Ash Wednesday

[4His_glory]

So maybe if we all start to observe Lent, it will move beyond RC Tradition.

Or maybe we can just preach a clear gospel of God´s grace and let His Spirit work in the hearts of sinners.

I've always thought the Catholic church got started in 33 A.D. and that Sunday worship began several years later.

Are you Catholic? Because no evangelical would believe this.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

True, but such is the sad state of all humanity not just Catholics.



Do you have a source for this? Because what I have seen is the opposite. Consider this from the Catholic Catechism: "438 The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent, and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church's penitential practice. These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works)."

Penance as taught by the RCC is not the same as biblical repentance. Lent is taught as an "intense moment of the Church´s penitential practice." That certainly is not devotional but has a lot to do with the RCCs teaching on soteriology of salvation through penitential works. Ask any Catholic if they believe they are seeking God´s pleasure by means of their lenten customs and traditions and I would guess that just about every one, including the less educated in the RCC´s official teachings would answer in the affirmative.



Many do not know the theological dogma of their church in detail, but they still are convinced that their actions, yes even Bible study (to my knowledge not many Catholics practice this, at least here anyways) and prayer find favor with God and are not purely devotional in nature.

If we were as evangelical Baptist believers to observe Lent and Ash Wednesday here it would undoubtedly cause confusion in the minds of former Catholics because of what they have been taught it is, as well as cloud the gospel since it is closely associated with penance which is completely contrary to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

The whole soteriology is often misrepresented by protestants. From my discussons with certain educated Catholics they would say Salvation is by Grace. I get their point there. They would say that works are not so much how they become saved but how they maintain salvation. So at once they are saved and being saved. So since we don't understand it in their context what we say is that its worked based but really its grace based and works are devotions which maintains their salvation. It really comes incontrast with OSAS doctrine. But from what I understand its closer to their view. Penance they view as making things right. Forgiveness often is already dispensed by God through their church. But as the OT teaches if you steal pay back seven times etc... so how the Catholic views penance. Anyway thats what these have told me. They would describe it rather as devotion all these things that we call works. Except when it comes to the Sacraments. Where by they do what they represent. However, I doubt your Argentinians would pick up on the details here.

 

[Zenas]

Or maybe we can just preach a clear gospel of God´s grace and let His Spirit work in the hearts of sinners.

Why can't we do both? They're not mutually exclusive, you know.

Are you Catholic? Because no evangelical would believe this.

No, I'm Baptist. Rember in my previous post I mentioned going to prayer meeting tonight? Catholics don't do Wed. night prayer meeting. Evangelicals who don't believe the Catholic church started in 33 A.D. have turned a blind eye to history. The Catholic church traces its history back through an unbroken chain from Benedict XVI to St. Peter. No one seriously disputes it. If you do, I recommend you read the work of the late J.N.D. Kelly or some other serious historian of the early Christian church.

Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

These words were written by Ignatius of Antioch about 110 A.D. It is interesting that a man from Antioch first used this term because it was also in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.

 

[Jim1999]

Peter didn't live long enough to be the first pope. Besides, who executed Peter?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Zenas]

Peter didn't live long enough to be the first pope. Besides, who executed Peter?

Cheers,

Jim

We don't know who did it but it happened under Nero, about 67 A.D.

 

[tinytim]

Why can't we do both? They're not mutually exclusive, you know.
No, I'm Baptist. Rember in my previous post I mentioned going to prayer meeting tonight? Catholics don't do Wed. night prayer meeting. Evangelicals who don't believe the Catholic church started in 33 A.D. have turned a blind eye to history. The Catholic church traces its history back through an unbroken chain from Benedict XVI to St. Peter. No one seriously disputes it. If you do, I recommend you read the work of the late J.N.D. Kelly or some other serious historian of the early Christian church. These words were written by Ignatius of Antioch about 110 A.D. It is interesting that a man from Antioch first used this term because it was also in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.

The catholic church started in 33.. catholic.. not (C)atholic....
The Roman Catholic church didn't start until Constantine... hence it could be called "Roman"...

 

[Jerome]

First Baptist Church of Port Jefferson (NY)

 

[Timsings]

This is the first yr we are...
Since I have been there...
They used to yrs ago.

After going through a lesson on Psalm 51...
I am inviting them to write on a piece of paper Sins or fears that are holding them back from serving God.

Then we will burn the papers along with a few palm leaves from last yrs palm Sunday.

Then sing "Change my heart o God"...

This was the third year for us to observe Ash Wednesday, but it was the first year that I was able to attend. My church has tried to do some education of our members to help them understand what the service is about. But we still have several members who consider it "Catholic". There is no persuading them otherwise.

Our service this evening included readings from Joel 2 and Matthew 6, a meditation, a couple of unfamiliar hymns (and that is saying something for me), a responsive reading of Psalm 51, and the imposition of ashes for those wanted them. It was a good service, but my wife and I did not take the ashes. I'll have to think about that some more. I viewed the service as being about Christ's suffering in the desert and in anticipation of the crucifixion. It was also about my sin and my need for forgiveness.

The concept of the service may have come from the Catholic Church, but I don't think that that means that any service of observance has to be considered Catholic. I think that anything that enriches the worship experience of the congregation deserves serious consideration. We did that with Advent, Maundy Thursday, and Good Friday. This year we will be observing Eastertide, the Sundays between Easter and Pentecost. We don't have a service to use as a pattern, so we're kind of making it up as we go. We'll see how it goes.

Tim Reynolds

 

[Marcia]

The Catholic church traces its history back through an unbroken chain from Benedict XVI to St. Peter. No one seriously disputes it.

What unbroken chain? This would only be true if you believed in their apostolic succession. If you do, then you are in the wrong church.

 

[Marcia]

Constantine was dead before the canonization of the NT. Books were in existance but not all the churches had all the library of books in the NT. Also churches also relied on other writings as authoritative with the books of the NT.

Where is your source for this statement that churches relied on other sources as "authoritative?" I know they read other writings outside of scripture but they did not regard it as equal to scripture.

 

[4His_glory]

Why can't we do both? They're not mutually exclusive, you know.

If one is taught as a time of penance to gain favor with God and the other is that none are righteous and in need of continual repentance and faith (true repentance is an everyday manner of living not just a 40 day giving of something up), then they are most certainly mutually exclusive. As I have stated, if I were to observe these customs here it would cause confusion concerning the Gospel.

Catholics don't do Wed. night prayer meeting.

No they do Wed. Mass as they do every day of the week.

Evangelicals who don't believe the Catholic church started in 33 A.D. have turned a blind eye to history. The Catholic church traces its history back through an unbroken chain from Benedict XVI to St. Peter. No one seriously disputes it.

You are misinformed if you believe that. The vast majority of true evangelical and protestant scholars would deny that Peter was the first Pope. The historical evidence is just not there to support this claim, and it is typically those who are supportive of the RCC that would make this claim.

These words were written by Ignatius of Antioch about 110 A.D. It is interesting that a man from Antioch first used this term because it was also in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians.

Perhaps Ignatius was speaking of the catholic or universal church not the Catholic church. And even if he was not, heresy has infected the church since its very inception.

 

[4His_glory]

What unbroken chain? This would only be true if you believed in their apostolic succession. If you do, then you are in the wrong church.

I find it sad that any professing evangelical would make this claim of apostolic succession myself.

 

[4His_glory]

The whole soteriology is often misrepresented by protestants. From my discussons with certain educated Catholics they would say Salvation is by Grace. I get their point there. They would say that works are not so much how they become saved but how they maintain salvation. So at once they are saved and being saved. So since we don't understand it in their context what we say is that its worked based but really its grace based and works are devotions which maintains their salvation. It really comes incontrast with OSAS doctrine. But from what I understand its closer to their view. Penance they view as making things right. Forgiveness often is already dispensed by God through their church. But as the OT teaches if you steal pay back seven times etc... so how the Catholic views penance. Anyway thats what these have told me. They would describe it rather as devotion all these things that we call works. Except when it comes to the Sacraments. Where by they do what they represent. However, I doubt your Argentinians would pick up on the details here.

It is true that many Catholics will talk about faith and grace, however their works to them are more than simple "maintenance" of salvation. I do not doubt that there are some Catholics who have truly been regenerated by the grace of God.

However when most Catholics talk about grace and salvation, they do not mean the same thing that evangelical Christians believe.
Here are some statements again from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

620 Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

That sounds good and true, as does this:

83 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16).

However the RCC goes beyond simple faith to include the sacraments as a means of obtaining the grace necessary for salvation.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Baptism necessary for salvation? That does not sound like salvation purely of grace to me.

1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

Actions such as the sacraments of the RCC can not, according the Scriptures, effectually dispense grace, since the nature of grace is not something that is earned, but rather granted by God as He so pleases.

1212 The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life. "The sharing in the divine nature given to men through the grace of Christ bears a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life. By means of these sacraments of Christian initiation, they thus receive in increasing measure the treasures of the divine life and advance toward the perfection of charity."

Again this is not salvation by grace alone. Catholics are taught that the sacraments are necessary for receiving the divine nature. But the Scriptures are gain clear that only God grants that, and that men are born anew by the regenerating work of the Spirit, not by actions.

There is a whole lot more that can be discovered regarding the flawed soteriology of the RCC. But this post is already way to long. Next time you talk to a Catholic ask them about these things in their Catechism (and we could also look at the degrees of Vatican II). See if they really believe them to be true. If not they do not believe in the gospel of grace.

And I want to be clear as well, I do not think it is right to attack RCC theology in when witnessing for Christ. Men like Jack Chick who do not demonstrate love are a shame to the gospel. I simply present the truth that all are sinners under the wrath of God and the only means of salvation is by His grace through faith and repentance, and I let the Spirit work as He will. God saves sinners, arguments don´t.