Southern Baptist Al Mohler...read for yourself.

[eddie_too]

another point that might have relevance is that almost all of the current Christian traditions grew from the Church of Rome. the orthodox churches were in communion with rome until the middle of the eleventh century. the protestant reformers were leading members of Christian communities were in communion with rome until the time of their protests. their protests were not a constant element of the Church of Rome prior to the 16th century.
almost all current protestant churches came about as protests against an earlier protest.

in other words, the dogmas and traditions that prevailed during the earliest centuries of the church were held virtually unanimously until the eleventh century. have there always been remnants of nestorianism, Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. visible through all centuries since the Incarnation? I am not expert enough to answer that. however, even if these strains persisted down through the centuries, it is entirely erroneous to conclude that therefore no one has the true faith. that is itself a heresy because it requires that we believe that Jesus was either incapable of preserving His divine teachings for future generations; or that, Jesus did not want to preserve His divine teachings for future generations.

it is natural and expected that those who were in positions of leadership in the church that Jesus created with a magisterium would confront those teaching contrary to what they had received from the apostles. the fact that there was opposition to the teachings of Jesus as handed down by the apostles is not surprising. if Jesus had not recognized the true fallen nature of men, He would not have needed a Church much less a Church with a divinely ordained magisterium. we know Jesus is God and acted with divine power and authority. we would be foolish to pretend that what Jesus brought He did not also preserve until the end of the world because it diminishes the greatness of the Lord.

 

[total_Catholic]

Really tC? You agree with that commentary? “*and what became *the Catholic Church is only the one that won out and suppressed the others and revised the history of the preceding centuries.”

Actually, I don’t. Been troubled lately but went to confession this past Friday. Trying to be a better catholic.

 

[ltwin]

The historical basis for the Catholic faith was the tipping point for me. The significance of Simon Peter and the ability to trace all our Popes is one fact of many that left me speechless. I never actually even knew where the Southern Baptist religion started or how. I still don’t.

It grew out of English Separatism (from the Church of England). Separatists were divided over those who believed in infant baptism and those who believed in believer’s baptism. The latter became Baptists.

One last thought, regarding “Anti-Calvinists” Southern Baptists have major issues with Calvinists, as well. Google the 2013 SBC. It was a major topic.

I will pray for Mr. Mohler. He obviously is misguided.

Albert Mohler is a leader among the Calvinist party within the SBC.

I don’t understand the [Baptists complaining that two have left their numbers while they are perhaps the most proseltyzing group to exist.

I don’t understand why you don’t understand. If Catholics were leaving the Catholic Church for Protestant churches, would you not as a Catholic be concerned?

As for Southern Baptists being the “most proseltyzing” group, I don’t know about that. In America, their numbers have been declining for the last few years, and it has them in crisis mode even though the losses are small by mainline Protestant standards.

Catholics and Anglicans don’t “git saved”, and so are not considerd Christians by these evangelicals.

You must not have read the article. Mohler makes it a point to emphasize the difference between conversion to historic Anglicanism and mainstream Catholicism:

***Becoming an Anglican doesn’t necessarily mean in any sense the denial of the very essentials of the gospel that would be at stake in terms of the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ***— in terms of those Reformation principles that we believe to be at the very heart of the gospel: of justification by faith alone, by grace alone, by the work of Christ alone, knowable by the authority of Scripture alone, and ultimately to the glory of God alone.

They have no reason to complain. What is good for the goose is always good for the gander.

Have you heard Southern Baptists say that Catholics should not complain about membership losses?
[/quote]

 

[SteveVH]

***Becoming an Anglican doesn’t necessarily mean in any sense the denial of the very essentials of the gospel that would be at stake in terms of the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ***— in terms of those Reformation principles that we believe to be at the very heart of the gospel: of justification by faith alone, by grace alone, by the work of Christ alone, knowable by the authority of Scripture alone, and ultimately to the glory of God alone.

What I have never understood is how anyone can rationally believe that one is saved by faith alone and at the same time by grace alone. Using the term “alone” excludes everything else. It must be either “grace alone” or “faith alone”, otherwise they are not alone. Sounds like a very confused theology to me.

Have you heard Southern Baptists say that Catholics should not complain about membership losses?

Our Church continues to grow.

From the Pew Research Center:

*"Over the past century, the number of Catholics around the globe has more than tripled, from an estimated 291 million in 1910 to nearly 1.1 billion as of 2010, according to a comprehensive demographic study by the Pew Research Center.

But over the same period, the world’s overall population also has risen rapidly. As a result, Catholics have made up a remarkably stable share of all people on Earth. In 1910, Catholics comprised about half (48%) of all Christians and 17% of the world’s total population, according to historical estimates from the World Christian Database. A century later, the Pew Research study found, Catholics still comprise about half (50%) of Christians worldwide and 16% of the total global population."*

Peace.

Steve

 

[ltwin]

What I have never understood is how anyone can rationally believe that one is saved by faith alone and at the same time by grace alone. Using the term “alone” excludes everything else. It must be either “grace alone” or “faith alone”, otherwise they are not alone. Sounds like a very confused theology to me.

What the Reformation asserted was that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone.

It is not “confused” at all when you realize that “alone” is understood as part of a larger focus on Christ’s finished work on the cross and the means by which He communicates saving grace to us.

It is only by grace that we are saved. The means by which this grace comes to us is faith alone. This faith must be in Christ alone. In all of it, God alone gets the glory.

Our Church continues to grow.

From the Pew Research Center:

*"Over the past century, the number of Catholics around the globe has more than tripled, from an estimated 291 million in 1910 to nearly 1.1 billion as of 2010, according to a comprehensive demographic study by the Pew Research Center.

But over the same period, the world’s overall population also has risen rapidly. As a result, Catholics have made up a remarkably stable share of all people on Earth. In 1910, Catholics comprised about half (48%) of all Christians and 17% of the world’s total population, according to historical estimates from the World Christian Database. A century later, the Pew Research study found, Catholics still comprise about half (50%) of Christians worldwide and 16% of the total global population."*

Peace.

Steve

I understand that. I never claimed the Catholic Church was shrinking. What I asked was if andrewstx had heard Southern Baptists assert that Catholics did not have a right to complain when members of their church converted to a new religion. I’m trying to understand what he means by “They have no reason to complain. What is good for the goose is always good for the gander.”

 

[SteveVH]

What the Reformation asserted was that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone.

It is not “confused” at all when you realize that “alone” is understood as part of a larger focus on Christ’s finished work on the cross and the means by which He communicates saving grace to us.

It is only by grace that we are saved. The means by which this grace comes to us is faith alone. This faith must be in Christ alone. In all of it, God alone gets the glory.

Other than the “alone” at the end of faith, we pretty much agree then. It is by grace alone that we are saved. But we must also respond to this grace, and not just by faith alone. Our lives must be transformed so that we are Christ’s hands and feet on this earth, which means we must do good works or our Christian lives are meaningless and false.

I understand that. I never claimed the Catholic Church was shrinking. What I asked was if andrewstx had heard Southern Baptists assert that Catholics did not have a right to complain when members of their church converted to a new religion. I’m trying to understand what he means by “They have no reason to complain. What is good for the goose is always good for the gander.”

Gotcha.

 

[ltwin]

Other than the “alone” at the end of faith, we pretty much agree then. It is by grace alone that we are saved. But we must also respond to this grace, and not just by faith alone. Our lives must be transformed so that we are Christ’s hands and feet on this earth, which means we must do good works or our Christian lives are meaningless and false.

I agree with you about how we must be transformed into the image of Christ or our Christian lives are meaningless. I would go so far to say that if we are not being transformed “from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18) into Christ’s image then we are not Christians at all.

I just think you have a very narrow idea of what “faith” is and what “faith” leads us to do. It seems that whenever a Protestant talks of “faith alone” Catholics seem to reinterpret this to “intellectual assent alone”.

 

[SteveVH]

I agree with you; I just think you have a very narrow idea of what “faith” is and what “faith” leads us to do. It seems that whenever a Protestant talks of “faith alone” Catholics seem to reinterpret this to “believe alone”.

I realize that there is more to it than that. It is just that faith “alone” is never found in either Tradition or Scripture, unless it is to make the point that it is not faith alone, but works as well that matter. This is a modern addition that has serious implications and one which, IMO, can easily lead people astray. They can more easily become the priest who walks past the man lying naked in the street, who wishes him well says he will pray for him, rather than the Samaritan who picked him up and truly cared for him.

Peace.

Steve

 

[ltwin]

I realize that there is more to it than that. It is just that faith “alone” is never found in either Tradition or Scripture, unless it is to make the point that it is not faith alone, but works as well that matter.

I think this is a mischaracterization. Certainly faith leads to works, and works show evidence of faith. James does write that “faith was completed by his works” (James 2: 22). He also writes that “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

Sola Fide properly understood does not contradict this. The Reformers felt it necessary during the time that they lived and facing the teachings predominant in the church to emphasize that it is not our works that justify but the power of God living and working in us. It is nothing less than the sufficiency of grace flowing through us by faith that produces works that justify.

As Ephesians 2:10 makes clear, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” At the end of the day, God, not we ourselves, gets all the credit and all the glory. There is nothing in ourselves whether thought or deed or work that is holy and righteous enough to justify ourselves. Only by grace can we be fully pleasing to God.

 

[zz912]

I think this is a mischaracterization. Certainly faith leads to works, and works show evidence of faith. James does write that “faith was completed by his works” (James 2: 22). He also writes that “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

Sola Fide properly understood does not contradict this. The Reformers felt it necessary during the time that they lived and facing the teachings predominant in the church to emphasize that it is not our works that justify but the power of God living and working in us. It is nothing less than the sufficiency of grace flowing through us by faith that produces works that justify.

As Ephesians 2:10 makes clear, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” At the end of the day, God, not we ourselves, gets all the credit and all the glory. There is nothing in ourselves whether thought or deed or work that is holy and righteous enough to justify ourselves. Only by grace can we be fully pleasing to God.

Other than the name of “faith alone” for your theological position, I don’t see anything substantially different from the Catholic teaching. So why not hold to the teaching as handed down from the Apostles and give up the linguistic semantical argument?

 

[SteveVH]

I think this is a mischaracterization. Certainly faith leads to works, and works show evidence of faith. James does write that “faith was completed by his works” (James 2: 22). He also writes that “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

Sola Fide properly understood does not contradict this. The Reformers felt it necessary during the time that they lived and facing the teachings predominant in the church to emphasize that it is not our works that justify but the power of God living and working in us. It is nothing less than the sufficiency of grace flowing through us by faith that produces works that justify.

As Ephesians 2:10 makes clear, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” At the end of the day, God, not we ourselves, gets all the credit and all the glory. There is nothing in ourselves whether thought or deed or work that is holy and righteous enough to justify ourselves. Only by grace can we be fully pleasing to God.

Other than the name of “faith alone” for your theological position, I don’t see anything substantially different from the Catholic teaching. So why not hold to the teaching as handed down from the Apostles and give up the linguistic semantical argument?

You took the words right out of my mouth.