Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?
As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.
Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.
Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiegogo.com ...
Does that also make all the mummies saints?
If what you posted is a reflection of your belief, than you do not understand how the words "sola scriptura" are used. I can try to help by posting a good summary so that you will not have to search.
WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT
1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.2. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God's truth.4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God's final and full revelation.5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church "tradition." There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.6. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS1. The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.2. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture.3. That which is not found in the Scripture either directly or by necessary implication is not binding upon the Christian.4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9). There can be no understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture apart from an understanding of the true origin and the resultant nature of Scripture. The Reformers had the highest view of the Bible, and therefore had a solid foundation on which to stand in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures.From: http://fccphx.homestead.com/SolaScriptura.html
Not if it directly disobeyed the criteria Paul set down for chruch leadership.
Simply show another infallible source showing what the apostles taught.
Jesus did...He said he was the head, the bridegroom...Jesus said the church was the body, the bride...They couldn’t possibly be the same...
Narses,
Iscool just earned your silly little “Pearls Before Swine” picture.
It seems to me there is some ambiguity in your position. Simply put, I understood you had embraced the NASB, and rejected the KJV. The KJV relies only on the Textus Receptus and was published in 1611. It was the basis of Protestant and Fundamentalist (Baptist usually goes here) Bibles until modern scholarship arrived in the late 19th Century in the persons of Westcott and Hort, who replaced the Textus Receptus by relying heavily on other manuscripts that do not agree with each other. It seems to me you have relied on their scholarship for your Bible and cast away the Textus Receptus, thereby admitting Protestants did not have the accurate version of the Greek manuscripts when they translated the Textus Receptus into German, English, etc. Sola Scriptura was proffered with an inaccurate Bible according to this scenario. Then, starting sometime in the late 19th Century, oddly coinciding with the rise of higher criticism and modernism in the Protestant/Evangelical churches (Fundamentalists excepted, especially Fundamental Baptists who maintain they were not Protestant to begin with), a series of translations arose that replaced the traditional Protestant translations. Sola Scriptura is somewhat weakened when you didn't, or still don't have the correct manuscripts. Now the Catholic Church is cooperating with the NASB translations, so that is not my point. Rather, it seems to me Evangelicals have abandoned the trenches of Solar Scriptura in a strategic withdrawal to the Westcott and Hort/Sinaiticus and Vaticanus lines.
I ignored your comment about Miriam because it seemed to me a typical stumbling block text for Evangelicals. It seems to me Evangelicals don't honor or love her as Catholics do and there is no point arguing about it, provided they don't actually insult her.
Why? Because you say so? You find yourself unsatisfied and therefore that's my fault and so now you can proclaim that I'm being evasive and deceptive? You know I've had discussions here on the RF with protestants who asked genuine non pre-loaded questions and they've received similar responses in kind. If you want an honest dialogue about these issues then may I suggest that your questions not be front-loaded with Catholic rejection.
You may not realize this but most questions put to Catholics by protestants, especially on the RF, are chock full of anti-Catholic bias, and/or designed for the "gotcha" moment, etc. that they require a fair amount of deconstruction before they can be answered with the level of intellectual honesty you're looking for.
I've said before that although the RF prohibits the "reading of minds" that doesn't mean such analysis does not takes place and most Catholics, using whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given them can intuit when a protestant is genuinely seeking a 'meeting of the minds' or has a genuine question.
Your idea of who the Church founded by Jesus Christ is does not match mine and you refuse to speak the same vernacular I do to be able to pinpoint the differences to each other.
We do not speak the same vernacular because we don't come from the same theological/philosophical traditions. There is a lot of truth to the notion that Protestantism is modern in its thinking. When you couple that with modern, secular philosophical thinking all of a sudden you have ancient ideas and practices that don't comport with the modern understanding of things. Which is why things like honor and venerate are translated into worship, etc. So unless a protestant is willing to conform their mind to a pre-Enlightenment way of thinking we'll always end up speaking past one another.
Finally, you reveal that my assessment from a previous FR discussion from the past hit the target and you still carry the sting of it. In the end, that may be a good thing for you.
As far as I can tell this is all part of the same discussion, same thread etc. I wasn't aware of previous discussion between you and I. By your own admission it was a post from you within the past 48 hours. Hence what I said earlier about modern understanding of things. Or in some cases, post-modern. But if you want to claim some sort of victory that is your perogative.
Do not have to pray to Mary or anyone else to get answers to my prayers. : ). I do not understand why some think they have to pray through her.
-— WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS
1. The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church-—
Where’s that in the Bible? Or 2b and 3b? Or 4b?
“If he won’t listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus
If Luther’s doctrine is true, how could the Scriptures ever come together to begin with, when the Church preceded the canon of Scripture, and even the writing of some books? By what authority could the Church say, “this new book of Revelation is Scripture”? For this theory to be coherent, the Bible would have to have canonized itself.
If the Church can err, then the canon can be erroneous. As R.C. Sproul famously said, “the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.”
By what authority did Luther remove several books from the accepted canon of Scripture? Luther violated his own principle of the Bible as the ultimate authority.
He acted from a position of Scriptural superiority.
It sees to me you confessed in post 1143 that you do not have the true and accurate inspired scriptures. Your response was that no one else has them either. The Fundamental (Baptist usually goes here) will vehemently disagree with this Evangelical position, and were your position true, there was no accurate translation for Sola Scriptura, and there may not be now, for this position relies not on faith but on scholarship with the premise that no one has the "complete Bible" with every jot and tittle.
The idea that Westcott and Hort have given us the "complete Bible" when no one else had it, is a tough sale.
Appreciate your posting this. Good to refresh the memory often when confusion has been sprayed into the air handling system.
Was just now reading the Gospel of Mark and was again impressed how alive Scripture is when the reader/hearer is receptive. When Jesus began His earthly ministry, the moment to moment situations were so fluid and unpredictable, although I believe the final outcome of the story had been written previously.
One small example of what I mean is the leper who was cleansed and strictly charged by Jesus to tell no one but instead go to the temple and to do certain requirements as a testimony to the priest and others. The former leper disobeyed Jesus’ direct spoken command and spread the story everywhere.
What if he had obeyed Jesus? Well, the city He was going to wouldn’t have been so crowded that He had to go outside the limits and still face unmanageable crowds there.
Nothing earth-shattering, yet this one episode just impressed me how very alive and spontaneous Jesus was...and is forevermore!
“Where’s that in the Bible? Or 2b and 3b? Or 4b?”
I see the issue now. You appear to be unfamiliar with the Scripture’s claims for itself.
Since it is late, I suggest you read the complete link I referenced to familiarize yourself with the Scriptures and the history.
Your other points are fallacies of logic.
=============================================================
There are very few deaths of the early Christian saints recorded in the New Testament, let alone prayers to those saints. (As a matter of fact, there are very few actual prayers recorded in the New Testament period.)
Your questions do trigger a couple other questions though:
Of course that depends on what is defined as "matters of faith and morals", doesn't it? The LDS defined polygamy as a matter of faith - did the State allow them to continue or did the Mormons have to redefine that matter of their faith? A church may have as a matter of morality something that the State calls illegal, the same for matters of faith. It boils down to who is the authority, God or man? We believe it is God, first, and then the powers that God ordained to govern. We can know whether or not a matter of faith and morals comes from God because we have His sacred Scriptures that spell it out for us.
When the first Christians were condemned to martyrdom for refusing to bow to the gods of Rome or to forsake Jesus as the Son of God, it WAS the State imposing its ideas of faith and morals onto the believers in Christ (for that really IS what a "church" is made up of) and they chose to obey God rather than men. Subordination in some things of the faithful to the State IS honoring to God since He says that the powers that be derive that power from Him and do not bear the sword in vain. When the State usurps the authority of God by their ungodly pronouncements, God WILL deal with them. In the meantime, in order to live peaceably with all men, we should strive to live honest and moral lives so that the cause of Christ is not blasphemed and there can be no legitimate accusations of wrongdoing made against us.
Let's not lose track of the origin of this current argument. Popes do NOT have a monarchical authority over nations. The clerics do not rule over the State. Popes do not have a God-given right to ordain or depose kings. Therefore, they are every bit as liable as any other person to obey the laws and ordinances of man and certainly to those of God.
You can't be serious! You DO know, I hope, that the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical (second canon) books were all written at least a few hundred years BEFORE the Apostles were even born. I'd like to hear how it's possible they could contain the teachings of men who were yet to be born. Not to mention, NONE of them were quoted by the Apostles as Divinely-inspired Scripture like they did nearly every one of the uncontested Old Testament books. AND, not a one of the writers of these Apocryphal books (if they are even known) ever claimed to BE a prophet speaking for God.
Honestly, it's like riding a merry-go-round with you guys! How is it the same arguments get tossed out as if y'all are oblivious to them having been trounced dozens of times before?
I guess they can blame Mary's "adopted" son John for that screwup! ;o)
The word “canon” refers to a standard or measuring stick. It provides three criteria by which one can determine whether a doctrine was orthodox or heretical. Vincent did not invent the “canon” named after him. He summed up in elegant Latin the longstanding theological method used by the early Christians. (http://orthodoxbridge.com/defending-the-vincentian-canon-everywhere-always-and-by-all-a-response-to-outlaw-presbyterianism/
I agree with those who hold to a genuine continuity of doctrine and believe it a valid test of orthodoxy as long as it also is backed up by Scripture - which the early church fathers held as well.
The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.
But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).
There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . [B]ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).
One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection.
"The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29). This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals.
The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.
Akin, J. (n.d.). Defending the Deuterocanonicals. Retrieved October 12, 2014, from http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm
Amen! The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes. The redeemed hear the voice of the Shepherd no matter when He calls or where.
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.