Mother Church?
May 8th, 2007
(By Jesse Johnson)
With regret, we interrupt “Mom’s Week” to address the recent return of Francis Beckwith to his “Mother” Church — the Roman Catholic Church. Jesse Johnson is our local outreach pastor at Grace Church, and as such takes particular interest in issues related to evangelism and apologetics.
Last week Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS, producer of JETS) revealed that he has been restored to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
In the eyes of many conservative evangelicals who follow the ETS, this is neither good nor surprising. In an organization that debates the merits of open theism, considers a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1, welcomes many Seventh-Day Adventists, and views the Lordship Salvation controversy too close to call, this latest revelation is more amusing than alarming.
If you missed it, Beckwith became president last November. On his blog he explains that he and his wife decided to return to full communion with the Catholic Church in March, seventeen weeks into his one-year term as president of the ETS. While he says he desired to keep his ‘conversion’ private until he was no longer part of the ETS, family matters compelled him to go public prematurely.
Pastor John MacArthur often says, “when someone falls, they don’t fall far.” Frankly, I am more surprised at the surprise of others than I am at Beckwith’s return home. This was clearly a case of mene mene tekel and parsin. In his writings, Beckwith’s Bible version of choice was the NAB (a Catholic translation of the Bible). He was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, he often quoted popes with fondness, and he had an obvious and deep familiarity with Roman Catholic philosophy and theology.
After John Paul II died, Beckwith wrote an article asking evangelicals to study this pope’s life for a message about what Catholics and Protestants have in common. That article appeared in Touchstone Journal, which (thankfully) most readers of this blog probably don’t even recognize. It is a journal that highlights “the shared belief in the fundamental doctrines of the faith . . . as revealed by the three great divisions of Christendom—Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox.” In short, Beckwith’s writings were often more Catholic than Christian, and certainly more ecumenical than precise. (James White also noticed a similar trend in his writings).
Once his celebration of Mass at St. Joseph’s in Waco was public, the stage was set for a showdown in San Diego at the next ETS meeting. To avoid this, Beckwith resigned as president and stepped down from the ETS executive board. While he originally wrote, “I can in good conscience, as a Catholic, affirm the ETS doctrinal statement,” he later resigned his membership as well.
I was also surprised by the shallowness and superficiality of the reasons Beckwith gave to justify his abandonment of the Protestant Faith. He uses arguments like this: “The early church is more Catholic than Protestant”; Catholics have “more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries”; and what many Protestants take for granted, such as “the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, . . . and the canon of Scripture” were formed by the Catholic Church.
In reading through his defense, two frustrations immediately came to my mind. First, the claim that the Incarnation and the Trinity were the “result” of the Roman Catholic Church is anachronistic, and inaccurate. Second, the idea that the Roman Catholic Church formed the canon of Scripture is at the “Dan Brown level” of scholarship.
Much more could be said in response, which made me think: Shouldn’t we expect a stronger case from a person who was the leader of our scholars? If evangelical scholarship is in a state such that the president elected by its foremost members would abandon Protestantism on the back of these types of arguments, what does that say about contemporary evangelicalism? Of course, the answer to that question is probably a different discussion altogether.
In any case, for a more in-depth dismantling of his substantive points, go here and here. For more on Roman Catholicism in general, see here, here, and here.
Obviously this man was never truly born-again to begin with. Once you have been given revelation as to who Jesus Christ is………The Way, The Truth, and The Life…….there is no turning back to false religions.
And what is even worse is that this man was a “leader” of scholars. Like I said before several months back during the Lordship debate is that many of these catholic “scholars” are littered throughout Evangelical board of directors and Evangelical theological seminaries. Some of these men are actually put in key postions that teach new pastors in training. What a mess!
And this is going on everywhere.
Didn’t anyone know that he was using a catholic version of the Bible before he became President of the ETS? Shouldn’t that have been an immediate red flag right there?
The the spirit of the post and comments here are reason enough to leave conservative evangelicalism. Fortunately, I know that the views expressed here are not that of the majority of evangelicals. Like Beckwith, I used to be a conservative evangelical (grew up that way) and later became Catholic. There is so much good going on between evangelicals and Catholics, and there is so much to learn from each other, so it pains me to see such a spirit of pettiness and malice expressed here. Can we not discuss our theological and doctrinal differences with humbleness and respect? In light of Jesus’ commandment to “love our neighbor as ourself” it seems like making statements that call into question someone’s intelligence and salvation are outside the bounds of Christian charity.
If the line drawn in the sand is the Holy Scriptures, and for me it is, then the Catholic Church has crossed the line in many ways: praying to the dead, Mary being worshipped, (or at least put equal with her Son as being sinless), priests giving absolution and penance, purgatory, and many more things have been added to Scripture.
But the bottom line doctinal difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is the Gospel of grace.
With Catholics it’s a gospel of grace and works mixed.
With Protestants its by grace alone through faith alone.
Chad,
What would you say that Catholics have to learn from Protestants?
It is hard for me to operate with “respect” to the RCC as we gently discuss our theological differences when there is a big fat anathema hanging over my head. The RCC is quite clear that if you believe what I believe about salvation, then you are outside the bounds of faith and are lost. Not exactly the model of “humilty and respect” you are calling for.
Thanks for your comment,
Jesse
Dear Chad,
It would seem that you are very naive in your Catholic faith. I do a lot of ministry in the Philippines and the Catholic church over there is fully indorsed by Rome, including all of it’s practices and rituals. Each year on Easter there are over 1,000 people literally nailed to crosses as a means of repentance so that they “just might have” earned enough to redeem them from purgatory. They also crawl for miles on their hands and knees for the very same reason.
Everyday those of the Catholic faith put food on their personal altars to “feed mother Mary” as a means of further devotion. Everyday they put new flowers on their altars as a fresh aroma to please Mary, and so the rituals go.
When it comes to the Word of God, still the papal order refuses to teach the commoners the truth of God’s Word. In silence they still sit and supposedly worship.
Are they still lost in their sins? Absolutely!
Are they still in need of a savior? Absolutely!
Do they have a different gospel? Absolutely!
Can I consider them brothers in the faith? Absolutely NOT!
O, the idolatry breaks my heart as intelligent people inch their way closer each day to eternity in hell.
Yes Chad, it is with love that we strive to reach those who are Catholic with the true Gospel as that is the only means that can save them.
________________________________________________
One must open their eyes if the want to see the TRUTH.
One must also open their hearts if they are willing to receive the TRUTH.
“From the portholes of Heaven many will enter into heal”
God Bless,
Patrick
“…”
First a moral fall in Ted Haggard and now this fall “theological” fall of Beckwith. Not good.
But amongst all the criticism I do feel sorry for Dr. Beckwith’s soul and displeasure of God in Dr. Beckwith’s stumbling of many.
@ Chad…
The differences btwn Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are so broad that salvation is at stake.
Evangelical doctrine is just not compatible w/ Roman Doctrine –> The consequences for Roman Catholic merit based salvation (ie anything but justification by faith) is sure fire damnation to Hell as you try to rely on your works!
Don’t you think that’s a big deal?
What about in the eyes of Roman Catholicism?
Evangelicals would call the “Mother Church” and her authority a sham and evil(if its not from God its from…) and the Pope a great heretic (this guy posing as an Apostle and w/ infallibility ex cathedra?!?!) Not to mention sola scriptura, the priesthood, veneration of saints, the frequent wars in our history, etc…
From Deuteronomy to Revelation there are dire warnings about adding to scripture and teaching traditions of men. The rabbis do it and the RCC is the champion at this “playing God”. Read some of the Catholic apologists explaining the reasons they believe what they do. Brilliantly demonic deceptions. No treaty with Rome EVER! Listen to some of Dr. MacArthur’s messages about this and watch the John Ankerberg show also. Great insight about the clear call to separate from Rome.
Having followed ETS for now a number of years, received the JETS Journal for a number of years, we have come now to its president to resign. Theology thinking can sometimes lead us to made adjustments to our view of the Word of God.
Mr Beckwith’s explanation was “I am doing this on my own accord, after prayerfully considering the greater good of the Body of Christ.”
“My resignation from ETS is inspired by the prayer of our Lord: “Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.” (John 17:11b – NIV)” Mr. Beckwith said.
Does Mr. Beckwith theological thinking direct him to believe that Catholic and Protestant doctine are the same in the matter of salvation?
I heard a speaker Sunday say, “I will not be surprise to see in heaven standing together Billy Graham and Pope Paul. To understand that God’s view of salvation will be different than our view of His salvation.”
With respect we should be able to set down and have conversations with those who will study the Scripure, without hate and angry words toward one another.
Baptist can’t do that every well, Evangelical have a hard time with doctrine outside the Reformed circle. But the world views us in a negative light and will attend the churches of Paula White and Joel Osteen. They say their gospel of salvation is that of the Bible.
Many people who were raised Catholic who came to the church that I pastored already knew that the doctrine of the childhood would not lead them to a saving faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, even before I preached one sermon to them.
I don’t think we need to be angry with the theologicans of those churches who teach a different gospel, and say “We are all one together as in John 17:11″
In the end the Holy Spirit will be careful to correctly teach the truth to those whom Christ will call unto Himself.
Charles
Thanks Charles.
I’m just really scared for people who follow teaching that they think will get them to heaven, and I don’t want to see them in hell. That is why I get angry at false teachers. In the end, the Holy Spirit will be careful to correctly teach truth to those whom He has called. He will also seperate the wheat from the chaff, and many will say to Christ, “Lord, Lord…. Didn’t I know you?”
I fear that many who say “the Bible is not clear about salvation” will end up in hell.
But, that is probably why I never put much creedence into the possiblity that the Pope might be in heaven to begin with, so I guess my presuppositions are showing.
Jesse
I was also raised Roman Catholic and the Lord did lead me to what my mother defined as “Protestant” and leading to eternal damnation. I have great affection for Catholics as most of my family and my in-laws remain Catholic, yet it was with great sorrow that I watched my mother struggle at the end of her life with her overwhelming fear of how much time she would have to spend in purgatory. God mercifully extended her life to allow my sister and I (both born-again Christians)time to minister to her from the Word; it took some time for her to be able to receive from the Word of God and then to accept the truth of her eternal state. I believe she had peace at the end of her life; writings in a journal we found after her death would indicate she experienced salvation right before died. However, she spent a lifetime of fear and anxiety and without the presence of the Comforter her entire life until shortly before she died.
This is my personal experience of how teachings of the Catholic Church can create bondage; it is heartbreaking to watch and listen to – to hear Catholic women pray to Mary because they are “too afraid” to pray to Jesus because He is “after all, God” and “how wonderful it is” to be able to “get a word to Him through His mother.”
Thanks for listening!
Jesse
Missionaries that I know around the world, where Catholicism is the main religion will tell me that the Catholicism practice in there country is far different than that which is practice in America.
Rituals, people nailed to crosses, purgatory, crawing on hands and knees are not a part of the ritual in America. They tell me, we don’t do that in America.
But all comes from Rome, whatever the practice is. In America the practices is made to look American.
They will tell me that they believe what I believe about the Gospel of Christ, but they also want to do what the mother church wants just to make sure they will be able to go to heaven.
I need to read what Mr. Beckwith teaches in addition to his position of salvation.
But I am afraid that many view salvation in a general light and have not been taught doctrine 101. Far too many people do not see any difference between beliefs other than in their rituals and practices.
Charles
As far as people crucifying themselves in the Phillipines, The Catholic Church has always disagreed with this and condemns it every year (google it yourself). As far as “Protestant Christianity” goes it did not exist until the 1500’s. I challenge anyone to find the current protestant beliefs and practices before the 1500’s. Whether you believe it or not, you accept the authority of The Catholic Church every time you read your bible, since it is through The Church councils (Catholic)of Carthage and Hippo (390 A.D.) that the canon of scripture was decided upon. At that very same council they included the so called “apocrapha” as part of the canon. Please investigate what the Catholic Church “really” teaches rather than what you were told. The Lord awaits you in the Eucharist…God bless.
A lot of responses here…. Jesse since you are the only one that asked me a direct question, albeit disingenuously, without telling me how ill-informed I am, I’ll comment on your question.
First of all, I think there’s a lot that evangelicals and Catholics can and are doing together as co-belligerents in the so called culture war. For example, life issues, family issues, and Christianity (and the values the stem from Christianity) being a viable voice in the public square.
In addition, I think that Catholicism is learning a lot from evangelicals when it comes to enthusiasm and addressing the popular culture. For a faith that can too often be parochial – evangelicalism is a nice shot in he arm. As far as evangelicals learning from Catholicism, I think there’s been a lot of interest lately, on the part of evangelicals, in the Catholic/Orthodox contemplative tradition, not to mention renewed interest in the early church fathers, liturgy, Catholic intellectual tradition and social justice. These are great developments.
When it comes to the anathemas, I believe it’s best to take those within the context of the time from which they were given. It is my understanding that they not only reflect the great concern that the body of Christ was being fractured by protest, but that it pertains to those – at that time – who persisted in defying Church authority.
Although I agree this was a time of necessary reform in the Catholic Church, and there were/are valid concerns on the part of Protestants, I don’t agree that he Catholic Church currently teaches that Protestants are anathema.
Chad
The official doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church held by the Pope in Rome concerning the manner in which a person will enter into heaven are?
More over you mention “I think that Catholicism is learning a lot from evangelicals when it comes to enthusiasm and addressing the popular culture.” Then you mention what Evangelicals could learn from Catholicism. In a general sense, don’t we all believe that from a culture, human, perspective that we can all learn from each other.
Jesse:
So the reason Mr. Beckwith has decided to go back to his boyhood relgious roots was? Does he believe he can do more for the cause of Christ in the Catholic church rather than in a evangelical church?
Charles
mark 2:22″ no one puts new wine into old wineskins: otherwise the wine will burst the skins and the wine is lost and the skins as well: but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins”
I dont know the theology or partys involved, I was wanting to read eve 2. Since I came and I read this is the scripture that comes to mind. I think it says it all.
Gerry,
You wrote: “I challenge anyone to find the current protestant beliefs and practices before the 1500’s.”
I would be up to taking your challenge. I believe that I can defend the doctrinal tenets of my Protestant heritage in the early church fathers (not to mention in pre-reformers like Huss). Did you have a particular area of Protestant theology in mind when you made that statement?
If so, we would very much like to know. We will do our best to give a historical defense for it.
It might be added, from a historical perspective, that there are many contemporary Roman Catholic distinctives (in both practice and theology) that are absent or highly ambiguous in the early church fathers — such as the RCC designation and practice of its seven sacraments, celibacy of priests, the priority of the Roman bishop (as pope), the sinlessness of Mary, papal infallibility, etc.
The Eastern Orthodox church, for instance, which did not split from the Roman Catholic Church until c. 1050 does not observe the Eucharist (Communion) in the same way as the RCC, allows priests to be married, does not recognize the priority of Rome, does not believe in the sinlessness of Mary (or the immaculate conception), does not recognize papal infallibility, and so on. Yet they stem from the same millennia-rich tradition as Rome. As late as the thirteenth century, at the second council of Lyon, attempts at reconciliation with the eastern church were still being made.
In many ways, the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to return the church to its patristic heritage. (Luther, in fact, relied heavily on Augustine.) My contention would be that, in most ways, the doctrine of the church fathers (especially the ante-Nicene fathers) fits much better with contemporary Protestant evangelicalism, than it does with contemporary Roman Catholicism.
But I would be interested in hearing your response.
Thanks.
NB
Charles,
From reading his comments, for Dr. Beckwith it was a matter of truth. He said he researched the early church, the Cahtolic Church doctrines, and Catholic Theology and honestly thinks it has a better case than Protestant beliefs. His blog is linked in the article if anyone wants to see his words directly.
THanks,
Jesse
Gerry,
I’m interested in your response to Nate, but I’d like to add one comment: I can’t let people say that the Bible was formed by the Roman Catholic Church without feeling compeled to reply. Even if I grant that it was formed in the 300’s (which I don’t), those synod’s were presided over by anything but Catholic leadership; absent was Roman leadership to start with. Moreover, the tenants of RCC theology would have been foreign to them. It is a huge streatch to put those meetings under the tent of Roman Catholicism.
The Scriptures simply were not chosen by a group of men in a smoke-filled room (“You give me 2 Peter, I’ll stop pushing The Gospel of Mary”…). Nor were they gathered and/or formed by the will of men. I would say that what happened in the 300’s was an approval of books already in use by the Christian Church, and that Scriptures are self-authenticating; in other words the church (with either a capital or lower-case ‘c’) has no group of people to thank or blame for the canon. Rather, “men moved by the Holy Spirt spoke from God.”
I think I even have many ETS scholars on my side on this one, albeit not their previous president
Thanks for interacting. And I really mean that with humility and thankfulness. I look forward to your response to Nate.
Jesse
http://salvationhistory.com/library/apologetics/SolaGratiaSoloChristo.cfm
On this site is an article about The Catholic doctrine of justification by Richard White. I have read a lot of Justification by Faith position and really wonder if Catholic today hold the Reformed position of Faith? And its on the St Paul Center For Bibical Theology. Very interesting.
I read Mr Beckwith blog and the comments. That was a task. Its interested to read the view points of so many people.
Charles
What position does John MacArthur hold on this issue?
I have heard of many Protestants going into Roman Catholicism. The new trend is going to Orthodox which is closer to historical Christianity (although loaded with Biblical error). I have a dear friend who was Reformed Calvinistic Baptist who was convinced “that it is all error” and became Eastern Orthodox. As Evangelicals we need to address the major beliefs we have (Like Eschatology etc) and search out the historical roots — this is what is driving many to go back to these two other branches of Christianity! I would not doubt my friend’s salvation — he loves the Lord with all his heart — he just fell into another religious system. I have studied the Orthodox branch of Christianity, they emphasize tradition and the Bible as equal — major problem is that historically the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers had error in their Theology. The only infallible doctrine we have is the Bible!
Charles,
A few comments on the link you posted:
1. Mr. White did a little fast footing with baptism that tainted the whole paper. He points out (rightly) that the RCC system of justification hinges on baptism. But he feels obligated for some reason to show that it also hinges on faith, and so the whole article assumes an adult is baptized into the church; he even inserted “as an adult” in ellipsis in some places. The reality is that the RCC system hinges on infant baptism, with some exceptions. This makes it difficult to see White’s point in regard to the RCC baptism being based on faith.
2. The whole system of justification he describes rightly shows justification in the RCC as a return to the state of Adam–not as having your previous, present, and future sins atoned for by Christ (the Protestant view).
3. Thus, the system he describes certainly relies on the Grace of God alone, through the sacraments (ie. through the church). The sinner then is left to do his works (mingled with faith, enabled by Grace), to continue to earn merit to counter his continuing sins. I would maintain that kind of sola gratia is not sola gratia at all.
A good account of this is found in “After Darkness Light” in the article by Michael Horton.
Pastor MacArthur recently did a series available from Grace To You (gty.org) on Roman Catholic Theology. You could also find his view of the role of Grace in Salvation in the last chapter in “Our Sufficiency in Christ.”
Thanks,
Jesse
My thoughts after reading the above…
1. The idea of controversy seems to make many in today’s culture nervous, especially the Emergers & Seeker-Sensitive camp who make great efforts to find common ground. Finding common ground in a good thing, but can be dangerous when the other “controversial issues” are neglected.
2. I do agree those in the Reformed camp can draw their swords too aggressively and need to practice “grace” much more relationally. It’s NOT ok to be rude and disrespectful. Man cannot change another man’s heart, only the Holy Spirit can. The Spirit of God works through the Word of God. Evangelicals should know this. When self and pride get mixed in (and many evangelicals seem to secretly see themselves as backyard scholars) then the point is lost, namely love of neighbor.
3. I came out of a Catholic background. My folks have been in the Church for over 70 years. My father has led a pancake breakfast for over 30 years. I have asked my parents about salvation and how one gets into heaven. They have no idea. I have heard my parents speak to relatives who are sick over the phone and they have shared that no one really knows the future (as though it was a crap game hoping your dice come up lucky sevens). My mother even questioned whether heaven really exists. I asked her after seventy years in church, “Doesn’t it bother you that your faith hasn’t answered any of life’s deepest questions?” She just shrugged.
The bottom line for me is the Cross. All theological discussions HAVE to be centered on the Cross. What does the Catholic position on salvation say about what Jesus accomplished at Calvary? Do they add to what Jesus did? Does their position minimize the work of the Cross?
All bogus perspectives seem to have one theme in common, that being a naïve view of sin. If man creates a system that has a naïve view of sin, he can then be in control somehow, and that is what the gospel is truly about, giving up all control of self to Christ.
Natural man is serving self, sin and Satan. Our apologetics should not change for anyone. The gospel has the same power for Catholics as it does Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, atheists, agnostics, etc. Our aim should be a humble and clear presentation of what the Scriptures teach, from “In the beginning” to “Come Lord Jesus.” May we not capitulate this position and get into word fights and debates, losing our mission. Let us discuss the Cross and the significance of what Christ accomplished at Calvary, avoiding tangentials that so easily entangle.
I have tried to leave two responses thus far, but have not be able to. I’m guessing my text was too long? How long or short of a response am I allowed? Thank you.
P.S. If you would like to reach me one on one to take the discussion offline, I can be reached at spo099@aol.com. I look forward to the dialogue.
God bless..
Joe,
>>The bottom line for me is the Cross. All theological discussions HAVE to be centered on the Cross. What does the Catholic position on salvation say about what Jesus accomplished at Calvary? Do they add to what Jesus did? Does their position minimize the work of the Cross?
(Second half of comment)
Quite right. The question of what, if anything, was accomplished at the cross is vital. If we get the Garden of Eden wrong and the cross wrong, then we get all of the intervening and accompanying Scripture wrong.
“I have asked my parents about salvation and how one gets into heaven. They have no idea.”
That’s the ultimate question, isn’t it. But so many times it’s difficult to discuss.
“Let us discuss the Cross and the significance of what Christ accomplished at Calvary”
Amen.
Surely we need to be normal, and surely we need to be conversational about many things, but when it comes for time to talk about death, then we need to share the good news of Jesus Christ.
Gerry,
Sorry your comment has not shown up. We’ve been experiencing some problems with Wordpress lately, and as a result some comments have gotten mysteriously eaten.
Please try posting your comment again in smaller parts. If it still doesn’t work, we will arrange a way for you to email your comment to us so we can post it for you.
Again, our apologies for this. We are not trying to moderate your comments.
Thanks,
Nate B.
Roman Catholic vs. Christianity vs. Reformed vs Evangelicals vs Protestants vs all the other Religious sites that believe in Christianity and I could throw in Baptist Fundamentalist.
I was talking to a RC one day and he said to me, “Thank goodness we are not like the Mormens.” I just though I don’t believe like either one of them. And yet we say we want to go to the same Heaven, and serve the same One God, and Jesus Christ.
All those religious groups that have the Bible as the central point of contact need to come together without all the trappings of their religious pomp and set out and study the doctrine of Justification by Faith from the scriptures.
All groups (those mention above) have established their own idea of worship to express their views of what they believe. They say, “If you believe correctly about the way of salvation this is how you respond in worship and service.”
Salvation in the Bible is by substituion and exchange: the imputing of men’s sins to Christ, and the imputing of Christ’s righteousness to sinners. By this it means, the law, and the God whose law it is, are satisfied, and the guilty are justly declared immune from punishment. Justice is done, and mercy is made triumphant in the doing of it. The imputing of righteousness to sinner is justification, and the imputing of their sins to Christ on Calvary , thus belong together.
The common ground is Salvation:
Charles
Nate,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have tried reposting in smaller sections with no success. Can you please send me the e-mail address so I may participate and dispel some of the erroneous misconceptions you have of the Catholic Church. I do have replies ready for the concerns and questions that Jesse and yourself posed to me.
God bless,
Gerry
Hey Charles,
Interesting article by White. I side with Jessie on his evaluation of the article or statement of faith. In fact, I wish that any of the Catholics I run into shared the common ground White did. At least we could find strong common ground to start with.
It is one thing to have a doctrinal set of beliefs (assuming that White’s statement was biblically dead center, which it is not), but the methodology or practical application of those doctrines within the context of the church is another matter indeed.
Many companies have a mission statement, but in actual representation, fall far from the very things they say they believe. Same with the church, especially the Catholic Church.
To be fair, many “evangelical” churches have also strayed by moving away from Bible teaching and capitulated to cultural philosophies, or have a both/and approach, many like the frog in water are boiling and don’t even see it!
All common ground in my opinion must start with what the gospel message is and this has to include a proper view of sin and man’s need for grace that can only be satisfied in Christ. In short, it is Christ plus NOTHING!
Any addition to the work of Christ degrades Him and minimizes His accomplishment, and this is the heart of all false systems…man still wants to be in control! Any man who still wants to be in control has a shallow view of sin.
I think it appropriate to also add that this is spiritual warfare. Anyone who is naive about this issue is not a leader. Satan is the great deceiver and significantly works in the mind. I rarely hear anyone discuss the noetic effects of the fall on man’s ability to reason spiritually. This seems to me a deeply important topic to understand in truth commuication.
I was raised in italy as a Catholic until God opened my eyes. There are many reasons why one would become a Catholic – none of them are biblical. There is one main reason why millions leave Catholicism – they start reading their bibles and come up with too many answers that no priest or catholic apologist can ever answer. I too, saw my 102 year-old Italian Roman Catholic grandmother die in fear having no peace holding rosaries and statues for security. want to know about RC? Ask someone saved out of it. the judaizers in galatians were propagating beliefs that were way milder than what the church was imbibed by over the generations. Nevertheless Paul was immutable – another gospel – anathema. Add anything and you deface the grace of God and all encompassing work of Christ. want to see a Rc world. look at what it looked like – called the Dark ages.
The return of Beckwith to the Catholic error illustrates the lack of vigilance in evangelical circles today and the absence of biblical separation from error. The signers of ECT should have been exposed as compromisers. Two years ago Beckwith was writing articles in Touchstone like “Vatican Bible School: What John Paul II Can Teach Evangelicals.” A person who says that the Catholic Church’s teaching on justification is more in line with the Word of God than that of Reformers should be totally rejected as a false teacher. Beckwith is not a “little off” on some incidentals, he is utterly apart from the faith on some essentials. Maybe he has taken a good stand against abortion and relativism, but he betrays his ignorance of doctrinal purity. Instead of obeying the command to “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”, he has become the newest poster boy of ecumenical sell-out. The Apostle Paul’s words “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel–not that there is another one…”
To all of you former Catholics who had their “eyes opened” I would wager that 1) None of you looked into and actually took the time to see what The Church “actually” teaches before you left or 2)You could not or would accept accept the Church’s teaching on contraception, divorce, abortion, sexual immorality, etc… As a lifelong Catholic who almost left the faith “until” I actually took the time to see for myself what she teaches, why and looked back at history from the beginning of The Church which Jesus founded. There was NO OTHER Church until the Orthodox split in 1045. Even the Orthodox believe as we do other than the primacy of The Bishop of Rome. Again, I would love to debate any topic of The Catholic Church’s teachings either here or through e-mail at spo099@aol.com.
God bless,
Gerry
Joe and brethren
“It is one thing to have a doctrinal set of beliefs but the methodology or practical application of those doctrines within the context of the church is another matter indeed.” We continue to HEAR AND READ the RC doctrine is the same as the Reformed and Evangelical and the Fundamentalist. And as you stated its the practical application of those doctrines to those who are members of the RC church.
In my 40 years in ministry, those I encounter in the RC faith, will tell me, they have no security that what the know and believe from their church will be enough to get them to heaven.
Security of our faith comes by the Holy Spirit only. You can be a Reformer, Evangelical, Fundy and still not have security of your saving faith without the work of the Holy Spirit in our spirit, affirming that the Lord has giving us by His Grace that wonderful gifted of Eternal life.
Charles
Charles,
I couldn’t agree with you more concerning “security” coming from our relationship with the Holy Spirit. If we walk in the light of Christ and humble our hearts and souls to listen to the Sanctifier we do indeed have a certain assurance, As the Bible says: I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).
Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.
The Catholics that you speak to that are unsure if what The Church teaches can get them to heaven were either not catechized well (there are many in this category)or do not want to understand that the road to salvation is dotted with many crosses that we must patiently bear like Our Lord. Again, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13
@ Gerry
What are you basic beliefs?
I’ve studied RC history and Doctrine and its not nearly as clean cut as you make it sound.
“There was NO OTHER Church until the Orthodox split in 1045″
But we can easily see that even the church pre East/West split was not really “just Rome” (have you heard of a place called Constantinople?) The Eastern church was strong and separate for all intents and purposes well before the split, let’s not even mention the N. African churches…)
Hopefully you are not saying that Evangelicals can’t track themselves back to the Apostles and only the Roman Catholic church can…
Also, are you the type who says “there are no major disagreements” or the type that says “Roman Catholicism has a better understanding of Christianity than Evangelicals.”
Hopefully you are not the former, as there are many significant differences, but would welcome dialog if you are the latter.
Big Heresies:
1) Denial of Sola Scriptura
2) Authority of Tradition – I’m putting the sacraments in here
3) Authority of the Magesterium – I’m putting the Pope and his infallibility ex cathedra here
4) Denial of Sola Fide***
John,
I set forth a challenge earlier in this thread (May 8th, 5:28 p.m.) and will repeat it again:
As far as “Protestant Christianity” goes it did not exist until the 1500’s. I challenge anyone to find the current protestant beliefs and practices before the 1500’s. I have not received and answer to this as of yet??
You said that you studied RC history and doctorine and it’s not clear? What were your sources?
As far as the Church not being only Rome you are obsolutely correct. Within the Catholic Church, there are 22 different “rites”, i.e..Latin Rite (Roman), Eastern Rites (Byzantine), Antioch, Alexandrian, Syriac (still speak Aramaic), Maronite, Chaldean (middle East), etc..
A Rite can have a celebration of the Eucharist which is unique to that Church (such as the Maronite Church), or it can be common among various Churches in one Rite (such as the Byzantine Rite). To be Catholic, particular Churches and ritual Churches must be in communion with the Successor of St. Peter, just as the other Apostles were in communion with him in establishing Churches in areas which they evangelized.
As far are your list of heresies, show me prior to the 1500’s when your professed doctorines were taught. I can name many sources for each of mine.
I view all of those who worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and believe in the Most Holy Trinity as brothers and sisters in Christ. I come here not cause trouble, but to hopefully clarify as Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said “there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think it to be”
Gerry
You are right, we have been saved,(justification) we are still in the process of been saved
(sanctification) and we will be saved (glorification.)
Your comment: “Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death.” In a sense I would agree, but that state depends on God’s faithfulness and not ours.
I like 1 Corinthians 1:8-9 that you quoted, great verse.”WHO SHALL ALSO CONFIRM YOU UNTO THE END.”
Who is the “who shall?” Christ. vs. 9 “God is faithful, by whom you were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” Great thought.
“Until the day” (our death I would say) “Christ will continue what He has begun:” (if Christ has called one into His fellowship) the work of confirming, sanctifying, maturing, and making unprovable or blameless. God’s goal is to present us complete and accepted in Christ on that day when He shall return. “He will confirm character as they have confirmed their testimony.
And then vs. 9 “God is faithful” We must be assures that this confirmation will continue because God is faithful; our security rests in the character of God. What He commits Himself to will always be finished. i.e. God is utterly dependable.
God will finish the beautiful work He has begun in those whom He has called into fellowship with His Son Jesus Christ.
Charles
Wow. I think we should avoid the “guilt by association” fallacy which I see being implied in this article. Just because one of the ETS members, even if he is/was the president, doesn’t make all of its members Roman Catholic, or ecumenical, or liberal etc.
Jesse said:
In the eyes of many conservative evangelicals who follow the ETS, this is neither good nor surprising. In an organization that debates the merits of open theism, considers a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1, welcomes many Seventh-Day Adventists, and views the Lordship Salvation controversy too close to call, this latest revelation is more amusing than alarming.
Talk about caricature. ETS is not “open” to open theism whatsover. There were a couple of members who were pushing for it, and the larger body worked on ways, within its current constitution, to disallow membership to those who hold to “open theism”.
I would also caution those commenters who are condemning Beckwith to hell . . . that’s not your place that’s God’s. He alone knows the thoughts and intentions of the heart. If Beckwith believes that “he” cooperates and contributes to his salvation then that would be a problem, if he is not trusting only in Christ’s salvation and its sufficiency then that is a problem. BUT, Beckwith prior to this held to Evangelical Prot. views on salvation. Isn’t it possible for those born from above to become confused (even if he is a scholar)?
I think the way this article was framed is a bit sensational, and does a disservice to the body of Christ.
Dr. MacArthur did indeed do a lengthy study recently about Mary, the Pope and especially the Mass. It is well worth listening to. The notion of dulia, hyper-dulia and latria are rubbish. the worship Mary, plain and simple. Also check out the John Ankerberg Show for some excellent discussions. http://www.ankerberg.org.
“I think the way this article was framed is a bit sensational, and does a disservice to the body of Christ. ”
I would totally disagree with this strong statement.
This issue of Dr. Bechwith address a very important topic. And give all of us a better understanding of those who have different position than us.
Charles
David,
Here we go again, WE DO NOT WORSHIP MARY! When we call her the Blessed Mother we do so from scripture, Luke 1:48 “For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”
Even the “reformers” were staunch defenders of Mary:
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”
[Ulrich Zwingli; quoted in "Corpus Reformatorum" v. 1, p. 424]
“He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
[Matin Luther; "Sermons on John", chapters 1-4, 1537-39]
“{Mary is the} highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ… She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough.”
[Martin Luther; sermon given on Christmas, 1531]
“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God? thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.”
[Martin Luther; "Sermon On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God", 1527]
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angle to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.”
[John Calvin; "Sermon on Matthew", published 1562]
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor… Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.”
[John Calvin; quoted in "Corpus Reformatorum", v. 45, p. 348]
The following links have a pretty exhaustive biblical defense of Mary. http://www.iprimus.ca/~bumblebee/ecclesia/mary.htm
http://catholicapologetics.org/ap080000.htm
Thank you all for letting me be a part of this discussion and for being so charitable.
God bless,
Gerry.
Charles said:
This issue of Dr. Bechwith [sic]address a very important topic. And give all of us a better understanding of those who have different position than us.
Charles, the sensational part didn’t have to do with discussing the differences between Evangelicals and Catholics; it had to do with the opening paragraph of the article, this one:
In the eyes of many conservative evangelicals who follow the ETS, this is neither good nor surprising. In an organization that debates the merits of open theism, considers a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1, welcomes many Seventh-Day Adventists, and views the Lordship Salvation controversy too close to call, this latest revelation is more amusing than alarming.
The author of this article makes a hasty generalization, that mischaracterizes the ETS, and its “general” membership–just read their doctrinal statement. This introductory paragraph seems patronizing at best with appeal to the general readership of this blog, w/o providing a critical nuancing of the ETS (that’s what is a disservice). Further, it seems to imply that the ETS and Beckwith are all “open” to a quagmire of theological inaccuracies, thus discrediting one leads to the discrediting of the other. Btw, how does debating and discussing issues that are controversial, and even at points heretical, make a particular body nominal, as the author of this article implies by the above paragraph. If this is the standard of nominal Christianity this blog would also meet the standards of compromise that Jesse tags ETS with. This blog discusses and debates controversial, and sometimes heretical issues.
I think we definitely should use this issue, the Beckwith issue, as an opportunity to dialogue about the differences between Evangelicals and Catholics. I just don’t think smearing a whole body of believers (i.e. the ETS)with compromise is the way to do that. Again, this is fallacious, it is a “sweeping generalization”.
You’re right, Charles, my statement was “strong”, I intended it to be. This is a sobering issue, that should not be defined by generalizations–we’re talking about real people, who are really in need of our prayers (i.e. Francis Beckwith).
In Christ
This is a good discussion.
My key point of interest here is that whatever the Catholic Church once believed (assuming it was as biblical as possible), and the key word here is ONCE believed, differs from what is NOW believed and taught.
In my experience, growing up as a Catholic, listening to Catholics, and having parents in the Catholic Church who are members of an Italian club with hundreds of members who mostly all claim to be Catholic from all over Los Angeles–what is NOW taught and practiced seems to be a salvation by works system.
I know of no one (and this is limited to my experience) in the Catholic Church that reads the Bible for themselves, seem to have a hunger for the Word, can articulate what the Bible says about life and death or any other major issue.
My only conclusion can be that man has been designed to desire worship and science. Sin has separated man and the image of God has been broken, thus man is an idolater, worshipping false gods.
The Catholic Church satisfies this desire to be religious and is very close to truth, which makes it all the more dangerous in my opinion. It allows one to see Chirst as Savior but not Lord.
At the same time, witnessing to a Catholic has a built-in theology centered on the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ. For those who are willing to listen, sharing the gospel of Christ plus nothing can plant seeds that might lands on fertile ground. However, many in my experience would rather rest in being close to truth rather than humbling themselves to know the Truth.
Are there those in the Catholic Church who have a saving faith? I believe so. God is gracious and if I grew up in the Catholic Church in an area that had no other sources of biblical truth, especially back in the period without information technology as seen today, I, drawn by the Holy Spirit, would try to gain as much truth as possible and give my heart to Jesus Christ.
I believe by the grace of God, He worked on my heart prior to salvation. I would pick up the monthly missalette and try to read it and understand. My heart was desiring truth. Shortly after I was asked to go on a weekend retreat with a friend and there were believers who witnessed to me and invited me to a bible teaching church.
Sitting under John MacArthur was the first time I heard what the Bible taught. Did I ask questions? Yes, but there were men who could share what the Scripture taught. I personally came to a point where I had to make a decision (I know some don’t like this word decision, but call it what you like), I had to either submit to Jesus a Savior AND Lord.
I believed Jesus was my Savior and thought I was a Christian, but He wasn’t Lord of my life. That was the core issue for myself, and I believe many of the Catholics I run across. They all believe Jesus is Savior, but when called if He is Lord of their life, they then feel very uncomfortable and want to change the topic because I am now getting too religious with them.
Bobby
“The author of this article makes a hasty generalization, that mischaracterizes the ETS, and its “general” membership–just read their doctrinal statement”
I believe the first copy of JETS was in Sept 1990 and Francis J. Beckwith had a review article on “Identity and Resurrection:” who was a lecturer in philosophy at the U of Nevada in Las Vegas
Here is a statement he made: “Evangelicals have a proclivity for framing their disagreements and ideas in the language of adversarial conflicts, usually employing terminology germane to the field of military science and jurisprudence. JETS 33/3 (Which I have in my library)
I personally didn’t get turned off of JETS or ETS by the article from Jesse.
I would hope that Jesse would address your concern about
He said this about Norman Geisler book: “its sensationalist packaging and its number of misquotations.” I note the word “sensationalist”
At the Shepherds Conf, was were I learned of this Journal and have found the articles very helpful.
I would hope that Jesse would address your concern about what you believe as been a mischaracterizes the ETS. I don’t know what the position is at Grace about ETS. I would like to know that too.
Personal I was not turned off of JETS or ETS by the article by Jesse.
Charles
Joe,
I am an Italian American as well. My parents and sister are immigrants. Gerry is the Americanized version of my name (Gennaro). The official doctrinal teachings of The Church can NEVER change. These are referred to as “Dogma”. There are disciplines of The Church that can change (eating meat on Fridays other than Lent, priestly celibacy, etc..). Please tell me what teaching/s you are referring to that you believe have changed?
As far as the individual Catholic reading scripture and seeing Christ as Savior and not Lord depends upon the person. Just because someone does not use “your words” to convey their faith does not mean that they do not believe what you do. I can appreciate your zeal, but try not to be too judgemental. We all know what Jesus said about picking splinters from someone else’s eye. I would ask how they love and forgive one another, since Jesus said that you can tell a tree by the fruit that it bears. Love and forgiveness was also a trait that Jesus said would be sign as those who were his diciples.
That is the reason why Pope JPII called for the “New Evangelization” in 2000. Here is the link to the text:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2mil3.htm
The message of the Gospel does not change, but the way it’s delivered needs to according to the time. I would agree that the catechesis after Vatican II leaves VERY MUCH to be desired, but the individual needs to take responsibility for their spiritual formation as well. The Mass is meant for worship and to receive The Eucharist and hear the Word of God read. Did you know that if you would go to daily Mass for 3 years, you would hear the entire bible read (there are 3 cycles A, B and C). Every parish has a bible study group, children catechesis (CCD)young adult and adult formation. We must put effort into learning the faith.
The following is an excerp from JPII concerning the Word of God (contained in link above)
Listening to the Word
39. There is no doubt that this primacy of holiness and prayer is inconceivable without a renewed listening to the word of God. Ever since the Second Vatican Council underlined the pre-eminent role of the word of God in the life of the Church, great progress has certainly been made in devout listening to Sacred Scripture and attentive study of it. Scripture has its rightful place of honour in the public prayer of the Church. Individuals and communities now make extensive use of the Bible, and among lay people there are many who devote themselves to Scripture with the valuable help of theological and biblical studies. But it is above all the work of evangelization and catechesis which is drawing new life from attentiveness to the word of God. Dear brothers and sisters, this development needs to be consolidated and deepened, also by making sure that every family has a Bible. It is especially necessary that listening to the word of God should become a life-giving encounter, in the ancient and ever valid tradition of lectio divina, which draws from the biblical text the living word which questions, directs and shapes our lives.
Amen..
God bless..
If one studies the OT we see a reflection of church history. God’s people falling into apostasy and idolatry within very short spaces of time from the liberating effects of God’s revelation, grace and covenants. (joshua, Judges, 1Samuel, Kings, Chronicles). Both northern and southern kingdoms judged by God because of apostasy. Jeroboam’s legacy of apostasy in the north traced its “traditions” to within one generation of David. The prophets are an indictment to Israel’s abysmal’s record. Paul warns of the danger of same things repeatedly in his own time (Eph 20,2Tim1)and the fact that we are not to repeat the same mistakes (1Cor 10, Rom 15:4. By the last decade of the first century John is given a Revelation of the state of things in seven typical churches in asia minor as well as a vison of an altogether different type of “woman” (Rev 17)to the “bride”. If things got this bad so quick after seeing repeated OT precedents and NT warnings why are we surprised by the constant and gradual departure from orthodoxy to “other gospels” even if they become the dominating view. Just as talmudic judaism is a perversion of OT and not Mosaic (tradition over-riding scripture) and exactly what the Lord accused the pharisees of doing, so “roman” catholicism is a perversion of the NT scriptures in favour of the vain traditions of men. the forbidding of marriage to “clergy” is just one such heresy prophesied by and called such by the apostle Paul (1tim 4)not to mention the inventions of “mary” sinless and co-mediating which is an abomination, quite frankly to anyone reading the scriptures honestly without this “grid” and pride of association. etc, etc, etc.Warning of apostasy from apostolic truth is a major theme of the NT canon which culminates in Jude’s epistle writing to believers to CONTEND EARNESTLY for “THE” FAITH once and for all time delivered. The book of Revelation gives us an indication of how this warning was heeded. SOLA SCRIPTURA (1COR 4:6). Nevertheless God remains faithful and always has his people, many of whom were burnt alive by the traditionalists just to preserve the truth and set people FREE. Pity that Mr Beckwith like those leaders coming within a generation or two of Moses, David and Hezekiah has a short memory.
John,
Even though Jesus condemned the Pharisees he gave validity to their teachings and authority is he not in Matthew 23?…
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
He refers to the teaching authority of the “seat of Moses” which in the New Covenent is the “Chair of Peter”. Notice he did not say that they didn’t have the authority to bind (they tie up heavy loads) he was rebuking them for being hypocrites and not “loosing” (lifting a finger to move them).
Again in the Gospel Of Mark: verse 44 below he sends the man to the priest (he gives validity to the priesthood and again when he cleansed the 10 lepers
40 A leper 14 came to him (and kneeling down) begged him and said, “If you wish, you can make me clean.”
41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand, touched him, and said to him, “I do will it. Be made clean.”
42 The leprosy left him immediately, and he was made clean.
43 Then, warning him sternly, he dismissed him at once.
44 Then he said to him, “See that you tell no one anything, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses prescribed; that will be proof for them.”
Jesus commanded the lepers to go to the priest before they were healed. The only reason for a leper to go to the priests was after his healing, to have his new status verified by the clergy. The priests would examine them to verify the cure, then the gift commanded by the law would be offered
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, {2} This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: {3} And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; {4} Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: … etc
The New Covenent is ALWAYS better than the old. In the old, the priests offered animal sacrifices but in the New Covenent the priests offer the unbloody PURE sacrifice prophesied in Malachi 11:
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
Jesus IS NOT sacrificed again, but re-presented to The Father as the PURE OFFERING mentioned above.
As far as your remark about “forbidding marraige” no man is forced to be a priest, it is a calling (vocation). The canonical requirement of celibacy for priests in the Western Church is not forced upon anyone. In a proper sense, priests are men who freely choose celibacy (Matt. 19:12) “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” After all, it is the vow or promise of celibacy that comes first, not ordination.
1 Cor 7:32,
One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided.
Even though celibacy is the objectively superior state, this does not mean that it is for everyone. Our Lord makes this very clear when he says, “Not all men can accept this precept, but only those to whom it is given. . . . There are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this let him receive it” (Matt. 19:11–12).
Again…I am just clarifying Catholic teaching that is so often misrepresented.
God bless..
Bobby,
Thanks for your candid comments. My aim was not to misrepresent ETS. But, in fairness, their discussions on open theism were not along the track of “let’s figure out how to label this as outside of Evangelicalism,” as much as it was “let’s see if this is really that big of a deal.” I generalize based on how the discussion was portrayed in churches around the US. Many churches became more open to open theism as a direct result of their impression from ETS.
Grace sees value in ETS. Several of The Master’s Seminary Professors are part of ETS. We would agree with the need to have fellowship with the main evangelical theologians. But, the issue becomes “what counts as evangelical?” When the organization has an impact wider than those who are knowledgeable about its membership, that alarms me. The result is that churches are influenced by a group in a way that makes churches more inclined to say things like “what is the big deal about open theism?”
The bottom line: this group elected as their president someone who not only had a track record of Catholic theology, but who is now a full-fledged Catholic. That is not a caricature. That is the result of having undefined membership. If you believe that there are not substantial differences between RCC and evangelicals, that is not an issue. I do see differences, and thus it becomes an issue to me.
Thanks,
Jesse
Thanks for the clarification, Jesse. I w/o a doubt see differences between Evang. and Cath. I’m not sure how Beckwith’s theology was Catholic when he was voted in as ETS president, please clarify. It’s one thing to be sympathetic to Catholics, and another to fully endorse and identify oneself as a Roman Catholic. Not only that, to say that ETS provides an undefined membership, is in my opinion, not being fair either. I.e. a person must be able to affirm the sufficiency and inerrancy of the scriptures (which narrows the field significantly), and the Triune nature of God. This seems rather defined, and quite narrow relatively speaking of course.
I know plenty of people who are members of the ETS, and open theism is not endorsed by the larger membership, whatsoever. How people (in the churches) percieve certain things, is highly subjective, I’m not sure how you can qualify this generalization. I didn’t realize the ETS had so much influence on how people in the local church formulate their doctrinal statements. Anyway Jesse, I’m a bit skeptical of this claim that you’ve made about Open Theism and the ETS. The bottom line, the ETS is against Open Theism, and the recent controversy should help illustrate this, not negatively but positively. Open Theism is not allowed within the framework provided by the ETS; neither is Roman Catholicism. If it was/is, then why aren’t Boyd and now Beckwith associated with the ETS; because simply ETS does not endorse such disparate viewpoints.
I just don’t want ETS to be “demonized” to the extent that people who read here think that the ETS is some “liberal” body of scholars (like the SBL) who don’t forward “conservative” biblical and theological scholarship. This would be the caricature I’m thinking of Jesse.
PURPOSE OF THE ETS
“To foster conservative Biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines in the Scriptures.”
Constitution, Art. 11
DOCTRINAL BASIS:
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
JETS purpose is to write expression of thoughts, its not a sermons. It seems those who simply preach the Word are rarely drawn to Catholicism. Those who dive into philosophy seem to be more likely to feel themselves drawn to the intellectualism of Rome.
The question seems to be “Why is it that a number of Protestants are converting to Catholicism?
I read that the reason one seminary professor left his independent Bible church for fellowship in an Episcopal congregation was “I’m tired of worshiping beneath a baskeball goal.” The point is well-taken
There is a wholeistic dimension to Roman Catholic worship that is often absent in the evangelical Protestantism, and Reformed church.
If our worship this Sunday in our church leads us to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is is true worship.
Charles
On November 17, 2006 Professor Beckwith became the President of the Evangelical Theological Society ETS), a position that has a one-year term. He is the 57th president of ETS, an academic society that has over 4,100 members. In July 2005 he began a three-year term as a member of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on Philosophy and Law.
Francis J. Beckwith is Associate Professor of Church-State Studies (tenured) at BaylorUniversity In June 2007 he will join Baylor’s philosophy department where he will become Associate Professor of Philosophy. A Fellow and Faculty Affiliate in Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR), he served as Associate Director of Baylor’s Institute of Church-State
Studies from July 2003 until January 2007.
I thought that BAYLOR UNIVERSITY WAS A SOUTHERN BAPTIST COLLEGE11
Gerry,
First of all, I appreciate the courteous discussion that is going on despite all the disagreements. Thanks for your part in that.
I do have a couple questions/comments regarding the Scripture you used, though.
1) You made a correlation between the tying of heavy loads and unwillingness to lift a finger and the binding/loosing Jesus spoke about to Peter. Where does this correlation come from? What tells us that this is what Jesus was referring to? Kind of seems like its reading into the text.
2) You also correlated Moses’ Seat with “Chair of Peter”, but where is the “Chair of Peter” spoken of in Scripture?
3) Jesus told the leper to see the priest _after_ he was healed for the purpose of being declared clean in keeping with the Mosaic Law, which was still in force while Jesus lived. This does not affirm any New Covenant priesthood at all. Jesus’ many affirmations of Mosaic Law and the priesthood are simply because they continued to exist and His purpose was not to “abolish the law, but to fulfill it.” It was fulfilled upon His resurrection at which point the only priesthood was the priesthood of the believer since “there is only one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.”
4) Regarding celibacy, did Paul not say, “I wish that some of you would remain as I am” and not “I command”? It seems that he is certainly encouraging celibacy for those whom God has giften, but not commanding it. Why is it that Paul never in any of his letters gives requirements for priests, but only requirements for elders and deacons (which include husband of one wife)? It seems that the Epistles, which are so critical in the life of the church, should certainly speak clearly of some sort of heirarchical structure and requirements thereof if such was necessary. Instead we hear only of elders, deacons, and believers.
Please forgive my ignorance of Catholic theology if such is represented by the above comments/questions.
Bobby,
Since you used the term “subjective,” that frees me to use personal experience
. The church that ordained me to ministry sent some of the elders to ETS in Colorado Springs where open theism was discussed. When they returned, they restored a teacher to his position based on their impression (possibly mistaken, granted) of the tenor of ETS. Associated Press articles written after the Colorado Springs conference (run nation wide) led readers to believe that open theism is now officially welcome as part of evangelicalism. You can’t quantify that kind of publicity. Sixty seven percent of ETS voted that Pinnock’s theology is compatible with the mission of ETS. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I think it was like 55% voted in favor of keeping Sanders.
Beckwith on his website (linked above) says his RCC beliefs are completely compatible with ETS. He said this while president. When the president of an organization says that their statement of faith allows Catholics, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. HE later resigned to avoid controversy.
I don’t want to demonize ETS, but I just don’t see it as a bastion of Conservative Christian scholarship.
Thanks,
Jesse
Jesse,
do you have access and personal correspondence with all members of the ETS? If not, then I would still say your assertions are hasty generalizations. I personally know, at least twenty members of ETS, and they all adominately oppose open theism, and Roman Catholicism. I didn’t attend the Colorado Springs meeting, but know a few who did, and I’m not quite sure what the actions of some (restoring someone to the ministry), reflects on the “stated” doctrinal statement of the ETS.
Hmm, who should I believe the associated press, or people who are actually members of the Evangelical Theological Society
? The ETS is not in favor nor does it endorse open theism.
As far as Beckwith’s assertion that his views are compatible with the ETS’ position, I think is a bit rhetorical. If in fact Beckwith has been taken back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church, which indeed he has, then his views obviously are incompatible with the ETS’ position on scripture (see the ETS’ website, there is a link to a statement that explains the incongruncies there are between Beckwith’s “new” position on scripture and tradition, and that articulated, and “defended” by ETS).
I simply disagree with your view, Jesse. ETS represents excellent Evangelical scholarship of which I have participated in numerous times (only at regional meetings).
BLOGS are INSTANT form of communication. BLOGS are TIME STAMPED FORM OF COMMUNICATION.
The blogosphere is nearly unparalleled in its ability to convey information quickly because it’s a network where one affects the other. Blogging is a great platform to learn about each other, since we are spread across the USA.
By the time Jesse wrote this post unto today, the news as crossed the blogosphere dozens of times
Every point that Bobby , Gerry, Gabriel , Joe, or myself makes can be afirmed or not on anothere website it seems. What does Beckwith think? What is the doctrinal statments of ETS? What is the position of the RC on this issue? What do others thank about ETS now? What did Beckwith really say about his resignation and the respond of the ETS?
I am learning about Roman Catholicism 2007 and Evangelical Protestantism. And I even looked at the ETS Newsletter for January 2007 and there was a list of members publications and a list of the regional meetings.
So this has been a very good experiences of learning what is on the blogospherfe.
Thanks fellows.
Hope this Sunday is a blessing.
Charles
Gabriel, (great name!!)
Question: 1) You made a correlation between the tying of heavy loads and unwillingness to lift a finger and the binding/loosing Jesus spoke about to Peter. Where does this correlation come from? What tells us that this is what Jesus was referring to? Kind of seems like its reading into the text.
Answer: As you know, the Old Testament contains “types” that are fully realized in the New Testament. The things of the Old Covenant do not disappear but are fullfilled and fully realized in the New.
OLD:
Isaiah 22:
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;
NEW:
Matt 16:18
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Question: 2) You also correlated Moses’ Seat with “Chair of Peter”, but where is the “Chair of Peter” spoken of in Scripture?
Answer: There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
What do the early church fathers say? (Very small sample)
Cyprian
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyprian
Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
Optatus
You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Augustine
If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today? (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, “Upon this rock I will build my church . . .” [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus. . . . (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Question: 3) Jesus told the leper to see the priest _after_ he was healed for the purpose of being declared clean in keeping with the Mosaic Law, which was still in force while Jesus lived. This does not affirm any New Covenant priesthood at all. Jesus’ many affirmations of Mosaic Law and the priesthood are simply because they continued to exist and His purpose was not to “abolish the law, but to fulfill it.” It was fulfilled upon His resurrection at which point the only priesthood was the priesthood of the believer since “there is only one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.”
Answer:
The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.
Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
Ignatius of Antioch
“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
Council of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Question:4) Regarding celibacy, did Paul not say, “I wish that some of you would remain as I am” and not “I command”? It seems that he is certainly encouraging celibacy for those whom God has giften, but not commanding it. Why is it that Paul never in any of his letters gives requirements for priests, but only requirements for elders and deacons (which include husband of one wife)? It seems that the Epistles, which are so critical in the life of the church, should certainly speak clearly of some sort of heirarchical structure and requirements thereof if such was necessary. Instead we hear only of elders, deacons, and believers.
Answer: I believe I gave ample biblical evidence for celibacy in the priesthood, but most important is the fact that celibacy is a Church “discipline” and is changeable and not an unchangeable “doctorine” or Dogma.
Great questions and dialogue…Thank you and God bless.
Gerry, thanks for those thorough answers! I hope you didn’t have to type out all the quotes (if you did, look into Logos Bible Software… they have the Early Church Fathers plus almost 10,000 other titles available in highly searchable electronic format; full disclosure: I used to work for them).
Regarding my first question, your answer didn’t seem to touch how Peter’s binding/loosing corresponds to the tying/lifting of the Pharisees. My understanding of what Jesus was referring to was the Phariees’ mandating nearly impossible regulations to be kept without helping people in their attemps to keep them. The concept of binding and loosing seems to be something entirely different (in other words, not teaching and shepherding). Nonetheless this is not a critical point in the discussion at large so I won’t press it.
Your answer to question two points out one major difference between Protestants and Catholics (warning: generalization ahead). As everyone knows, Catholics must rely on Church history and tradition for many practices and doctrines. The Scripture you used certainly does make the point of Peter’s primacy of authority among the apostles (can we use the term first among equals, or is that too soft?). But those Scriptures are descriptive of Peter’s position among the other apostles, not prescriptive of a “chair” of authority to be handed down. Certainly after Acts there is no significant evidence of a single authoritative position in the Church other than Jesus Christ being the single Head of the Church. It is only if we look at Church tradition that such an ongoing “Chair of Peter” exists.
I am not saying that Church history and tradition are of no value, they certainly are! But in matters of doctrine and dogmatic practice tradition can only be supportive examples, not substantial evidence.
I must be careful here because of all the readers of this blog I’m probably the least educated and possibly even the youngest. You certainly show yourself to be well equipped in these discussions, and that’s probably what allows you to go this far into the discussion without losing your head
.
One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned in any of these comments is that I do believe that it is possible for a person to be in the Catholic Church and be truly saved (though it is probably the exception and not the rule). I know not all would take that position, but that’s where I am at this point having been influenced by a dear pastor who tended to look more at people’s hearts and less at church practices.
Anyway… God bless you all and your mothers!
- Gabriel
I believe Catholics make tradition on the same level with the Bible. With that position, their tradion can express what form of worship thay have, and how they view their government, and how they understand their role in society, and how they view the Christian life.
God doesn’t bring Catholics into the Kingdom of God. Oh, God doesn’t bring Baptist into the Kingdom of Heaven. He by His grace alone brings those whom He chooses into the Kingdom. God’s grace can bring anyone in any race, religion, tribe, or nation to Himself.
The question would be: “Does the position that the Catholics priest, pope, teachers take on “how a person becomes a Christian believer in Jesus Christ,” lead to salvation of an individual who is a Catholic? The qestion is, “Can a Catholic person believe what his faith teaches and be born again?” That is the question.
Can one who is a member of the Catholic church believe what their church doesn’t teach and be saved? Was Mr Beckwith a born again believer as President of ETS and then rejoin the Catholic Church still be a Chrsitian?
Charles
Charles
Charles,
I would agree with you 100% except for one thing… people don’t always hold to everything churches teach. I read of one guy who goes to a Presbyterean (sp?) church and is involved at the lay level, but refuses to become an elder (though he’s been asked several times) because he doesn’t agree with much of what the church teaches when it comes to practice. If one could truly label people by the church they attend, then you would be right, but for better or for worse, that is not the case.
From our perspective we wonder how someone could believe in Justification by Faith alone in Christ alone and still consider themselves Catholic, but whose to say that such a thing is impossible? Sure we could label that as inconsistant, but it doesn’t make it impossible. It’s like someone who believes in free will and yet still gives God credit for their salvation. Inconsistant? Sure. But there are many who believe that way, and we can’t say they are all naive, though some are.
I’m just saying that people aren’t as consistant as the doctrinal statements of the church they attend, so we can’t judge _solely_ based on that. It may be a good starting point, but we must go further into someone’s life before we condemn someone for the church they attend… just like we can not assume someone is a believer just because they go to a good conservative church and wear a suit!
gerry
“He refers to the teaching authority of the “seat of Moses” which in the New Covenent is the “Chair of Peter”.”
Chair of Peter? Scripture and verse please?
in Acts 15 it looks an awful lot like James is presiding and according to Peter the predominant “binder” of NT doctrine is Paul (2Pet 3). In any case apostolic authority was never singular and definitely had nothing to do with Rome. Rome was the HQ of something “important” such as Emperor worship and world pagan domination – nothing much changes as far as that is concerned. The church originated in Jerusalem from Jewish converts.
Moses is the mediator of the OT. His “seat” is replaced by CHRIST, the PETRA, not by Peter, a “petros” and that’s the whole point. The primacy of Peter is a figment of RC imaginations which was never the view of the apostles (again, see acts 15, first church council) or the early church. Again this took 500 years to “develop”.
Not to mention Peter’s obvious fallibility in matters of binding doctrine alone. Gal 2, 2Peter3.
Interestingly both my 70 year-old Italian catholic mother and myself both made the same amazing startling discovery when God opened our eyes and WE STARTED READING THE BIBLE. The supremacy of Paul if anything, not Peter, in the development of NT theology and early church (Acts).
And again, I stress, that by the time of Jude’s epistle, it seems that the matter of apostolic authority is very much a settled matter “sans” the supremacy of Peter or Rome in ecclesiastical affairs. The orthodox church quite rightly never bought that one. Thank God neither did Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Tyndale and the millions who stood against this tyranny at the cost of their very lives, like their Saviour before them. This infallible “chair” by the way is the same one that put the Bible in the vernacular on the index of BANNED BOOKS. Wonder why?
Gabriel
Excellent point. And I would agree with your thoughts. Some Cathoic people (family attended our church) have attended the church I pastored and agreed with our doctrinal postion of salvation, and maybe the Lord by his graces saved them. But they would return to the Catholic church. That’s possible. One dear lady said, I agree with what you are preaching, but just in case, I will continue doing what my church is telling me to do to get to heaven.
Many in our churches do not even know the doctrinal position that the elders take. Many preachers never preach Justification by Grace Alone, but would believe that its by grace alone.
Nevertheless, salvation rest in the hand of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Charles
Let’s take the discussion of Catholic theology/tradition from this thread on to today’s pulpit entry by Pastor John.
Wow..way too many questions to answer at one time..But I would like to revisit the Primacy of Peter and the foundations of the Papacy and also touch on “Tradition” Vs tradition.
John (fellow paisan),
Is the term “Chair of Peter” explicitly mentioned in writing in scripture..no..but I think that you will agree that neither is “Trinity” or “Incarnation”..but they are all clearly implied and taught and present in the writings of the early church fathers.
Your definition of Peter as the Greek “Petros” is an erroneous translation, since Jesus spoke Aramaic and in Aramaic it is “Kephas”. I will defer to Karl Keating’s very clear explanation of the Kephas Vs Petros discussion:
“We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
“What’s more,” I said, “in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
“And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”
“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”
“Because he had no choice,” I said. “Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
“You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy”.
I couldn’t have said it better myself..
Let’s look at what the early church fathers (very small sample) say about “The Chair of Peter” and it’s primacy(notice the dates…since you mention the papacy took 500 yrs to develop):
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
As far as your statement against Peter’s “fallibility” in Galatians, Paul rebuked him for his “conduct” NOT his teaching. Infallibility has nothing to do with perfection or sinlessness, but as Christ promised in Matthew 16, “The Gates of hell WILL NOT overcome it” which means doctrinal error cannot enter the Church when it is pronounced “ex cathedra” (from “The Chair”).
Funny…I read the bible and there is nothing I see that disagrees with Church teaching. I can think of several verses that you may issues with just off the top of my head like Luke 1:48, John 20:20-23, James 2:24, 1 Peter 3:21, entire chapter of John 6…I could go on and on..since scripture no where claims “sola scriptura” which leads me into “Tradition”..
What does scripture say about “Tradition”?
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
What do the early church fathers say about “Tradition”?:
Papias
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).
Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
…
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Clement of Alexandria
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
Athanasius
“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).
Basil the Great
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Augustine
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
John Chrysostom
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
Vincent of Lerins
“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
“I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .
“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).
In summary, you can see from this and many previous posts that I have documented the Catholic position from not only scripture, but ALSO from the early church fathers. Some of you mention the early fathers, but are not able to find your own “teachings” contained in their writings? So I ask you in all sincerity and charity, who or what body is following “the traditions of men”?
God bless..
Gerry, the paisan
1.You obviously don’t concur with the inspired greek text of Matthew? Petros translated wrong? Should the Nt have been written in Aramaic in order to get a truly inspired scripture?
“Your definition of Peter as the Greek “Petros” is an erroneous translation”, then the whole masculine, feminine thing which I understand well speaking Italian. La pietra. Problem is petra and petros don’t MEAN the same thing in greek. one is a rock and the other is a stone. Its got nothing to do with gender. So according to you God the Holy Spirit should have inspired the text in Aramaic in order to show that Peter was the first Pope. He picked his words wrong. So we have an infallible Pope and a falibble Holy Spirit. Now that’s an interesting concept.
And having been to Caesarea Phillipi recently and seen the context of where this was said it becomes very apparent as to what Christ was saying. There is a huge Rock out of which the water flows at the foot of Mt hermon and in the stream there are millions of stones. That Rock-face was the seat of ancient pagan worship in honour of a now deified Emperor. You want us to believe that Christ replaced that hellish seat and symbol of rebellion against God with PETER? Who a few verse later He calls SATAN?
But what does Paul say when explaing these gospel texts in APOSTOLIC TEACHING in the epistles. If you can find the concept of Peter, the first infallible Pope in the NT go ahead. But Paul and Peter both make it CLEAR who the ROCK is (Rom 9,1Cor 10, 1peter 2) and who the cornerstone is (Eph2, 1Pet 2).But as usual the epistles where TRUE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE is obtained are ignored in the interpreting the gospel text correctly.
And you failed to answer why JAMES, not Peter, made the ruling decision “ex cathedra” in Acts 15. Was he sitting on Peter’s chair? No they made it TOGETHER which is how apostolic authority worked. Although anyone as I said reading the NT would definitely say (including peter) that it is Paul not Peter who mostly defined NT church apostolic teaching – if you stick to the Bible that is. Moses is replaced by Christ in the NC NOT PETER. John 1, Heb1, Heb 12.
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Acts 15:22 ¶ Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
the authority was given to the 12 plus Paul not only Peter. Acts 15 is undeniable. the foundation and the ability to define (bind and loose) doctrine is APOSTLES PLURAL not peter. The Nt apostolic doctrine through the epistles is PLURAL. Mono-episcopacy, YOU KNOW came LATER. we will say erroneously – you will say it was inspired and revealed. It definitely was not there – especially if one looks at pauls apostleship being to the gentiles whilst peter’s was mainly to the Jews.
And a PRIEST is not an ELDER/PASTOR (prebuteros). All believers share that role in the NC, because as you said IT IS SUPERIOR. We now ALL offer sacrifices. You have Judaized the faith in many ways thereby putting people in bondage instead of setting them free. Stones built upon the Rock. New priesthood, far superior.
Finally, Jude’s statement “to contend” makes no sense. Because according to you guys, the faith had not yet been defined. It was an ongoing process of revelation by “nice Godly men” extending apparently even into the 1800’s where we finally get to understand the true role of Mary, co-mediatrix and immaculately conceived (or was it the 1900’s?).
Sorry, Gerry, my intelligent, articulate paisan, but as the saying goes I’ve been there, seen it, done that. And as a famous rabbi once said “the best way to judge a tree is by its fruit”.
Mio fratello,
You said:
1.You obviously don’t concur with the inspired greek text of Matthew? Petros translated wrong? Should the Nt have been written in Aramaic in order to get a truly inspired scripture?
I say: Jesus did speak in Aramaic and the early church fathers overwhelmingly refer to Peter as Cephas..
Tatian the Syrian
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170
You said: So according to you God the Holy Spirit should have inspired the text in Aramaic in order to show that Peter was the first Pope. He picked his words wrong. So we have an infallible Pope and a falibble Holy Spirit. Now that’s an interesting concept.
I say: No, what I said or meant was that meanings are sometimes lost in translation..
You said: And you failed to answer why JAMES, not Peter, made the ruling decision “ex cathedra” in Acts 15. Was he sitting on Peter’s chair? No they made it TOGETHER which is how apostolic authority worked. Although anyone as I said reading the NT would definitely say (including peter) that it is Paul not Peter who mostly defined NT church apostolic teaching – if you stick to the Bible that is. Moses is replaced by Christ in the NC NOT PETER. John 1, Heb1, Heb 12.
I say: If you read a couple of verses before James speaks, Peter already spoke. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem so it was right for him to speak, BUT he spoke after Peter.
I can’t agree more with your satement that Christ IS The Head of The Church- no arguement..but I will argue and have argued that Christ placed Peter (and his successors) as Vicar when he ascended into heaven.
You said: the authority was given to the 12 plus Paul not only Peter. Acts 15 is undeniable. the foundation and the ability to define (bind and loose) doctrine is APOSTLES PLURAL not peter. The Nt apostolic doctrine through the epistles is PLURAL. Mono-episcopacy, YOU KNOW came LATER. we will say erroneously – you will say it was inspired and revealed. It definitely was not there – especially if one looks at pauls apostleship being to the gentiles whilst peter’s was mainly to the Jews.
I say: Yes, authority is given to the 12, BUT Peter, as I have shown, is given “Primacy” among them. And please show me when you believe that this mono episcopacy came later. I have shown that it was believed from the beginning.
You said: And a PRIEST is not an ELDER/PASTOR (prebuteros). All believers share that role in the NC, because as you said IT IS SUPERIOR. We now ALL offer sacrifices. You have Judaized the faith in many ways thereby putting people in bondage instead of setting them free. Stones built upon the Rock. New priesthood, far superior.
I say: Yes, we do all share is the “priesthood of believers” BUT that does NOT negate the “Ordained Priesthood”. It is superior in the NEW, because in the Old ONLY Levites could be priests..BUT in the New, any man from any tribe or nation can be a priest. Again, I have clearly shown the ordained offices of Bishop, Priest and Deacon existed from the beginning. So what “pure offering” as stated in Malachi do you offer?
You said: Sorry, Gerry, my intelligent, articulate paisan, but as the saying goes I’ve been there, seen it, done that. And as a famous rabbi once said “the best way to judge a tree is by its fruit
I say: Thank you for the compliment, but I am nothing other than a lay Catholic with no special degrees and just a love of Jesus Christ (My Lord AND Savior)and His Church- His bride and Our Mother. So as an Italian-American, I get pretty agitated when people make fun of “My Mother”. As far as judging a tree by it’s fruit, there are tens of thousands of Saints (members of the Catholic Church) through the ages that have given their lives willingly for Jesus Christ..Read their stories. I am partial to San Gennaro (Bishop circa 400)since my name is Gennaro.
Ciao, Mio Fratello..
This is nauseating. Frank Schaeffer converts to Eastern Orthodoxy, Francis Beckwith returns to his mother church. The significance of their high-profile intellectuality cannot be dismissed. Their rationalizations have confused them.
“The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” Blind guides have led them astray, and they, in turn, will do the same. The RCC’s great stance on abortion and marriage have created the illusion of shared beliefs.
But you will find good, decent teachings in all false cults. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, every group will be found to promote worthy family-based values. But that does not mean we need to embrace them, and pretend their abominable false doctrines do not exist!
The Roman Catholic church must be seen in the light of its unscriptural dogmas, and its dark history of denying and persecuting the truth of the Word of God. When the pope came to Brazil last week, he made a statement by his chosen destination: the city of Aparecida, in the state of Sao Paulo. The Mariolatry in that city is on a par with the worship of the heathern goddess Diana in the city of Ephesus.
If the Roman Catholic Church and its infallible representative, Pope Benedictus XVI, wanted to dissuade its follwers from worshipping Mary, and teach justification by faith in Christ alone, a wonderful opportunity was thrown out the window. But this is exactly what the Catholics do NOT intend to teach. Only naive intellectuals, self-infatuated thinkers, think they can reconcile the truth of the Scriptures with the lies and deception of the pompous hierarchy called the Roman Catholic church.
As a church-planting missionary in Brazil, with its rich Catholic traditions, I know first-hand how this wonderful “mother church” permeates culture, religion, and the Brazilian mindset. If the RCC is preaching the truth, I should pack up and go home. But not until they stop worshipping idols, trusting Mary, praying to men, confessing to men, leading the simple-minded astray. When they’ve turned to God FROM THE IDOLS of the Catholic church, we will be truly grateful to God.
But please do not nauseate me with sympathetic words for imbeciles and traitors who rationalize, condone, and join the rank unbelief of the RCC while trampling martyrs who, even though dead, yet speak (Heb. 11).
One more interesting high profile conversion.
Jesse,
Is there really that much of a conversion between Anglicanism and RCC? Forgive my ignorance, but I thought it was just a matter of who’s your pope…the English monarch or the Roman bishop…
As saddened and disheartened I was by the Pope’s comments this week (re: one true church), I also have these feelings for comments like “the difference between Protestant and Catholic viewpoints on doctrine are the differences between Heaven and Hell”, to summarize a lot of the statements on this board. I join Chad’s reconcillatory voice on this issue that has plagued Christians — true Christians from both sides — for centuries.
Let me just say two things quickly, as centuries of debate can’t be truncated on a blog (but I think we should still try, albeit amicably). First, Jesus is quite clear that faith is the sufficient gift we have been given by God that saves us — and nobody here will argue that (besides perhaps if we play any role in responding to it, but let’s put the Calvinist vs Armeniast thing aside…) While we can argue about the primary difference(s) between the official theology of Protestants and Catholics, Jesus makes it clear that belief in Him is the only prerequisite and is totally sufficient for salvation and justification. As N.T. Wright says, to parphrase, the tragedy is that there a ton of believers over the years that did not realize in this lifetime they are saved through their faith, no matter how small or large that faith is… This, for me, is the true tragedy of the Catholic Church. However, we are creating a completely and greater tragedy, as Christians, if we say our fellow believer (Catholic or Protestant) is not saved.
Secondly,if we claim to have one iota of a percentage of understanding of God’s love (and as confessing Christians with God living in us, we should) for us to say that Jesus, and his Father who sent him and raised him from the dead, to die for us, will turn his back on people who believe just that, we, in fact, do not… and if we claim to believe in the gospel of Grace, we cannot believe that Catholics who believe in the risen Christ and his crucifixion as a necessary redeeming action, are any less children of God than we. If we do, than we don’t believe in the gospel of Grace either. I respect John MacArthur and i love him as a brother in Christ; I respect the Pope and I love him as a brother in Christ; and while I’m sure they know 100 times more about Scripture than I, I do believe in God’s love and his Word, and I guarentee you there will be both professing Protestants and Catholics in God’s presence after this world. And we should, as were told, have full boldness in front of God upon death, because we believe in Him, and all the other stuff that we have wrong — me, you, Joe Baptist, Joe Methodist and Joe Catholic — will be pardoned with all our other sins. The postscript tragedy, unfortunately, is all the energy we have wasted bickering amongst ourselves, we should have been following Jesus and preaching the Gospel to others. Shame on all of us.