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 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 1,351-1,394 next last
To: hosepipe
Too messy for a German

LOL!!!

501 posted on 05/04/2008 12:05:59 AM 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 482 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Regarding your comments about the "savages in Africa," they are available for anyone to read and appraise all on their own.

It's actually a wonderful method of learning, much like what we're told to do with the Bible. Read it and learn from it.

502 posted on 05/04/2008 12:11:34 AM 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 478 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights and for those beautiful Scriptures!

Speaking of "filling" ...

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. - Acts 2:4

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, - Acts 4:8

Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, - Acts 13:9

And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. - Ephesians 3:19

To God be the glory!

503 posted on 05/04/2008 12:12:40 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: suzyjaruki
Yes, it does come up quite often. Thank you for your encouragements!
504 posted on 05/04/2008 12:22:03 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Umm, you may wish to consider what Scripture is. It is what we wrote as an accompanying manual for the teachings of the Church. The Church is what Jesus left for us, not writings. The NT wasn't put together for 300 years after Jesus was taken up to Heaven.

268 posted on 05/03/2008 3:38:02 PM PDT by MarkBsnr

Just so I don't forget.

505 posted on 05/04/2008 12:23:08 AM 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 485 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, - Acts 4:8

Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, - Acts 13:9

AMEN!

Thank you for those perfect examples of human beings besides Mary who were "filled with the Holy Spirit."

As you and I and all Bible-believing Christians are likewise filled, by the grace of God for His glory.

506 posted on 05/04/2008 12:26:44 AM 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 503 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you for your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!
507 posted on 05/04/2008 12:29:40 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
When we look for them, the verses are everywhere. God fills with grace those who are His, according to His mercy.

"For he satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness." -- Psalm 107:9


"And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost." -- Acts 13:52


508 posted on 05/04/2008 12:38:09 AM 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 507 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Do you excerpt from people's remarks or do you post every word they write?

That's what elipsis are for, and you didn't use them.

Which is pretty funny considering how you squall later in the thread about people putting words in your mouth.

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

That is patently and demonstrably false. The part you left out was the part that indicated the writer was being sarcastic.

509 posted on 05/04/2008 12:53:57 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

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

See post 364.

510 posted on 05/04/2008 1:03:39 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
[you may wish to consider what Scripture is. It is what we wrote as an accompanying manual for the teachings of the Church.]

DING! DING! DING!!! We have a winner, folks! The church at Rome wrote the Bible!!! Such foul hubris knows no limit. God forgive them.

Well, they are half right!

The corrupt line of New Age Bibles, from the Critical text types do come from the RCC.

The Holy Spirit was responsible for the pure line of Bible, found in the Received Text Bibles of the Reformation.

511 posted on 05/04/2008 5:56:38 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
You are correct, only Christ was said to be 'full of Grace', Mary was said to have 'found favor with God'.

I think the RC are confusing what the Bible says about Mary and what they pray when they say their 'hail Mary-full of grace nonsense

In fact, Jael(Jud.5:24) is said to be blessed ABOVE women, while Mary was said to only to be blessed AMONG women.(Lk.1:28)

512 posted on 05/04/2008 6:06:59 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
In any case, in worshiping the Eucharist we are worshiping the present Christ, not a symbol of our faith.

Like the movie, 'GroundHog Day'...

Continuing to murder Jesus, every day, all day long is worshipping Jesus???

You need to get Jesus off the Cross...He's not there...He is risen...

You don't worship Him with bread and wine...You worship GOD with Spirit and Truth...

513 posted on 05/04/2008 6:17:51 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; RobbyS; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
Yawn. Your opinions are that, opinions. We who follow Christ obey and He told us what to do. He also appointed Apostles to teach, to bind and to loose. You do not have that power so your opinions have no weight. +

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

514 posted on 05/04/2008 6:23:38 AM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; Alamo-Girl; madd dawg
[ In fact, Jael(Jud.5:24) is said to be blessed ABOVE women, while Mary was said to only to be blessed AMONG women.(Lk.1:28) ]

Good find... LoL...

515 posted on 05/04/2008 7:01:05 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; Dr. Eckleburg
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.

It's interesting how some things never change. Instead of rejoicing in the joy of new found brothers and sisters in Christ there is a concern because they are not members in the "right" church.

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.

Good point. I thought the last pope had tried to eliminate these clergy with the marxist agenda from their ranks.

516 posted on 05/04/2008 7:16:23 AM PDT by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; papertyger
To avoid "putting words in another Freeper's mouth" and thereby "making it personal" - when you are paraphrasing another Freeper be sure to indicate that it is a paraphrase and not a direct quote.

For instance, "Bibliolatry equals believing the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible!" [paraphrase]

517 posted on 05/04/2008 8:55:05 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

I did not put words in another poster’s mouth.


518 posted on 05/04/2008 9:12:41 AM 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 500 | View Replies]

To: CaspersGh0sts

The RCC is not a monolith either. It contains everything from liberals to traditionalists who want the Mass to still be in Latin. That is even more evident as you travel from one country to another.


519 posted on 05/04/2008 9:15:09 AM PDT by attiladhun2 (Obama is the anti-Reagan, instead of opposing the world's tyrants, he wants to embrace them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Religion Moderator
yewn

You put that word in italics which implies I wrote that word as you wrote it which is a lie. (My post said "Yawn.")

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

520 posted on 05/04/2008 9:15:22 AM 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: Iscool

That is the root.

Nonetheless, Luke 1:28 uses the perfect past participle, “Kecharitomene.”


521 posted on 05/04/2008 9:17:14 AM 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 493 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Compare post 476 and 489 - where the poster’s words were repeated, mangled as if spoken by an idiot.


522 posted on 05/04/2008 9:18:24 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Mary was said to have 'found favor with God'.

That is a common protestant mistranslation. Quite intentional, I think.

523 posted on 05/04/2008 9:19:43 AM 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 512 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Precisely the same thing was done in 476. I did not type “yewn,” that would be the word of an idiot.

My 489 made issue of this by repeating her behavior. That was my point.


524 posted on 05/04/2008 9:21:20 AM 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 522 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
My 489 made issue of this by repeating her behavior. That was my point.

Then she runs complaining to the moderator, LOL.

525 posted on 05/04/2008 9:25:10 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Dr. Eckleburg
Then both of you, knock it off. When you quote another poster, be precise. If you are paraphrasing another poster, mark it clearly as a paraphrase.

But in any case, do NOT "make it personal!"

526 posted on 05/04/2008 9:27:34 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I submit that it is a matter of perspective – not either/or. For one to be “right” the other doesn’t have to be “wrong.”

So true, my dearest sister in Christ! To suggest another analogy, these two views are each truthful "complementarities" that are ultimately unified in the One Light of God's Truth.

Thank you so much for your beautiful essay/post!

527 posted on 05/04/2008 10:22:20 AM PDT by betty boop (This country was founded on religious principles. Without God, there is no America. -- Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
To suggest another analogy, these two views are each truthful "complementarities" that are ultimately unified in the One Light of God's Truth.

Excellent! Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

528 posted on 05/04/2008 10:26:23 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Indeed. Thank you so very much for those beautiful Scriptures!
529 posted on 05/04/2008 10:28:44 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

I did NOT expect that. lol


530 posted on 05/04/2008 10:29:25 AM 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 525 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
To avoid "putting words in another Freeper's mouth" and thereby "making it personal" - when you are paraphrasing another Freeper be sure to indicate that it is a paraphrase and not a direct quote.

For instance, "Bibliolatry equals believing the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible!" [paraphrase]

Thanks. That's very good advice.

531 posted on 05/04/2008 10:54:42 AM 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 517 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Religion Moderator
Regarding "yewn," I had no idea I misspelled the word, "yawn."

(When I'm trying to be funny, I usually try harder than that.)

Sorry for the misspelling.

532 posted on 05/04/2008 10:57:21 AM 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 520 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Where do you get this stuff? The sacrifice of the mass is a sacrfice of a kind different from those under the Law.


533 posted on 05/04/2008 12:04:30 PM PDT by RobbyS (Ecce homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
The corrupt line of New Age Bibles, from the Critical text types do come from the RCC.

The Holy Spirit was responsible for the pure line of Bible, found in the Received Text Bibles of the Reformation.

AMEN!

534 posted on 05/04/2008 12:20:54 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 511 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
In fact, Jael(Jud.5:24) is said to be blessed ABOVE women, while Mary was said to only to be blessed AMONG women.(Lk.1:28)

AMEN! For those with ears to hear.

535 posted on 05/04/2008 12:22:48 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 512 | View Replies]

To: All
The Holy Spirit was responsible for the pure line of Bible...

Yes.

...found in the Received Text Bibles of the Reformation.

LOL

536 posted on 05/04/2008 1:05:28 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 | View Replies]

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

Of course. Again, the issue is not whether a particular belief can be argued by means of Scripture. Even slavery in America was defended using the Holy Bible.

The larger question is what the Holy Bible actually means. Given that there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations who disagree with one another - and yet claim that they are all based on the Bible - it stands to reason that the Bible as it is written is not sufficiently clear and requires proper intepretation and adaptation.

Thus, when one wishes to correctly understand the meaning of the Scriptures, would it not make sense to compare one's current understanding with that of the Christian community that existed around the time it was written?

So, yes, I know there's a Bible. The question for Protestants is: if how you interpret the Bible is true, why is it that the Christian community did not share your beliefs for the first 1500 years of its existence?
537 posted on 05/04/2008 7:21:08 PM PDT by mike182d ("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; swmobuffalo; muawiyah; Iscool; Manfred the Wonder Dawg

While this post is in reply to #1, I am actually replying to the sum of various posts by you all.

You all have earned my respect.

You have also left me with nothing to say.
(which is a good thing)

Thank you for taking the time to address these issues with such articulation.

I have for a long time wanted to see these two arguments side by side.

Hang in there and keep up the good work.


538 posted on 05/04/2008 7:30:37 PM PDT by Fichori (FreeRepublic.com: Watch your step!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Bump to your post at 505.


539 posted on 05/04/2008 8:34:02 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 505 | View Replies]

To: mike182d

I am not responsible for what others believe. That said. there are very few basic tenets of the orthodox (small ‘o’ is intentional) Christian faith. Churches that depart from those are in error.


540 posted on 05/04/2008 9:39:22 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

“Speaking as a Presbyterian, I’ve never in my life heard of a Presbyterian denying Sola Scriptura. What Presbyterian church do you belong to?”

I’m not denying Sola Scriptura. I just find the premise flawed. That doesn’t mean I don’t find the alternative flawed (even more flawed), as well.

On this thread, I’ve been arguing more in terms of a devil’s advocate more than anything. I’m a Protestant with a pretty good knowlege of church history and theology. I just find a lot of passive dismissals of the Catholic Church more than a bit myopic, as these matters can’t be dealt with as flippantly as some have around here.

But for the record, I’m a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and specifically chose it because I found a much greater emphasis placed on scripture, traditional belief, and missions than PCUSA, for instance.

I will say you most definitely see a progression in time of the scriptures revealing an ever-widening circle of understanding about God. And yes, some changes. For instance, regarding whether a man would be held accountable for the sins of his father. But I just find the concept of divine revelation essentially stopping after the canonization of scripture as far as the church is concerned to be lacking.

That doesn’t mean that I am advocating more scripture be added, but I believe the Catholic Church has the right idea in its recording and emphasis on Church history.


541 posted on 05/04/2008 9:56:11 PM PDT by CaspersGh0sts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
[Mary was said to have 'found favor with God'.]

That is a common protestant mistranslation. Quite intentional, I think.

If it is intentional 'Protestant' mistranslation the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible must be a Protestant Bible in disguise!

Luke 1: 28 He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favour! The Lord is with you.'

http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=42

542 posted on 05/04/2008 10:23:48 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: CaspersGh0sts; Dr. Eckleburg
For instance, regarding whether a man would be held accountable for the sins of his father.

Sound like you have a touch of Pelegianism!

The sure sign of rejecting Sola Scriptura!

All men are in Adam when they are born, so they are spiritually dead.

They need to get into Christ, to receive spiritual life.(Rom.5, 1Cor.15)

543 posted on 05/04/2008 10:30:59 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
[The Holy Spirit was responsible for the pure line of Bible...]

Yes.

[ ...found in the Received Text Bibles of the Reformation. ]

LOL

Pr.18: 2] A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

544 posted on 05/04/2008 10:36:49 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; Dr. Eckleburg; wmfights
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.

I was rather surprise at how marxist some of the writings of Thomas More and Catholics during the Reformation actually are. They felt power should be grouped in the hands of a few "educated" people, presumably the Church. It isn't surprising that Catholic countries like Spain should become marxist.

545 posted on 05/05/2008 2:21:40 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

There is plenty of mischief in the “New” Jerusalem Bible.


546 posted on 05/05/2008 4:41:54 AM 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 542 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; blue-duncan; Dr. Eckleburg
I was rather surprise at how marxist some of the writings of Thomas More and Catholics during the Reformation actually are. They felt power should be grouped in the hands of a few "educated" people, presumably the Church.

You raise a good point.

It is probably the result of the church and state connection. When the church in Rome became dominant it began to attract the wealthy and powerful into it's hierarchy. Ambrose is a great example, he went from being a pagan to becoming a Christian, to becoming a Bishop in one week.

Also, prior to the Reformation and the Scriptures becoming unlocked the RCC was able to threaten excommunication and eternal damnation to those that would not do it's bidding. They claimed to hold all the secrets and power over salvation (pretty elitist). They could raise armies to fight in the crusades by promising eternal life to all that went. IOW, they have a history of acting like an autocrat.

I've been reading about some of the Christian Churches that were persecuted at the direction of Rome and one of the common denominators among these groups was they refused to submit to the dominance of Rome and instead trusted Scripture. The resulting persecution being another example of the autocratic/elitist mind set.

547 posted on 05/05/2008 6:57:50 AM PDT by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; HarleyD; blue-duncan

Fascism can dress in a variety of skirts and shirts, but it’s all the same thing — power in the hands of a select few over the lives and souls of the rest of us.


548 posted on 05/05/2008 10:58:38 AM 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 547 | View Replies]

To: CaspersGh0sts
I just find a lot of passive dismissals of the Catholic Church more than a bit myopic, as these matters can’t be dealt with as flippantly as some have around here.

If you had followed these discussions, you would have found that no one is passively dismissing Rome.

We articulate the Scriptures quite carefully and fully regarding where Rome strays from the word of God.

I believe the Catholic Church has the right idea in its recording and emphasis on Church history.

I would venture a guess you are an Evangelical Presbyterian of one on that score.

549 posted on 05/05/2008 11:03:41 AM 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 541 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Continuing to murder Jesus, every day, all day long is worshipping Jesus???

We don't do that, we don't think we do that, we don't claim to do that, so this amounts to you bearing false witness.

You need to get Jesus off the Cross

Is preaching Christ crucified a stumbling-block to you, or is it a foolishness?

550 posted on 05/05/2008 11:53:25 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 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