Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome

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.

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.

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 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?

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?

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).

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

I didn't think you'd agree with me right away, despite my new, non-Catholic tag-line.

Yeah, but that'd be too easy. Anything worth having is worth working for, ...... umm ...... except salvation of course. LOL! :)

And in these latter days, that some of us hand our sinful selves to Him and that He accepts and amends them is that aspect of His mediation which touches us most nearly in time and in our hearts. But, I think we would say, we are "in" Christ (and He in us.) And so we share or participate in His mediatory work.

Yes, what "in" entails is a difficult subject. There are notions of "along for the ride", "equal partners", "used as a tool but with benefits", "loyal subordinate deserving of individual credit", and others.

Clearly, at least on the surface, we participate. When I witness my mouth moves, hopefully good words come out, and God's work happens. I participate. I give myself no credit whatsoever since it would never occur to me to ever witness to anyone but for everything that God has done for me and IS doing through me now. Theologically, but not experientially, I consider myself a blessed observer.

If that's what "sharing" means, then all is well. :) However, my impression is that "sharing" in Apostolic thought involves shared credit since there are separate and distinct free wills in operation and cooperating together. I.e., good thing "A" would not have happened but for the free wills of a human and God being on the same page and agreeing to work together. In that case, both would be deserving of merit, even if grossly unequally.

Now, how does Mary fit in to my supposition? I see that Mary is venerated in part for her deeds, her "Yes". I also see that she has the unique titles of co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix. So, in light of sharing and HER free will, if she was free to say "No" to the angel, then she must be free to decline salvation (to not co-redeem) to an individual if she so chooses. This may very well NOT be what Catholicism teaches, and I am just trying to show the conclusions that can be drawn from what things look like. Millions of prayers and petitions are made to Mary every day. Presumably, she is free to decline them as God well does decline some (not to put them on the same level). To me, this would be an uncomfortable level of "sharing". :)

We are Baptized into Christ, and, at least for those of us who would claim some kind of "born again" experience, that incorporation has reached our consciousness, our hearts and wills, at least partially and fleetingly. So we, sometimes at least, will and assent to that incorporation.

Sure. We would say that happens at the moment of baptism by the Spirit, that is, belief, but the idea sounds the same.

[Re: Col. 1:24] ... what can figuratively be said to be "lacking" in the sufferings of Christ as far as each one of us is concerned, is OUR participation. This would be like saying, that only thing left to do with this morsel is eat it. All has been given, now all that's left is for us to receive it. (And even that is given, just as a good dancing partner can follow her partner's lead best when she stops trying to.)

I suppose that is plausible. We would say that after God has changed our hearts we freely come to Him. I can easily liken that to eating a morsel of food put in front of me (with instructions). :)

So it is not by my capacity or sanctity (since I have none of either but what I am given at each instant) that enables me to make up what is lacking or to unite my tears to Christ's Blood.

In principle I would fully agree with this. However, this leaves me confused about the idea of "wounded but not dead". My impression was that you all say that to leave room for some innate "capacity".

FK: "But I thought that much/most of Mary's "greatness" is attributed to her free will, no interference from God, ..."

HECK no! Theologically impossible even before we get to the all-sufficient sacrifice!

All I can say is that I have seen writings from the Fathers up to modern Catholics which exhort Mary to a high level of grandeur for her choice to say "Yes". For example, here is an excerpt from an article from last year: Pope: the Annunciation, Mary’s and the martyrs’ “Yes”

“The Annunciation is a humble, hidden event that no one saw or knew,” the Pope said, “except for Mary. But at the same time it is a decisive moment in the history of humanity. When the Virgin said ‘Yes’ to the Angel’s Annunciation, Jesus was conceived and with Him began a new era in history, which was eventually sanctioned by the ‘new and eternal covenant.”

“In fact,” the Pontiff said, “Mary’s Yes was the perfect reflection of that by Christ when he came into the world as one can read in the way the Letter to the Hebrews interprets Psalm 39: “Then I said, 'As is written of me in the scroll, Behold, I come to do your will, O God' (Heb 10: 7).”

The Son’s obedience mirrors that of the Mother and thus, thanks to the meeting of these two “Yes”, God was able to take a human form. Since it celebrates a central mystery of Christ, His incarnation, the Annunciation is also a Christological event.” (emphasis added)

According to PB XVI, how was God ABLE to take human form? In part, because of Mary's (presumably free will) "Yes". None of this means that God didn't equip her and help her, etc. But, she was the final "decider" on whether Jesus would come into the world, it seems. If she could have said "No", then I think Catholics perceive that she has earned merit, independently of God. Just my opinion. You can imagine how this passage "sounds" to us. :)

FK: "Since the Bible is silent on it, I'm not sure that we can or should expect anything in particular. Mary appears to behave as any honorable mother who truly loved her son would."

See I think we're allowed to use our heads (once and as long as we offer them to God, minute by minute.) A lady touches the hem of IHS garment (and that lady was probably NOT a sophisticated Calvinist theologian and no doubt her Christology was severely lacking) and is healed. Can we not reasonably think that His lips at her teats would be doing more than receiving?

That would depend on what we think makes the thing "active". Was Jesus' garment "active" just because it touched His skin? I would guess not since as He walked through crowds it is certain that many people touched His clothes without anything happening. Plus, we read nothing about some chair He built with Joseph having magical healing powers years later. From the story, I infer that the woman's faith is what made the garment "active" for her.

Now, the development of Mary's faith, as a Christian faith that we would recognize, is actually unclear to me. We are given little to work with in the Bible. One of the few examples we are given was when Jesus was 12 and teaching in the Temple courts. This was obviously at a "post-suckling" stage :), and she did not appear to demonstrate correct faith. So, I am unsure whether the "contact" you describe would have had supernatural effects. :)

George Allen, the politician, is from my part of VA and he rides in our 4th of July Parade (which wins the funkiest parade of all time award)

I LOVE George Allen. I was crushed when he got macacca'd out of his Senate seat. I would have supported him for president. I think that whole thing was totally unfair. That's cool that you got to meet him a couple of times. Any idea what he's doing now? I haven't heard anything.

So I kind of elevate them, and kind of think of them as, well, one of us. In their order, they are my superior. In mine they are my inferior. As children of God, we are brothers and only envy worries too much about who is 'Above" whom.

Well, I would of course agree that that's the way it should be ultimately. How then, do we describe Mary and the Saints (decent girl-band possibility)? I don't get any impression that Catholics have any envy towards them. Yet, I perceive that they are thought of as being "above" or elevated over the rest of us.

FK, MD spoke of the way we, meaning the Latins and the Orthodox, think about theology and theosis. It can never be said enough that if you observe how and what we pray you will see and understand, if not accept, what we believe. Here is a theotokion we Orthodox chant at every Divine Liturgy just after the Consecration of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ:

“It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim. Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify thee.”

Oddly, for my quote of the theotokion, which I thank you for, I don't know how to format "half lines" as you did. :) In any event, MD wound up his last post with this:

MD: "So I kind of elevate them, and kind of think of them as, well, one of us. In their order, they are my superior. In mine they are my inferior. As children of God, we are brothers and only envy worries too much about who is 'Above" whom."

So as a continuation of my response to MD, I fully agree that AS CHILDREN OF GOD we are brothers, etc. Why shouldn't we just call Mary "our sister in Christ"? She is a child of God too. I mean, I know she is special and different BECAUSE ..... But ULTIMATELY, in this context, should she (and the Saints) be "above" the rest of us?

As far as observing how and what you pray goes, I haven't the slightest doubt that the vast majority of us Protestants (who do so observe) get an impression that you would find in error. :) Now, in no way do I suggest that this is your all's fault, since it would be ridiculous for you to tailor your worship around what us outsiders think. :) I AM saying that it looks to me that perception is at least as much of the problem as substance is. I really like these types of conversations so I can explore where my perceptions "might" be wrong. :)

Having read that, FK, understand that we Orthodox and Latins see her womb as the throne of the universal, beginningless, Creator of all Creation, the Pantokrator and that her outspread arms, as depicted in so many of our icons, enfold all of us as truly her children. We love our mother, FK and in the words of a marvelous prayer, we are wont to flee to her as “poor banished children of Eve.”

I clearly still struggle with this "perception". :) One reason is that if God is our Father, and Mary is our mother, then they would be "co-parents". The Bible uses the parent-child analogy over and over again, presumably because God wanted us to understand it this way considering our limited abilities. Throwing Mary in as the mother really confuses things for me. I know no one is claiming or suggesting that Mary is equal with God, however, I think that God wants ME to think of both of my parents as being equal in that capacity.

So that doesn't seem to hold up as well. God as "Father" is authoritative, all powerful compared to us, wise, experienced, what He says goes, blah, blah, blah. That "fits". However, when my father wasn't around when I was growing up, my mother stepped into the role. In fact, she kicked my butt more often than my father did. IOW, their AUTHORITY was the same over me as I experienced it. So, I have trouble seeing Mary as a mother figure since we all know that the analogy doesn't really fit as most of us experienced our mothers and fathers.

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

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

It is what the Bible teaches since it states very clearly that works are not necessary for salvation

NOT of works, lest anyman should boast.(Eph.2:9).

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.

Both Jew and Gentile are saved by the same faith WITHOUT works.

[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) [6] And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: [7] That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. [11] Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; [12] That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: [13] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. [14] For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; [15] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Yeah, but that'd be too easy. Anything worth having is worth working for,

Actually this throw away line is important and plays tag with the next few paragraphs. One the one hand, we agree that everything is gift. But there is an experience, as you say, of participating, of working. If you knew how my stomach used to hurt before I preached and how drained I felt afterwards ... . I had worked, but there was never any thought but that it was God working in me. (And there's that pesky "in" again.) I don't know about you, but when I somehow seem to be involved with a "good deed" I mostly feel a kind of astonished relief. "Wow, I didn't mess it up!"

All I can say is that I have seen writings from the Fathers up to modern Catholics which exhort Mary to a high level of grandeur for her choice to say "Yes"I could be WAY off base here. But I STILL assert that her "Yes," her choice, was a gift. If I praise her, and I do, it is because she is a great locus of a mighty act of God, because through Her, as well as through other stuff, God "does" some of His loving of me.(That's what I was trying to say in the John Elway riff. He'd be a fool and we'd be fools to think that his muscles and reflexes and everything else that makes a good quarterback were something he earned. In what way did he "choose" to love football? And yet there is some "willing" or something very like "willing" in the drills and practice and exercise and study, etc. Anyway Elway is the locus of great football-related graces, and we admire him for that.)

We have to come to an understanding about the "She (or any of the redeemed) could have chosen otherwise" problem. I'm not sure how to proceed except that it occurs to me that I COULD choose to hit myself on the head with my 16oz Estwing hammer.

It is as though all our scheme of thinking, "First you do a good thing, then you 'deserve' or 'merit' a reward or compensation, and then you get the reward," is really an inadequate metaphor for what happens in "real life".

We share the "angels twisting our arms out of their sockets" experience. The angel was doing the work, but even then we had to decide not to resist, from climbing up on the cot or table to not slugging her (with our good arm) when she twisted so much that tears started in our eyes ....

Is all our "Cooperation" with grace a totally worthless illusion? I'm having an irreverent flash of the heroine in a bodice-ripper who, when embraced, swept away by the ripper of the bodice in question, says, "Yes, yes!" ecstatically (or so we are led to believe, I've never actually READ a bodice-ripper. I'm not even sure what a "bodice" is (Can I get one for the boss-lady at Victoria's Secret?!) I mention this not only for giggles but because at least to the writers of bodice-rippers some act of will in the rippee seems to be a necessary or crowning part of the whole experience.

But, she was the final "decider" on whether Jesus would come into the world, it seems.

Yeah. I think we can't think about this correctly within the human or phenomenological frame of reference. I WILL re-read the relevant parts of Aquinas and see if anything penetrates the cranial cavity. I want to say something like Mary's "Fiat" was the final (in that little exchange) act of grace, like God holding one of those mini blow torches over the creme brulee.

IS there a human will? Is the will in any way important. Does Divine grace make us automata, or lap-dogs, and if so, in what way? Or is will essential to being human. What does it mean to be "Free" is we cannot or do not choose?

Can God "direct" our wills — can we imagine or say this without imagining, since it seems unimaginable — without compromising our freedom?

You've already read ad nauseam all my metaphors and analogies in my effort to find a way to thread this needle between being mere automata and being so free that we really do things and earn merit sua sponte. Yes, there's the Biblical metaphor of being clay in God's hands. But won't we insist that that is a metaphor which incompletely conveys the truth? In GOD's eyes, we are LIKE clay, but are we really no different from clay?

Plus, we read nothing about some chair He built with Joseph having magical healing powers years later.I've read the markt research, and the sales of Preparation H in Nazareth of Galilee PLUMMETED between around 10 AD to around 50 AD. Just sayin'.

I think the woman's faith "catalyzed" the healing. And I suspect that Mary was all the more faithful.

Yet, I perceive that they are thought of as being "above" or elevated over the rest of us.

Honor students. We're ALL students.

Why shouldn't we just call Mary "our sister in Christ"?

Well, we Dominicans are always yapping about "NSPD" (noster sanctus pater Dominicus -- our holy father Dominic) so SOME of it is the lingo of love and appreciation. But in Mary's case, since we are "in" Jesus and since Jesus "gave" her to our "father" John the evangelist, there is more oomph in the direction of calling her" Mother".

As to perceptions by Protestants, First I think many individual RCs are probably superstitious, and more are sloppy in their speech. People of whatever persuasion often refer to images using "personal" language,"Look at this little statue I got." "Oh, she's lovely! Where did you get her?" This always gives me the heebie-jeebies, but at least some of the people who do it are perfectly sound theologically, and some have no theology and aren't Catholic. But this leaves a bad impression.

I know no one is claiming or suggesting that Mary is equal with God,

when the 'orrible brat child was old enough and we were talking about our relationship with God, I said, "Of course, I'm your father. But in another way, I'm your brother, because God is father to both of us." She laughed. She gets it now though.

To bring it back to merit and grace and freedom and will and all that: I am an irascible guy, to my shame. My impulse when somebody cuts me off in traffic or whatever is to show him my middle finger puppet and make various suggestions about the canine ancestry on his mother's side and so forth.

This is not good. Jesus died for that guy, and he may be having a really bad day or life or whatever. So sometime back I decided that whenever I got myself together after confronting death in the form of another motorist, I would pray for the ~~miserable SOB~~ poor unfortunate child of God.

Over time the impulse to show him the puppet has lessened in strength and frequency. The choice to "hold him in the light" becomes easier and less forced. This is not a 'linear function'. I have my good days and bad days.

But speaking 'after the flesh' I made a choice, I make it often, and it is becoming easier to make, and a leetle, teeny, tiny "work of mercy" is becoming almost a habit. I am less likely to take a header into the cesspool of rage. At the same time, I am becoming more aware of how anger and hatred and envy and competitiveness and a veritable swamp of nastiness are going on all the time in me and my thoughts are drowned out by the clamor of noxious peepers.

Simultaneously I see a little good choice leading to a little sort of kind of reward AND I see a bit more clearly how very true it is to say that I am depraved. "On the ground" or "in real time" I see both utter and persistent grace meeting bottomless and foul neediness AND I see a little "good deed" "meriting" a little "reward."

I give up> Who can understand this stuff?

***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. ***

Well at least you have the grace to admit preaching deficiencies in the general Protestant churches, I’ll give you that.

The Church’s efforts were to keep Scripture as pure and untainted as possible; the earliest English versions were Catholic and appeared nearly 500 years before Tyndale. Wyclif and Tyndale produced tainted and impure Bibles and therefore introduced or supported heresies that were suppressed hundreds of years before.

The Church preaches what Jesus taught and authorized us to preach. It is not for the proud, the stiff necked and the hubris ridden to create new spins as the opportunity arises.

***We were talking about England, and Wycliff. ***

5 million people, 4.99 million illiterates and a couple of hundred copies created over 25 years. What was the effect on literacy? Almost nil.

***Because they still had control over the production of books.

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

Your knowledge of history apparently equals your knowledge of the Church. The Church did not control the production of books. The thousands of monks who hand copied Bibles during the dark years contributed to the maintenance of knowledge and civilization. Your second statement is laughable at first and sophomoric to the end.

***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.***

God’s Word is now determined by the highest bidder or popular choice? No wonder you guys have tens of thousands of denominations all believing something different. The We is God’s Church and that is the institution that is authorized and the only one authorized to determine accuracy. The Canon of the Bible was determined by the Church.

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

If you guys would concentrate more on the truth than on lies, you might be better off, spiritually speaking. We have the truth; you reject it. It’s not too late, you know.

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

The true reason for popular support of the Reformation. Everyone wants to be their own Pope. You reject the Church and create your own.

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.

Yes, I fully agree. That is certainly how it has worked for me, and I still have a long way to go. :) I confess things now that were just blow offs several years ago.

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

Yes, that is what I would have expected. How does it work with public sins? I'm thinking of politicians, who, say, actively campaign for greater abortion rights or whatever. The priest would know that. Can he come in and confess OTHER things and be absolved, even if the priest knows he is still actively sinning without repentance? IOW, is a "partial" confession kosher if the other sins are known and obvious? I could understand a pass being given if a sin goes unconfessed because the person is not yet mature enough to understand it.

Of course the good jokes depend on penance being thought of as "punishment".

What is the correct way to think of penance as practiced in the Latin Church? I just realized I don't know how to answer that. :)

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.

No doubt, I barely remember it. :) I think I will put the whole thing on my reading list.

***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. *** ]

Well at least you have the grace to admit preaching deficiencies in the general Protestant churches, I’ll give you that.

There was no English translations of the Bible before Wycliff.

Wycliff was the 1st English translation of the entire Bible, not just small sections.

The Church preaches what Jesus taught and authorized us to preach. It is not for the proud, the stiff necked and the hubris ridden to create new spins as the opportunity arises.

The Roman Catholic Church preaches a false gospel of faith plus works and combines it with pagen traditions of Mary worship, rosary beads, thinking a piece of bread is God, Popery etc,

[ ***We were talking about England, and Wycliff. *** ]

5 million people, 4.99 million illiterates and a couple of hundred copies created over 25 years. What was the effect on literacy? Almost nil.

Actually, the thousands of Bibles that were created did a great deal to end illitarcy.

The more Bibles printed, the less illiterates, since people desired to learn to read the Bible.

No thanks to the Roman Catholic Church who attempted to keep them in darkness and blindness.

[ ***Because they still had control over the production of books. They didn’t realize that it was going to get out of control. *** ]

The Roman Catholic Church had a control of Books just like it had a control of everything involved with the Government, since it was a branch of the Government.

[ ***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.*** ]

Freedom of speech is determined by the freedom to publish without restraints from any tyrannical organization.

As for divisions, you should check out your own Roman Catholic organization that has all kind of divisions within it, those who disagree theolgically among themselves, priests who hold Marxist views, reject the Deity of Christ, etc.

The Roman Catholic Church did not have anything to do with the Canon.

Its Old Testament Canon is corrupt, having non-Canonical books in it and the New Testament was recognized by the real church before any corrupt religious organization got involved.

The Church Councils only acknowledged what the New Testament Canon was, it never created it.

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

If you guys would concentrate more on the truth than on lies, you might be better off, spiritually speaking. We have the truth; you reject it. It’s not too late, you know.

Freedom of speech means allowing those things that are untrue to be published, so that which is true can be as well.

Spiritually speaking, the Roman Catholic Church is as far away from the truth as heaven is from hell.

The true reason for popular support of the Reformation. Everyone wants to be their own Pope. You reject the Church and create your own.

What Christians believe is that the Pope is nothing more than a lying anti-Christ deceiving millions with the help of his father the devil (Jn.8:44)

There is still time for you to reject the RCC lies and receive the free gift of eternal salvation through faith in the Blood of Christ.(Rom.3:25).

If you don't, you will end up at the great White Throne Judgement with the rest of the Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, nuns who put their faith in an apostate, wicked organization instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.

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.