Roman Catholic Resources

To those in 1st century Isreal. John the Baptist would have been a nobody. Who called the religious leaders of their time, who had claim to this for 2000 years, a bigot, and a protestant.. as he protested the jewish leaders who had clain to Gods truth through abraham and their forfathers..

What did John call them??  A brood of Vipers..

My point is,, no one should think they have the truth, just because they belong to an organisation.. no matter how old it is.. It is run by men.. and men have a 6000 year history of screwing it up!!

This is why Logos should put all beliefs in logos.. so we can do as Paul commands, and test all doctrines to see if they are from God or men

Thank you Logos!

Bryan Brodess said:

This is why Logos should put all beliefs in logos.. so we can do as Paul commands, and test all doctrines to see if they are from God or men

Errrr... While I think it's good that Logos have a broader base than my particular theological persuasion, I'm not willing to say they should have "all" beliefs. Like any company, Logos has (or should have) a goal and target audience. As Christians, it seems to me their goals should be focused on promoting Christian belief and practice, not Buddhist, Atheist, or Hindu. Their resources should reflect that. But, unfortunately, as soon as one takes that stand as "Christian" debates arise as to how broadly that is defined. Mormons, for example, want to count themselves as Christian, but most Christians count them as a cult. So at some point Logos has to pick sides. If they include the Mormons then they exclude a lot of Christians who exclude them. If they exclude them, vice versa... 

Personally, I think Logos does a pretty good job with the Catholic/Protestant thing and I'm sure that as they continue to add new resources that some of those resources will be Catholic.

Bryan Brodess said:

You misunderstood.. The topic is christianity.. Not the other religions.. thus they were never intended to be part of my group.

No, I understood you perfectly. I was simply pointing out, in a round about way, that you're simply begging the question that Roman Catholicism is Christian. I'm not trying to argue that it is not. I'm pointing out that the debate exists and rather than waving our hand at it and ignoring it it is one that should be addressed and that persons simply can't avoid taking sides on. So if you're going to have the discussion that Logos should have "Christian books" the preliminary question is how you define Christian.

[Edit: I'd like to reiterate that I think Logos does a fine job here. But, at the customer level, it's inevitable that this will be an issue. If Logos didn't have Catholic resources then we would see some Catholics on here raising the issue. Logos does have Catholic resources and so we happen to see the other side of the issue (although I've seen several Catholics complain that there are not enough Catholic resources). Personally, I don't think it should be a big deal since virtually any Christian bookstore sells both Catholic and protestant resources and I suspect that those who raise a stink about it in Logos don't care much about that (maybe I'm wrong). But maybe that's because regular Christian bookstores don't give their customers a platform to voice their opinions as Logos has done with these forums. Que sera.... forums have their positive aspects and negative.]

John Bowling said:

But, at the customer level, it's inevitable that this will be an issue. If Logos didn't have Catholic resources then we would see some Catholics on here raising the issue. Logos does have Catholic resources and so we happen to see the other side of the issue (although I've seen several Catholics complain that there are not enough Catholic resources).

I have never heard a Catholic complain on the forums there was "too much" Protestant material. But lots of Protestants kicking each other's denominations as well as kicking the Catholics.

How come?

MJ. Smith said:

Alex Scott said:

God help all of us if our salvation is based on having all our doctrine right.  

My usual response to the sola-scriptura individuals who imply that our salvation is based on having all our doctrine right is to sweetly ask "Can you cite me the chapter and verse that says I have to pass a theology exam to get into heaven?"

Would you say it is possible to believe a version of works-included-in-salvation/covering of sin synergism and still be a true Christian? I don't believe that true Christians have to have all their doctrinal ducks in a row to be true followers of Christ, but does God cover the sins/save a person in spite of rejecting his gospel (justification by grace through faith alone)?

MJ. Smith said:

Many of Luther's objections to the abuses of the Catholic Church of his place and time were justified. A smaller group were based on the rise of new philosophical ideas especially that of an "individual". While Lutherans and Catholics have developed separate vocabularies and emphases which make it difficult at times to understand each other, there are only a few serious theological differences. A few more than the Orthodox, a few less than the Anglo-Catholic. And this Orthodox-Catholic-Lutheran-AngloCatholic constellation is far closer to its Jewish origins than the other major Christian groupings

I do like that you place us closer than Anglo Catholics <g>.

As a fairly traditional Lutheran, I want to add two things about Dr. Luther.

1)  Luther was trained in the dominant theology of his time - the "new" thinking of the nominalists like Ockham and Biel.  In some ways, Luther was a nominalist who ran into fhe enfleshed universal Jesus in the word and sacraments and found no place for such a figure in the system in which he was taught and was almost driven nuts by it.  Rome has since reacted against medival nominalism by pushing Aquinas.  This causes more than a bit of terminological difficulty because we THINK we understand each other, but often we use the same or similar terms differently.  Some very interesting ecumenical work between Lutherans and Roman Catholics is trying to figure this out.

2)  Luther was a bit of a Bull in a China Shop.  I hardly think that this disqualifies him as a Saint, or even Doctor of the Church.  It makes his writings interesting to read to this day, but it also has a few drawbacks as well.

Anyhow, I do personally wish that there were more of the central Roman Catholic resources availablem (eg. Denzinger, CCC).  In a very real way to be a Lutheran means that we have to deal with the "Riddle of Roman Catholicism" (to use a 50 year old book title of then Lutheran Jaroslav Pelikan).  Our confessions basically say that Rome doesn't take Sin seriously enough and so overestimate the abilities of the sinner, yet it is obvious that Rome takes Sin much more seriously than most "Protestants" and Rome is certainly much more comfortable using and proclaiming the great gift Jesus gives us in the central sacrament of himself in the bread and wine, especially after Vatican 2.  That said, I am not Roman.  My Lutheran ears are more comfortable with the Augustinian language of Benedict than the Tomistic John Paul, but it is still obvious that the primary ecumenical partner for Rome is the East and not us, and so they are much more careful how what they say sounds to the East than us.

On the other hand, we are hardly faultless either.

As parting statements - some ironic facts about the Reformation

1)  In some ways the protest of Luther that caught on was when we complained about people avoiding private confession because they prefered running across the river to buy indulgences instead....

2)  While Luther preached the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Aquinas prefered a slightly different teaching...

God has a sense of humor...  Lord, We are not worthy to receive you but only say the word, and we shall be healed.

Ken McGuire

Matthew C Jones said:

Are you compelled to be devisive in this fallen world? Why is it necessary?

Because
one man will say “Jesus is not the only way. He is the best way for me and
maybe for you, but did you not consider that perhaps Muhammad is the best way
for Muslims?” and this man will claim the name of Christ. I could come up with countless other examples. But if I am to disagree
with this and give an apologetic against it I will be seen as divisive. In
fact, if you look the word up in a dictionary you will see that one of its
senses is simply causing disagreement. As Ravi Zacharias has pointed out,
truth, by its very nature, is exclusive. In other words, truth unites and
divides. 

Is it
necessary to stand up for the truth and defend the truth? I think so, if you
wish to disagree and you wish to defend that disagreement… we’ll, you’re simply
being divisive.

Matthew C Jones said:

"Blessed are the PeaceMakers"

And how
did Jesus make peace? By ignoring all differences of opinion? On the contrary,
it seems to me that Jesus is divisive in many ways. True, we are to be of one
mind, but why in the world people think you accomplish that by hiding your
differences is beyond me. Suppose two different buildings stand side by side,
so close that their exterior walls touch each other. Do you make them into one
building by painting over the buildings to make them appear to be unified?
Hardly… a pseudo-fix. Can you simply consider them one building because they
are standing so close? Perhaps if we move them closer? No, for them to become
one building structural changes will need to occur in one or the other or in
both.

Matthew C Jones said:

Are some here of Apollos, some of Paul and some of Christ?

Is that
what is going on in this thread? If you think so you are mistaken. You’re
simply burning a straw-man. The disagreement over whether Roman Catholicism
teaches works-salvation and, subsequently, whether it should be anathema if it
does is not mere personality politics like whether we favor a Paul over an
Apollos.

Matthew C Jones said:

Haven't you heard about the walled-off section of heaven where Saint Peter says "Shhh. That's the (fill-in-the-blank with any narrow-minded bigoted denomination) section. They think they are the only ones here?"

Ah, now I
can just fill in the blank with “Christian” and have you walling off the
Hindus. Is that your point?

Matthew C Jones said:

Emo Phillips on sectarianism.  (from Wikiquote)

• I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said,

"Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

"Well, there is so much to live for."

"Like what?"

"Well, are you religious?"

He said yes.

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915."

I said, "Die, heretic," and pushed him off.

And of course the cute poem, which Christians like to recite more than the radio likes to replay Britney Spears, is just a nice empty catch all that we can throw around at whatever we think is too narrow minded. It's like the analogy of the elephant and the three blind men. I've heard preachers use it to prove that we shouldn't have this denominationalism stuff. I've also heard some new age agnostics use it to prove we shouldn't have our religious schools of Christian or Muslim or Jewish or....

As Voltaire once aptly said, "A witty saying proves nothing." [;)] 

Matthew C Jones said:

I have never heard a Catholic complain on the forums there was "too much" Protestant material. But lots of Protestants kicking each other's denominations as well as kicking the Catholics.

Funny, I didn't say that Catholics complained here that there was "too much" protestant material... so I'm not sure where you're getting that from or the quotation marks. I said that that I've seen Catholics complain here that there was not enough Catholic resources (e.g. read the first page of this thread).

Matthew C Jones said:

How come?

Probably because there are not a lot of Catholics here. Go play with Gerry Matatics and see how charitable he is to you (of course recently he has gone Sedevacantists, but a Catholic nonetheless). He will argue from Catholic dogma (not meant to be pejorative) that you certainly aren't getting through those pearly gates. I could list a lot of other Catholic apologists... but what's the point.

The gospel. the "good news" of Jesus Christ.. the promised deliverer to all people , who will come and remove the sins of his people. 

The sad fact is we are all sinners. we all fall short.. If Christ did not come, we would all be doomed to an eternity apart from God.. But God loves us so much he came and died seperated from God in our place.. so we could be set free.. He rose as the firstfruits.. Since he rose. we will rise also ( not be delivered to him at the end for judgment. but raised to eternal life in him..

John Bowling said:

Matthew C Jones said:

Are some here of Apollos, some of Paul and some of Christ?

Is that what is going on in this thread? If you think so you are mistaken. You’re simply burning a straw-man. The disagreement over whether Roman Catholicism teaches works-salvation and, subsequently, whether it should be anathema if it does is not mere personality politics like whether we favor a Paul over an Apollos.

Actually, it is very much a question who has the straw man.  Somehow it seems that even though I am Lutheran, that I end up defending Rome in many theological discussions.

Official Roman teaching is Grace Alone.  Even in the 16th Century when the Evangelical party (Lutherans) and Papal party (Rome) had their discussions (eg. Regensburg et al) they recognized that both sides agreed to Christ alone and Grace alone.  Faith alone was and is the big issue.  Admittedly there were a few language issues on what Grace meant, but generally both sides did see that they officially taught Grace Alone.  Rome wanted to emphasize the effectiveness of Grace in the believer while Lutherans wanted to emphasize Grace as Christ's favor and work.

To understand Rome's possition, look up the Pelagian controversy.  Take a look at the Synod of Orange which condemned the Semi-Pelagians.  Especially look at the Collects still used in Mass.  Many of these prayers were written to fight works-salvation.

Rome does insist that the redeemed do necessarily produce good works and that these works do inform and shape our faith and that for Paul, Faith and Hope were to lead to Love/Charity as the most important theological virtue.

Now, as a Lutheran, I would want to say that the Roman Sacramental system has, at times, appeared to turn Grace into some kind of metaphysical substance for which the distinguishing characteristic is how it is controlled by Rome, ubscuring Jesus in the process.  I also want to remind them that in this Sin-full world, that Jesus is the only one who has incarnated perfect love and while I do have faith and hope that God "will one day, oh glorious grace, transport us to that happy place, beyond all fears and sinning" (Philip Niccolai) that any full expression or experience of that is on the other side of the grave and that Christian Love in the Christian is always seen dimmly in a mirror.  Oh, we do produce good fruit, but we also still produce much which is bad as well.  As Luther said, "The Love of God does not find, but rather creates that which is pleasing to it" (Heidelberg Disputation) and so Christian Proclaimation should focus on the Love of Christ which creates this instead of on the fruits.

Ken McGuire

John Bowling said:

Funny, I didn't say that Catholics complained here that there was "too much" protestant material... so I'm not sure where you're getting that from or the quotation marks.  I said that that I've seen Catholics complain here that there was not enough Catholic resources (e.g. read the first page of this thread).

The original post (that';s why we are supposed to stay on-topic) complained about there being Catholic material in his base package.I have NEVER seen a Catholic complain about there being Protestant material in the base package. You, John, said complaints should be expected from Protetsants. I'm pointing out the narrow-mindedness of some of US Protestants.

Alex Scott said:

I would answer that with an unequivocal YES, He does.

There came a time in my life when...

Personal anecdotes aren't going to settle this issue for anyone, nor should they. Our experiences and feelings can be wrong about a lot of things. In fact, I'm positive that my friend, who is a Buddhist Shinsho preist, doesn't feel unsaved or like he is going to hell (assuming you believe that there is a hell and such persons go to it). 

The argument that one can't be saved by a different gospel (in fact there isn't one) and that Rome's gospel is false is a theological and logical argument. Saying "well it saved me!"  shouldn't be brought into the discussion, in my opinion.

Alex Scott said:

Some of you are so wrapped up and bound by the cords of the
doctrines you have been taught by others that you are in a virtual prison.

You statement is entirely unjustified. After all, maybe it is *your* doctrines that have you bound up and in prison.

Matthew C Jones said:

The original post (that';s why we are supposed to stay on-topic)

This seems like it's on topic to me, but I guess that depends on how narrowly you define a topic. You quoted me and then made your "too much" statement which is why I thought you were responding to me.

Matthew C Jones said:

.I have NEVER seen a Catholic complain about there being Protestant material in the base package. You, John, said complaints should be expected from Protetsants. I'm pointing out the narrow-mindedness of some of US Protestants.

Like I said, maybe that's because there are not a lot of Catholics here. I didn't say complaints about there being Catholic material should be expected, I said that debates as to how broadly or narrowly we define "Christian" should be expected. I think we need to distinguish between two things here: the issue of whether Roman Catholicism is "Christian" and the issue of whether Protestants should sell and purchase Roman Catholic resources. The two issues are related but not necessarily. Peter has a problem with the latter because of his stance on the former *and*, I think, because he is under the impression that Logos is a protestant organization. 

Does that make Peter narrow minded? Possibly. But I think some people here are starting to accuse people of narrow mindedness simply because they think Roman Catholicism teaches a false gospel. That doesn't sound legitimate to me. Ultimately, who cares about the charge of narrow mindedness? I'm sure I can find someone who thinks you're narrow minded, Matthew... so what? It's just a rhetorical "boo word"

Hi Bryan Peter, [sorry for misdirecting, Bryan!]

There are some things about which women & men of good conscience may legitimately disagree. If your conscience says you shouldn't buy packages that support RC, then you shouldn't. However, the fact that your conscience isn't free in this area doesn't mean Logos' conscience shouldn't be free to offer it (as their best "package deal" to attract revenue) or that other users shouldn't be free to purchase it (though I don't hear you implying this).

Blessings on your decision...

Bill

Bryan Brodess said:

Plus we should study all points of view.. how else are we going to know which is correct??

We need to study the Word of God to know Truth.  It is pure unadulterated Truth.  We do not need, and in most cases, should not, listen to untruth.  Jesus always and only spoke what He heard from the Father.  So it is with believers.  John 16:13

Matthew C Jones said:

Whether Roman Catholicism is "Christian" or not is a topic that will never be settled on this forum.

Agreed. But if people are going to start sounding off about the issue and the "narrow mindedness" of those who disagree them I might as well throw in my two. 

Matthew C Jones said:

It is a good diversion from using your Logos software for deeper Bible study.

Huh? Maybe it's an issue that will lead someone to use their Logos software for deeper Bible study into the issue of justification and what Paul says against the judiazers.

Matthew C Jones said:

The problem with preachers is they think THEY can effect someone's salvation by their clever words and persuasion instead of the Holy Spirirt doing the job of conviction and a work of grace in the heart of the unbeliever.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Who on this forum is a preacher trying to do this?? You lost me...

Matthew C Jones said:

Whether Protestants should sell and purchase Roman Catholic resources... If Logos dumps all the Catholic material are you going after the Pentecostal works next? Or maybe the Presbyterian? Calvinists? Baptists? Therer are even Seventh Day Adventist works! OH, MY!   Not to mention the Jews, the dictionaries and Harvard Classics...  (I bet everybody on thuis thread bought merchandise this Christmas from a pagan retailer!)

I tried to make the same point earlier.

Matthew C Jones said:

I have seen these NON-ESSENTIAL doctrtinal debates...

I don't think the question as to how we should define the gospel is non-essential... 

Matthew C Jones said:

... they are just everybody spinning their wheels fighting.

Anytime any sort of disagreement arises you see a lot of angry tire spinning. That comes with the territory of voicing your opinion in a fallen world where people have different opinions. But you never know when it may do someone good.

Bill Stonebraker said:

Hi Bryan,

There are some things about which women & men of good conscience may legitimately disagree. If your conscience says you shouldn't buy packages that support RC, then you shouldn't. However, the fact that your conscience isn't free in this area doesn't mean Logos' conscience shouldn't be free to offer it (as their best "package deal" to attract revenue) or that other users shouldn't be free to purchase it (though I don't hear you implying this).

Blessings on your decision...

Bill

Hi Bill,

If this was ditected at me, I do not have a problem with this.  I am glad Logo's offers all points of view and is not  biased.

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.