BradJHammond said:I understand that the apocrapha was added to their canon at the Council of Trent in 1511as being Scripture. The papal decrees are regarded as the word of God as he is the chief interpreter.
Yes, the Apocrypha was declared Sacred Scripture, and thus, the Word of God at the Council of Trent in 1546.
As for the papal decrees, they are regarded as inspired, infallible, and authoritative; but, I don't think they are ever referred to as the Word of God. I may be wrong, and this may seem like a minor or trivial detail, but I have found that it is important to be as precise as possible when speaking about these things to RCs. If your account of another person's beliefs are distorted, they will generally not listen to the rest of your critique no matter how strong and compelling. And I know personally how frustrating it is when my beliefs are oversimplified or caricatured.
At any rate, I think Beckwith, for whom I still have great respect and admiration, should resign from his post. BUT, if ETS is going to enforce compliance in this, a matter about which there are possible differences of interpretation and understanding, they MUST enforce compliance about matters about which there is no such ambiguity. I'm referring in particular to John Sanders and Clark Pinnock, both of whom openly reject the inerrancy of Scripture (and embrace a host of other unbiblical, sub-Christian heresies), but who have been allowed to retain their membershp in ETS. If they're going to clean house I think they should start there, otherwise they need to be honest and revise their statement of faith to reflect those principles they are willing to enforce and uphold.
You make a good point. It is important to understand the Roman Catholicism. Richard Bennett site is quite helpful. A proper understanding of what is meant by certain key doctrines such as the decree of papal infallibility in 1817; the 1917 code of canon law where Rome was able to apply her influence internationally giving the papacy a totalitarian control over Roman Catholics everywhere; and then the Vatican II in 1962–65, where Rome became officially ready to ecumenise with,hindus, muslims and other religions including evangelicals. These should not surprise us.
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htmhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asphttp://www.zpub.com/un/pope/infal.htmlhttp://www.catholic.net/RCC/Issues/Papal-Infallibility/papal-infallibility.htmlhttp://www.christiantruth.com/savingfaithandrome.htmlcertain Catholics in recent years are willing to define the Gospel in evangelical terms - sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo. They insist that Martin Luther was right. What is troubling is that they do so within a broader theological position that includes transubstantiation, papal infallibility etc.
Some Catholics who prefer John Calvin's understanding of the eucharist to that of Thomas Aquinas's view. They discern that Calvin's view reproduces that of Augustine and they prefer thinking of a spiritual communion of Christ. One of the best scholars on Peter Martyr Vermigli (a Protestant Reformer) is a Catholic - Joseph Patrick Donnelly. Another profound scholar of Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor at Geneva) is the Catholic woman Jill Raitt.
Book: Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment by Anthony N. S. Lane. Lane is encouraged by the dialogue on justification between Catholics and Protestants. He is a proponent of the Regensburg Colloquy (1541) statement on justification which John Calvin was enthusiastic about.
another contrary viewpoint on Regensburg from Scott Clark see http://www.wscal.edu/clark/regensburg.php
Scott Clark's approach to Regensburg tends to derogate Calvin's support of the Regensburg Book. He misses the point that Cardinal Contarini was an evangelical and part of the abortive attempt to bring Italy into the Reformed fold. Contarini was not a wishy-washy Catholic but a true believer and part of the same movement that produced Juan de Valdes, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jerome Zanchius, Bernadino Ochino and the Turretini family.
The most vociferous Catholics are evangelical converts to Catholicism, who reject the Gospel of sola gratia, sola fide.
These are generally obnoxious people who have an axe to grind. Most have never truly experienced a solid Reformed church. They have had bad experiences in evangelicalism and when they come home to Rome they react against the Gospel of grace. But not all Catholics are like that. Some (admittedly a small number) have given much thought to the Biblical Gospel and are close to the Kingdom, if not already in it. Some of these will find their way out of Rome's embrace. Others may choose to stay with Rome and evangelize from within.
I attended a Roman Catholic HS and met a nun who seemed to have a solid understanding of the gospel which she embraced. Surprised that she would continue serving the RCC, I asked why? She responded that she wanted to help the other sisters (nuns) to come to know the gospel. ??? Not something I would advocate and as soon as I was allowed, I left the RCC.
Where the Scriptures are read without a doctrinal structure controlling the outcome, men and women will come to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Patrice
