Posted on 03/07/2014 3:33:17 PM PST by marshmallow
A sub-rebellion of the original rebellion? I fail to see how that is any better. I might even be willing to concede that modern day Catholics (particularly in the western world) are more liberal than their evangelical counterparts.
Which means exactly what? Nothing. It’s the theological equivalent of, “my Dad can beat up your Dad.” We’re talking about Truth here. The Truth about the evil of birth control which has been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. And as Catholics, our sin is the greater one for disobeying for we have been given the fullness of Truth.
And what of the basic truths and moral views of protestantism? Sola scriptura? The abdication of the true Scriptures in favor of those adulterated versions that came later? Resulting in confusion within the Body of Christ. A horribly detestable state if there ever was one.
Sola fide? Resulting in the rejection of Christ’s sacraments and the sanctifying grace it imparts as expressed in scripture and preserved by the Church? Treating them with derision by denying the miracle of the Eucharist and calling it “magic”?
Coupled all this with the protestant-inspired radical individualism and what have you got? The current moral state of western civilization. This is the end result of that rebellion. Sure it’s generated some ancillary benefits (if you can call them that) such as the United States, the Constitution, etc. but as we see that today that doesn’t count for much.
What we are seeing today is the the end result of the protestant rebellion. And when it fades away along with its multitude of scriptural and theological error the only thing left standing will be the Roman Catholic Church. Which is why there really is no such thing as the betters of classical protestantism.
Fact. The first principle of a protestant is non serviam. I will not serve. Always the “no” first. Disobedient children. That “collective” you speak of is the Body of Christ guided by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Anyone who uses the word “autocratic” to describe the teaching office of the Church has an authority problem born out of radicial individualism. “Who are you to...[insert objection here]...” Worshippers of Rand and not Christ.
The article is from a Baptist publication dated 3/5/14. Yet, you still suspect Papist tomfoolery here?
Dunno...why not ask the Roman Catholic who posted the article.
Of course I agree with Romans 10:9, but that verse refers to the Jesus Christ of Scripture. Rome has another Jesus and another gospel. It matters what you believe about Jesus. Rome’s Jesus is not the Jesus of Scripture.
The Lord Jesus of Scripture saves by grace alone and He is mighty to save. The Jesus of the Bible finished His work on the cross. The Christ Jesus of Scripture beckons sinners to come to Him and He will give them rest. Rome utterly rejects that Jesus. Rome’s Jesus needs your help and there’s no rest in Him because you are too busy working and striving for an uncertain salvation. The pope’s Jesus didn’t accomplish enough, so your good works need to be added to the work of Jesus. And in the event you don’t do quite enough you can finish working off your sin debt in a place called Purgatory. If you can afford it you might write a few checks and buy your way out of a few years. My Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, is the sole mediator between God and man. Rome has all kinds of mediators, any old dead saint will do. My Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. Rome has vicar standing in the Holy Spirit’s place. I could go on and on and on. Yes, Rome has a Jesus, but He is not the Jesus of the Bible.
As for works righteousness, Rome may not use that term (you might prefer I call it a sacramental system), but that’s what the Roman system is. Regardless of the label, it’s certainly not a grace alone system. And according to Scripture, if you attempt to add any works to grace, then grace is no more. Based on the Bible you have no works that aren’t tainted by sin. Isaiah likened our best, our righteousness, to “filthy rags.” Don’t forget that works require a wage. And we know that the wages of sin is death.
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6)
In the end Rome is little different from Israel of old.
Romans 10:2-3 “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.”
I’m about to go on vacation, so I can’t fight all the battles of the Reformation tonight, but I urge you to listen to the presentation of the gospel I linked in my last comment. I know you don’t like what I’m telling you, but it’s far better to hear this now than after it’s too late. Instead of trying to convince me I’m wrong about Rome, presuming that I don’t understand, I urge you to spend your time understanding the biblical gospel.
No: two means of assurance of Truth - which is correct? One is based upon evidential warrant, the other is based upon the premise of assured veracity. In other words, being like a Berean in heart and method, or like Keating: "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
The former is harder to obtain widespread unity versus the latter, which is why cults effectively operate under Rome's model (and which surpass Rome in degree of unity), but the quality is inferior to that of the former.
. I might even be willing to concede that modern day Catholics (particularly in the western world) are more liberal than their evangelical counterparts.
You had best do so, since that is the fact.
Which means exactly what? Nothing. It’s the theological equivalent of, “my Dad can beat up your Dad.”
Rather, if your boast is that Wheaties makes your dad superior, and your dad eats them, then being beaten by his Cheerios eating competition, then it means something. You argument is that Protestantism results in liberalism, while in fact RCs are more liberal than those who are closest to being true historical Protestants.
We’re talking about Truth here. The Truth about the evil of birth control which has been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. And
Which is about the only thing RCs can invoke in which they are more conservative in (and which Prots used to hold to), although not by much in practice, and Rome's actual effectual teaching is that you are a member regardless.
And as Catholics, our sin is the greater one for disobeying for we have been given the fullness of Truth.
The greater sin is the presuming she has the fullness of Truth, based upon her infallible self proclamation.
And what of the basic truths and moral views of protestantism? Sola scriptura?
Since holding Scripture as the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims (and which provides for the church and writings being recognized as Scripture) is what is abundantly evidenced as being Scriptural, and those who hold to the classic Protestant position of Scripture with its basically literal hermeneutic are more conservative and unified in basic moral views than RCs, then it is your basis for Truth that is in error.
The abdication of the true Scriptures in favor of those adulterated versions that came later?
Lacking details who knows what that refers to, but even having poor translations is better than hindering Biblical literacy as was the practice of Rome, while for decades teaching liberal revisionism by her approved notes - which was one thing modern evangelism rose up to counter.
What official unadulterated version has and does your church use in Mass???
Resulting in confusion within the Body of Christ. A horribly detestable state if there ever was one.
Resorting to this comparison is spurious since you cannot compare one church with a multitude which includes those who deny core tenets of historical Prot. faith. A valid comparison is between those who hold to Scripture being the supreme authority as the wholly inspired literal word of God, versus those who hold the church to that supreme authority, presuming a level of assured veracity that warrants implicit submission.
This comparison is to be avoided by RCs, as division and sects are also clearly manifest under sola ecclesia, and while they characterize their opposition as completely disunited due to SS, it is amazing that those who most hold to SS are counted as the greatest threat by both liberals and Rome (in the West at least), due to a shared affirmation and contention for core Truths.
Sola fide? Resulting in the rejection of Christ’s sacraments and the sanctifying grace it imparts as expressed in scripture and preserved by the Church?
That is simply and manifestly more propaganda. If the "sanctifying grace" claimed to be dispensed via Rome's rituals was regulated as food then it would have been fined for false advertising. I have been there, as a devoutly raised RC, and who later remained for 6 years after being manifestly born again thru true personal repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save me by His sinless shed blood (and served as as CCD teacher and Lector), then i know the manifest difference btwn institutionalized religion - which Rome basically is - and true conversion.
Treating them with derision by denying the miracle of the Eucharist and calling it “magic”?
It is actually a form of endocannibalism, and the idea that spiritual and eternal life is gained by physically eating anything, let alone human flesh, is not at all Scriptural and is absurd. Ignoring the abundant use of figurative language in Scripture, esp. as regards eating and drinking, then to be consistent, Catholics should hold that water turned into the blood of men in the OT, since David clearly stated it was blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17) And which has been dealt with often here in the past .
Coupled all this with the protestant-inspired radical individualism and what have you got?
A certain country began like that, while repeating your mantra may help you ignore the vast diversity in Catholicism, and the unity resulting from holding Scripture as expressed before, but it will not make either go away.
The fact is that RCs are enjoined to provide cultic submission to a limited number of truths, yet they can and do disagree on how many there are, while being allowed some dissent on the rest, relative to their magisterial level, which is open to some interpretation, as is the meaning to some degree on every level of teaching.
Which is in addition to the great liberty RCs have in interpreting Scripture to support Rome with the parameters of RCs teaching, which often results in egregious extrapolation in attempts to support traditions of men.
This variance extends even to clergy, and thus the unity of Rome is largely on paper, and that of having the same ritual and mostly perfunctory professions of it.
In addition are the contrasts btwn what Rome said in the past and those of the present. Both of which result in interpretive views.
This does not excuse the unnecessary divisions among those who do hold to Scripture as supreme, but Christianity began due to division, and in dissent from those who were the magisterium. And its unity was made possible by the level of manifest Divine attestation and holiness of the apostles, which corporately is not seen today, and is in vast contrast to that of Rome.
But it is those are like the Bereans that would examine truth claims by the established word of Truth, the Scriptures, and so follow a Peter or a Paul - contrary to Rome, with its critical and other contrasts with rhe NT church!
No, as that had to be expected by the RC information service poster who posted it.
I see. So your argument is that the historical stewards of Scripture are the infallible interpreters of it, and are to be submitted to, and those that do not are rebels? Affirm or deny.
And consistent with "I will not serve," thus liberalism abounds asc well as lack of common contention to core truth among those who most closely hold to the historical Protestant view of Scripture, while Rome is known for disciplining her liberals, now that she has lost her unBiblical use of the sword of men? Yes or no.
That “collective” you speak of is the Body of Christ guided by the power of the Holy Spirit.
As you are contending for Catholicism versus those without, you must mean that she is the body of Christ, in contrast to those in Protestantism? Affirm or deny your argument here.
Anyone who uses the word “autocratic” to describe the teaching office of the Church has an authority problem born out of radicial individualism.
I see, thus it could not be allegiance to Scripture as supreme, and thus conditional submission to authority which it enjoins, that is behind dissent to a church which 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?
Just answer the questions clearly one by one without the usual propaganda. Its getting late.
I agree with you. That many birth control methods DO cause abortion in the early stages of gestation, is something that MUST be more frequently and loudly explained. Many women and men simply do not know this fact, even though the small print wording is included in the forms that come with the packaging. The wording, too, often is lacking in direct language and relies upon euphemistic terms that mislead.
However, is it disingenuous for Roman Catholics to claim the high road when they overtly support Natural Family Planning - a method that tracks the woman's fertility to determine when sexual intercourse is likely, or unlikely, to result in fertilization. This, to me, is not objectively better, or worse, than other "barrier" type methods that also prevent fertilization while having no impact on the human life that may result from its failure.
Where is the word *sacrament* found in the Bible?
Where does Jesus list them?
Where does Jesus tell us that He distributes parcels of grace only through them?
No, Scripture. The Word, not the theology.
The abdication of the true Scriptures in favor of those adulterated versions that came later?
What do you consider *true Scriptures* and in favor of what *adulterated versions* later? What or which *adulterated versions*?
Depends on what is being served.
It's *No* to the heavy hand of the Catholic church.
It's more than *YES!* to Christ.
That “collective” you speak of is the Body of Christ guided by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The church is an organism, not an organization.
Individuals are guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic church can lay no unique or special claim to that.
Matter of fact, the non-Scriptural teachings it demands its followers to obey under threat of hellfire, show it to be NOT guided by the Holy Spirit.
My opinion as a believer is the same as before i became a believer.
Since birth can only be controlled by the individuals, it also should only be decided by the individual.
The responsibility should also be to those individuals and the people who are in charge of them (excluding Government) parents, husbands, boy friends.
I also believe contraception as the issue is as phoney as a three dollar bill and complete Government control is the real issue, but in the face of all of the political correctness people do not have the guts to say :no i do not want to pay for some whores birth control pills:.
This is the result of the yellow backed cowards who have went right along with the unwed mother programs all along because it relieves them of the responsibility of taking care of their own.
Considering the homosexual infestation of the priesthood, the push against birth control is gagging on a gnat and swallowing a camel.
I appreciate a church that holds to it's doctrines. In my case, I was raised with a set of sexual morals and turned away from them in rebellion. I found the church again and reaffirmed the morality I was raised with. I look at Jesus' teaching in Mt 5:28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." and also from the same chapter: 21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire."
Jesus taught the Commandments, which I understand to encompass all evil. Paul had more specific lists in Galatians 5 and 1 Corinthians 6 which include fornication. The Catholic Church has the Seven Deadly Sins and I'm glad they do.
Look at how young people socialize today. There is no "dating" - they "hang out". And the majority of children that are born now only have a single parent. I have that situation in my own family. It seems the greatest "sin" today is cheating. Depression, anxiety and drug abuse is rampant as a result.
What will it take? Another AIDS epidemic? As others have posted, it's coming.
From a polemical point of view, it is not productive to lecture another person on "what they believe", when it only reveals your mistaken *idea* of what they believe. It's like laboring to argue your friend out of voting for Paula Deen for Senator, when your friend is just into the cinnamon buns.
It's not a persuasive discussion, because you are not engaging what the other person actually believes, but only your own distorted view of it. In the end, you are talking to yourself.
This is not worth my time, and hardly seems worth yours.
It's Saturday. I'll go out and plant my fava beans.
Quite the contrary. Endorsing sterile sex, justified only because it's pleasurable, between husband and wife is just the first step down the slippery slope toward endorsing any sexual act for any reason, no matter how trivial. You don't get homosexual activity on the "approved" list without first putting contraceptive heterosexual activity on the list.
Robert Runcie (fmr CofE Abp of Canterbury) admitted this a few years ago, BTW. It's not just my opinion.
Just as an aside, you can fit all of the homosexual priests who regularly preached or taught against contraception in between these two brackets --> []
NFP is like choosing to eat less, or skip meals, to lose weight.
Condomistic sex is like bingeing and purging.
One is healthy behavior, one is not.
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.