Posted on 10/21/2010 6:56:49 AM PDT by marshmallow
“No point in discussing anything about the true Faith with a Protestant.”
Then why keep posting your screed with that sentence in it on threads open to both Protestants and Catholics? Indeed, why post anything on these threads at all if you find these discussions completely fruitless?
So you’re saying that Catholics think they can earn their way to heaven and don’t need Christ?
For example, I can't see Mother Teresa approaching the pearly gates and being told by St. Peter to check into the other place because the doctrine of transubstantiation is wrong because the sacrament is only symbolic, not literal.
Rome's caricature of heaven aside, Mother Teresa engaged in good old fashioned works-righteousness, a tenet of all pseudo-religions that estimates that one's works will somehow appease the gods. And she was a practical polytheist in that she sincerely believed in a Many Paths, One God soteriology. Her statements are pretty clear that she rejected Jesus Christ being the only way to salvation and she totally supported sincerity in any faith (whether it is Hindu, Muslim or Voodoo, as long as the believer is sincere). Now she did subscribe to a hodge-podge of Roman beliefs, and perhaps she may have believed in a real Jesus Christ, but she is also well known for pointing to the "least of these" and believing that they individually were Jesus Christ, sort of a wierd semi-pantheistic spirit blend theology. One thing is for certain, she rejected orthodox doctrines of Christianity. Her missions had nothing to do with salvation, it was very much a ministry of service.
Nor can I see St. Peter admitting some murdering scumbag into heaven because at one time in his life, he signed the acceptance of Jesus Christ statement in the back of a Gideon New Testament and sincerely meant it.
So St. Paul didn't make it to heaven for even he called himself the "chief of all sinners"; part of his résumé included the serial murder of Christians.
Thankfully, we don't have to rely on the heresies and blasphemies that have characterized Rome, rather we have the Scriptures and many generations of devout theologians including men of God such as Thomas Aquinas, who have debated extensively on every point of doctrine in the Bible and have left us their notes so that we can have a more comprehensive understanding of God.
As part of that heritage, we have a very mature understanding of the Doctrines of Grace that rely on the Grace of God through His Election according to His Purpose rather than relying on the moral relativity and subjectivity of fallen and corrupted man.
The Gospel Matthew 25:31-46 is what she had stated she was thinking of; she trained herself to see Christ in "the least of these." That may not make sense to everyone, but it makes eminent sense to me.
I don't set myself up as the judge of St. Paul or anyone else, for that matter. I simply make the observation that a man can turn from murder to being the greatest missionary for Christ in history (in the case of St. Paul) just as one can turn from being a sincere confessor of Christ to murder. It is a huge difference which, evidently, is a moral equivalent in your mind.
Not unlike the political liberals who want to be judged for their good intentions rather than their actual results.
re:why post anything on these threads at all if you find these discussions completely fruitless?
Copy & paste takes a second. I do it for the Catholics and people of good will.
No, I said:
...as each "Protestant" is just one person making up their own religion as they go along, they're all winging it, to themselves they are more infallible than a pope, they are their own god. There is no point in discussing anything about the true Faith with a Protestant. If I were to correct the misunderstanding in ONE person for ONE question of life, there would still be millions of other errors to deal with in that ONE person.
Ones beliefs are unique to him, as Protestantism has no beliefs that require adherence, each Protestant basically invents his own church of one. That is not the case with Catholics. The Catholic Church has doctrines that are unchangeable, and a Catholic MUST believe them, or he is not a Catholic. PERIOD.
The Gospel Matthew 25:31-46 is what she had stated...
I have heard the comparison made many times by all kinds of service minded people, but in the few times I heard her identify the poor and lame as Jesus Christ, it came off as an extension of transubstantiation, in that they actually were the flesh and blood of Christ. I once dismissed the awkwardness of the assertion as something lost in translation, but within the context in which the statements were made, the view you and I are thinking of didn't seem likely.
Doctrinal accuracy was surely not her forte.
So, do you think your view is the view of the majority of Protestants? Or just the Calvinist view?
Given a strict definition of the label "Protestant" I consider the two one and the same. I prefer the definition of "Protestant" as derived from the Latin where the classic Protestant wasn't one just rebelling against the system, but were Confessional in that they have a proclamation articulating their faith. This is in distinction to the so-called "non-denominational" and their ideological progenitors the Anabaptists.
While the Westminster, 1689 BCF, Augsburg, Belgic et al are well thought-out declarations of faith, I consider them guard-rails rather than holy writ. Given that, there is an enormous amount of agreement on key doctrines leaving room so that the "talent" rich believers can discuss and debate what essentially is differences in doctrine due to personal prejudices, presuppositions and world-views.
“Copy & paste takes a second.”
I’d say the time it takes to post it is a pretty good reflection of how much it adds to the discussion...
I gather you are not Catholic.
“I gather you are not Catholic.”
Nope, better stop talking to me quick. It would just take time away from my busy schedule of imagining up doctrine for my personal Religion of Me anyways.
Shows how very little you actually know about Protestantism. Ah well, it's apparently easier for you to hyperventilate than attempt to understand.
Have a nice day.
re: Shows how very little you actually know about Protestantism.
There is no such thing as the Protestant religion. If you had said “Shows how very little you actually know about the creed of the pure Lutheran faith as practiced in Germany by Briefwechsel Tischreden”, that would be another story.
Judging by what you wrote above, you are just another “American Protestant making up their own religion as they go along, winging it, to themselves more infallible than a pope, your own god”.
You do not understand/know the hierarchy of truth.
Honey, if that’s what you need to believe to sleep well at night, go for it.
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.