Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome
CIC ^ | April 2008 | Bob DeWaay

Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; evangelicals; rome
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 1,351-1,394 next last
To: MarkBsnr
Ah. The negation of the Gospels by the Reformers. Matt 22:

One should understand the complete harmony of the gospel. The lawyer was trying to justify himself. Please consider a more complete companion verse:

Now, if the lawyer (or anyone) can tell me they have loved God with all their heart, soul and mind AND their neighbor then I will be impressed and, as our Lord stated, they shall inherit eternal life. However, if not then they have a problem. Obviously the lawyer must have felt a bit uncomfortable. Do you believe that you have been able to keep these commandments?

I think that a rereading of the Gospels might be in order.

Yes, indeed.

451 posted on 05/03/2008 6:43:45 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo

***Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Mar 4:14 The sower soweth the word.
Mar 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.***

None of these indicate sola scriptura. They indicate that scripture is important - most of them refer to the OT, but nothing to the extent that Scripture alone is important.


452 posted on 05/03/2008 6:44:49 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr; HarleyD; swmobuffalo; Manfred the Wonder Dawg; Augustinian monk; ...
Or just another casual racist remark?

Sure looks like it.

Maybe the truth is getting a little too close to home.

453 posted on 05/03/2008 6:45:32 PM PDT by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; All
Here is your entire remark...

"Sure.

They are recruiting from the disaffected Protestants in North America and they are recruiting from the savages in Africa and in Southeast Asia, as are we. But, as in the 7th Century, the militant recruiting appears to be outstripping us.

The Reformed on the other hand, appear to be fading."

Who are you referring to when you write "they are recruiting from the savages in Africa?"

Who are "the savages of Africa?"

454 posted on 05/03/2008 6:46:06 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Very much a reread.

The entire message of Jesus was love and mercy and charity; totally unlike the message of the OT.

The OT was fear and trepidation and worship from afar.

I never said that I could keep these commandments; it is the God of Love and Mercy that I depend on to forgive my sins.


455 posted on 05/03/2008 6:48:19 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
The Holy Spirit did not write the Bible.

ROTFLOL! You didn't even wait until tomorrow to contradict yourself again.

456 posted on 05/03/2008 6:48:53 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“None of these indicate sola scriptura.”

Rather dangerous to deny the word of God, is it not?


457 posted on 05/03/2008 6:49:25 PM PDT by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Yet you didn't include it.

lol. Do you excerpt from people's remarks or do you post every word they write?

As I said, including the extra words would in no way change what was meant nor written.

458 posted on 05/03/2008 6:50:40 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
According to Scripture, worshiping the Eucharist is idolatry and a complete misunderstanding of the Lord's Supper and Christ's perfect, one-time, accomplished sacrifice on the cross for all the sins of His flock.

No, according to your interpretation of Scripture. To quote Luther quoting Scripture, That IS my Body. In any case, in worshiping the Eucharist we are worshiping the present Christ, not a symbol of our faith.

459 posted on 05/03/2008 6:51:21 PM PDT by RobbyS (Ecce homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

***They are recruiting from the disaffected Protestants in North America and they are recruiting from the savages in Africa and in Southeast Asia, as are we. But, as in the 7th Century, the militant recruiting appears to be outstripping us. ***

My post.

Since you are unable to discern anything other than to deflect attention from the question that you keep refusing to answer:

Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the antiChrist?

I will expand upon it. Savages. Definition: Of or pertaining to the forest; remote from human abodes and cultivation; in a state of nature; wild; as, a savage wilderness.

We are going in and bringing civilization to the uncivilized. Whole Catholic orders are bringing that civilization to millions who are living as humans did tens of thousands of years ago. When we bring civilization to them, we bring the faith as well.

A not totally unexpected twist once again upon my words and intents.

Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the antiChrist?


460 posted on 05/03/2008 6:54:25 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The “rather” does not mean what you claim it to me. You ride on the English word in this way only by divorcing it from the original Greek.

I know what 'is' means and I know what 'rather' means...

So what do you think rather means???

Are you suggesting that the greek word doesn't mean rather in English???

461 posted on 05/03/2008 6:55:45 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

***The Holy Spirit did not write the Bible.

ROTFLOL! You didn’t even wait until tomorrow to contradict yourself again.***

Wow. You cannot keep anything straight.

Let’s go back to post 338:

MB:The Bible was written and assembled under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Dr.E.: Ah. At last, sanity. So it is not “Bibliolatry” to believe the “Holy Spirit wrote the Bible.”

May I quote you tomorrow when you change your mind?


I cannot help but wonder how in the world one can manage a computer but not keep a single thought straight. What is your hypothetical doctorate in? Does it involve street pharmceuticals and alternate states of reality?


462 posted on 05/03/2008 6:58:32 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I never said that I could keep these commandments; it is the God of Love and Mercy that I depend on to forgive my sins.

I never said that any of us could keep these commandments. And that is exactly my point; man cannot love God unless God gives us that power to love Him.

The message of Jesus was not love and mercy and charity. The message of Jesus was about glorifying God. The way you glorify God is through love and mercy and charity. And these are gifts from God which He gives to us to help us glorify Him.
463 posted on 05/03/2008 7:05:51 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Yet you didn't include it.

lol. Do you excerpt from people's remarks or do you post every word they write?

As I said, including the extra words would in no way change what was meant nor written.

464 posted on 05/03/2008 7:07:09 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

Sorry for the double posts. I’m distracted.


465 posted on 05/03/2008 7:08:21 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; HarleyD

What was ambivalent about my saying that I find nothing in the WCF that is not true nor unScriptural?


466 posted on 05/03/2008 7:11:01 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; wmfights

“It’s easy to see why the missionaries we support in Latin America are succeeding.”

The fastest growing religious movement in Central and South America is the Pentecostal movement. It is growing so fast and causing so many to leave the Roman Catholic church that they are beginning to feel the usual backlash of persecution.

Another interesting feature in Central America is the Roman Catholic church’s history in the “Theology of Liberation” movement; a decided marxist movement that was the spiritual energizer of revolutions in the countries. It is the model that James Cone uses for his “Black Liberation Theology” that is prominant in Jeremiah Wright’s troubles.


467 posted on 05/03/2008 7:15:35 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; HarleyD
You haven't answered it at all. Not once. Just in case you've forgotten, here it is again: Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the antiChrist?

The original question was whether or not I believed the WCF.

And now for the ninth time, I will say again...

I do not see where Ratzinger contradicts or disproves one word of the WCF. After all, he calls himself "another Christ" and "infallible," hallmarks of you-know-who.

468 posted on 05/03/2008 7:15:42 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; wmfights; HarleyD; swmobuffalo; OLD REGGIE
I'm appalled at your post regarding the "recruiting of the savages in Africa."

You should really be ashamed of yourself. But I won't hold my breath.

As Christ said, your own words condemn you.

469 posted on 05/03/2008 7:19:40 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo

Thank you for those quotes from Scripture.


470 posted on 05/03/2008 7:25:26 PM PDT by Petronski (When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth, voting for Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Machen never made the deadly error of calling himself "another Christ" nor thinking he was "infallible."

Yawn.

471 posted on 05/03/2008 7:26:07 PM PDT by Petronski (When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth, voting for Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
In post 268 you wrote:

Umm, you may wish to consider what Scripture is. It is what we wrote as an accompanying manual for the teachings of the Church.

Now you're saying the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible.

I realize you're having trouble keeping up with your own posts between all the sarcasm and personal attacks you're leveling at Bible-believing Christians, but try harder.

Your own words condemn you.

472 posted on 05/03/2008 7:27:48 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

***The original question was whether or not I believed the WCF. ***

Then you wouldn’t mind answering this other original question:

Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the antiChrist?


473 posted on 05/03/2008 7:28:10 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan

AMEN!


474 posted on 05/03/2008 7:29:11 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
It is not complicated and never has been.

I agree. Yet egotists like Luther, Cauvin, Zwingli and Machen set out to dumb it down. Why would that be?

Satan is the father of all lies.

475 posted on 05/03/2008 7:30:01 PM PDT by Petronski (When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth, voting for Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
yewn

LOL. Yes, the truth bores some people because they prefer the darkness to the light.

Therefore, they sleep.

476 posted on 05/03/2008 7:30:46 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

LOL. When you’re caught in an error, just push on through.


477 posted on 05/03/2008 7:32:01 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

***I’m appalled at your post regarding the “recruiting of the savages in Africa.”***

If you were honest, you might include my full posting which included the uncivilized in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Bearing false witness is specifically condemned in the Bible, or doesn’t that apply to the selected elected elite? I cannot think of a Biblical injunction that would compel one to fully answer what one has hinted at and is called on. I’ll just refer to it as intellectual dishonesty.

Unlike certain arrogant Reformed with a massive inferiority complex, I’ll trust in God to be my Judge, not tin pot bloodthirsty dictators or theological Visigoths.

Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the antiChrist?


478 posted on 05/03/2008 7:34:08 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

***Now you’re saying the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible.***

No. I never did. You are wrong.

Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the antiChrist?


479 posted on 05/03/2008 7:36:41 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

***LOL. When you’re caught in an error, just push on through.***

When I am in error, I normally apologize and attempt to mend my ways. It appears that the elected selected elite of the Reformed need not stoop to such peasant ways.

Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the antiChrist?


480 posted on 05/03/2008 7:38:54 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Dr. Eckleburg; swmobuffalo; Manfred the Wonder Dawg; OLD REGGIE
[ Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the antiChrist? ]

Gee I dunno.. You have asked this question so many times it must have merit.. I didn't think Benny was all that important.. The ANTI-Christ?.. Its been said that he is NOT anti-christ but indeed thinks he "IS" CHRIST...

I don't buy it.. How can you "act" like the wafer becomes CHrist if you ARE CHRIST.. it would spoil the act.. then you got the wine and blood thing.. Too messy for a German..

481 posted on 05/03/2008 7:38:56 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Dr. Eckleburg; swmobuffalo; Manfred the Wonder Dawg; OLD REGGIE
[ Do you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the antiChrist? ]

Gee I dunno.. You have asked this question so many times it must have merit.. I didn't think Benny was all that important.. The ANTI-Christ?.. Its been said that he is NOT anti-christ but indeed thinks he "IS" CHRIST...

I don't buy it.. How can you "act" like the wafer becomes CHrist if you ARE CHRIST.. it would spoil the act.. then you got the wine and blood thing.. Too messy for a German..

482 posted on 05/03/2008 7:40:13 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

Comment #483 Removed by Moderator

To: hosepipe; Dr. Eckleburg

***You have asked this question so many times it must have merit.. I didn’t think Benny was all that important.. The ANTI-Christ?.. Its been said that he is NOT anti-christ but indeed thinks he “IS” CHRIST...***

The good Dr. E. has coyly hinted that she either does or does not believe that the Pope is the antiChrist but so far has refused to answer directly.

From what I’ve seen I think that she does but is unwilling to come out directly and say it.


484 posted on 05/03/2008 7:52:00 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

***I realize you’re having trouble keeping up with your own posts between all the sarcasm and personal attacks you’re leveling at Bible-believing Christians, but try harder. ***

I’m not sure what you believe in, but based upon your posts, it does not appear to be the Bible that I am familiar with. Possibly it has been abridged to the point where it means the opposite of its intent, much like certain posts of mine that have been excerpted and twisted to mean the opposite of their intent.


485 posted on 05/03/2008 8:08:41 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Augustinian monk
We're sure gettin' some nasty religion arguments going on in The FRee World.

With so many posts which turn to blows between Protestants and Catholics, I wonder if we're becoming a religion site instead of a political site.


486 posted on 05/03/2008 8:13:07 PM PDT by bannie (clintons CHEAT! It's their only weapon.; & Barry/Barack has two faces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; CaspersGh0sts
Speaking as a Presbyterian, I've never in my life heard of a Presbyterian denying Sola Scriptura.

My first guess would be Cumberland - not much theological rigor there.

My second guess would be PCUSA - they don't even have to be Christians, much less Calvinists.

487 posted on 05/03/2008 8:19:06 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
[ The good Dr. E. has coyly hinted that she either does or does not believe that the Pope is the antiChrist but so far has refused to answer directly. ]

What I have read is she said the Pope makes himself CHRIST in some aspect.. not the anti-christ.. Its YOU that used the anti-christ accusation.. Now if making yourself christ makes you the anti-christ, well then both might be true..

488 posted on 05/03/2008 9:05:43 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Yus, the trooth borrs sum peepul becuz thay prefur thuh darkiss to thuh lite.

Yes. They're known as Calvinists.

489 posted on 05/03/2008 9:06:13 PM PDT by Petronski (When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth, voting for Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Its been said that he is NOT anti-christ but indeed thinks he "IS" CHRIST...

Said by whom? Post a link.

490 posted on 05/03/2008 9:10:57 PM PDT by Petronski (When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth, voting for Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

I said no such thing. You’re capable of some amazing falsehoods.


491 posted on 05/03/2008 9:15:10 PM PDT by Petronski (When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth, voting for Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
[ I said no such thing. You’re capable of some amazing falsehoods. ]

You said what to whom, when?..

492 posted on 05/03/2008 10:11:41 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Luke 1:28 uses the perfect past participle, "Kecharitomene."

χαριτόω

charitoō

khar-ee-to'-o

From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.

493 posted on 05/03/2008 10:35:21 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
But then, unlike a lot of Protestants, we don’t keep Him on the hall stand and rub His head for luck when we walk by.

Well sure you do...Well, maybe you don't...But you keep Mary on the hall stand...And on the front lawn...Seen her there myself...

I used to keep a rabbit's foot for luck...Then I decided since I have his foot, he wasn't so lucky after all...

494 posted on 05/03/2008 10:45:28 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
What fascinating insights, dear brother in Christ! Thank you for sharing them! The gemstones are "pregnant" metaphors.
495 posted on 05/03/2008 11:32:39 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: mike182d
What I find amusing is how the obvious issue is being missed entirely. Shouldn't the larger issue for the author be that when Protestants research the first thousand years of Christianity, they do not find any trace of their core beliefs?

You've not heard of the Holy Bible; the inspired WORD OF GOD?

496 posted on 05/03/2008 11:39:44 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Religion Moderator
Yus, the trooth borrs sum peepul becuz thay prefur thuh darkiss to thuh lite.

You put those words in italics which implies I wrote those words as you wrote them which is a lie.

I give you creidt, however. You manage to find new ways to break the FR rules every day.

497 posted on 05/03/2008 11:42:50 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; hosepipe; Dr. Eckleburg
The good Dr. E. has coyly hinted that she either does or does not believe that the Pope is the antiChrist but so far has refused to answer directly.

Think that's interesting? Try asking her what she thinks of the preaching and ministry of Billy Graham.

498 posted on 05/03/2008 11:43:20 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

From the explanation given, a third guess would be someone wasn’t really a Presbyterian.


499 posted on 05/03/2008 11:48:11 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Putting words in another poster's mouth is "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

500 posted on 05/03/2008 11:59:45 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 1,351-1,394 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson