Santorum says the 45,000,000 Protestants in America are not Christians

[Wisconsin+17]

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;)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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."

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Aaand I no longer support Saintly Rick.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

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.”

---

Two - Romans 2:10-14, from the KJV:
…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

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

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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."

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'.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You are utterly misinterpreting which bigotted statement I referenced.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Colbert]

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.

from a catholic point of view, this is obvious.

[7,052,770]

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.

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

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[7,052,770]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a good question.

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

[followed by long non-scriptural answer]

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

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

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.

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. 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.)

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Would you prefer CS Lewis? I can quote him, and he's very much a protestant.

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

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You want scriptural evidence?

Rom 2:14"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 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.”

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 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)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We do have TJ and realisticidealist.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.