re: Catholic bishops approve drafting of Communion document that could lead to rebuke of Biden

quote:

---

Got it, Keith Mathison has far more insight into the issue than the Seven Ecumenical Councils or the myriad theologians from the two churches that can trace their lineage back to these councils.

Thanks.

---

I didn't say Keith does. In fact, the author of that document doesn't really matter for the sake of this discussion if the content is accurate.

While I value the men throughout history who have sought to rightly divide the word of God and understand the truth that God has revealed to humanity, I adhere to the moniker of Semper Reformanda, or "always reforming". We should always be like the Bereans and holding all teachings to the standard of scripture, ensuring that they are correct. Error held to for a long time is still error just as truth held to for a short time is still truth.

quote:

---

How does any of this matter?

---

It matters because one indication of confusion of doctrine and evidence of error is when one Protestant denomination splits off into two or more denominations. Why did they split? The two separate groups obviously find error in the other.

Look at the example of Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholicism. They are the same. Now compare the Protestant Faith. How many denominations? Hundreds. At least, hundreds.

When are the Southern Baptists and the Presbyterians in this thread going to enlighten us all WRT the real doctrinal differences between these two sub-groups of Protestantism? As the thread stands now, it seems like the two Protestant groups have put aside their very real differences in order to join together in attacking a common enemy.

But, this to me seems perfectly in line with common practice here in the USA since the end of World War One - the Protestants relentlessly attacking the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox in a most unChristian and conspiratorial manner while the Catholic/Orthodox do no such thing in response.

Negative campaigning works in politics and religion, it seems.

And WRT to your question about salvation, I'm not here to discuss your or anybody else's salvation. I don't think that it's possible for you to obtain a definitive answer to your question from an Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholic person until this question is agreed upon: Is Sacred Tradition the Word of God? You say "no". The Orthodox/Catholic folks say "yes". How can a fundamental question such as yours be answered between the Orthodox/Catholics and the off-shoots who belong to the hundreds of Protestant denominations?

A better question to explore is this: Why are there hundreds of Protestant denominations? It is not "because of Sin". The answer is more complex and deserves a more full explanation.

quote:

---

It matters because one indication of confusion of doctrine and evidence of error is when one Protestant denomination splits off into two or more denominations. Why did they split? The two separate groups obviously find error in the other.

---

I believe the enforcement of unity and threat of separation from God supported by the ignorance of the laity regarding the scriptures had kept the Church of Rome intact for 1,000 years prior to the Reformation.

The driving force behind the Reformation was actually the printing press, at least from a human perspective. Luther translated the Bible into German so the common man could read it and judge the teachings of Rome against it, and therefore there was an explosion of people leaving the RCC afterwards. Same for France, Switzerland, Scotland, England, and other countries where the Bible was translated into the common vernacular and accessible to the laity who previously had no access to the Bible except through homilies where the people were simply expected to take the Priest's word for it when they spoke. Luther was a Catholic monk and professor of theology with access to the Bible, which made him more able than Joe Layperson to question the teachings of Rome.

Because the Bible was not permitted to be read by the common man, and because the teachings of Rome provided no salvation apart from membership in that organization, the ignorant masses had no choice but to remain unified with Rome. There was really no practical, safe alternative. Those who taught against Rome were killed anyway, like John Hus, who was very Luther-esque in Bohemia about 100 years prior to the birth of Luther. Luther, himself, had to hide away in a castle, taking on a different name so that he would not be killed while he translated the New Testament into German. No wonder there was so much unity!

We should also mention that it wasn't simply the organization of Rome that provided unity. It was the power of Rome in the world that provided it. Roman Catholicism wasn't merely a religious organization with sway over the lives of the faithful. No, it held political power, as well. Kings and rulers throughout Europe had to submit to the Church of Rome, and the RCC used the power of the state to enforce its dogmas.

A similar thing happened during the Reformation, where several countries that adhered to the teachings of the Reformers would execute Catholics, Anabaptists, or others who were seen as heretics. The difference there being that it was country-specific, and those convicted of heresy would flee to a different country for safety. That wasn't really an option prior to the Reformation, where all countries committed to Christianity were either part of the RCC or the OC and had to submit to the teachings of those expressions of the Church.

So to conclude, it makes sense why there is so much splintering in Protestantism. After the dust settled on religious freedom a few hundred years after the Reformation, anyone with access to a Bible could decide to break away from a mainline denomination and start their own based on their interpretation and there wasn't any organization to coerce them not to do it.

quote:

---

So to conclude, it makes sense why there is so much splintering in Protestantism

---

No. It makes no sense at all, from the perspective of what Almighty God would Will, using his Own Logic and Reason.

You are rationalizing yourself into twisted logic, and you base your rationalizations on your own personal belief.

Thanks for the full explanation of your personal viewpoint. I respect that. I do understand your personal views and beliefs, and, that was my objective in this thread, so, thanks.

quote:

---

One of the issues that separates most Protestants from Roman Catholics is the notion of the "true" Church. We believe that the Church of Christ is the Church universal (which is what "catholic" means in the old creeds and confessions) and is the invisible Church, which is the total of all Christians, on earth and in heaven, throughout the world that are a part of various local, regional, or global denominations or none at all (non-denominational).

---

Do you consider Catholics to be Christians?

How about us, do we qualify as Christians in your view?

quote:

---

No. It makes no sense at all, from the perspective of what Almighty God would Will, using his Own Logic and Reason.

---

I'm not following here. The Bible is clear that there are two aspects to God's will: that which shall be, and that which should be. That which shall be is God's infallible decree and plan for all creation, whereby God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). That which should be is that which is good and pleasing to God. If those things which should be were the same things that which shall be, then no one would sin, yet sin exists, therefore that which God determines to be must include those things which He does not desire.

In that light, God desires we don't have divisions and are unified in the faith. At the same time, God has determined according to the counsel of His will that there should be divisions amongst His people.

All that to say that what almighty God wills, happens, from a decree standpoint, though that which God wills in terms of desires man to do, does not.

But that's just a theological discussion. My point was to show why Protestantism is so splintered compared to the historic Church of Rome. By the way, there are still various expressions within the RCC, such as the charismatics.

quote:

---

You are rationalizing yourself into twisted logic, and you base your rationalizations on your own personal belief.

---

If you'd like to refute anything I said, I'm open to criticism. I know that I'm not perfect and I know that my theology, likewise, is imperfect. I'm open to correction.

quote:

---

Do you consider Catholics to be Christians?

How about us, do we qualify as Christians in your view?

---

I suppose it means on what you mean by "Christian". If you mean, someone who claims the name of Christ by association to the Christian religion, then "yes". If you mean someone who has attained eternal life through faith alone in the sacrifice for sin by Jesus Christ, then I'd say "some".

I don't know the hearts of men, but what I firmly believe is that no one is justified by the works of the law (Rom. 3:20), but only by faith in the works of Jesus Christ (v.24). I find it hard to accept that someone is truly saved from their sins and part of Christ's flock if they rest upon anything but the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. If you add anything to His work to attain salvation, you by necessity take away from his work.

Likewise no one is saved merely by a profession of faith or association with a particular denomination. There are Christ's sheep within Catholicism and the Orthodox Church just as there are goats within the Reformed and Evangelical churches. I believe the biblical terminology is a "remnant".

But to answer what I think is the spirit of your question: I don't believe the Church of Rome or the Orthodox traditions teach the gospel from the scriptures, and therefore, they lead most of their people astray by obscuring it.

quote:

---

How can so many individuals be so different in their ability to interpret scripture if reading with/through the Holy Spirit?

---

The same way Rome has differed in its interpretations over the centuries: the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer. 17:9)

In short, it is sin that causes us to misunderstand God's intent and message in the scriptures. While sin persists, our understanding will always remain imperfect.

That isn't to say that the Bible is unknowable. On the contrary, I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, in that it's clear for knowing God's will in salvation.

The Westminster Confession of Faith describes it this way:
“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

That said, we must be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, which is why we pray for illumination to hear, understand, and apply the scriptures. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit grants such illumination at once for all and in all respects, but that it is part of the sanctification process that God uses to conform us to the image of His son Jesus. While we rely on the Spirit to understand God's word, it doesn't mean the Spirit grants us all a clear understanding of all things.

quote:

---

I know the Reformed can reference their beliefs in the elect and predestination. For others, how can they reason or faith away the fact that so many folks are justifying their approach to scripture in the same way with wildly different results which are so damaging.

---

I talked about this in a previous response, but my contention is that it's precisely due to the lack of focus on God's word and an almost disdain for history that such things occur. While I don't believe in sacred tradition as authoritative, I do see value in looking at tradition and history as a guide. God has gifted His Church with wise and discerning men who have been given glimpses of the truth throughout history and it is therefore good to seek the wisdom of many counselors (Prov. 11:14).

quote:

---

As the West disregards morality and the Natural Law, how we can imagine that the promise that the "gates of hell will not prevail" is in effect for the Episcopalians? Is it working well for the Methodists? How long until the SBC is blessing same sex unions? 100 years ago, any denomination accepting divorce or leaving contraception without comment would have been unthinkable. Gay marriage would have been an 'iceberg's chance in hell' event. The Episcopalians brought Protestants both.

---

Ultimately our faith is in God, not man. There has always been a remnant that remained faithful to the Lord even when many or most turned away. We can rely on Christ to preserve His Church in His victory, but to your point, we still must remain faithful to the scriptures so that we are not tossed to and fro with the winds of vain philosophy. Methodism may fall into apostasy. Episcopalianism may fall into apostasy. Even the Reformed traditions that I'm so fond of may apostatize and fall away over time (like the PCUSA seems to be doing), but God's truth stands forever. It's why, while I adhere to the confessional standards of a particular denomination, my allegiance is to Christ and my conscience is bound by His word. I can trust in God's promises, as we all can, even in the face of faithlessness that may exist all around us.

quote:

---

Yet, men who have been given no divine mandate for interpretation or gaurantee against 'the gates of hell' still claim that the explicit assignment of the keys to Peter and assurance that the Chruch his office builds are either empty or universal (in a little "c" catholic kind of way).

---

That's certainly a point of contention between the RCC and Protestants, as we believe that the keys are actually the responsibility of preaching the gospel and administering discipline. We believe that each Christian should place themselves under the authority of a church government and submit themselves to the preaching, teaching, and discipline of the Church. We just don't believe that is ultimately the authority of the Pope. Personally, I believe the Presbyterian form of church polity is biblical, whereby issues are resolved not by going up in authority, but outward to the broader church.

So many Christians don't want to submit themselves to authority of any kind, even within the Church. It's why the congregational form of government is so popular: the pastor and elders/deacons are the "authority" (church discipline isn't very common in my estimation so the authority doesn't mean much) with no place to appeal, so the purity of the doctrine is entirely dependent on the particular leaders of that congregation. If a pastor leaves or retires, the entire direction of the congregation, even in terms of doctrine, can change based on the pastor. And because there is no recourse in that form of government, it's easy for members to simply up and leave, and even start their own churches to do what they want to do. I believe that form of government is destructive to Christianity in the long run.

Wow a 40 page religion thread the admins haven’t shut down.

I miss religion on this place.