Posted on 02/18/2014 3:16:33 AM PST by markomalley
So true. When I think of the money I invested in books years ago...(Strong's Concordance, Young's Concordance, Moulton, Thayer, Bullinger Lexicons, multiple interlinears, and so on and so forth). I think the only one I ever use anymore is the Moutlon's Lexicon.
By the way, a site that too many Biblical autodidact scholars (like me) are not familiar with is Perseus. You should check it out if you're not familiar with it.
Unless you are sitting at home with nothing other than a Catholic Bible and a Strong’s Catholic Concordance, you will see Church teaching one way or the other as the truth.
Salvation, for your information, I have the following reference books on my shelf that, before the Internet, I used on a regular basis.
As well as numerous Bible versions, both Protestant and Catholic.
Sadly, there just AREN'T good Catholic Bible study books to handle the Greek and Hebrew. I wish there were, but there aren't.
Last time I checked, having all those Protestant Bible study books didn't turn me into an Evangelical. Hopefully over the years it has allowed God to make me a little bit better Catholic.
If you have two Bible-believing Protestants disagree about some aspect of Biblical interpretation, how do you tell which is correct?
I'm not saying this in a derisive fashion and, obviously, there are obvious examples of where one can throw something out as being ludicrous.
But when both parties are able to defend their position, are able to show where it is both in immediate context and within the overall context...
Now, of course, the Lutherans can get some guidance from the Smaller and Larger Catechism, the Smalcald Articles, and so forth (not that any of them would be more authoritative than Scripture, but they can provide a framework through which Scriptures are interpreted consistently by Lutherans). And the Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms, the Heidelberg Catechism, and so on. Again, not to say that any of these would be more authoritative than Scripture, but they provide a doctrinal framework.
But for somebody who rejects even those documents (as I understand many "Bible-only" folks do), then how do you determine correctness? And how are you certain that you're right and that the other fellow isn't? (Again, excluding the obvious cases...)
I always enjoyed listening to "Through the Bible"
Really this is your story and you are going to stick to it? Whose words are these: then you and the others should stop with the ceaseless Romish(sic)propaganda.
They are your words and you are telling people what not to post.
That’s hardly the same thing as telling Catholics not to post in the first place.
Yeah it really is exactly that.
when you do you should expect at least occasional pushback from people who know the Scriptures and know Christ.
Catholics don't push back against Catholics.
You are woefully misconstruing what I said. I can’t tell if it’s intentional or not.
Here is what I said: “Frankly, if you don’t like my criticism of Roman Catholicism, then you and the others should stop with the ceaseless Romish propaganda.”
Even though my point was clear, I will state it once again: If Roman Catholics do not like criticism of their religion, they should stop the never-ending parade of stories. Once the Roman Catholic stories are posted here they are free game for those of us who believe Rome is an apostate church with a false gospel.
That is not the same thing as telling you or anyone else what they can and cannot post and to say it is a gross mischaracterization.
While it would be wonderful if some FReeper Catholics were to heed my warnings, I don’t expect it, so I mostly comment for the benefit of others. Too many people don’t know American history, let alone Christian history. Protestants need to be reminded of the dangers of Rome. They need to remember why the Reformation was biblical and absolutely necessary. They need to know that if anything, Rome has drifted even further away from the truth of the Scriptures since the Council of Trent. They need to know Trent denounced people who believe in grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and Rome has never repealed Trent. They need to know that until about 100 years ago, almost all Protestants (to include pre-Reformers such as Wycliffe and Hus) were united in the belief that the papacy is antichrist and that the Roman church is the “whore of Babylon.” They need to know that while we differ with Rome over the papacy and Mary and the blasphemy of the mass and the priesthood and the authority of Scripture and idolatry and purgatory and indulgences and saints etc., the heart of our dispute is over Rome’s gospel. And that—the gospel— is why we cannot be united with Rome. Rome does not have a biblical saving gospel, ergo on the basis of Galations 1:8, Christians are forbidden from having anything to do with Rome.
I don’t intend to go back and read and give a detailed response to the post Mark O’Malley wants me to respond to because I don’t have time, but I will say this: traditional Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists and Congregationalists have one thing in common: we believe the same gospel. So while we differ on certain secondary matters such as ecclesiology or the mode of baptism, we are actually united. I can worship and pray with any of those groups with a clean conscience and I have done so. I have gained so much from fellow believers in all of those camps.
In my initial post in this thread I asked what I thought would be taken as a rhetorical question. I ask it again now: What if you put your faith in Rome’s understanding and learn too late that she was wrong?
Again, my intent is to make people wrestle with that thought. I don’t want to debate and I don’t seek to prove Rome is wrong. I want people to dive into the Scriptures and see the truth for themselves.
This is all I am saying on any of this, but I must thank you for once again giving me a platform to warn people about Rome. And I appreciate having a place to post these profitable links.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=61000231635
Two Former Catholic Priests Analyze Catholicism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aNksLa_LQM
The Testimony of a Former Catholic Priest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvID3lRyYIc&feature=relmfu
Justification by Faith http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=97091138184
From Trent to Vatican 2
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=121801174222
Separate Yourselves—Understanding the European Reformation
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=121401182014
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11)
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galations 1:8)
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Amen .... and good night.
You still haven’t managed to answer the question. Curious that you have the time for that extensive a diatribe but are unwilling to answer a simple question.
Is it that the question scares you?
I understood you perfectly. Maybe it is you that doesn’t understand exactly what you are saying. Maybe you think you are saying something else. Either way the fact remains as I originally said, no one is forcing you to read anything and no one is forcing you to respond. I will pray for you.
Why would it scare me? As I said before, I don’t write for you or anyone else in particular. It didn’t seem a worthwhile use of time because Roman Catholics need the gospel, not a dissection of doctrinal and historical minutiae. Just as I wouldn’t start a kindergarten student’s science education with ‘Molecular Bond Theory” I wouldn’t start a Roman Catholic off on Pre-Millenial Dispensationalism vs. Covenent Theology, Receptionism vs. Memorialism, aspersion vs. immersion, etc. Roman Catholics need to understand the Bible way of salvation. Once they get that they will begin to see why Rome is wrong in so many other areas — papacy, Mary, purgatory, etc. The heart of our differences center on the gospel itself.
I Never Knew You
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=51306175719
Christians are united! Though it sounds incredible, this statement is gloriously true. We all have one God and Father, we believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, and we are all indwelt by the Holy Spirit. All Christians are brothers and sisters in God’s family, members of Christ’s mystical body, living stones built up into God’s temple, the dwelling place of the Spirit. This spiritual unity ought to be manifested in a common confession of faith and brotherly love. Thank God we do so, but only partially and imperfectly, given our many weaknesses and imperfections.
In the apostolic church, the apostle Paul complained about the divisions among the brethren in Corinth. In the early church, there was serious discord between the Catholics and the Donatists. Later on the tension and rivalry between the Greek and the Latin churches culminated in the great schism in 1054 that remains to this day. The sixteenth century saw the Protestant Reformation and the rise of the Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed and Baptist churches. In subsequent centuries, Protestant churches fragmented into even smaller denominations.
Our Lord Jesus prayed to His Father for us all who believe in His name: “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:21). My heart aches as I read Jesus’ prayer. His desire is our manifest unity; but alas, the world looks upon those who call on the name of Christ and, instead of unity, the world notes divisions, confusion and strife. How can outsiders believe in our Divine Messiah if they cannot see His supernatural work of love and peace among His people?!
Unity and Diversity Among Christians
How can the church be united? Well, let us state plainly that there is a form of unity that has nothing to do with the Spirit of God. It is a carnal unity, akin to the unity brought about by dictators, coercing people into submission and uniformity. This was the pathetic ideal of the Holy Roman Empire. The popes of Rome claimed supreme authority over all Christians and their governments, and subdued nonconformists by an iron fist. A similar approach was adopted for some decades after the Reformation. The people in a given region were forced to become either Catholics or Protestants according to the convictions of their Prince. The result was a form of unity; the price, bitter persecution of all who dared to differ.
Who is willing to pay for such unity by forfeiting his liberty? Who is willing to worship God contrary to his conscience? If God’s people must live in the same world with unbelievers, like wheat and tares in the same field, until the end of the world, why cannot they group in different denominations according to their convictions and live in harmony with each other? This seems to be the lesser of two evils; denominations imply a certain division, but they allow all Christian to practice their faith freely according to the dictates of their conscience.
We rejoice that there is substantial doctrinal unity among different denominations. All Christians agree on the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, the virgin birth, His atoning death and bodily resurrection. Christians believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ, emphasizing the necessity of godly living and brotherly love. Christians also believe in the resurrection, judgement, heaven and hell.
Moreover there is a genuine sense of respect and love among Christians, no matter what their denominational label might be. We are Christians before we are Baptists, Presbyterians, Brethren, Methodists and so on, and we feel an immediate and spiritual sense of brotherhood with one another.
The distinctives of the various denominations relate mainly to the following theological areas: the doctrines of grace, church government, the administration of the sacraments, the charismatic gifts, and eschatology (prophecy). We cannot minimize the importance of these doctrines, for there are significant practical and spiritual implications. However, the belief or otherwise in an earthly millennial kingdom does not exclude anyone from the universal church of Jesus Christ. After all both views were prevalent in the early church too.
Quite frankly we should add that many divisions among Christians have little or nothing to do with doctrine. Divisions between members of local churches, and between different churches, arise from sinful pique, rebellion and a fighting spirit. James asks, “Where do wars and fights come from among you?” We have to admit that disagreements and schisms often arise from our sinful lusts, carnal envying and strife rather than for our zeal for the truth of the Gospel. This is a sad reality and there is no excuse for it. In such situations, Christians show themselves to be genuine or hypocrites if and when they forgive one another from the heart.
Apparent Catholic Unity
At first glance the Roman Catholic Church seems to be united under the leadership of the Pope and the Vatican. There are official doctrines and positions on various issues, and uniformity in the liturgy in the Catholic churches worldwide. Is Rome the solution to the heterogeneity and doctrinal error in Christendom? Should all Christians submit to the authority of the Roman pontiff?
Most definitely not! For the hierarchical government of the Roman church, and the claim of universal jurisdiction of its bishop on all the churches, is not biblical; Roman Catholicism is contaminated with false human traditions that distort the Gospel of Christ; and finally, judging the system by its fruit, the Roman Church is no more united in faith and love than the rest of Christendom.
Needless to say there are factions, fighting, envy and strife among Catholics just as there are in Christian churches. Can you imagine a parish divided in two rival groups, one faction under the patronage of St Mary and the other under the patronage of St Joseph? Well, that is the kind of “unity” I observe among Catholics in a particular town in my own country.
Christian denominations do not even begin to rival the diversity between the various groups, movements, societies and orders within the Catholic Church. The spectrum ranges from the cloister nuns and Trappist monks (who spend all their time in silence), through the Masonic-like Catenians and Opus Dei, Traditional Catholics, Liberal Catholics, the Neocatechumens, Catholic Charismatics, Evangelical Catholics and so on. They all fall under the wide umbrella of Catholicism, of course, but the differences between them are just as real, and even wider than between Christian denominations. Someone will protest that this is “diversity within unity’ and that all these groups are Catholics and united under the leadership of the Pope. Well then, by the same token, despite their diversity, the many denominations are all Christian and united under the headship of Christ.
The situation is not any better in the doctrinal area. Take the charismatic movement for an example. In Protestant circles, Charismatics form separate denominations (and so the distinction from other denominations is obvious), whereas in the Catholic Church, the charismatic groups remain under the Roman umbrella. Their differences from non-charismatic Catholics are hidden though they are just as real as in Evangelical churches.
Individual Catholics often do not know or believe what the Catholic Church officially teaches. Many Catholics flatly deny Catholic dogma. There are significant differences between Catholic groups, especially between the conservative and modernist factions. Catholics disagree among themselves on such issues as the material sufficiency of Scripture, creation/evolution, the charismatic phenomena, Mary as a co-redemptrix, whether they worship the same God as Muslims or not, and so on.
The teaching of the Roman magisterium has changed on certain doctrines. For instance, the Roman Church previously taught dogmatically that salvation is limited to Catholics whereas Vatican II teaches that people in other Christian denominations and other religions can also be saved. The Council of Florence solemnly proclaimed: “It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Dezinger, page 230). Compare that statement with the teaching of the modern Catholic Church: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation” (Lumen Gentium, 16).
This is a classical doctrinal U-turn in a church that is supposedly always the same (semper eadem). If Rome was previously correct, she is now in error. But if the modern Roman church is right, she was wrong in the past. At any rate, this shows that the Catholic magisterium cannot be infallible, as it is claimed, because it has frequently contradicted itself.
The slavish submission to the teaching of the Vatican may produce a measure of uniformity among Catholics, but it is certainly not a guarantee that they are holding to the truth of the Gospel. Faithful Catholics may believe the same things. The only problem is the “same things” they uphold may be erroneous. Uniformity is not equivalent to truth or to the unity of the Spirit. All Jehovah Witnesses deny the deity of Christ; that does not make their belief any less heretical. There is no virtue in being united under the banner of a false gospel.
Relations with Apostates
Divisions are always painful, but they are sometimes necessary. “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). We are not called to maintain unity at any cost. The church is the pillar and ground of truth, and when false prophets and teachers bring in their damnable heresies, the Christian church is called to oppose error and take a stand for God’s truth. The apostle Paul was not afraid to expose some as “false brethren” since they were distorting the Gospel message (Galatians 2:4). Similarly, he calls on all Christians: “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). False doctrines cause divisions, and the faithful are called to avoid those who claim to be Christians but deny the apostolic faith.
It is perfectly right therefore for conservative Christians to disassociate themselves from the liberal Protestant churches and other apostates. The renegades deceptively call themselves Christian, Protestant and Evangelical, but they are illegitimate heirs of the historic Protestant faith as defined by the standards of faith (such as the Westminster, Belgic and Augsburg confessions). More importantly, they deny and distort the Gospel message. The liberals deny the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ, thereby robbing people of any hope of eternal life. Others openly promote immorality such as homosexuality and abortion. And yet others preach a “health, wealth and prosperity” gospel, which naturally appeals to the masses, and sadly thousands are deceived by charlatans posing as ministers of Christ. There is an urgent need in the modern Church for faithful pastors to speak out and warn against the false teachers and movements in our day.
What about the relation between Catholics and Protestants? Is it not high time for them to heal the wound in the body of Christ caused by the Reformation?
Well, what caused the division in the first place? Though there were political and other factors involved, the primary cause of the division was doctrinal. The Reformers had no intention to cause a split; they wanted to reform the church by calling her back to the simplicity of the Gospel. But Rome did not budge. And since they considered the doctrinal differences to be so crucial (especially the doctrine of justification), they were compelled to disassociate themselves from the Roman institution and form separate churches. Rome responded by the calling a general council held in Trent, Italy (1545 – 1563). The council defined the Catholic Church’s doctrinal position and condemned Protestant teaching. Scores of anathemas (curses) were directed towards Protestants for their understanding of the Gospel.
Ecumenism
Though our forefathers disagreed on many issues, they were in agreement on this one: the Catholic and Protestant doctrinal positions are so divergent that they are irreconcilable. If Catholics were right, the Protestants’ contrasting position must be wrong, and vice versa. If sola fide is the true Gospel, then Rome’s works-merit message is a false gospel!
Over the past fifty years or so, massive efforts were made to re-unite Catholics and Protestants. Sadly, the doctrinal differences remain exactly the same as they were in the sixteenth century. Rome’s teaching on justification has not changed. Should Protestants return to Rome for the sake of ecumenical unity, they would have to discard “Justification by Faith Alone” - the very same Gospel that gives them life and liberty.
The Second Vatican Council changed nothing except for the packaging. In the opening speech of the council, Pope John XXIII reaffirmed their “adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council.” Their purpose was a new presentation of the same teaching. “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another,” he said.
Furthermore, the Pope admitted that “The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity.” In other words, the tactics are changed to reach the same goal. Forget the anathemas; call the schismatics and heretics “separated brethren”; hide away the instruments of torture and let Rome present herself as “loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness.”
Evangelical Christians should realize that the purpose of the modern ecumenical movement is not the unity of Christians based on a shared faith in the Gospel of Christ. Ecumenism is Rome’s tool to absorb all Christian denominations under the papal domination.
[Ecumenical dialogue] serves to transform modes of thought and behaviour and the daily lives of those [non-Catholic] communities. In this way, it aims at preparing the way for their unity of faith in the bosom of a Church one and visible: thus little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesial communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into that unity of the one and only Church which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, dwells in the Catholic Church as something she can never loose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. (Secretariat for the Promotion of the Unity of Christians, “Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue,” in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P.)
Rome’s stated purpose for ecumenism is to conform non-Catholic Christians to “the faith” — evidently the Vatican’s teaching — so that non-Catholics would be absorbed into the Roman Church, “the one and only Church.”
Conclusion
Christians who are evangelical at heart - who truly cherish the evangel as the most precious gift of God, the very life of the church - must strive to maintain the purity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They must separate from those who preach “another gospel.” The Gospel is the banner under which all believers unite in a spiritual family to serve and worship God through Jesus Christ. They are responsible to proclaim the Gospel to all the world, including nominal Christians, for it is the only hope of reconciliation with God and spiritual unity of all people in the body of Christ.
Nice cut and paste job. Pity you had to plagiarize it rather than giving credit where due.
I guess theft of somebody else’s thoughts (i.e. , intellectual property) must not be a sin to “real” Christians.
Here’s the source: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a10.htm
Maybe you like doing the cut and paste thing (without attribution) because you can’t answer my question (you say that it’s not a matter of fear, so I’ll take your word for it)
Saint Peter would not approve: “ But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.”
Believe it or not, I have better things to do than satisfy your curiousity. I have had that saved on my PC so I posted it. It was sent to me by a friend and I was unaware of the source. The only link I could have provided was to an email address. But the point is that It answers your question. Not to mention, I gave a general answer, which was more than I was obligated to do.
Here is something for you to consider:
“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”
Notice it says “Thy Word” not “Thy Church” and not “Thy Magisterium” and not “Thy Popes.” His Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.
I should have stuck to my guns. This will be my final post in this thread.
I will leave with the question I started with, and I don’t want your answer. This is for any Catholic reading to wrestle over.
What if Rome’s way of salvation is all wrong? What if Rome doesn’t have a saving gospel? Have you been a Berean? Have you proven to yourself from Scripture that Rome’s way of salvation is right? Do you even understand why Protestants believe salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Or do you simply believe we are wrong because Rome says so?
“And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
—Acts 17:10-11
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
—Ephesians 2:8-9
“For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
—Romans 10:2-4
Have better things to do with your time?
I can sympathize.
But why do you consume megabytes of post in order to tell me you don’t have time. Seems like it would just be quicker to answer the question and be done with it...or to simply leave it be.
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.