Posted on 05/18/2007 6:16:16 AM PDT by Reo
Last month, Francis Beckwith--president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), noted evangelical philosopher, "God-blogger" and professor of church-state relations at Baylor University--was received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Shortly after, he resigned his presidency and membership in ETS, sending shock waves through the religious blogosphere and parts of the evangelical community.
Read the full article at the link.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
You know, in some ways Pentecost is the central event in Christian History, because if there were no Pentecost the Resurrection would be moot. The miracle is the fire that came over these largely craven, selfish individuals and made them into Warriors for Christ willing to tell it like it is and go to the Cross themselves for His sake. I wonder what it would be like to be on fire with the HS like that.
I would imagine it would be fearsome. When you read about the saints who Jesus talked do wonder how you would react?
Isn't that odd...millions of us believe the gospel and avoid the Cathholic church at the same time...Augustine must be speaking of 'another gospel' that comes only from the Catholic church...
These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands.
I'm still looking for a definition of what the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are...If I have a key to Fort Knox, I know what that is...What is the key of the Kingdom of Heaven given to Peter, biblically??? With scripture...Where is the biblical record of the 'keys' given to any church??? Biblically...
But you are not entirely avoiding the Catholic church, for in believing the gospel you are depending (whether you realize it or not) on the Catholic Church for transmitting the writings of the Apostles to you and determining for you which books belong to the canon.
I'm still looking for a definition of what the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are...If I have a key to Fort Knox, I know what that is...What is the key of the Kingdom of Heaven given to Peter, biblically??? With scripture...Where is the biblical record of the 'keys' given to any church??? Biblically...
You are still laboring under the restriction of 'sola scriptura', and so the Church's full resources for understanding the deposit of faith are presently closed to you. If you truly want to understand the keys, you need to give up 'sola scriptura'. There is a certain paradox here. If you want to understand the keys, you have to believe that they exist, and therefore believe (and trust) the Church to which they were entrusted. If you do not trust the Church that holds the keys, then you should not expect to understand the keys. Faith comes before understanding.
-A8
**I always tell people “You’re only a confession away from the Body and Blood of the Lamb.”**
You’ve got the truth right there.
All people need to do is find a priest that they can sit down and talk with. Then make and appointment to go to Confession (now the Sacrament of Reconciliation) and then the Church can help you work through any problems such as a mixed marriage, annulment, preparing for a second marriage, etc., getting children baptized, etc. etc., etc.
Why do you now go to personal attacks rather than proving your point as asked to previously by Campion and A8? Hmmmm.
Good to hear. My devout Protestant family and friends have never reacted to my conversion with anything other than love and acceptance. For them, and for me, doctrinal differences which could divide us pale in comparison to the greatness of Christ who unites us.
I wish people who are so intent on bashing each other over the head with their doctrinal differences would remember that we all belong to the same Lord, who commanded us to “Love one another.”
LOL, because he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It was easy to find the site he used and he was just using their interpretation without studying or even really believing them, so when challenged he had no answer and so had to cover himself with bravado.
I do not believe that is an accurate statement...
Although you follow 'Peter' and possibly some of your religious descendents go all the way back to Peter, I see very little connectection between your church and the churches Paul organized...
It's a matter of record that a large majority of biblical manuscripts extant did not go thru your Catholic church...Your church is not connected to my Christianity, or my Bible...So my Christian upbringing had nothing to with the Catholic church...
And then you say the 'keys' to the Kingdom of God were given to Peter but the keys and it's (their) function was not revealed in God's written word but was apparently revealed to your church...I guess God's a sly one for making us join your church to understand the Keys...You use the Bible to acknowledge the Keys but you go outside the Bible to stake the claim for them... You are still laboring under the restriction of 'sola scriptura', and so the Church's full resources for understanding the deposit of faith are presently closed to you. If you truly want to understand the keys, you need to give up 'sola scriptura'. There is a certain paradox here. If you want to understand the keys, you have to believe that they exist, and therefore believe (and trust) the Church to which they were entrusted. If you do not trust the Church that holds the keys, then you should not expect to understand the keys. Faith comes before understanding.
When I joined the Masonic Lodge (since resigned), they told me the same thing...I can not know the secrets and mysteries unless I was a member myself...
So it comes down to the Word of God...No Catholic can rely solely on the word of God...If you believe the Bible, there's not enough there to turn you to Catholocism...
Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
That is not true, but if you think I'm wrong, I'd be glad to look at your evidence.
No Catholic can rely solely on the word of God...
Neither can a Protestant. We must trust those who transmitted, culled, copied, canonized, and translated texts. We must also trust someone (whether ourselves or others) when we interpret the text. The human factor simply cannot be eliminated.
When I joined the Masonic Lodge (since resigned), they told me the same thing..
Abuse does not nullify proper use. A truth wrongly applied does not cease to be a truth.
If you believe the Bible, there's not enough there to turn you to Catholocism..
Correct, the work of the Holy Spirit is also necessary.
-A8
When I wrote that, I thought, I hope it doesn’t happen to ME, now that I’ve publicly wondered about it. I don’t know what to make of that.
Not only Augustine, but the overwhelming majority of the Church Fathers correctly interpreted the Matthew 16 passage, which Rome later invented it's own interpretation in opposition to the truth.
So much for Rome's pretense of "unanimous consent of the fathers".
It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves Congar admits the very facts I've presented pertaining to Matthew 16 and disregards the once held definition of "tradition" being the "unanimous consent of the fathers" cited by Trent for the novel concept now held by Rome;
But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy...---"Tradition and Traditions", [New York: Macmillan Company, 1966], pp. 397-400.
This is fairly basic Doctrine, though it doesn't rise to the level of Dogma. What I mean by that is, if you can't accept this teaching you can't be a Roman Catholic, but you CAN still be a Christian. I think any of us would agree on that level. But I think the line can safely be drawn that if you can't accept that Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom and was the first Pope, you can't be a Roman Catholic in what we call a "State of Grace."
Ahhh yes, the ever changing face of Roman Catholic redefining and redefining, "tradition".
No "retraction" there. He simply said that he had said two different things at different times, and said "let the reader decide".
Wrong, Augustine was clearly repudiating a former position, thus the title, "Retractions".
Maybe you want to differ with one of your own who admits that the overwhelming majority of the early church fathers did not apply Matthew 16 in any pro-Roman papacy sense at all but were in opposition to the later eisegetical twisting later invented by Rome of that passage. Roman Catholic theologian, Cardinal Yves Congar says it in black and white:
But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy...
Congar is but one of many who admit the facts.
And it was the heretical Monarchian Modalists popes Zephyrinus and Callixtus I, who first tried to apply that passage to themselves, only to be met with strong opposition, rightly so.
I've made no "personal attacks", however, I am curious as to why Roman Catholics immediately resort to personal attacks and snippy, personal sarcastic remarks? Maybe you can enlighten me on why that is a common approach by Roman Catholics?
Did you read what you wrote in #97?
You bet! And Catholics are humbly grateful and blessed to welcome conservative evangelicals to the Church. The sweet freshness of God at work.
John 25:21 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
If you take the time to read Church history, you would find yourself in awe. Take for instance, did you know that during the first few centuries that Christians were accused and persecuted for cannibalism? Did you know that the Scribes were sola scripture? Did you know that 400,000+ lambs were sacrified from the time of Christ til the fall of Jerusalem but to no avail. Did they love God no less than less than you love Christ? These good people were mislead...
John:6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Eucharistic timeline -
http://www.eucharisticlife.com/ELimages/Timeline/Timeline.html
2000 years - The Church of the Apostles which Christ specifically gave authority to Peter. If Christ did not want to dictate authority, he simply would not have singled out Peter, but spoke to the 12 as individuals to go off and preach.
34,000 Christian denominations all preaching something different. Ever wonder? If you ever knew and you can.
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.