emerging catholic?
In this article, Ken Silva tries to link the emerging church movment to Catholicism. He uses this quote from Driscoll in his opening lines
Driscoll says his movement seeks to synthesize the best parts of many religious traditions—fundamentalist Christian liturgy, Catholicism’s appreciation of art, and mainline Protestantism’s general cultural tolerance. Also, postmoderns preach the sanctity of community and argue that the Enlightenment’s focus on the individual led to tragedies specific to the baby boom generation—namely, high divorce and abortion rates. (emphasis his)
He then follows it up with his own commentary and conclusions
Here is a fatal flaw in this movement, which by its impudent attempt at reversing the Protestant Reformation by its open embrace of apostate Roman Catholicism as a legitimate form of Christianity reveals that it cannot possibly be from God.
Did Mark Driscoll embrace Roman Catholicism? Hardly. He said that we can borrow their appreciation of art in our own religious practices. This is really a huge jump in logic. If I was to say that Christians could embrace the value of living a quiet and focused life as the  buddhists have, one ceratinly could not say that I was embracing buddhism as a legitimate true religion.  First, to claim that nothing good came from the Catholic religion until the reformation is rediculous. Second, to claim that by embracing the good, one is embracing the whole theology as legitimate is laughable. Once again, we see Ken making leaps and bounds in logic to prove his point.  Â
December 19th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Was Ken saying the church is going back to priestly robes on pastors, baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, candles in the service, and other ceremonial vestiges from the Roman Catholic Church? He doesn’t have to go to Driscoll to see that, he can look much closer to home and see those things. I guess no post about that will be forthcoming.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
This is classic Baptist thinking. If you want to disparage a Church/pastor/movement associate them with the Catholic Church. Or call them charismatic.
For some of us that doesn’t work any more. At a basic Christian level we accept Catholics who are following Christ as our brethren. Yes, we are aware of the doctrinal issues but we also know that salvation is by grace and not theological correctness.
The average Baptist preacher, like the Rev Silva , doesn’t have clue about what the Catholic in the pew actually believes. He will drag out Trent, etc and say “see, see” Unfortunately, many Catholics are like many other Christians, they love Jesus, they follow after him, but they really don’t know the intricacies of the Church’s doctrine. And make mo mistake about it the Catholic Church is changing (for the good) If people don’t thik this can happen I remind them of Herbert Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God. (a cult?) They are now considered by many to be orthodox.
I have been blessed to have several Catholic friends in my life. Both of my older sons married catholics. (they attend an evangelical church) They are wonderful Christian girls. One of the highlights of my year is Midnight Christmas mass.
So, I am one of those the Rev Silva is writing about……
and it bothers me not a bit. I really have no desire to go to Rev. Silva’s heaven. Too narrow. Only a handful there, Why would I want to spend eternity with such people?
I realize we will both be there. I hope the Rev Silva’s heavenly neighbor is a good ole fashioned tongues speaking catholic.
Bruce
December 19th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
If Silva is representative of what emergents see of evangelicalism is it any wonder they’d be attracted to Catholicism? There’s some days the watchdoggies make me not want to be a Christian.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Let us realize that God’s grace can reach Catholics, but the Roman Catholic Church is a lie and teaches good works salvation.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Sometimes I’m just amazed at how much Ken seems blinded by his own ignorance. Especially amazing to me is what he writes at the end of that article:
Do we see anyone lining up to kill Ken Silva? If not, then, by his own standard, Ken’s ministry is crap.
What an idiotic thing to say. Does he even think he’s being intellectually honest with himself? It used to be that you could at least find some semblance of a point in these articles, but any more they just sound like incoherent ramblings.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Phil,
The thing is this… if Ken could do as he stated, he would… and that is rather scary…
I just wonder at what the voice say to Ken… Hide the sharp objects!
iggy
December 19th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“…If you want to disparage a Church/pastor/movement associate them with the Catholic Church…:
Bruce,
True, but it’s deeper and worse than just this - it’s the weak way in which he tries to do it that makes it so transparent and worthless.
Back in the 70’s I heard people talk about the Communist Youth and how dedicated they were… the church youth needed to be that dedicated they would say, and we’d win the world for Christ… according to Silvan logic, they were all commies! And if ya admit Mussolini made the trains run on time - you’re a fascist as well!
December 19th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Right after this article, Ken has posted another “review” of Bell’s recent tour. Again, it’s like visiting a house full of straw men. Basically, the reviewer mischaracterized huge portions of the lecture, and then proceeded to attack the mischaracterization.
Whatever. I suppose if you’re “reformed” and can’t win on the truth, you might as well make up lies.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Anyone who had listened or researched Mark Driscoll knows that he doesn’t share doctrine with the Catholic Church. He grew up Catholic and became a Christian later in his life. He is now very Calvinistic. Ken’s article is just flat out silly.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Chris L.,
The thing that gets me about these “reviews” of Bell’s talk is how desperate people are to prove that God is angry. I can just imagine them pounding away at the keyboard, “God is angry, dangit!”
I seriously wonder what kind of picture these people have of God sometimes. I just can’t comprehend being that dogmatic about proving God is mad.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
maybe he looks like this?
iggy
December 19th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Iggy,
That was awesome.
I look like that in the morning….or whenever I turn on my lightsaber, whatever comes first.
I grew up “Catholic”, then decided I was an Atheist (darn you MA public schools and your secular humanist agenda!!), then decided I was Agnostic later in life, then I started a relationship with Jesus and was saved by God, then I went through a phase that Ken apparently is still in, “All Catholics are unsaved and damned to hell”, and then I got over it.
I hope Ken can do the same..
Joe
December 19th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Here’s what kills me about this “miss.” He calls it “short.” I had to scroll the mouse 5 times. His title is about Doug Pagitt, but the majority of the article is something the Driscoll said. He uses the words “our view” which is interesting since Ken is the President, Vice President, Chief Marketing officer, Janitor and Gardner. Does he have a mouse in his pocket? 46% of this article (390 words out of 848) before he gets to what Doug has to do with Driscoll. His only support for his entire post is Driscoll’s words. He works in a reference to Tony Jones and Rob Bell.
The man has issues. He’s a skilled at alliteration, but I really think he missed his true calling on life; Tabloid Editor.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Joe, I have the National Enquirer on line 2 - they want to speak to you about libeling them with your above quote…
December 19th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Tell them “WE” can’t make it to the line right now. LOL
December 20th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Wait a minute… Hold the phone…
Did Ken just suggest that the martyrs were eaten by grizzly bears?!?!?
Oh, perhaps he meant to say “grisly death”, not “grizzly death” (death by grizzly?).
It’s more fun than alliteration, though, don’t you think?
December 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I’m not defending the article on Driscoll (haven’t even read and don’t see the point of reading it), but there were a few comments in this thread alluding to the fact that Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church are part of the Body of Christ.
Can I ask how this conclusion was come to?
Sure, Jesus is a part of the belief (I was a Catholic so I know what the beliefs are) but there are so many other things completely anti-biblical and anti-Christ in their teachings: purgatory, praying to Mary, praying to saints - the list could go on for days.
Can someone please clarify this for me?
December 20th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Okay I’ve got to say it…THERE ARE MANY CHRISTIANS WITHIN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!!!
Not every RCC church in world falls dogmatically in line with the Vatican. Just like not every SBC church falls in line with every denominational statement.
I was saved in a charismatic Catholic youth group. Was never encouraged to pray the “Hail Mary”. And *gasp* was even told that the only way to heaven was accepting Jesus. I know it’s shocking and all but not every Catholic church believes the same way.
You can be a revisionist (sp) if you want to but just take a look at the uproar that Vatican 1 and 2 caused within the walls of the church. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that each Dioceses is different.
BTW Bruce great points!
December 20th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I’ll take Chris’ statement a step further. Every single Catholic I’ve gotten to know well enough to discuss faith in depth holds to salvation via faith in Christ alone.
As I pointed out before, if have to choose between my experiences with actual Catholics or with analysis of documents, I suppose I’ll take the actual Catholics.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Paul C
Every sect within the Christian Church has its own error. I view the Catholic Church as a Church in error. Within her are those who love Jesus and are following Him. Within her are people filled with religion and lost.
Now change the word Catholic with the word Baptist
Paul, I seriously doubt the list could go on for days
A few minutes maybe. 90% of what the Catholic Church believes is not different from a Protestant. It is that other 10% that gets all riled up.
The differences are real and I am mot minimizing them. All I am saying is, is that salvation is in Christ, not right doctrine.
Some of their practices we think are error are rooted in antiquity. Our history starts in the 17th century with the Reformation.
Now if you believe that the Catholic Church is the ant9christ’s Church and is harlot Babylon then there can be no debate with you. (and I am not saying you believe that)
Let me give you a new twist on Rev 17. Instead of reading as pertaining to the Catholic Church read it as pertaining to the US. Fits just as well. I am not saying either is right. I am saying it could be…….
I firmly believe the body of Christ is much larger than we can ever imagine.
Bruce
December 20th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Did you just try and put America into Rev?
December 20th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Sure
My point, of course, is that those slam dunk passages can be made to say a lot of things.
Bruce
December 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Tim - I would not disagree that many Catholics are nice and sincere people… as I said, before my eyes were opened by the Lord I was Catholic and know many Catholics.
That’s not what is in dispute. Sure we can say that not all Catholics believe the same things, but the essence of the faith way off base.
Bruce - I would not disparage doctrine too quickly. It is important and anyone who says it’s not is irresponsible.
Why would someone call themselves Catholic and then deny all the teachings of the church? I would understand one or two (Mary worship or whatever), but Catholic teachings are pretty far gone.
Again, most of the epistles written by Paul, John, Peter and Jude are all warring against false teachings that were making their way into the church. Paul’s specific reference to Hymaneus and Philetus is a good example - their doctrine overthrew the faith of some.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Sincerity does not equal salvation. There are a lot of LDS, JW, and Catholics who have a lot of sincerity but this does not mean you are saved. I would agree with in the catholic church God has some of his sheep. There are people and parish that proclaim the Christ and him cruficied but as a whole the RCC is apostate. Unless you are trying to fight for the chruch within you should leave the RCC. Because if you stand silent by then you are agreeing in word and action to their apostate doctines.
“I firmly believe the body of Christ is much larger than we can ever imagine.”
I agree there is a multitude that can not be numbered. But this does not mean God honors though who dishonor his word.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Paul and Kyle,
Please, then, elucidate us: At what point in history did all Catholics start going to hell?
December 20th, 2007 at 10:37 am
(or “most”, if you’re willing to allow that there are still sheep there)
December 20th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Let’s remember that God is not the author of confusion - that’s the devil’s job. Can the Lord Jesus save people within the Catholic movement? Of course, just like he can save a Hindu, athiest or Muslim…
December 20th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Hindu—based on the idea that Jesus isn’t God
Athiest—-based on the idea that Jesus isn’t God
Muslim—Based on the idea that Jesus isn’t God
Catholic–based on the idea that Jesus is God. Not sure those are good comparisons there bub
December 20th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Catholic theology began to deteriorate approximately in the 5 - 6 centuries when authority began to matriculate to a person. From there many heresies were entertained including salvation by works, salvation by baptism, salvation by the church, the deification of Mary, the duel role of the church (political/spiritual), the inerrancy of the pope, indulgences, human absolution of sin, and the list goes on and on.
Although I have met many people who seem to be Christian but for some reason remain in the RCC, the majority of my experience is that most consider themselves Catholic and they have faith in their church rather than Christ. This is in accordance with Catholic teaching that salvation comes through the church administered sacraments.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:53 am
How does God save a Muslim ect…..????????
December 20th, 2007 at 11:00 am
If you consider the Church is the living presence of Christ in the world–i.e. Christ’s body–then taken together with a “christus victor” understanding of the atonement it’s logical to say that there is no salvation outside of the Church.
The Church transmits the gospel, if you are saved you are part of the Church invisible/universal…etc. etc. etc.
I don’t know if this is a bad thing to say if one explains the theology behind it.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:02 am
By Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ…
iggy
December 20th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Yes but He does not sae them in their religion but from there religion. That is the many point I want to make. That Christ will call them from that to repent and follow Him. While I could agree that there are some christian Catholics, there is no such thing as a christian muslim, christian buddist ect……
December 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am
The church as an institution saves no one. A person can pick up a tract and be saved without the direct influence of the church but as a result of the Holy Spirit and the help of the one who gave out the tract.
The church can preach, only God the Holy Spirit, not confined to the church, can save.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:10 am
But how will they hear about God unless someone is sent>?
Who sends someone to tell them?
But I do agre the church as an institustion saves no one!
December 20th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Kyle,
In many Islamic nations, there are Muslim/Christians. They act and do all the things that are of the Muslim religion and worship Jesus underground… they do this not to “compromise” but to stay alive as they will be murdered if they openly worship Jesus.
We cannot judge them as they are saved as we are, but live in a country that we really do not understand how oppressive it really is to be anything other than Muslim.
Are they saved or are they to be judged as “compromisers” or worse “heretics”.
I understand taking a strong stance… yet, I also understand wanting to stay alive and not put my family at risk.
Can you say that daily you need make such hard choices?
iggy
December 20th, 2007 at 11:15 am
In the early church, staying with our history lesson from yesterday, the church wrestled with the question of what to do with people who had been threatened with death by the Romans and gave in. In other words, they told the Romans that they would recant of their faith and worship Caesar. Then when they were set free, they “came back” to the faith. There was much discussion about these people and how the church should treat them.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am
And this is why I have trouble hearing anything you say…
“I was Catholic but then the Lord straightened me out”
As many know I am a youth pastor in a Reformed Church. Which still believes in infant baptism, weekly communion (which we recently started again), and recite the words of the Apostles Creed. Which are all things that I did in the Catholic Church. Additionally the Father (pastor) each week gave his homily (sermon) we sang from the hymnal (worshipped) and I went to Catechism (sunday school). Each and every one of those things taught me about Christ and drew me ever closer. Until I was led to salvation by a Catholic brother.
It’s already been but let me say it again…Every denomination has “issues” doctrinally. No one has gotten it 100% right. The moment we stop the rhetoric about the RCC is the anti-christ maybe then we can have dialogue.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Joe M - it is not simply a matter that Catholics accept Jesus as God. Don’t the devils also do this - and they even tremble?
It is faith (which impacts your actions) which is important here.
With all of the false teachings of the Catholic church, their sacraments (ie: infant baptism, confirmation, confession, etc), apostolic succession, they actually lead people away from Christ rather than to him.
These conversations are always interesting: I would declare that even most Catholics have more backbone than those commenting on this post in that at least they take a stand and believe in their institution. Some of the comments here are so wishy-washy, “doesn’t really matter what you believe, as long as Jesus holds a deity position.”
It seems most of the reasoning here is simply based on personal experience (people are nice).
December 20th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Paul,
When did all Catholics start going to hell? Can you please check that out in the book of life for me, as I’m still waiting for Julie to send me her copy…
December 20th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Also,
I would add that you’ve misappropriated the use of “demon’s knowledge” - certainly they know that Jesus is Lord, but they do not acknowledge that he is THEIR Lord - a key distinctive.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
So what do you guys call heresy if the RCC is not apostate. Then everyone must be saved?!?!?
Staying in your culture and living by the laws of that culture is fine. But you can not be a muslim christian that is an oxymoron! You can not have your cake and eat it to! Islam denies everthing about christianity. They are complete opposites another false religion under the control of the devil. That is the bottom line, unless you really don’t beleive the bible.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Chris L - I am not judging or condemning anyone to hell (first of all, I don’t even believe in a literal hell of people popping and frying - a discussion for another time). I will leave that up to God who will judge every man according to his works and motives.
But, what you’re saying is that anyone who accepts Jesus (even if they accept other gods, like Mary for example, or for any of the saints for that matter) are acceptable.
The problem in NT times was not that false teachers were not teaching Christ, but that they taught Him with a slant. With all the knowledge displayed on this blog, why is it so difficult to discern what is true from false?
Have you read the little epistle of Jude? What about Paul’s reference about the devil being transformed into an angel of light and his ministers as the ministers of righteousness?
December 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
When did all (or most) Catholics start going to hell en masse?
Kyle,
I agree that you cannot be a “muslim christian” if you consider “muslim” to be a religious distinctive. However, in a number of countries, specifically Iran, you are born “muslim” - a cultural distinctive, to which you have no choice - and to renounce this is an almost immediate death sentence. I have spoken with missionaries who talk about “muslim” (cultural - not religious) women who meet in secret to study the Bible.
I am not in their situation, so I do not know that I have the right to demand their martyrdom in order for me to feel secure in their acceptance of Jesus.
I know a large number of Jewish Christians. They maintain their Jewish heritage - including some, all or none of the dietary practices - but they follow Christ. Similarly, these women that I personally know of would consider themselves to be ‘muslim’ by heritage but Christian in religion….
December 20th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Paul, I’m trying to stay out of the conversation between you and Chris L, lest Jim Burblitz make a nasty post about how I, as an emerging writer, piled up on you. I’m just kind of watching. Plus, I’ve had a fun day at work making phone calls.
But to your question to me. I was trying to point out that I don’t think you can make the comparison between the Catholic church and the religions that you threw up there. They are diametrically opposed. If you want to argue your case, you would do better to argue it without bringing distractions to it. That’s all I was trying to say.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I really hate these “are Catholics Christians?” arguments. I’ve seen ones in forums that go on for more than 40 pages. Nothing gets resolved. It’s terrible.
I’ll just say that every Catholic I’ve known is also a Christian. The Catholic churches they attend don’t make them pray to anyone but God, don’t requite them to use a rosary, and many people in the Catholic church don’t do that.
There are many people in the Catholic church who aren’t Christians. I hate to break it to you guys, but there are a lot of people in Protestant churches who aren’t Christians as well.
And no, I don’t agree with a lot of Catholic theology. There is a lot of Protestant theology I don’t agree with, either.
Let’s just remember that the Catholic church was the only church in the western world for a long, long time before the Reformation. It kept getting more and more corrupt (the same direction the Protestant church seems to be headed), but I find it hard to believe that none of those Catholics weren’t born again Christians at all.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I meant require, not “requite.” I should probably start proof reading.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Actually, this particular point is where I have started questioning some of my Catholic friends.
Some insist that neither Mary nor the saints are other gods, but that they pray “in the manner of” that person who was remembered for his/her blessing from God in a particular arena of life. Others have said that they don’t pray to Mary or the saints, but directly to God in the manner of the Lord’s prayer, and that they are taught about Mary and the saints as part of the history of the church and as examples of how to live.
Is there HUGE theological error in the RCC? Certainly. I will not disagree one iota.
At the same time, though, I won’t make blanket statements about the state of salvation of those inside it, and I will discourage any from going there, particularly when there are other options available.
Where I have seen the most “success” in my discussions with Catholic friends has been in encouraging them to read the Word for themselves. By getting them to go directly to the source of what we know about God and His Son (historically discouraged by the RCC) rather than tradition, I have been able to broach subjects (like “Mary worship” and salvation through faith) using the common ground between the RCC and protestantism - the Bible. Even if they do not leave the RCC, my goal in our discussions is to get them to believe what the Bible says about God and not to just accept the word of their parish Priest - they already say they believe the Bible, so why not get them to use it?
December 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I swear its like screaming into a tornado in this discussion. Its the same crap over and over again.
Me: The actual Catholics I’ve met follow Christ and believe salvation comes from faith in Christ, through grace.
Someone else: They can be sincerely wrong.
Repeat ad nauseum, with variants of “if the RCC isn’t apostate then Muslims aren’t apostate”.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
merry - it simply isn’t true that the Catholic church was the only church before the reformation. Though Luther is sort of the poster boy for the Reformation, groups (many of them completely unknown) would gather in an effort to worship God in truth outside of the church.
The reason these diatribes go on forever is because we simply can’t agree that the Bible should be the basis for truth: we are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. The moment that is no longer the basis we go into “feelings” and “personal experiences”.
I appreciate Chris L’s comments on Muslims in different countries and agree.
Thanks for the advice on not getting distracted Joe M (honestly).
December 20th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I think the point is (trying to bring things back on track):
While there are significant issues with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, there are also lots and lots of people who consider themselves Catholic, yet they are true followers of Jesus.
Silva, in his (dis)missive, has committed the fundamental error (or more like the premeditative fallacy) of linking Driscoll to the Roman doctrine based solely on Driscoll making a positive comment about the Church.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Chris L
Yes i agree with that too. A culture muslim. But if you are praticing the religion as a part of the culture then there is a problem. If they are a beleiver they will repent and be sanctified. This may take some time like any other sin. But remeber if we deny Him before men then he denies us before the Father. Now that is scary. It is a very hard situation with plenty of room for grace but there still have to be a change and a coming out of there midst at some point or you never truly repented and followed Christ.
Merry
I agree with that also. But to say you just disagree with the RCC is sugar coating it. They are an apostate church and have been. Hopefully the church from the top down will repent and reform itself according to the bible. As of right now though that is not going to happen. So the only options is reforming the church through a grassroots movement, which has always failed, or leaving. Now each perish is different. Some are bible centered, some are orthodx RCC, some are liberal. It is different between each church just like protestants. But they comes a time when you have to stand for the truth and come out from there midst!
Also concerning when the RCC ruled the world, how where they there any christian. Well that is what Elijiah asked God. He told him that He had His remant.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Linking Driscoll to the RCC in an article that is supposed to be about Pagitt.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Paul C,
Here’s a little history lesson:
Catholic confirmation=Baptist go to the altar at 12 and get saved.
Catholic sacraments=Baptist baptism without which you can’t be a part of the Church
Catholic Apostolic Succession=Baptist trail of Blood Landmarkism
Catholic Infant Baptism=Every other denomination but the Baptists, Church of Christ
Catholics venerate Mary to much. Baptists venerate her too little.
Catholics has a Pope in Rome. Baptists have 10,000 little popes in 10,000 Churches that all give allegiance to Nashville, Springfield, etc.
I could go on and on.
I am in no way suggesting that Catholic doctrine is all OK. I am suggesting most Protestants (esp Baptists) are Catholic haters by nature. We are bred to do so
As far as the Bible being the basis for truth….None of us are Bible alone. None of us. We have shaped, influenced, conditioned by tradition and our environment.
We who parrot “Bible alone” Who was it that told us those 66 books we call “Bible alone” were the “Bible alone?” We all accept ancient authority and tradition.
This is a BIG subject. I feel a blog post coming on
Bruce
December 20th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
im sorry i am baptist and that is just crazy!?!?!?! Nashville what a hoot!
December 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Bruce, a couple points…
I’m not a Baptist and have no hate at all in my heart for Catholics. I think that is a dangerous assumption to make for Baptists though.
Secondly, I never said Bible alone: I said that the Bible is the foundation or basis. What the Catholic is done is pretty much scrapped the foundation and decided to build there own structure from scratch somewhere else.
It is really not that big a subject - we just make it so because we fail to acknowledge certain basic principles.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
It is the bible alone! Anything else leads to heresy.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Paul C, great. Glad to hear it. I was, however, speaking generally. Catholicism was the main “denomination,” if you will. That wasn’t really my point. I was just saying that it’s extremely arrogant to think that no Catholic was ever a Christian in the history of Catholicism . . . “apostate religion” or not.
This conversation hits me on a personal level as I have family members who are Catholic Christians. Yes, they are actually Christians.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Paul C,
I am a Baptist 45 years. Pastor 30 years
It is a big issue. Really big issue. With complexities and nuances galore.
The Catholic “foundation” started 1200 years before Protestants were a twinkle in their father’s eye.
I wonder how many of people who oppose the Catholic Church so vehemently have actually ever had an in-depth discussion with a priest or a catholic theologian? Or a committed Christ following Catholic for that matter? Most reactions are over “name Only” Catholics. Well, we’ve got plenty of them kind of people in our own back yard.
Kyle…..It has never been the Bible alone.
All that the Bible says is true but the Bible is not the only source of “truth”.
Bruce
Secret Apologist for the Holy See
December 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I never said it is the only source of truth. just that the only thing that can to doctrine and practice ect.. is the bible. While tradition is valuable it is never on par or above the bible. There is the crux to most of the Refromation!
Some RCC doctrines are awful and distgusting not all of them though. We can praise God for the RCC because of what it has left us that is in accordance with the Word. But the main key doctrines to the faith are destroied by the RCC mainly over the last 500 yrs and even more so in the last 100 yrs.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I am not drawing any final conclusions about salvation but it needs to be recognized that the Catholic church is apostate and is SO FAR off the foundation of the apostles and prophets it is completely alien.
I do not oppose the Catholic church specifically, but these willy-nilly, weak arguments that many (on this blog in particular) put forward should be corrected.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Maybe this blog should go into detail about RCC so we can all have a clear understanding of its teaching and why it is apostate.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Paul C,
Thank you for telling us (me) what you really think about us (me)
Willy nilly, weak arguments.
Remember this is a comment section. Not a doctrinal thesis section. Do not mistakes brevity or succinctness for ignorance ot an inability to defend one’s position.
Wasn’t Willy Nilly a lip sync group years ago
Bruce
December 20th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Willy Nilly: definition: ‘haphazard fashion’
This is what I think of the arguments here, not you personally Bruce (or anyone else).
Bruce, the reason I say that is because every argument put forward for the defense of Catholics in this post were personal references… “nice people”, “married to my daughter” or whatever. This is simply not the criteria we should be putting weight on as no one was disputing the niceness of people.
Rather than using the scriptures for at least the basis of discussion in this case, it is replaced by what we’ve experienced from a sentimental standpoint.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Kyle, maybe you could start a blog here, here, here, or even here. The purpose of stated BLOG could be to help all of us understand your views and you could make your case there.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Paul,
Belief in Jesus as the one and only Son of the one and Only God and that he died for our sins and was buried and rose on the third day. If we accept his sacrifice, we are in him.
This is probably the most elementary kernel of the gospel, and I would say that most every Catholic believes this.
So now, how far from this must one deviate to be damned?
December 20th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Here is the simple answer: They are trusting Christ for salvation. Our “personal” experiences with them bear that out.
My two daughter-in’-laws are Christians. They love the Lord. They were baptized and raised in the Catholic Church. It was THERE they found Jesus not in the Evangelical Church they now attend.
I have had Catholic doctors and friends over the years. Yes, personal illustrations…all gave testimony to faith in Christ. ALL of them.
So, I conclude that much of the Catholic bashing is rooted in a foundational problem that Protestants have….They, by nature, hate Catholics (or the Church) Most have never actually met a real Christ following Catholic or actually engaged one in a real theological discussion. It is what I call bluster theology. Makes for good preaching but is not good for much else.
And I am
as I write this. Please don’t take offense at my words.
Bruce
December 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Thanks for the suggestion Joe.
Chris L.
LDS will tell you the same exact thing. It is not a personal relationship with Jesus that saves.
Induglences(alive today)
purgatory
immaculate conception
co-redemer in Mary
parying to saints
venerating(clever way to say worship) saints
sacraments as effecasious to salvation
denial of
justification by faith alone!
bible alone!
grace alone!
by Christ alone!
These are central to defing what a christian is. They clear are not. Now that does not mean everyone in the church follows these doctrines, some reject them. But the RCC is heretical
December 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Chris L, I agree that this is the most important aspect… however when that “kernel”, as you call it, is laced with arsenic (false teachings completely divergent from the core)we have a problem don’t we?
Again, Paul said that the devil himself is transformed into an angel of light (preaching Jesus Christ obviously) and his ministers as the ministers of righteousness (pretty nice sounding and upstanding). In Romans 16 he warns us not to be overcome by “fair speech” whereby many are deceived.
Nowadays, there are many Christs so to speak - take your pick.
What do understand about this?
Also, what you understand about Jesus warnings (3 times in a single chapter, Matt 24) about false teachers/prophets and the depth of deception so much so that the very elect were on trial?
I won’t even go into Paul’s exhortation to Thessolonica and how God sends delusion because people reject truth.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Paul C, nowhere in this thread do I see anybody arguing that Catholics are saved because they are nice people. Catholics are saved by becoming Christians. A lot of them are already Christians. I don’t think anyone here has said they agree with all of Catholic theology or think it is The Way To Christ. I’m not sure what the point of this argument is. I think the original post was about Mr. Silva’s interesting logic.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Paul C. said
Paul you have yet to lay out a defense that imparts your great wisdom for the apostasy of the RCC to us. So let me get out of the way and please tell me in a non-willy nilly fashion what particular heresies you find in the RCC.
The floor is yours!
December 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Paul,
I would see these from the deceptions of the Mithras cults of the first century BC and their competition with Christianity through the first three centuries AD. I would see these in the lure of gnostacism, which is alive in the externals-focused church of today.
I would see these in Joseph Smith and the false lure of Mormonism which will say that Jesus is A Lord - maybe even so far as saying he’s our Lord because we’re from earth - but would deny that God is the God of all the universe and that Jesus is the ONLY son of the ONLY God.
I would see these in churches which preach that earthly health and wealth are the fruits of the kingdom.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Kyle,
A personal relationship with Jesus saves NO ONE. It is Jesus who saves. If a “personal relationship” is necessary then it is salvation by works. Think now, before you react. Are we “saved by the blood?” No. We are saved by the Christ who shed his blood.
I am trying to hold back from saying you are full of it. I don’t know you, your age, or your experience so I want to tread carefully.
Where are you getting your “catholic information?”
Any paper, book, website written by a Protestant must be considered suspect. Go to the source. Go to a priest and engage him in a one on one discussion. Learn firsthand what they teach. and most of all how they live out their faith. Read some Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day.
Bruce
December 20th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinnerswho have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it isenough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou are more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
Does this sound Christian?
December 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Sure. It doesn’t deny Christ as the arbiter of salvation…
only asks for Mary’s prayers on behalf of the one praying.
Nothing indicates a rejection of any direct prayer to Christ…
It may not be what I would do, it may be mistaken in its emphasis or proportion…
but I don’t see any variance with the creeds.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Lately it has been J. White, if you are catholic I am sure you know of him and dislike him. I love the debates because then I can here both sides of the arugements. Never talked with a presit but I have talked with layity. Although most of the time they where not very dogmatic or knowledgeable about the doctrines of the church. The reason the catholic chruch is apostate is because it still holds to trent. If it would deny trent and recant there would be unity between protestants and catholics. until then I am still protesting!
If I am wrong about the short list with no info behind it please tell me how and why? Thanks
December 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Ah James White…..There would be an objective guy if I ever knew one.
The Catholics are well beyond Trent. Like Vatican 1 and 2?
Bruce
December 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
there is only on advocate between men and God, the man Christ Jesus. The doctrine of mary is a docrine of a second and better advocate. She can turn away Jesus’s wrath against us. This is what is heretical.
The Glories of Mary:
On this account it was, says St. Bernard, that the Eternal Father, wishing to show all the mercy possible, besides with giving us Jesus Christ, our principal advocate him, was pleased also to give us Mary, as our adwith Jesus Christ. There is no doubt,the saint adds, that Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between men and God; that, by virtue of his own merits and promises, he will and can obtain us pardon and the divine favors; but because men acknowledge and fear the divine Majesty, which is in him as God, for this reason it was necessary to assign us another advocate, to whom we might have recourse with less fear and more confidence, and this advocate is Mary, than whom we cannot find one more powerful with his divine majesty, or one more merciful towards ourselves. The saint says, Christ is a faithful and powerful Mediator between God and men, but in him men fear the majesty of God. A mediator, then, was needed with the mediator himself; nor could a more fitting one be found than Mary. (pp. 195-196)
December 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
The millions, and I mean millions, of Roman Catholics that got born again and left the apostate RCC give testimony to the fact that the Roam Church is heretical. If by God’s grace some were found by God’s Spirit while still in that church does not logically give their theology credible and Biblical.
The teachings of the Roman Church are cultish and non-Biblical. If you believe that because within the overwhelming teachings of salvation error they espouse that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead, and in that you pronounce them evangelical and orthodox, then your Biblical scrutiny is extremely expansive.
Ask everyone if they believe in Jesus and when they say “yes” you believe them to be saved? I grew up in the Lutheran Church of America and I can tell you first hand that tens of millions of sinners sit under a soft gospel that gives a narrative without offering the gospel. It is a fine edged difference with eternal consequences.
Tens of millions of Roman Catholics are locked into the mass and litergy and the security of the Mother Church who are as lost as an atheist. Kinda like many Baptists, etc..
December 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Chris, I would take you up on your request, but it would only be shot down with, “Well, my uncle’s daughter’s son doesn’t actually adhere to that aspect of the Catholic church. Not all Catholics actually believe the Catholic teachings.”
But you can take your pick:
- Purgatory (still believed today)
- Praying to Saints (still being done, en masse, and promoted from the top)
- Praying to Mary (right from the top)
- the Sacraments (infant baptism, confirmation, etc. - where is the basis for this?)
We could go into indulgences, papal infallability, all the Mary sightings and miracles (Fatima), confession to priests for remission of sins (I still remember being told to say “5 Hail Marys and 2 Our Fathers” for a few sins one day), and so on.
I think that the vast majority (not all) of Catholics are simply ignorant of the teachings of Christ, as was I, and are rather made to feel content to attend church on Sunday, do the stations of the cross and the other traditions of the church which are completely created by the church.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Just in general…not for anybody on this thread:
I understand disagreement with Rome, but what I don’t understand is how people talk about Rome as if it is a temporal power that is ordering the assasination of kings, crusades and the like…
I don’t get how people can act “offended” or “threatened” by a group of people who have never actually done anything to you…
I get disagreement. I get vehement disagreement.
But I don’t get the attitude, language and tone that makes it sound like you personally escaped the inquisition….
December 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
They changed the language to “fallen brother” but the RCC still holds Trent as doctrine. They have not over turned it and admitted there was error in it. Why because trent is authoritative just like ever other church council. At least to the RCC. We don’t need to get into a long discussion though.
I do think James White does a pretty good job with his research and studying and the like, I know he is a man and can error, he is not christ’s representive on earth! of course the reformers own writings helped me to see what the bible teaches as opposed to the RCC.
Any suggestions as to someone who would be more “unbiased”???
December 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Kyle,
do you believe that believers can pray for other christians in a way that is effectual toward God?
If yes, then what’s the problem with asking other believers to pray for you?
How is that heretical?
Was Abraham heretical to ask God to preserve a city on behalf of some righteous folk?
Or was that story just some kind of allegory for something else?
December 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Vatican II is a heretical document open for all to see. It even pronounces pious Muslims as saved. Lately this new pope reiterated the Catholic Church as the only church, and many around the world are basing their salvation upon that. Remember, everything the pope says is inerrant.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I am sorry if I have a bad tone. It is hard to convey feelings and emotions through bloggs.
1.Yes
2.Yes
3. No
Dead believers I can not pray to asking them to pray for me. Also Mary is not some exalted human born sinless, living sinless and dieing a virigin. She is not a “incarnation of the Spirit.” She recieved great grace and can be a great example though out history, but she is CANNOT be a co-redeemer or anothe advocate accroding to the bible.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
“Well, my uncle’s daughter’s son doesn’t actually adhere to that aspect of the Catholic church. Not all Catholics actually believe the Catholic teachings.â€
Well, that’s kind of it . . . there are so many Catholic beliefs and so many Catholics pick and choose what they want to believe. If you ever have an oppurtunity to debate with different Catholics, you’ll have to go through each of their theologies before you begin. You can’t just stereotype– it wouldn’t be fair.
Some Catholics have theologies that are quite close to Protestant theologies. Again, many are Christians.
A lot of Catholics, however, still believe in Purgatory, believe in praying for people after they die, pray for saints, say their Hail Mary’s, and a lot of stuff that isn’t in the Bible. I don’t agree with these beliefs at all.
I think the bottom line is that we all have to get gospel out to everyone we can, including unsaved Catholics. We can vigorously discuss Catholicism all day long, but it won’t help anything. Let’s focus on spreading God’s truth to a dying world.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
But defing what the truth is is part of the gospel.
Also if you know the truth are stay in any apostate church(LDS, JW, RCC) whith out obejection and staying silent about these matters that means you approve. That is what caused the refromation. The reformers for the most part never desired to spil the church, but the church refused to be conformed to the word of God so they had to leave they could do no else!
December 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Kyle,
Yes….Go to the source material. Read the Catholic writers. Be willing to understand things from their perspective. Read the early Church fathers.
Or just buy James White’s latest book.
It takes work to understand others. Most of us, myself included don’t want to put in the time and effort to really understand each other. We all have a bit of the Rev. Silva in us.
Did you understand what I was saying about “being saved?” Not by a personal relationship?
Bruce
December 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Hey everyone…
Can you take a moment to pray for me. I am having just some strange muscle pains… or joint pains… like the flu but without all the other symptoms…
IOW, I just plain hurt today… way more than usual and cannot figure out what is going on… it has been like this for a couple of weeks but today is the worse.
Thanks
iggy
Yes this is a repost from another thread…
December 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Bruce…
Most people miss that Luther was not at first against the RCC but wanted to change things from within, until he was declared a heretic and made to leave… or had a death penalty on his head.
Calvin based much of his theology on Augustine and St Bernard who were both…. RCC…
So to state that all RCC are hell bound as some do misses their own roots!
iggy
December 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Kyle,
FYI - The RCC is not on par with JW and LDS, both of which are DOA from the get-go…
December 20th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
What an amazing blog this is (sometimes feel like I’m on drugs)…
On this post, people are literally lining up to defend the poor, misunderstood Catholic church.
On other posts, people are lining up to put a figurative bullet in the head of men like John MacArthur as they pick apart his theology.
Does anyone else notice this trend? Fascinating!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Yes that is what I said. But most of the church will tell you it is not about religion its about relationship. That makes me want to puke!! Since when did religion become a 4 letter word. Our relationship with God is what scares me all I have earned in the “relationship” is wrath and judgement, blessed be Christ who saves me from this body of death! I was refering to the LDS and the “burning in the bossom” they can go on and on about a personal relationship with Christ. Sencirty does not equal salvation.
“LDS will tell you the same exact thing. It is not a personal relationship with Jesus that saves.”
Also we can save that it is the blood that saves us the bible does. Of course that is seen as the blood that Christ shed.
Romans 5:9
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
It is hard work to study. I have read some of the church fathers, not a lot. Also never really read any catholic theology books, I should. i would say though that I have a genral knoweldge of who they are(RCC) and what they belive, but everyone can and should learn more.
Iggy I will pary along with my church!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Chris L.
I agree they are different. The RCC is apostate meaning it once held the truth. That is why tradition is okay as long as it matches the bible. The other churches are heretics and follower of the devil.
We should thank God for the RCC because it presereved and clarified many biblical doctrines! But also we must reject the RCC now because it is apostate.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The Roman Church outrightly rejects JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. You know, the Reformation and all that. Does that even matter anymore? Paul thought so, he said any teaching that includes works has fallen from grace and that CHRIST HAS PROFITETH YOU NOTHING.
This should be a no brainer.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
AMEN Rick!!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Rick
Just to clarifiy the deny Justification by faith ALONE. Which is why they are apostate. Paul is really clear about that.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Iggy, I just said a prayer for you. Pain is never fun.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Kyle,
Well, I don’t know exactly what you’re defending, really. Religion never saved anyone. It is only in knowing Christ that we have any hope of salvation. We don’t need to approach God in fear now. Through Christ we can approach him boldly and with confidence.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Rick,
It is more nuanced than that. The old Catholics “believe in salvation by works” doesn’t fly.
Do you believe someone can be a Christian and never, at any time evidence good works in their life?
Of course not. So we all believe in “works.”
In Matt 25 and Rev 20 we will be judged according to our “works” Works matter.
That the Catholic Church in her teaching could be clearer on the issue I will give you that. But then so could the Protestant Church. (coming from the antinomian end)
It may be a no brainer to you but I am a yes
brainer and it matters to me.
With this post I must go on to other deep and serious debates. Like what’s for dinner.
I shall continue to read tho!
Bruce
December 20th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
The LDS and the JWs deny the deity of Christ. Theyare much easier to recognize as error. The RCC is much more clandestine in their error, but the core is they teach the WRONG WAY TO BE SAVED. Wow, everyone should agree.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Bruce - Just the doctrine of purgatory reveals a works salvation. That doctrine teaches that MOST catholics will have to suffer some after life purification because CHRIST’S BLOOD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. That is indisputable no matter how yes your brain is.
They do not believe in the sufficiency of Christ’s blood by faith. Read Vatican II, they don’t even hide it!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
No one here is making any sense to me at all. And no one here is making absolutely ANY effort whatsoever to understand each other. I won’t mention any names. I’ll just say that if everyone carefully reads other people’s comments and thinks about what that person is saying, rude comments could be better avoided. Let’s try to not start attacking people personally, which I feel is where this will head eventually. And let’s please try to think our arguments out carefully and try to make sense. I still don’t know what the point of this argument is.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
“I still don’t know what the point of this argument is. ”
I agree, there should be none.