Posted on 06/23/2008 11:51:24 AM PDT by Sopater
>> There are some whose purpose here seems to be repeated posting of falsehoods about the Catholic Church
And let us not forget those who frivolously declare that Protestantism is based on a shallow theology that lacks the depth of Catholicism.
There’s enough intolerable sniping from both sides to go around on this one. Obnoxiousness knows no specific creed on FR.
H
“Inferior” is a matter of opinion.
Okay, it gets thorny here. But, you're right - I misspoke. The USCCB said that. I'm going to have a post below this responding to another post directed at me regarding teaching authority, etc. so please take a gander at that.
I wasn’t the one who made the sweeping generalization to a shallow Protestant theology. I wasn’t the one who initially lumped Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. together into one shallow bunch. I simply accepted your premise that Protestants could be viewed as a single unit.
I actually double-checked my original comment before posting to ensure I didn't call all Protestant theology shallow. I said "some branches" - the top-level "Protestant" label applies to Christians who left Rome and rejected her authority. I still maintain Rick Warren theology is shallow. I wouldn't make such a statement about Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism. I think they are flawed theologies, but certainly not shallow.
Also, at first glance, I mistook your post and thought it was one of the "Catholicism really teaches X, but you claim it teaches Y" varieties. As such, although I told H above I would discuss the Magisterium in response to you, but clearly such a discussion would not be relevant.
Christian first, of course, but you know what I mean, because you said that He is sought and found and saves as He directs. Succinctly and well put.
Then they are in DEEEP Do-Do !!!!!!!!!
Jesus said:
Jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.So, you see, you may think that you are choosing a way that leads to Christ, but you are mistaken. You don't get to choose.
It looks like there are a lot of people who are in for the shock of all eternity on the day they face the One Who died for them and the only One Who has the authority to give them entrance to Heaven.
RE: “I don’t understand why the two can’t just coexist”
If the pope renounces the “anathemas” from Trent and starts teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone we might get somewhere.
Well said.
Yes, but I try not to be too dogmatic about it. (That gets hard around Romans 9)
:-)
And there are some here that clearly resemble the arrogance remark. Look, we’ve had this conversation before and I don’t appreciate it when someone tells I am going to hell because I don’t bow to the Pope and the Catholic “traditions”. That is the arrogance I am talking about. I was trying to be reconcilatory with my prior post (which was not even addressed to you), while you, on the other hand, consistently start flame wars on the subject of Protestants vs. Catholics just like you are trying to do right now. Therefore, I am not interested in anything you have to say. Goodbye.
>> Beliefs are not the same as theology.
Princeton’s University’s Wordnet defines “Theology”, in this particular context, as “a particular system or school of religious beliefs and teachings.”
So — you’re not criticizing the beliefs, because you don’t know the beliefs. You’re just criticizing the “system of beliefs.” Still semantics.
>> Argue with me, tell me why the Rick Warren theology isn’t shallow - I never once commented on your belief.
I haven’t read Rick Warren. And, generally speaking, I do not debate theology. There are far more qualified people than I to take up the Protestant cause.
I do, however, dispute the fact that Rick Warren’s book is a representative sample of the complexity within Protestant theology. Rick Warren delivered ONE of THOUSANDS of possible messages which define Protestant theology. Some of those messages are lighthearted and hopeful, some are fire and brimstone. Some are simplistic and general, some are very complex and very specific. Some are for new believers just coming to Christ, some are for seasoned veterans of the faith.
Ultimately, Rick Warren wrote a self-help book from a Christian perspective. How to better your life through a relationship with Christ. I don’t begrudge him, or his fans, that message — it is a good message, a Biblically sound message, and a message that many probably need to hear. That Warren didn’t take on the tough issues in that particular book doesn’t mean the theology avoids those issues — it means only that believers will have to consult a different book for the fire and brimstone. Whether Rick Warren is simplistic or not (again, I haven’t read him), a single book — no matter how popular — is not a reasonable measure of the complexity of an entire faith system.
>> And clearly, if it is on the NYT bestsellers list, and the people reading it are not Catholic or Orthodox, then it is Protestant theology.
Lots of Christians read Tom Clancy, too. That doesn’t make his books defining of their theology. Lots of Protestants LOVE Dr. Laura Schlessinger — a Jewish woman with many useful things to say about improving your life through good choices and living morally. Lots like Dr. Phil. Lots love Ann Coulter. I’m sure one or two have read Andrea Dworkin.
You’ve chosen one book out of thousands, and declared it the defining book of Protestant theology. It simply isn’t your place to decide what books do and do not define a theology that isn’t your own.
H
>> “Inferior” is a matter of opinion.
I haven’t the foggiest clue what you’re talking about. I don’t recall using the word “inferior” in any of my posts.
H
If someone actually told you that, they're not speaking accurately about Catholicism.
...you, on the other hand, consistently start flame wars on the subject of Protestants vs. Catholics just like you are trying to do right now.
Personal attacks, attributing motives and mind reading are prohibited on the Religion Forum.
>> I still maintain Rick Warren theology is shallow.
And I still maintain that Rick Warren is not the Protestant version of the Pope. I don’t know if Rick Warren is shallow or not — I simply object to Protestantism being defined by a single book by Rick Warren.
H
My apologies. I crossed your post with another.
“Shallow” is a matter of opinion.
But the salient fact is that while God may reveal different parts about Himself to people at different times in their lives, those parts that God reveals about Himself are always the same parts making up the unified whole of God which is consistent, specific and unchanging.
God does not contradict Himself. Hopefully, by God's grace alone, our understanding of Him grows every day. But what is true about God today is still true tomorrow and always.
C.S. Lewis is a mixed bag. I think he misses the mark with his fable. God is unchanging.
There is only one name under heaven by which men can be saved, Jesus Christ. God brings men to Christ along various out-croppings of the one path to Christ. Hopefully, we are brought to Him staying as close to that one, true path as possible.
Surely, just as waters boil up from a vast, full spring, so does an immense crowd of gods flow forth from the human mind, while each one, in wandering about with too much license, wrongly invents this or that about God himself. However, it is not necessary here to draw up a list of the superstitions with which the world has been entangled because there would be no end to it, and so without a word of them it is sufficiently clear from so many corruptions how horrible is the blindness of the human mind. I pass over the rude and untutored crowd. But among the philosophers who have tried with reason and learning to penetrate into heaven, how shameful is the diversity! As each was furnished with higher wit, graced with art and knowledge, so did he seem to camouflage his utterances; yet if you look more closely upon all these, you will find them all to be fleeting unreality’s. The Stoics thought themselves very clear when they said that one could elicit from all parts of nature various names for God, yet without on this account destroying the unity of God - as if, indeed, we were not already more than prone to vanity, without being drawn farther and more violently into error by the multiplicity of gods foisted upon us! Even mystic theology of the Egyptian shows all have sedulously brooded upon this so as not to appear to rave without reason And perchance even at first glance something that seemed probable would deceive the simple and careless; but no mortal ever contrived anything that did not basely corrupt religion." -- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Book I, Chapter V, Section 12 "Hence arises that boundless filthy mire of error wherewith the whole earth was filled and covered. For each man’s mind is like a labyrinth, so it is no wonder that individual nations were drawn aside into various falsehoods; and not only this - but individual men, almost, had their own gods. For as rashness a single person has ever been found who did not fashion for himself an idol or specter in place of God.
LOL....I think that's (part of) Lewis's point....GOD does not change, regardless of the name by which mankind refers to HIM. HE is the source of all that is good, and all good that is carried out by mankind is ultimately in HIS service, and to HIS greater glory, even if that human individual isn't particularly cognizant of it at the time.
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.