Roman Catholic Resources
Comments
-
I'm not Roman Catholic, but you can't beat their official statements for what they teach. I would recommend you check out the following links:
Their Catechism is official doctrine: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
The Joint Declaration's doctrinal status is not fully clear, but is useful to us on the "other" side because of the dialogue between sides and explaination to each other:
The Annex that was added to the Joint Declaration: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-annex_en.html
And to be fair, the criticism of the Joint Declaration which unfortunately came out on the anniversary of the Augsburg Confession: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
JeremyEllis said:
The point I was trying to make was that having faith in Christ means that we have to assent to the essentials of the gospel message. We then have to move beyond merely believing them, but trusting them and trusting Christ. I do think there is a theology "exam" in order to trust Christ. We have to believe the gospel.
I, and most every other poster in this thread, agree with you on this. The difference comes back to what are the "essentials." Some Pentecostals demand you speak in tongues, Church of Christ expect good works to get you there, some Baptist churches believe you are baptized into a local church membership and deny a universal unseen church, Calvinists say you don't have a choice in the matter anyway.
The original poster could easily HIDE the offensive Catholic resources. But to demand they be removed seems like refusing to buy groceries in a store that also sells to Muslims. If everybody were this dedicated to separatism there would be no Logos for Mac or iPhone. (Remember AT&T and Apple Computer were the corporate leaders in providing medical insurance benefits for same-sex partners.) The Mormon Church owns Sinclair oil company and Homeland grocery stores. Anybody buy from them? 7-Eleven sells alchohol....
Who knows? Maybe an errant Catholic will buy Logos for their materials and read yours and get saved according to your definition of "essentials."
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Sharon Jensen said:
Have you read it? I wanted your thoughts. Is it accurate or inaccurate?
No, I have not read it or even seen a copy other than the Amazon "look inside". It is my understanding, however, that a solid rebuttal of his (mis)representations has been published under the title The Gospel According to James McCarthy and that the most significant flaw in his approach is the complete omission of the Eastern Church. If I were to read The Gospel According to Rome , I would also read the second as they are in dialogue with each other.
For truth in advertizing so to speak, I should admit to beeing an adult convert so was raised in the Campbellite tradition and went to Protestant based colleges. There was a period 35 years ago or so, where I would have jumped at the chance to read these books. But after a while, they become same-old, same-old and I read them only as conversations with others make them useful.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Sharon Jensen said:
We do not need, and in most cases, should not, listen to untruth.
Unless you listen, how do you know it is untruth? If you take someone else's statement that it is untruth, by what authority do they speak?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
seems like refusing to buy groceries in a store that also sells to Muslims.
One of my favorite "hole in the wall" grocers sells meat to Jews and Muslims. (Yes, the kosher and hallal meat requirements are that close).
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Sharon Jensen said:
We do not need, and in most cases, should not, listen to untruth.
Unless you listen, how do you know it is untruth? If you take someone else's statement that it is untruth, by what authority do they speak?
MJ,
I am Independent Fundamentalist Baptist and frequently railing against what I call "Baptist Popery." If the Roman Catholic Pope does not have authority to unquestionably declare something, Why should a dogmatic Baptist preacher (who also answers to no one) have such authority? Blind dedication to any man is what cults of every flavor thrive on.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I've enjoyed reading the posts. Personally I believe it is Logos' business as to the books they sell and my business (before God) as to whether I buy them. Now, as to whether Catholic doctrine is errant:
Justification in Roman Catholic DoctrineRoman Catholicism blends its doctrines of sanctification and justification. Catholic theology views justification as an infusion of grace that makes the sinner righteous. In Catholic theology, then, the ground of justification is something made good within the sinner—not the imputed righteousness of Christ.
The Council of Trent, Rome’s response to the Reformation, pronounced anathema on anyone who says "that the [sinner] is justified by faith alone—if this means that nothing else is required by way of cooperation in the acquisition of the grace of justification."4 The Catholic council ruled that "Justification … is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just."5 So Catholic theology confuses the concepts of justification and sanctification and substitutes the righteousness of the believer for the righteousness of Christ.
This difference between Rome and the Reformers is no example of theological hair-splitting. The corruption of the doctrine of justification results in several other grievous theological errors. If sanctification is included in justification, then justification is a process, not an event. That makes justification progressive, not complete. One’s standing before God is then based on subjective experience, not secured by an objective declaration. Justification can therefore be experienced and then lost. Assurance of salvation in this life becomes practically impossible because security can’t be guaranteed. The ground of justification ultimately is the sinner’s own continuing present virtue, not Christ’s perfect righteousness and His atoning work.
Those issues were fiercely debated in the Reformation, and the lines were clearly drawn. Reformed theology to this day upholds the biblical doctrine of justification by faith against the Roman view of justification by works/merit.
This paragraph is from John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to the Apostles"
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Calvinists say you don't have a choice in the matter anyway.
Well aren't we all just a barrel of misunderstandings today! Just remember, you opened the can of worms, not me. Calvinist actually do say that we make choices and, thus, can say that we have a choice in the matter. For example, the Calvinist Robert Reymond in his Calvinist systematic theology says "Reformed
theology does not deny that men have wills (that is, choosing minds) or that
men exercise their wills countless times a day.... Furthermore,
Reformed theology is not opposed to speaking of man’s “free will,” “freedom,”
or “free agency” (the phrases may be found in the Westminster Confession of
Faith and in the writings, for example, of A. A. Hodge, John Murray, and Gordon
Clark, whose Reformed convictions are unquestioned)…" (337).Even Robert Kane, libertarian extraordinaire (that's the Arminian position, by the way), gives a definition of "choice" that is perfectly compatible (pardon the pun) with determinism ("the formation of an intention or purpose...").
Matthew C Jones said:The original poster could easily HIDE the offensive Catholic resources. But to demand they be removed seems like refusing to buy groceries in a store that also sells to Muslims.
Actually, he seems to be more upset about having to *buy* the resources (if in fact he is).
Matthew C Jones said:7-Eleven sells alchohol....
...Nah, I'll leave that one alone....
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Yes sharon.. But how are we going to know what church to go to? If a person comes and trys to teach us how are we supposed to know they are teaching truth.. if a friend tells us they want to go to a "insert denominartion" church, and we know they teach something that is wrong, how are we going to explain it to them.. if we do not know what they truly believe.How are we going to know who teaches an "untruth" if we do not hear what they teach
I can not exactly say I believe a specific denominations doctrine is wrong if I have no clue what they actually teach and only have hear say,, which is my point.
0 -
Shawn Drewett said:
John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to the Apostles"
And John MacArthur is an expert in Catholic theology how? And you have to go back to the Council of Trent to support this view why? The Church has always been slow to define doctrine, giving "authoritative statements" only when a heresy is threatening. At the time of the Council of Trent, the heresies were such items as "once saved, always saved", predestination, sola scriptura ... therefore, the statements of the Council pertain to this situation. To get an accurate picture of Catholic beliefs one must include the Eastern as well as the Western Church; one must follow the doctrinal statements from 33 A.D. to present.
For my own quick and dirty way of evaluating a teaching, I rely on:
1) Scripture
2) Early Church creeds
3) William A. Jurgen's Faith of the Early Church (patristic quotations indexed by doctrines)
4) Catechism of the Catholic Church
5) Ludvig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (which marks each statement with a degree of certainity)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bill Stonebraker said:Bryan Brodess said:
If this was ditected at me, I do not have a problem with this.
Oops! That's what I get for exercising my forum addiction rather than writing my sermon... I've edited the post to direct it as I had originally intended.
Thank you, Logos, for allowing us to correct errors!
I'm so glad I belong to a community (& a church) that doesn't require perfection! I'd be in real trouble, otherwise...
Blessings!
Amen brother.
This is what the law did. It proves to every one of us we can not meet the requirements God has set forth to enter heaven on our own merit.. for the only way we can is to obey 100 % the law.. since we all have failed.. someone had to pay our debt, or remove the times we have failed to meet the just requirement of the law. This is called redemption. There is no amount of work we could ever do to make up for the wrongs we have done against God.. and are thus held justifiably accountable for all sin.. and doomed for eternity unless our sin is washed in the blood of Christ..
Yet there are still far to many pharisees on this earth who think they need to make up for their mistakes by doing some sacramental form of work they think makes up for their sin.. it is sad..
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:MJ. Smith said:Sharon Jensen said:
We do not need, and in most cases, should not, listen to untruth.
Unless you listen, how do you know it is untruth? If you take someone else's statement that it is untruth, by what authority do they speak?
MJ,
I am Independent Fundamentalist Baptist and frequently railing against what I call "Baptist Popery." If the Roman Catholic Pope does not have authority to unquestionably declare something, Why should a dogmatic Baptist preacher (who also answers to no one) have such authority? Blind dedication to any man is what cults of every flavor thrive on.
AMEN!! God sent them out in twos for a reason.. He placed three men (Peter, James and john in charge of the jerusalem church. and he knew paul would never travel alone without someone to keep him in check.. God did not desire one man be put in charge of anything.. He knew the risk men had of letting their inner biases and feeling intermingle with truth.. I also grew up baptist. and have seen many of what you say
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Yet there are still far to many pharisees on this earth who think they need to make up for their mistakes by doing some sacramental form of work they think makes up for their sin..
I'm confused again. What beliefs do you associate with the Pharisees? If I recall correctly, they were the sect that believed that the lay Israelite could participate in the same holiness as the hereditary priest. What group do you associate with "making up" for their mistakes and how does that relate to the Pharisees?
By the way, sacramental work is all on God's side from the Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
As for the justification by faith, grace or works things..
If you believe your eternal life is based on what you do on earth, and anything other than faith in the work of Christ ( this can not be constituted as a work for two reasons.. Your depending on Christ to do all the work. and Jesus himself in john 6 said it was the work of God we believe ( have faith ) in him.. then you believe in a works based gospel..
it does not matter if you call it works, if you call it means or pipelines of Grace.. you are doing something ( ie baptism, communion, confession, etc etc etc) in hopes of being rewarded by God with eternal life. That is a works based Gospel.. now matter how you try to twist it..
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Bryan Brodess said:
Yet there are still far to many pharisees on this earth who think they need to make up for their mistakes by doing some sacramental form of work they think makes up for their sin..
I'm confused again. What beliefs do you associate with the Pharisees? If I recall correctly, they were the sect that believed that the lay Israelite could participate in the same holiness as the hereditary priest. What group do you associate with "making up" for their mistakes and how does that relate to the Pharisees?
By the way, sacramental work is all on God's side from the Catholic and Orthodox perspective.
why did the pharisee reject Christ? Why did Christ not meet their expectation of a messiah or a redeemer? They did not think they needed a redeemer why?? because all the works they did they thought was good enough to allow God to forgive them and let them in heaven..
A pharisee is a legalist. a person who thinks we get to heaven by obeying a bunch of rules, regulations and or traditions ( in the OT this would be rules and traditions of the law, todays rules and regulations differ depending on which denomination you follow.. )0 -
I try to rely totally on the Word of God alone. Of course if someone can convince me FROM the Word of God I am willing to change my beliefs.
Also, your "dirty way of evaluating a teaching" can't include every doctrinal statement that the Catholics every put out. Therefore your ground of proof would be incomplete.
0 -
This is the point where I'd love to be sitting in the same room with a nice argument mapping programming. We seem to be talking past each other - I don't understand your responses to my questions nor your objections to my statements. We clearly differ at a much deeper level than surface grammar can communicate.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Probabley better you can't understand me because I'm sure we would get no where.
I would LOVE to see a great Protestant Theologian and a great Catholic Theologian debate (kindly and patiently) the differences they have biblically! In fact, there are dozens of issues I would love to see debated by opposing sides so I could learn!
0 -
I've tried to avoid actually entering the debate on the teachings of Rome, but if that's where the conversation is headed then I will point people to James White's website where you can see some of the numerous debates that he has had with Roman Catholic apologists and read the articles he has posted relevant to that subject.
As a caveat, I recognize a lot of people don't like White for his Calvinism, but even if you hate Calvinism (and even if you love Catholicism) one should be able to appreciate his other apologetic works (Mormonism, JWs etc.). He at least deserves a hearing since he, unlike some of the other Protestant names dropped here, is actually interacting with RC apologists.
I won't post a link, since some people here don't like that. But you can just go to aomin dot org and snoop around for his RC stuff.
P.S. You can get a DVD (or other format I think) of a debate between him and RC apologist Robert Sungenis over justification by faith.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
I really enjoy the John Ankerburg show when I can watch it, which is rare.
0 -
John MacArthur and John
Piper are as confused on Justification as anyone. See below. They
are Pope John's for many "calvinists" Jesus is not.
The Angel said His name shall be called Jesus for He shall save His
people from their sins. I’m the person
who needs Him to be the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Author
and Finisher of my faith. Faith &
Repentance are God’s work not man’s response that he produces in answer to a “general”
call to all men.http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113
Pastor Piper’s popularity
expands with each new publication he pens. In 1995 he published The
Purifying Power of Living by Faith in....Future Grace. Piper’s pink
prose-flowery, ambiguous, and suspiciously pious-flows for 400 pages in this
book on sanctification, and its effect is to subvert the Reformation.Fuller explicitly
denies justification by faith alone and explicitly asserts justification by
faith and works. Piper, his faithful student, arrives at the same conclusion.Piper is a disciple of
Daniel Fuller. Piper writes:Daniel Fuller’s vision of
the Christian life as an “obedience of faith” is the garden in which the plants
of my ponderings have grown. Almost three decades of dialogue on the issues in
this book have left a deep imprint. If I tried to show it with foot-notes, they
would be on almost every page. His major work, The Unity of the Bible....,
is explanatory background to most of what I write (7).As we have already seen, Fuller
explicitly denies justification by faith alone and explicitly asserts
justification by faith and works. Piper, his faithful student, trusted friend,
and editor, arrives at the same conclusion. Piper denies justification by faith
alone while professing to accept Biblical soteriology - which makes his work
all the more dangerous. The most effective attack on truth, the most subversive
attack on the doctrine of the completeness and efficacy of the work of Christ
for the salvation of his people, is always couched in pious language and
Biblical phraseology.The music is gay; it will
lead you astray:Beware the Pied Piper.
Piper’s focus, as one can
tell from the title, is what he calls “future grace.” The phrases “future
grace” and “faith in future grace” appear hundreds, if not thousands, of times
in the book. It is a clever propaganda device that has been used many times:
Repeat a phase so often that the reader cannot get it out of his mind. But what
does Piper mean by the phrase? In fact, what does he mean by “faith”? The
answers are revealing. Here are his own words: “....the focus of my trust is
what God promised to do for me in the future” (6).This may not be the
central error of Piper’s book, but it comes close. The focus of saving faith is
not what God has promised to do for us in the future, but what God has already
done for us in Christ. Chris-tians preach and trust only Christ crucified, the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Christ cruci-fied is the sole
focus of Biblical, saving, faith; it is the focus of Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper, by which we remember the Lord’s death; and it is the focus of worship
in Heaven (see Revelation 5), with endless future ages before it. Piper
wants to change that focus, from Christ crucified to something else. In
attempting to change the focus of our faith, he avoids discussing, although he
grudgingly admits, that all the benefits Christians receive from God are
because of what Christ has already done on their behalf and in their place.(11)
Piper’s admission is grudging, for he wants to argue that our future happiness,
benefits, and final salvation depend upon our meeting conditions that God has
established for receiving those blessings. In Piper’s Plan of Salvation,
despite what Christ said on the cross, “It is not finished.” The
be-liever must complete the work of salvation that Christ began. Future grace
is conditional, and it is we, not Christ, who must meet those conditions.Because Piper’s focus is
on benefits we may receive in the future, this long and repetitive book omits
any discussion of the Satisfaction by Christ of the justice of the Father
(although Piper has a great deal to say about our being satisfied); it
fails to discuss either Christ’s active or passive obedience; it omits any
serious discussion of the imputation of sin and righteousness (imputation is
mentioned in passing); it omits any discussion of the law of God; it omits
discussion of the covenant of works; it fails to mention Adam and Christ as our
legal represen-tatives; and it depreciates the law and justice of God.http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193
MacArthur rejects the
Biblical view of justification and adopts the Roman Catholic view: “Many people
believe justified means ‘just-as-if-I’d-never-sinned.’ In other words, God
says, ‘I count you righteous even though you’re really not.’ It is true that God
makes that declaration, but there is also a reality of righteousness. We are
not only declared righteous; we are made righteous”(Justification by
Faith, 1988, 98). This making righteous is accomplished by infusing
Christ’s righteousness into Christians: “God actually credits righteousness to
our account. He imputes righteousness to us; he infuses divine life into us. He
regenerates and sanctifies us. He makes the unholy holy, and therefore declares
that we are righteous.... There is a reality--God gives us righteousness,
and thus he can declare that we are righteous” (Justification, 121).
MacArthur writes: “The believing sinner is justified by righteousness infused
into him” (Justification, 122).MacArthur confuses
justification, regeneration, and sanctification:”The
word justification is a technical term that refers to our legal standing
before God: We have been declared to be just because of our faith. [This is
not the Biblical or Protestant view.] But the word [justification] also
embraces a radical and real transformation. Our moral character has been
altered eternally through regeneration. Justification by faith means that God
has both declared us righteous and made us righteous. We have been regenerated
- made new by faith.... Justification is not only a state of being righteous;
it is actual regeneration. We are made righteous by faith” (Justification,
132).This, of course, is the
official teaching of the Roman Church. Canon XI of the Council of Trent states:
“If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the
justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the
grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,
and is inherent in them; or even that the grace whereby we are justified is
only the favor of God: let him be anathema.” Canon XII states: “If any one
saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy
which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that
whereby we are justified: Let him be anathema.”As Jesus said the Spirit
gives life to whom He will the flesh profits nothing. After he said this
many of His disciples left and never came back.Here are a few more CLEAR
passages on the issue.John 1:12-13 But as many
as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those
who believe in His name: who were born,
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God.Philippians
2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence
only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear
and trembling; for it is God who works
in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.When was the last time
you heard the end of these sentences quoted in a sermon?James 1:16-18 Do not be
deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from
above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no
variation or shadow of turning. Of
His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind
of firstfruits of His creatures.John 15:16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and
appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should
remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.Ephesians 2:8-10 For by
grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the
gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which
God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.John 6:35-40 And Jesus
said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger,
and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have
seen Me and yet do not believe. All that
the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no
means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will,
but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me,
that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at
the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees
the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up
at the last day.”John 6:28-29 Then they
said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus
answered and said to them, “This is the
work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestined according to the purpose of Him
who works all things according to the counsel of His will,Matthew 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this
rock I will build My church, and the
gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.I love Logos because of the increased
ability to search and study the Bible the other books are sometimes helpful,
but never necessary.1 John 2:26-27 These things I
have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received
from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you;
but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and
is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.I’m glad Logos expands upon William
Tyndale’s Dream:“If God spare my life, ere many years
pass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scripture
than thou dost.” William Tyndale
0 -
Shawn Drewett said:
Also, your "dirty way of evaluating a teaching" can't include every doctrinal statement that the Catholics every put out. Therefore your ground of proof would be incomplete.
That's why I call it my quick and dirty way ... it is not a thorough research - there are individual statement in the Scripture that could take a lifetime to fully research and explore.[:)] When I have need for more complete research, I put in that effort.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
OH boy.... Everyone run for their lives... the Clarkians are here!! Honestly, G. Clark was fine in many respects... but John Robbins makes me shudder.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Sharon Jensen said:
We do not need, and in most cases, should not, listen to untruth.
Unless you listen, how do you know it is untruth? If you take someone else's statement that it is untruth, by what authority do they speak?
I do not take someone else's statement to be truth or untruth. No one has any authority apart from the Word of God. I try to line everything, absolutely everything, up with the Word of God. I cannot know untruth if I don't know
Truth. That is how I know untruth. There is so much to learn in His Word alone. So I just keep studying His Word, I learn more and more Truth and I recognize more and more untruth.Jesus quoted the Word in response to Satan's lie. He didn't need to know "where Satan was coming from" so to speak.
Sharon
wordcenterministries.org
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Yes sharon.. But how are we going to know what church to go to? If a person comes and trys to teach us how are we supposed to know they are teaching truth.. if a friend tells us they want to go to a "insert denominartion" church, and we know they teach something that is wrong, how are we going to explain it to them.. if we do not know what they truly believe.How are we going to know who teaches an "untruth" if we do not hear what they teach
I can not exactly say I believe a specific denominations doctrine is wrong if I have no clue what they actually teach and only have hear say,, which is my point.
Hi Bryan, my friend! What a wonderful question!
You do not need to
say a specific denomination is wrong. You simply need to take them to
the Word itself. (The Word speaks for Itself, you know!) That's why
we must study it and not other resources (which seems to be the gist of
this thread). We do not want to take someone to the Word to show
them they or their denomination is wrong. We want to take them to the
Word to help them to listen to God. He is the God Who sanctifies you!
God's Truth tends to shut people up who want to say what "they think".
The problem, by far and large, is that people DO NOT KNOW THE WORD OF
GOD! They know what others have said about the Word, they know what
they have been told about doctrines or denominations, but they don't
know the whole counsel of God, as a workman needs to.If
a friend is asking advice on where to go to church, ask them why they
want to go to church. If it is to "become a Christian", don't send
them to church - take them to the Word of God. That is our job - not
the job of a pastor who is preaching to who knows how many people(and
who knows what types of beliefs each of them have). A pastor is to
shepherd the flock. So if someone asks you something about the Lord -
give Him the Word THE Logos!As far as helping them to join a
church, lean on the Holy Spirit. He will guide you. Presumably you go
to a church yourself, why not invite them to go with you (after you
have invited them to listen to God in His Word)? And if they choose to
go somewhere else, trust God with them. Keep yourself available to
them and give them the Word, the Word, the Word!And as far as
knowing who teaches truth and untruth, thank our Shepherd that He does
not require us to know everything about everyone's teachings. He
requires us to know His Word! I would guess that close to 100% of the
time, if you would be asked by someone about where to go to church, you
would be talking to someone whom God has brought into your life for you to take him to the Word (and teach him how to study it for himself, too).I'm telling you, with every drop of strength in me, the Word is
sufficient! He has magnified His Word together with His Name! His
Holy Spirit never works contrary to the Word. The power of Salvation
is in the Gospel itself.(Just in case I am confusing - don't
mean to be - we are to gather ourselves together regularly, we have
positions and offices in the church (set down for us in the Word) and I
am NOT saying don't go to church or tell someone not to go to church.
I am saying, "Give them the Word before you give them the
institutionalized church" . You have what you need, you have - the
Word. If someone asks a question - answer them with the Word!Sharon
wordcenterministries.org
0 -
I am the original poster, and I will state my problem once again, since it has been misrepresented multiple times in this thread.
I am not against Logos selling catholic resources, they will answer to the Lord for that. What I am against is Logos packaging them into otherwise protestant bundles. This forces the consumer to buy catholic resources if they want the good deal on the protestant resources.
I had originally thought that E.B. Pusey was a catholic resource, but in fact it is not. But still there is the "catholic lectionary", New American Bible, etc.
If there is one of my pennies going to a catholic author or institution it is one penny too much. My goal as a protestant is to tare down anti-christian institutions, not build them up.
0 -
JeremyEllis said:Sharon Jensen said:John Bowling said:
"Can you cite me the chapter and verse that says I have to pass a theology exam to get into heaven?"
I do not believe that our salvation is based on having all our doctrine right.
But we will be judged by the words in the Book. John 12:48
The point I was trying to make was that having faith in Christ means that we have to assent to the essentials of the gospel message. We then have to move beyond merely believing them, but trusting them and trusting Christ. I do think there is a theology "exam" in order to trust Christ. We have to believe the gospel.
Jeremy,
I am in full agreement. The power of salvation is in the gospel itself. Romans 1:16. Whereas a false gospel brings only a false salvation.
Sharon
wordcenterministries.org
0 -
Sharon Jensen said:
(The Word speaks for Itself, you know!)
I'm sure that you are famaliar with Act 8:26-39 which has other implications. Like all of us, in my opinion - take it as such -you need to step back to consider where you learned your particular understanding of the role of Scripture and Scriptural interpretation. It is my personal belief, not a taught doctrinal position, that Satan's most successful ploy to lead us astray is making us certain that we are right. I hope that I never stop struggling to understand God's self-revelation - an aspect for which I admire many Jewish thinkers.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Peter Cellini said:
My goal as a protestant is to tare down anti-christian institutions, not build them up.
I can explain exactly why statements such as the above make you misunderstood, I think. Most users of Logos, including those on the forums, would describe themselves as Christians first and foremost. Then they would set forth their priorities as they understanding Jesus' message - "work out my salvation", "evangelize the world", "bring about the fulness of His Kingdom", "await the rapture" ....Fighting evil/Satan would be a means to an end, rather than the end in-and-of itself.
I was explaining the jist of this and the Zondervan thread to my son. His suggestion was that we all join together in the great WWJB club - what would Jesus buy[;)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
A pharisee is a legalist. a person who thinks we get to heaven by obeying a bunch of rules, regulations and or traditions ( in the OT this would be rules and traditions of the law, todays rules and regulations differ depending on which denomination you follow.. )
Maybe a Pharasee is one who believes they are saved because they are RIGHT & everybody else in the forum thread is WRONG!
If you think you are saved by discovering, determining & embracing the correct doctrine, you are once again relying on your own works.
HeeHa! I'm just trusting in Jesus. My works are only a feeble attempt to serve my Lord & have nothing to do with my salvation.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Sharon Jensen said:
I'm telling you, with every drop of strength in me, the Word is sufficient! He has magnified His Word together with His Name! His Holy Spirit never works contrary to the Word. The power of Salvation is in the Gospel itself.
(Just in case I am confusing - don't mean to be - we are to gather ourselves together regularly, we have positions and offices in the church (set down for us in the Word) and I am NOT saying don't go to church or tell someone not to go to church. I am saying, "Give them the Word before you give them the institutionalized church" . You have what you need, you have - the Word. If someone asks a question - answer them with the Word!
Sharon
Amen! Very beautifully put. I agree and try to do just this. I don't push church attendance as what my friends need but a relationship with Jesus Christ. If they have that they will find a Bible believing church and worship. If they don't have that, there isn't a membership in any church that will save them.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Peter Cellini said:
I am not against Logos selling catholic resources, they will answer to the Lord for that. What I am against is Logos packaging them into otherwise protestant bundles. This forces the consumer to buy catholic resources if they want the good deal on the protestant resources.
Peter,
Thanks for coming back with further clarification. I have a different perspective on this. It seems more to me like we are all riding on a city bus together. The riders get on and off at different stops. We all share the same bus for many different purposes. None of us is really advocating the other rider's destinations and reasons for riding but we all collectively share the cost of the bus expenses. If you wait for an express bus that only stops at your destination, it will have fewer riders, cost more to get there and be a long time before it arrives - if ever. Europe suffered a lot of bloodshed in the name of Christ from both Protestants and Catholics. The separation of the wheat from the tares will have to wait until harvest time. "if they are not against us they are for us". Mark 9:40-41
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
John Bowling said:
OH boy.... Everyone run for their lives... the Clarkians are here!! Honestly, G. Clark was fine in many respects... but John Robbins makes me shudder.
Me too. The Trinity Foundation's catchphrase is "The Bible alone is the Word of God." I always found that odd because it is, or is dangerously close, to bibliolotry. Is Jesus not the (ultimate) word of God also?
0 -
Peter Cellini said:
I am not against Logos selling catholic resources, they will answer to the Lord for that. What I am against is Logos packaging them into otherwise protestant bundles. This forces the consumer to buy catholic resources if they want the good deal on the protestant resources.
If you are so concerned about buying Catholic resources and giving the Roman Catholic church money, then you need to buy each book you want individually. That would be a consistent position. No one is forcing you to buy bundles and no one is forcing you to save money.
0 -
In November 2008, the Pope taught that Justification is
by faith alone. This news seems to have
eluded many people who are still arguing with outdated, instead of current
Catholic teaching.The Catholic position on Luther and justification has
been in transition. This has been noticed by official statements since the 1990's, some which were linked in a previous post
in this thread by Kenneth McGuire.Salvation by faith alone was discussed last year on the
Catholic Relevant Radio, Catholic News Service, and at least several evangelical
outlets.For the official Catholic reference, search for the two occurrences
of "faith alone" at:I think it will be interesting to see how long it takes
this teaching to hit the pews, given the huge institutional inertia of the
Catholic Church.0 -
Scott S said:
given the huge institutional inertia of the
Catholic ChurchCome on, we move at least as fast as frozen molasses.[:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
If you believe your eternal life is based on what you do on earth, and anything other than faith in the work of Christ ( this can not be constituted as a work for two reasons.. Your depending on Christ to do all the work. and Jesus himself in john 6 said it was the work of God we believe ( have faith ) in him.. then you believe in a works based gospel..
it does not matter if you call it works, if you call it means or pipelines of Grace.. you are doing something ( ie baptism, communion, confession, etc etc etc) in hopes of being rewarded by God with eternal life. That is a works based Gospel.. now matter how you try to twist it..
UM, really? Quite a bit of Luther's Protest was to try to make clear that the Word and Sacraments ARE means of Grace and are rightly celebrated when this is made clear. As a Lutheran, I very much would echo Word Alone, Grace Alone and Faith Alone as the proper way to proclaim Christ Alone, but this faith comes through the means that God has given us. As 1 Peter says, Baptism saves us. In many respects Paul also says this in Romans. And it is quite important for faith that in the Eucharist Jesus comes to us. Luther's biggest problem with Roman practice in the Mass is that they made it appear that the Mass was us humans buying off God when instead it is God giving himself for us. (How well Luther really understood OFFICIAL Roman teaching and not just some excesses which were, admittedly excessive at the time is a history question still debated).
As you rightly say above, our Faith is a work of God. I would want to say it is the proper work of the Holy Spirit, but since when one person of the Trinity appears, they bring all the triune relationships with 'em, that is getting into quibbling. So we should celebrate these gifts where they are given - God's Word proclaimed as Good News - Baptism - Communion - Christians applying this good news to each other, especially in proclaiming the forgiveness of sins. And even when these Gifts are abused, they are still God's Gifts and he uses them anyway. But if you deny that divine "works" can save, then you deny the Work of Christ on the Cross.
An interesting article: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/10/004-the-catholic-luther-43
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Scott S said:
I think it will be interesting to see how long it takes this teaching to hit the pews, given the huge institutional inertia of the Catholic Church.
As a Lutheran, I am amazed at how fast Rome can turn. Look at how fast they got rid of the Mass in Latin. As much as Luther wanted it in the language of the people, we Lutherans still were still sometimes using Latin orders in the time of JS Bach.
But I would hardly call the reformation over yet. While there are more than a few signs of hope and some common statements, there is not unity in faith yet. ("Domine Jesu", anyone?) Trent is still Dogma in the Roman Catholic church, and some of the dogmatic definitions there are, well, the nicest I can say about them is to say that they are unfortunate. Benedict himself, who knows his Luther better than many Lutheran leaders, isn't afraid to make some potshots against us, even when he should know better, in my opinion. He is the guy who saved the "Joint Declaration" back in 1999, after all.
It is still open how all these statements are "received" in the Church. But it is worth noticing and talking about. It has always been worth praying.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:Peter Cellini said:
I am not against Logos selling catholic resources, they will answer to the Lord for that. What I am against is Logos packaging them into otherwise protestant bundles. This forces the consumer to buy catholic resources if they want the good deal on the protestant resources.
Peter,
Thanks for coming back with further clarification. I have a different perspective on this. It seems more to me like we are all riding on a city bus together. The riders get on and off at different stops. We all share the same bus for many different purposes. None of us is really advocating the other rider's destinations and reasons for riding but we all collectively share the cost of the bus expenses. If you wait for an express bus that only stops at your destination, it will have fewer riders, cost more to get there and be a long time before it arrives - if ever. Europe suffered a lot of bloodshed in the name of Christ from both Protestants and Catholics. The separation of the wheat from the tares will have to wait until harvest time. "if they are not against us they are for us". Mark 9:40-41
Matthew, Your bus analogy is quaint but does not really apply. You said "none of us really advocate the others destinations"
I think you are missing the severity of the issue. What if one of the
riders was carrying dynamite and on his way to blow up your wife and
children. How would you feel about subsidizing him?0 -
Lots of transition.Scott S said:November 2008, the Pope taught that Justification is by faith alone. This news seems to have eluded many people who are still arguing with outdated, instead of current Catholic teaching.
The Catholic position on Luther and justification has been in transition. This has been noticed by official statements since the 1990's, some which were linked in a previous post in this thread by Kenneth McGuire.
In Kansas the Catholic churches are installing baptistries for the immersion of adult believers. There are lots of Charismatic Catholics in America.
WARNING: Mixed Metaphors ahead! (please buckle your seat belts.)
Attacking all Catholics in one fell swoop is like shooting every Vietnamese person during the Vietnam War. You cannot judge every person's heart by their outside label. Dare I say some Catholics are truly saved and truly children of God and truly joint-heirs with Jesus Christ? Dare I say some Calvinists, Messianic Jews, Baptists & Campbellites are not saved?
Scott S said:I think it will be interesting to see how long it takes this teaching to hit the pews, given the huge institutional inertia of the Catholic Church.
Pope John Paul made great efforts to reach the "Catholic-on-the-street" with his Theology of the Body, various CDs and books, and letters of understanding. That is indicative of some effort.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Sharon Jensen said:Bryan Brodess said:
Yes sharon.. But how are we going to know what church to go to? If a person comes and trys to teach us how are we supposed to know they are teaching truth.. if a friend tells us they want to go to a "insert denominartion" church, and we know they teach something that is wrong, how are we going to explain it to them.. if we do not know what they truly believe.How are we going to know who teaches an "untruth" if we do not hear what they teach
I can not exactly say I believe a specific denominations doctrine is wrong if I have no clue what they actually teach and only have hear say,, which is my point.
Hi Bryan, my friend! What a wonderful question!
You do not need to
say a specific denomination is wrong. You simply need to take them to
the Word itself. (The Word speaks for Itself, you know!) That's why
we must study it and not other resources (which seems to be the gist of
this thread). We do not want to take someone to the Word to show
them they or their denomination is wrong. We want to take them to the
Word to help them to listen to God. He is the God Who sanctifies you!
God's Truth tends to shut people up who want to say what "they think".
The problem, by far and large, is that people DO NOT KNOW THE WORD OF
GOD! They know what others have said about the Word, they know what
they have been told about doctrines or denominations, but they don't
know the whole counsel of God, as a workman needs to.we agree here..
Sharon Jensen said:If
a friend is asking advice on where to go to church, ask them why they
want to go to church. If it is to "become a Christian", don't send
them to church - take them to the Word of God. That is our job - not
the job of a pastor who is preaching to who knows how many people(and
who knows what types of beliefs each of them have). A pastor is to
shepherd the flock. So if someone asks you something about the Lord -
give Him the Word THE Logos!we agree here to. But what about the friend who claims to be saved. and goes to a specific church because he was told that was the one to go.. How are we going to know if he is ok or not? we have to know what the church teaches.. not from hearsay.
I was doing a bible study once for about 6 months before I learned the guy I was studying with at work was a mormon.. I read the book of mormon so I could understand what he believed, otherwise I could not help him..
Sharon Jensen said:As far as helping them to join a
church, lean on the Holy Spirit. He will guide you. Presumably you go
to a church yourself, why not invite them to go with you (after you
have invited them to listen to God in His Word)? And if they choose to
go somewhere else, trust God with them. Keep yourself available to
them and give them the Word, the Word, the Word!again we agree. I think you misunderstand the points I was trying to make [:P]
Sharon Jensen said:And as far as
knowing who teaches truth and untruth, thank our Shepherd that He does
not require us to know everything about everyone's teachings. He
requires us to know His Word! I would guess that close to 100% of the
time, if you would be asked by someone about where to go to church, you
would be talking to someone whom God has brought into your life for you to take him to the Word (and teach him how to study it for himself, too).we agree in part.. what about when a person tells you you are not saved if you do not speak in tongues, or were not baptised for salvation. Or do not take the eucharist. How can I explain why I think they are wrong if I do not even know how they are coming up with their belief? If I do not know what they believe and try to tell them they are wrong and this is whyy all I do is make a fool of myself. I learned along time ago even alot of stuff I was taught and held on to was wrong.. it was not until I studied myself I found out..
Sharon Jensen said:I'm telling you, with every drop of strength in me, the Word is
sufficient! He has magnified His Word together with His Name! His
Holy Spirit never works contrary to the Word. The power of Salvation
is in the Gospel itself.Amen sister!!
But remember one thing.. this was my point from the begining.
when you stand in front of Christ. You will stand by what you believed.. not by what you were taught.. The pope, the prioest, the pastor deacon or discipler will not be held responsible for your salvation if they taught you wrong.. You will be held accountable for not studying and testing their words to make sure they were correct..
The sad sad truth is many are fooled into not thinking of this by being told no one but certain people have been given full knowledge of interpretation. and we should listen to them only..and not try to interpret ourselves.. I guess the Holy Spirit.. which is given to us s unable to help us understand..
0 -
Peter Cellini said:
I am the original poster, and I will state my problem once again, since it has been misrepresented multiple times in this thread.
I am not against Logos selling catholic resources, they will answer to the Lord for that. What I am against is Logos packaging them into otherwise protestant bundles.
and what protestant bundles are you speaking off?? I have not found any..
Peter Cellini said:This forces the consumer to buy catholic resources if they want the good deal on the protestant resources.
no one is forced to do anything. Logos offers a "christian "package, one in which all faiths are represented, as a package deal so you can purchase at a discounted rate. I bet if you took out every so called catholic resource you purchased and deleted them.. you would still pay more for the sources you use if you bought them separate. If you do not wish to purchase the package because it contains a catholic resource. your free not too. Logos offers a page which shows every resource you are buying.. you should have known what you bought when you bought it.. if you did not research what you were buying, that is not logo's fault.
Peter Cellini said:I had originally thought that E.B. Pusey was a catholic resource, but in fact it is not. But still there is the "catholic lectionary", New American Bible, etc.If there is one of my pennies going to a catholic author or institution it is one penny too much.
again, if you researched what you bought you would have known.. it is not up to logos to do the research for you. they laid it all on the table in the compair product page.
Peter Cellini said:My goal as a protestant is to tare down anti-christian institutions, not build them up.
Your goal should be to win the lost.. God will take care of the false bride.. read revelations.. Vengence is mine sayeth the lord.. let him handle the hard stuff. You just go teach truth.. but first.. make sure you have it..
0 -
Scott S said:
In November 2008, the Pope taught that Justification is
by faith alone. This news seems to have
eluded many people who are still arguing with outdated, instead of current
Catholic teaching.The Catholic position on Luther and justification has
been in transition. This has been noticed by official statements since the 1990's, some which were linked in a previous post
in this thread by Kenneth McGuire.Salvation by faith alone was discussed last year on the
Catholic Relevant Radio, Catholic News Service, and at least several evangelical
outlets.For the official Catholic reference, search for the two occurrences
of "faith alone" at:I think it will be interesting to see how long it takes
this teaching to hit the pews, given the huge institutional inertia of the
Catholic Church.As Matthew said, we need to distinguish between Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics. A lot of Roman Catholics don't hold to all of the official teachings that come down from their authority structure. The problem is, if Roman Catholicism can change its teachings over night (an implicit admission of error) then it's claims to authority, tradition, and right interpretation of tradition (e.g. such teachings as the bodily assumption of Mary, which (at one time at least) was/is a required belief to be in communion with the church) become null and void. Thus, every Roman Catholic simply finds herself/himself in the same position as the Protestant. This will, to say the least, make it extremely difficult for a RC to argue for any of their distinctive doctrines. Which, by the way, at one time at least, is not allowed according to official Roman Catholic dogma (at least not allowed of the laymen): "We
furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or
public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this
decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication" (Pope Alexander IV, “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V,c.ii).... (which makes me wonder whether Martha is a lay person)You offer up as an example a change (I assume) of their teaching on justification. If so, I can think of no more essential and monumental shift that could take place than one's view of justification.
Perhaps we can find many other changes. For example, at one time, to even *read* the works of Martin Luther was grounds for excommunication:
"For all times do we want them [the writings of Luther] condemned, rejected and denounced. We order in the name of the holy obedience and the danger of all punishment each and every Christian believer of either sex, under no circumstances to read, speak, preach, laud, consider, publish or defend such writings, sermons, or broadsides or anything contained therein. . . . Indeed, they are, upon learning of this bull, wherever they may be, to burn his writings, publicly and in the presence of clerics and laity in order to avoid the punishment stated above" (Exsurge Domine).
Yet here we find a Lutheran defending a Catholic and them *asserting* that there is not so much difference between them (just enough for the Lutheran to be "condemned, rejected, and denounced" for all times, according to some Popes I guess!). I wonder who is a better authority on this question: Joe Lutheran and Jane Catholic (or in this case Kenneth Lutheran and Martha Catholic) or Pope Leo X... or maybe Pope Benedict XVI... or maybe we will need to wait for the next Pope on some issues.
Find two Roman Catholics on the street and you may find them with differences of belief (one may affirm purgatory and one may deny it), but, for Roman Catholicism, the important question is what is their official teaching or the teaching of their authority structure? You may find that the good Roman Catholic, which holds hands with the Lutheran, is actually the bad Roman Catholic according to Roman Catholicism. Or... maybe you will find that the good 21st century Roman Catholic would have been the bad 16th century Roman Catholic. The problem is that Rome claims to speak with a higher authority and certainty than any Protestant organization and once you take that away, well, like I already said.
Part of the problem is when we have people who don't understand the jargon or all the intricacies of the system take a statement and run with it. For example, we find someone reading this sentence from Pope Benedict XVI, "For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love," and interpreting that sentence through Protestant language and conceptual categories. That could lead to big mistakes. For instance, to see one possible Catholic conceptual/linguistic category for "charity/love" see this short clip.
In short, it's a complex issue and don't take just any ol' Roman Catholic or Lutheran's word for it, look it up. I don't have time to follow this thread anymore or go back and forth on this issue, so toodles.
P.S. Does Logos know that they may be putting Catholics in danger of excommunication and "the danger of all punishment" by publishing the works of Luther? Or maybe the Pope made an "oopsie"
P.P.S. I tried to stay out of this side of the debate, but if people are going to come here and try to say and prove that there is no bid deal here... well I'm obliged to differ.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:Bryan Brodess said:
If you believe your eternal life is based on what you do on earth, and anything other than faith in the work of Christ ( this can not be constituted as a work for two reasons.. Your depending on Christ to do all the work. and Jesus himself in john 6 said it was the work of God we believe ( have faith ) in him.. then you believe in a works based gospel..
it does not matter if you call it works, if you call it means or pipelines of Grace.. you are doing something ( ie baptism, communion, confession, etc etc etc) in hopes of being rewarded by God with eternal life. That is a works based Gospel.. now matter how you try to twist it..
UM, really? Quite a bit of Luther's Protest was to try to make clear that the Word and Sacraments ARE means of Grace and are rightly celebrated when this is made clear. As a Lutheran, I very much would echo Word Alone, Grace Alone and Faith Alone as the proper way to proclaim Christ Alone, but this faith comes through the means that God has given us. As 1 Peter says, Baptism saves us.
I made am open statement.. And I stand by it.. how diud Luther come into it?? I was not speaking against Luther..
Grace means unmerited.. it means NO WORK.. if works are added, it is not grace.. Paul makes this clear..he also calls anyone who tries to mix grace and works a fool ( those are his words not mine)
There are many types of faith.. Do I believe God will keep his word and give me eternal life as he promised because I had faith in his work?? This is salvic faith. or justifiable faith
do I trust God when he says if I do this ( insert whatever sin you can think of ) I will damage myself.. and possibly damage others, and he has something better for me? then I am growing in Christ and becoming sanctified. yet this faith has absolutely nothing to do with my eternal life.
to say I must do anything ( be baptised, go to church, go to confession etc etc) in order to earn eternal life. it is no longer a gift, but a reward.. and this it is not out of grace..because it was earned, not unmerited.
Kenneth McGuire said:In many respects Paul also says this in Romans. And it is quite important for faith that in the Eucharist Jesus comes to us.
read John 6. Jesus came to us in his word.. He does not come to us in the eucharist.. like you took 1 peter out of context earlier, you are now taking john 6 out of context.
Kenneth McGuire said:Luther's biggest problem with Roman practice in the Mass is that they made it appear that the Mass was us humans buying off God when instead it is God giving himself for us. (How well Luther really understood OFFICIAL Roman teaching and not just some excesses which were, admittedly excessive at the time is a history question still debated).
again my argument is not against lutherans.. I do not my brother in law is a lutheran, he does not practice eucharist. and does not believe water baptism is essential to be saved, but is an answer of a good conscious to Christ.. after he was saved..
Kenneth McGuire said:As you rightly say above, our Faith is a work of God. I would want to say it is the proper work of the Holy Spirit, but since when one person of the Trinity appears, they bring all the triune relationships with 'em, that is getting into quibbling. So we should celebrate these gifts where they are given - God's Word proclaimed as Good News - Baptism - Communion - Christians applying this good news to each other, especially in proclaiming the forgiveness of sins. And even when these Gifts are abused, they are still God's Gifts and he uses them anyway. But if you deny that divine "works" can save, then you deny the Work of Christ on the Cross.
on the contrary, if you try to add works to what Christ did on the cross. You deny his work. It was him who said " it is finished" the work of salvation was complete. we can not add to this work by doing works of our own..
Kenneth McGuire said:An interesting article: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/10/004-the-catholic-luther-43
I will try to read this later. thanks..
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Attacking all Catholics in one felll swoop is like shooting every
Vietnamese person during the Vietnam War. You cannot judge every
person's heart by their outside label. Dare I say some Catholics are
truly saved and truly children of God and truly joint-heirs with Jesus
Christ? Dare I say some Calvinists, Messianic Jews, Baptists &
Campbellites are not saved?I agree 100 %!!!
The problem I think happens, is when one speaks about a faith of a particular church. the church gets defensive and calls us haters.. and thinks we attack everyone in the church. this is not so.. again, I protest no one..
If my faith ever gets so weak that I have to start telling people to stop attacking, or protesting, my faith or core doctrine. I am in serious trouble,,
0 -
Peter Cellini said:
Matthew, Your bus analogy is quaint but does not really apply. You said "none of us really advocate the others destinations"
I think you are missing the severity of the issue. What if one of the riders was carrying dynamite and on his way to blow up your wife and children. How would you feel about subsidizing him?
If my sovereign God chooses to take my wife & children in a terrorist attck it will work together for good.
There are bigger dangers in the mix than the obvious contradictions of scripture. Having a paraphase passed off to the unknowing as a translation (i.e. The Message) is a lot more dangerous than discussing praying to the saints, Mariology, or transubstantiation. You can not give me even one theologian in the Logos package that has everything right. Not Calvin, not Luther, not MacArthur, not Piper, not Driscoll, not ....
If you watch television (I do not) the dangerous lies, filth and blasphemy dumping into your living room is a lot more threatening to your family than Rome. The internet can be used for good (Logos 4.0) or it can be used for evil (porn & humanism.) You are riding that internet "bus" every time you log on. And the vast majority of the riders have dynamite and intend on killing your family.
Peter, I really appreciate your candor and seriousness about this whole issue. Maybe I am paranoid but I see these dangers from ALL sides, not just Rome. My hope rests only in God. My church membership can't protect me from error since I have even heard some preached there! Every schism created by man has error.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Clearly, here in Logos Land the Reformation is over, Protestantism is dead, and ecclesiastical seperation is passe.
But maybe we can at least persuade Logos to credit the money we spend on catholic resources toward indulgences for our dead relatives.
0 -
Peter, at the risk of prolonging things, I have two hypothetical questions to try to clarify your position to my own mind.
First, would you not purchase, for example, the WBC or Anchor Bible commentary because of the presence of Roman Catholic authors in the sets? Or, Pelikan's Creeds and Confessions because Roman Catholic materials are contained therein?
Second, would you object if Logos bundled the Classics of the Radical Reformation intotheir base sets?
0 -
Peter Cellini said:
Clearly, here in Logos Land the Reformation is over, Protestantism is dead, and ecclesiastical seperation is passe.
But maybe we can at least persuade Logos to credit the money we spend on catholic resources toward indulgences for our dead relatives.
Peter, Logos makes bible and ebook software. They aren’t a
protestant organization, as far as I’m aware, and they have no duty, as an
organization, to carry on a reformation. They publish many different books but
this doesn’t mean they endorse everything they publish. For instance, as has
been pointed out, they publish a Quran and soon they will be publishing books
that promote platonic idealism. You might as well go into your local bookstore
and lament the death of Protestantism when you find a copy of Pope John Paul’s
biography on the shelf.Now, on one hand you complain about having to purchase
Catholic resources along with protestant resources in a bundle. But at other
times it seems that you’re just angry because Logos isn’t doing everything in
its power to destroy Catholicism. Neither complaint is legitimate. No one
forces you to buy a bundle of mixed resources. If you don’t like what’s in it,
don’t buy it. Logos has no moral or legal obligation to not bundle Protestant
and Catholic resources. Where is your argument that it does? Nor does Logos, as a company, need to have as one of
its goals the undermining of Catholicism. Where is your argument that it does?Even if Roman Catholicism is heresy, that doesn’t mean I can’t
own, lend out, or sell a resource that is Roman Catholic. I'd like to see your argument in regards to that. It may mean that I
can’t promote or endorse those teachings of Catholicism which are heretical (even
you would have to admit, I think, that not every RC doctrine is heretical) and it
may mean that I can’t persuade persons to those doctrines which are heresy. But
you seem to be confusing the issue and think that if I own it or in any way
distribute it that I (or Logos) is promoting it or giving it a stamp of
approval. You’re starting to sound like Pope Leo X in his papal bull against
Martin Luther.Furthermore, you haven’t heard a peep from any official
Logos staff or representative here; you’ve just seen a very small
representative of logos users.perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
John Bowling said:
OH boy.... Everyone run for their lives... the Clarkians are here!! Honestly, G. Clark was fine in many respects... but John Robbins makes me shudder.
I agree.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0
