[FatherofFive]

I still love Scott Hahn’s “Rome sweet Home”.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

They are "synergists" but follow Aquinas? Aquinas was a more moderate version of Augustine when it comes to the so-called "Calvinist" doctrines (which really are Augustinian doctrines, which really are Paul's doctrines, which really are just Christian doctrines) and not very compatible with synergism at all.

[FreedomNotSafety]

The rest of it

“ But the proper movement is not to Rome, but back to Scripture. The best and biblical option in the face of these “conversions” is embedded in the beauty of Reformed theology. A proper understanding of the self-authentication of Scripture, of union with Christ (from which both justification and sanctification necessarily flow), of the church as God’s chosen vehicle of the means of grace (the Word, sacraments, and prayer) for all who are in Christ, brings a biblically rich and glorious response to anyone who would contemplate “swimming the Tiber” (p. 23). The most natural transition for evangelicals is not to Rome, but to the glorious truths that flowed from the Reformation, where alone can be found the self-authenticating Christ of Scripture.”

[Romulus]

To view the Bible as self-authenticating is absurd. Why not be a Mormon, or a Muslim?

[D Rider]

Rome is returning to its pagan roots. Gentiles are returning to paganism. Jews are turning to Christ. Very very end times biblical. Was to be expected, but still kind of unexpected. Which was itself to be expected.

[dartuser]

As one who was taught dispensationalism, I can testify that its effect is to so minimize the church such that it is practically irrelevant to one’s Christian life. The church’s “parenthetical” status in the dispensational plan of God, on its own terms, can never allow for vibrant Christian worship.

This author isn't even trying to hide his ignorance; it's on full display.

[daniel1212]

The evidential arguments used to “prove” the Bible to be the Word of God require that those arguments be the evidential foundation for biblical authority...If one is trained to believe that authority comes from something outside of Scripture,

Authority being established (versus inherently having) based upon evidential warrant - or the authority of evidence or upon a prior established authority is sound, and thus even the veracity of the oral preaching of apostles was subject to testing by Scripture (Acts 17:11) as the prior established authority of OT Scripture. Which in essence was established upon its unique heavenly qualities and attestation.

And which provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the gospel and thus the church. (Romans 1:1,2; 16:26) Therefore it was Scripture that the Lord Himself invoked, from defeating the devil (Mt. 4) to correcting Jewish leaders (Mt. 22) to substantiating His messiahship and ministry ("in all the Scriptures") and which He opened the minds of the disciples to them, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)

Thus while Christ had inherent authority, His claims were established upon the prior established authority of Scripture as well as the miraculous which principal of attestation that Scripture establishes. (1 Kings 17:24)

However,

it is a very short step from “evidential” authority to the authority of the church. In a switch from mere evidences, to churchly authority, Scripture is still dependent on something outside of itself so that one’s epistemology remains intact, but it is now “baptized” by the church.

While the author attempts to make the authority of Scripture dependent upon the authority of the church, meaning her self-proclaimed infallible decree of what Scripture consists of, yet the authority of the church latter is dependent upon the former. And which was did not require an infallible magisterium for the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly inspired writings, by which Christ substantiated His mission ("in all the Scriptures").

And as before and as with men of God, more writings became recognized and established as being of God, but which do not support the presumed supreme infallible authority of the Catholic church, Western or Easter Orthodox. For distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

In addition, in Catholic theology it is taught that that one cannot know writings are of God except by faith in her which tells you, and thus "when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility) Whereby it is supposed that while one cannot discern the Bible as being of God, yet it is supposed that one can discern the Catholic church as being of God. And thus one becomes dependent upon her for the meaning of it, which excludes Scripture from contradicting her, which it does.

And which Catholic premise also means that her own authority is not established upon appeal to the authority of Scripture, but upon herself. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

[daniel1212]

The second insufficiency of the training these authors received is in the notion of “Free Grace” that is prominent at SES (e.g., pp. 17, 140). The notion of “free grace” typically teaches that one can have Christ as Savior, but not as Lord. Thus, “to believe” in Christ has no necessary implications for Christian obedience. Thus, “to believe” in Christ has no necessary implications for Christian obedience. Specifically, “free grace” includes a couple of ideas, one that is conducive to Rome and one that, they think, Rome corrects. In agreement with Rome, these authors were taught that “God is not a divine rapist” (p. 53); conversion is not a monergistic work of God, but is synergistic. However, what Rome appears to these authors to correct is the separation between justification and sanctification that this notion of “free grace” requires. Many of these authors rightly saw this separation as unbiblical (p. 60). So, they conclude that Rome’s view of justification that includes both Paul and James—both faith and works—is the only biblical option (p. 62).

Which sounds like they get their idea of sola fide from Catholic Answers or some modern heretics. For Luther himself formally taught, faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit... Faith cannot help doing good works constantly... if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit... where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith.. where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both. if obedience and God's commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil's own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead... if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk. Works are necessary for salvation, but they do not cause salvation... faith casts itself on God, and breaks forth and becomes certain through its works... faith must be exercised, worked and polished; be purified by fire... it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present... where the works are absent, there is also no Christ... References and more by God's grace. http://peacebyjesus.net/Reformation_faith_works.html

And with those SS Puritans there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy, as described in an account (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period:

“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”

[Svartalfiar]

A couple of authors quote John Henry Newman approvingly, “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”

Well, obviously. The whole point of Protestantism and their sola scriptura is that you ignore Tradition and history. Every individual makes up their own religion reading the Bible, and those of similar understandings tend to form communities (churches). And if you don't like how your current pastor interprets the Bible, well, start your own reformation from them. Again.

On a side note, who put together the Bible? (Oh, wait, they just took the Catholic Bible and ignore six or seven books in it.) Which Protestant church is the authority on which scriptures make up the Protestant Bible, and which stories are just ramblings of other contemporary people? Does every Protestant even have the same Bible? Cause if so, that would certainly seem to point to the idea that there is some earthly authority (can't be one of the Protestant churches, remember they're outside of Scripture!) on what the Bible is. But if there's several different Bibles, at least then their logic is consistent (individual interpretation), but their base (what actually is the Bible) is undefined, as any person can make up whatever for their own "true" bible..


The third aspect of these “conversions” is both most obvious as well as most troubling—the utter insufficiency of the theology taught at SES. This insufficiency, it seems to me, explains each and every “conversion” experience in this book. Though all authors would agree with this insufficiency, their analyses and critiques of it are themselves insufficient, since it motivated their conversion to Rome.

Well that's not hypocritical at all... The priests convert to Catholicism because they feel it has the full gamut of theology that evangicism is lacking, and the author thinks their argument is lacking because they chose Catholicism? Would he have made the same argument if these priest said the exact same words, but picked the author's church instead? No, he would have said it's a great argument and they're 100% correct... The author sounds just like a Democrat.

[MHGinTN]

No worries, let the faux evangelical homosexuals scurry into the waiting embrace of Catholicism for their ‘livelihood’. If they were unable to see the differences they PERHAPS weren’t Christians anyway.

[imardmd1]

Thomas Aquinas, like all of the First Adam's descendants, was also fallible. The error in "Thomism" is turning to Aquinas in humanistic pride, thinking that Man's ability to reason escaped The Fall. That mistaken concept led to the greatest error of all, of lending the Magisterium a higher credibility than the Holy Scriptures as interpreted by their Writer, The Holy Ghost.

The matter has been addressed, and one of those recent authors on it is Francis Schaeffer, whose little volume "Escape From Reason" deals with this and with Aquinas summarily.

The fact is that the unregenerated "scholar" does not, and cannot understand nor apply the lessons of the Bible. This is clearly and unarguably stated by Paul in his letter meant to provide answers to the divisions within the Corinthian assembly, but applying to all such cass:

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 (AV)(interpretations superscripted, main points bolded for emphasis):

¹² Now we^{Paul and co-workers} have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know^perceive the things that are freely given to us of God. 
¹³ Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 
¹⁴ But the natural^psukikos man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 
¹⁵ But he that is spiritual^pneumatikos judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 
¹⁶ For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 

This is not to say that the truly regenerated newly reborn person is instantly fit to debate with the seasoned souish minion of the god of this world, for he/she is yet to be instructed in and practicing this new life in the Spirit. The immediate next verses that Paul wrote say so:

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (AV):

¹ And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual^ones, but as unto carnal^{sarkikos, unregenerate}, even as unto babes-in-Christ^{newly regenerate}.  ² I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 
³ For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk^behave as ^unregeneratemen? 

Here we have two classes of people, those who only profess belief in The Christ but are unregenerate, and another who are truly reborn, but so early in practice of their holiness that they have not yet conquered their unspiritual habits.

What this all tells me is that Aquinas' position of mankind still having an unfallen--hence infallible--reasoning capability makes understanding of the Written Scriptures a human's sole responsibility apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and hence a work necessary for the human to receive the eternal life described in the writings. It is also the basis on which the Magisterium claims authority over and above the Holy Writings, and for the "lay" people to trust in its interpretyations even against what the Scriptures plainly say.

But this approach makes salvation depend on the merits of a human's good deeds, and not the free, unmerited gift of God. And that is why Thomism must be rejected, for it inherently embodies a false gospel, a false spirit, and a false Jesus preaching it.

Essentially, the saving faith comes by hearing and ingesting the Seed, the preached Word of God, which upon germination bears the Spirit-born fruit of a new spiritual human who casts all his/her trust on the Jesus of the Bible, and on His Shed Blood alone to make the person acceptable to The Father, no longer dead to God.

I do not believe that anyone clinging to the Catholic or other Arminian teachings can ever be saved by them.

[Gamecock]

What I’m seeing here is the problem with defining the term evangelical. The term is so squishy these days it can mean anything from Lakewood Church and Joel Osteen all the way over to the most hard-core Calvinists.

SES seems to embrace the squish..

[metmom]

All grace is free. that’s what makes it grace.

If it weren’t free, it wouldn’t be grace, but rather wages due for work performed.

This article proves nothing but that the author doesn’t even understand what grace is.

[MayflowerMadam]

My cousin was an evangelical seminarian whose path took him to Rome in 1973 — to be pastor of a Baptist church.

[Philsworld]

The Angel of the Covenant (messenger of the covenant)

Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. Mal 3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Did you catch that Cronie? LORD OF HOSTS. Same as Captain of the host, same as Michael the Archangel and his angels (host) They are all none other than Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the angel of the LORD, (the Captain of the host), the angel of God, the angel of the covenant, the Archangel Michael, who appeared time and again in the Old Testament to speak directly to His people. Michael is just another title for the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, the principle messenger of the gospel (archangel) to humanity, but He is not a created being.