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.
Where would we be, without spectators paying the bills?
HAve you an example?
I think the spellcheck put in the wrong word for indoctrinated.
Then, by all means, copy and paste from them.
If it is SO important that the PROTESTANT message be suppressed; then please; take some time to do so.
Merely complaining isn't helping.
1 Corinthians 2:16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
Now elsie, you left something out of the excerpt from #311 didn’t you? The part that showed I didn’t change my position at all would have been relevant to include, don’t you think?
You used to say I was mormon.
Lol
sorry, but I have a life to live and better things to do than try to quiet those true believers who hate Catholic (and Orthodox) Christians.
This is projecting hatred on “the other”, not about finding the truth.
“and the lion shall lie down with the lamb...”
The lamb of God saved the prostitute...the Lion of the Tribe of Judah took a scourge made of cords and drove the money changers out of the temple... fierceness and mildness, Lion and lamb!
Posting opinions about other posters as if they are facts is considered “mind reading” and is a form of making it personal. This moves the thread away from discussing the issues to making it about another poster.
Discuss the issues, do not make it personal.
|
To: daniel1212
Nah. Catholics are generally some pretty decent folks, same as any other raised in the Judeo-Christian traditions. You’re as bad as the author of the article when you say you know who is going to hell and why - I’d be remiss if I didn’t point that out. If RC’s endorse the same, they are equally foolish. Nobody knows the fate of their soul upon their death. Anyone who tells you they know the fate of their own soul, much less the fate of anyone elses soul does so for their own earthly motive. That will go in the pile for judgement, along with everything else they’ve done in life. God help us all. 311 posted on 11/8/2014 1:03:34 AM by RFEngineer |
The jury MIGHT think this; but since YOU didn't include it in your second response; a reasonable person might conclude that your position HAD changed.
Don't you think?
|
To: caww
” Show us why you believe we cannot be secure in Christ Jesus nor can we know it.” My position is that Neither Catholics, nor Protestants can know what God’s judgement will be for the other. You are insufferably argumentative over that, which is pretty funny. |
I probably had a reason.
(No; I can't recall it now!)
Where did I lay my glasses THIS time?
This is projecting hatred on “the other”, not about finding the truth.
Interesting two sentences...
Honey; It ain't about ME and the REST of us HATERS; but the LURKERS who will ONLY have OUR side of the story.
Don't you care about THEM??
No.
What a reasonable person might conclude is that you were selectively quoting something to make a point. That’s fine, if that’s how you like to operate.
I RE-posted YOUR entire replies.
I'll let the reasonable people make up their own minds.
“What hubris! I grew up in the reformed church and have studied both their views and compared them to scripture for now 40 years.”
I am sorry if 40 years in the reformed church has led you to think that it is hubris that reformers taught these things about prophecy. What historicist prophecy teachers have you read? Guiness, Newton, Elliot, Dawe, Jaynes, Caringola, Rand, Campbell, Neser, others? Perhaps freepers might like some sources.
To quote “What Believers Don’t Have To Believe: The Non-Essentials of the Christian Faith” by Craig Payne. “Although the Historicist view is the least popular today, notable Christians who have held it in one form or another include Luther, John Wycliffe, John Knox, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Isaac Newton, Johnathan Edwards, Charles Finney, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, and Charles Spurgeon.”
Sounds like a who’s who in reformed theology. You may imply I am a liar, and state that I have “total lack of understanding prophesy”, but I will happily stand by the side of those giants and agree with historicist interpretation. :-)
Here is a partial list of those predicting the French Revolution based on historicist prophecy. from http://historicist.info/articles2/froom.htm
1.Brightman(1644)
2.Durham(1660)
3.Mede(1663)
4.More(1680)
5.Goodwin(1683)
6.Jurieu(1687)
7.Cradock(1696)
8.Fleming(1701)
9.Whiston(1706)
10.Waple(1715)
11.Vitringa(1719)
12.Daubuz(1720)
13.Robertson(1730)
14.Pyle(1735)
15.Lowman(1745)
16.Bishop Newton(1748)
17.Johnson(1794).*2
Here is a partial list of those teaching the year-day principle of historicist prophecy
Tichonius (AD 380)
Augustine (AD 430)
Nahawendi (Jewish) (AD 8-9th century)
Jehoram (AD 10th century)
Abraham bar Hiyya (Jewish) (AD 1136)
Arnold of Villanova AD (1292)
Joachim of Floris (AD 1202)
John Wycliffe (AD c.1379)
Nicholas of Cusa (AD c.1452)
Martin Luther (AD 1522)
Phillip Melanchthon (AD 1543)
Johan Funck (AD 1558)
James I of England (AD 1600)
more historicist sources from http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/jun2010/burke.pdf:
The Turkish empire withered and dried up as a necessary antecedent to the return of the Jews to their land, as predicted accurately by Brightman (1605), Goodwin (1639), Owen (1639), Mede (1640), Durham (1658), Increase Mather (1669), Sherwin (1670), Poole (1685), Torrey (1695), Fleming (1701), Cotton Mather (1702), Burkitt (1703), Gill (1748), Thomas Newton (1754), Faber (1806), Keith (1831), Brother Thomas (1849), Barnes (1851), Elliott (1862), Guinness (1888) and others.
The return of the Jews to their land with the assistance and protection of Britain and her allies, as predicted accurately by Brightman (1605), Goodwin (1639), Owen (1639), Mede (1640), Johanna Cartenwright and Ebenezer Cartwright (1649), Durham (1658), Burkitt (1703), Gill (1748), Thomas Newton (1754), Faber (1806), Keith (1831), Brother Thomas (1849), Barnes (1851), Elliott (1862), Guinness (1888) and others.
For the Historicist view of the seals revealed as they occurred. These all thought the seals were being fulfilled then, not in the distant future.
Irenaeus 185 A.D. (only 1st seal), Tertullian 190 AD (1st and second), Victorinus 300 AD, Andreas of Caesarea 520 AD, Primasius 6th century, Aretha, 9th century, Haymo 9th century.
““and the lion shall lie down with the lamb...”
The lamb of God saved the prostitute...the Lion of the Tribe of Judah took a scourge made of cords and drove the money changers out of the temple... fierceness and mildness, Lion and lamb!”
Interesting thought
There's the problem with discussing things with you. I haven't been in that church for over 55 years now.
Please do not ping me again.
“I’ll let the reasonable people make up their own minds.”
But you left something out, yet again, Elsie. You are getting forgetful, or slippery.
We were questioning YOUR post (#413) not mine. You forgot to include how you left out the part of my post that showed I was being consistent but you were complaining that I changed my position.
At least you are being consistently evasive with your own behavior, you have that much going for you!
bare-knuckled debate is fine with me, but don’t make stuff up through selective omission - that is poor form.
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.