|
Post by worthily on Dec 30, 2004 7:05:14 GMT -5
if the greatest hurdle is a common language then what would you propose to overcome that hurdle?
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 30, 2004 11:52:09 GMT -5
if the greatest hurdle is a common language then what would you propose to overcome that hurdle? If I might be so bold as to guess what Soulfyre is saying, is that Catholics and Protestants use the same terminology, but mean different things by it. His example of grace is a fine example. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending upon how you're looking at it, the official definitions to aid people's understanding in discussion are already there and have been for centuries. The unfortunate aspect of that is that lay protestants and lay Catholics, people in the pews, don't know those definitions and are constantly confusing issues or not seeing genuine problems because the terminology is the same. It really is confusing at times. Confusing enough that people that should know better, pastors and priests, also fall into the same trap frequently. This is not unique to Protestants and Catholics I might add. Confusion regarding terminology also enters into things with other groups such as Mormons and JWs. I'm not saying Catholics are equivelent to these groups at all. My point is that they use the same words, but a Catholic or Protestant would certainly be confused when speaking to them quickly because their definitions are so different. In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 30, 2004 18:58:38 GMT -5
Ron and Melinda, About a decade ago, I was introduced to a prominant Cardinal in the Catholic church. He knew that I was a Baptist and he commented that he was told that he often preached like a Baptist. I pressed him for clarification on that and this was his response. "Because my sermons always include a call to the unconverted to repent of their sins, and receive the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." No mention of works, sacraments, etc. Maybe there is hope! Like Ron, I favor the 1689 London Confession (with the same exclusion). Like Melinda, I am optimistic as long as we can engage Catholics in discussion about Jesus, and not "the church." Bless you both. Eric I've seen Priests keep things pretty Biblical in their homily at a mass. At one uncle's funeral this young priest sounded very evangelical. I was very satisfied with the homily, just not with the Mass. But of course, I kept reminding myself that only a couple of people in my entire family actually understand what is going on in a mass and theology behind its different parts. At my grandfathers funeral this year it was an older priest and to say Mary was prominant is an understatement. My wife was in shock most of the time through. She'd only heard of the kind of Mariolotry where Mary takes on all of Christ's offices, not seen it in action first hand. But even in that funeral service, the verse that the family had picked to be the central theme of the service (meaning it was repeated many times) was John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. The Holy Spirit could have easily used this to pierce the heart of a sinner that day. This is why I focus so much on a distiction between Catholicism and individual Catholics. I think the problem is irreconcilable with Catholicism, but not with an individual Catholic. American ones especially don't seem to be phased by historic declarations of the church. I remember a priest in my youth saying during a homily that the RCC is not a democracy. I had no idea how true that was and that it mattered until much later in life... I found it important enough to leave the RCC, but not all do. Many stay despite knowing and acknowledging the problems. Quite simply not worth the effort to leave. Also, I can't be the only exception for someone that grew up in the church and had no idea what all these sacraments meant and that church dogma considered them necessary for salvation, etc. My family doesn't either. In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 31, 2004 3:23:24 GMT -5
Thank you, Ron, for clarifying what I was trying to say. Often evangelicals and Roman Catholics use the same words, but have entirely different meanings in mind. Thus a both can engage in what each considers a "conversation", in which both are actually saying things which are diametrically opposed.
God bless and keep you,
Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
Juan
Catechumen
Keep it pithy!
Posts: 16
|
Post by Juan on Jan 7, 2005 13:33:43 GMT -5
;D Here I go! Alright so the basics of a unified faith need to be discussed. Paul said it, as well as rgrove. I desire to know Christ and Christ crucified. In 1 John it says you know the antichrist by the fact that they do not say Christ comes in the flesh. If you imagine a bullseye of theology that must be consistent in order for unity to take place, it must have Christ at the very center, and it must be the correct Christ. The one who came in the flesh, the god-man if you will, and died for our sins upon the cross. This is our core, this is our unmutable. If we agree on this then we have no disagreements! Why? Well let's take a good look at why Christ died, and what that means shall we? Christ died to forgive us our sins. For now there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. Why? Because we do not live with our own righteousness, but His! It's not about us it's about Him. At some point we realized our hurt and we cried out to God, God said He'd give us His best. Christ. If we accept what God gave us as a solution to our sins, we are saved. Not by our work, but it is by grace that you have been saved. Not of works so that no one should boast. (incidentally having correct doctrine is a work, so never boast in that) The saving work of Christ is His and not ours, and to condemn those who would follow Him is our sin. (don't worry grove I understand your distinction between condemning individuals vs. organizations) So the question really becomes are Catholics (or Orthodox or whatever) really teaching this basis? Are they teaching Christ and Christ crucified? All the other doctrines dealing with eschatology or whatever are peripheral issues, because even if the group is COMPLETELY wrong, they are forgiven by the blood of Christ. In fact to think that your doctrine is correct outside this point is to consider your intellect supior, and your works somehow mightier than another's. Very unchristian, and it shows a lack of understanding about grace and what God has given to us in Christ's perfect righteousness! Now let's take a very relevant example. The Catholic church and the evangelicals all preach Christ and Christ crucified. If you don't believe that, then you need to go visit a few churches. But the Catholics have this whole Mary deal.... so what does it really mean.... Mary is the Saint of growth to Catholics who believe that saints can intercede for man. As such she has a huge role for any Catholic that wishes to grow. I won't get into the specifics for now because they are not important to this debate. Let's assume that protestants were way off first. (I'm a protestant, and as such, I have no problem putting myself last) Let's say we were wrong about Mary. How does this affect our salvation. It doesn't. Because it's not dependent on my doctrine. It would be nice to be right, but certainly not necessary. Let's assume that Catholics were way off. That Mary couldn't intercede for you in prayer. How does this affect their salvation. It doesn't. Because incorrect doctrine doesn't affect the saving work of Christ. It is by grace that you have been saved. So now we get to the issue of unity. What does it look like? Must we condem each other? I hope not. Better, I like the way CS Lewis puts it in Mere Christianity. We are all part of one house, with many rooms. Some people feel more comfortable in various rooms, and some rooms have different rules. But none the less, we are all part of the same house, and as such share the rules that are common to the whole house. Love, patience, kindness perserverance, lack of judgement, doesn't count past wrongs... you know the list. So, how do you condem in the face of that? You can tell a tree by it's fruit. The Catholic church has produced some really fine fruit. As has the protestant and Orthodox faiths. They all preach Christ and Christ crucified despite their differences. (Yes we've all produced sick fruit too...) This is in sharp contrast to say a mormon who can't accept the biblical view of Christ, and construes Him as something else for the sake of doctrine. With this there is no reconcilliation available. But with Catholics, who incidentally gave us the canon, we have no such fundamental quarel.
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Jan 7, 2005 15:08:56 GMT -5
;D Here I go! Alright so the basics of a unified faith need to be discussed. Rome has infallibaly declared the basics of the faith and anathematized all who disagree. There is no discussion. Rome cannot turn around and say that the declarations of the past, which are infallibal church councils and encyclicals, are wrong. When you have added requirements for salvation above and beyond the gospel, then what you have is an irreconcilable difference. This is not Rome's teaching. It is about your righteousness. It is about your taking part in ceremonies and those ceremonies imparting saving grace upon you. I must ask, please don't take this the wrong way. I'm glad you're here and I'm glad you desire to see unity in the church. But have you looked at Rome's teaching on salvation? It appears to me you haven't. You are taking your views of salvation and ascribing them to Rome. All of what follows the statements above run into serious problems in Rome's doctrine of salvation. Again, we are talking about adding requirements to salvation above and beyond the gospel. Rome has done so. I'll be interested in your conversation with the Apostle Paul where you tell him that he was unchristian in his comments to those who only added circumcision to the gospel in Galatians. Did you miss the part about me being raised in the Catholic church? About me defending it until I was blue in the face? Evidently so. That Rome has added to the gospel and falls under Pauls anathema in Galatians. Not in Rome's doctrine of salvation. It is grace acquired by a whole lot of work, and then you go to purgatory where you suffer for every sin that the ceremonies you went to in this life didn't expiate. And then after you're made perfect in purgatory you get to go to heaven. Please read the handful of encyclicals I have posted and the council of trent to begin with. It's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to adding to the gospel. Rome today is not the same as the early church. PaxJohn may have some comments on your assertion that it does from an Orthodox point of view as well... In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Jan 7, 2005 16:12:30 GMT -5
So now we get to the issue of unity. What does it look like? Must we condem each other? I hope not. Better, I like the way CS Lewis puts it in Mere Christianity. We are all part of one house, with many rooms. Some people feel more comfortable in various rooms, and some rooms have different rules. But none the less, we are all part of the same house, and as such share the rules that are common to the whole house. Love, patience, kindness perserverance, lack of judgement, doesn't count past wrongs... you know the list. So, how do you condem in the face of that? You can tell a tree by it's fruit. The Catholic church has produced some really fine fruit. As has the protestant and Orthodox faiths. They all preach Christ and Christ crucified despite their differences. (Yes we've all produced sick fruit too...) Juan, I love the analogy of a house with many rooms. For me, it fits perfectly. I always come back to this: Eph. 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— Melinda
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Jan 7, 2005 17:01:54 GMT -5
;D Here I go! Christ died to forgive us our sins. For now there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. Why? Because we do not live with our own righteousness, but His! It's not about us it's about Him. At some point we realized our hurt and we cried out to God, God said He'd give us His best. Christ. If we accept what God gave us as a solution to our sins, we are saved. Not by our work, but it is by grace that you have been saved. Not of works so that no one should boast. (incidentally having correct doctrine is a work, so never boast in that) Rome's response is to anathematize you for this statement. The council of Trent infallibally declares: CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.You also speak of Christ's righteousness being imputed to the believer. That isn't exactly how you said it (you said "Because we do not live with our own righteousness, but His!"), but that's the classical Protestant way of expressing what you said. Hope it doesn't confuse things. In Rome's theology, all of the grace that Christ earned at Calvary (and the grace that the saints have earned since then) goes into the treasury of merit. This saving grace, earned by Christ and the saints is dispensed by the church in the sacramental system. Here is a link to an article by a Protestant who has written several very good books on Rome's doctrines and their historical development named William Webster: www.the-highway.com/sacramental_Webster.htmlAnother excellent scholar on this topic is James White of Alpha and Omega ministries. His page for Roman Catholicism is here: aomin.org/Roman.htmlBut I recommend listening to the debates he has had with Roman Catholic apologists regarding salvation. Then you can hear the Catholics define themselves in their own words. Soli Deo Gloria, Ron
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Jan 7, 2005 17:54:52 GMT -5
I think, perhaps, we must differentiate between the possibility of rapprochment between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals as individuals, and institutional re-unification. While I would agree that the proclamation of Jesus Christ, and him crucified, is the foundation of Christianity (cf. also Paul's succinct definition of the Gospel in I Corinthians 15:1-7), I must say that there is reason to be concerned about anything which appears to add to this Gospel. Remember, Paul anathematized those teachers in Galatia who had added the requirement of circumcision to the Gospel (cf. Galatians 1:6-9 and 3:1-5). He considered the addition of any such requirements to be preaching a "different Gospel". According to Roman Catholic dogma, Trinitarian baptism (required for being a part of the church) removes only the stain of "original" (inborn) sin. Subsequent sins must be addressed the Sacrament of Confession (or Reconciliation), and God's grace is received through participation in the Sacraments of the Church (especially the Blessed Sacrament, or the Eucharist), to enable the Christian to live the Christian life. The Roman Catholic may also pray to Mary and the Saints for intermediation, as it is believed they have an abundance of merits to share with the average Christian. Assurance of Salvation is something that cannot be known, and the anticipated state after death is generally Purgatory, in which the person's sins are expurgated over time, until they may finally merit being ushered into the state of blessedness. Hence, prayers and masses are offered for the dead. Thus the preaching of Christ and him crucified provides for the initiation into the church (which through the intermediary means of baptism or chrismation, in which the Holy Spririt removes the impediment of original sin), and through the regular partipation in the Eucharist, Confession, and other sacraments provides the grace and strength helpful to live the Christian life. But it does not provide assurance of salvation. Incidentally, Mary is not simply the Saint of growth in Roman Catholicism, although this simplified and somewhat expurgated explanation may be used as a sort of initial explanation to the Protestant. According to Roman Catholic teaching, Mary, ever Virgin, was assumed bodily into heaven upon death, and elevated to the position of Queen of Heaven. She is considered the Mediatrix of Salvation, a primary object of prayer and devotion, and her merits (Mary, full of grace) may be desired for assistance in the Christian life. She is considered an effective mediator before Jesus Christ, and her prayers are sought for us "now and at the hour of our death". Yet in the Bible, because of the work of Jesus Christ as the single Mediator between God and man, we may address God as "Abba" (dear Father), and draw boldly to the throne of grace. That Mary is indeed exemplary for us, in the church, is unquestionable. But Marian dogma in the Roman Catholic church has given her preference in daily devotion, and as such, can become a significant issue. One may, charitably, consider these issues simply "intramural" disagreements among Christians. In some cases, this is, in fact, true. But many Christians from a Roman Catholic background will avow that they came to a knowledge of the saving grace of God in spite of, rather than because of, their Roman Catholic backgrounds. I have no reason to doubt the vital Christian belief of such men as G. K. Chesterton, Malcom Muggeridge, Peter Kreeft, John Michael Talbot, Scott Hahn, etc. Nevertheless, I do believe that the institutional dogma of the Roman Catholic church is such as to make re-unification a near impossibility, as it would require a substantial re-definition of Roman Catholicism, tantamount to admitting error. This was not done at the time of Martin Luther, and was only superficially addressed by the Second Vatican (whose "advances" have been rolled back by the most recent pope). I would hope and pray for a re-unification, and would certainly not steer clear of a lively fellowship with my Roman Catholic friends. Much can be accomplished on a one-to-one basis, as long as we speak a common language. But I recognize the serious impediments to structural or institutional re-unification. Nevertheless, if God could create the world, I'm sure He can address these impediments, and resolve them to His glory. God bless and keep you all, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|