# Reformed who don't see Catholicism as heresy



## Ken S. (Jan 23, 2007)

I've come acrossed Reformed Christians who don't see Catholicism as heresy. What category do they fall under?

*Descriptions about them:*
I've come acrossed and have known some Chinese Reformed who are very well educated, having fairly sound Philosophical training and are eager to read Reformed theological classics and Vantil's works. They are also very interested in the political contribution and achievement of Calvinists, and they would defend Calvinism. I would call them no body else but the Reformed and Calvinists. 

However, I later found that they see Catholicism in a very different way unfortunately: they don't see it as heresy and they think that the Whore of Babylon and the Anti-Christ in Revelation has nothing to do the RCC at all because, in some occasions I've heard one of them said that, they don't think the book of Revelation is of much Prophical function.

In my impressions they are as willing to defend Catholicism as Neo-evangelicals do. I was shocked to have come acrossed these Reformed. Being active preachers of Covenant Theology(which I have no knowledge about) is a distinct feature of these Reformed as well. Some of them, like some Fundamentalists who praise the Puritans, also praise Puritanism.

Their existence as Reformed is, in my opinion, a paradox and irony to the Reformed -the historic Reformed. I know many Reformed church in US have already become ecumenical, but I never expected those "recanter" would defend Calvinism anymore. Now I come across the Reformed who are oddly double defender for both Calvinism and Catholicism. 

*What do you think about this odd phenomenon and what category indeed does this group of modern Reformed fall under? Any online resources that have mentioned of them?*


----------



## Ken S. (Jan 24, 2007)

May I ask for advices from any of you?
Don't hesitate to express your own views dear brothers. Share with me even if you don't agree with me. I don't mind.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 24, 2007)

What do you mean by category? Are you asking if they, too are heretics?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

Getting the ducks in a row here: Protestants are _catholic_; we are NOT however, Roman _Catholic_. There is a difference. 
In regards to the RCC: The RCC has many heretical errors. Overall, the theology is Arminian; Arminianism is heresy.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 24, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> Getting the ducks in a row here: Protestants are _catholic_; we are NOT however, Roman _Catholic_. There is a difference.
> In regards to the RCC: The RCC has many heretical errors. Overall, the theology is Arminian; Arminianism is heresy.



you stole the words out of my mouth...works based is works based...


----------



## ADKing (Jan 24, 2007)

In some cases people defend Rome out of great ignorance. This is problematic. At the Council of Trent Rome anathametized those who believe in justification by grace alone (I do not have the exact quote handy but it is easy enough to find). Trent has _never_ been retracted by Rome. 

I have no way of explaining how men could have signed ECT and ECT 2. They should have known better and in many cases I find it very difficult to believe some of those signers were genuinely ignorant of Rome's official statements.

There are some reformed people who do not believe the pope is the man of lawlesness predicted by Paul in II Thessalonians 2 and as asserted in the Westminster Confession. While I do subscribe the confession and do believe the pope is the antichrist, I think that this error is much less serious than the above errors as long as these people recognize the heresy of Rome for what it is. 

Scott, I appreciate your point but technically Rome is not Arminian (which was a development from within "Protestantism"). I think it would be much more acurate to say they are Pelagian/semi-Pelagian.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 24, 2007)

ADKing said:


> In some cases people defend Rome out of great ignorance. This is problematic. At the Council of Trent Rome anathametized those who believe in justification by grace alone (I do not have the exact quote handy but it is easy enough to find). Trent has _never_ been retracted by Rome.
> 
> I have no way of explaining how men could have signed ECT and ECT 2. They should have known better and in many cases I find it very difficult to believe some of those signers were genuinely ignorant of Rome's official statements.
> 
> ...


Many would argue that Arminianism itself is but another name for Pelgagian teachings.

Is not to be Protestant at its very core to be in protest of all that is Rome?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

ADKing said:


> In some cases people defend Rome out of great ignorance. This is problematic. At the Council of Trent Rome anathametized those who believe in justification by grace alone (I do not have the exact quote handy but it is easy enough to find). Trent has _never_ been retracted by Rome.
> 
> I have no way of explaining how men could have signed ECT and ECT 2. They should have known better and in many cases I find it very difficult to believe some of those signers were genuinely ignorant of Rome's official statements.
> 
> ...



Technically, you are correct. Gotta be accurate.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jan 25, 2007)

ADKing said:


> In some cases people defend Rome out of great ignorance. This is problematic. At the Council of Trent Rome anathametized those who believe in justification by grace alone (I do not have the exact quote handy but it is easy enough to find). Trent has _never_ been retracted by Rome.



I think this is the bullseye. Some very well-educated Reformed are obviously quite ignorant re the RCC. I speak from personal experience as I was trained in an RCC seminary (St. Mary's, Baltimore, aka "The Pink Palace") and then ordained Roman. 

Furthermore, not only has Trent never been retracted by Rome, Vatican II expressed strong support for, and affirmation of, Trent. Let us not forget this.


----------



## Ken S. (Jan 28, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> What do you mean by category? Are you asking if they, too are heretics?



I should've been more specific. You see I'm not very good in using English and my vocabulary and usage of sentence structure are very limited, so I'm sorry that you brothers will have to imagine and think more than you usually do when reading my words.

What I would like to know is how popular and influencial this type of Reformed double-defenders are in US?
J I Packer is very likely to be among this category of Reformed as he took part in signing the ECT, is there any other popular modern Reformed leaders who are from this category?


----------



## jenney (Feb 12, 2007)

Ken S. said:


> I should've been more specific. You see I'm not very good in using English and my vocabulary and usage of sentence structure are very limited, so I'm sorry that you brothers will have to imagine and think more than you usually do when reading my words.



Ken,
Your English is excellent. No need to apologize! It is certainly better than my Chinese!

(though I'm a sister, not a brother!  )


----------

