Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome

CIC ^ | April 2008 | Bob DeWaay

[Augustinian monk]

Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome

The Abandonment of Sola Scriptura as a Formal Principle

By Bob DeWaay

The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today ran a cover story about evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to find beliefs and practices.1 What was shocking about the article was that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the editor, “While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time, it hasn’t been until recently that it’s become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good.”2 Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led by such persons as “Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and practicing monks and nuns,” that therefore, “they are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers.” This he claims shows that, “Christ is guiding the process.”3

Apparently, contemporary evangelicals have forgotten that sola scriptura (scripture alone) was the formal principle of the Reformation. Teachings and practices that could not be justified from Scripture were rejected on that principle. To endorse a trip back to these practices of ancient Roman Catholicism is to reject the principle of sola scriptura being the normative authority for the beliefs and practices of the church. In this article I will explore how modern evangelicalism has compromised the principle of sola scriptura and thus paved smoothly the road back to Rome.

New “Reformations” Compromise Sola Scriptura

Today at least three large movements within Protestantism claim to be new “reformations.” If we examine them closely we will find evidence that sola scriptura has been abandoned as a governing principle—if not formally, at least in practice. To have a new reformation requires the repudiation of the old Reformation. That in turn requires the repudiation of the formal principle of the Reformation. That’s where we’ll begin.

Robert Schuller and Rick Warren In 1982, Robert Schuller issued a call for a new Reformation with the publication of his book, Self Esteem: The New Reformation.4 Schuller issued this fervent call: “Without a new theological reformation, the Christian church as the authentic body of Christ may not survive.”5 He was apparently aware that his reformation was of a different type than the original: “Where the sixteenth-century Reformation returned our focus to sacred Scriptures as the only infallible rule for faith and practice, the new reformation will return our focus to the sacred right of every person to self-esteem! The fact is, the church will never succeed until it satisfies the human being’s hunger for self-value.”6 The problem is that Schuller based much of his self-esteem teaching on psychological theory and did not provide a rigorous Biblical defense of the idea. Thus his reformation was a de facto denial of the Reformation principle of Scripture alone.

For example, Schuller criticized the Reformation for a faulty doctrine of sin: “Reformation theology failed to make clear that the core of sin is a lack of self-esteem.”7 But Schuller does not discuss the many verses in the Bible that define sin. For example: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1John 3:4). It is not hard to see that Schuller’s reformation constituted the abandonment of sola scriptura as a formal principle.8

In one sense, since Schuller’s call for a reformation based on self-esteem was made 26 years ago, one could argue that it never happened. Of course the idea of self-esteem is still around and taught by many evangelicals, but it never became the one key idea of the church. In another sense, however, Schuller’s reformation was broadened and transferred to others. In 2005 Schuller claimed the following as noted alumni of his institute: Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, and Kirbyjon Caldwell. Bill Hybels himself credited Robert Schuller as a key person who influenced his ideas.9 Though Rick Warren disputes Schuller’s influence on his theology, he has carried forward Schuller’s idea of creating a church that meets people’s felt needs and thus attracts them.

But what interests us here is that Warren is now proposing yet another reformation:

And we've actually created what we call clinic-in-a-box, business-in-a-box, church-in-a-box, and we are using normal people, volunteers. When Jesus sent the disciples – this will be my last point – when Jesus sent the disciples into a village he said, “Find the man of peace.” And he said, “When you find the man of peace you start working with that person, and if they respond to you, you work with them. If they don't, you dust the dust off your shoes; you go to the next village.” Who's the man of peace in any village – or it might be a woman of peace – who has the most respect, they're open and they're influential? They don't have to be a Christian. In fact, they could be a Muslim, but they're open and they're influential and you work with them to attack the five giants. And that's going to bring the second Reformation.10

The problem is that solving the world’s five greatest problems as Warren defines them11 using anyone willing to help regardless of religion, cannot be justified on Biblical grounds. If sola scriptura were the formal principle in Warren’s theology, then he would provide vigorous, Biblical analysis using sound exegesis to ground his reformation on the authority of Scripture. But his teachings and public statements are not characterized by sound Biblical exegesis.

As I documented in my book on the Purpose Driven Movement, Warren’s reformation compromises sola scriptura in many significant ways.12These include the use of loose paraphrases that go so far as to change the meaning of various passages, the integration of unbiblical, human wisdom, serious misinterpretation of Scripture, and an unbiblical philosophy of ministry. Warren has an orthodox statement about the authority of Scripture on his church Web site. In fact, most evangelicals other than those who convert to Roman Catholicism do not overtly reject Scripture alone. But is it practiced?13

There is reason to believe that Warren’s reformation is the continuation of Schuller’s in a modified form. Warren has made finding one’s purpose the lynchpin of his teachings and practices. Finding purpose may not be identical to finding self esteem, but the idea is at least a first cousin. Also, both concepts derive their power from outside Scripture.

C. Peter Wagner

Another proposed reformation of the church is C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation. As I argued in a recent CIC article,14 Wagner sees the presence of apostles who speak authoritatively for God as the key to the church fulfilling her role in the world. He even speaks approvingly of the “apostles” of the Roman Catholic Church. Wagner and the thousands of apostles and prophets in his movement have shown as little regard for sola scriptura as any non Roman Catholic Christian group apart from the Quakers. So their reformation is a de facto repudiation of the Reformation. Their writings and messages show little or no concern for sound, systematic Biblical exegesis. If they were to adopt sola scriptura as a formal principle and rigorously use it to judge their own teachings and practices, their movement would immediately come to an end.

The Emergent Church

The third (if we count Warren’s reformation as a current replacement for Schuller’s) proposed reformation is that of the Emergent Church. In their case sola scriptura dies a thousand deaths. As we saw in the previous issue of CIC, Rob Bell denies it using the same arguments that Roman Catholics have used. The Emergent Church and its postmodern theology is noteworthy for being a non-Catholic version of Christianity that forthrightly assaults the type of use of the Bible that characterizes those who hold sola scriptura as the formal principle of their theology. The Emergent Church adherents reject systematic theology, and thus make using the principle impossible. For example, defending the doctrine of the Trinity using Scripture requires being systematic. I have read many Emergent/postmodern books as I write a new book, and each of them attacks systematic theology in some way.

The Emergent Reformation rests on the denial of the validity of foundationalism. Gone are the days when Christians debated the relative merits of evidential and presuppositional apologetics—debates based on the need for a foundation for one’s theology. Either one started with evidence for the authority of Scripture and then used the Bible as the foundation of one’s theology; or one presupposed the Bible as the inerrant foundation. But today both approaches are mocked for their supposed naïveté. To think that one can know what the Bible means in a non-relativistic way is considered a throwback to now dead “modernity.” The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is “we cannot know, we cannot know, we cannot know.” Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days.

So the Protestant (if the term even means anything today) world is characterized by reformations that have either rejected or compromised sola scriptura as the formal principle for their theology. No wonder few voices of concern are raised at Christianity Today’s proposed trip back to Rome to find beliefs and practices. Once sola scriptura has been rejected, there remain few reasons not to go back to Rome. If religious traditions can be considered normative, then why not embrace those with the longest history?

Dallas Willard Leads Us Back to Rome

The cover of the CT article reads, “Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church.” It shows a person with a shovel digging up a Catholic icon. What are these secrets? Besides icons, lectio divina and monasticism are mentioned. Dallas Willard, who is mentioned as a reliable guide for this process, has long directed Christians to monastic practices that he himself admits are not taught in the Bible.15 Willard pioneered the rejection of sola scriptura in practice on the grounds that churches following it are failures. He writes, “All pleasing and doctrinally sound schemes of Christian education, church growth, and spiritual renewal came around at last to this disappointing result. But whose fault was this failure?”16 The “failure,” according to Willard is that, “. . . the gospel preached and the instruction and example given these faithful ones simply do not do justice to the nature of human personality, as embodied, incarnate.”17 So what does this mean? It means that we have failed because our gospel had too little to do with our bodies.

The remedy for “failure” says Willard is to find practices in church history that are proven to work. But are these practices taught in the Bible? Willard admits that they are not by using an argument from silence, based on the phrase “exercise unto godliness” in 1Timothy 4:7. Here is Willard’s interpretation:

“Or [the possibility the phrase was imprecise] does it indicate a precise course of action he [Paul] understood in definite terms, carefully followed himself, and called others to share? Of course it was the latter. So obviously so, for him and the readers of his own day, that he would feel no need to write a book on the disciplines of the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind.”18

But what does this do to sola scriptura? It negates it. In Willard’s theology, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Biblical writers, forgot to inspire them to write about spiritual disciplines that all Christians need. If this is the case, then we need spiritual practices that were never prescribed in the Bible to obtain godliness.

Having determined the insufficiency of Scripture, Willard looks to human potential through tapping into spiritual powers: “It is the amazing extent of our ability to utilize power outside ourselves that we must consider when we ask what the human being is. The limits of our power to transcend ourselves utilizing powers not located in us—including of course, the spiritual—are yet to be fully known.”19 So evidently our spirituality is to be discovered by various means that are not revealed by God in the Bible.

If the Bible is insufficient in regard to the spiritual practices that we need in order to become sanctified, where do we find them? Here is Willard’s solution: “Practicing a range of activities that have proven track records across the centuries will keep us from erring.”20 This, of course leads us back to Rome. Catholic mystics spent centuries experimenting with spiritual practices without regard to the Biblical justification for such practices. If evangelicals are going to join them in rejecting Scripture alone, AGAIN they might as well not reinvent the wheel—go to the masters of mystical asceticism.

Willard admires the monastics and suggests that solitude is one of the most important disciplines. He says, “This factual priority of solitude is, I believe, a sound element in monastic asceticism. Locked into interaction with the human beings that make up our fallen world, it is all but impossible to grow in grace as one should.”21 If it is impossible to grow in grace without solitude, why are we not informed of this fact by the Biblical writers? In Willard’s mind sola scriptura is a false idea, so therefore God failed to reveal to us the most important way to grow in grace! Willard says that solitude is most important even while admitting that it is dangerous:

But solitude, like all the disciplines of the spirit, carries its risks. In solitude, we confront our own soul with its obscure forces and conflicts that escape our attention when we are interacting with others. Thus, [quoting Louis Bouyer] “Solitude is a terrible trial, for it serves to crack open and bust apart the shell of our superficial securities. It opens out to us the unknown abyss that we all carry within us . . . and discloses the fact that these abysses are haunted.”22

This danger was shown by the early desert fathers, some of whom came under demonic torment in their solitude. Before following people whose practices are dangerous and not prescribed in the Bible, wouldn’t we be better off sticking to the safe ground of revealed truth?

Spirituality for the Unconverted

The fact is that the various ancient practices of the Roman Catholic Church were and are not unique to Christianity. The meditative techniques that make people feel closer to God work for those who do not even know God. Thomas Merton (who is recommended by Dallas Willard) went to the East to find spiritual practices. They work just as well for those who do not know Christ, probably better. Many ancient Roman Catholic practices were invented at times when many illiterate pagans were ushered into the church, sometimes at the point of a sword. Those pagans were not exactly the type to search the Scriptures daily in order to find the things of God.

But why are literate American Christians running away from sola scriptura at a time when searching the Scriptures (especially using computer technology) has never been easier? On this point I am offering my opinion, but there is good evidence for it. I believe that the lack of gospel preaching has allowed churches to fill up with the unregenerate. The unregenerate are not like “newborn babes who long for the pure milk of the word” (1Peter 2:2). Those who have never received saving grace cannot grow by the means of grace. Those who are unconverted have not drawn near to God through the blood of Christ. But with mysticism, it is possible to feel near to God when one is far from Him. Furthermore, the unconverted have no means of sanctification because they do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ as their starting point and eternal standing. So they end up looking for man-made processes to engineer change through human works because they have nothing else.

Those who feel empty because of the “pragmatic promises of the church-growth movement” as the CT article calls them, may need something far more fundamental than ancient, Catholic, ascetic practices. They may very well need to repent and believe the gospel. Those who are born of the Spirit will find that this passage is true: “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2Peter 1:3).

Conclusion

Perhaps the best antidote to rejecting sola scriptura and going back to Rome would be a careful study of the Book of Hebrews. It describes a situation that is analogous to that which evangelicals face today. The Hebrew Christians were considering going back to temple Judaism. Their reasons can be discerned by the admonitions and warnings in Hebrews. The key problem for them was the tangibility of the temple system, and the invisibility of the Christian faith. Just about everything that was offered to them by Christianity was invisible: the High Priest in heaven, the tabernacle in heaven, the once for all shed blood, and the throne of grace. At the end of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews points out that they have come to something better than mount Sinai: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). All of these things are invisible.

But the life of faith does not require tangible visibility: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). The Roman Catholic Church has tangibility that is unmatched by the evangelical faith, just as temple Judaism had. Why have faith in the once-for-all shed blood of Christ that is unseen when you can have real blood (that of the animals for temple Judaism and the Eucharistic Christ of Catholicism)? Why have the scriptures of the Biblical apostles and prophets who are now in heaven when you can have a real, live apostle and his teaching Magisterium who can continue to speak for God? The similarities to the situation described in Hebrews are striking. Why have only the Scriptures and the other means of grace when the Roman Church has everything from icons to relics to cathedrals to holy water and so many other tangible religious articles and experiences?

I urge my fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting sola scriptura as the formal principle of our theology. If my Hebrews analogy is correct, such a rejection is tantamount to apostasy.

Issue 105 - March / April 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Notes

Chris Armstong, “The Future lies in the Past” in Christianity Today, February 2008. I wrote a critique of Armstrong’s article here: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3174/Bob_DeWaay Mark Galli, “Ancient-Future People” in Christianity Today February 2008, 7. Armstrong, 24. Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem The New Reformation, (Waco: Word, 1982). Ibid. 25. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 98. I wrote an article some years ago about Schuller’s self-esteem reformation: Robert Schuller, Your Church as a Fantastic Future, (Ventura: Regal Books, 1986) On pages 227, 228 Hybels testifies of Schuller’s influence. http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80 page 16. [Accessed 8/27/2005] The five are spiritual darkness, lack of servant leaders, poverty, disease, and ignorance. Bob DeWaay, Redefining Christianity—Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement, (21st Century Press: Springfield, MO, 2006). My claim is that sola scriptura no longer serves as the formal principle of their theology in practice. This is seen whenever important religious claims (such as the need for a reformation) are not accompanied by rigorous, systematic, Biblical exegesis on the topic at hand. I say that because by implication, Scripture alone means that beliefs and practices are normative if—and only if—they can be shown to be Biblical. Binding and loosing have to be in accordance with the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Warren’s practice belies his statement of faith.

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue103.htm I critique Dallas Willard’s theology as taught in his popular book The Spirit of the Disciplines in CIC Issue 91: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue91.htm Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, Understanding How God Changes Lives, (HarperCollins: New York, 1991). 18. Ibid. emphasis his. Ibid. 95. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 158. Ibid. 162. Ibid. 161.

[fortheDeclaration]

[***The bishops and abbots also had a great share in the government of states in the Middle Ages. They took a leading part in the great assemblies common to most of the Germanic nations; they had a voice in the election of the kings; they performed the coronation of the kings; they lived much at the Court, and were the chief advisors of the kings. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09066a.htm*** ]

Applause. The Church influenced governments; they were not a branch of it.

No, actually, many members of the Church were a part of the nobile ruling class as well.

but the ecclesiastics were, as a rule, the only learned men, and the higher clergy, bishops and abbots, belonged to the class of the nobles.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09066a.htm

Church leaders such as bishops and archbishops sat on the king's council and played leading roles in government (emphasis added). Bishops, who were often wealthy and came from noble families, ruled over groups of parishes called "diocese."

http://www.learner.org/interactives/middleages/religion.html

Stop kicking against the pricks!

[fortheDeclaration]

[***Nothing new about it. *** John 3: 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him. Didn’t say it was new, but to note that those who do not believe on the Son of God face the wrath of God.***]

You really should go back and read your old posts to find out what you posted and what you didn’t.

Well, what part about John 3:36 don't you understand?

[ ***No, I never stated that, I have stated that you cannot be saved by what is stated in those passages. To perform those acts you must have the grace of God in you, which comes by faith.*** ]

Are you saying that you must have faith first, and then you acquire the Grace of God?

I am saying that you cannot add works to faith.

[ ***And how many more hail Mary’s? Far more than the our Fathers, so your deception is obvious.*** ]

Deception? Who am I deceiving? You? God? What under Heaven are you talking about?

Anyone reading your wearisome posts!

Now, you want to make an issue of the 'our Father's' but don't mention the 'hail Mary's' that go with it, five to one!

So, Mary gets more prayer than God the Father does!

[ ***And let us see what Paul says about praying: 1 Thess 5: 17 Pray without ceasing. That doesn’t mean vain repetitions, which is condemned in Matthew 6.*** ]

So, you don’t follow Paul’s exhortation and the reason is that when you pray you don’t babble, right? But when I pray, that is babbling. And you know all this about me how?

No, I don't babble, which is what the Rosary is.

So, if anyone prays using the Rosary, that is exactly what it is, just saying endless prayers by repetition.

[ ***The Rosary is an abomination that encourages prayers to the devil known as the ‘Queen of Heaven’ mentioned in Jer.44.*** ]

I didn’t know that the Mother of God is a devil. Nice religion. The Mary that I have in my Scripture was a nice little Jewish girl who bore Our Lord. What religion did you say that you followed?

There is no Mother of God!

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, not the Mother of God.

God doesn't have a mother.

I am a Christian.

[ ***Like I said, show from the context that John 3:36 isn’t saying that if you don’t believe in Christ you will face the wrath of God? You can’t, so all you’ve shown yourself to be is a truth denier.*** ]

Scripture instructs us far more than little snippets. Scripture says that you must believe; it also says what you must do and the consequences if you don’t. That is why our Bibles are whole and therefore our Christianity is whole; abridged Bibles and mutilated verse obviously spawn abridged and mutilated religion. As you keep showing.

No, this isn't about 'snippets' this is about clear scripture which you have rejected by running to verses to deny what the word of God says, that if you don't believe on Christ, you will face the wrath of God.

Your good works have nothing to do with your salvation and if you attempt to add anything to it, you have rejected the grace of God (Rom.4, Gal.3)

[ ***The common people read and spoke in their own native language, which wasn’t Latin. As for what language Jesus used, I know He didn’t use Latin!*** [

The common people couldn’t read. Are you that unlearned of historical times?

What makes you think they couldn't read during the Lord's time?

Literacy levels have always been high among the Jewish people who learn to read the Old Testament scriptures.

What language did Jesus use?

He used the language of the common people.

[ ***Gee, what a brilliant analogy! Did you think that one up all by yourself.*** ]

I tried to make it easy for you.

Well, it just showed your own mental limitations.

[ ***I didn’t just give you a single quote, I gave you two that showed that the Roman Catholic religion was part of medieval governments.*** Wikipedia does not count unless backed up by more sound references. High school teachers who brag that they post things not found in high school textbooks are not sound references either. You have proven nothing here. ]

Actually, the issue is the facts and both were correct.

So your whining about the source is just some more of your blowing smoke to hide the fact that you are ignorant of everything you have attempted to discuss.

[ ***Really? II haven’t seen much on the way of facts, but I have seen alot of overblown rhetoric by someone who thinks he is alot smarter than he is. *** ]

Your statements, although you think that they have the force of fact, are merely your statements. Repeating them and occasionally referring to suspect websites do not give them the status of facts.

No, actually they are facts, but your comments are just so much empty rhetoric.

[ ***Another person can judge another persons soul by their words and actions.*** The only Judge that I recognize is the Lord God Almighty. The only entity other than Him that claims the same is the brightest angel. I do not suspect that you are God. ]

As I said, it isn't me that is judging you, but the Scriptures that you have denied, they condemn you.

[ ***You have rejected the grace of God and you will burn.*** Give Fred Phelps all my best, if you would. ]

Just stating a simple scriptural fact as stated very clearly in Jn.3:36 and Rev.20.

[ ***My advice to you is to enjoy the taste of water while you can now, since when you enter into eternity, you will never taste it again *** My advice to you is read Matthew 7 and try to understand it. ]

My advice to you is, since you are determined to reject the grace of God, is to enjoy the blessings of God while you can, because eternity is a long time!

And as it is appointed unto to man once to die but after this is the judgement (Heb.9:27)

Rev.20: 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

That is the future for all of those who reject the grace of God, as you clearly have.

Now, stop wasting my time.

[fortheDeclaration]

[***Wikipedia, the most accurate reference text known to man. Typical, always attack the source when you can’t deal with the facts. *** ]

Wikipedia is written by anonymous sources who submit articles. Facts taken from wiki are suspect at best. I’d rely on some other sources.

I have, note for example Schaff.

And he supports what I said regarding the power of the RCC in the Middle ages aka, Dark Ages.

[ ***Latin was not the common people’s language for hundreds of years before the 1600s. It was only used by the intellectuals. *** ]

Try to follow the bouncing ball. Latin was the universal language of communication until it was replaced by French.

And try keeping focused on the issue, which was the language of the common people, which was not Latin.

[ ***And the reason English replaced all of the languages of the world as the major language was the influence of the King James Bible spreading throughout the British Empire. *** ]

English replaced French as the univeral world language when the British Empire became the greatest empire in the world. There was some competition from the Spanish, Portuguese, German, Dutch and Russian empires. But the biggest reason was not the KJV; it was the military one. English was the language of the conquerors, just as Latin was the language of the Romans.

That's correct, and where the British Empire took over, the Bible followed and literacy with it.

[MarkBsnr]

***The Gospel is found in 1Cor.15:3-5, which you reject, since one must accept it by faith and not add works to it (Eph.2:8-9, Rom.4:4-5). ***

Try as I might, I cannot find the Gospel according to Paul. I find Gospels according Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but not Paul.

Your first reference is from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, the second from his letter to the Ephesians and the third from his letter to the Romans.

My Bible has a page that begins the New Testament Gospels and another page that separates them from the New Testament letters. Has yours gone astray? How can you share what you don’t have?

At any rate, I prefer the words of Jesus to misinterpretations of Paul.

John 12:
Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me believes not only in me but also in the one who sent me,
45
and whoever sees me sees the one who sent me.
46
I came into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness.
47
And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world.
48
Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day,
49
because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak.
50
And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me.”

You reject the words of Jesus, preferring the words of men. So be it. You do have something to Judge you.

***Christians do share the Gospel with heathen and the ungrateful, as I have been sharing it with you, but you still reject it!***

How can you share what you do not have?

[MarkBsnr]

***Applause. The Church influenced governments; they were not a branch of it.

No, actually, many members of the Church were a part of the nobile ruling class as well. ***

A branch of the Government is a department or ministry such as Defense, the Treasury or the IRS. I realize that as one less travelled, you may not appreciate the difference and the ramifications therein.

There have been priests and ministers elected to government here in the US; does that make the Church a branch of the House or Senate?

***Church leaders such as bishops and archbishops sat on the king’s council and played leading roles in government***

Does not every President of the US include religious amongst his advisors? Yet the US Government is not a branch of any Church.

***Bishops, who were often wealthy and came from noble families, ruled over groups of parishes called “diocese.”***

What religious or political formation do you come from that you are unfamiliar with Catholic organization?

***Stop kicking against the pricks!***

When they are heathens, blasphemers or apostate, they need all the kicking I can give them.

[MarkBsnr]

***Well, what part about John 3:36 don’t you understand?
***

What we do understand is that we are to obey Him - His every word. I don’t detect a lot of obedience; I do detect a lot of hate.

***I am saying that you cannot add works to faith.

So you not only disagree with Jesus, you disagree with Paul and James both.

First, Jesus teaches of the necessity of Grace as the only way to salvation. Man can not work to earn salvation. This is clear. However, He also makes it clear that cooperation with this grace that God gives is necessary. For example, Jesus says in John 15:4-6:

John 15: 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

Thus, Jesus clearly teaches that God is the source of anything good that we do. If we try to do things on our own, outside God’s grace, it will avail us nothing towards salvation. Next, Jesus teaches on the necessity of us bearing much fruit. Some will try to argue that here Jesus is just mentioning that bearing fruit is only the evidence of salvation, not part of salvation. No doubt good fruit is evidence that one is in God’s grace, but that is not the main part of what Jesus is speaking about. If the man bears bad fruit, that is the criteria which Jesus says will cast him into the fire. That is the criteria that shows whether we abide in him. (BTW, if we look back in John 6:56-57, about abiding it also alludes to the grace of the Eucharist. But that is another topic). What are some of the fruit that is necessary to abide in him? Jesus continues:

7If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

Notice the criteria that God gives for remaining in his grace. It says that we must bear fruit. What kind of fruit? His words must abide in our lives (v. 7). If not, we are not abiding in him, and are subject to the casting into the fire. And what are some of the words in this very context? The words that he uses here are that we must keep his commands. Thus, we can only abide in him and his love if we keep the commands (v. 10). We can only be his friends if we do his commands (v.14). Thus, having a personal relationship with him, by his own words, is keeping his commandments. Criteria is given to remain in his grace. Otherwise, as Jesus already said, we will get cast into the fire (v. 6).

John 15:5-14 shows us that God is the source of all good fruit. We must believe in him and trust in him for salvation. We can not work to earn salvation; Nevertheless, as faithful sons we must keep his commandments. If we do not bear fruit (i.e. for example, by breaking the commandments), we can be cast to the fire.

The law, in and of itself, does not save anyone. When Paul speaks of works of the law that do not save, the Catholic affirms that (per Gal. 3:10, Gal. 2:16, Rom. 3:20, 28) as well. The Catholic view is that God justifies us exclusively by his grace. We are put into a relationship with him, which is based on sonship, grace, and mercy. The rigid requirements of the law were put to death by Christ on the cross, per Col. 2:16. However, once within the realm of grace, obedience is still necessary to maintain salvation. The fact that although one is not under the works of the law (Gal. 3:10, Rom. 3:28) there is still a law of the Spirit and Christ (Rom. 8:2, Gal. 6:2). We are released from the rigid requirements of the law (See Romans 7:6, Col. 2:13-14, Eph. 2:15) but now we serve in the new law of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6, Rom. 8:2). It does not mean that the law is done away with. God must circumcise our hearts (Rom. 2:27) and we must approach him humbly and recognize our total dependence on him. Paul warns that if one lives in the life of the flesh (even if one is an adopted child) he will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21). If one manifests the fruit of the Spirit one indeed will inherit this kingdom (Gal. 5:22-23). This can be done only through the power of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16, 24). Although one can not work to earn salvation, once inside God’s grace, one must bear fruit in his life to get the end of salvation. If one sows instead disobedience, one’s end is eternal damnation (Gal. 6:7-9). Thus, once one is justified by God, the Catholic view is that grace empowered obedience is necessary to maintain one’s state of justification. Works , obedience and infused righteousness, is not only a necessary fruit of one’s justification, but is also a cause of it.

from http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/paul.html

***Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, not the Mother of God.***

Interesting. Do you not believe that Jesus Christ is God? I think that we’re getting somewhere. Can you identify which heresy you follow from this list?

Sabellianism: Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Docetism: The name comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning “to seem.” Along the same lines as Sabellianism, Docetism says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body. He only seemed to be human to us. In a nutshell...

Christ only (no Jesus)

Monophysitism: Monophysite comes from the Greek words for “one body.” This heresy says that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured at incarnation. He therefore is two separate natures joined in one body. Monophysitism is very much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

Jesus
> Jesus Christ
Christ

Adoptionism: Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was “adopted” by God at his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature. Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Jesus > Christ

Nestorianism: Supposedly, Nestorius, Patriarch of Antioch (fl. 410), believed that Jesus Christ had two natures — man and God — which remained separate throughout his period on earth. This is not really what Nestor said (although he did deny virgin birth) but the name stuck. You can still find a few Nestorian churches in Iran.

Jesus......
Christ......

Apollinarianism: Named for Apollinaris of Laodicea (fl. 350), this heresy says that Jesus Christ was not a real man, but not totally divine either. Apollinarians suggested that he had a human body and a human soul, but his mind was taken over by the eternal Logos.

Je(Christ)sus

Arianism: Arianism is named after Arius (c. 250 - c. 336), a priest in Alexandria. This is considered the most serious heresy. Jesus Christ was thought of as a special creation by God for man’s salvation. Arianism was the form of Christianity that the Goths adhered to, and it was popular in all the areas they conquered, including Italy, Spain, and Africa.

Socianism: A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning “companion), simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man. This heresy still lives on in two very different forms, the Unitarians and the Jehova’s Witnesses.

Jesus only (no Christ)

***The common people couldn’t read. Are you that unlearned of historical times?

What makes you think they couldn’t read during the Lord’s time?

Literacy levels have always been high among the Jewish people who learn to read the Old Testament scriptures.***

You do like moving on when you have lost the argument, don’t you. We were speaking of the 99% illiterate peoples of the West and their relation to reading the Bible in the 1000s. Now we’re moving to the OT Jews? The Greek or the Hebrew Bible?

http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html says that at most 3% of Jews were literate at the time of Christ and that was because of great improvements under the Romans which led to greater wealth and leisure.

***What language did Jesus use?

He used the language of the common people.***

Which is?

***I tried to make it easy for you.

Well, it just showed your own mental limitations.***

It’s soooo hard to speak up and talk down at the same time.

***No, actually they are facts, but your comments are just so much empty rhetoric.***

You must show your statements to be true, not merely repost them or jump to different statements when caught. Otherwise, they remain just unsubstantiated words.

***As I said, it isn’t me that is judging you, but the Scriptures that you have denied, they condemn you.***

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Bibiolatry, and a very indicative case of it. In any case, you have posted a number of times that you can judge me and that you are. Statements of opposite things in juxtaposition. Are you merely forgetful or are you posting prevarication? A third possibility: lost in theology, educated beyond understanding. Provincial, anyway.

***My advice to you is, since you are determined to reject the grace of God, is to enjoy the blessings of God while you can, because eternity is a long time! ***

I wonder at your final reward, since your theology differs so significantly from Christianity, as does your Bible.

***Now, stop wasting my time.

You are doing an admirable job all by yourself.

[MarkBsnr]

***Wikipedia is written by anonymous sources who submit articles. Facts taken from wiki are suspect at best. I’d rely on some other sources.

I have, note for example Schaff.

And he supports what I said regarding the power of the RCC in the Middle ages aka, Dark Ages. ***

So does that other purulent anti Catholic bigot Ian Paisley.

***And try keeping focused on the issue, which was the language of the common people, which was not Latin. ***

The common people couldn’t read. Focus, focus.

***That’s correct, and where the British Empire took over, the Bible followed and literacy with it.***

It was not strict cause and effect and the time span was several hundred years. Literacy in 1600s England - at the time when the Empire and wealth were flourishing was only 30% for men and 10% for women.

Rather, wealth and leisure were increasing and only those in history up until recently who were literate were those with the wealth and leisure to be able to pursue it.

[fortheDeclaration]

[***Wikipedia is written by anonymous sources who submit articles. Facts taken from wiki are suspect at best. I’d rely on some other sources. I have, note for example Schaff. And he supports what I said regarding the power of the RCC in the Middle ages aka, Dark Ages. *** So does that other purulent anti Catholic bigot Ian Paisley. ] ***And try keeping focused on the issue, which was the language of the common people, which was not Latin. *** The common people couldn’t read. Focus, focus. ***That’s correct, and where the British Empire took over, the Bible followed and literacy with it.*** It was not strict cause and effect and the time span was several hundred years. Literacy in 1600s England - at the time when the Empire and wealth were flourishing was only 30% for men and 10% for women. Rather, wealth and leisure were increasing and only those in history up until recently who were literate were those with the wealth and leisure to be able to pursue it.

First, you attack the source, which is typical when you can't deal with the facts.

Second, Latin stopped being the spoken language of the common people long before the 1600's-try to keep up.

Third, the increase in literacy levels came with the increase of Bibles in the peoples own spoken language

And along with the King James, most homes in the Colonies and later the U.S. had Pilgrims Progress and Fox's Book of Martyrs.

Now don't waste my time anymore with your useless posts.

The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.

[fortheDeclaration]

Old French (9th-13th centuries). The dialects of Northern Gaul developed into separate language (Langue d’oil, see below) with a grammar of its own. The first written materials in it date from the Strasbourg Oaths of 842. The Old French literature flourished since the 10th century (chansons de geste etc.). French in this period was already taught in the neighboring countries (especially in Germany). In 11th-13th centuries it was the dominant language of the English administration (see more in the Romance Influences on English). It was, also, the language of the crusaders in the Levantine countries.
Middle French (14th-15th centuries). This period was marked by changes both in the pronunciation and in the grammar. A common literary language, based on the dialect of Île de France (the region of Paris), was promoted by the writers. French was replacing Latin in the texts of the public administration in France.

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/French/French.html

[MarkBsnr]

***First, you attack the source, which is typical when you can’t deal with the facts.***

First, Wiki is written by anyone and therefore a suspect source especially for rigourous or intellectually challenging subjects.

Second, you cited Schaff as a source on the role of the Church. Schaff is anti Catholic; you may do as well to quote another anti Catholic such as Ian Paisley. If you have Church sources to back up your statements, then I will indeed accept them.

***Second, Latin stopped being the spoken language of the common people long before the 1600’s-try to keep up.***

You keep switching back and forth between claims of Jewish literacy at the time of Christ, medieval literacy, and more modern literacy. The common people before the 1600s were illiterate, period. Even England, the most literate land in the world, only had 30% literacy for men and 10% literacy for women - the clergy, the nobles and the merchants. The US was far behind and arguably has never caught up to England to this day.

***Third, the increase in literacy levels came with the increase of Bibles in the peoples own spoken language***

Well after - the primary cause was the increase in wealth and leisure which mirrors the increase in literary rates in cities like Athens, Sparta, Rome, Alexandria, Babylon, Constantinople and eventually the cities in the West. These other examples did not have Bibles and yet mirrored the same outcome.

***And along with the King James, most homes in the Colonies and later the U.S. had Pilgrims Progress and Fox’s Book of Martyrs.***

You have proof of Pilgrims Progress and Fox? In what years? I realize that these fictional books extolling personal martyrdom were popular, but I’d like to see some proofs please.

***Now don’t waste my time anymore with your useless posts.***

Are you saying that you quite adequately waste your own time and don’t need my contributions?

***The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason. ***

2 Pet 2:
1
There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2
Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
3
In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep.

If you like, I can post yet another list of heresies that those people who reject the Church of Jesus Christ choose to select from for their personal theologies, like the menu at a Chinese restaurant.

[MarkBsnr]

Nice. Google is your friend. You have confirmed that French eventually replaced Latin as the universal language and (eventually I suppose) you will find out that English replaced French.

You still haven’t answered my question as to what language you think Jesus spoke.

[fortheDeclaration]

The rise of literacy in Europe was closely tied to great social transformations, notably the Protestant Reformation, which brought individual study of the Bible, and the development of modern science.

http://www.answers.com/topic/literacy

[fortheDeclaration]

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Enjoy the water while you can!

[MarkBsnr]

Revelation 19:
19
Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered to fight against the one riding the horse and against his army.
20
The beast was caught and with it the false prophet who had performed in its sight the signs by which he led astray those who had accepted the mark of the beast and those who had worshiped its image. The two were thrown alive into the fiery pool burning with sulfur.

I trust that you are planning on having a beastly time in your afterlife.