Posted on 07/05/2002 10:14:23 AM PDT by Polycarp
For later reading.
IF as these Romanists insist, its not good enough to confess ones sins to God, that an ordained Roman Catholic Priest MUST give absolution, THEN not one "Christian" (by that I mean a Protestant) who's never confessed to a priest has had any of his sins forgiven--indeed, they are by definition not even Christians at all... They (we) are by definition left in our sins--and Christ and his blood alone is not enough (without that pesky Priest to dole out forgiveness to us...).
WOW! That must me no Protestant will ever even make it to Purgatory, let alone Heaven!
Funny thing is though, in spite of the perfect logic of our entire lack of forgiveness, that's not what the Pope or the Roman Church at large teaches (anymore) is it?
Or do the Romanists here disagree with the Roman Church and want to say those of us who trust Jesus alone are not even Christians and have no hope of Heaven?
Since this someone else's published article, posted, you may want to try to have a more charitible attitude toward those of us who have not (yet) posted a point by point refutation.
The article was obviously written and edited taking lots of time (making sure it was exactly in accord with (current) Roman doctrine), and frankly most of us here don't have that much time to do point-to-point refutations (especially of professionally written articles).
I'll try to refute it later, however I'll note a bit of disingenuous mode of argument to ask Protestants to refute doctrines solely from the Bible where Roman Catholics look to the authority of BOTH the Bible AND Church Tradition equally in support of any doctrine. We could build an air-tight biblical case, and you'd merely resort to your Tradition to refute us. In your mind, even if the scriptural basis of some doctrine or practice is obscure, or even absent--since the Church teaches it now "and always has..."(or says it has) then it must be right.
I'll never understand how Romanists look to a constantly-redefined-according-to-whoever-is-in-power Tradition as a place of solid authority. It would seem to me to be the ideal place for revisionist history making by defintion...so often demonstrated in practice.
No this is not true. When NC's confess thier sins directly to God, out of pure sorrow for having offended him (not just because of fearing hell) then your sins are forgiven. I don't have time to explain further. But it is not true at all that your sins are never forgiven if you don't confess them to a priest. Maybe someone else can elaborate.
If you want to go down that road, could you explain to me why the docterine of sola scriptura, private judgement and faith alone was a big "discovery" only after 1500 years! If length of time bothers you, you should really be worried about that. If everybody has the Holy Spirit, surely somebody could have rescued these ideas from the bible a lot sooner, given how important they are.
Well those ancient Christian writings are ours. However if they could find writings by the ancient Baptists you can be sure that they would use them and call them Sacred Tradition too.
In what way?
Sola Scritpura was a return to the church not a deviation from it
How did the early church KNOW that Jesus was the Christ and the apostles? They searched the scriptures to look for prophecy..
The reformation was a return to the practice of the early church..God is immutible..if he said something here he will not change His mind later...check it against the word..Sola Scriptura..
What was the contemporary understanding.
BTW your argument is awful because time was not their friend they are wrong..could be you are too
One sign of a losing arguement is name calling...I don't know of anyone who's been posting in this thread who's Mormon, rather we have Evangelicals and some Evangelical Calvinists (as I am myself). Why don't you describe what is wrong with an argument rather then using a pejorative label to dismiss it....
Here is why I made that statement. You said that you could build an air tight case refuting RC doctrine with using the Bible only. But then, the RC would say that this is not the case since they would use extra Biblical traditions and thoughts to defend thier doctrine. Likewise, the LDS would refute your case against LDS teaching. In that way, it sounds LDS. Do you have a problem with that comparison? I am not equating LDS theaching to RC teaching. I am comparing defensive techniques I have seen used.
My argument may have been aweful, but at least it was intelligible ;-)
Rnmom there were no Protestants in the early church. None who believed as you do. There were no people who said that the Eucharist is merely a symbol. The New Testament is a tiny fraction of all the things that were circulating in the early centuries which purported to come from the Apostles. There were DOZENS of Gospels. There were dozens and dozens of books with titles named after Apostles and attributed to them. And it was the Catholic Church, because it had been given the power of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles that was able to identify the true books of the gospels from those that were false. It did not happen for almost 300 years after Jesus ascended to heaven! But it was the Catholic Council of Hippo, in 393 and the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397.... Catholic Counsels, that taught Catholic docterine, that gave YOU the New Testament. Why then cannot the Church that same Church teach from their own bible with authority? The Church that gave you the New Testament IS THE EARLY CHURCH!!!!! And the bible is a Catholic book.
Don't attribute to the Protestant Rebellion something they did not invent (other than sola scriptura) which was the printing press. Gutenberg invented it, and he was a Catholic. The first book he printed was the bible. The church had NOT hidden the bible that is false. Until the Protestant Rebellion bibles were expensive because there was no printing press. Monks had to copy by hand every single page. And they knew what they were doing and their translations were correct. The Church only prevented bibles with bad translations from being distributed. Most common people were unable to read and if they could they had little time to do it since they worked like dogs in the fields and in the towns and shops. This is proof that Christianity was not meant to be a religion of the book like Islam. It was meant to be taught orally too and it WAS for 1500 years. If I was a gentile I don't think I would care much about going through the Jewish Old Testament. It would be good, but was it compulsory? Could I not just believe and be baptised based upon St. Paul's word and grace of God? Did the apostles withold baptism until you READ the Old Testament?
"The Bible belongs to the people of God."
The bible belongs to the people of God because God entrusted it to the Catholic Church that is the only Church, to which all the people of God should belong.
Let's talk about the Protestant Rebellion and its leaders:
Fellow Protestant revolutionary Bullinger gives telling testimony on Luther:
"He sends to the Devil all who do not entirely agree with him. In all his fault-finding there is an immense amount of personal animosity, and very little that is friendly and paternal . . . Too many - are the preachers who have gathered out of Luther's books quite a vocabulary of abuse, which they fire off from their pulpits . . . Through the evil example of such preachers the habit of reviling and slandering is spreading . . . and most clergymen nowadays who wish to appear good 'evangelicals' season their preaching with abuse and calumny. (111;v.3:211)"
Luther and Drunkenness
"I sit here the whole day idle and drunk." (110:111/5)
"Our Lord must set down drunkenness to our account as a daily sin; for we cannot well keep from it." (110:111/6)
"I drink the more heavily, prate the more loosely, and carouse the more frequently . . . to mock and to vex the devil. (110:111/7)"
"I gorge like a Bohemian and guzzle like a German. (110:113/8)"
Luther on revising the bible:
"Thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will is reason enough . . . Dr. Luther will have it so, and . . . he is a Doctor above all Doctors in the whole of Popery. (109:25/12)" He must have been drunk when he said that.
Luther's Dictatorial Ways
I am certain that I have my teaching from heaven. (109:19/13)
My doctrines will stand, and the Pope will fall. (109:19-20/14)
Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell. (109:20/15)
Christ . . . is the Master of my doctrine . . . it is not mine, but His own pure Gospel. (109:20/16)
My judgment is at the same time God's and not mine. (109:20/17) He must have been drunk here too.
For inasmuch as I know for certain that I am right, I will be judge above you and above all the angels, as St. Paul says, that whoever does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved. For it is the doctrine of God, and not my doctrine. (111;v.3:269-72/18)
I can hear and endure nothing which is against my teaching. (92:97/19)
Whoever advocates free will brings death and Satan into his soul . . . In this book I have not merely theorized; I have set up definite propositions . . . no one will I permit to pass judgment on them, and I advise all to submit to them. (50:267/20)
Calvin, who historically has exercised more influence than even Luther on Protestantism, possessed the same self-proclaimed infallibility.
Calvin's Domineering Arrogance
Whosoever opposed Calvin, whether in religion or in politics, was hunted down and his blood was sought at his instigation. He never forgave a personal injury . . . This is strong language; but it is more than justified by the official records of Geneva . . . How sanguinary . . . is the spirit breathed in this extract of Calvin's letter to the Marquis de Pouet!:
Do not hesitate to rid the country of those fanatical fellows who in their conversation seek to excite the people against us . . . and would fain make our belief pass as a revery; such monsters ought to be strangled, as I did, in the execution of Michael Servetus. (113;v.1:381)
How much smitten he was with this glory, we shall perceive . . .:
To all France is known my irreproachable faith, my integrity, my patience, my watchfulness, my moderation, and my assiduous labors for the service of the Church; things that, from my early youth, stand proved by so many illustrious tokens.' . . .
How pleasing was he in his own eyes, when he commends so much:
His own frugality, his incessant labors, his constancy in dangers . . . his indefatigable application to extend the kingdom of Christ Jesus . . . The whole world is fully satisfied how well I know how to press an argument, and how distinct is that conciseness with which I write.(112;v.1:333-34)
Luther triumphed in speaking; but Calvin's pen was more correct . . .
The vehemence of both was extraordinary; . . . both were impatient of contradiction, nor did their eloquence ever flow more copiously than when fraught with contumelies . . . Whoever blushed at those expressions which Luther's arrogance drew from his pen, will not be less confounded at the excesses of Calvin: his adversaries are always knaves, fools, rogues, drunkards, furies, madmen, beasts, bulls, asses, dogs, swine; and Calvin's fine style is polluted with this filth through every page. Be they Catholics or Lutherans, it is all one to him, he spares none. (112;v.1:335)
Calvin and Other Protestants Calvin couldn't comprehend why he, of all people, was assaulted by Lutherans,
unless it be that Satan, whose vile slaves they are, so much the more urges them on against me as he sees my labors more useful to the Church than theirs. (112;v.1:335)
In writing to a Lutheran, Calvin snaps:
Dog, do you understand me? Madman, do you comprehend me? (112;v.1:335)
Needless to say, Scripture condemns conceit: Romans 12:16: . . . condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. (See also Prov 3:7, Rom 11:20, 12:3, 1 Cor 3:18, 8:2, Eph 2:9). Obviously, Luther also fell far short of the mark on this one! Non-Catholic historian Will Durant picks up this train of thought, and adds to it:
His shyness disguised an inner pride, his humility before God became at times a commanding arrogance before men. He was painfully sensitive to criticism, and could not bear opposition with the patience of one who can conceive the possibility that he may be wrong. Racked with illness, bent with work, he often lost his temper and broke out into fits of angry eloquence; he confessed to Bucer that he found it difficult to tame 'the wild beast of his wrath.' His virtues do not include humor, which might have softened his certainties, nor a sense of beauty, which might have spared ecclesiastical art . . . He could be a kind and tender friend, and an unforgiving enemy, capable of hard judgments and stern revenge . . . A man of such mettle must raise many enemies. He fought them with vigor . . . He described his opponents as riffraff, idiots, dogs, asses, pigs, and stinking beasts - epithets less becoming to his elegant Latinity than to Luther's gladiatorial style. (122:477)
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.