Starting to get rid of my Protestant "traits"

[JKirkLVNV]

Thal59:

For instance, when you were a Protestant, why did you reject purgatory? You may have followed the dyed-in-the-wool Protestant line that it is not scriptual, but if you are completely honest with yourself, the answer was most likely… “Because I was only interested in free salvation and easy reward and I rejected anything that was demanding of me. I wanted to take, not give.”
**This is not true and you offer grave offense to many people, who while they do not possess the fullness of truth, are actually attempting to follow Christ. Salvation is entirely gratuitous, ie, there is nothing that we can do to earn it, nothing that we can add to what Christ did for us on the Cross. To be sure, in order to appropriate it costs us the whole of our life, everything we have (ie, we must have a faith that *works) ***both in faith and charity.

A) Not all Protestants believe in “once saved always saved.” They, like Catholics, believe that they must persevere in following Christ and in obeying Him.

**B) Not all Protestants believe in “sola fide.” Many believe that faith (either faith as assent to truth or as fiduciary trust) must be accompanied by works in charity and obedience in order for it to be saving faith (the Church of Christ, for example, while in obvious error, cannot be accused of wanting “free salvation,” in the sense that you imply, or “easy reward”). **

**C) I was raised a Southern Baptist (and then spent five years as an Anglican before converting to Catholicism). My people DO believe “once saved always saved,” an obvious error, and “sola fide,” also an error in the sense that it is used by classical Protestantism. That said, they lead lives of actual and objective Christian charity. They simply don’t believe that adds to their salvation (we believe that in following God, it is God who undertakes these works in and through us, so that it is a part of obeying Him and we can only say “We are unworthy servants. We have only done what we should have done”) So it becomes rather a question (from the Gospels) of the son who told his father he would obey him, but didn’t, and the son who told his father he wouldn’t obey him, but in the end did so anyway. **

**“I rejected anything that was demanding of me?” “I wanted to take, not give?” I’m not saying that their communities are not deficient, as per Domine Jesus, but that’s scurilous and it’s untrue. **

 

[CatholicSam]

BenQ:

Of course I believe that is what she would want. My question is under what power does she have the ability to lead us to the Lord? That is the job of the Holy Spirit.

This is another thread entirely, but here’s your answer. **God ** gives her the power to lead us to Jesus. God sent Jesus to us *through * Mary, and He wants *us * to get to Him through Mary too. She was good enough for Jesus, so why isn’t she good enough for us? Answer: she **is ** good enough for us! Of course, it isn’t mandatory to go to Jesus through Mary, it’s just a good idea

 

[Thal59]

JKirkLVNV:

Originally Posted by Thal59

*For instance, when you were a Protestant, why did you reject purgatory? You may have followed the dyed-in-the-wool Protestant line that it is not scriptual, but if you are completely honest with yourself, the answer was most likely… “Because I was only interested in free salvation and easy reward and I rejected anything that was demanding of me. I wanted to take, not give.”
***This is not true and you offer grave offense to many people, who while they do not possess the fullness of truth, are actually attempting to follow Christ. Salvation is entirely gratuitous, ie, there is nothing that we can do to earn it, nothing that we can add to what Christ did for us on the Cross. To be sure, in order to appropriate it costs us the whole of our life, everything we have (ie, we must have a faith that *works) ****both in faith and charity.

A) Not all Protestants believe in “once saved always saved.” They, like Catholics, believe that they must persevere in following Christ and in obeying Him.

**B) Not all Protestants believe in “sola fide.” Many believe that faith (either faith as assent to truth or as fiduciary trust) must be accompanied by works in charity and obedience in order for it to be saving faith (the Church of Christ, for example, while in obvious error, cannot be accused of wanting “free salvation,” in the sense that you imply, or “easy reward”). **

**C) I was raised a Southern Baptist (and then spent five years as an Anglican before converting to Catholicism). My people DO believe “once saved always saved,” an obvious error, and “sola fide,” also an error in the sense that it is used by classical Protestantism. That said, they lead lives of actual and objective Christian charity. They simply don’t believe that adds to their salvation (we believe that in following God, it is God who undertakes these works in and through us, so that it is a part of obeying Him and we can only say “We are unworthy servants. We have only done what we should have done”) So it becomes rather a question (from the Gospels) of the son who told his father he would obey him, but didn’t, and the son who told his father he wouldn’t obey him, but in the end did so anyway. **

"I rejected anything that was demanding of me?" “I wanted to take, not give?” I’m not saying that their communities are not deficient, as per Domine Jesus, but that’s scurilous and it’s untrue.<<<*

The problem JKirkLVNV, is that one cannot bunch up all people who are outside of the RCC and call them Protestants. But what choice do I have? I cannot single out the specific beliefs and differences of those Christians who make up what is believed to be over 60,000 different denominations. My only feasible approach is to speak in relation to Protestant[ism]. In other words, a nutshell approach to the “general” batch of beliefs that most Protestants tend to accept.

Naturally, there are going to be people who do not fit that generality, and who will be offended, but again, with over 60,000 different denominations - and one can also argue doctrines, dogmas, approaches and even motives - it is impossible to be precise.

However, I have had far too many times in my life when I have heard from Protestant friends, or Televangelists, a doctrine that does indeed stink of selfishness. Most recently, Pastor Rod Parsley, and Paula White Ministries were pitching how, for about a $50 donation to their organizations, you can unleash the favor of God and receive His blessings. I can’t possibly enumerate all the things I have heard from those who “peddle” Christianity. And there are many thousands who flock to these people for motives that are suspect. How about this message I heard on a Protestant radio station…

“On your road to “getting,” the first thing you should “get” is… Reverend so-and-so’s CD course on…”

True, every church has members who sell books, CDs, etc. But look at the motive betrayed in that expression… "On your road to “getting”… Unashamed to proclaim that the journey to Christ is an avenue for getting, or taking.

I have seen many Protestant groups proclaim a selfish doctrine of Christ gives all and we take all… quote “Faith happily receives what grace generously gives.” I have also seen a disturbing number of Catholics who seem to have lost their zeal for Christ and attend mass in a tepid, disintersted manner. I know, I am a fallen away Catholic.

But I have seen and heard what I have seen and heard, and I exercise my right to say it. I stand by my experiences.

Thal59

---

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thal59:

The problem JKirkLVNV, is that one cannot bunch up all people who are outside of the RCC and call them Protestants. But what choice do I have? I cannot single out the specific beliefs and differences of those Christians who make up what is believed to be over 60,000 different denominations. My only feasible approach is to speak in relation to Protestant[ism]. In other words, a nutshell approach to the “general” batch of beliefs that most Protestants tend to accept.

Naturally, there are going to be people who do not fit that generality, and who will be offended, but again, with over 60,000 different denominations - and one can also argue doctrines, dogmas, approaches and even motives - it is impossible to be precise.

However, I have had far too many times in my life when I have heard from Protestant friends, or Televangelists, a doctrine that does indeed stink of selfishness. Most recently, Pastor Rod Parsley, and Paula White Ministries were pitching how, for about a $50 donation to their organizations, you can unleash the favor of God and receive His blessings. I can’t possibly enumerate all the things I have heard from those who “peddle” Christianity. And there are many thousands who flock to these people for motives that are suspect. How about this message I heard on a Protestant radio station…

“On your road to “getting,” the first thing you should “get” is… Reverend so-and-so’s CD course on…”

True, every church has members who sell books, CDs, etc. But look at the motive betrayed in that expression… "On your road to “getting”… Unashamed to proclaim that the journey to Christ is an avenue for getting, or taking.

I have seen many Protestant groups proclaim a selfish doctrine of Christ gives all and we take all… quote “Faith happily receives what grace generously gives.” I have also seen a disturbing number of Catholics who seem to have lost their zeal for Christ and attend mass in a tepid, disintersted manner. I know, I am a fallen away Catholic.

But I have seen and heard what I have seen and heard, and I exercise my right to say it. I stand by my experiences.

Thal59

Here’s what you can attempt to do: DON’T generalize at all. It rarely works. I also try to remember that while we do not agree with Protestants on “sola fide,” or “sola scriptura,” we DO agree with them on “sola gratia.” That was affirmd by Trent. As such, there is absolutely NOTHING that we can brag about. Last I heard, we were supposed to avoid “triumphalism.” I’m not talking about not defending the Church when Her teachings are attacked by Protestants (or heretical or schismatic Catholics for that matter), I’m not talking about NOT articulating truth in its fullness when a Protestant asks a question, I’m not talking about soft-peddling Her understanding of Herself. I’m talking about courtesy, often in the face of a lack thereof, and I’m talking about empathy, at least to the extent of “there, but for the grace of God go I,” etc.
If this is your experience of Protestants, then trust me, it is extraordinarily LIMITED. “Faith happily receives what grace generously gives?” Taken at face value, those words are absolutely true (remember Trent). You have to nuance it negatively to make it say anything that Holy Mother Church would find objectionable. I agree that it is simplistic, but it’s still true. Salvation is free, but it isn’t cheap…it costs you everything you have.

 

[levi86]

CatholicSam:

This is another thread entirely, but here’s your answer. **God ** gives her the power to lead us to Jesus. God sent Jesus to us *through * Mary, and He wants *us * to get to Him through Mary too. She was good enough for Jesus, so why isn’t she good enough for us? Answer: she **is ** good enough for us! Of course, it isn’t mandatory to go to Jesus through Mary, it’s just a good idea

I’m not sure where this comes from, it’s most definitely not in scripture, it’s also not mentioned by the Church Fathers. Mary has powerful intersession which in turn helps us find Christ via the Holy Spirit; the same applies to all the saints in heaven. However Mary does not have any power outside of her intersession (which is a power in and of itself)

 

[Thal59]

From: JKirkLVNV

Here’s what you can attempt to do: DON’T generalize at all. <<<

A very charming, but ineffective bit of advice. Since Protestants have mutliplied themselves to the point that one cannot keep track of their diverse views, one can only generalize. I once told a Southern Baptist friend of mine here in Chicago what the Southern Baptist church of Jacksonville Florida preached regarding the path to salvation. (I was in Florida during my last Navy hitch.) He completely disagreed with their “philosophy.” Do you see the problem? It is one thing that a Baptist may disagree with a Pentecostal, for instance. But here we have SB Chicago disagreeing with SB Jacksonville. Even within the same denomination, there are diverse views. You are correct to say it rarely works, but again, because of the enormous multiplicity, generalization is the only option.

As such, there is absolutely NOTHING that we can brag about. Last I heard, we were supposed to avoid “triumphalism.”<<<

I was not aware that I was bragging about anything.

I’m not talking about soft-peddling Her understanding of Herself. I’m talking about courtesy, often in the face of a lack thereof, and I’m talking about empathy…<<<

Quite often courtesy and empathy lead to soft-peddling. Sometimes the truth has to be thrown in someone’s face like a bucket of cold water. Sometimes one has to be frank and even callous or the magnitude of a truth is diminished. I am not politically or religiously correct. If I can be polite, I am. If the situation requires harshness, I am.

If this is your experience of Protestants, then trust me, it is extraordinarily LIMITED.<<<

I cannot help but believe that you are saying this out of a sense of “wishful thinking” because of your Protestant past. I have known, studied and debated with a large variety of Protestants in my life. Baptists, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Assembly of God, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. I spent over 13 years in the Air Force, Army Reserve, and Navy. In such environments, one is thrown together with people of all races, cultures, and religious beliefs. Especially in the Navy where I was at sea for two full years of my life. I had ample time onboard ship to discuss Catholicism and Protestantism with a variety of faiths represented. I am currently a friend and business partner with two non-denominationals. We talk business, religion, and play cards together. I have attended many times in the past few years, bible study at a non-denominational church. (Just before I go across the road to attend mass at St.Eulalia Catholic church.) I am not an expert on Proetstantism; but your “guess” that my experiences with Protestants “is extraordinarily LIMITED” carries no weight.

Salvation is free, but it isn’t cheap…it costs you everything you have.<<<

A philosophical but contradictory statement. Salvation cannot be earned to the point that one can say… “God, I have done this and that, and so now you must give me salvation.” But again, and watch out, I am generalizing here, I know of many Protestant churches that teach all one has to do is make their altar call, say their sinner’s prayer with a contrite heart, and “POOF” you are saved! You have salvation in your back pocket. You cannot lose it, you can backslide, but you can never lose it. Voila… salvation free, cheap, and as easy as it comes.

Believe me JKirkLVNV, I have nothing against you personally, but it is obvious our experiences in life are very different. If you do not agree with my observations, fine, that is your prerogative. You witness to your experiences, and I will witness to mine.

Thal59

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thal59:

From: JKirkLVNV

You are correct to say it rarely works, but again, because of the enormous multiplicity, generalization is the only option.

**Then allow me to introduce you to the word “some,” as in “some Protestants appear to be of the mindset that once you’re saved, you’re always saved, regardless of your actions,” etc. It allows you to be clear (because it’s true) and to avoid painting the whole group of them with one brush. **

If I can be polite, I am. If the situation requires harshness, I am.

**Our Lord advised us to be as gentle as doves, but as wise as snakes. Harshness has no place, at all. **

**(cont) **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

(cont)

I cannot help but believe that you are saying this out of a sense of “wishful thinking” because of your Protestant past. I have known, studied and debated with a large variety of Protestants in my life. Baptists, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Assembly of God, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons. I spent over 13 years in the Air Force, Army Reserve, and Navy. In such environments, one is thrown together with people of all religious beliefs. Especially in the Navy where I was at sea for two full years of my life. but your “guess” that my experiences with Protestants “is extraordinarily LIMITED” carries no weight.

I’ve taught for 18 years and lived in four different states. I’ve BEEN in three different faith groups, one into which I was born, two to which I converted. I grew up in the South, which has virtually every type of Protestant you can imagine (btw, JW’s, Mormons, and Adventists are not considered Protestant, nor are most sects that cannot trace their development from Calvinist, Lutheran, Anabaptist, or Anglican reform theology. These sprang up on the basis of a given individuals claim to some charism, ie., Joseph Smith as a “prophet,” the founder of the JW’s prediction of the Apocalypse, in the case of Mary Baker Eddy, her “healing.” They would be better called non-Catholic cults or even non-Christian cults. When JW’s or Mormons are brought into the Catholic Church, they are rebaptized, even though the LDS uses the Trinitarian formula. That’s how far gone Holy Mother Church regards them as being). I, too, have lived among, worked with, and discussed the beliefs of these people and seen their lives. I met one Protestant in my forty-three years who said,“God will forgive me for whatever I will do because I’m a Christian!” and she was fifteen years old, on a class trip on a bus, and trying to stick her hand down a guy’s shirt. I trust by now she’s learned better. Yes, there are Protestants who believe that once they are saved, they are always saved, but they are just as soberly aware of Paul’s epistle in which he says “shall we continue to sin that grace may abound? God forbid” as you or I. It is a distorted belief, but it is founded on God’s absolute trustworthiness (which our faith also affirms, we simply believe that God never forces our free will). Yes, there are Protestants who do believe in “sola fide,” but again (as wrongheaded as it is, baldly articulated) this has MORE to do with their view of Christ (that absolutely nothing can be added to what He did for us on Calvary, that we can only throw ourselves upon God’s Mercy, because “all our works are as filthy rags”) rather than laziness or a effort at cheap slavation. In fact, the Protestants I know would recoil at the notion of “cheap salvation,” since it cost God His Son.
And that’s mostly what I object to: you’re basically putting words in to their mouths. You’re doing the precise same thing to them as they do to us when one of the “harsher” ones (who feel just as great a need to proclaim their “truth” as you do) rears up and says,“Catholics worship Mary.” Fact is, if you’ve traveled at all, there are places in the Catholic world where Catholics appear to worship Mary or statues. Would you like to be painted with the same broad brush as these? Do you want to be lumped together with some Catholics in Latin America who were astonished to find out that Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Fatima, and Our Lady de San Juan de Los Lagos were in point of fact the same Woman (they thought she was three different saints).
**That’s precisely the same thing you’re doing. **

A philosophical but contradictory statement. Salvation cannot be earned to the point that one can say… “God, I have done this and that, and so now you must give me salvation.” But again, and watch out, I am generalizing here, I know of many Protestant churches that teach all one has to do is make their altar call, say their sinner’s prayer with a contrite heart, and “POOF” you are saved! You have salvation in your back pocket. You cannot lose it, you can backslide, but you can never lose it. Voila… salvation free, cheap, and as easy as it comes.

**That statement wasn’t at all contradictory. Sola gratia is affirmed by the Council of Trent. Thus, salvation is utterly gratuitous. In order to appropriate it, however, you have to die to yourself, pick up your cross, and follow Jesus Christ. In other words, “Salvation is free, but it costs you everything.” **

Believe me JKirkLVNV, I have nothing against you personally, but it is obvious our experiences in life are very different. If you do not agree with my observations, fine, that is your prerogative. You witness to your experiences, and I will witness to mine.

Thal59

**I have nothing against you personally, either. I don’t know you well enough. I may well agree with you in other threads. Have no fear, I will witness to my experiences.

 

[Malachi4U]

Paris Blues:

…my Protestant “ways” are almost “down the toilet” so to speak!…

Just give them a good flush and thereby put them where they belong.

I flushed them and feel soooo much better for it. Out with the bad “ME”-ology in with the good theology of Jesus.

 

[Thal59]

JKirkLVNV, what am I going to do with you, my friend?

Step back and take a breather. Your last post was a bit disconcerting. You tell me that harshness has no place at all in it, yet you post your reply entirely in bold text; which only gives the impression that you are seething with anger and are trying to yell something at me.

Believe it or not, there is a lot of truth in your posts and I have learned quite a bit from you. But there is also something troublesome in your posts. You are not simply arguing points; your experiences versus mine, you are also making statements regarding what you interpret as improper motives. When someone I am discussing a topic with gets mad, (bold or capital letters) and when their replies seem to hint at a personal desire to discredit or expose something unchristian, I have a policy of breaking off the conversation. So rather than continue along these lines, let me try a different angle.

"I was raised a Southern Baptist (and then spent five years as an Anglican before converting to Catholicism). My people DO believe “once saved always saved,” an obvious error…"

I don not know who you mean by “My people” in this statement. Do you mean Southern Baptist or Anglican?

You state that your “people” believe “once saved always saved” and you then state that it is an obvious error. Since you seem determined to point out my ill motives, let me ask you a question…

If once saved always saved is a doctrine that is an obvious error, why do you feel the people you mentioned believe in it anyway? What do you think is their motive for believing it?

Thal59

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thal59:

JKirkLVNV, what am I going to do with you, my friend? Not take such a condescending tone? That be one step in the right direction.

Step back and take a breather. Your last post was a bit disconcerting. You tell me that harshness has no place at all in it, yet you post your reply entirely in bold text; which only gives the impression that you are seething with anger and are trying to yell something at me. Then you haven’t in fact been around the forums long. I chose boldface in this context to set my type off from yours, to distinguish my post from your post…as I’m doing now.

Believe it or not, there is a lot of truth in your posts and I have learned quite a bit from you. But there is also something troublesome in your posts. You are not simply arguing points; your experiences versus mine, you are also making statements regarding what you interpret as improper motives. When someone I am discussing a topic with gets mad, (bold or capital letters)** see above** and when their replies seem to hint at a personal desire to discredit or expose something unchristian, I have a policy of breaking off the conversation. So rather than continue along these lines, let me try a different angle.

"I was raised a Southern Baptist (and then spent five years as an Anglican before converting to Catholicism). My people DO believe “once saved always saved,” an obvious error…"

I don not know who you mean by “My people” in this statement. Do you mean Southern Baptist or Anglican? Well, let’s try to read it critically, as I tell my fourth graders. If I say “my people,” would you guess it was the people who raised me (the Baptists) or the people in the church to which I converted?

You state that your “people” believe “once saved always saved” and you then state that it is an obvious error. Since you seem determined to point out my ill motives, let me ask you a question…

If once saved always saved is a doctrine that is an obvious error, why do you feel the people you mentioned believe in it anyway? What do you think is their motive for believing it?

Thal59

**Because they were raised to believe it. Because they went Sunday after Sunday and heard it taught from the pulpit of their churches and had it reinforced in their homes by people they loved and who loved them. Because they have so much regard for the nature, the glory, the promise of God, and so little for anything that man can offer to Him in exchange for His Mercy, that to them, being saved is something which God must do entirely and which He must maintain entirely. They believe in sanctification apart from salvation, and they believe that should be the goal of every Christian, a close, and intimate walk with Christ, a “putting on” of Christ, but that’s seperate from salvation to them. Most of the Protestants I’ve known are people who live Christ-centered lives, as far as their understanding allows them to do so. You seem to be imputing to them, well, a fairly base motive, ****“salvation on the cheap.” It’s not like that for them. They’re wrong, they’re not in possession of the fullness of the truth, but it’s nothing as ignoble as you’ve made it sound. **

**I know who you’re talking about, the Parsleys, the Tilton’s, the Oral Roberts of this world. They are a minority. The overwhelming majority of Protestants I know could be accurately compared to Dr. Billy Graham. Is he in error? Yes. Does he possess the fullness of truth? No. But can he be accused of a base motive, a cheap salvation, an attitude of “****Because I was only interested in free salvation and easy reward and I rejected anything that was demanding of me. I wanted to take, not give.” I, for one, think not. **

 

[christaddict]

The powerful traits of a convert/revert I appreciate is the extensive knowledge of the Bible (good for apologetic work) And most importantly they are on fire for Catholicism, kudos to you people

 

[Thal59]

JKirkLVNV

Because they were raised to believe it. Because they went Sunday after Sunday and heard it taught from the pulpit of their churches and had it reinforced in their homes by people they loved and who loved them.<<<

Have you not changed your mind on what you were raised to believe? The faith one is raised in only sets one’s initial beliefs. But once one enters the age of reason, and starts pursuing the word of God with vigor, the “obvious errors” become clear. Yet, they still proclaim “once saved always saved.” Can you not see the folly of your position? You are describing these people with every gracious accolade that you can, you have heaped praise after praise upon them. Yet, they cling to obvious error? Something is wrong here. Lets take a look at it…

They’re wrong, they’re not in possession of the fullness of the truth…<<<

This is incomprehensible to me, JKirkLVNV. You have described these people practicaly as living embodiments of purest Christianity, yet Christ, who is the fullness of truth, has not given them the ability to discern truth from “obvious error?” Certainly if these people you are defending had this great love and zeal for Christ, He would illumine their minds, their bible studies, their spiritual searching for truth with at least enough perception to be able to divide the obvious error from the truth. They may not necessarily run from their churches and join RCIA, but they wouldn’t “cling” to once saved always saved. If their motives were as pure as you have said, Christ would have delivered them from such obviously errant doctrines years ago.

>>>I know who you’re talking about, the Parsleys, the Tilton’s, the Oral Roberts of this world. They are a minority. <<<

I do not agree. The airwaves, both TV and Radio, are full of them. Even in the non-denominational church I mentioned earlier, their latest program is an on-going course of how to prepare to be “Officials” in Christ’s thousand year governmental reign. In other words, how to be an effective office holder of the Lord and how to reign over those who do not receive such power and authority. What is their motive for wanting to be in a position that is superior to others? This powermongering nonsense is very popular with Dr. Roderick Meredith who is very big on “reigning” with the Lord when He returns.

Parsley, Tilton, Oral Roberts, Paula White, John Hagee, Rod Meredith, Jesse Jackson, Jim Swaggert, Jim Baker, Marilyn Hickey, Pat Robertson, James Robison, Joel Osteen, Dr. Frederick K. Price, Larry Huch, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Carroll Roberson, Gregory Dickow, etc., etc., etc.

And there are many, many, many millions of pure hearted Protestants who flock to these people to be reassured week after week that they are “once saved always saved,” that God wants them to escape poverty and how He will pay off their credit card debts, get them a good job and a beautiful house on the hill, preserve them from pain, stress, anxiety, etc. Why has Christ left so many wonderful Christ loving people in the churches that promote errant doctrines?

The overwhelming majority of Protestants I know could be accurately compared to Dr. Billy Graham. Is he in error? Yes. Does he possess the fullness of truth? No.<<<

How is this possible? How can a man such as Billy Graham, a man who is so respected and who has preached Christ all of his life STILL be in error? Could it be a question of motives? Why did the spirit of truth move John Neuman into the Catholic church, yet decide to leave Billy Graham out?

“(23)Now when He was at Jerusalem for the feast of the passover, many believed in His name, seeing the signs that He was working.(24) But Jesus did not trust Himself to them, in that He knew all men,(25) and because He had no need that anyone should bear witness concerning man, for He himself knew what was in man.” (John 2:23-25)

The “many” who believed in His name did not ask for a sign, they simply observed Him and believed in Him, but Jesus did not accept there belief because He knows what the motives of their hearts are. I ask the same question now, that I did earlier.

"You have described these people practicaly as living embodiments of purest Christianity, yet Christ, who is the fullness of truth, has not given them the ability to discern truth from “obvious error?”

Why?

Thal59

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thal59:

Have you not changed your mind on what you were raised to believe? The faith one is raised in only sets one’s initial beliefs. But once one enters the age of reason, and starts pursuing the word of God with vigor, the “obvious errors” become clear. Yet, they still proclaim “once saved always saved.” Can you not see the folly of your position? You are describing these people with every gracious accolade that you can, you have heaped praise after praise upon them. Yet, they cling to obvious error?

This is incomprehensible to me, JKirkLVNV. You have described these people practicaly as living embodiments of purest Christianity, yet Christ, who is the fullness of truth, has not given them the ability to discern truth from “obvious error?” Certainly if these people you are defending had this great love and zeal for Christ, He would illumine their minds, their bible studies, their spiritual searching for truth with at least enough perception to be able to divide the obvious error from the truth. They may not necessarily run from their churches and join RCIA, but they wouldn’t “cling” to once saved always saved. If their motives were as pure as you have said, Christ would have delivered them from such obviously errant doctrines years ago.

I have NOT heaped praise on them. I have defended them from the charge of having base motives. Anyone with the ability to read with a modicum of discernment would be able to see that.

Part of the reason that they do not abandon their errors is that Catholic evangelism has been so poor. My grandparent’s farm was one mile from the Catholic parish. Never once did a member of that parish, much less the priest, come and invite them to Mass or seek to evangelize them.

Part of the reason is that, in the Protestant south in particular, they have been taught to absolutely distrust the Catholic Church. They’ve been taught from a young age the falsity of “the Church fell into apostacy after the Apostles died,” that Constantine founded the Church, that all Its antecendents are pagan in origin, etc. Now, let’s try to inject a little human element into this: you’re taught this by people you love and who love and care for you, from childhood. Can you see how this would carry some weight? Can you see how it might have some credibility?

Look, there’s a section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that talks about our understanding of and our relationship with our seperated brethren. It doesn’t applaud their error, it doesn’t say they don’t need to be united to the Church. It does admit that their ecclessial bodies have elements of sanctification (which derive from Catholicism, to be sure). What I’ve attempted to explain to you has nothing to do with defending their errors or their deficiencies. If you haven’t seen that, then I urge you to go back and read my posts. My whole argument with you speaks to MOTIVE. You attribute to them base MOTIVES. This can be demonstrated in this quote for your first post:

""Because I was only interested in free salvation and easy reward and I rejected anything that was demanding of me. I wanted to take, not give."

I know of NO Protestant with this attitude or mindset (and very who buy into the obvioius stupidity of the "prosperity gospel). I’m not so naive as to believe that there are none, but I think you’ve painted with far too broad a brush. I take it personally because I know many, many Protestants who live lives of heroic charity and who try to lead holy lives, and who, BTW, largely manage it. Even the popes acknowledge these things, in their interactions with Protestants. Are you wiser than them?

As for why Cardinal Newman saw the light and why Dr. Graham doesn’t seem to, I cannot answer that: why did C.S. Lewis not see it? Why did Dietrich Bonhoffer not see it? It’s a mystery I cannot answer. I would stand up and contend against their errors (I do so all the time), but I would be loathe to try and prosecute their motives in the dock. I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

From the Catechism:
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276