Skip to comments.
Thumbs up or thumbs down on Rome?
Reformation500 ^
| February 23, 2010
| John Bugay
Posted on 04/15/2015 10:35:02 AM PDT by RnMomof7
One commenter said:
The way you write, I guess, seems to me to reveal a near certainty concerning the falsity of Catholic Doctrine. It seems as though you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Catholicism simply couldnt be true. And youre willing to hang everything on that confidence.
Too often, an argument is put forth in this form: Protestantism has lots of problems. Therefore, Catholicism.
I once looked at it this way myself. I was hanging around some close friends who were starting a fellowship for completed Jews, that is, these were all Jewish people who had become believers, and they first started an informal fellowship, and then a church. But by this second phase, they were getting hung up on issues of leadership, church structure, etc. There were a lot of different ways they could have done this, but their disagreements over such issues led me to say, the Catholic church has already been through these kinds of issues; they have decided upon a resolution to them, so Im going home to Rome. And thats just what I did.
Francis Turretin, at the beginning of Volume 3 of his three volume Institutes states, in summary form, he says that Protestants (rightly) look to Scripture, and they determine what the true faith is by studying and understanding what the Scriptures say on a doctrine-by-doctrine, or point-by-point basis. And this needs to be done.
But Catholics, Turretin says, simply sweep all of this aside with one motion. They say, We are The Church, and we decide what the true faith is.
And I think that the imbalance in this form of argumentation accounts for many of the misunderstandings that continue to occur in these types of discussions in our day.
In Turretins time, Roman polemicists attempted to prove their position. They argued, for instance, that the Roman church had never changed, that it was the Protestants who introduced novelty into the ongoing sweep of church history.
But by Newmans time, Newman was realizing that Rome, too, had (seemingly) introduced difficulties that neither Rome nor the Protestant churches adhered to the 5th century Vincentian rule: what was believed always, everywhere, by all. In fact, he summarily dismissed this as unworkable for both parties.
However, the position that Turretin noticed Roman polemicists were arguing for, We are The Church, and we decide what the true faith is, was in Newmans formulation, merely an assumption. That is, Newman assumed (and taught Roman polemicists to assume) that the authority structure that was present in his day, was in some way the same authority structure that was in place in the 2nd, 7th, and subsequent centuries.
My thought is that this assumption must not be allowed to stand unchallenged. And especially in the face of such historical evidence as Ive presented the historians Ive cited DO present an alternative church structure that is far more viable, because it is based on real-life evidence that has been discovered.
So what I want to do is to really change the terms of the argument. To bring it out of Newmans world of fuzzy assumptions, and to force Rome to argue that its conception of itself is right. If its conception of its own history and authority are right, then the evidences that it brings forth to support such contentions will be more than adequate to convince an unbelieving world.
My contention is that it cannot do so. My contention is that the work that I am presenting is also known to the Magisterium at Rome. The mere fact that the Magisterium, even the CDF, is conceding that we are conscious of development in the primacy is a huge historical concession. If Luther and Calvin had had a concession like that, the course of the Reformation could have been different.
We have that kind of concession today. It was forced by historical evidence.
People now need to ask the one question: Did the Roman church come by its authority in a legitimate way? Was its authority divinely instituted, as it never tires of reminding us that it is? Or was this authority accumulated through less-than-honest means?
Looking at the early history of the papacy, and the evidence we have of how it came about, I dont see that the answer to this question is in doubt.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: authorityhistory; newman; papacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-137 next last
1
posted on
04/15/2015 10:35:02 AM PDT
by
RnMomof7
To: Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; CynicalBear; daniel1212; Gamecock; HossB86; Iscool; ...
2
posted on
04/15/2015 10:35:36 AM PDT
by
RnMomof7
To: RnMomof7
It’s bash Catholics Wednesday.
It is interesting that so much of the theology of your ‘church’ includes trashing Catholics.
You are sadly predictable.
AMDG
3
posted on
04/15/2015 10:42:41 AM PDT
by
LurkingSince'98
(Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
To: RnMomof7
divinely instituted, of course. Thank you.
4
posted on
04/15/2015 10:46:28 AM PDT
by
steve8714
(Election day in Ferguson. What could possibly go wrong?)
To: LurkingSince'98
**It is interesting that so much of the theology**
Theology?
I have to say that you need to get your categories correct.
5
posted on
04/15/2015 10:52:20 AM PDT
by
Gamecock
(Why do bad things happen to good people? That only happened once, and He volunteered. R.C. Sproul)
To: LurkingSince'98
Christians bash other Christians on FR with alarming frequency, as if there weren’t much bigger fish to fry.
And Jesus wept...
To: RnMomof7
Good article. Is this a start to a series?
7
posted on
04/15/2015 10:58:28 AM PDT
by
redleghunter
(1 Peter 1:3-5)
To: RnMomof7
I send best wishes to everyone on their spiritual journey!
After much experience with the Church I recommend going direct to God and ignoring so-called organized religion. It has been corrupted beyond immediate repair much as all systems of govt and religion worldwide have been corrupted.
There is no indication extant that an intermediary institution between a soul and God is required or even desirable. I believe the opposite is more likely.
I have acquired unlimited faith in God and none in organized religion.
8
posted on
04/15/2015 10:59:10 AM PDT
by
SaxxonWoods
(Life is good.)
To: LurkingSince'98
If you believe something posted here is incorrect, you are welcome to refute it with facts. Using what amounts to an ad hominem argument to support the Romanist position is not just weak, but in poor taste. We are interested in facts from the Bible...not your opinion.
To: LurkingSince'98
Ha! What a sad way to live a life.
10
posted on
04/15/2015 11:05:52 AM PDT
by
miss marmelstein
(Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
To: Dutchboy88
A fact-free post deserves a fact-free response.
11
posted on
04/15/2015 11:06:18 AM PDT
by
Campion
To: alphadoggie; All
Christians bash other Christians on FR with alarming frequency, as if there werent much bigger fish to fry. And Jesus wept...Christians (like yourself) bash other Christians on FR (by labeling them "bashers") with at least this post, as if there weren't much bigger fish to fry. And Jesus wept...
Sadly inconsistent, aren't you?:
1. You preach "thou shalt not 'bash'" ... as you bash
2. You preach "Thou shalt fry much bigger fish" ... all as you take the time to post on a thread featuring the size of fish typically tossed back into the water.
Have you thought a more consistent message might actually have more traction?
To: Campion
My initial thoughts as well. Thus asked if this was an introduction to a series of some sort.
However, being the curious type, I actually went to the link and the author used this blog post to generate a discussion at his site. The discussion and justification for his initial comments are there to examine for those who want to.
What seemed to me initially as a ‘drive by’ is actually a person who wants to engage in an honest dialogue with Catholics and Protestants.
But yes, this one piece relies on many other posts/works of the author and understand your comments.
Check out the site if you have time or interest.
13
posted on
04/15/2015 11:20:07 AM PDT
by
redleghunter
(1 Peter 1:3-5)
To: Campion
Then give us the authority for Rome from the Bible...if it exists. Crickets.
To: Dutchboy88; Campion
15
posted on
04/15/2015 11:34:46 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
To: Colofornian
Christians (like yourself) bash other Christians on FR (by labeling them "bashers") Hey, you! Stop bashing the basher bashers.
16
posted on
04/15/2015 11:37:17 AM PDT
by
Jeff Chandler
(Doctrine doesn't change. The trick is to find a way around it.)
To: RnMomof7
Just check out “Pagan Christianity” by Frank Viola and Gerrge Barna, and you will find all the statistics and sources to declare The Romanists have an organization of pagan philosophy stamped on a Christian origin. IMHO, and that of the authors. The Protestantism of Calvin, Luther, and Knox fares little better, although they did surface some irrefutable complaints to the Roman mechanism.
17
posted on
04/15/2015 11:37:59 AM PDT
by
imardmd1
(Fiat Lux)
To: Colofornian
My point is perfectly consistent. Just pointing out that Christians aren’t safe from other Christians here on FR. Any more than that, you’re adding your own interpretation.
To: LurkingSince'98
Or should we say “Thumbs up or thumbs down on the false protest-ant church?”
19
posted on
04/15/2015 11:45:23 AM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: pgyanke
20
posted on
04/15/2015 11:49:27 AM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-137 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson