Posted on 11/06/2014 2:29:33 PM PST by NYer
In June of this year, the largest Presbyterian denomination in America voted to allow their clergy to perform same-sex “marriages” within the church, thus joining the ranks of other Protestant denominations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Episcopalian Church, and United Church of Christ.
This “evolution” of theology and “modernizing” of church doctrine is a trend that I predict we’ll continue to see in non-Catholic Christian circles for years to come, and not just with marriage. Today, nearly all Protestant denominations support and even advocate the use of artificial birth control, and many allow at least some level of support for abortion.
Of course, not all Protestants are willing to “move with the times”, so to speak; there remains, especially among the more conservative groups, quite a bit of dissent. However, it cannot be denied that many modern day Protestant denominations are falling further into the depths of secularism.
While it pains me to see Christians turning their backs on the sanctity of life and marriage, I have to admit that whenever the media lights up with news of another Protestant church endorsing an otherwise wholly unchristian act, I find myself entirely unsurprised.
The reason for my utter lack of shock lies, interestingly enough, within two of the critical tenants of Protestant Theology: the doctrines of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone).
As Catholics, the Bible is not our sole source of authority, nor was the Catholic Church based upon it. In fact, what we now call “The Bible” — the collected Old Testament and New Testament writings — was put together by the Church herself, and is meant to enrich and support our doctrine and Tradition.
(Consider too that the Gospel is the written testimony of the teachings of the apostles, which, due to apostolic tradition and the God-given teaching authority of the Church, precedes the written text. Thus, any authority of the Scriptures is derived from the recognition of the Church.)
Yet, the Protestant Reformation severed the Tradition from the Bible, and put all other authorities beneath it. By doing so, they created a type of religious relativism (unwittingly, I’m sure) that opened the door for an “anything goes” mentality. So long, of course, as it can be found — or not found — in the scriptures.
For years, sola scriptura was a major weapon against Catholic theology, claiming that our practices were either absent or directly forbidden by Sacred Scripture. However, since the latter part of the 20th century, the charges that “Jesus never said (x)” or “That’s not in the Bible” have turned on themselves and have now become, “Jesus never said (x) was wrong, so that means (x) must be okay.”
This idea blends well with many in my generation, the millennials, who wish to hold on to some shred of spirituality but cannot bring themselves to relinquish the desires of the flesh. It is also a base notion of “Progressive Christianity”, which is basically the feel-good parts of following Christ without any actual sacrifice.
The same problem goes for sola fide. Though the only place in the Bible where the words “faith” and “alone” appear next to one another is in James 2:24 (“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”), it still remains a significant tenant of Protestant Christianity. However, much like sola scriptura, it has seemingly evolved into an even more bastardized version of itself that states, “As long as I’m a good person and believe in Jesus, I’m okay.”
Now, understand, I’m not among the ilk who believe that Protestants can’t go to Heaven, though the path is significantly more challenging (and not in a “take up your cross” kind of way). I do believe, however, that Christianity was never meant go in this direction. And I certainly believe that, should things continue in the manner they’re going for the modern-day Protestants, they’ll eventually have nothing left to call Christian at all.
Of course, perhaps that’s the only logical conclusion Protestantism could possibly come to. It is, after all, a theologically incomplete Christianity; and perhaps that is why it has such difficulty standing the test of time. Consider the continuous splintering Protestantism has seen since the days of Luther, that continues today. Sooner or later, it will be dust; and displaced Christians will be left with two choices: return to Holy Catholic Church or give themselves to the world.
Indeed, you should research it, as doing so more objectively reveals the specious nature of it. Even RC apologist said , As for 33,000, I renounced that number years ago (about eight), having been convinced of the faulty criteria used, by Eric Svendsen. I usually say, now, “hundreds of Protestant denominations.”
And how can you compare a multitude of churches, the dentition of which is so broad that you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it, with one church?
Is Rome's unity greater than any Prot denomination?
What would be a valid comparison is that of one btwn two models for unity, that of teaching what Scripture states is the supreme standard as the wholly inspired and infallible word of God, versus what the church teaches being the supreme standard as posessing assured veracity.
And which one is Scriptural.
Moreover, the reality is that if you separated those whom Rome treats and buries as members according to their doctrinal and moral beliefs you would have multitudes of differences.
Do RCs have an infallible interpreter of their infallible interpreter?
Can you even tell me for sure how much of what RCs believe and practice is is infallibly defend and indisputable?
Of what boast is a unity that is very limited and largely on paper, while what one really believes is manifest by what they do, (Ja. 2:18) and which means members can believe all sort of different things and yet be Catholic members?
Good call. I have often said "decent" when I meant to say "descent." Now back to regular Catholic programming.
Rev 1:1 “things which must shortly come to pass”
John is most widely thought to have written the Book of Revelation about 90-95 A.D. In 98 A.D. (Shortly after) we have the first white horseman of the apocalypse representing the golden age of Rome, with Trajan as the first emperor. After A.D 180 we have the red horseman. The 92 years after commodus were very bloody. There were at least 32 emperors and 32 pretenders.
And on it goes, the Chapters of Revelation revealing modern history to today and beyond.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work (ergon) of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
ergon - Definition: work, task, employment; a deed, action; that which is wrought or made, a work.
But of what import is this even if we entertain the fantasy that the NT church was RC? Is your argument that a being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such is assuredly infallible? Of not, what is the argument behind this assertion?
Moreover, Rome did not even presume to provide an indisputable canon until after Luther died , thus his dissent was not one of the charges against him, though RCs anachronistically make it one.
thanks for the comparative surveys
I never knew such a rift existed between Catholics and Protestants as what I see here on FR. It shouldn’t. And, in real life, I just don’t see such a rift.
I am Christian. I don’t care of one is Catholic or Protestant. We both share the belief that Jesus is Lord.
And when was Abraham considered righteous by God? Hint...it was before any of his works.
His faith was justified by what he did...it did not earn him his salvation. It was when he believed God that he was considered righteous.
Here is your original comment in answer to chajin,
>>chajin - "The Protestant denominations that have stuck to sola fide and sola scriptura, such as the PCA and ARP with Presbyterians, LCMS and WELS with Lutherans, and the Southern Baptist Convention, Wesleyans, Assemblies of God, Word of Faith, and Church of God in Christ, have not succumbed to the devolution of doctrine or practice."
Notice where the only Baptists listed were "the Southern Baptist Convention"?
Now here is your response.
>>verga - "Not true, the Baptists are ordaining women and celebrating same sex unions."
That sir is exactly where you said the SBC was in currently favor of Homosexuality.
You stand corrected.
Your total lack of understanding prophesy noted. For starters please tell me when the anti Christ signed the peace treaty with Israel.
What Jesus? The one subservient to Mary? The one who would condemn a person to hell unless Mary intervenes? The one who broke the law by eating blood and commanding others to do the same?
I am Christian. I don’t care of one is Catholic or Protestant. We both share the belief that Jesus is Lord.
mormons make the same claim....you including them as Christians?
notice catholics rarely, at least on this board, refer to themselves as Christian. vast majority of the time it's catholic. they appear to believe more in a church structure than Christ.
mormons call themselves mormons.
you identify with what you believe.
I call myself a Christian.
LOL, you mean disagreeing with your view. I presume you are referring to the flawed interpretation of Daniel 9 which mistakenly labels Christ making a covenant with His people, as the General Titus the Prince and son of Vespasian who conquered Jerusalem.
It is ok, I understand that modern shepherds have led many astray with the view of futurism, which Roman Catholic Jesuits successfully got inserted into protestanism, in the 1800’s abandoning the reformers teachings. I love you anyway. :-)
My original post #35: Not true, the Baptists are ordaining women and celebrating same sex unions. 60 minutes had a piece about a woman suing her Baptist congregation over this. In 25 years or less the Catholic Church will be the only one standing against gay "marriage."
I made bold underlined and italicized the pertinent sentence. My post 103 in its entirety:
Praise 103.9 (VIA CNN)Years before the nation’s capital legalized same-sex marriage in March, one church in Washington, D.C., opened its doors to gay couples as part of its mission to establish an “inclusive body of Biblical believers.” Pastors Christine and Dennis Wiley performed a 2007 commitment ceremony at their altar. That action split the historically black church, prompting half of the congregation to leave. Yvonne Moore not only left Covenant Baptist, where she had worshipped for nearly 40 years: she filed a lawsuit for her weekly tithes because, as she said, “They didn’t respect the members enough to listen to us.”
Praise 102.1 There were articles on CNN, 60 minutes and numerous other sites. I included links from Christian radio sources.
Second I said "Baptist" not SBC.
Third I seem to recall a split with the TBC a number of years ago over this very issue and IIRC the TBC makes up a rather large portion of the SBC.
Like I said in post #35 Get your fact straight then come back here. And thank you for pinging the prot posse so they could see your error as well.
You didn’t answer my question. When did the anti Christ sign a peace treaty with Israel?
“God should have know about the USA, but nowhere does the Bible mention it.”
Virgil, I suggest you do a study of New JerUSAlem in scripture. List all the biblical traits of New J. Then try to match those traits with the Old Jerusalem. They cannot be the same. Then I suggest doing the same with the “daughter of Zion” and prophetic Zion. Maybe you will find a land that matches well; from sea to shining sea, from the rio grand to the arctic.
Zechariah 9:9-10King James Version (KJV)
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
Deny all you wish. Your response to chajin was clear to all who read it. Obfuscation at this point is rather futile.
What???????????? Are you Mormon?
Can we agree that the quoted passage physically defines a land for the dominion of 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.