Emergent Church Movement

Hmmmmm. Interesting. I posted the 1st one, then left and came back and posted the 2nd one afterwords.

At the time I posted the 2nd one I didnt notice at all the similarity between the 2...but now I see it.

I guess theres nothing new under the sun. The Catholic Church, starting in the 3rd century...and now this new movement starting in the early 21st century.

Yet the tactics of the deciever havent changed at all...they are exactly the same.

Mike

 

I admire the mind reading ability of some folks who appear to know what Catholics mean in their hearts when despite words to the contrary.

 

What part of free and undeserving is different from our use of the word grace?

They believe in justification through grace and sanctification through the sacraments.

The mysteries of both Baptism and Communion/Eucharist are matters of differences of interpretation based on scripture. Even within Protestant groups, there are many various interpretations of those passages.

[ April 01, 2005, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

100% agreed. And you won't find many in the Emerging Church disagree with you on this.

The stuff you've read and heard articulated here about the Emerging Church is largely due to the incorrect and uninformed analysis. Let me know if you are interested in learning about what the Emerging Church actually is about.

 

Just an fyi that I have created a poll in the Baptist Theology forum to see what others think about this.
Is the Doctrine of Separation a Baptist Distinctive?

 

Gold Dragon,

I know the CC says that, but if they really meant it, they would not consistently argue against the truth of justification through faith alone.

Mike

 

Again, your mind reading abilities astound me.

They object to usage of the phrase "alone" because of their interpretation of James 2:24

 

Gold Dragon,

It was said...

And you then said...

The Catholic Church, from the still binding Council of Trent...

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

In these passages of scripture the Catholic Church is cursing anyone who believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic church consistently uses liguistic gymastics and "double talk" in order say they argree with truth, when in fact they dont. They are decievers.

Sadly,

Mike

 

Just an fyi that on anathema.

 

Gold Dragon,

I can not read minds. What I can do is go to Catholic sources and then employ the ability I have to read.

The Catholic Church has their teaching available for anyone to investigate.

God bless,

Mike

 

And they savagely butcher, twist, and mangle those James passages to support their false gospel.

Mike

 

Excellent. Then I hope you will continue to read passages from those Catholic sources that I provide to give context to what many protestants misintepret from the limited context they read of those Catholic sources.

 

And they savagely butcher, twist, and mangle those James passages to support their false gospel.

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]And that is how they view the protestant understanding of those passages. Who is correct and why? Or maybe neither is correct.

 

Me...

GD...

We are.

The reason is because our understanding of those passages of scripture causes those passages of scripture to mesh beautifully with the gospel truth of justification through faith alone.

The CC uses those passages of scripture to cancel out that foundational truth that is thundered from the scriptures.

Mike

 

I'm sorry but that is terribly circular logic.

Essentially you are saying, "The interpretation of James 2:24 that supports sola fide is correct because sole fide is correct."

Interpret James 2:24 within the context it is found in. What does it actually say?

 

Just to help you out, here is the entire passage in James.

Just before thie passage, James rebukes some in the church who give partiality to the rich but neglect the poor. And then he talks about judgement and mercy with respect to the law and how we are under the "law of liberty".

Immediately afterwards, is James talking about the dangers of the tongue.

 

The Catholic Church is a church full of contradictions even in its own catechism. Grace is not free. It must come through the sacraments. Obviously if the means of grace comes through the sacraments, then it is of works. Baptism, for example, is not a work of God, but of man. In order to obtain grace you must be baptized. You must work for it. That is not free. It involves the work of baptism, or the work of confirmation, or the work of holy matrimony, etc. Grace comes through the works of the sacraments which the Catholic Church sets forth. They contradict themselves. They say one thing and practice another. They redefine words in order to confuse the "laity," so-called.

That is a false statement. Salvation is through the new birth (just as we teach). But the new birth is redefined to mean baptism. Baptism is a work. Thus salvation is by works. Salvation is not a one-time act of being justified by faith as taught in Rom.5:1 and other Scripture. It is that ongoing process of Sanctification that you refer to. A mortal sin can cause one to lose their salvation. Thus the definition of eternal life is changed. Eternal no longer means eternal and Christ is found to be a liar, when he promises the believer "I give unto you eternal life."

The one passage of Scriputre that the Catholics hate are those two verses that precede the verse you just quoted:
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Catholics detest the teaching of this verse. If you don't believe me, look up any previous thread where Catholics have posted in this forum. Salvation is by faith alone, and not of works as taught in this passage. Notice how only verse ten was referred to in the quote that you gave. The teaching of this verse is completely ignored because the RCC does not believe it. They believe that salvation is by works.

Again the problem is that the Catholics speak out of both sides of their mouth. Find the catechism on the web. I am sure you know where it is. Then do a search in it for "baptism" and one for "new birth," and see what you find. Salvation is by works, according to the Catholic Church.

These are not mysteries. These are not problems of interpretation. Evangelical Christians of all stripes and colors have the same "interpretation" for these same doctrines. It is the Catholic Church that differs, and tries to divide evangelical Christians where there is no division. Pitiful!
You say within "Protestantism" there are many various interpretations.
Not really. There are very few different interpretations. And the ones that are different usually are in those churches that have gone liberal, and are no longer evangelical. Thus you are comparing apples with oranges.

#1. It is wrong to pray to Mary or any other dead person. Mary is a dead person.
#2. Your arguments about the Old English or other usages of the word "pray" are moot. The New Testament was written in Greek, not in the KJV. Prayer is to beseech God. Prayer is to worship God. Worship is due only to God, and the Catholics worship Mary. Please don't tell me that they don't or I will post a whole slate of prayers to Mary that do nothing but worship and adore Mary, even beseechng Mary, rather than Christ as a mediatrix to the Father. She is the Queen of Heaven. She is adored and worshipped continuously. She has the quality of omnipresence, an attribute given only to God. For she is able to hear all the prayers of all the Catholics in all the world, at the same time. She has been elevated to a status of God. There is even a faction within the Catholic Church that are pressing to make her a fourth member of the trinity. I guess they don't know how to count.
Any prayer to any person is worship. Worship of any person other than God is idolatry. That is plain and simple.
#3. The problem here is again: the Catholic Church redifines words: prayer, worship, in order that it will fit their theology.
#4. We do not define theology by Roman Catholic definitions; we define our theology by Biblical definitions, and by the Bible which never changes. The Catholic Church alwasy changes; the Bible never.
#5. Notice that you yourself have taken great pains to redefine what prayer is. In the Bible it is not so. Stick with the Bible, not with RCC definitions.
DHK

 

I said...

GD said...

You can call it circular logic, square logic, triangular logic or hexagonal logic.

Its the truth.

Mike

 

It's the truth because it's the truth.

That is fine but I believe in truths from exegesis and not eisegesis.

You may be surprised but my understanding of James 2 is probably not far from yours.

In the beginning of chapter two, the illustration of favouritism and the mention of loving your neighbor suggest that James is concerned about the actions or lack thereof of some in the church.

It is there that he contrasts the hypotheticals of someone who says they have faith but shows no works to someone who has faith with works.

James then goes on to use two OT illustrations of justification by works in Abraham and Rahab.

James is showing the relationship and interconnectedness of a living faith that is accompanied by action. He is warning of those in the church who are "all talk" and no action and saying that their faith is no faith at all.

And so James' use of the phrase "faith alone" is to describe one whose faith is not reflected in his actions. Something both Catholics and Protestants would preach against.

Luther's use of "faith alone" was to say that we cannot earn our justification by merit, which isn't really what James was talking about at all. The Catholic understanding of merit is quite complicated and can be illustrated in the following link. But they would also agree with Protestants that we cannot earn our salvation based on strict merit.

So much of the confusion and disagreement is about differences in our usage of specific words.

 

GD,

(with British accent)

By jove, I do believe the chap is getting it!

And thats precisly how we see the truth of James.

The Catholic church must not believe in such things. They believe in "truths from Hierarchysis"

"Why do you Catholics believe this?"

"Because The Hierarchy says its true!"

"How do you know they are right?"

"They say so!"

"How can you check them out?"

"Cant."

"Why?"

"The Hierarchy commands me not to. The are the infallible Teaching Majesterioum and I must submit to them."

"But what if they are wrong about something?"

"They never are."

"How do you know?"

"They say they arent!"

And you accuse evangelicals of circular logic???

Mike