# Whom do you call bretheren?



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

I assume many here have jobs out in the world, and have contact with many different kinds of religious people. Who do you or do you not call Brother or Sister?

Roman Catholics?
So called evangelicals.
Arminians?
All those who agree with Trinity, and basic christine doctrine?
Only non-synergist?
Professing Christians who don't go to church.

Are there any that you automatically assume not to be believers. Obviously, jw's or mormons would be one example, but what about Roman Catholics or Pentecostals?

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

What do you say to a heretic that wants to carry on a religious conversation as you are bretheren in the faith?

My mom denies the Trinity, knows I think she is in a false religion, and still caries on these religious conversations with me. I don't say too much, but every once in a while I will challenge her belief on the Godhead.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by raderag]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 15, 2004)

Those who are true brethren are those who believe in the Bible undefiled.(spiritual)

The rest are my bretheren in adam.(flesh)

blade


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 15, 2004)

Unless they demonstrate otherwise, I would call a professing Christian a &quot;brother or sister.&quot; It may not be very liong that they demonstrate otherwise, but then it is a matter of correction.

I would never call a cult member, or a Roman Catholic a brother or sister.

I hesitate to call an Arminian a brother or sister because most of the time (at least in the churches we have been in and have in this area) they are so loose that you cannot tell the world from the church.

We should call those who are brethren &quot;rbothers&quot; who follow this criteria:

Acts 2:42 &quot;And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.&quot;

That's going to cancel most people out.


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:739914b0be][i:739914b0be]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:739914b0be]

I would never call a cult member, or a Roman Catholic a brother or sister.

[/quote:739914b0be]

Why is Rome worse than say your average dispensationalist?
Dispensationalists deny sola gratia even moreso than say a thomist Roman Catholic.


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:adf25053d1][i:adf25053d1]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:adf25053d1]Acts 2:42 &quot;And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.&quot; [/quote:adf25053d1]

As defined in the creeds and Protestant confessions?


----------



## Saiph (Apr 15, 2004)

Anyone who accepts the 39 articles and drinks Guiness.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 15, 2004)

I dont drink


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:33eb7b58f0][i:33eb7b58f0]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:33eb7b58f0]
Anyone who accepts the 39 articles and drinks Guiness. [/quote:33eb7b58f0]

English and Irish beers are heretical.

German beers and their American counterparts are the only true beers.

Are you serious about the 39 articles? Must one accept those?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:b9a460fcae][i:b9a460fcae]Originally posted by raderag[/i:b9a460fcae]
[quote:b9a460fcae][i:b9a460fcae]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:b9a460fcae]

I would never call a cult member, or a Roman Catholic a brother or sister.

[/quote:b9a460fcae]

Why is Rome worse than say your average dispensationalist?
Dispensationalists deny sola gratia even moreso than say a thomist Roman Catholic. [/quote:b9a460fcae]

Not true. Rome is not a true church.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 15, 2004)

beer is just plain nasty


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 15, 2004)

Rome is the babylonian whore tis it not?

blade

p.s. except for those men who came out(minus augustine who stayed and preached the gospel)


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:950b5a0695][i:950b5a0695]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:950b5a0695]

Not true. Rome is not a true church. [/quote:950b5a0695]

Fred, I don't necessarily disagree here, but by what standard is Rome not a true church, and a &quot;Bible Church&quot; a true Church?


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:10489e2850][i:10489e2850]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:10489e2850]
Rome is the babylonian whore tis it not?

blade

p.s. except for those men who came out(minus augustine who stayed and preached the gospel) [/quote:10489e2850]

That is what many believe, but I am not sure. Augustine did not preach forensic justification though. He also preached a Romish doctrine on the Eucharist, Purgatory, and Ecclesiology.


----------



## Scott (Apr 15, 2004)

Brett:

According to the NT, the church is the proper body to determine who is in or out. Matt 18:17: &quot;If he refuses to listen to them, tell it [i:c0ae985fa5]to the church[/i:c0ae985fa5]; and if he refuses to listen even [i:c0ae985fa5]to the church[/i:c0ae985fa5], treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.&quot; See also 1 Cor. 5:4-5: &quot;When you [i:c0ae985fa5]are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus[/i:c0ae985fa5] and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan . . .&quot; I think the other &quot;don't associate&quot; passages should be understood in an ecclesial context. 

Anyway, this kind of ideal is nearly impossible to accomplish in the current broken ecclesiastical situation (many separate sects and denominations). So, the answer to your question is I think ambiguous. The Bible speaks in terms of a single, unified church. We have a scattered and divided church. Because of the collective present disobedience in terms of eccesiology, I don't think there is an easy answer to your question.

I think that John Frame's Evangelical Reunion is a great starting place:
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame

As a practical matter, I would engage whomever wants to discuss true doctrine. I would call those who are part of a true visible church (as determined by the marks of Word and Sacrament) as brothers. As Calvin, Westminster, et al taught, there is no salvation ordinarily possible outside of the visible church. It is the church (individual congregation) that is making the judgment, not the individual. It also relates to your category &quot;Professing Christians who don't go to church.&quot;

Scott


----------



## Gregg (Apr 15, 2004)

I know some Catholics I would gladly call brethren.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Gregg]


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 15, 2004)

I do too, but that is only because they disobey the Roman Church and do not believe what she requires, which is no gospel at all. (Gal. 1)

I say this as one who weeps daily for my family trapped in the bondage of Romanism.


----------



## Gregg (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:a0d5b283cb][i:a0d5b283cb]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:a0d5b283cb]
I do too, but that is only because they disobey the Roman Church and do not believe what she requires, which is no gospel at all. (Gal. 1)

I say this as one who weeps daily for my family trapped in the bondage of Romanism. [/quote:a0d5b283cb]

Reply...

Fred, were you Catholic too?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 15, 2004)

Yes.

Catholic school, altar boy, the whole 9 yards.

I'm Italian and Polish, so the only way my family gets more Catholic is if they are Irish. (My wife is part Spanish as well!)


----------



## Gregg (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:f7c461edaa][i:f7c461edaa]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:f7c461edaa]
Yes.

Catholic school, altar boy, the whole 9 yards.

I'm Italian and Polish, so the only way my family gets more Catholic is if they are Irish. (My wife is part Spanish as well!) [/quote:f7c461edaa]

Reply...

Irish Catholic for 37 years. No longer Catholic but still Irish.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:35b1120b26][i:35b1120b26]Originally posted by raderag[/i:35b1120b26]
[quote:35b1120b26][i:35b1120b26]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:35b1120b26]

Not true. Rome is not a true church. [/quote:35b1120b26]

Fred, I don't necessarily disagree here, but by what standard is Rome not a true church, and a &quot;Bible Church&quot; a true Church? [/quote:35b1120b26]

I stand on the idea that Rome does NOT even worship the same Christ of the scriptures. Take out their catechism and see for yourself. Granted, they embrace the apostles creed, yet in the same breath, based upon their theology, they deny it.


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:99d403e4b3][i:99d403e4b3]Originally posted by Scott[/i:99d403e4b3]
Brett:

According to the NT, the church is the proper body to determine who is in or out. Matt 18:17: &quot;If he refuses to listen to them, tell it [i:99d403e4b3]to the church[/i:99d403e4b3]; and if he refuses to listen even [i:99d403e4b3]to the church[/i:99d403e4b3], treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.&quot; See also 1 Cor. 5:4-5: &quot;When you [i:99d403e4b3]are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus[/i:99d403e4b3] and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan . . .&quot; I think the other &quot;don't associate&quot; passages should be understood in an ecclesial context. 

Anyway, this kind of ideal is nearly impossible to accomplish in the current broken ecclesiastical situation (many separate sects and denominations). So, the answer to your question is I think ambiguous. The Bible speaks in terms of a single, unified church. We have a scattered and divided church. Because of the collective present disobedience in terms of eccesiology, I don't think there is an easy answer to your question.

I think that John Frame's Evangelical Reunion is a great starting place:
http://www.thirdmill.org/magpt_main.asp#frame

As a practical matter, I would engage whomever wants to discuss true doctrine. I would call those who are part of a true visible church (as determined by the marks of Word and Sacrament) as brothers. As Calvin, Westminster, et al taught, there is no salvation ordinarily possible outside of the visible church. It is the church (individual congregation) that is making the judgment, not the individual. It also relates to your category &quot;Professing Christians who don't go to church.&quot;

Scott [/quote:99d403e4b3]

Scott, I am thinking along these same lines. Would you exclude all Roman Catholics from Christian fellowship?


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:35b272dbe0][i:35b272dbe0]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:35b272dbe0]
[quote:35b272dbe0][i:35b272dbe0]Originally posted by raderag[/i:35b272dbe0]
[quote:35b272dbe0][i:35b272dbe0]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:35b272dbe0]

Not true. Rome is not a true church. [/quote:35b272dbe0]

Fred, I don't necessarily disagree here, but by what standard is Rome not a true church, and a &quot;Bible Church&quot; a true Church? [/quote:35b272dbe0]

I stand on the idea that Rome does NOT even worship the same Christ of the scriptures. Take out their catechism and see for yourself. Granted, they embrace the apostles creed, yet in the same breath, based upon their theology, they deny it. [/quote:35b272dbe0]

Ok, so did the midieval Church (for example Thomas Aquinas) have the right Christ? If not, isn't that Cambellism?


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:71893eee68][i:71893eee68]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:71893eee68]
Take out their catechism and see for yourself. Granted, they embrace the apostles creed, yet in the same breath, based upon their theology, they deny it. [/quote:71893eee68]

Scott, their Catechism is pretty big. Can you show me which part of the catechism deny's, implicitly or explicitly, the Apostles Creed? I have never heard this before.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by raderag]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by raderag]


----------



## Scott (Apr 15, 2004)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly affirms the Apostle's Creed. Indeed, a large portion of the catechism is devoted to it. 

I would identify Rome as a church. Here is an article by Charles Hodge that I think is right:

Is the Church of Rome Part of the Visible Church
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/con...urch_of_rome_a_part_of_the_visible_church.htm

Scott

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Scott]


----------



## raderag (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:f20ad24758][i:f20ad24758]Originally posted by Scott[/i:f20ad24758]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly affirms the Apostle's Creed. Indeed, a large portion of the catechism is devoted to it. 

I would identify Rome as a true church. Here is an article by Charles Hodge that I think is right:

Is the Church of Rome Part of the Visible Church
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/con...urch_of_rome_a_part_of_the_visible_church.htm

Scott [/quote:f20ad24758]

BTW, you know that I was addressing Scott Bushey and not you. I am glad you answered, but didn't want you to think I was straw-manning you.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 15, 2004)

Brett:
I think that strawmen have their own church. Their creed is off the wall, though. I don't think anybody lets them in. I think they're all in Oz, looking for a brain.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

There are a few threads that have dealt with this issue where I have made some relevant comments:

Romish Baptism

Is Roman Catholic baptism valid?


----------



## pastorway (Apr 16, 2004)

Here is a section of the Confession that I think applies to Rome quite well:

[quote:9c635fe772]
The purest churches under Heaven are subject to mixture and error, and[u:9c635fe772] some have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become synagogues of Satan[/u:9c635fe772]. Nevertheless Christ always has had, and always will (to the end of time) have a kingdom in this world, made up of those who believe in Him, and make profession of His name.[/quote:9c635fe772]

Phillip


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

*There are several questions left unanswered.*

[quote:afac78e614][i:afac78e614]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:afac78e614]
Here is a section of the Confession that I think applies to Rome quite well:

[quote:afac78e614]
The purest churches under Heaven are subject to mixture and error, and[u:afac78e614] some have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become synagogues of Satan[/u:afac78e614]. Nevertheless Christ always has had, and always will (to the end of time) have a kingdom in this world, made up of those who believe in Him, and make profession of His name.[/quote:afac78e614]

Phillip [/quote:afac78e614]

Phillip, I realize that the reformed church thought of Rome in this way. I also think that may have been true then, but it would not have to be true now. 

I have asked this question several times, with no answers yet. By what standard is Rome not a true church, and yet the evangelical arminian church a true church?

Secondly, Did the RC become false only after trent, or was most of the midieval church a heresy. Does that mean the church had to be restored instead of reformed?


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:0e5b1c1f07][i:0e5b1c1f07]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:0e5b1c1f07]
There are a few threads that have dealt with this issue where I have made some relevant comments:

Romish Baptism

Is Roman Catholic baptism valid? [/quote:0e5b1c1f07]

Fred, I read over those threads, but it doesn't answer my question to you. You said that Rome is not a true church, and your answer implied that a evangelical church is true.

By what standard is Rome false and the evangelical church true?

Both deny sola gratia.

Secondly, was there no true church in mideival times?

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by raderag]


----------



## pastorway (Apr 16, 2004)

The arminian church will for the most part proclaim salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

If they waver on the gospel, or the person and work of Christ, then they are not a sound church. 

Rome is not just distorting or misrepresenting the gospel, they deny it altogether!

Error is not as bad as heresy. Error needs to be corrected, but heresy damns, it is another gospel, a gospel with no power that cannot save.

So while arminian churches may be full of error, they are not preaching another gospel.

Phillip

[Edited on 4-16-04 by pastorway]


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:5cbccb3b4a][i:5cbccb3b4a]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:5cbccb3b4a]
The arminian church will for the most part proclaim salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
[/quote:5cbccb3b4a]

They do not proclaim grace alone as defined in the Protestant Confessions. In fact, they outright deny it with synergy.

[quote:5cbccb3b4a]
If they waver on the gospel, or the person and work of Christ, then they are not a sound church. 

Rome is not just distorting or misrepresenting the gospel, they deny it altogether!
[/quote:5cbccb3b4a]

Once again Phillip, by which standard? Faith alone, grace alone? Just tell me why and how they deny the Gospel.

Both have been denied by Arminians, and most of the ECF's we consider orthodox.

[quote:5cbccb3b4a]
Error is not as bad as heresy. Error needs to be corrected, but heresy damns, it is another gospel, a gospel with no power that cannot save.

So while arminian churches may be full of error, they are not preaching another gospel.
[/quote:5cbccb3b4a]

I'm not so sure that those in Dordt would agree with you. So, is everybody that holds to a heretical belief damned? What is the definition of heresy?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 16, 2004)

Brett,
There are too many examples in the RC catechism for me to -yank- out right now. I f I get the time this weekend I will. My point is, yes they say they embrace the apostles creed, and in the same breath they deny it by their secondary doctrinal beliefs. For instance, Mary is co-redemptrix.


----------



## JWJ (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:9df8f89419][i:9df8f89419]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:9df8f89419]
The arminian church will for the most part proclaim salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

If they waver on the gospel, or the person and work of Christ, then they are not a sound church. 

Rome is not just distorting or misrepresenting the gospel, they deny it altogether!

Error is not as bad as heresy. Error needs to be corrected, but heresy damns, it is another gospel, a gospel with no power that cannot save.

So while arminian churches may be full of error, they are not preaching another gospel.

Phillip

[Edited on 4-16-04 by pastorway] [/quote:9df8f89419]

Pastorway,

I believe I know what you are saying and why you are saying it. I am also "sympathetic" towards Arminian theology vs. that of Rome. I too believe that many Arminian as well as some in Rome, are saved and do not believe and live the theology their Church teaches.

However we must ask ourselves is this really true--- i.e., that Arminian churches are closer to the truth because they just have error but do not deny the gospel? What if the error in the gospel that many Arminian churches preach / teach is in the very substance? If the substance is in error then is not the gospel, albeit more implicitly, denied? For example many Arminian churches proclaim grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. However, their grace, faith and Christ are not alone. As a matter of fact for many Arminians, faith is a human work wrought in part by the depraved human will.

Moreover, many Arminian (sadly, now many in so called Reformed circles too) preach / teach / live a faith that does not rest solely on the on the life and death of Christ. Rather their faith rests on man's work (e.g. so called evangelical obedience / covenant obedience) together with Christ's work. This sounds like a denial of the gospel!

JWJ


----------



## Scott (Apr 16, 2004)

From my experience and reading, the main problem with RC congregations in America is not fidelity to Trent - most do not have this. It is that they are for the most part mainline liberal churches. They typically deny the gospel not by adopting a Trent's formula but by adopting a secular (relatavistic) formula, which is for the most part indistinguishable from the views of mainline Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. There is little meaningful allegiance to Rome. For example, fewer than 10 percent (probably much less) abide by the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, which prohibits birth control. Only a very small conservative minority that does. 

Also think of this. The Catholic Church officially teaches that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexual marriage is wrong. Massachussetts as a state is actually around half Catholic. Yet, this is where the first court decision favoring gay marriage occurred, with little outcry (although, thankfully, some Catholic officials are trying to challenge this). Most of thier legislators are Catholic too and they are offering up civil unions as an alternative. It is outrageous. These Catholics are no different than secular counterparts. These are not firebreathing Trent fanatics. These are functional atheists. 

It is interesting to read the biographies of converts to Catholicism (I am thinking specifically of Matatics and Hahn). They found a Catholic church much different than the one that persuaded them of the truth of RC. They found the arguments of Cardinal Gibbons' Faith of Our Fathers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...prev/103-2648618-5693440?v=glance&amp;s=books) persuasive but entered a church with theologians more closely linked to Shelby Spong. A great book on conservative and traditionalist challenges in the RC church in America is The Smoke of Satan. 

Scott


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

Yes, the Roman Catholic ecclesiology is every bit as messy as the Protestant one. 

They really hate when we talk about the invisible church, but they have some concept of self-excomunication.


----------



## Scott (Apr 16, 2004)

Brett wrote:

[quote:b4f6990eb7]
Secondly, Did the RC become false only after trent, or was most of the midieval church a heresy. Does that mean the church had to be restored instead of reformed? 
[/quote:b4f6990eb7]

You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about. Of the modern American Reformed who have thought of historical issues (and many don't study history - Americans tend to be ahistorical), you get some pretty weird views. Here is a good, short article describing views of history present in some strains of Puritanism:

The Puritan Theory of Early Christianity
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_nevin/the_puritan_theory_of_early_christianity.htm

You also run into problems with people arguing that understanding Luther's justification formula is the article on which the church stands or falls. Many Protestants (if not most) believe that there is no evidence of this formula in any church writing until Luther. See, for example, Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei : A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, which is commonly cited. if true, and if there is no justification without embracing Luther's formula, this means that basically from the completion of the final book of the Bible to the time of Luther there is no evidence that anyone anywhere believed in sola fide (and, according to these people, what evidence there is contradicts Luther's view). This view implies that there was no true church from the time of the apostles to the time of Luther. So, the men who did the work of recognizing the canon were all damned, spiritually blind children of wrath. To me at least that would call into question the value of their work on the canon. 

I think that this kind of view explains why Protestants have little or no interest in Patristic and medieval theology. These theologians are often perceived by modern Protestants as proto-Catholics or worse. This is quite a contrast to Calvin and others, who relied heavily on the Patristics. I think Hughes Oliphant Old's The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship is good in this regard.

Scott


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:921fc9c7fd][i:921fc9c7fd]Originally posted by Scott[/i:921fc9c7fd]
You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about.

Scott [/quote:921fc9c7fd]

I wonder if that is why you are the only one to answer here so far?

Come on. Whoever is saying Rome is false, answer this question.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:bea5906ae0][i:bea5906ae0]Originally posted by Scott[/i:bea5906ae0]
You also run into problems with people arguing that understanding Luther's justification formula is the article on which the church stands or falls. Many Protestants (if not most) believe that there is no evidence of this formula in any church writing until Luther.

Scott [/quote:bea5906ae0]

I have read some ECF's and midieval theologins that suggest that forensic justification, while not devolped, was not denied. Bernard of Clairvaux would be one example. But those claiming Augustine should realize that he agrees with Rome on justification, the Eucharist, Ecclesiology, and many other important doctrines.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:84f3c1e317][i:84f3c1e317]Originally posted by Scott[/i:84f3c1e317]
Brett wrote:

[quote:84f3c1e317]
Secondly, Did the RC become false only after trent, or was most of the midieval church a heresy. Does that mean the church had to be restored instead of reformed? 
[/quote:84f3c1e317]

You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about. Of the modern American Reformed who have thought of historical issues (and many don't study history - Americans tend to be ahistorical), you get some pretty weird views. Here is a good, short article describing views of history present in some strains of Puritanism:

The Puritan Theory of Early Christianity
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/john_nevin/the_puritan_theory_of_early_christianity.htm

You also run into problems with people arguing that understanding Luther's justification formula is the article on which the church stands or falls. Many Protestants (if not most) believe that there is no evidence of this formula in any church writing until Luther. See, for example, Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei : A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, which is commonly cited. if true, and if there is no justification without embracing Luther's formula, this means that basically from the completion of the final book of the Bible to the time of Luther there is no evidence that anyone anywhere believed in sola fide (and, according to these people, what evidence there is contradicts Luther's view). This view implies that there was no true church from the time of the apostles to the time of Luther. So, the men who did the work of recognizing the canon were all damned, spiritually blind children of wrath. To me at least that would call into question the value of their work on the canon. 

I think that this kind of view explains why Protestants have little or no interest in Patristic and medieval theology. These theologians are often perceived by modern Protestants as proto-Catholics or worse. This is quite a contrast to Calvin and others, who relied heavily on the Patristics. I think Hughes Oliphant Old's The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship is good in this regard.

Scott [/quote:84f3c1e317]

Scott, thanks for all of the great information.


----------



## Scott (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:5baaf1929e]
I have read some ECF's and midieval theologins that suggest that forensic justification, while not devolped, was not denied. Bernard of Clairvaux would be one example. But those claiming Augustine should realize that he agrees with Rome on justification, the Eucharist, Ecclesiology, and many other important doctrines. 
[/quote:5baaf1929e]

Yes, and I agree with this. I think that Thomas Oden does a good job of showing that sola fide was present in some form throughout the church. See his The Justification Reader:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...1_29/103-2648618-5693440?v=glance&amp;s=books

Still, I know many Protestants who are comfortable with simply saying that everyone (except the apostles, of course) was wrong until Luther. Further, noted Protestant theologians, like McGrath, disagree with Oden on this point.

Scott


----------



## Scott (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:7c678b0576]
But those claiming Augustine should realize that he agrees with Rome on justification, the Eucharist, Ecclesiology, and many other important doctrines. 
[/quote:7c678b0576]

It is odd that many people who cite Augustine for predestination would excommunicate him for other issues. I would not go so far as to say that he agreed with Rome on those issues, though.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:4a357e43fb][i:4a357e43fb]Originally posted by raderag[/i:4a357e43fb]
[quote:4a357e43fb][i:4a357e43fb]Originally posted by Scott[/i:4a357e43fb]
You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about.

Scott [/quote:4a357e43fb]

I wonder if that is why you are the only one to answer here so far?

Come on. Whoever is saying Rome is false, answer this question. [/quote:4a357e43fb]

It is as simple as this: Rome has officially anathamatized the gospel. Methodism has not. Arminians are confused about the gospel, but they do not dogmatically state that the true gospel is anathema. Rome does. She has stated dogmatically that the gospel is false. She also usurps the authority of Christ, where Arminians and broad evangelicals do not.

Consider this, Calvin considered Rome only a true church so far as her baptism was concerned. He called for a departure from Rome, which he could not have done if he considered her a true church:
[quote:4a357e43fb]
Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. In place of the Lord's Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ.&quot; (Institutes IV.ii.2)[/quote:4a357e43fb]

Basically the only thing Calvin though worthy of preserving in Rome was the validity of her baptism.

Also consider Hodge's comments on WCF 25.6:
[quote:4a357e43fb]The word &quot;Antichrist" occurs in the New Testament in 1 John 2:18; 22;4:3; 2 John 7) The coming of the &quot;man of sin,&amp;#65279;" the &quot;son of perdition,&quot; is predicted in (2 Thess. 2:3,4) Interpreters have differed as to whether these phrases were intended to designate a personal opponent of the Lord, or principles and systems antagonistic to him and his cause. The authors of our Confession can hardly have intended to declare that each individual Pope of the long succession is the personal Antichrist, and they probably meant that the Papal system is in spirit, form, and effect, wholly antichristian, and that it marked a defection from apostolical Christianity foreseen and foretold in Scripture. All of which was true in their day, and is true in ours. We have need, however, to remember that as the forms of evil change, and the complications of the kingdom of Christ with that of Satan vary with the progress of events, &quot;even now are there many Antichrists."
[/quote:4a357e43fb]


As for Nevin, he is hardly an unbiased assessment from Protestantism. Neither is Horne. Both are interested in rapprochement with Rome (Horne because NT Wright considers it a great sin not to have &quot;table fellowship&quot; with Rome, Nevin because he was a proto Catholic).

As for interest in the patristic period, you must not be reading very widely. There has been a great resurgence in Patristic studies in the past few decades, especially with respect to Covenant theology. Doug Kelley and Ligon Duncan have each done extensive work, and R. Scott Clark has done some as well.

The problem with all of this is that with the redefinitions of &quot;covenant&quot; and &quot;justification&quot; going on, it is much more fashionable to lambaste the evan-jelly-cals of our day with proto Romanism.

If you would have asked Hodge to let a Papist into his pulpit he would have laughed at you.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 16, 2004)

I don't think Scott meant to imply that Rome SAYS they deny the Apostle's Creed, but rather, that in their stance on doctrine they are denying what the Creed means.

Catholicism is the synagogue of Satan, and the Antichrist's embodiment on earth. I would have no problem telling that to any priest or pope. Same goes for the cult member.

The Mass itself is an abomination to God. It is just as a bad, or worse, than a Satanic ritual or a Satanist worship service.

The essential doctrines of the Christian faith MUST be adhered to, or else you forfeit salvation (I don't mean that in an Arminian way, just practically).


----------



## Scott (Apr 16, 2004)

Fred:

It is interesting that you mention Doug Kelly with approval. I just watched a video series sponsored by Covenant Seminary (PCA) in which he represented the reformed camp on the question of &quot;What is the True Church.&quot; He was not as hostile to Rome as you seem to be. In fact he went out of his way to make the point that we Reformed agree with Rome on about 95 percent of doctrinal issues. He got this figure from his work with Ford Lewis Battles, who held that belief. He seemed open to Christian unity, including with Catholics. Of course, he did not diminish the importance that 5 percent difference, which is huge. He also indicated, based on a citation from Calvin, the the Eastern Orthodox were true churches. The series is available in the PCA video library if you have an interest.

As to patristic interest among Reformed and Protestants, I disagree with your assessment. It is anemic at best. Most Protestants could not even spell Chrysostom. The most voluminous stuff is coming from Thomas Oden and his early church fathers series and related books, which are helpful. 

I am not sure what your point about Hodge was. Nobody suggested that he would have allowed a Roman priest into the pulpit. That is a different issue from saying that the Roman church is not part of the visible church of Christ. There are many in the visible church who should be kept from the pulpit.

Scott


----------



## Scott (Apr 16, 2004)

There is no doubt that the Reformers considered the papacy to be the embodiment of Antichrist. This view was built into their eschatology, historicism. Also built in is that the Roman church was the church of God. They interpreted the passage about the Antichrist sitting in the temple of God as referring to the papcy sitting in the church (the temple). If the Roman church was not a church at all, then Antichrist could not have been sitting in the temple of God.

Scott


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 16, 2004)

Right, they would have seen the Roman church as [color=blue:9750f25d70]apostate[/color:9750f25d70] (I agree).


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:02debd728f][i:02debd728f]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:02debd728f]

It is as simple as this: Rome has officially anathamatized the gospel. [/quote:02debd728f]

Ok, so you are saying that Trent was the apostasy? That is kind of what I have believed in the past.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:622ebb7539][i:622ebb7539]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:622ebb7539]The Mass itself is an abomination to God. It is just as a bad, or worse, than a Satanic ritual or a Satanist worship service. [/quote:622ebb7539]

Could a justified person take the mass?


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:059bff0831][i:059bff0831]Originally posted by Scott[/i:059bff0831]
There is no doubt that the Reformers considered the papacy to be the embodiment of Antichrist. This view was built into their eschatology, historicism. Also built in is that the Roman church was the church of God. They interpreted the passage about the Antichrist sitting in the temple of God as referring to the papcy sitting in the church (the temple). If the Roman church was not a church at all, then Antichrist could not have been sitting in the temple of God.

Scott [/quote:059bff0831]

I, as a historicist, disagree with this statement. I do not believe the reformers saw the Roman church as [b:059bff0831]the[/b:059bff0831] church of God. It is only viewed as [b:059bff0831]part[/b:059bff0831] of the church universal. A minor difference, but an important one.

You are correct to say that the passage concerning the man of sin sitting in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God is referring to the office of pope, since the office of the bishop of Rome was at one time a valid office (there actually were Christians who held that office). As time progressed the bishop of Rome became more and more powerful and influential until Antichrist was revealed. So, we can say that the man of sin sat in the temple of God (the church), proclaiming himself to be God (some of the titles the pope claims: Vicar of Christ on Earth, Most Holy Father, Pontifficus Maximus, etc. all claims to deity).


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:0490cd3a67][i:0490cd3a67]Originally posted by raderag[/i:0490cd3a67]

Could a justified person take the mass? [/quote:0490cd3a67]


Can a justified person still sin? Yes! 

Should a justified person flee from sin? Yes! 

So, could a justified person take the mass? Yes! But they would need to repent of their idolatry.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:c8fca71b1f][i:c8fca71b1f]Originally posted by sastark[/i:c8fca71b1f]
[quote:c8fca71b1f][i:c8fca71b1f]Originally posted by raderag[/i:c8fca71b1f]

Could a justified person take the mass? [/quote:c8fca71b1f]


Can a justified person still sin? Yes! 

Should a justified person flee from sin? Yes! 

So, could a justified person take the mass? Yes! But they would need to repent of their idolatry. [/quote:c8fca71b1f]

But if compared to a satanic ritual, that would be denying Christ.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:b10e210fcf][i:b10e210fcf]Originally posted by sastark[/i:b10e210fcf]
[quote:b10e210fcf][i:b10e210fcf]Originally posted by raderag[/i:b10e210fcf]

Could a justified person take the mass? [/quote:b10e210fcf]


Can a justified person still sin? Yes! 

Should a justified person flee from sin? Yes! 

So, could a justified person take the mass? Yes! But they would need to repent of their idolatry. [/quote:b10e210fcf]

It is a sin that can be repented of. But it is the equivalent of worshipping a totem pole. It is a clear violation of the 1st and 2nd commandments.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:3ca2b8b0c2][i:3ca2b8b0c2]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:3ca2b8b0c2]
[quote:3ca2b8b0c2][i:3ca2b8b0c2]Originally posted by sastark[/i:3ca2b8b0c2]
[quote:3ca2b8b0c2][i:3ca2b8b0c2]Originally posted by raderag[/i:3ca2b8b0c2]

Could a justified person take the mass? [/quote:3ca2b8b0c2]


Can a justified person still sin? Yes! 

Should a justified person flee from sin? Yes! 

So, could a justified person take the mass? Yes! But they would need to repent of their idolatry. [/quote:3ca2b8b0c2]

It is a sin that can be repented of. But it is the equivalent of worshipping a totem pole. It is a clear violation of the 1st and 2nd commandments. [/quote:3ca2b8b0c2]

Agreed.


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:7c5256aaa0][i:7c5256aaa0]Originally posted by raderag[/i:7c5256aaa0]
But if compared to a satanic ritual, that would be denying Christ. [/quote:7c5256aaa0]

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one person who denied Christ three times, and yet repented, and was a Christian. So, it is sin and sin is evil, but it can be forgiven and repented of.

(which reminds me: PRAISE GOD!)

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by sastark]


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:92549314a3][i:92549314a3]Originally posted by sastark[/i:92549314a3]
[quote:92549314a3][i:92549314a3]Originally posted by raderag[/i:92549314a3]
But if compared to a satanic ritual, that would be denying Christ. [/quote:92549314a3]

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one person who denied Christ three times, and yet repented, and was a Christian. So, it is sin and sin is evil, but it can be forgiven and repented of. [/quote:92549314a3]

That's a good point, but Peter repented. Are we saying that midieval Christians were not Christians at all?


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:0be8394f88][i:0be8394f88]Originally posted by raderag[/i:0be8394f88]

That's a good point, but Peter repented. Are we saying that midieval Christians were not Christians at all? [/quote:0be8394f88]

Hmm... are there people in Hell now that expected to go to heaven? I think so. Not everyone who says &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; will enter into the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:da0945054b][i:da0945054b]Originally posted by raderag[/i:da0945054b]
[quote:da0945054b][i:da0945054b]Originally posted by sastark[/i:da0945054b]
[quote:da0945054b][i:da0945054b]Originally posted by raderag[/i:da0945054b]
But if compared to a satanic ritual, that would be denying Christ. [/quote:da0945054b]

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one person who denied Christ three times, and yet repented, and was a Christian. So, it is sin and sin is evil, but it can be forgiven and repented of. [/quote:da0945054b]

That's a good point, but Peter repented. Are we saying that midieval Christians were not Christians at all? [/quote:da0945054b]

I don't think it requires us to consign the entire Medieval Church to hell to say that Rome is a synagogue of Satan today. There is something very important about Trent. At Trent Rome was faced with the choice of denying the gospel or affirming it. She chose to deny the gospel and anathamatize those who professed it. It is as if Peter had refused Paul's rebuke in Gal. 2 and instead insisted that Paul was a heretic. Remember that according to Rome (even if each church does not admit this practically) you are going to hell if because of what you believe. Trent is very clear here.

But we shouldn't fall into the mistake of quickly lumping all of the Medieval church into the equivalent of post-Tridentine Rome.

A good source for many of these questions is Cunningham's [i:da0945054b]Historical Theology[/i:da0945054b]


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:d8bbc05a98][i:d8bbc05a98]Originally posted by sastark[/i:d8bbc05a98]
[quote:d8bbc05a98][i:d8bbc05a98]Originally posted by raderag[/i:d8bbc05a98]

That's a good point, but Peter repented. Are we saying that midieval Christians were not Christians at all? [/quote:d8bbc05a98]

Hmm... are there people in Hell now that expected to go to heaven? I think so. Not everyone who says &quot;Lord, Lord&quot; will enter into the kingdom of heaven. [/quote:d8bbc05a98]

Seth, do you suppose that I don't know that verse.

The point is that you are implying that no midieval Catholics are in heaven, which means the church did not exist in visible form. WHat do you say to that? Is the Eucharist damnable?


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:75e7422d58][i:75e7422d58]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:75e7422d58]

I don't think it requires us to consign the entire Medieval Church to hell to say that Rome is a synagogue of Satan today. [/quote:75e7422d58]


I agree and I hope it did not sound like I meant every one who lived from 600 to 1517 went to hell. Not what I meant.

As usual, I agree with Fred.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:312c605d05][i:312c605d05]Originally posted by sastark[/i:312c605d05]
[quote:312c605d05][i:312c605d05]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:312c605d05]

I don't think it requires us to consign the entire Medieval Church to hell to say that Rome is a synagogue of Satan today. [/quote:312c605d05]


I agree and I hope it did not sound like I meant every one who lived from 600 to 1517 went to hell. Not what I meant.

As usual, I agree with Fred. [/quote:312c605d05]

Ok, I understand now. Saying that the Eucharist (you didn't say it, but seemed to abgree) was worse than Satan worship implies to me that one couldn't be a Christian and do this. Midieval Catholics, almost without exception, took the mass unrepentantly. I was just connecting the dots.


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:501fa143b3][i:501fa143b3]Originally posted by raderag[/i:501fa143b3]


Seth, do you suppose that I don't know that verse.

The point is that you are implying that no midieval Catholics are in heaven, which means the church did not exist in visible form. WHat do you say to that? Is the Eucharist damnable? [/quote:501fa143b3]

Brett, hey, I didn't mean to come across like I was talking down to you, because I really didn't mean to. I know it's hard to judge the tone of a post sometimes (I am the king of taking offense unneccessarily), so I'm sorry if I offended you by what I wrote. It really wasn't my intention.

Having said that, here are a couple of points to consider:

1- No, I am not implying that all medival Catholics are in hell. I believe that even among all that idolotry, there were some who were saved. Here is how I come to that conclusion:
a. I believe there were some who truly trusted in Christ for their salvation and were given the gift of faith.
b. Christ died for those who are truly elect
c. The elect, therefore have their sins forgiven
d. Therefore, I conclude that though medieval Catholics were sinning by participating in the Mass, Christ atoned for these sins, and there fore, not all medival Catholics went to hell.

2- Even if all medival Catholics went to hell, that does not mean that there was not church in medieval times. Rome never was, is not now and never will be &quot;[b:501fa143b3]the[/b:501fa143b3]&quot; church. Since the time of the Apostles there have been Christians outside the &quot;Empire&quot;. Perhaps a little church history would help you understand God's porvidential hand in preserving His church both inside and outside of Rome (I say that in a spirit of love, not to offend you).


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:1f892c7fae][i:1f892c7fae]Originally posted by sastark[/i:1f892c7fae]

Brett, hey, I didn't mean to come across like I was talking down to you, because I really didn't mean to. I know it's hard to judge the tone of a post sometimes (I am the king of taking offense unneccessarily), so I'm sorry if I offended you by what I wrote. It really wasn't my intention. [/quote:1f892c7fae]

Seth, don't worry about it. I was frusterated because I seem to have a hard time getting an answer. I think I understand where you and Fred are coming from now.

Sorry if I was a bit too terse in my reply also.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

> [i:27393317b3]Originally posted by sastark[/i:27393317b3]
> [quote:27393317b3][i:27393317b3]Originally posted by raderag[/i:27393317b3]
> 2- Even if all medival Catholics went to hell, that does not mean that there was not church in medieval times. Rome never was, is not now and never will be &quot;the&quot; church. Since the time of the Apostles there have been Christians outside the &quot;Empire&quot;. Perhaps a little church history would help you understand God's porvidential hand in preserving His church both inside and outside of Rome (I say that in a spirit of love, not to offend you). [/quote:27393317b3]
> 
> ...


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:66744053f8][i:66744053f8]Originally posted by raderag[/i:66744053f8]
Sorry if I was a bit too terse in my reply also. [/quote:66744053f8]

No problem!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 16, 2004)

The rome church became false form the get go when constantitne declared himself pope and paganized christianity.

blade


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:a72fbdc03f][i:a72fbdc03f]Originally posted by raderag[/i:a72fbdc03f]

I cannot agree here as the true church contains elders, sacraments, etc. I think you are speaking of only the invisible church, unless you have another body of believers in mind. It is my understanding that the RC, until the split with the East, contained almost all of the Christians in the World. I realize there were some Christians in the Mid-East, Orient, etc, but most of their views where not orthodox either? My main point is that there was a time when Rome had power over most all of the CHristian world.

I am not offended at all as I have much to learn.

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by raderag] [/quote:a72fbdc03f]

I agree with you about the three marks of the true church; however, once again, I would contend that there were true churches (local congregations) who did not submit to the doctrine of Rome. (I would point to England as a good example of an entire nation which was evangelized but did not fully come under Rome until the Norman invasion of 1066. Ireland is another example of a nation which was Christian, and yet not Roman for many centuries. See Phillip Schaff here: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch02.htm Do a search for England, and you will eventually get to section 8 dealing with the Britons.

Other than that, I will need more time to get you lists of Christians who were not Romanists. But, I'll be out of town this weekend, away from my computer, so maybe I'll have some time to study up.

You are right to say that there was a time when Rome had control over most of the Christians in the world, but God always kept a remnant for Himself.


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:d229abbb77][i:d229abbb77]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:d229abbb77]
The rome church became false form the get go when constantitne declared himself pope and paganized christianity.

blade [/quote:d229abbb77]

Blade,

No offense, but this never happened. Do you have a source for showing Constantine declaring himself pope?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 16, 2004)

I was implying that it was him who started it not in that he was a pope so to speak but that he was the one who got the ball running.

blade


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:85ac308283][i:85ac308283]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:85ac308283]
I was implying that it was him who started it not in that he was a pope so to speak but that he was the one who got the ball running.

blade [/quote:85ac308283]

Oh, ok, I see what you mean. I don't think I totally agree, but at least I understand what you meant.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 16, 2004)

cool:goodpost:


----------



## Scott (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:2daeba9b5d]
Other than that, I will need more time to get you lists of Christians who were not Romanists. But, I'll be out of town this weekend, away from my computer, so maybe I'll have some time to study up. 
[/quote:2daeba9b5d]

I would be interested in seeing your list too. Your position sounds similar to the anabaptist trail of blood theory, although it may differ (you have not sketched a position in detail). I suspect, but hope you won't, appeal to the Waldensians. I have heard a number of others appeal to this strange group (that is not saying you will).

Of course, there were always the Greek churches in the east. 

Scott


----------



## Scott (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:7db4802a64]
Remember that according to Rome (even if each church does not admit this practically) you are going to hell if because of what you believe. Trent is very clear here. 
[/quote:7db4802a64]


Fred:

I disagree that this is the current view of the Catholic Church toward those Christians outside RC. Current catholicism views Protestants very differently than Trent did. Here is a quote from Unitatis Redintegratio, a document from the Second Vatican Council. It is as binding on Catholics as Trent and is much more recent. 


[quote:7db4802a64]
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. [i:7db4802a64]The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers[/i:7db4802a64], with respect and affection. [i:7db4802a64]For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect[/i:7db4802a64]. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. [i:7db4802a64]But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church[/i:7db4802a64].(22) 
[/quote:7db4802a64]

Here is the entire document:
http://www.cin.org/v2ecum.html

Scott

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Scott]


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:aba86eb7e0][i:aba86eb7e0]Originally posted by raderag[/i:aba86eb7e0]
[quote:aba86eb7e0][i:aba86eb7e0]Originally posted by Scott[/i:aba86eb7e0]
You are asking questions that many Reformed find hard to answer or don't care about.

Scott [/quote:aba86eb7e0]

I wonder if that is why you are the only one to answer here so far?

Come on. Whoever is saying Rome is false, answer this question. [/quote:aba86eb7e0]

I will have to quote some one else.

AW Pink

&quot;The success of an illegitimate coiner depends largely upon how closely the counterfeit resembles the genuine article. Heresy is not so much the total denial of the truth as a perversion of it. That is why half a lie is always more dangerous than a complete repudiation. Hence when the Father of Lies enters the pulpit it is not his custom to flatly deny the fundamental truths of Christianity, rather does he tacitly acknowledge them, and then proceed to give an erroneous interpretation and a false application.&quot;

Just because one affirms the apostles creed does not make for a sound church. When they actively promote non biblical means of salvation , the use of idols, the re sacrificing of Christ at every mass and other blasphemies like that. They can repeat the Apostles creed till they are blue in the face. It does not mean they are a true church.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:c9535ee549][i:c9535ee549]Originally posted by Scott[/i:c9535ee549]
[quote:c9535ee549]
Remember that according to Rome (even if each church does not admit this practically) you are going to hell if because of what you believe. Trent is very clear here. 
[/quote:c9535ee549]


Fred:

I disagree that this is the current view of the Catholic Church toward those Christians outside RC. Current catholicism views Protestants very differently than Trent did. Here is a quote from Unitatis Redintegratio, a document from the Second Vatican Council. It is as binding on Catholics as Trent and is much more recent. 


[quote:c9535ee549]
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. [i:c9535ee549]The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers[/i:c9535ee549], with respect and affection. [i:c9535ee549]For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect[/i:c9535ee549]. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. [i:c9535ee549]But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church[/i:c9535ee549].(22) 
[/quote:c9535ee549]

Here is the entire document:
http://www.cin.org/v2ecum.html

Scott

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Scott] [/quote:c9535ee549]

Scott,

This is much vaguer than Trent, which Rome has steadfastly refused to repeal, and frankly, deals more with the issue of &quot;no salvation outside Rome&quot; than the doctrine of sola fide.

Sola fide is still anathama to Rome.

Just one example: when asked what he believed the status his wife (an Episcopalian) was, Mel Gibson responded that she was probably going to hell because she was not in the Roman Church.
[quote:c9535ee549]
Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. "There is no salvation for those outside the Church," Gibson replied. "I believe it." 

He elaborated: "Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it."
[/quote:c9535ee549]


----------



## pastorway (Apr 16, 2004)

Sheer idiocy.....the Pope is the &quot;holy father&quot; who acts as though he has kicked Jesus off His Throne. Antichrist indeed.

Phillip


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 16, 2004)




----------



## yeutter (Apr 16, 2004)

*Romanism vs Orthodoxy*

The Church of Rome denied at Trant several fundamental truths of the Christian Faith, chief among then justification solely by faith. After that they cast out the Jansenists who still held to the soveriegnty of God. At Vatican 1 they confirmed the false doctrines of Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I never call the Church of Rome Catholic because it no longer is.

Eastern Orthodoxy has never adopted in a formal sence these errors. I am inclined to regard the Serbian or Ukranian Orthodox as brothers; unless they manifest themselves as enemies of the Gospel.


----------



## Scott (Apr 16, 2004)

Fred:

Within Catholicism there are various schools of thought. There is a tiny strain (in America at least - perhaps alrger elsewhere) called tradtionalists. These believe that the mass should be in Latin only, are very Tridentine, reject Vatican II, and are very much old school Catholics. There are rather strange and many believein strange conspiracy theories, such as Pope John Paul II is not the real pope, but is rather an imposter. The real pope is in prison somewhere.

Mel Gibson is a tradtionalist. There was a fairly long NY Time article on Gibson's traditionalist views several months ago. His views are a small minority in America. I can't speak to other regions. There is a good book documenting traditionalist views in Michael Cuneo's The Smoke of Satan:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._1_1/102-0328332-1146513?v=glance&amp;s=books

Gerry Matatics (former PCA minister turned Catholic) is in this strange camp. 

Anyway, I think someone like Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is more representative of modern non-liberal Catholic thinking. He spoke at the Covenant Seminary symposium on &quot;What is the True Church&quot; and took a very Vatican II approach.

Mel Gibson is I think representative of a pre-Vatican II era. I do agree with you that Trent is a problem and fatal error. But the modern Catholic church is functionally ingoring Trent with Vatican II (even though they won't admit that Trent is repealed, which they should do).

Scott


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:92740316e7][i:92740316e7]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:92740316e7]
Just because one affirms the apostles creed does not make for a sound church. When they actively promote non biblical means of salvation , the use of idols, the re sacrificing of Christ at every mass and other blasphemies like that. They can repeat the Apostles creed till they are blue in the face. It does not mean they are a true church. 

[/quote:92740316e7]

I agree, but I didn't make that claim. Rather, I was only asking Scott Bushey to defend his claim about RC and the Creed.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:363d66910c][i:363d66910c]Originally posted by Scott[/i:363d66910c]
Fred:

Within Catholicism there are various schools of thought. There is a tiny strain (in America at least - perhaps alrger elsewhere) called tradtionalists. These believe that the mass should be in Latin only, are very Tridentine, reject Vatican II, and are very much old school Catholics. There are rather strange and many believein strange conspiracy theories, such as Pope John Paul II is not the real pope, but is rather an imposter. The real pope is in prison somewhere.

Mel Gibson is a tradtionalist. There was a fairly long NY Time article on Gibson's traditionalist views several months ago. His views are a small minority in America. I can't speak to other regions. There is a good book documenting traditionalist views in Michael Cuneo's The Smoke of Satan:

Gerry Matatics (former PCA minister turned Catholic) is in this strange camp. 

Anyway, I think someone like Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is more representative of modern non-liberal Catholic thinking. He spoke at the Covenant Seminary symposium on &quot;What is the True Church&quot; and took a very Vatican II approach.

Mel Gibson is I think representative of a pre-Vatican II era. I do agree with you that Trent is a problem and fatal error. But the modern Catholic church is functionally ingoring Trent with Vatican II (even though they won't admit that Trent is repealed, which they should do).

Scott [/quote:363d66910c]

Scott,

I'm very aware of the different strains in Catholicism. My background is Catholic. While you are correct that there are some &quot;traditionalists&quot; that have a lot of baggage that goes along with them, there are also many - the vast majority of conservative Catholics - that are not wackos, but actually think that Catholic doctrine is important and worth upholding. Scott Hahn is a good example of a former Protestant who fits this category.

America is an odd place for the Catholic church, and is by far and away not the norm or the way to judge Rome's doctrine. For years the Catholic bishops have been more concerned with bashing Reagan/Bush than upoholding canon law on celibacy, homosexuality and abortion. In America there tend to be two types of liberals - ones who ignore Rome like mainline Protestants ignore confessions, and men like Neuhaus that have a hidden agenda. Don't fool yourself into thinking that Neuhaus is interested in closing the divide. He's not. This is simply his tactic to win over converts for Rome. After all, he is a Protestant convert to Rome himself.

Here's an honest question, that I have no intention of using against anyone: have you ever been to a Catholic mass? Not a wedding, but a full blown mass? What is your practical experience with Roman worship?

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:35a721419a][i:35a721419a]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:35a721419a]
Here's an honest question, that I have no intention of using against anyone: have you ever been to a Catholic mass? Not a wedding, but a full blown mass? What is your practical experience with Roman worship? 

[/quote:35a721419a]

I have heard several on the radio. Pretty scary stuff if you ask me.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:0b6412624c][i:0b6412624c]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:0b6412624c]
Sheer idiocy.....the Pope is the &quot;holy father&quot; who acts as though he has kicked Jesus off His Throne. Antichrist indeed.

Phillip [/quote:0b6412624c]

The problem is that this 'idiocy' seems wise to many very intelligent people. Don't ever underestimate the Roman apologist or theologian. Many a fundamentalist has been converted to Roman Catholicism because what they had been taught about Rome was a straw man. Fortunatly, God has given much to the simple and humble, and resisted the proud.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:e25d3441c7][i:e25d3441c7]Originally posted by raderag[/i:e25d3441c7]
[quote:e25d3441c7][i:e25d3441c7]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:e25d3441c7]
Just because one affirms the apostles creed does not make for a sound church. When they actively promote non biblical means of salvation , the use of idols, the re sacrificing of Christ at every mass and other blasphemies like that. They can repeat the Apostles creed till they are blue in the face. It does not mean they are a true church. 

[/quote:e25d3441c7]

I agree, but I didn't make that claim. Rather, I was only asking Scott Bushey to defend his claim about RC and the Creed. [/quote:e25d3441c7]



I understand. I didnt mean to make it seem like you made the claim. I misrepresented it pooly. I never get my point across well sometimes.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:70511a1284][i:70511a1284]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:70511a1284]

I understand. I didnt mean to make it seem like you made the claim. I misrepresented it pooly. I never get my point across well sometimes. [/quote:70511a1284]

No, I knew that you probably meant it in that way, but I wanted to clarify so a new argument wouldn't be started with someone else.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:064206d63e][i:064206d63e]Originally posted by raderag[/i:064206d63e]
[quote:064206d63e][i:064206d63e]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:064206d63e]
Sheer idiocy.....the Pope is the &quot;holy father&quot; who acts as though he has kicked Jesus off His Throne. Antichrist indeed.

Phillip [/quote:064206d63e]

The problem is that this 'idiocy' seems wise to many very intelligent people. Don't ever underestimate the Roman apologist or theologian. Many a fundamentalist has been converted to Roman Catholicism because what they had been taught about Rome was a straw man. Fortunatly, God has given much to the simple and humble, and resisted the proud. [/quote:064206d63e]

You are absolutely correct here. That is one of the reasons that Rome should never be given an inch. Vatican 2 or not, the only way that there will ever be any &quot;progress&quot; made is if Protestants bow the knee to the Pontiff and kiss his ring.

But the problem with Protestants is that they either take one of two tacks:

1. They underestimate the differences with Rome, and believe that there are some good things in Rome

2. They underestimate Rome and think that every Papists will be sent packing with an accusation of &quot;you believe in salvation by works not grace.&quot; Let me tell you, a good Papist apologist will obliterate the poor evangelical that raises this.

Only when we understand that Papists mean entirely different things by &quot;church,&quot; &quot;grace,&quot; &quot;faith,&quot; &quot;baptism,&quot; &quot;salvation,&quot; &quot;works,&quot; and other can we address her poison.


----------



## raderag (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:9d9eccffd5][i:9d9eccffd5]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:9d9eccffd5]
[quote:9d9eccffd5][i:9d9eccffd5]Originally posted by raderag[/i:9d9eccffd5]
[quote:9d9eccffd5][i:9d9eccffd5]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:9d9eccffd5]
Sheer idiocy.....the Pope is the &quot;holy father&quot; who acts as though he has kicked Jesus off His Throne. Antichrist indeed.

Phillip [/quote:9d9eccffd5]

The problem is that this 'idiocy' seems wise to many very intelligent people. Don't ever underestimate the Roman apologist or theologian. Many a fundamentalist has been converted to Roman Catholicism because what they had been taught about Rome was a straw man. Fortunatly, God has given much to the simple and humble, and resisted the proud. [/quote:9d9eccffd5]

You are absolutely correct here. That is one of the reasons that Rome should never be given an inch. Vatican 2 or not, the only way that there will ever be any &quot;progress&quot; made is if Protestants bow the knee to the Pontiff and kiss his ring.

But the problem with Protestants is that they either take one of two tacks:

1. They underestimate the differences with Rome, and believe that there are some good things in Rome

2. They underestimate Rome and think that every Papists will be sent packing with an accusation of &quot;you believe in salvation by works not grace.&quot; Let me tell you, a good Papist apologist will obliterate the poor evangelical that raises this.

Only when we understand that Papists mean entirely different things by &quot;church,&quot; &quot;grace,&quot; &quot;faith,&quot; &quot;baptism,&quot; &quot;salvation,&quot; &quot;works,&quot; and other can we address her poison. [/quote:9d9eccffd5]

I agree there is no ecumenical compromise as Rome would have to give up her claim of authority, thus ceasing to be Rome. However, the other side of the coin is that we must be very intellectually honest in seeking the whole truth on Rome. I think that Rome feeds on the many straw men that those against them build.


----------



## raderag (Apr 18, 2004)

[quote:3e145d35dd][i:3e145d35dd]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:3e145d35dd]
Brett:
I think that strawmen have their own church. Their creed is off the wall, though. I don't think anybody lets them in. I think they're all in Oz, looking for a brain. [/quote:3e145d35dd]

BTW, that was very funny.



[Edited on 4-18-2004 by raderag]


----------



## Scott (Apr 19, 2004)

Vatican II does propose restrucuring the papacy to make it more palatable to other Christian communions. As I recall, the docs ask for suggestions from other communions, especially Eastern Orthodoxy, about what other kinds of changes can be made.


----------



## Scott (Apr 19, 2004)

Fred: I am aware of &quot;conservatives&quot; in contrast to traditionalists and also use Scott Hahn as an example of that (as a side note, it is interesting to see how their two paths diverged since they were both involved in each other's conversions). The Smoke of Satan book deals with both camps. Conservatives are still a small minority (less than 10 percent of Catholics) in America and the West. Probably less so outside the West, but I am not sure. You are right that there are some and they are certainly more numerous that traditionalists. Given that there are 60 million Catholics in America (compared to 300,000 in the PCA - yikes!), 5-10 percent is still alot. Still, conservatives accept Vatican II, including the Decree on Ecumenism, quoted above. That is a very different approach than a traditionalist like Gibson.

Scott


----------



## Scott (Apr 19, 2004)

[quote:f14cf06906]
I agree there is no ecumenical compromise as Rome would have to give up her claim of authority, thus ceasing to be Rome. However, the other side of the coin is that we must be very intellectually honest in seeking the whole truth on Rome. I think that Rome feeds on the many straw men that those against them build. 
[/quote:f14cf06906]

Not necessarily. The claim to papal infallibility was not officially recognized until 1870 or so (may not have the date exactly right). There are a number of other forms that the papacy could take, such as the pentarchy that was in placed for centuries, a conciliar model, a return to a pre-1870 style, etc. Some of these would mean Rome admitting that her decrees are reformable (which Rome should do).


----------



## yeutter (Apr 20, 2004)

Vatican II did seems at times to say things that are mutually exclusive with what they said in Vatican I.

That is troublesome in that truth is no longer for Rome an absolute. They get around it by saying that Vatican II must be interpreted in light of Vatican I and all previous Councils. I wonder what St. Thomas Aquinas would say about such rubbish?

I still think Rome officially apostasized at Trent with her rejection of Sola Fides.


----------

