Posted on 11/19/2013 6:10:28 AM PST by Gamecock
The Roman Catholic Church poses several attractions for evangelical Christians. Whether their motivation is Rome’s apparent unifying power, its claims to be semper idem (“always the same”), its so-called historical pedigree, its ornate liturgy, or the belief that only Rome can withstand the onslaught of liberalism and postmodernism, a number of evangelicals have given up their “protest” and made the metaphorical trek across Rome’s Tiber River into the Roman Catholic Church.
Historically, particularly during the Reformation and post-Reformation periods, those who defected back to Rome typically did so out of intense social, political, and ecclesiastical pressure—sometimes even to save themselves from dying for their Protestant beliefs. But today, those who move to Rome are not under that same type of pressure. Thus, we are faced with the haunting reality that people are (apparently) freely moving to Rome.
In understanding why evangelicals turn to Catholicism, we must confess that churches today in the Protestant tradition have much for which to answer. Many evangelical churches today are, practically speaking, dog-and-pony shows. Not only has reverence for a thrice holy God disappeared in our worship, but even the very truths that make us Protestant, truths for which people have died, such as justification by faith alone, have been jettisoned for pithy epithets that would not seem out of place in a Roman Catholic Mass or, indeed, a Jewish synagogue. Our polemics against Rome will be of any lasting value only when Protestant churches return to a vibrant confessional theology, rooted in ongoing exegetical reflection, so that we have something positive to say and practice alongside our very serious objections to Roman Catholic theology.
The attractions of Rome are, however, dubious when closely examined. For example, after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Catholic Church lost not only the claim to be “always the same” but also its claim to be theologically conservative. Besides the great number of changes that took place at Vatican II (for example, the institution of the vernacular Mass), the documents embraced mutually incompatible theologies. Perhaps the most remarkable change that took place in Rome was its view of salvation outside of the church, which amounts to a form of universalism: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (Lumen Gentium 16; hereafter LG). Protestants, who were condemned at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), were now referred to as “separated fellow Christians” (Unitatis Redintegratio 4). Once (and still?) anathematized Protestants are now Christians? This is a contradiction. But even worse, present-day Roman Catholic theologians candidly admit that those who try to be good possess divine, saving grace, even if they do not explicitly trust in Christ.
Such a view of salvation is really the consistent outworking of Rome’s position on justification. So, while the Roman Catholic Church can no longer claim to be “always the same” or theologically conservative, she still holds a view of justification that is antithetical to the classical Protestant view that we are justified by faith alone. Whatever pretended gains one receives from moving to Rome, one thing he most certainly does not receive—in fact, he loses it altogether—is the assurance of faith (Council of Trent 6.9; hereafter CT). It is little wonder that the brilliant Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) once remarked that assurance was the greatest Protestant heresy. If, as Rome maintains, the meritorious cause of justification is our inherent righteousness, then assurance is impossible until the verdict is rendered. For Protestants, that verdict is a present reality; the righteousness of Christ imputed to us is the sole meritorious cause of our entrance into eternal life. But for Roman Catholics—and those outside of the church who “do good”—inherent righteousness is a part of their justification before God (CT 6.7).
The Reformation doctrine of justification was not something about which Protestant theologians could afford to be tentative. At stake is not only the question of how a sinner stands accepted before God and, in connection with that, how he is assured of salvation (1 John 5:13), but also the goodness of God toward His people.
In the end, our controversy with Rome is important because Christ is important. Christ alone—not He and Mary (LG 62)—intercedes between us and the Father; Christ alone—not the pope (LG 22)—is the head of the church and, thus, the supreme judge of our consciences; Christ alone—not pagan “dictates of conscience” (LG 16)—must be the object of faith for salvation; and Christ’s righteousness alone—not ours (LG 40)—is the only hope we have for standing before a God who is both just and the Justifier of the wicked. To move to Rome is not only to give up justification and, thus, assurance— even more so, it is to give up Christ.
HMMMmmm...
What a concept!
John 1:42Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas (which is translated Peter)."
......................................................................................................................
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
V. 20 says that "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”"> I'm gathered with Elsie!
Dealing With Sin in the Church (Gr> ekklēsia: church, congregation, assembly)
15“ If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Nothing like out of context verses to support any doctrine someone wants supported.
A lot of meaning is packed into this short command.
The following conclusions follow with logical necessity.
1) The "church" that Christ is referring to was extant and visible when He made this statement, because it's impossible for a completely invisible body of believers to settle any kind of dispute. If the Church at the time was completley invisible, his command would be nonsensical or void.
2) The Church that Christ is referring to teaches with His authority. How do we know? Because he could have said, "tell it to Me."
3) If this Church teaches with His authority, it must be His Church, the Church that He founded.
4) The teaching of the Church is unified. Christ did not mention a specific local church, but the church. And again, local churches promoting contradictory doctrines would render Christ's command meaningless.
5) According to Christ, "the gates of hell" would not prevail against His Church. This is an unqualified statement. He did not say that the visible aspect of His Church would pass away. So the visible aspect of the Church that Christ founded must exist to this day, and can be traced back to Apostolic times.
The following conclusions follow with logical necessity.-STA
First fallacy, Thomas, is to assume the name of a dead person, assuming some sort of special power or authority.
Second fallacy, is to ASSUME that Christ spoke logically!
1 Corinthians 3: 16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.
18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”
ping to 289
If you want to continue to take verses out of context; then go for it.
I'll not fall for it; maybe an ill-informed lurker might; but I'll do my best to see that does NOT happen.
Cheers!
Why don’t you start reading your Bible, you know the one the Catholics in their infinite wisdom compiled so everyone would be able to read the word of God. Don’t you think it’s about time that you give credit where credit is due. Only the most woefully arrogant deny the Catholic Church’s role in bringing the word to God to all four corners of the world. Unless you’re muslim, buddist of hindu or pagan, you’re ancestors that lived before the Reformation were Catholic; that’s right, every last one of them were Catholic. Try not loose any sleep over it.
I read my Bible, and that is how I know that the nonsense that the catholic church invented is nowhere to be found therein.
The books of my Bible were well established from 200 years to 1800 years before the catholic apostasy was invented.
The reformation means little to me, since they failed to reject that same garbage that enslaves catholics to their father, Satan.
I follow The Way, instituted by Yeshua HaMashiac.
It must be my magnetic personality.
>> “According to Christ, “the gates of hell” would not prevail against His Church. This is an unqualified statement.” <<
.
Since the gates of Hell own your ‘catholic’ church, I would think that you must have concluded by now that it cannot be Yeshua’s church?
Hilarious..Guido Sarducci.
Sir, how many Roman Catholics signed the Declaration of Independence? That’s right just one. My point? Do Prots tell RCs to get down on their knees and thank the Prots who formed this nation under God?
Jer_16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
e-Sword:KJV
Amen!
“Where the bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church”
-Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 1st c. A.D.
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.