Posted on 07/01/2015 7:13:05 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Recently there has been a surge in prominent Evangelicals calling for unity with Roman Catholicism. In one sense there seems to be strong foundational similarities that would justify these calls to unity. Catholics are baptized in the name of the Trinity. God’s revealed word in the Bible -- setting aside their addition of the Apocryphal books, for argument’s sake -- is foundational to their worldview. Catholics love Christ and believe that he died on the cross and rose again to provide grace for sinners.
Obviously there are theological differences associated with the specific teachings of each one of these perceived similarities, and I do not want to minimize the importance of these differences. But for argument‘s sake, at least on the surface, there is some common ground.
There is also a strong agreement in ethical standards. Both Roman Catholics and Evangelicals ground morality on God’s holy nature as revealed in the law of God. This means that on the hot button moral issues of the day; the murder of the unborn, human sexuality, the sanctity of marriage there is solidarity between Roman Catholic and Evangelical ethics because they are coming from the same source. Again, this seems to justify a call to some sense of unity.
Are these good enough reasons to publically stump for visible unity with Roman Catholics? That question is beyond the scope of this post. But there is a more fundamental question that must be answered first. That question serves as the dividing line between followers of Christ and the world, which separates biblical Christianity from every other worldview; does Rome possess and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
The author of the book of Hebrews in chapter 10 contrasts the gospel with that which is but a shadow of the gospel. He argues:
"And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." -- Heb 10:11–14
The argument being presented here makes it clear that Christ’s singular sacrifice, his death on the cross, perfects those for whom it is made for. This is the gospel. It is contrasted with the shadow of the gospel in which sacrifices were repeatedly made year after year because though they symbolized the atoning and perfecting sacrifice of Christ, they never themselves perfected those for whom they were made. The gospel of Jesus Christ perfects and any other religious strategies cannot.
This principle is directly applicable to the question of Roman Catholicism and the gospel of God. Roman Catholic worship centers on the mass. The mass is a series of liturgical practices that culminates in the Eucharist which according to paragraph 1068 of the Catholic of the Catholic Church (hereafter CCC) is a divine sacrifice. Paragraph 1367 of CCC calls the Eucharist a “truly propitiatory” sacrifice. This sacrifice is performed repeatedly in the life of a Catholic.
The reason the Eucharist is performed repeatedly is because even though it is claimed to be a propitiatory sacrifice that can make reparation for sins (CCC, 1414), it is a sacrifice that never perfects anyone. According to the Catholic message grace is something that you get from God by performing certain acts. First, God gives you the grace for faith in Jesus (CCC, 2000). Second, when you are baptized God graciously erases the sin of Adam from your record (CCC 1257). From that point on you get more grace by doing things like participating in the sacraments, including the Eucharist. The problem is that when you commit sins, you lose some of the grace you have gained and now need more lest your grace be found wanting at final judgment. This forces the Catholic into a position where they need to return day after day, week after week, and year after year to a priest who serves to repeatedly re-present the same sacrifice which never perfects those for whom it is made, since it only offers grace to cover some sin.
This is not the gospel.
Roman Catholics need the gospel for the same reason we all need it. We are all sinners with such a messed up and low view of how holy holiness really is that we think somehow through our own efforts we can attain it. If we just had enough time and willpower we could somehow have our good deeds outweigh our bad, and this will please God just enough for me to be acceptable to him. This is a satanic lie. A satanic lie that to some degree or another we have all bought into at some point in our life.
But the truth is glorious. God is good and God is holy. He is more good and more holy than we can possibly imagine. God is so good and so holy that anything less than absolute perfection is unacceptable in his presence. It is because of God’s awesome goodness and awesome holiness that in his wisdom he has offered us grace, through faith in Christ. A good and holy sacrifice that absolutely without question completely perfects everyone for whom it is made.
Thank you. With all that was flying to and fro, I miss-remembered that O’Brien was citing Thomas Aquinas, not Augustine. Appreciate the correction there ... BTW, I would hate to be given the job of comparing the earlier editions to the later editions. Since it is evident that RCC will change words in scriptures to fit their uses against the reformers, the changes made to O’Brien type props must be even more pernicious!
Luke 4:23
And then you list how flesh can sin, and how the flesh and the spirit war against one another, but by the spirit the flesh can be (eventually if not sooner it is hoped) subdued?
Yet the sense that the flesh "avails" nothing was in regards to how metmom was referencing John 6:63.
The flesh avails nothing...
The flesh itself (our own) gains no nutritional value from Eucharist other than what is the actual substance of the bread (and wine), therefore He was ruling out that he was speaking of His corporeal flesh (actual and "real" human flesh -- His own Divine sort) be what He was speaking towards when He talked about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
His words were spirit. The flesh avails nothing.
So just what is it you were striving to say?
You sure picked one heck of a place to add;
Doctor doctor doctor, please. Stop digging.
Listen to you, you say, yet say nothing of much usefulness. One practically needs to engage mind-reading in order to square the circle for you, other than to be able to easily enough grasp all the included insult, whether openly stated or else implied. Usually it's a combo.
BTW, portions 251 to 445 are not shown with that Google preview. That is also a more current revision. The library has an older edition in most cities. Even here in East Tennessee.
Interesting opinion. I disagree with it but it is still interesting
It worked for me -- at least once.
I opened up more than one copy. I think a person could scroll down, even though the table of contents and hot-linking was incomplete.
Having hit it more than once, I can't recall how I got to the pages myself, other than to have scrolled down(?)
That would be a good one for certain Pharisees to take to heart. Of any denomination.
-The local library has access to the 1974 edition. I have put in a request for earlier editions. Might find one at a local Catholic Church. We’ll see. The reading is naseauting, mostly.
That's all, huh?
Figures.
Yet you may return to answer #845.
Oh, wait. In the "excessively long post" I already addressed the issue, explaining and answering it for you.
Way ahead of you, boy.
Way ahead. all I see is a the smudge of small dot in my rearview mirror
If it can't fit on a bumper sticker, it's too much to contemplate as sure as if it 'aint Country, it 'aint muzick. Nothing against Bob Wills, Waylon & Willie, Charlie Pride, and Merle.
Meaning that it is interesting, but I disagree with it.
Have you written this same comment to the non-Catholic posts that post inane cartoons, and comments that don’t address issues?
Catholics accept the Real Presence because their faith REQUIRES it.
Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, and Calvinist Reformed/Presbyterians accept the Real Presence because Jesus tells us so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist
I've found that many of those "inane cartoons" and comments which you allege "don't address issues" make perfect sense to myself, in the contexts of the conversations which they often appear.
Hallmark of the Laodicean Age perhaps?
BTW, is Wikipedia the level of proof sourcing you prefer?
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.