Skip to comments.Michele Bachmann Should Not 'Get a Pass' on Past Membership in Anti-Catholic Church
Posted on 07/17/2011 1:06:48 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
The news and blogosphere is filled with responses to the July 14, 2011 story by Joshua Green, the Senior Editor of the Atlantic, entitled "Michele Bachmann's Church Says the Pope Is the Antichrist." That is because it raises a serious matter which should not be taken lightly, and one which the candidate must address. First, let me share some personal context. I am what is often called a "revert" to the Catholic Church, someone who returned to the Church of my childhood after a long search for the truth. I love being a Catholic Christian. I hold an undergraduate degree and a master's degree in Catholic theology. I am a dissertation away from obtaining a PhD in Catholic Moral Theology. I am also a member of the Clergy, a Deacon. However, I write this article as a private and very concerned citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Works are a result of being saved, but add nothing to salvation.
Your view is the heretical Lordship salvation view and represents a departure from the Reformation view that salvation was simply by faith (trust) in the finished work of Christ which immediately resulted in becoming a new creature in Christ.
Works were never part of the salvation 'process', it was part of the growth process.
Don’t think I said any differently. Works are part of the sanctification process —as I’ve said repeatedly — not Justification - which happens once before God.
Further clarification: works here in the guise of “the fruit of the Spirit”.
Once you believe in Christ you are saved-period.
Growth is a different aspect of sanctification, which has nothing to do with being saved, it has to do with spiritual maturity.
OK - for whatever reason you have misunderstood or misconstrued what I have said. Hopefully this will clarify — one more time: Justification = “right standing before God”; “sanctification” has NOTHING to do with the aforementioned standing. It is a continual process throughout the life of the Believer — i.e. the living out of his/her faith; the exhibition of the fruit of the Spirit. There is NOTHING contradictory in that. NOTHING. It is Scriptural. I think either you are reading someone else’s posts and getting them confused with mine or you are misreading mine. Hopefully this clarifies the situation. I am fully aware of what “justification” means, versus “sanctification” — are you?
Justification (i.e. Salvation; being “born again”; being “saved”) occurs once. There is no contradiction in what I have said. Not sure why you are continuing to post that I am wrong only to re-post my position. Color me confused on this.
“This is not about Bachmann vs. soetero. This is about Bachmann and her past - it SHOULD BE KNOWN prior to the primaries so WE can make an informed decision. If her church indeed stated that the Pope is the antichrist, then that would important for me to know.
If this is not an issue then why, all of a sudden, did she leave her church? She knows damn well that this is going to bite her in the arse.”
Right, Adam. The point of this thread is not to see how many freepers are going to vote for Obama over Bachmann. I presume that would be next to none. Ideological conservative Catholics will almost all vote for any GOPer over Obama. But you have a large number of non ideological Catholics who are unhappy with Obama. Many are ethnic and many are concentrated in the Midwest states where the election will be decided.
These Catholics are not going to be interested in whether Catholics believe other denominations are condemned or any other theological questions. These Catholics many of whom are Polish or Eastern European are going to hear that Bachmann belonged to a church that believed that their beloved John Paul II was the Anti-Christ, and that will be it. They won’t vote for her. And that is absolutely fatal in states like PA, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. No amount of argument will persuade them.
Bachmann knows this. It is why she got out of that Church. She is going to have to explain it. Otherwise she is going to bleed support as people begin to realize that a vote for her is wasted completely.
Once you believe in Christ you are saved-period. >>
and what happens if you break some of the 10 commandments and then die? you go straight to heaven no matter if you kill or rape someone?
For your consideration....
I’ve found this to be a good study on the topic of Justification.
Thank you. I have only skimmed this for now, but it looks Scripturally solid. My thanks.
Calvin, Zwingli and John Locke all were an influence on the Campbell-Stone Restoration Movement of the early 19th century which used sola scriptura as it's base. However, the 'Pope as anti-Christ', is contrary to the Restoration Movements slogan (one of many used over the past 200 years) "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent."
I'm not familiar with all the tenets of Lutheranism so I cannot discuss the denomination with any degree of credibility. I only know what I believe and what I've learned over many years as an evangelical Christian. Folks like me see Catholics as fellow Christians (believing in Christ as Savior) that have been led astray by the Church's man-made rules and customs that have little to do with salvation and are not supported by scripture. It's a long list. Obviously, the establishment of a Pope and his designation as 'Christ on earth' is on that list - but that's as far as it goes. While the anti-Christ is not viewed as plural (as Luther apparently believed) no Christian I've known has referred to the Pope as an/the 'anti-Christ'. Apparently, Lutherans do. I disagree, as most evangelical Christians would. So what?
Your expressions of feeling more commonality with the Catholic Church than evangelical Christians are yours to hold and, frankly, have nothing to do with the issue of Michele Bachmann, her association with the Lutheran Church and their theology and view of the Catholic Pope. We're way off the subject of this thread with this exchange and while it's of some interest to look at church history - and I respect your knowledge of that subject - the only reason I responded to your original post (#200) to me that advised me to 'read up on my church history' and referenced 16th century Reformation leaders that have only a tangential relation to current day evangelical Christianity that I am a part of, seemed a bit supercilious and I thought deserved a response.
However, lengthy exchanges centered on relatively obscure religious doctrines of centuries ago (albeit carried into the 21st century) get tiresome rather quickly and seem a bit misplaced on a website forum dedicated to politics, which is what normally brings me (and others) to FR. On that basis, I choose to leave this exchange as a cordial, mildly interesting discussion of Protestant theology/history that ultimately goes nowhere and adds little to the basis of the thread. Should you desire to add a coda to the exchange I'll be happy to let that serve as it's finale.
Wow, as a former Luther’s Small Catechism carrying member of the LCA, ELCA, and later, LCMS, this doesn’t bother me at all. I am a Roman Catholic now, but all my conservative relatives, and a few liberals are still Lutherans.
here here! (i am a Presbyterian with Catholic leanings)
I sure do. I want a no Muslim clause.
So if someone accuses you of being a Muslim, then you are ok with not being able to vote, run for office, own a gun, have a driver’s license, post on FR?
See if you restrict the rights based on something unprovable like religion, then it WILL be applied against you.
Do you want Ibraham Hooper running for the presidency?
One of the nice things about actually BEING a Catholic (as opposed to calling yourself one, like your in-laws) is that we are given specific instructions from our religious heirarchy. These include not voting for pro-choice candidates in political elections.
BTW, the Catholic faith rightly concludes that ANY human being who lives life according to Christ's principles may be saved, but that knowing Him is the easiest path. That includes pious Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and atheists. If Mother Teresa is not in your Heaven because she answered to the Pope on earth, then you and your religion have the wrong idea about Heaven.
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.