Sources of the Protestant Devolution

Matthew Tyson

Protestant Descent Into Secularism

In June of this year, the largest Presbyterian denomination in America voted to allow their clergy to perform same-sex “marriages” within the church, thus joining the ranks of other Protestant denominations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Episcopalian Church, and United Church of Christ.

This “evolution” of theology and “modernizing” of church doctrine is a trend that I predict we’ll continue to see in non-Catholic Christian circles for years to come, and not just with marriage. Today, nearly all Protestant denominations support and even advocate the use of artificial birth control, and many allow at least some level of support for abortion.

Of course, not all Protestants are willing to “move with the times”, so to speak; there remains, especially among the more conservative groups, quite a bit of dissent. However, it cannot be denied that many modern day Protestant denominations are falling further into the depths of secularism.

While it pains me to see Christians turning their backs on the sanctity of life and marriage, I have to admit that whenever the media lights up with news of another Protestant church endorsing an otherwise wholly unchristian act, I find myself entirely unsurprised.

The reason for my utter lack of shock lies, interestingly enough, within two of the critical tenants of Protestant Theology: the doctrines of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone).

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

As Catholics, the Bible is not our sole source of authority, nor was the Catholic Church based upon it. In fact, what we now call “The Bible” — the collected Old Testament and New Testament writings — was put together by the Church herself, and is meant to enrich and support our doctrine and Tradition.

(Consider too that the Gospel is the written testimony of the teachings of the apostles, which, due to apostolic tradition and the God-given teaching authority of the Church, precedes the written text. Thus, any authority of the Scriptures is derived from the recognition of the Church.)

Yet, the Protestant Reformation severed the Tradition from the Bible, and put all other authorities beneath it. By doing so, they created a type of religious relativism (unwittingly, I’m sure) that opened the door for an “anything goes” mentality. So long, of course, as it can be found — or not found — in the scriptures.

For years, sola scriptura was a major weapon against Catholic theology, claiming that our practices were either absent or directly forbidden by Sacred Scripture. However, since the latter part of the 20th century, the charges that “Jesus never said (x)” or “That’s not in the Bible” have turned on themselves and have now become, “Jesus never said (x) was wrong, so that means (x) must be okay.”

This idea blends well with many in my generation, the millennials, who wish to hold on to some shred of spirituality but cannot bring themselves to relinquish the desires of the flesh. It is also a base notion of “Progressive Christianity”, which is basically the feel-good parts of following Christ without any actual sacrifice.

The same problem goes for sola fide. Though the only place in the Bible where the words “faith” and “alone” appear next to one another is in James 2:24 (“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”), it still remains a significant tenant of Protestant Christianity. However, much like sola scriptura, it has seemingly evolved into an even more bastardized version of itself that states, “As long as I’m a good person and believe in Jesus, I’m okay.”

 The Beginning of the End?

Now, understand, I’m not among the ilk who believe that Protestants can’t go to Heaven, though  the path is significantly more challenging (and not in a “take up your cross” kind of way). I do believe, however, that Christianity was never meant go in this direction. And I certainly believe that, should things continue in the manner they’re going for the modern-day Protestants, they’ll eventually have nothing left to call Christian at all.

Of course, perhaps that’s the only logical conclusion Protestantism could possibly come to. It is, after all, a theologically incomplete Christianity; and perhaps that is why it has such difficulty standing the test of time. Consider the continuous splintering Protestantism has seen since the days of Luther, that continues today. Sooner or later, it will be dust; and displaced Christians will be left with two choices: return to Holy Catholic Church or give themselves to the world.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

56 thoughts on “Sources of the Protestant Devolution”

    1. For my Archdiocese I am no longer worried; Archbishop Sample wrote a resounding defense of Marriage and the Holy Orders in his recent articles in the Portland, Oregon Catholic Sentinel:
      http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=27279&TM=36257.83

      http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=27427

      Having said that, he’s receiving *strong* resistance even in Oregon. Pray for him.

  1. Pingback: Ex-LSU Football Player Gains Right Life Perspective - BigPulpit

  2. 4.

    By doing so, they created a type of religious relativism (unwittingly, I’m sure) that opened the door for an “anything goes” mentality.

    Wrong, for as said and is shown, it is those who hold most strongly to the supreme authority of Scripture as being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God that are most conservative, while churches that are closest to Rome are the most liberal.

    As Rome overall is herself, for what one does constitutes the evidence of what one really believes, and which Rome partly shows by treating proabortion, prosodomote promuslim RC pols as members in life and in death, and the vast majority of RCs who support them.

    For years, sola scriptura was a major weapon against Catholic theology, claiming that our practices were either absent or directly forbidden by Sacred Scripture.

    Indeed, as so deformed is the church of Rome that it is basically invisible
    in the NT!

    The same problem goes for sola fide. Though the only place in the Bible where the words “faith” and “alone” appear next to one another is in James 2:24 (“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”), it still remains a significant tenant of Protestant Christianity.

    Yet Paul clearly states faith is what actually appropriates justification of the UnGodly, (Rm. 4:1-7) but faith justifies one as being a believer (works are faith in action, as to believe is to act, like as the palsied man to be forgiven was to be healed, but which was easier to say?), and Reformers clearly preached the necessity of works of faith and holiness if one claimed faith.

    However, much like sola scriptura, it has seemingly evolved into an even more bastardized version of itself that states, “As long as I’m a good person and believe in Jesus, I’m okay.”

    Wrong continually, as in reality is it evangelicals who are by far the most conservative , and more unified on the most core values and beliefs overall, while Rome’s treatment of Teddy K, Chavez, Menino RCs and the her liberal majority testify that the gospel Rome effectually preaches is “As long as I’m a good person and die as a Catholic, I’m okay.”

    Moreover, Rome’s “unity” is very limited and largely on paper, while Catholicism itself exists in schisms and sects, and what RCs can disagree on its extensive, as well as what they do.

    1. ” Moreover, Rome’s “unity” is very limited and largely on paper, …”

      Wrong, Peace. we Catholics are all family no matter what it looks like to an evangelical.
      You are on the outside looking in and the glass in your house is distorted.

    2. No, Rome’s “unity” is very limited and largely on paper. Do you even basically know how much RCs believe and practice has been infallibly defined? Even how many teachings there are is a matter of debate, as can be aspects of their meanings. Do you realize basically how many things RCs can disagree about, and that they also disagree with their church more than most others?

      See the stats .

      Even an older nationwide (2002) nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as “always a sin” such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002).http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf
      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2

      Wrong, Peace. we Catholics are all family no matter what it looks like to an evangelical. You are on the outside looking in and the glass in your house is distorted

      Wrong. Besides stats, I was raised devout weekly practicing RC, with 2 uncles who were even priests, and actually became manifestly born again, with its profound changes in heart and life, as a RC when i was 25, and remained therein for 6 years as a weekly and every holy day practicing RC.

      During which time I served as a lector and CCD teacher, while also seeking some life in RC charismatic meetings. But outside of a some in the latter (which was marginalized by the hierarchy), about the only unity in RCC churches was in spiritual deadness, perfunctory professions, and hardly anyone i could have spiritual fellowship with about the things of the Lord and Scripture.

      Which was very much in contrast with evangelical churches, which depend upon souls having truly been regenerated with its profound changes in heart and life. And thus they are far more unified in most basic values and core Truths than the fruit of Rome.

      There is unity among conservative RCs, but which are a minority, and are unified in devotion to error, like as cults, which also basically operate according to the Roman model of sola ecclesia, and many manifest greater unity than valid churches. But unity itself is not the goal of the Godly, but unity of the Spirit, which is Christ in them and they in Christ, and which transcends both race and tongue (just came back myself from a Latino house church meeting), as well as the “tribalism” of churches.

      While i do not see fully the prima NT church today, the progressive deformation of Rome is such that it is basically an invisible church in the NT.

    3. I am an American because I was born here. I am
      a Catholic because I was baptized and confirmed
      one. Picture a very large family gathering where
      cousins, uncles, aunts and parents are related.
      Some are missing because they don’t like things
      that have been said, some are angry at others
      but still on occasion attend. A few you see once
      in a great while, many are so popular that they are
      friends with all of the above. This is the family I
      am referring to, the unity in name, in knowledge that no matter how far flung they become a home
      will always be waiting even if no one comes. It’s not about what divides us, it what we share as a
      member of the body of Christ.

    4. This is the family I am referring to, the unity in name, in knowledge that no matter how far flung they become a home will always be waiting even if no one comes. It’s not about what divides us, it is what we share as a
      member of the body of Christ.

      Meaning largely a pseudo body of Christ, in which people with diverse beliefs and morality are all considered family (except by some in divisive RC sects) because they identify as RCs, in which they find security since she promotes herself as the church which has the “in” with God.

      Which deception is attractive and subtle, as the serpent is, (2Cor. 11) and results in a tragic awakening in Hell.

    5. The traditional sect of RCs certainly disagree with you based upon what was said in the past, which means Rome can reinvent herself as needed, but the majority of her adherents manifestly see her as having the “in” with God, thus their identity remains with her though they can differ substantially with other members in many things. That is simply reality.

    6. There will always be trads, orthodox and liberals
      in the CC no matter what age we find ourselves. In the end it’s just you and Jesus. Unlike Rome’s, His words will never pass away and because they come with a sword they will not be adequately interpreted to form a consensus. And by golly it is working.

  3. 3.

    In fact, what we now call “The Bible” — the collected Old Testament and New Testament writings — was put together by the Church herself, and is meant to enrich and support our doctrine and Tradition.

    Wrong: Translated by Rome this means that Scripture is a servant to support her as desired, yet that her veracity does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but the mere fact that Rome teaches a doctrine as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.

    The reality is that most of Scripture was already established as being so before there was a church of Rome, and as both men and writings of God were recognized as being so, essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation, without an infallible office of men which presumes it is essential for this.

    More complementary writings were provided by God in conflation with what was already established as being so, and were likewise established as the OT writings were.

    And rather than simply being a supplementary source to enrich and support predetermined doctrine and Tradition as the servant of the magisterium, by whose authority doctrine and Tradition is established,, it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the NT church began, with common souls following men who established their Truth claims thereby, by whom the magisterium rejected.

    he Protestant Reformation severed the Tradition from the Bible, and put all other authorities beneath it. By doing so, they created a type of religious relativism (unwittingly, I’m sure) that opened the door for an “anything goes” mentality.

    Wrong: As Alister McGrath [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] states in “The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:”

    Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers’ understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. – James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”

    Thus, faced with the historical claims of Reformers, the recourse of no less than Manning was that,

    “It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine….The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.” – Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28

    Likewise,

    The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” – Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

    “Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church… it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which…is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.” (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

    Thus,

    “The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children…to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers.” — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

    Which is cultic, not NT!

  4. 2. As Catholics, the Bible is not our sole source of authority, nor was the Catholic Church based upon it.

    Indeed, as Rome is unlike the NT church, for in reality it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    The church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    Thus “Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.’ (Acts 17:2)Those who knew not Scripture were persuaded “through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God,” (Romans 15:19) which Scripture provide and sanctions, with it being the judge of them.

    However, under the Roman model, an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.

    But which nukes the NT church itself, as it began contrary to the premise of perpetual assured magisterial veracity, but upon Scriptural substantiation as described. Which requires it to thereby continually justify its claims to be of the living God, not by relying upon self-declaration and historical descent.

    And in the times preceding of the Reformation the church of Rome had come to the point where there was (by confession of their own) almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; of discipline in morals, of reverence in divine things, and thus true religion was almost extinct, leading multitudes astray, and that the true Church had to be sought outside the then-visible institution.

  5. RCs should be ashamed at such a spurious hit piece, which results in the
    specious nature of Rome being exposed once again, by the grace of God

    1. This “evolution” of theology and “modernizing” of church doctrine is a trend that I predict we’ll continue to see in non-Catholic Christian circles for years to come, and not just with marriage…

    The reason for my utter lack of shock lies, interestingly enough, within two of the critical tenants of Protestant Theology: the doctrines of sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone).

    Wrong, first, sola scriptura does not mean only scripture can be
    used in understanding God’s will, but which straw man is a constant RC
    recourse (more in section further below ),

    Second, in reality, it
    is the Christians and churches which hold most strongly to sola
    scriptura (holding wholly inspired and accurate Scripture as being the
    supreme and sufficient standard for Truth, but not in exclusion to other
    helps) and sola fide (faith alone being what appropriates
    justification, but a faith that effects works) that are the most
    conservative, far more than the overall fruit of Rome

    Moreover, typically the liberal Prot churches are those which are closest to Rome!

    Just a few stats among the multitudes

  6. So various Protestant groups yet unified to some degree is “splintering” yet dozens of Roman Catholic orders operating under distinctive rules of faith isn’t?

    1. What do you mean by “rules of faith?” To my knowledge the various orders follow all the same rules of faith, they however make vows based on the charism of the group. These vows are like those taken by married couples, but I wouldn’t think you’d say married couples follow distinctive rules of faith simply because they make a vow of fidelity.

      This is altogether different than Protestant groups sharing similar beliefs and having different theology about certain things. For example Southern Baptists don’t believe in the regenerative nature of Baptism but they do believe in the Trinity. Whereas Carmelites and Jesuits both believe in transubstantiation even if Jesuits vow to obey the Pope and Carmelites vow of poverty to God and the BVM of Carmel.

      deltaflute

    2. So…just as Catholic orders have distinctive oversight “rule of faith” … distinctive emphasis as to “guidelines”…so, too do Protestant denominations. Presbyterians are more elderoriented; some are more ordinance focused vs. others more lay (priesthood of all believers). I would say the two areas where Protestant denominations are most distinctive would be: a) Church administration; b) The Sacraments (baptism & holy communion)

    3. I’m a bit confused. Vows are different than guidelines or rules of faith. Catholicism has dogma or doctrine which is the unchanging truth that governs all people. Discipline or guidelines if you will is more fluid. This can change over time and be applicable to only certain persons. For example Eastern Catholic priests can be married whereas it’s a rare exception made in the West. Discipline isn’t really a separate belief or rule of faith. I may be married, but I still understand that priests in the West generally speaking can’t marry. Naturally this discipline doesn’t apply to me, but I still follow it in some sense.

      Now different Protestants may adhere to different creeds which is more dogmatic while sharing similar disciplines. Or share similar dogmas but refuse to adhere to different disciplines. They often splinter away on issues and form their own congregations while not maintaining contact with their original church.

      I’ve heard someone argue that all Protestants essentially share the same beliefs and have some core commonalities. But the only commonality is that they are in Protest of the Catholic church and not in communion with the Orthodox either. That’s where it ends. Is that what your arguing?

      Or are you arguing that different Orders are separate from the main Catholic body? I can assure you they are not. All orders have to be approved by the Holy See and are subject to a Bishop or the Pope. They aren’t independent and can’t conduct themselves that way even if they have strict disciplines (which must be approved). Orders are merely communal in nature like being part of a sorority or fraternity without all the secrecy.

    4. You’re comparing religious orders, all of which fall under the authority of Rome, to different Protestant churches with different theologies. That’s not even apples and oranges. That’s apples and beluga whales.

    5. From a Protestant perspective, we would say that different Protestant churches with distinct theologies fall directly under the authority of Christ Himself (or do you take issue with Matthew 28:18: “All authority has been given to me…?”) or John 1:12 to 13 where John says that a Christ one’s spiritual birth as a child of God is granted by God’s power/authority (Greek word “exousia” is more “authority” that simple “power”)? IoW, your attempt to place all Catholic orders under one umbrella … a single authority … is no different than Protestants placing all denominations under the single umbrella authority of Christ Himself, who is our lone Mediator (1 Tim. two: five) Do you see then how we both appeal to diversity within unity? How is that distinctive?

  7. I think this is basically correct. Protestantism cannot defend itself against these errors. Another reason I became Catholic.

  8. Well,speaking as a long time member of the Church of Christ….arguably the most fundamentalist evangelical Church in America,this is pure D heresy no matter how you slice it….not to mention pretty pervy in the bargain

  9. In my opinion, there is one true God and all religions have paths which lead to that one true God. Those paths existed before the Bible, before Judeo-Christian ethos, and way before the organization of the Catholic Church. Is it possible to be Christian without knowing Catholicism or Christianity. I believe so and so do early Church Fathers.

    In Romans 2. 14-16, Paul says that Spirit of God, who is of course the same as the Spirit of Christ, writes His law in the hearts of all. Those who accept that law, may not know that what they are accepting is the Spirit of Christ. Still, they really accept that Spirit of Christ, if they do what He tells them in their hearts to do. So they have what we could all an implicit faith. So, because they accept the Spirit of Christ — without knowing that that is what they are doing — they can even be called Christians. For St. Justin the Martyr, around 150 A.D., in his First Apology (46) said that many in the past who even might have seemed to be atheists, were really Christians, because they followed the Divine Word. St. Augustine wrote about this, in his Retractations (1. 13. 3) where he answered the pagan Celsus. Celsus said it seemed as though God took no care of people in past times. St. Augustine said: “This very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed before. It was not absent from the beginning of the human race, until Christ Himself came in the flesh, and then the true religion, that already existed, began to be called Christian.”

    All paths of all religions can lead to God if they imbue the Spirit of God. The Catholic or the Christian or the Protestant paths all lead to the same God and none is more acceptable nor adequate than the other. “True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.” Bishop J.S. Spong “Q&A on The Parliament of the World’s Religions,” weekly mailing, 2007-SEP-05.

    1. Indeed, it is impossible not to see the hand of God in many aspects of ancient Buddhist or Hindu scriptures. The Second Vatican council affirmed that elements of the same truths that the catholic church recognizes can be found in the beliefs and practices of many different cultures.

    2. Just because there is some truth in another religion does not mean that religion is true or salvific. Relativism is not a Christian concept. Christ is ultimately the only way to heaven. Read Christus Dominus.

    3. The Only True Religion is having a relationship with GOD. Any information, belief, action or non-action that improves one’s relationship with God is part of the True Religion. Any information, belief, action, or non-action that does not further one’s relationship with God, is not part of the True Religion and is either unessential or false.

    4. Let’s see, there are 65,000 years of human behavioral normalcy …when man became modern man. Jesus was here 2000 years or so ago. So there were no true religions, no true paths to the spirit of God for the first 63,000 of modern man walking the earth? Please explain…..

    5. Revelation was progressive. You haven’t really thought about this much have you? It isn’t like this is the first time someone posited these questions to the Church.

    6. Yes, revelation of the Spirit of God is progressive, evolutionary…noogenesis! Quite condescending you to say I haven’t thought much about this….I have. You failed to respond to my challenge…For the 61,000 years prior to Judo-Christian revelation….conscious man worshiped God, the great Spirit, did good deed, cared for the clan, etc. From the dawn of humanity there were good people worship what they believe was the True God…they are as entitled to the Kingdom and are Christians…or have they been relegated to a mythical “limbo.” Religion and truth and the Spirit of God existed from day one, 65,000 years ago.

    7. God is existence. But the fullness of the truth about God is found in Jesus Christ. That is the truth for he is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him.

    8. 61,000 years ago Jesus wasn’t around; what about those humans? How could the ancestors tens of thousands of years before Christ was born come to the Father thru HIM….how about an answer?

    9. Phil, those born before Christ could “come to the Father thru HIM” because we believe, from the Nicene Creed and the theology developed around it, that,

      “. . . [f]or our sake he [Jesus] was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried . . .”

      “Christ went down into the depths of death so that the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear it will live” (Jn 5:25; cf. Mt 12:40; Rom 10:7; Eph 4:9) (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 635)

      As the Catechism further states (paragraph 637), “[i]n his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.”

      This is what the Church teaches about the salvation of those who lived prior to the time of Christ. The just who lived prior to the time of Christ were thus saved through Him.

    10. Tom, I am well aware of what the CCC states.
      I cannot reconcile the fact that the 63,000 years of human behavioral normalcy (man as man before Christ) and the fact that in those years there were billions of good, loving, just and merciful people who worship a God/Gods as revealed by senses, tradition and teaching would be doomed to a “limbo” or “limbo of the Patriarchs” or some non-scriptural, non-doctrinal marginalized place by a loving, just, merciful, compassionate God. It does not make sense, does it?

    11. “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will
      hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” (Jn 5:25-29, RSV-CE)

      The belief is scriptural. As for it making sense, many of the events and aspects of Christ, and of our faith, do not necessarily make “sense” to us in the immediate sense. Nonetheless, we are called to believe, and through belief to have the obedience of faith. (Rom 1:5, 16:26)

      “. . . those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” This is just, those who have done evil will face judgment . . . it is up to us, through the obedience of faith, to do good and not to do evil, as revealed to us through the Word of God.

    12. Phil, easy. Christ descended into limbo to rescue the righteous. If they wanted to reach heaven they had to go with him.

    13. Not so easy, neither the “Limbo of the Patriarchs” nor the “limbo of Infants” are part of the official doctrinal position of the Church. They were interpolations by a few early Church Fathers to attempt to explain what happened in the 63,000 years before Christ or what happen to unbaptized innocent infants. They are simple interpolations without direct biblical evidence or source materials and not ever mentioned since Vat 2. Your explanation is specious and unfounded.Sorry!

    14. Actually limbo of the fathers is part of Catholic doctrine. The creed mentions Christ’s descent. You don’t know the Catholic faith. Sorry.

    15. Actually I know what the creed says….can any reasoning being believe that a merciful just God would deny any human union with Him who never heard of Christ, who ascribes to another sect from genuine belief, to anyone who lives a worthy life, and on and on….This is simply untrue.

    16. You can also go to the catechism, it’s right there. In fact the righteous who died before Christ could enter heaven, if they chose to do so. You don’t really understand Catholicism very well.

    17. 633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” – Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek – because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480
      Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while
      they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is
      identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus
      who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 “It is precisely
      these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom
      Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”482
      Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy
      the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

      634 “The gospel was preached even to the dead.”484
      The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to
      complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic
      mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real
      significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all
      times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in
      the redemption.

  10. . Actually marrying gays in church by Protestants means they have left Scripture …deserted the Bible in that area. Scripture is uniformly against gay acts and thus gay marriage by extension.
    Had they continued to see Scripture as inspired IN ALL ITS DETAILS, they would read Romans chapter one and would oppose all active gay acts. Protestant liberal biblical studies starting two hundred years ago began to chip away at the authority of the Bible. That vein of intellectualism entered the Catholic Church post 1930 and is a problem with us too now. In 1930 in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI in section 74 strongly announced that wives must obey husbands but husbands ought not to abuse that concept. Post 1930 by 30 years, the topic is no where in the Vatican II nor in the recent catechism…..because as in Protestant theology, Paul was subtly seen as someone historico critical authors could criticize in Catholic magazines during the ’70’s and 80’s. John Paul II in both Dignity of Women and in TOB saw Ephesian’s ” be subject to one another” as the entire story of marital jurisdiction….ie he doesn’t quote the five other passages that see wives as submissive but refers to them as the “old” concept. In short the new critico historical schools gave him a tool to soften husband jurisdiction.
    The Amish who actually were untouched by modern biblical studies are doing better at keeping marriages together than Catholics or main line Protestants…because they follow the Bible very closely in that area. Their divorce rate doesn’t seem to exist so one would guess it is below 3% like other close knit groups like Hassidim. Catholicism and mainline Protestants have both veered away from the Bible on jurisdiction within marriage yet Catholicism is very invested in jurisdiction as to the Magisterium so it is not like Catholicism liberalized that area while it effectively liberalized husband jurisdiction via historico critical biblical tools.

  11. “Today, nearly all Protestant denominations, (AND CATHOLICS) support and even advocate the use of artificial birth control, and many allow at least some level of support for abortion”. Protestantism is alive and well! I am an Anti-Protestant Catholic. I think your articl is dead on. I just think that

    1. I don’t think there is any need in being an “anti-Protestant” Catholic. I fully believe, as I said in my article, that the Church was never meant to splinter this way, but Protestant Christians are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter how far they may have strayed.

  12. I believe that there should only be “Catholic” and “None” and nothing in between. To base all that you believe about a god on the Bible alone is madness. If there is a god that wants to have a personal relationship with us (which I sincerely doubt), the Catholic Church can make that happen more than any other faith.

    It has to be all or nothing. No real god would be so obscure. It would be well defined with a pathway to it. The Catholic Church claims to be that pathway. Either it is or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then there isn’t one through any religion, period.

    1. I’ll be damned, Bill. I think this is the first time you and I have remotely agreed on something since I started writing here.

    2. I can’t believe you’d fall for a Bill S quote. Back to faith. I do believe it can move a
      mountain which is impressive enough, if turned into love for God, to get anyone to
      heaven.

    3. I know. Think about it. If God exists, what better way to live according to what we think is his will than Catholicism?

      Even if he doesn’t exist, if people believe he does they should be Catholic.

      The rest of us, though, we know he doesn’t exist and we would have to trick ourselves into believing too many crazy things to become or remain Catholic.

    4. What? The Bible, which provides messages from the very apostles which souls believed and found God, is obscure? Which message is basically that of “repentance toward God, and faith
      toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Acts 20:21) “To him give all the
      prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall
      receive remission of sins,” (Acts 10:43) giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.. purifying their
      hearts by faith (Acts 15:8,9) which is expressed in baptism, so that “they
      that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were
      added unto them about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41) And that “they should repent and turn
      to God, and do works meet for repentance.” (Acts 26:20)

      If that was so obscure then how could souls come to God in a few minutes via such a simple message? And if it not obscure then why cannot souls do so today?

      Meanwhile, you mean Rome provides a well defined with a pathway to God, beginning with being sprinkled as an infant by one of a separate class of NT “priests” – which are absent from the NT church – in order to effect regeneration, by which a soul is formally justified by his own interior “infused” holiness, making such good enough to enter Heaven. Thus, since they fall from that degree of holiness after, and justification of imputed righteousness by faith out of a poor and contrite heart is rejected, then which salvation process usually culminates with once again becoming good enough (and atoning for sins) thru “purgatory” – which is not where the NT places any believers wherever it manifestly deals with their postmortem existence – to enter Heaven?

      And that in btwn time they receive grace thru Roman rituals, but the efficacy of which usually depends upon the proper intent of the “priest,” which they can only presume is correct?

      But which “well defined pathway” in reality means proabortion, prosodomote promuslim RC pols are treated members in life and in death, as well as the vast majority of RCs who support them, testifying to what Rome really believes, as Scripture teaches it is what you do that constitutes that evidence?

    5. Peace by Jesus,

      Yes. It would be much more simple if we had atheist and Catholics. The atheists would look to science for the answers to life’s biggest questions and would just accept that we don’t have answers yet for things like the origin of life, consciousness, human intellect. Catholics would point to their God of the Gaps to answer what science cannot and would obey the Pope, who seems like a really nice guy. I know they weren’t that great in the past, but the last few have been pretty good. We wouldn’t have any need for Bible thumpers and millions of individual interpretations of scripture. Best of all, there would be no Islam. Need I say more. Those people would be Catholic or atheist which would in either case drastically improve their behavior. Every country would either be like Poland, Italy, Ireland, etc. or China, North Korea, etc. and we could just agree to disagree or talk it over the way atheists and Catholics do without killing one another. I could live quite contently in a world where people are either atheist or Catholic and nothing else.

    6. We wouldn’t have any need for Bible thumpers and millions of individual interpretations of scripture. Best of all, there would be no Islam.

      That is pure fantasy, as most of what RCs believe and practice is not infallibly defined, and what that consists of and the place of other teachings is a matter of interpretation, as is aspects of their meanings, as RC forum can attest.

      In addition, is the great deal of liberty RCs have to adopt varied interpretations of Scripture in vainly seeking to support traditions of Rome that do not come from Scripture.

      Furthermore RCs disagree with what their own church teaches (on paper) more than most.

      And the works of the early Muslim historians record that in the beginnings of Islam a Catholic, if perhaps Arian, monk named Bahira prophesied that Muhammad would be a great prophet one day, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahira)and that when he had seen the stones and the trees prostrating to Muhammad, and a cloud hanging over his caravan shading them from the heat of the desert.

      And illiterate Muhammad did not get his skewed understanding of Christianity, including that the Trinity consisted of the Father, Son and Mary, from evangelicals!

      What you are looking for is a cultic conformity that is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, thus no one who disagrees with her self-proclaimed infallible teaching can be right, rather than NT unity that is based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

    7. Peace By Jesus,

      What I am saying is that there is the atheist worldview and the Catholic worldview. One is very right and the other is very wrong. I would rather have it that way than having everything in between those extremes.

    1. I think this is long overdue news. Driscoll preached a poisonous message. Though, beneath all the hyper-masculinity, I think there lies a very scared, self-conscious, sad man who is full of doubt. That’s generally the case with his types.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.