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

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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;)

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 must be logged in to read this quote.

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.