I look good in this thread because there’s no other side. I’m sure if TUAD were here, you’d see exactly how horrible I really am.

Before that happens, I’m closing the comments. No sense in spoiling all this good will toward men.

I have no idea what you last post means until we understand what happened at the Council of Trent. It seems to me that Trent makes “Protestants” into “separated Catholics”, but that word “separation” isn’t as, um, lovely as it seems you would make it.

We often want to get after Trent for its view of Justification, but I think there’s a far more telling section of the canons: what’s the state of those who actively reject the Deuterocanon? What kind of “separation” is that which Trent defines for them?

I do understand and agree with Jugulum’s words about personal salvation being a matter of what one is truly depending on, not one’s ability to articulate it or understand finer points of systematic theology. But I don’t understand how Lewis’ mere Christianity ambiguates the gospel — that’s where I glaze over & stare blankly into space. Mea culpa, I’m sure. I agree that the Nicene Creed doesn’t go the full distance. Yet…

“…why the kerfluffle when an Evangelical says something like ‘But Rome and the EO don’t have the Biblical gospel’, particularly when both groups deny the sufficiency of Scripture to define such things?” (Daryl #89)

But but but…this seems to me to make the Scriptures God.

“’…Every group that claims to lead people to Christ really is a Christian group.’ Is that what you mean?” (Jugulum)

No, I wouldn’t get anywhere near that sloppy, nebulous, or ambiguous :-). Each group would have to claim that Christ’s death and resurrection…oh no…I’m not going to say this right, I know it! Okay, how’s this: ..would have to claim that in Christ alone we are saved.

Mr. Turk, regarding your abbreviations [1] and [2] of Mr. Phillip’s remarks on the MD in #82:

[1] Yes
[2] Um…I haven’t seen this. But maybe I need to study up.

Thanks again for your response.

A lot, or all, of your opposition to signing the MD seems to revolve around the “Gospel” mentioned in it. What would you think about a similar Christian proclamation revolving instead around the idea of a general revelation, or “natural law” (I know many tend not to like that term), or “first grace” (in Russell Hittinger’s phrase)? Is it the specific mention of the Gospel that is the primary irritant?

(The Trent question I might get to later. I take it that your raising it at this point means you do not accept that the Catholic Church views Protestants as Christians, but separated in communion?

(I would put the idea it this way: Anyone in Heaven gets there because of Jesus our Savior and eventual Judge, and gets there as part of the church catholikos. The most visible manifestation of that church catholikos on earth is the Catholic Church. In other words–yes, I think of you as being a Catholic, but currently in a Protestant and separated state. I just sat here for 90 seconds staring at that sentence. All right, it gets posted.)

And start those answers with the assumption of our complete sinfulness and hatred of God…and they’ll get to the heart of it in a flash.

Jug, nor I. Which is why, for the life of me, I don’t understand why the same comments in the reverse are found to be offensive.

And as Frank has reiterated, how hard is it to understand that 3 different versions of the gospel can’t all be the same saving gospel?

And, further to that, isn’t it more than a bit odd to have individuals from all sides essentially complaining that other individuals from the other sides are saying WHAT THEIR RESPECTIVE CHURCHES HAVE SAID ALL ALONG?

It’s not for us, I don’t think, to reinvent the official teachings of Rome, the EO and historic Evangelicalism just so we can sing Kumbaya and hold hands together.

Further to that, why the kerfluffle when an Evangelical says something like “But Rome and the EO don’t have the Biblical gospel”, particularly when both groups deny the sufficiency of Scripture to define such things?

Wouldn’t a better response be…”Well it may be Biblical, but seeing as Sola Scriptura is a fiction, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that it’s not Magesterial.”
That may be a misrepresentation, but it seems to me at least consistent.

And, incidentally, that is why one of the primary, if not the primary, issue in the reformation was one of authority. Both sides recognized that the other side was being consistent in defining the gospel in concert with where it found it’s authority. But, of course, with two such different sources of final authority, how could their respective definitions of the gospel ever be the same?
And why now are we asked to say that they are?

Welcome to the party. You have just passed counter-Catholic apologetics 101.

Well, I guess the “flabbergasted” part is because Catholicism does accept Protestants as Christians. Separated, but Christians. The reverse does not seem to be the case.

Aha.

What was done at the council of Trent, Craig? In 300 words or less, what was trent established to do, and what did it actually do?

Some Catholics are Christians and some are not.
– Agreed.

A Baptist church, as such, is a Christian assembly.
– You cannot tell at face value; an inehernt part of baptist ecclesiology is the independence of the local assembly, so there is not telling if they have a viable confession and faith unless you observe them. That is: they do not have a home office in Memphis the way a catholic church has a home office in Rome.

A Catholic church, as such, is a Christian assembly.
– Because they do have a home office in Rome, and their confession is that their fidelity is hinged on the orthodoxy of the Roman Bishop’s definition of the faith, this question is answered by understanding whether or not the Roman Bishop (as a successor to all the Roman bishops, and a keeper of what they have established) promulgates an orthodox faith. The comparison is not apples to apples.

“And I’m still asking the question: Is sola fide the real sticking point here? I mean, is this the major barrier to accepting the Catholic Church as Christian?”
Yes and no. Depending on which Protestants you talk to (I come from a Reformed Baptist background), there would also be the question of whether anything larger than a local congregation is really a “church” at all, and not just a “parachurch organization.”
But before that question can be engaged, the question of faithfulness to the Gospel has to be sorted out for it to be even relevant…