Talk Elections

Santorum excommunicates all Protestants in America from Christianity in 2008 speech 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/18/427529/santorum-excommunicates-45-million-christians-mainline-protestants-are-gone-from-the-world-of-christianity/

In a 2008 speech at Ave Maria University, Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic, warned about the dangers of “the NBA” and “rock concerts,” but also said that while Protestants founded America, mainline Protestantism is in such “shambles” that “it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it”:

We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. [...]

You can decide for yourself.

Just we mainliners. Not nearly old testment oriented for a taliban lite type like rick.

As a functional matter, Rick has put you in about the same category as I am Badger (an essentially Godless secularist with no loadstar by which to guide you, save the amoral algorithm of pragmatism and sentiment), and busy at work undermining the very fiber which made America great. Deal with it!

Omg! I just had an image of how people would react if obama said 'i feel fundamentalist protestants and traditionalist catholics have fallen away from christianity'. Can you IMAGINE the (justified) screams of 'religious bigotry' and 'anti-catholicism'. Now let's just wait to hear people explain away santorum's equivilently bigoted narrow-minded intolerant remarks......

Waiting.........

Imagine if Romney said anything remotely approaching this hogwash! Romney isn't interested in forcing his religious views upon anybody else, unlike a certain Vatican man...

"Wet" religionists are worse than the religionless. I have experienced that again and again personally. I had this really nice chat with a JW last month. He was quite fascinated by me. I am just not a competing product for the relevant sales market - more like some exotic item sold in a boutique. So, well, anyway, you are used to the brickbats from the usual suspects of course.

Does he even believe in Gravity or was he the original writer of Conservapedia?

He needs to consult with the Pope, or at least one of the Cardinals from here, on the matter before he can publicly speak about gravity.

Don't even get him started on the sun and the center of the universe. According to Santorum, Washington, DC and the Vatican are OBVIOUSLY the center of the universe.

What do you think he thinks of the bible verse-

Matthew 19:12 ?

Again, this is yet another example of gross distortion.

The short answer is, "Yes, Rick Santorum believes 45,000,000 mainline Protestants in America are in fact Christians."

The long answer involves a careful study of the "Re-imagining 1993" conference held in Minnesota with the support and participation of the National Council of Churches [mostly mlp], and a series of other theological debates within those churches. The upshoot is that many are experiencing schisms, bleeding membership and otherwise showing themselves to be a in a state of "shambles."  That is a fact.

Much of the internal debates within those churches is whether, or not, some of the theological stances the church leadership have taken are heretical. Apparently, Santorum agrees with many of the dissidents within those churches. Is this such a big deal?

I wonder what Yelnoc thinks about this ("Catholics are so much more tolerable despite what the church says because it's just a cultural thing and all Protestants are pretty unhinged.")

A review of Santorum's book essentially referred to him as having a 'great mind for the 13th Century'.

That would be perfect except I doubt people in the 13th century thought the way he did about the "Man on Dog" type stuff.

Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are not Protestants. Obama is. Heads are going to explode if people realize that.

He does say that mainline Protestants are "gone from the world of Christianity as he sees it." To split hairs, that's not quite saying that they're not Christian. But it's certainly pointing heavily in that direction.

Many of the parishioners of those churches have come to the conclusion that their leadership has left the world of Christianity as they understand it, thus, the schisms, and, defections. Are they questioning their own faith? No, they are questioning the leadership of their churches.

Sure. But many others remain in those churches. And consider themselves to be Christian, even though they're Lutheran, or Methodist, or Presbyterian, or even Episcopalian!

You may not agree with them, and that's your right. It's also Rick Santorum's right to stand up for his convictions. I just don't see how anyone expects to win 270 electoral votes by establishing so many preconditions for accepting anyone's support.

And you know, maybe Santorum doesn't care about winning 270 electoral votes.

If he does, he's probably beyond redemption.

Santorum has an interesting opinion on this, fwiw. His positions are identical to what all Protestants believed in the 1930s. He differs from them, in that he has the modern, post-Vatican II understanding of the Protestant/Catholic divide.

Most, if not all of the evangelicals are drawing this line in the sand already - putting themselves and horrors, the Catholics, on the same side of the line, with the episcopalians on the other.

He also seems to be drawing a line in the sand between the faithful who have left their churches because of the same nonsense that he is calling out and those who stayed. This is not an insignificant number, and the fact that a Catholic can understand the difference is going to be significant.

Obama is as tone deaf as it comes to what Christians believe and how they practice their faith.

Haha he warned about the dangers of the NBA? What, did he get offended when they stopped wearing booty shorts?

That's really quite unfair on the 13th century.

Roger Bacon and William of Ockham must be spinning in their only nominal graves.

Too many blah people in the NBA, I suppose.

Fixed.

If Winfield continues to make new topics centered around a talking point each day, he seriously must be banned. I know he's in panic mode now because Romney is crashing and burning but he shouldn't be getting hysteric on us.

I'm beginning to think Aquinas would have to run significantly to his own right on economics and law-and-order in Republican primaries these days.

Hell, there are medieval theologians who would have to run the right on homosexuality in Republican primaries these days.

Oh tut tut now.

The truth shall not be silenced!

LONG LIVE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!

Winfield, what is your actual condition?

Phil, in answer to your rather confrontational and personally insulting inquiry, although I take no offence, and your talk of banning and hysterics, I can only conclude that you do not like nor do you appreciate all these unfavorable articles about your hero Santorum being brought to the forefront.

Politics 101, when a candidate moves from a position of obscurity to prominence, their statements and views come under increased scrutiny.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to present to the public positions and statements, even if unfavorable, about and by said candidate.

Deal with it.

Winfield, you're a great guy, but you're approaching Politico levels here.

Can we just get a megathread called "Quotations from Chairman Santorum" please and thanks?

shouldn't that be Archbishop Santorum?

 

I agree, otherwise if Santorum does end up winning Michigan, these threads are going to clog up the arteries of this board.  Also, Phil and Winfield's arguments about Santorum are starting to get messy.

Ah, just what we need as president of a broadly diverse nation. Someone utterly willing to 'draw a line in the sand' between real christians and the rest of us misguided church-going fools.

I'll give you this, bk: at least you are an unapologetic fellow cultural warrior who, like rick, is to the right of most us bishops on the issue of ecumenicalism. Unlike bsbob youhyouu don't dissembling garbage about 'misstatements' and instead simply reponded with an unapologetic 'hell yes!'.

It doesn't make you any less intolerant, of course, but I prefer my bigots honest....

Should be Ayatollah Santorum.

Why is it wrong for ridiculous statements like these to be reported?  If Romney got up and declared Mormonism the dominant religion of Christianity, there'd be hell to pay for it.

They're all (Romney, Santorum, Gingrich & Paul) bloody worrying :(

Romney isnt worrying, he would probably be a proficient, if not inspiring president.

Gingrich is a bit worrying as he is somewhat erratic, but he has a pragmatic streak...and then there is that cool Moonbase

But Santorum, he is truly frightening. His bible-based view of the public square should be seen as an afront to the Constitution.

I'll take the plutocrat Romney over the theocrat Santorum any day.

"Vatican man"?  Are you anti-Catholic now?

As long as they continue to worship at the Altar of Supply-Side, while, simultaneously, decrying deficits, they are as a collective, totally and utterly, divorced from reason and, therefore, unfit to govern ;)

Thank you for the compliment.  :D

What does Rick think of Greeks? Since we are the true religion after all.

No because you reject the Pope.

The thing is, right now, among Michigan primary voters is that the Catholic is leading among Protestants (Evangelicals) and the Mormon is leading among Catholics

Of course, this Episcopalian thinks both suck and wouldn't be supporting either for the presidency of the United States

We actually have an Eastern Christian on the forum? I was unaware of this.

And yet one of the central tenets of Mormonism is that the established churches had become errant and corrupt, hence why the prophet Joseph Smith was chosen to be the translator of the golden plates.  So either Romney does not believe in the tenets of his church, or he believes that all non-Mormons are also imperfect Christians at best.

I mean folks, if someone doesn't believe his religion is the best and all others come up short, why do they follow it?

"And They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love" was not written with the likes of Santorum in mind, I suspect.

There's also GMantis and px75 though neither one is anything more than purely nominally Orthodox.

I'm sure everyone has their opinion on the matter. The reality is that some opinions are better and truer than others.

Below is the Nicene Creed, which is as close defining "Christianity as it [historically] understood:"


One of the theological beliefs promulgated by the conference is the rejection of the Crucifixion as a formative event in Christianity. That is a rejection of the Nicene Creed. Whatever the merits or demerits of such theological stances are, they simply aren't consistent with seventeen centuries of Christian history. Rick Santorum has every right to point out that obvious fact.

That very creed you just referenced (including the bolded part) is recited at every ELCA service. I'd say that should be more of a reflection of the church's beliefs than some random conference almost 20 years ago.

Random conference, indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-Imagining:_Christian_feminist_conference

Note that the conference led to the firing of the highest-ranking Presbyterian woman of the time.

Not a single mainline Protestant denomination withdrew the Nicene Creed from regular liturgical use as a consequence of the Re-Imagining conference. All still use it today.

To be fair to Bob, a lot of what went on at Re-Imagining was theological woo of the sort that's incredibly damaging to the reputation of feminist theology.

Fair enough. But it's pretty amusing to characterize the event as having led to the overturning of centuries' worth of doctrine for several major denominations.
Or it would be amusing, if it weren't pernicious.

Oh, I completely agree. It went over like a lead balloon. It was probably the most pointless theological exercise of its kind in decades, up there with the career of Mary Daly.

Thinking of Mary Daly, at least one of the participants at the Re-Imagining conference was a Catholic nun. I wonder if that means that the Catholic Church abandoned the Nicene Creed as well?

Santorum has done irreperable damage to the reputation of the Catholic Church (which even in America is majority pro-choice and pro-gay marriage).  It's heart-breaking.

Here's another link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

John Shelby Spong was a bishop.  You can't simply dissociate his church from him as you attempted with the re-imaging conference. [Nor, is pointing out the fact that someone was fired an answer to the question why in the heck did the Presbyterian Church sponsor the conference in the first place?] Spong clearly was advocating the rejection of Nicene Christianity. The schisms are occuring for a reason.

OK, I think I now understand the argument that you're trying to make, which hasn't been fully clear. You're arguing that the presence of prominent individuals within mainline Protestant churches, who openly doubt aspects of the Nicene Creed, and are not expelled from their churches as a result, somehow impugns the commitment to the Nicene Creed of the church as a whole, and that this is responsible for defections from those churches?
I'll certainly give you the latter point. As for the former, I have to remind you that the Nicene Creed remains an active part of the liturgy of every major mainline Protestant denomination. And schisms or no, millions of honest Americans continue to attend these churches, and to recite and believe in the Nicene Creed. As long as you can accept that those people are fully Christian, and that any denomination that follows the Nicene Creed is Christian, then we don't have anything to disagree about.

Catholics may be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. The Catholic Church (the entity as distinct from its adherents) is most certainly not.

As an Episcopalian, may I explain what happened here?

Spong represents the extreme left wing of Episcopalian thought, a fact a lot of which came out after his consecration. He wrote a few relatively anodyne books before then. He wrote like a dozen extremely reconstructionist books while in office. It's hard to depose an Episcopal bishop and nobody wanted to go to the trouble. Nobody wanted to go to the trouble with Bob Duncan either until he unilaterally initiated schism. When it's known that somebody holds these sorts of views before they are consecrated, they tend to not get through (this is why Kevin Thew Forrester is not Bishop of Northern Michigan, never has been, and never will be). People whose consecrations have been flash-points who have gotten through, such as Gene Robinson, have usually been relatively inoffensive in terms of their actual liturgy and theology.

Obviously people are leaving the church in some number over this--there have been a few schismatic dioceses, although they were quickly reestablished by loyalists--but structural problems related to younger age groups drifting into secularism, non-Christian religions, or BRTD-style hipstertypal churches are a much greater concern, since people who leave over ideological disputes and people who join from the Catholic Church or whatever over the same sorts of ideological disputes are about at parity.

The Presbyterians sponsored Re-Imagining because they didn't know beforehand what it was going to turn into, obviously.

Since I originally said, "The long answer involves a careful study of the "Re-imagining 1993" conference held in Minnesota with the support and participation of the National Council of Churches [mostly mlp], and a series of other theological debates within those churches,"I think I am safe in noting that you are arguing against a strawman and not me.

Presumably, though, the "long answer" also involves looking at the fact that each and every one of those mainline Protestant denominations remains within the fold of Nicene Christianity, in doctrine and in liturgical practice.

I'm quite willing to admit that there are individuals within some of these churches who are not supporters of the whole of the Nicene Creed. Are you willing to agree that those churches, as institutions, remain adherent to the Nicene Creed?

By the logic of extrapolating Spong's views to the entire Episcopal Church, one could do the same with Cynthia McKinney to the Democrats while she was in Congress or Ron Paul to the Republicans or Helen Chenoweth when she was still in office.

The last time I was at an ELCA service was Christmas Eve (not that long ago) and we recited the Nicene Creed as it was posted there. That seems like an unusual practice if it's being rejected.

So?  A group (Catholics, Protestants, Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers, whatever) should be judged by what its members actually believe, not what they're unenforceably "supposed" to believe.

I'd be quite surprised if a majority of US Catholics were pro-choice or pro-gay marriage.

This is people who identify as Catholic, not necessarily practicing Catholics.

I'm not sure how I'm 'to the right' of most bishops on ecumenicalism. I believe that you don't have to be a member of the Catholic church, or even a Christian to be saved. It's God's will not ours. I also believe that most faithful protestants are brothers + sisters in Christ.

What I do believe is that those who profess themselves to be Christian ought to follow what Christ teaches. Christ is pretty clear on homosexuality, that it is sinful and disordered. If that makes me a bigot, then I'm in pretty good company.

I look forward to this being brought up at the debate...I assume moderator will ask, and Rick will do what he can to defend it. But will Gingrich or Romney or Paul pile on?

Even then I'd be surprised. Bush won Catholics in 2004 and then take into account many who voted for Kerry are Hispanic.

I'm not sure how exactly one reads that into Christ's statements (some of Paul's, I'll give you), but I understand what you mean, and I sincerely hope my admittedly highly personal (not myself, but my best friend among other people) position on this particular issue and the fact that my politics are very different from yours do not alone hinder you from considering me a brother. I certainly consider you one.

Eh, I would think Rick is right.  IMO, You have to jump through a lot of hoops to make biblical Christianity compatible with mainstream cultural norms. You water it down until it doesnt really mean anything anymore- other than Jesus is Lord/love and everything else in the Bible is only posturing.

Maybe I'm creating a false dilemma but I really do see it as you can either follow what was taught or just see it as a whole lot of hocus pocus. I waver between those two extremes.

Matthew 19:4-5

"From the beginnning, the Creator made them male and female, and for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

The interesting word here is proskollethesetai, used nowhere else. NIV renders it 'unite', but KJV renders it cleave. It means the complete spiritual and physical union. Men and women were made this way to join with one another in this fashion.

I asked the same question as you - not that many moons ago to a seminarian and he could not answer my question. I eventually came upon this myself in my own investigations and I find this whole Matthew chapter 19 to really be an amazing chapter that encapsulates so many things.

As for politics, I could give two hoots about someone's politics. So long as they teach what Christ taught to the best of their understanding then they are my brother. Even if they fall - you are still my brother and sister in Christ and I have an obligation to help you back.

I actually really like Matthew 19. You're right that it's a really great chapter that as you say takes in quite a lot of Christ's teachings on how life is to be lived. In this case, I certainly agree with your basic interpretation of that phrase but there are aspects of verse 12 that I interpret to moderate this as regards sexual orientation (perhaps not to the extent of condoning specific sexual practices, since it seems to be discussing what today would be viewed as variances in expression of gender and socialization rather than any actual acts; this too I will grant). I of course understand that there are received interpretations that do not view 19.12 this way in many churches.

We don't have to discuss this now, though, since it's getting rather off-topic. I admire your intellectual honesty and moral courage as you understand it on these subjects.

Pro-choice, not a chance. But I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of catholics were pro-gay marriage. Are American catholics similar to Irish catholics (Irish catholics were very conservative before 2000, and around 20 years ago divorce was illegal, before being really narrowly passed in a referendum, but I would say a gay marriage referendum would pass without much trouble in Ireland today)?

how so?  I though the NT teaches there is now only one path to salvation, Jesus Christ.

Yep, you are very correct. There is only one way to God, through Jesus Christ. But one doesn't have to be a Christian in order to be saved. IE - not all followers of Christ we would consider to be Christian.

One - you have Elijah, Enoch, Elisha, all the patriarchs who came before Christ. They are not 'Christian' per se, but they are saved, and saved just as we are, through the Grace of God. 

Two - Romans 2:10-14, from the KJV:


But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Ben, have you ever heard of the Kakure Christians ('secret Christians'), i.e. the Christian tradition in Japan during the early-modern isolationist period, in which after many generations of enforced physical separation from Rome (and without the Bible having ever been translated into Japanese; the introduction of Catholicism in the sixteenth century was all Jesuit missionaries) the doctrine mutated into something...uh, shall we say, 'distinctly Japanese', but still resolutely monotheistic and at least accepting a 'Jizusu' as the Son of God? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the status of that and the people who followed it (of whom a few are still alive, mostly nonagenarians), considering that it's such a perfect example of a heretical schism that was absolutely nobody's fault except the non-Christian government's.

Not all are called to marriage. There are other ways to serve God. That's what eunuchs is referring to, and why he says that some choose to live celibately rather then engage in marriage.

"The one who can accept this - should accept this."

Aaand I no longer support Saintly Rick.

Are we so certain of that? We do not know much of the Nestorians because not much has survived to be passed down.

I am still learning myself as to the length and breadth of the Catholic church throughout the years.


Ah, I see I misunderstood. The separation occurred after European contact, when the Bakafu shut everything down. 

Well, from what I see the Church has already welcomed those back into the fold and to orthodoxy when contact was re-established.

I wasn’t referring to people PRIOR to the Church Age, which is why I said: “ I thought the NT teaches there is now only one path to salvation, Jesus Christ.”

---


Well, how is one going to get God’s laws written on his/her heart without receiving the Holy Spirit through belief in Christ?

That's a good question.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

I suspect this article by Kreeft will answer it better than I can.

Glossing over it:

 "The meaning of conscience in the argument is knowledge and not just a feeling; but it is intuitive knowledge rather than rational or analytical knowledge, and it is first of all the knowledge that I must always do right and never wrong, the knowledge of my absolute obligation to goodness, all goodness: justice and charity and virtue and holiness; only in the second place is it the knowledge of which things are right and which things are wrong. This second-place knowledge is a knowledge of moral facts, while the first-place knowledge is a knowledge of my personal moral obligation, a knowledge of the moral law itself and its binding authority over my life. That knowledge forms the basis for the argument from conscience."

Or as I've always understood it, our conscience is a part of God in us - which is why we respond to Him even if we have never heard of Him before.

That much I understand. I'm just inclined to take a sociological/anthropological view of it, because that's the language that I speak (so to speak).

My question about your feelings on Japanese Christianity was as regarded the spiritual state of the people whose entire lives were lived out in the more repressive parts of the Tokugawa bakufu. While it's true that most Japanese Catholics have been restored to full communion and orthodoxy there are still some scattered outposts where people follow this mimetically received and mutated form of the faith because, one images, their families/communities simply 'always have'.

You are utterly misinterpreting which bigotted statement I referenced.

During the 200 years or so that they were cut off?


From my understanding, there are only very few.

I understand the concerns. I guess we have to look back at it and ask - is this going to impair their understanding of Christ - how he is the Son of God? How deep is the individual understanding? I can't speak for any of these folks - that's God's role and not mine to determine.

If you want a Catholic to tell you - hey you're saved, you'd probably be better off asking one of the evangelicals ;)

I certainly don't need you to tell me I'm saved (all respect to you), and I doubt these Japanese folks do either, but I'm, shall we say, academically interested in different strands of Christians' thoughts on these issues. ;)

Good answer, by the way. And for what it's worth, I certainly don't think that the travesty that was made of the Bible through no fault of their own cut out that which was necessary for faith in God, and I've been studying this for a couple of years now.

from a catholic point of view, this is obvious.

Um...nice cherry picking your data there.  Obama won Catholics by nearly 10 points, but you ignore that to pull an election out of the past?

Why do you have some weird quest to prove that Catholics are right-wing?  Polls have consistently shown that Catholics support gay marriage, contraceptives, and abortion rights.  Most of them have been discussed on this site, and a simple Google search for "catholic poll gay marriage" will show lots of different articles and polls affirming that.

I'm not quite sure why a definition - Catholic in opposition to what the church teaches ought to be more substantial than defining a Catholic as one who accepts what the Church teaches. You wouldn't call someone who rejected Christ a protestant - you'd call them an ex-protestant.

Why square the circle? If you're willing to publicly oppose the Church then you aren't a Catholic in good standing.

I believe most of what the Catholic Church believes, and ignore the rest, just as anyone does on any religion.  It's impossible to find a 100% perfect fit, so I, like anyone else, find the closest fit.  If you want to tow the line and believe Catholic doctrine 100%, that's your right, but you can't just declare someone who doesn't to be not Catholic.

The vast majority of Catholics ignore some of the silliest church teachings (such as the asinine contraception ban), and recent polls show that a slim majority of Catholics actually favor legalized abortion and gay marriage.  Obviously, I'm not alone on the find-the-best-fit-and-ignore-what-you-don't-believe fit.

The right-wing minority can whine about that all they want and wish we were denied Communion, but they'll never get that wish.

my question was rhetorical - meaning that the ONLY scriptural method to have God's laws written on your heart (Jer 31:33; Rom 2:15; 2Cor 3:2-3; Heb 8:10; Heb 10:16) is to be born of God by receiving the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ

the word of God has no other method to get God's laws written on the heart, which is why you had to go outside of scripture

Well yes but how many were Hispanics? And can you actually cite these polls? The first thing I get with that Google search shows 43% support for gay marriage amongst Catholics, and this is the second hit: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=15355

Serious question (not a snark or anything): Why are you so defensive of the church with its backwards views and so dismissive of Protestant churches that don't hold to that? Yes I get that in Mississippi almost all the Protestants are right wing fundamentalists, but you've stated yourself too that Misssissippi Catholics are incredibly right wing (not surprising), and should also realize Mississippi is hardly representative of the country at all. The thing is though by its very nature Protestantism is going to be more diverse and thus logical for someone who doesn't want to have anything whatsoever to do with the reactionary Catholic leadership. I mean there is no way anyone can argue that any Catholic church or group of Catholics is more progressive than this church (http://www.plymouth.org). Would you encourage any member of that church to join the Catholic church instead? You kind of alluded to that with me in some AIM convo once where you said it would be beneficial for liberal Protestants to become Catholic, which utterly confounds me...Yes I get that not all Catholics agree with the reactionary leadership. What I can't understand is why they continue to associate with them regardless instead of just going somewhere less reactionary (and saying that no such churches exist is the epitome of ignorance.)

I went outside and quoted Kreeft here because I personally find his argument compelling. Would you prefer CS Lewis? I can quote him, and he's very much a protestant.

You neither specified that you wanted scriptural evidence, nor specified that only scriptural evidence was compelling. 


You want scriptural evidence?

"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)"

This is despite:

"when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law"

You have failed to understand the scriptural evidence already provided. Paul explicitly makes the point, that Gentiles are following the law, 'through their nature', not the Spirit.

You are profoundly mistaken if you believe:

1, 'anyone does this on any religion,
2, that you can simply pick and choose which doctrines you like.


Nonsense. It's either right or wrong. If it's wrong, then it's not right. We might not be able to follow what the Church teaches 100 percent, but there's a difference between trying and failing and rejecting Church teachings outright.


On what grounds do you declare yourself correct and the Church wrong?


They, and you aren't really Catholic then are you? If you sincerely believe the Church is wrong - then why are you calling yourself Catholic?


True, but I don't see why you would bother to tell other Catholics that they should oppose Church teachings based on a personal distate of Catholic teachings.


I think it's funny how cafeteria Catholics insist on outward appearances over inward conviction. Why go through the charade of pretending to be Catholic when you don't really believe in it?

We all put on Christ - but I put him on because I believe him to be right. Why do you bother?

let's just bypass the Catholics and the Protestants and stick with scripture

---

You say their obedience is not through the Spirit but rather through their nature, but according to scripture:

1)   Is human nature capable of being in agreement with, or obedient to, God’s law?  No. (Rom ch 7 & 8 )
2)   How do people get the requirements of the law written on their hearts? By receiving the Holy Spirit. (Jer 31:33; 2Cor 3:2-3; Heb 8:10; Heb 10:16)

My interpretation of Rom 2:14-15: What Paul is alluding to is that when Gentiles, who haven’t heard the law, receive the Holy Spirit through belief in Christ, the Holy Spirit will guide them to live according to the way of love, which is the fulfillment of the law.  In other words, when you are filled by the Holy Spirit, loving others as yourself becomes second nature, and you fulfill God’s law even if you’ve never had Moses read to you…and I have dozens upon dozens of scriptural witnesses to back that up.

Your interpretation of Rom 2:14-15: “[human nature can be obedient to God’s law]”, is directly contradicted by many NT scriptures, which is why you have no 2nd or 3rd scriptural witness to support your interpretation.

2Cor 13:1 “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut 19:17; Mat 18:16; John 8:17)

(Dibble, I hope you are paying attention to this discussion, since you and I have discussed the need for 2nd and 3rd witnesses at length)

Ben, you might want to start a new thread on the religion board.  I'm sure many on here would be interested in discussing the bible's claim that the New Coveant will include the laws of God written on people's hearts.

You would be extremely valuable on the Religion Board, which is in desperate need of new blood.

I agree. Ben, a conservative Catholic perspective would be very welcome on Religion & Philosophy, which is currently dominated by a sola scriptura Protestant arguing with a somewhat radical Anglo-Catholic and a bunch of non-theists.

We do have TJ and realisticidealist.

Well, I'm unfamiliar with the whole arrangement of the board. Start the thread, link it here and I'll happily reply to you there.

I'm honored you consider me a Conservative Catholic, as opposed to an Anglo-Catholic. That is my background - but I converted before the establishment of the Ordinariate, and I'm just a regular Latin Rite Catholic.

I don't say that, St. Paul says this, and explicitly refers to their nature as opposed to the Spirit. This is important, because St. Paul is talking about gentiles who have had no contact with Christ, let alone the Holy Spirit. You are correct that no one can obey perfectly - but if a gentile says things like - you shouldn't sleep with people until you are married - through his conscience only, he is showing evidence of the law written on his heart even if he doesn't obey perfectly.


How is it possible to judge without having prior knowledge of the Law? That's what Paul gets into in Romans 3. All have sinned and fallen short of the Law, and all have the Law of God written on their hearts. This is why no one is exempt. They know they are doing wrong, and thus, can be judged on the law as they understand it, notwithstanding the limitations of understanding God through one's conscience as opposed to Scripture.

Knowledge of the Law through the Spirit is a different thing altogether. This is why when people come into contact with Christ in the Gospels, that they respond to Him as the truth - because they already have some understanding of the Law through their conscience.


2 Cor 3 - refers to the tangible results of Paul's ministry, and not to the Law being written on people's hearts prior to knowing Christ.

Hebrews 8:10, and 10:16 refer to the covenant God made with the Jews - not the Gentiles, which Paul explicitly makes references to in Romans 2 - by referring to Jews apart from Gentiles as having knowledge of the Law through Moses.


Which is why he explicitly refers to their obedience to the law through their nature and their conscience? He's talking about people who lack direct knowledge of God, ie, Gentiles, as opposed to the knowledge that the Jews themselves possess. He is shaming the Jews here - saying that the Gentiles obey God's laws despite not having the Law, and the Jews reject God despite having the Law. What was happening is that the Jews were saying that the Gentiles simply couldn't be Christians since God never made a covenant with them. 



Uh, once you become Christian, you should have knowledge of the Mosaic Law through scripture.


Paul explicitly refers to this point when he says, that All have sinned and that no one is exempt because all have the Laws of God written on their hearts in Romans 3.


If you don't understand Paul in Romans 2 - then the rest of his argument in Romans 3 isn't going to make sense. None of your references actually refer to the point you are making, which is pretty much par for the course.

Please re-read Romans again. Paul is making the argument that everyone, whether they are with the Spirit or not - has the Law of God written on their heart. This is why they can be judged by God, in accordance to their knowledge of God, and whether they were obedient to God.

This is also why we need Christ - because without him we cannot be obedient to Him. But there's a difference between being obedient to him and showing that you know the Law through your conscience. Simply refraining from killing people is sufficient evidence.


All of your references refer to Church discipline when a brother has sinned, and not to divine revelation. It is not enough to have one witness in this instance.

Are you saying that Paul's testimony that he received the Word of God to preach to the Gentiles is not reliable because the only one who records this is Luke in Acts, based on what Paul told him?

Oh, you misunderstand me, I say 'conservative Catholic' as in 'Catholic who is theologically and politically conservative'. When I say 'Anglo-Catholic' it refers to the faction of Anglicanism by that name, which is my theological home (not referring to Anglicans who have been switching over to the Catholic Church in recent decades). I wasn't saying it 'as opposed to' you, it's just what my own background is.

Ben Kenobi,

You seriously need to do a bible study on:

1)   The New Covenant (Jer 31:33, entire book of Hebrews, Galatians, etc) and the covenant Jesus Christ institution upon his death…because they are one and the very same.
2)   God writing his laws of people’s hearts, and God writing the laws of people’s hearts through New Covenant that Jesus implemented…because they are one and the same.
3)   The difference between the Law of Moses being written on stone tablets, and Christ’s Law being written on the hearts of believers.

Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant spoken about in Jer31:33, just as Moses was the mediator of the covenant given at Mt Sinai (a.k.a. Law of Moses).  And through this New Covenant, those that believe in Jesus Christ have the requirements of God’s law written on their hearts, meaning the requirements of God have been internalized by the guiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

This is all extremely basic Christianity 101 type of stuff…and I’m really not in the mood to have my mind blown with the scary thought that some Christians (or some Christian denominations) don’t agree.

Eh, I'm similarly disturbed by the fact that there are Christian denominations that don't have some equivalent to the points of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, so.

No, but I'm honored that you make this distinction, even if you didn't intend to make it. It means a lot to me. :)

As opposed to the Old Covenant between the Jews and YHWH. ;)

I'm aware of the new covenant - and that God promises that we will have eternal life with him - if we follow and obey. All I am saying is that God reads hearts and minds and that is how he determines whether someone will or will not be saved. Sola Gratia - salvation by the Grace of God through Faith in Christ.

If you're arguing for Sola Fidae - there are significant problems with this argument. Not the least of which is that the doctrine is ascriptural. You don't need the bible in order to be saved - one can be saved without even reading a jot.


Then why does Paul refer to the nature of the Gentiles in obedience to the Law written on their hearts as opposed to the obedience of the Jews to the Laws of Moses? One is codified, one is conscientious. God writes his laws on people's hearts prior to the new covenant. He did so at creation and it has been passed on to all of us.

That is the whole point of Romans - go back and read the book. I suppose you also reject Paul when he says that Gentiles are ingrafted branches - and that the Jews are still God's chosen people.

3)   The difference between the Law of Moses being written on stone tablets, and Christ’s Law being written on the hearts of believers.

This is the crux of the issue. You don't really believe Christ when he states that 'not a stroke of the pen' has been removed from the Old Covenant. Jesus talks about how he is the fulfillment of the promises to the Jews - and that through the grace of God - salvation has been extended from the Jews to the Gentiles, as Paul speaks of later.


The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
   “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
   and with the people of Judah.

He specifically refers to the Jews, not the Gentiles. ;) You can't get there from here, jmcfast.


Says nothing there about Jesus being the mediator... all Jeremiah says is that God is going to make a New Covenant with his people Israel to replace the one that they broke.

If you're going to make the mediator argument - at least refer to Hebrews 8:6 which is the actual source, not Jeremiah which says nothing of a mediator.

Then onto Hebrews 9:11 which says this:

"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all "by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
 
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.


You assume far too much. It's like you're reading off a script.

Here's a clue. Drop the script. You'll be far more effective.

Now, knowing what Hebrews 9:11-15 says about the blood of Christ - let's go back to the Gospels.  John 6:53-9

"Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Ben, I have created a thread on the Relgion Board of us to continue this discussion:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=149590.0

Although the original discussion about Santorum saying that 45,000,000 American Protestants are not Christians has gone way off topic, I am pleased to see that my thread has generated  8 pages of discussion.