Posted on 07/07/2015 3:02:34 PM PDT by RnMomof7
For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. - Galatians 6:13, 14
Ideas have consequences. So does doctrine. That there are true Christians who trust the blood of Jesus Christ alone to make their garments white who worship in the Roman Catholic church is no less extraordinary for being true. They are the exception that proves the rule. They go against the grain of their entire doctrinal system and many Anglicans and Protestants across the centuries put their life at risk to recover Biblical doctrine, calling to those in the Roman bondage to repent and believe. Those who imply that Luther and Calvin and Knox were fools for doing so are ignorant of what Scripture and Rome teach, or they are opposed to the very idea that ideas have consequences and that it is the job of the Church to make disciples of all men, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything He commands.
But really, we do run into the most basic failures of logic in our blind world. Systems of doctrine which are heretical (of which Rome is our primary example, here) are generally held by those who align themselves with the churches who claim that system of doctrine. What a world we live in that we must say such an inane thing!
Which is to say, priests sacrifice Christ over and over again...
This is the primary duty of their ordination. They are priests, after all—not pastors—and they preside over the sacrifice of the Mass. This is contrary to the "once and done" teaching of Hebrews (e.g. Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 28; 10:10).
Does it matter?
Luther and Calvin and Knox thought it does. And you? Or are generalizations so distasteful to you that you will never allow that any system of doctrine can be denounced as heretical, nor that any person who is a member of the communion holding to that system of doctrine can be expected to hold to that heresy and be in spiritual jeopardy because of their membership in that heretical communion?
Ideas have consequences. Doctrine has consequences. Rome has anathematized my faith and doctrine for over half a millenium, now, and they're right to do so if their dogma is what Scripture declares. So I reciprocate and anathematize their system of doctrine (as they have mine) because I know their system of doctrine is a fulsome denial of Romans and Galatians, for starters. But I don't stop there: I go on to the work of warning Roman Catholics to leave the dead to bury their dead, to turn away from the dead and enter Christ's true church where the doctrine of salvation has not been (and is not) corrupted by the systematic monetization of justification-not-by-faith-alone which is the heart of their error and which, tragically, their purported "ecumenical council" of Trent deposited permanently at the center of their church.
Do we really care for souls? Do we really love anyone? Do we really see deceptions and grieve over them, or are we simply committed to the laissez-faire spirituality Rodney King summarized best when he spoke for a decadent age, asking "Can't we all get along?"
The Apostle Paul writes the book of Galatians defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone and we respond, how? "Oh, Paul, there you go again getting on your high horse! Don't you know how many sincere and well-meaning Judaizers there are? And how can you know men's hearts? How harsh you are, Paul, telling them that, while they're at it, you wish they'd just go ahead and cut it all off. Grow up, Paul; are you a misanthrope? Take a chill pill, dude! I mean, really!"
Now you might resent my putting it this way, but in every discussion with weak and sentimental moderns we find that the exception to the rule is all that matters—never the rule.
Roman Catholicism is a heresy and its main heretical dogma is most clearly seen in the Tridentine documents which, according to church law, can never—may never—be repealed. Which is to say the magisterium is stuck down a mine shaft they can never escape without denying one more false doctrine which is the authority of church tradition.
And their false doctrine really does lead most of the souls under the care of those defending and teaching and preaching and practicing that false doctrine to Hell.
If all we ever feel compelled to say is that there are some people who are real Christians in the Roman Catholic Church and some parish priests who don't sodomize little boys, what have we said that anyone needs to hear?
Nothing—nothing at all. Everyone knows it and no one will argue with it.
Which really is why saying it is so very popular.
But what does a true Christian shepherd say to Rome and her subjects?
A true Christian shepherd says to Rome and her shepherds what the Apostle Paul says in Galatians: if you continue to trust your sacraments and good works to save you, there is no hope for you of eternal life.
We need to keep in mind the statement that we moderns are given over to the morbid habit of sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal. Rome is blind masters leading their blind subjects further into their blindness. That is the norm with Rome and unkindness is not saying it, but failing to say it.
The abnormal is Roman priests and parishioners who reject Rome's heresies and truly believe in the work of Christ alone for their salvation; souls who trust in Jesus Christ and, therefore, love God and their neighbor. Faith working through love. But such souls are the exception to the rule and we must not focus on these abnormalities so we may not have to blow the trumpet warning of the normalities of the false doctrine Rome is steeped in to her neck.
Prots have a white wheat wafer, Catholics have the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the appearance of bread and wine...., See the difference???
Yeah, I knew that...gold would have been prettier...I forgot.
“When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from his throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of men. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors; it is greater than that of saints and angels, grater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. The priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man – not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.”
Anything in that paragraph that you think is or might be unchristian? Aw, come on, you can say if there is.
I have no idea what a small number of priests who are homosexual have to do with anything....(homosexuality is not a sin)...but it figures that you would point them out.
The authority was given to them when Christ, at the Last Supper said " Do THIS (transubstantiation) in memory of Me.
OTH, you might be right in one sense. Just a few generations into the Promised Land and some ISraelites were making little snake statues to worship for empowerment. The King over them and the Prophet had to do some serious house cleaning over that idol worship thing. Doubtless there were little gold ones being made then, what with all the increase the Israelites got from taking the lands away from the Nephilim and Raphaem.
Hardly. Jesus is the High Priest. We have need of no other priesthood for He is alive forever more interceding for us in Heaven.
You'll find it in there somewhere, The Catholics gave you the FULL version to read, unlike....well, let's say.....others.
People on both sides of this fight have been the brunt of bad treatment. It’s not good, but it is to be expected. In post 236 you say the Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scripture. One might think the resurrection was important to defining the Gospel as well, not to mention other important attributes of the Gospel proclaimed throughout Scripture.
But assuming we limit the Gospel to just your definition, I can say that in almost every thread I can think of that Gospel has been proclaimed. For example, as near as I can remember, every time we discuss the Eucharist, the evangelical apologist will assert that the Lord’s Supper is a holy remembrance of His death for us, for our sins. Your side prefers to build magnificent quasi-Aristotelian sand-castles around that simple Gospel truth, guarded at the drawbridge by a priesthood that has no basis in Scripture.
Let me ask you then, as you should know this: What was Christ’s attitude toward those during His earthly ministry who were “keeping guard” against the simple message of the Gospel as He presented it, faith in Him? Was He conciliatory? Or was He a barnstormer for the truth? Is He not our example?
But yes, I say all that, and it’s no excuse for petty sniping. I am with you in rejecting that. But please do not confuse our urgency to reject the false Gospel of Rome with any desire to fight for the sake of the fight.
When I get drawn into one of these things, it is always a mixed set of feelings. On the one hand, it turns my stomach. I hate fighting. I’d rather be singing praise songs. Preferable with someone else’s voice, as mine is hardly a singing voice at all.
One the other hand, I will testify that I have also learned a great deal in these conflicts. And I have come to moments of such deep appreciation of what God has done for me in Christ it has given me a blessing of praise and giving glory to God.
So I think if all you are seeing is bitterness and acrimony, you may be missing some important aspects of what goes on here.
Peace,
SR
no
Then do that, Springfield.
The definition I used was an invitation to remember Paul's in 1 Co 15.
15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Thank you for your honesty. ... Don’t you get even a little twinge of ‘oh my! Christ the omnipotent God bows his head upon command from the Priest? that’s a bit over the top.’ Doesn’t that cause just at least a momentary pause?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Oops! Dagnabit, I fell for that old trick again!
This is the central point that gets missed too often. If a church is adding requirements to The Gospel they are teaching a different gospel. We are saved by Faith Alone.
**Faith Alone. **
Wasn’t it the word “Alone” that Luther added to the Bible?
Catholics did not add it.
As will I.
FWIW, these threads have strengthened my ability to witness to family and friends. Breaking down all the errors that people are indoctrinated with from a very young age is not easy.
Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (9)not of works, lest anyone should boast.
I admit to being an old man. Can you show me one or two places in the Bible where the Gospel is proclaimed as ‘Believe in Whom God has sent, plus something? I have been looking and have yet to see a single place where the Gospel of Salvation by Grace through faith has any additions after it. even the advice to be baptized in the name of Jesus is not listed as an absolute requirement to be born from above, and it was Jesus who introduced that simple Gospel to Nicodemus. It was an essential in order to show the born from above was now a member of God’s family, but it was not an essential to be born from above into His family. Jesus even illustrated the principle with a scene that had no explanation in the entire Old Testament until Jesus referred Nicodemus to the brass snake lifted up in the Wilderness.
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.