Posted on 11/06/2014 2:29:33 PM PST by NYer
In June of this year, the largest Presbyterian denomination in America voted to allow their clergy to perform same-sex “marriages” within the church, thus joining the ranks of other Protestant denominations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Episcopalian Church, and United Church of Christ.
This “evolution” of theology and “modernizing” of church doctrine is a trend that I predict we’ll continue to see in non-Catholic Christian circles for years to come, and not just with marriage. Today, nearly all Protestant denominations support and even advocate the use of artificial birth control, and many allow at least some level of support for abortion.
Of course, not all Protestants are willing to “move with the times”, so to speak; there remains, especially among the more conservative groups, quite a bit of dissent. However, it cannot be denied that many modern day Protestant denominations are falling further into the depths of secularism.
While it pains me to see Christians turning their backs on the sanctity of life and marriage, I have to admit that whenever the media lights up with news of another Protestant church endorsing an otherwise wholly unchristian act, I find myself entirely unsurprised.
The reason for my utter lack of shock lies, interestingly enough, within two of the critical tenants of Protestant Theology: the doctrines of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone).
As Catholics, the Bible is not our sole source of authority, nor was the Catholic Church based upon it. In fact, what we now call “The Bible” — the collected Old Testament and New Testament writings — was put together by the Church herself, and is meant to enrich and support our doctrine and Tradition.
(Consider too that the Gospel is the written testimony of the teachings of the apostles, which, due to apostolic tradition and the God-given teaching authority of the Church, precedes the written text. Thus, any authority of the Scriptures is derived from the recognition of the Church.)
Yet, the Protestant Reformation severed the Tradition from the Bible, and put all other authorities beneath it. By doing so, they created a type of religious relativism (unwittingly, I’m sure) that opened the door for an “anything goes” mentality. So long, of course, as it can be found — or not found — in the scriptures.
For years, sola scriptura was a major weapon against Catholic theology, claiming that our practices were either absent or directly forbidden by Sacred Scripture. However, since the latter part of the 20th century, the charges that “Jesus never said (x)” or “That’s not in the Bible” have turned on themselves and have now become, “Jesus never said (x) was wrong, so that means (x) must be okay.”
This idea blends well with many in my generation, the millennials, who wish to hold on to some shred of spirituality but cannot bring themselves to relinquish the desires of the flesh. It is also a base notion of “Progressive Christianity”, which is basically the feel-good parts of following Christ without any actual sacrifice.
The same problem goes for sola fide. Though the only place in the Bible where the words “faith” and “alone” appear next to one another is in James 2:24 (“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”), it still remains a significant tenant of Protestant Christianity. However, much like sola scriptura, it has seemingly evolved into an even more bastardized version of itself that states, “As long as I’m a good person and believe in Jesus, I’m okay.”
Now, understand, I’m not among the ilk who believe that Protestants can’t go to Heaven, though the path is significantly more challenging (and not in a “take up your cross” kind of way). I do believe, however, that Christianity was never meant go in this direction. And I certainly believe that, should things continue in the manner they’re going for the modern-day Protestants, they’ll eventually have nothing left to call Christian at all.
Of course, perhaps that’s the only logical conclusion Protestantism could possibly come to. It is, after all, a theologically incomplete Christianity; and perhaps that is why it has such difficulty standing the test of time. Consider the continuous splintering Protestantism has seen since the days of Luther, that continues today. Sooner or later, it will be dust; and displaced Christians will be left with two choices: return to Holy Catholic Church or give themselves to the world.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God:
Why do you copy and paste verses and partial verses, then put them together as if they were all from the same passage? Is this why you refuse to post the references to book, chapter and verse? Do you not realize how deceptive it appears? What would you think if someone did that with your Catechism?
Or to even be a Catholic.
So the KJV using "whore" - "woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money" for harlot - "a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money" is "butchering the Bible?
And we should look to RC Bibles for correction translation of porneia and other words, such as the official NAB and its revisions?
May God bless you.
Trust me, I am certainly not into rituals or anything like that.
My point was that some of these folks in Africa practice some rituals that go back generations. Should we try to get them to realize that it’s wrong? Yes. But it takes time for some to fully understand. For some, the Gospel is new to them. Many cannot read or understand very well. Should be just give up on these missions because we cannot get them to fully understand? Of course not.
Personally, I think a lot of us act like lawyers when it comes to faith. We overly complicate things to where we’re almost legalistic. Heaven won’t be just made up of Biblical scholars. There will even be some illiterate people there that couldn’t even read the first passage in the Bible.
They expect all to worship at the feet of Rome, and thus cannot tolerate dissent and exposure of the false nature of their object of devotion and source of security. Cults inculcate that once one leaves the cult all is lost, and likewise Rome.
Nor are these: The NT church as manifested in Scripture
1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office, as per Rome which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
2. Never promised taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them.
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted,
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more .
All Christians basically, since they acted in protest against the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture and the promises of God, which Rome essentially says we are to always obey (since she presumes to be it).
Nor did they know any perpetual infallible magisterium, as none existed, but followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Nor did the look to Peter as the first of a line of infallble popes reigning supreme over the church.
Or preach justification thru ones own person "infused" holiness, effected via sprinkling of water, and regaining this in purgatory so they can enter Heaven.
Or pray to anyone in Heaven but the Lord.
Or know of a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests," and for whom celibacy was normatively mandated.
Or restrict or ban personal Scripture reading, or employ the sword of men to deal with theological dissenters.
Among other things.
Nah. Catholics are generally some pretty decent folks, same as any other raised in the Judeo-Christian traditions.
You’re as bad as the author of the article when you say you know who is going to hell and why - I’d be remiss if I didn’t point that out.
If RC’s endorse the same, they are equally foolish. Nobody knows the fate of their soul upon their death. Anyone who tells you they know the fate of their own soul, much less the fate of anyone elses soul does so for their own earthly motive. That will go in the pile for judgement, along with everything else they’ve done in life. God help us all.
Well Jim’s rebuke was right on. All this pinging to RMs and Jim was getting old. I’m sure the abuse button was worn out too.
....”Nobody knows the fate of their soul upon their death. Anyone who tells you they know the fate of their own soul, much less the fate of anyone elses soul does so for their own earthly motive”.....
Of course you can know if your destiny is with Jesus Christ or not....He makes that very clear in His Word when He says....
“These things Have I written ‘to you that believe on the Son of God’......that you may ‘KNOW’ that you have eternal life”.... lst John 5:13
and again here when Jesus states in Jn.10:27-30:
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall NEVER perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.”
So to say otherwise is proclaiming Him a liar.
and more here:
1 Jn.5:10:...” He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar;...... because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
... And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. “
Where does dan claim to know who’s going to hell and who isn’t?
Where did he post that judgment?
Scripture tells us the necessary conditions for salvation and those who meet it are saved and those who don’t aren’t, but pointing that out to people is not sitting in judgment of individuals telling who is saved and who is not.
As far as stating that the majority of people are going to hell, that IS also Scriptural. Jesus said that wide is the path and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many there are that find it.
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
“So to say otherwise is proclaiming Him a liar.”
This thread has one knee-slapper after another!
Post #291.
So, in other words, if you are not a particular brand of Christianity, you’re calling God a liar.
I say that it’s not your call, as far as judging what other people believe.
I understand. And I should have explained my reasoning for posting that passage. The temptation to allow those pagan practices to attract "converts" is how the Catholic Church got to where it is today. They have incorporated those pagan beliefs and practices to where they are more pagan than Christian. We need to be aware that when God said "repent" it also meant to discard those pagan beliefs and practices. I do understand that as humans we have a tendency to hold back in fear we will "lose" those new converts. I think we often forget that it's God who works in the hearts of those who He is calling and not us.
>>We overly complicate things to where we’re almost legalistic.<<
I totally agree. When Paul was asked "what must I do to be saved" his answer was a simple "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved - you and your house". Becoming "legalistic" is adding to that statement. On the other hand we are told to admonish those who do require rituals etc. that they are preaching a different gospel than what the apostles taught. Christ excoriated the Pharisees for the requirements they had put on the people.
>>Heaven won’t be just made up of Biblical scholars.<<
Don't confuse those who are trying to expose the simplicity of the gospel with those who are adding legalistic requirements to 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.