I just upgraded to Logos 4 platinum and was quite distressed to find that I paid money for some roman catholic resources (e.b. Pusey, etc). Do any others feel this way?
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:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
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 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."
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.
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?
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).
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.
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 Doctrine
Roman 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"
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 "Reformedtheology does not deny that men have wills (that is, choosing minds) or thatmen 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 ofFaith and in the writings, for example, of A. A. Hodge, John Murray, and GordonClark, 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...").
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).
7-Eleven sells alchohol....
...Nah, I'll leave that one alone....
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.
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)
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!
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..
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
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.
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..
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.. )
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.
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.
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!
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.
I really enjoy the John Ankerburg show when I can watch it, which is rare.
John MacArthur and JohnPiper are as confused on Justification as anyone. See below. Theyare Pope John's for many "calvinists" Jesus is not. The Angel said His name shall be called Jesus for He shall save Hispeople from their sins. I’m the personwho needs Him to be the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Authorand 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 popularityexpands with each new publication he pens. In 1995 he published ThePurifying Power of Living by Faith in....Future Grace. Piper’s pinkprose-flowery, ambiguous, and suspiciously pious-flows for 400 pages in thisbook on sanctification, and its effect is to subvert the Reformation.
Fuller explicitlydenies justification by faith alone and explicitly asserts justification byfaith and works. Piper, his faithful student, arrives at the same conclusion.
Piper is a disciple ofDaniel Fuller. Piper writes:
Daniel Fuller’s vision ofthe Christian life as an “obedience of faith” is the garden in which the plantsof my ponderings have grown. Almost three decades of dialogue on the issues inthis book have left a deep imprint. If I tried to show it with foot-notes, theywould 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, Fullerexplicitly denies justification by faith alone and explicitly assertsjustification by faith and works. Piper, his faithful student, trusted friend,and editor, arrives at the same conclusion. Piper denies justification by faithalone while professing to accept Biblical soteriology - which makes his workall the more dangerous. The most effective attack on truth, the most subversiveattack on the doctrine of the completeness and efficacy of the work of Christfor the salvation of his people, is always couched in pious language andBiblical phraseology.
The music is gay; it willlead you astray:
Beware the Pied Piper.
Piper’s focus, as one cantell from the title, is what he calls “future grace.” The phrases “futuregrace” and “faith in future grace” appear hundreds, if not thousands, of timesin 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 whatdoes Piper mean by the phrase? In fact, what does he mean by “faith”? Theanswers are revealing. Here are his own words: “....the focus of my trust iswhat God promised to do for me in the future” (6).
This may not be thecentral error of Piper’s book, but it comes close. The focus of saving faith isnot what God has promised to do for us in the future, but what God has alreadydone for us in Christ. Chris-tians preach and trust only Christ crucified, theLamb slain from the foundation of the world. Christ cruci-fied is the solefocus of Biblical, saving, faith; it is the focus of Baptism and the Lord’sSupper, by which we remember the Lord’s death; and it is the focus of worshipin Heaven (see Revelation 5), with endless future ages before it. Piperwants to change that focus, from Christ crucified to something else. Inattempting to change the focus of our faith, he avoids discussing, although hegrudgingly admits, that all the benefits Christians receive from God arebecause 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 hasestablished for receiving those blessings. In Piper’s Plan of Salvation,despite what Christ said on the cross, “It is not finished.” Thebe-liever must complete the work of salvation that Christ began. Future graceis conditional, and it is we, not Christ, who must meet those conditions.
Because Piper’s focus ison benefits we may receive in the future, this long and repetitive book omitsany discussion of the Satisfaction by Christ of the justice of the Father(although Piper has a great deal to say about our being satisfied); itfails to discuss either Christ’s active or passive obedience; it omits anyserious discussion of the imputation of sin and righteousness (imputation ismentioned in passing); it omits any discussion of the law of God; it omitsdiscussion of the covenant of works; it fails to mention Adam and Christ as ourlegal represen-tatives; and it depreciates the law and justice of God.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193
MacArthur rejects theBiblical view of justification and adopts the Roman Catholic view: “Many peoplebelieve justified means ‘just-as-if-I’d-never-sinned.’ In other words, Godsays, ‘I count you righteous even though you’re really not.’ It is true that Godmakes that declaration, but there is also a reality of righteousness. We arenot only declared righteous; we are made righteous”(Justification byFaith, 1988, 98). This making righteous is accomplished by infusingChrist’s righteousness into Christians: “God actually credits righteousness toour account. He imputes righteousness to us; he infuses divine life into us. Heregenerates and sanctifies us. He makes the unholy holy, and therefore declaresthat 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 infusedinto him” (Justification, 122).
MacArthur confusesjustification, regeneration, and sanctification:
”Theword justification is a technical term that refers to our legal standingbefore God: We have been declared to be just because of our faith. [This isnot the Biblical or Protestant view.] But the word [justification] alsoembraces a radical and real transformation. Our moral character has beenaltered eternally through regeneration. Justification by faith means that Godhas 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 theofficial 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 thejustice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of thegrace 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 isonly the favor of God: let him be anathema.” Canon XII states: “If any onesaith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercywhich remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is thatwhereby we are justified: Let him be anathema.”
As Jesus said the Spiritgives life to whom He will the flesh profits nothing. After he said thismany of His disciples left and never came back.
Here are a few more CLEARpassages on the issue.
John 1:12-13 But as manyas received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to thosewho believe in His name: who were born,not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but ofGod.
Philippians2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presenceonly, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fearand trembling; for it is God who worksin you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
When was the last timeyou heard the end of these sentences quoted in a sermon?
James 1:16-18 Do not bedeceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is fromabove, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is novariation or shadow of turning. OfHis own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kindof firstfruits of His creatures.
John 15:16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you andappointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit shouldremain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.
Ephesians 2:8-10 For bygrace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is thegift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, whichGod prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
John 6:35-40 And Jesussaid 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 haveseen Me and yet do not believe. All thatthe Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by nomeans 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 atthe last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who seesthe Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him upat the last day.”
John 6:28-29 Then theysaid to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesusanswered and said to them, “This is thework of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, beingpredestined according to the purpose of Himwho 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 thisrock I will build My church, and thegates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
I love Logos because of the increasedability to search and study the Bible the other books are sometimes helpful,but never necessary.
1 John 2:26-27 These things Ihave written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have receivedfrom 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, andis not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
I’m glad Logos expands upon WilliamTyndale’s Dream:
“If God spare my life, ere many yearspass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow shall know more of the Scripturethan thou dost.” William Tyndale
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.
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 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 knowTruth. 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
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 tosay a specific denomination is wrong. You simply need to take them tothe Word itself. (The Word speaks for Itself, you know!) That's whywe must study it and not other resources (which seems to be the gist ofthis thread). We do not want to take someone to the Word to showthem they or their denomination is wrong. We want to take them to theWord 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 OFGOD! They know what others have said about the Word, they know whatthey have been told about doctrines or denominations, but they don'tknow the whole counsel of God, as a workman needs to.
Ifa friend is asking advice on where to go to church, ask them why theywant to go to church. If it is to "become a Christian", don't sendthem to church - take them to the Word of God. That is our job - notthe job of a pastor who is preaching to who knows how many people(andwho knows what types of beliefs each of them have). A pastor is toshepherd the flock. So if someone asks you something about the Lord -give Him the Word THE Logos!
As far as helping them to join achurch, lean on the Holy Spirit. He will guide you. Presumably you goto a church yourself, why not invite them to go with you (after youhave invited them to listen to God in His Word)? And if they choose togo somewhere else, trust God with them. Keep yourself available tothem and give them the Word, the Word, the Word!
And as far asknowing who teaches truth and untruth, thank our Shepherd that He doesnot require us to know everything about everyone's teachings. Herequires us to know His Word! I would guess that close to 100% of thetime, if you would be asked by someone about where to go to church, youwould 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 issufficient! He has magnified His Word together with His Name! HisHoly Spirit never works contrary to the Word. The power of Salvationis in the Gospel itself.
(Just in case I am confusing - don'tmean to be - we are to gather ourselves together regularly, we havepositions and offices in the church (set down for us in the Word) and Iam 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 theinstitutionalized church" . You have what you need, you have - theWord. If someone asks a question - answer them with the Word!
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.
"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.
"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
"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
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.
(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.
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[;)]
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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?
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.
In November 2008, the Pope taught that Justification isby faith alone. This news seems to haveeluded many people who are still arguing with outdated, instead of currentCatholic teaching.
The Catholic position on Luther and justification hasbeen in transition. This has been noticed by official statements since the 1990's, some which were linked in a previous postin this thread by Kenneth McGuire.
Salvation by faith alone was discussed last year on theCatholic Relevant Radio, Catholic News Service, and at least several evangelicaloutlets.
For the official Catholic reference, search for the two occurrencesof "faith alone" at:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html
I think it will be interesting to see how long it takesthis teaching to hit the pews, given the huge institutional inertia of theCatholic Church.
given the huge institutional inertia of theCatholic Church
Come on, we move at least as fast as frozen molasses.[:D]
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
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.
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 theriders was carrying dynamite and on his way to blow up your wife andchildren. How would you feel about subsidizing him?
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.
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?
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.
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 tosay a specific denomination is wrong. You simply need to take them tothe Word itself. (The Word speaks for Itself, you know!) That's whywe must study it and not other resources (which seems to be the gist ofthis thread). We do not want to take someone to the Word to showthem they or their denomination is wrong. We want to take them to theWord 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 OFGOD! They know what others have said about the Word, they know whatthey have been told about doctrines or denominations, but they don'tknow the whole counsel of God, as a workman needs to.
we agree here..
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..
again we agree. I think you misunderstand the points I was trying to make [:P]
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..
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..
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.
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..
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.
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.
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..
In November 2008, the Pope taught that Justification isby faith alone. This news seems to haveeluded many people who are still arguing with outdated, instead of currentCatholic teaching. The Catholic position on Luther and justification hasbeen in transition. This has been noticed by official statements since the 1990's, some which were linked in a previous postin this thread by Kenneth McGuire. Salvation by faith alone was discussed last year on theCatholic Relevant Radio, Catholic News Service, and at least several evangelicaloutlets. For the official Catholic reference, search for the two occurrencesof "faith alone" at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html I think it will be interesting to see how long it takesthis teaching to hit the pews, given the huge institutional inertia of theCatholic 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): "Wefurthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private orpublic, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to thisdecree, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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..
I will try to read this later. thanks..
Attacking all Catholics in one felll swoop is like shooting everyVietnamese person during the Vietnam War. You cannot judge everyperson's heart by their outside label. Dare I say some Catholics aretruly saved and truly children of God and truly joint-heirs with JesusChrist? 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,,
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?
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.
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, 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?
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 aprotestant organization, as far as I’m aware, and they have no duty, as anorganization, to carry on a reformation. They publish many different books butthis doesn’t mean they endorse everything they publish. For instance, as hasbeen pointed out, they publish a Quran and soon they will be publishing booksthat promote platonic idealism. You might as well go into your local bookstoreand lament the death of Protestantism when you find a copy of Pope John Paul’sbiography on the shelf.
Now, on one hand you complain about having to purchaseCatholic resources along with protestant resources in a bundle. But at othertimes it seems that you’re just angry because Logos isn’t doing everything inits power to destroy Catholicism. Neither complaint is legitimate. No oneforces 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 Protestantand Catholic resources. Where is your argument that it does? Nor does Logos, as a company, need to have as one ofits goals the undermining of Catholicism. Where is your argument that it does?
Even if Roman Catholicism is heresy, that doesn’t mean I can’town, 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 Ican’t promote or endorse those teachings of Catholicism which are heretical (evenyou would have to admit, I think, that not every RC doctrine is heretical) and itmay mean that I can’t persuade persons to those doctrines which are heresy. Butyou seem to be confusing the issue and think that if I own it or in any waydistribute it that I (or Logos) is promoting it or giving it a stamp ofapproval. You’re starting to sound like Pope Leo X in his papal bull againstMartin Luther.
Furthermore, you haven’t heard a peep from any officialLogos staff or representative here; you’ve just seen a very smallrepresentative of logos users.
I agree.
Ted
