acts 17:11).***]

No, you stated that the Church wanted control to keep the people in ignorance and darkness. The Church proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ in greater quantity and more frequently (a minimum of once per calendar day) than any Protestant church that I have ever observed.

And that has nothing to do with the fact that they historically have attempted to keep Bibles out of the hands of the average person.

Moreover, the 'Gospel' that your 'church' proclaims is a false one.

Acts 17:11 - These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so - refers to their reception of Paul and Silas and whether or not their preaching checked with the Old Testament. Remember that the NT was not yet written - presumably some early Pauline letters only - and therefore your conclusion is obviously wrong.

Yes, they were checking the Old Testament scriptures, to see if what Paul was saying was true or not.

So, my conclusion is entirely correct.

The principle is that even Apostles were to be judged by the Scriptures, New or Old Testament.

[ ***Actually many copies were made*** ]

How many? Estimated population of Italy, the British Isles, France, Iberia, Germany and Scandinavia was 55 million in 1300. A few hundred were made. How did that help the 54.9 million illiterates?

We were talking about England, and Wycliff.

Wycliff's teaching did effect Europe with the rise of Jan Hus and his own movement in Bohemia.

Whatever the amount produced, there was a strong demand for the truth of God's words in the peoples own language.

[ ***Did I say that Gutenberg didn’t print with offical approval? First, why should anyone have to print with anyone’s approval-a fact that doesn’t seem to bother you and your fellow Roman Catholics, all who claim to love American freedoms, freedoms that came from the Protestant Bible, not any Roman Catholic one.***]

You are the one claiming hat the Church wanted to keep everyone in ignorance and didn’t want people reading Bibles. Why would the Church push Gutenberg to publish Bibles if they didn’t want people to read them?

Because they still had control over the production of books.

They didn't realize that it was going to get out of control.

Why are you going on about freedoms? We want accuracy when it comes to the Word of God, not the freedom to publish any old crap that it occurs to one to publish. We have several editions such as the New Inclusive Translation which is the logical outcome of ‘freedom’.

And who is this 'we' and who is it that determines 'accuracy'?

If you don't like a version, you don't have to buy it.

But then again, you are not too concerned about actually reading a Bible, the daily readings at the Mass suffice.

But your hatred of freedom is very revealing.

[ ***Second, the only bigotry that is made clear is your obvious inability to read what is actually written and to twist it to make it fit your own preconceived views of truth.*** ]

2000 years of watching people try to put a new spin on the Good News of Jesus Christ all the time gives one a good perspective on things.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have the 'good news' of Jesus Christ, they put people under bondage to a tyrannical system of dead works, idols, mysticism and spiritual death.

No Roman Catholic can say with any certainly that if he would die in the next instant where he would be.

That is because no Roman Catholic is depending on the saving work of Christ to save him, but on the merits of the works of the flesh.

[ *** Remove the thin veneer of American values from you and most of the other Roman Catholics on these threads, and none of you would have any problem obeying Roman Catholics decrees attacking those same freedoms and using any means to do so.***]

In other words, you claim that freedom entails the right to print lies and call them truth; to twist meanings and call them real and to make up theology as you go along.

I think freedom entails the right to print lies so that truth can be printed as well.

What I don't think freedom means is having someone else determine for me what I should or should not read.

That is what the 1st Amendement of the Constitution represents, and it is the first thing that is suppressed in any nation controlled by Roman Catholicism-as your own views clearly attest to.

1,289 posted on 05/19/2008 11:13:05 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1278 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
[***So religious tyranny and secular tyranny both attack freedom-what a shock!***]

We are talking about God’s Truth here, not personal freedoms. Remember that Paul writes of himself as a slave to Christ.

Yes, because Paul was a servant to Christ, he was a free man.

This nations freedoms are built on those self-evident Biblical truths.

1,290 posted on 05/19/2008 11:18:38 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1276 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Do you have numbers on any of this?

Look it up.

The fact is that as fast as the Bibles were printed they were sold.

1,291 posted on 05/19/2008 11:27:58 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1274 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Well, the English tyranny had been Protestant for about 100 years at the time! ;-)

Actually no, King Henry broke with Rome in 1534. Tyndale was murdered just two years later.

1,292 posted on 05/19/2008 11:41:39 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1273 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
[That is why Bibles are necessary, so people are damned to hell by the Roman Catholic false teaching.]

Must be a typo in there somewhere. Did you mean to say "so many..." It's still a load of hooey, but at least it should have its own internal logic.

You are correct, it was poorly written.

It should have read, 'that is why Bibles are necessary, so people are NOT damned to hell by the false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.'

1,293 posted on 05/19/2008 11:44:42 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1271 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
[...it teaches a false gospel of faith plus works.]

Not possible, and logically absurd.

Exactly as the Bible teaches. (Eph.2:8-9)

1,294 posted on 05/19/2008 11:45:57 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1270 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
[And that is exactly why the Douay-Rheims was printed, to compete with the Geneva.]

Close. It was printed to provide an accurate alternative to all the garbage translations floating around at the time....Geneva's just one of them.

So, the fact is that the D-R was printed largely in response to the Protestant Bibles and not to give the people the word of God.

Actually, the early Douay is closer to the Geneva, then the modern garbage put out today.

It at least has 1Cor.1:18 correct, unlike modern versions, denying the Roman Catholic doctrine that salvation is a process and not an event.

1,295 posted on 05/19/2008 11:50:28 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1269 | View Replies]

To: maryz

“The fierceness and destructiveness of the opponents of Tyndale’s translation systematically followed up and destroyed the thousands of copies that had been widely sold through England and Scotland” (Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, pp. 247,48). This hatred of Tyndale’s Bible was so aggressive and thorough that though thousands of copies were printed (Simms says no less than 18,000 between 1525 and 1528), only ONE complete copy and ONE partial copy and ONE fragment and of the first edition are known to be in existence today. In 1527, Tyndale testified to the animosity that was being heaped upon him and his Bible by Catholic authorities in Britain: “In burning the New Testament, they did none other thing than I looked for; no more shall they do if they burn me also, if it be God’s will it shall so be. Nevertheless in translating the New Testament I did my duty and so do I now…”

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/williamtyndale.htm


1,296 posted on 05/19/2008 11:56:49 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1274 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Exactly as the Bible teaches. (Eph.2:8-9)

Eph.2:8-9 is not "the Bible," it is part of the Bible.

That passage concerns works of the law, and Paul is right: circumcision is not necessary for salvation; the uncircumcised gentiles of Ephesus are just as saved through Christ as the circumcised Jews.

1,297 posted on 05/20/2008 2:58:16 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1294 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
So, the fact is that the D-R was printed largely in response to the Protestant Bibles and not to give the people the word of God.

Absurd. Exploiting the new printing technology to print a Bible is a strange way indeed "not to give the people the word of God."

The D-R was printed, in part, to give the people the Word of God in an accurate translation, lest the garbage translations like Tyndale, Geneva, etc., hold sway.

1,298 posted on 05/20/2008 3:02:12 AM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1295 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Caution: Pious Rant Ahead. Fines Doubled in Work Zones

The question of the number of "mature" Catholics or mature any-Christian-denomination is one that troubles me.

I don't know what it's like in your tradition, but in the Episcopal Church as well as the RC, Christmas and Easter always bring out people who never come to services any other time. There's always a temptation to say, as one greets people at the door on the way out,"Oh! Nice to see you! Will I see you again in X months?" Or, "You know, We're open YEAR ROUND! We have services EVERY SUNDAY! It would be great to see you at one or two of them."

The inner life of clergy: NOT a pretty thing ...

Especially in Mississippi there was a church-going culture. I used to say that there seemed to be a tidal force which lifted people out of their beds on Sunday morning, got them dressed and prettied up, and deposited them in a pew, and many of them had no idea why they were there.

So, you scatter seeds and commend them to God. You remind yourself that God's love for these people does not vary with the depth of their spiritual insight or the frequency of their attendance at services; and that right up until he was knocked to the ground, Paul was not exactly playing team ball — not for OUR team anyway.

And people grow in such funny ways, advancing along this front while leaving that huge flank exposed, but then, years later, bringing up the rest of their assets all of a sudden.

My friend who hasn't been to confession since forever, is in many ways a very thoughtful and loving Christian. The smart money is on the proposition that there are some gaps in her insight and, well, other stuff. But she is in many ways an inspiration to me, and her children (all 8 of them!) rise up and call her blessed.

I think the majority of us enter Purgatory looking like an athlete who, say, did nothing but curls but never once did a press — huge biceps and atrophied triceps, powerful here and myasthenic there.

There is the added matter of psychological "differences". There are a lot of wounded people out there, a lot. I happen to know a number of people with "Character Trait/Personality Disorder" issues. When they're not actively beating up on me, I often wonder what are the traces and gifts of grace in souls so distressed. (When they ARE beating up on me, I mostly look for cover.) As a sort of related example, a guy who hauls his sorry and drunken behind to ninety AA meetings in ninety days MAY be exhibiting as great an internal act of the Holy Spirit as some saint who gives all she has for the poor, just as the paraplegic who crawls 10 feet may be showing as much determination as the athlete who runs a mile.

I had not been to many personal confession in the Episcopal Church, but I had been to some, before the day that the priest said, "Go in Peace, the Lord has put away all your sins." Leaving entirely to one side the question of sacramental validity, THAT was the day that I "heard" that it was MY sins that had been put away, that this was not a generic observation but one "with my name on it." I had studied and prayed and worshipped and even fasted, and it had never hit me that it was ME, as in MOI, that IHS died to save.

But I can't and won't say all that other stuff didn't prepare me for that moment. And after that moment I still had (and have) lots of growing to do. So yeah. there are immature Catholics, and a lot of them are probably "gaming" confession, and indeed gaming a lot of their life with Christ. But IHS is patient — and sneaky. I'll let Him handle them.

1,299 posted on 05/20/2008 5:12:49 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (It would save us all a great deal of precious time if you'd just admit that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1287 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Probably with the methods in use, they could manage printing one a day — if that.


1,300 posted on 05/20/2008 7:21:49 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1291 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,261-1,2801,281-1,3001,301-1,320 ... 1,381-1,394 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson