The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

The whole of the Bible is the story of salvation. The Old is the foundation for the New and, the New the fulfillment of the Old. There is no separation of the two as it is ALL the story of our relationship with God and the salvation of His children.

****You won’t find any evangelical Protestant churches who believe that just because Muslims hold the “faith of Abraham” they are saved.****

Exactly where does that passage say that Muslims are saved?
And is this statement true for the Jewish people as well?

But, let us consider what the passage from the catechism actually says and means.

CCC 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Here the Church acknowledges that the Muslims “profess” or rather claim to worship the God of Abraham. However imperfectly they may do so and however wrongly they may “see” God is not the point here. The Church merely is saying that if they hold the faith of Abraham, they are a part of God’s plan and will be judged accordingly at the end.

No one worships or knows God perfectly and ALL have killed in the name of faith, Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Muslims.

We should not judge all Muslims for the sins of the radical extremists, or those who mislead and distort or twist faith to suit their own agenda.

I find it humorous that in all three of your replies, not one of you addressed the question I asked. In predictable fashion, all three avoided the simple question.....

“From whom did you learn the Bible?”

Does that mean that there was no one who introduced you to Scripture, spoke to you of its meaning, assured its authenticity as the inspired and inerrant Word of God or taught you anything about it?

Is is possible to get an honest answer?

“From whom did you learn the Bible?”

Tim Staples credits Jimmy Swaggert and the Bible with converting him to the Catholic Church.

Now that's funny...Jim Swaggart was vociferously anti-Catholic religion, to my knowledge...

So Tim Staples, whomever that may be was so turned off by Jimmy Swaggart pointing to the RCC as the whore of Rev that he ran to the RCC as fast as he could???

And the Bible ticked him off too, eh???

BTW I credit Tim Lahaye and Lorraine Boettner with getting me back into the Catholic Church.

Why??? It's not Lahaye's fault that you reject the truth...

I listen to a fella on the radio everyday...David Jeremiah...

He runs Lahaye's old church out there in California...Shadow Mountain Bible Church...Good solid bible preachin' and teachin'... You ought to tune in...

What is that supposed to prove? The link just supports what i said, that they are irreconcilable differences that are based upon Islam having a different god. Islam does not adore the same God as the Bible, and the true God is not schizophrenic, and no amalgamated WP symbol will rectify that. The comment by Pastor Spomer on that page is a worthy read.

CCC 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

At the very best, the catechism is in error. The Muslims do not hold the "faith of Abraham". Abraham was saved by faith according to Romans. So if Muslims hold the "faith of Abraham" then it's not a far leap to make the same conclusion. At worst the catechism is deliberately and intentionally misleading. It makes Muslims believe they have the "same faith" which they do not. Is this where the "COEXIST" bumper sticker began?

The Church's teaching is simply wrong but Catholics would rather support erroneous or intentionally misleading teachings of the Church then to admit a supposedly "infallible" doctrine is wrong.

We should not judge all Muslims for the sins of the radical extremists,

And exactly where do I compare all Muslims to radical extremists?

... or those who mislead and distort or twist faith to suit their own agenda.

I'm simply pointing out the Church's teaching on Muslims based upon this catechism is wrong or intentionally misleading. Take your choice. There is no agenda.

Now that's funny...Jim Swaggart was vociferously anti-Catholic religion, to my knowledge...
So Tim Staples, whomever that may be was so turned off by Jimmy Swaggart pointing to the RCC as the whore of Rev that he ran to the RCC as fast as he could???

And the Bible ticked him off too, eh???

Yeah, I knew you would jump to the wrong conclusion. Tim attended Jimmy Swaggart Bible college, and entered the Assembly of God Ministry. Through Reading the Bible He was led to the Catholic Church.

Here is the link to his story and others:

http://www.catholic-soe.org/downloads.html

Like I said I will be glad to send you a copy (as soon as I find my spare), But I understand why you might be to scared to listen to it.

I find it humorous that in all three of your replies, not one of you addressed the question I asked. In predictable fashion, all three avoided the simple question.....“From whom did you learn the Bible?”

I haven't looked at all the posts but I'd be happy to answer this.

The Bible came from the early church fathers around 400AD and specifically said what was considered inspired teachings. This matched what the Hebrew fathers taught to be inspired. The early church fathers had a very specific criteria and separated the inspired writings from the other writings of the church, including all of the creeds and everything that goes along with it. At no time did they consider Church writings and teachings to be on the same par or level as the inspired word of God. They called these inspired writings the Bible and they were happy to say that it was given to them by God and it was far more special than anything else. Never did they considered the church teachings, the Apocrypha, or even the creeds for that matter to be at the same level of inspiration.

So my question which I have found Catholics tend not to like to answer is how if the early fathers did not deem other writings to be on the same level of inspiration, how did the Council of Trent declared it to be so 1,000 years later? What specifically is the meaning of inspired teachings that caused the church fathers to separate these scriptures from regular Church writings?

To answer your question, I accept what the early church fathers deemed to be inspired. Catholics accept what was added 1,000 years later by the Council of Trent. What really has happened is the Church has substituted the inspirational scriptures handed down by the early fathers for their own writings handed down by Trent. It's not much different than creating a book of Mormons or a Watch Tower publication.

Do they or do they not “PROFESS” faith in the God of Abraham?

That is the question, not whether or not they are wrong in their knowledge of God and their worship of Him.

The Church’s teaching is simply wrong but Catholics would rather support erroneous or intentionally misleading teachings of the Church then to admit a supposedly “infallible” doctrine is wrong.

We should not judge all Muslims for the sins of the radical extremists,

And exactly where do I compare all Muslims to radical extremists?

... or those who mislead and distort or twist faith to suit their own agenda.

I’m simply pointing out the Church’s teaching on Muslims based upon this catechism is wrong or intentionally misleading. Take your choice. There is no agenda.

First and foremost, the catechism is not held to be an infallible work. It claims to explain the Catholic faith and only those areas where the faithful MUST believe to be in communion with Christ and His Church are we to adhere without question to Church teachings.

When it was published it was called “a sure norm for teaching the Catholic faith” meaning it can be trusted to be free from direct error or contradiction of the deposit of faith in regards to Catholic doctrine.

The section on Muslims is two sentences and is merely a statement that IN AS MUCH as they claim faith in the God of Abraham, Muslims will be judged on the last day by God. It makes no claim to whether or not they are saved, by what criteria they will be judged nor whether or not what they hold is true.

*****We should not judge all Muslims for the sins of the radical extremists,

And exactly where do I compare all Muslims to radical extremists?

... or those who mislead and distort or twist faith to suit their own agenda.

I’m simply pointing out the Church’s teaching on Muslims based upon this catechism is wrong or intentionally misleading. Take your choice. There is no agenda.*****

Where did I say that you had compared all Muslims to extremists? And where did I say it was you who is misleading due to an agenda?

I said that we, i.e. Christians in general, should not judge Muslims by those who do mislead, distort or twist the faith to suit an agenda.

*****Abraham was saved by faith according to Romans. So if Muslims hold the “faith of Abraham” then it’s not a far leap to make the same conclusion.*****

Abraham’s faith saved him through his actions. His faith was an active faith, one that led him to go when the Lord told Him to go and almost led him to sacrifice his son at the Lord’s command.

The Muslim has some very wrong beliefs about faith and what that means, they also have some very wrong ideas about God and of course, they do not accept Jesus as their Savior, the Son of God so we just don’t know what God’s plan is for them.

That is all the catechism is saying.

Again, I ask you, where in that passage does the Church say that they are saved?

Why??? It's not Lahaye's fault that you reject the truth... I listen to a fella on the radio everyday...David Jeremiah... He runs Lahaye's old church out there in California...Shadow Mountain Bible Church...Good solid bible preachin' and teachin'... You ought to tune in...

I used to read a lot of LaHayes fiction which led me to his nonfiction when I was not Catholic. I found that he made a lot of mistakes about what Catholics actually believed. I figured that if he made those kinds of mistakes on things that could easily be verified how much more mistakes did he make on other things. He led me to Boettner who made even more mistakes.

I did listen to Dr. David Jeremiah about 10 years ago. I liked his stuff until he over shot his wad one day on the Spanish Inquisition. He made the claim that 5 million people had been put to death by the Inquisition. By all accounts the inquisition lasted about 350 years. This that almost 14,300 were put to death every year for 350 years. Considering that the population of Europe never went above 5,000,000 during that time the numbers don't add up. So I wrote to him and ran the numbers for him. I then asked where these people were buried and who buried them.

He never wrote back.

In his defense he has recently changed his story to 2,000 over 350 years. http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/4bd92bbe9a7ea5a87089e08c754e11a8-962.html

So I do give him quite a bit of credit for getting it right now.

Thank you for answering the question and proving my point:)

An annulment does not make the children illegitimate.

It means the marriage was not a true sacramental marriage.

Baptism/No Baptism

Unlike, I suppose, the Catholic church who says you must be baptized to be save. Except, ooops, that's not really enough by itself; you have to add more.. The Catholic church can't even decide if baptism saves at all.

Saved by faith(all are called)/Predestination

Fail here. It's salvation by faith whether you believe in predestination or not.

Soul with God upon death/Soul sleeps until judgement day

Not critical to being saved so irrelevant.

Rapture/No Rapture

Not critical to being saved so irrelevant.

Bodily Resurrection/No bodily Resurrection

Which Protestant denominations don't believe in a bodily resurrection? Not anyone I've ever heard of.

Invalid

What Catholics really fail to see is that denominationalism is NOT important to ones salvation. A person is saved by faith in Christ, that is the unifying factor for all true believers. Churches don't save. Church membership or affiliation doesn't save.

Where a person goes for fellowship and worship is not all that significant in regard to their salvation. Matter of fact, a person can be saved and never set foot inside a church building.

It's that complete inability of Catholics to get that that demonstrates above all else that they think their denomination saves. They think that it's equally important to everyone else as well.

Does that mean that there was no one who introduced you to Scripture, spoke to you of its meaning, assured its authenticity as the inspired and inerrant Word of God or taught you anything about it?

Having been raised in a Catholic home, we didn't even own a Bible.

When I got saved, one of the first impulses I had was the NEED to go out and buy a Bible and begin reading it. Nobody told me I had to (I got saved at work, not an altar call where someone told me I ought to do that). I just knew I needed to do it, so I did.

In those days, the KJV was basically it, and it was hard to understand, ONLY because of the old English.

So I went out and bought a Living Bible, a paraphrase, and read them side by side for a long time.

And, yes, the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and heart to understand something I'd never sat down and read before.

And the few Scripture passages I'd heard at (the Catholic) church, suddenly took on new meaning as the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and heart further.

Honest answer.....

I learned the Bible by the Holy Spirit. He was my instructor as Jesus promised He would be.

First and foremost, the catechism is not held to be an infallible work. It claims to explain the Catholic faith and only those areas where the faithful MUST believe to be in communion with Christ and His Church are we to adhere without question to Church teachings.

Not infallible = fallible.

So Catholics are required to believe certain areas in order to be in communion with Christ and His Church and there's no guarantee that any one of those areas is infallible in what it teaches.

What if the CCC is wrong in one of the areas that it deems the faithful MUST believe?

And re-posting an article from 2009. Provocation and stirring the pot and then whining when the chickens come home to roost!

Now how did I know which direction this thread would go? I must be psychotic.

I don't think it takes a psychotic, OR a psychic, to predict a response to a thread that intentionally provokes. In fact, I think the poster would be disappointed if it hadn't. It is done almost daily here.

The "four marks of the Church" that the Roman Catholic Church is claimed to have are not at all what is claimed:

1. Is the Roman Catholic Church ONE?

There are over 220 Roman Catholic rites/denominations (source David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982) Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations” — and that was only in 1970. This same source is often used by Roman Catholics to state there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations, yet even the author indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). If the Eastern Orthodox Churches were included under the heading of "Catholic" - which Roman Catholics do - the total number of Catholic "traditions or rites" would be 19 for Orthodox and 16 for Roman Catholic for a total of 35. (These numbers came from an expose of Barret's work called "Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002)) So much for "One". There is much disunity among these groups in areas such as the infallibility of the Pope his primacy as well as several Marian dogmas.

2. Is the Roman Catholic Church HOLY?

The Bride of Christ, His body, IS holy and will be presented to Him without spot or blame at His glorious appearing. THE Roman Catholic Church can hardly lay exclusive claim to being Christ's bride since it will be comprised of all nations, tongues and people and who all have in common the covering of the blood of Christ, clothed in the fine white linen wedding garments HE provides.

3. Is the Roman Catholic Church CATHOLIC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic#History_of_the_term_Catholic

The word, everyone agrees, means "universal", so does the Roman Catholic Church have the right to claim the exclusive title? There is no doubt that the Christians who made up the churches in Rome were among the first Christians, but Scripture very clearly states that there were local churches throughout that part of the world and as the faith spread more churches were established. It wasn't until the fourth century that the church of Rome declared itself as the seat of St. Peter and having jurisdiction over the Christian world. We know that James was over the Church of Jerusalem, the first such bishop having the job of overseer and there is no objective evidence that Peter ever WAS the Bishop of Rome. More than likely, Apostolic Succession had more to do with the handing down of the doctrines of the faith and ensuring their perpetuity than a formal "mantle" of authority without such guarantee of solid truth being passed down. By all rights, ALL genuine Christians can claim to be catholic. The church is not exclusive to Gentiles, Jews, Greeks, Romans, those in the East, or those in the West. The church that Christ built is universal, or “catholic.”

4. Is the Roman Catholic Church APOSTOLIC?

any

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/06/the-rise-of-rome-in-a-nutshell/#comment-53232

From the same source, we read:

"The regula fide, because it is unwritten, is easy to abuse. The Scripture is not. And this is what happened in church history. The institution of the church (now quickly on its way to becoming the Roman Catholic church) began to expand on the regula fide, moving it from a summary of the essentials to requirements of non-essentials. Everything from liturgy to doctrine were added. What started as a small confession of Christian doctrine, as represented by the likes of the Nicene Creed (325) and the Statement of Chalcedon (451), became full catechisms, with infallible requirements of doctrines and practices that fell well outside of the regula fide and far outside the bounds of Scripture itself. Now included in this unwritten tradition were non-essential doctrines concerning the mother of Jesus, celibacy in the priesthood, how one is to break the bread in the Lord’s supper, and a thousand other things. The unwritten traditions that were meant to preserve the essence of the Christian faith had developed to such a degree that one could not even see the Christian faith. The essence, which was important before, took on a secondary status to the authority of the institution. In the midst of this, the Gospel began to be obscured to such a degree that a major reformation was needed."

These truths can only be measured by Scripture, again, because it alone is the infallible Word of God, divinely-inspired and preserved from errors in doctrine, it has stood the test of time. The Roman Catholic Church holds that it teaches ONLY what has always and everywhere been taught but we know it is provably wrong. It has changed and perverted essential doctrines over the centuries and that, to me, disqualifies the Roman Catholic Church - or ANY church for that matter - to claim to alone be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

supplementary to boatbums http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=118#118

Disagreements under different models of supreme authority

At left below is a list of things which one Roman Catholic apologist states Protestants can disagree one amongst themselves, and to the right is my list of things Catholics do and can disagree on amongst themselves. Both lists are incomplete and both can be added to, but these do seek to focus on more common or evident things.

While the major focus here is between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, yet as the latter is not one church but many, but in which their chief defining characteristic as regards authority is the supremacy of Scripture, then a more fitting comparison is between them versus churches which effectively hold to “sola ecclesia,” that the church is the supreme doctrinal authority on earth (seeing as it claims to infallibly define what constitutes Divine revelation, and its meaning, and thus it defines itself as assuredly infallible, and under which conditions). Thus the first list on the right is a short list of things which Catholics can disagree on, followed by things Roman Catholics can disagree on (not all they do disagree on without real discipline, which would also be extensive).

Among Catholic churches the Roman church is effectively as one denomination, regardless of her universal elitist claims, though sola ecclesia is also the model under which most “cults” operate.

And as the essay which follows* further explains, both Catholics and Scripture Protestants hold to a supreme doctrinal authority, but both see disagreement and divisions, the differences being in degrees, while as in the beginning of the church, authenticity is established upon Scriptural attestation, with it being supernaturally established as the assured Word of God.

This basis must allow competition, but is one in which evil is overcome by good, not by the sword of men, or "walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " (2 Corinthians 4:2)

Thus the church began in dissent from those who could lay claim to historical decent, (Mt. 23:2) and as being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, (Rm. 9:3:2; 9:4) and recipient of promises of Divine presence and guidance, (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34, etc.) but who presumed an assured veracity which required obedience as unto Biblical law, but which reproved them, though writings were established as Divine and Truth was given and preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men.

Things Protestants can disagree on:

1. Once Saved Always Saved

2. Universal versus Limited Atonement

3. Infant Baptism

4. Form of Baptism (e.g. full immersion vs pouring)

5. Whether Baptism is necessary in ordinary circumstances

6. Whether the Lord's Supper is purely symbolic or some sort of 'real' presence

7. Divorce and Remarriage

8. Whether icons/pictures of Christ are allowed

9. Which doctrines are perspicuous/essential

10. Whether Charismatic Gifts of the Spirit have ceased

11. Whether instruments are allowed in church

12. Female ordination

13. The "biblical" form of church government

14. Sunday versus any day worship / Whether the Sabbath is still in force in some sense.

15. House churches versus dedicated congregational churches

16. Dispensationalism

17. Rapture/Tribulation

18. Imputed Active Obedience

19. Whether traditional categories like Person/Nature are true/valid

20. Mary being "Mother of God"

21. Mary's Perpetual Virginity

22. Whether Inspiration of Scripture is plenary or limited to faith and morals

23. Whether one can/should pray to the Holy Spirit

24. Whether Sola Scriptura applied during the time of Christ and the Apostles

25. How to define/understand Sola Scriptura, especially as it relates to Creeds and Councils

26. Should Christians engage in politics, civil service, etc.

27. Whether Christians should pray the Our Father

28. Whether prayer should be only spontaneous

29. Whether keeping the Commandments is necessary for salvation

30. Whether illness, suffering, poverty, etc, are due to sin or lack of faith

31. Whether Free Will and Double Predestination are true or not

32. Whether Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11, etc, are actually part of Scripture

33. Which translation of Scripture should be normative (e.g. KJV)

34. Which Protestant denominations are to be considered "Christian"

Things which Catholics can disagree on

The contents of the Biblical canon
Purgatory
Original sin
Baptism of desire
Form of Baptism
Universal papal jurisdiction and supremacy
Papal infallibility
The nature of transubstantiation, and manner of reception
Allowance of Icons
Divorce and Remarriage
Faith and Reason
The Development of Doctrine
The Atonement
Whether the Catholic charismatic movement is to be allowed
Whether instruments are allowed in church
Clergy – qualifications/Priestly celibacy
What Tradition teaches
Church fathers (who they all are, and taught)
Dates of Feasts
The Church
Deification
The Holy Church Canons
The nature of the Sacramental Mysteries
The number of Sacraments
Beards
Various other practices
The Filioque; the Trinity
Immaculate Conception
The sinlessness of Mary
Eschatology
Ecumenism
Who is primarily at fault for the Catholic schisms
Whether Vatican Two and many post V2 teachings deviate from official Roman Catholic teaching (which opens up a whole new series of things which Catholic can disagree on under sola ecclesia.
( http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx;

http:/http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx/www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html, etc.)

Things which Roman Catholics can disagree on:

Which things Catholics can disagree on, and how much
The infallible or non-infallible nature of multitudes of teachings, including in Trent, the catechism and if Vatican Two was
Meanings of infallible or non-infallible teachings
How many levels Catholic teaching falls into
Whether the Pope is subject to Ecumenical Councils
How many verses of the Bible have been infallibly defined.
What degree of assurance the Imprimatur and Nhil Obstat provide
Whether the stories of Adam and Eve, Jonah and the fish, Balaam and the donkey, the conquests of Samson and Joshua, and other accounts are literally true
The meaning of inerrancy of Scripture
Which Bible version is the most faithful to Catholic teaching
Whether approved notes in Catholic Bibles are sound
What Trent's affirmation of the Vulgate entails
What the guidelines on interpretation mean and allow
Meanings of multitudes of Bible verses
Darwinian evolution vs not-Darwinian evolution
Geocentricity or Heliocentricity
How many bishops are necessary for this Collegial infallibility to be ensured?
What Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium really means (status of Protestants)
What the “subsits” in Lumen Gentium means, versus “is”
Whether all the anathemas of Trent still stand and what they entail
Who all the church Fathers are.
What the Fathers taught
What Tradition exactly is and means
Whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth.
What happens to unbaptized babies
What salvific merit means
What the distinction between contrition and attrition entails
Whether “not by works” refers only to the works done under the Law
Infallibility of canonizations
What conditions for annulments mean
Whether the brethren of Mary were cousins or from Joseph via a previous marriage
Whether Mary was a dedicated temple virgin before her marriage to Joseph
Whether the Ark of the Covenant prefigures Mary
Whether the term “Co-redemptrix” departs too much from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers
Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
Whether 1 Cor. 3:10ff is actually about purgatory
What the suffering of purgatory is
What mode of predestination is right - ie Molinism vs Augustinian
Other aspects of Predestination
Waging war and Capital punishment
The right of dissent based upon conscience
What mode of predestination is right - ie Molinism vs Augustinian
When a Catholic council first formulated its present canon
Whether the canon of Trent is the same as that of Hippo.
Whether Roman Catholicism promoted slavery
How to reconcile Roman Catholic teaching both advocating and censuring freedom of religion, torture, etc.
Whether all charismatic practices are of God
Many aspects of Eschatology
Whether private revelation can be
The place of political activism
Ecumenism, and how much fellowship with the Orthodox is good.

The (Orthodox?) author of the first image argues,

Churches in doctrinal agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople, are the actual direct descendants of the State Religion of the Roman Empire, founded under the authority of the Patriarch and the Emperor in Constantinople (starting with Constantine), while modern Roman Catholicism, far from being Christianity "fused with the Roman Empire," is the religion of the Bishops of Rome who repudiated the authority of the Roman Emperor and excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople.” (http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#pope)

The author of the one on the left contends,

“The problem is obvious - Rome, sedevacantists, traditionalist Catholics, Pope Michael-ists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and various other churches with incompatible teachings all appeal to this set and limited corpus of Scripture and Tradition. It would appear that the criticism against Sola Scriptura of multiple denominations applies to the Roman and EO rule of faith as well.

The Romanist or Orthodox might object: "But we're not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!" Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who's not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?

Or would that make them criticise us even more strongly: "See? You Sola Scripturists can't even hold communion with each other!"? Yep, my money's on that one, too. We're darned if we do and darned if we don't, but somehow if the Romanists or Orthodox don't hold communion with these other churches, that's just fine. Such special pleading is just...special...

If you want to compare unity and disunity, compare the adherences to the competing rules of faith. Or compare churches, like the Roman Church to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Pope Michael Catholic Church to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What do we find, if we do this?” (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html)

*Roman Catholicism represents one church whereas Protestantism consists of many, and for the typical Roman Catholic apologist Protestantism can represent whatever “Christian” church is not of Rome or not in formal communion with her. A better comparison would be between churches which

A. hold Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority, and,

B. those who hold that the church is.

A. Under the first model, evangelical-type denominations and churches typically have a central magisterium, and overall affirm the Apostle's Creed and or Scripturally substantiated conflating statements defining who God is and what Christ did and related basic truths, especially the primacy of Scripture and salvation by grace to save the damned and destitute sinners, (vs. some hope in earned credits and or the power of the church), under the premise that Scripture is the assuredly infallible Word of God, and standard for obedience and testing truth claims, which Scripture abundantly affirms, conflation upon which (in text and in power) the church began, in critical dissent from those who were the instruments and stewards of explicit Divine revelation, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4; Ps. 147:19-20) and possessors of historical decent. (Mt. 23:2) (Yet writings were established as Divine, and truth was preserved and given, without an assuredly infallible magisterium as per Rome, as God is able to raise up from stone children of Abraham: Mt. 3:9)

And under this model, assent of these basic truths by leaders is required and is overall manifest, among other ways, in a shared common contention against those who deny these common essentials (“cults”), as well as against certain traditions of men by Rome. This contention is done by spiritual means, though at times in the early stages of reformation it followed Rome in also using the sword of men.

Evangelicals also exhibit and enjoy an active substantial transdenominational fellowship of the Spirit with each other, as shown in manifold ways, and which testifies to greater unity in moral values and basic truths than among Catholics), as a result of a shared Scripturally based conversion and relationship.

It is outside core truths that they do have the most disagreement, though in varying and limited degrees (which historically has largely been due to commitment to doctrine, versus the complacency typical among Catholics), and which has often resulted in formal divisions. However, this typically has not negated the aforementioned fellowship and contention for core essentials and the basic gospel of grace while the real division (besides from cults) is between them and institutionalized churches which foster perfunctory professions and confidence in one's own church or merit for salvation, and liberal moral views. And as Christ promised division (Lk. 12:51) and as such is necessary for beneficial unity, (1Cor. 11:19) this ability enables them to separate from critically aberrant or dead churches to practice living faith, while traditional Roman Catholics must tolerate those whom they call CINOS, but whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death. And most who leave Rome for evangelical churches testify that they do so due to spiritual lack, not doctrines in particular.

Under this model, believers do not claim to be assured infallible, though that does not disallow that they can speak verifiable Truth, but veracity is based upon Scripture being the only transcendent material authority which is wholly inspired by God, and was established as such due to its Divine qualities, as Christ and the church was also.

B. Under sola ecclesia, members are also required to assent to certain core truths defined by their magisterium, though this is one of implicit faith that the extraordinary magisterium is infallible and Rome is the OTC. And as a result it wars (in much of Rome's history by physical force) against others who affirm many of the same core truths but who deny Catholic distinctives and submission to her.

Outside infallibly defined truths (and even what these consist of and their full meaning), there can be and are varying degrees of disagreement (including how much is allowed ), while great liberty to interpret the Bible in attempting to support Rome (as they understand her) is allowed.

Under this model believers are to look to the magisterium which claims assured infallibility at its highest levels, yet its students cannot claim infallible understanding of its teachings, and its teaching is quite limited (very little of Scripture has been officially defined), while there is disagreement over how much has been infallibly or officially taught, and its meanings, with most of what Roman Catholics believe and practice coming from the Ordinary magisterium. Things not officially taught are more than most realize, though lack of great interest doctrine makes disagreement much less manifest.

Under sola ecclesia there are also formal divisions, consisting of many disagreements as to what Tradition, history and Scripture teaches. In addition, under the broader model of sola ecclesia is seen the greatest aberrations, as this is what cults effectively operate under (in which the “Living prophet” and the WTS elders and equivalents being as infallible type popes).

Therefore both Catholics and SS Protestants hold to a supreme doctrinal authority, but both see disagreement and divisions, the differences being in degrees. While evangelical churches ordain pastors, and uphold the principle of the magisterial office, and historically do not follow the error of Rome as regards things such as fostering faith in one's own merit and the power of the church for salvation, and regeneration via proxy faith, and praying to saints, etc, yet they do lack a centralized leadership overall (which should be a goal, though only based on spiritual basis for authority), except in their own denominations.

However, regardless of her denials, Rome also is effectively only as one denomination, and her leadership is hardly one of spiritual power, and she cannot even exercise authority over the EOs, who also claims to be the OTC in particular.

Nor is the organizational and doctrinal unity of Rome necessarily greater in conformity than in cults, or what can be under any one particular denomination.

In addition, unity based on required assent of faith is inferior in quality, if not quantity, to that which is the result of the Berean heart and method, however more difficult and rare that is.

In the end, Truth was never and is not established and preserved via an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium, but by writings being supernaturally established as Divine, and men of God being established as such due to conformity to them in word and in power, and therein is the contest.

And it is only insofar as the gospel manifests that it is the power of God unto salvation, with its manifest regeneration and living by faith, does it evidence itself to be the church of the Living God, grounded in and upholding the Truth, versus institutionalized ritualized religion. May its tribe increase, wherever it meets.

And re-posting an article from 2009. Provocation and stirring the pot and then whining when the chickens come home to roost!

That is the pattern!

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery