No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
yeah ok if you say so then
Pope Francis dead
- Thread starter clawrence9008
- Start date
- Status
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Just you do not accuse of me of being dismissive without a point, I will recap the issue here. In your defense of your position, you made the following claim:
(both referring to Claudius and Nero) which is baffling to me how Biblical exegesis tells us both Claudius and Nero were alive? Thus must be the referents of the text?
You were challenged on this:
I think that's a great question. When you say Candlish did not actually write an exegesis of a text, did you mean there was no exegesis at all there or that somehow only exegeses of individual texts one at a time count?
As Rev. Winzer pointed out so long ago:
Every answer you give seems less clear, and honestly, the last post you made strikes as a bit of "no-true-Scotsman" in it.
If I am wrong, I certainly am not alone. Start a new thread and lay out your case in full. If you are too busy with life, I get that.
Take your time. PB is going nowhere hahaha
(both referring to Claudius and Nero) which is baffling to me how Biblical exegesis tells us both Claudius and Nero were alive? Thus must be the referents of the text?
You were challenged on this:
I think that's a great question. When you say Candlish did not actually write an exegesis of a text, did you mean there was no exegesis at all there or that somehow only exegeses of individual texts one at a time count?
As Rev. Winzer pointed out so long ago:
Every answer you give seems less clear, and honestly, the last post you made strikes as a bit of "no-true-Scotsman" in it.
If I am wrong, I certainly am not alone. Start a new thread and lay out your case in full. If you are too busy with life, I get that.
Take your time. PB is going nowhere hahaha
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
So you're alright with the sitting being a metaphor for ruling, but not with "temple" being a metaphor for the church? Even though both metaphors are found throughout the Scriptures?
[automerge]1746043197[/automerge]
No, unless you understand his words hyper-literally (which seems to be a trend).
He criticizes the scribes and pharisees' teaching throughout the gospels.
[automerge]1746043263[/automerge]
@DanSSwing are you a former dispensationalist by any chance? You seem to share their tendency towards hyperliteralism, and an aversion to recognizing figures of speech.
I agree with you about grounding the interpretation in the first century, and I think there is a place for some preterist views of the passage, especially the reference to the temple; but the recipients still had to wrestle with a manifestation that was future from their perspective. No matter how the passage is interpreted, it still has to be APPLIED to whomever one calls the man of sin.
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Junior
I am watching "Conclave".
The conclave for the next pope is due to begin on the 7th May.
The film has brilliant cinematography, but behind that it reveals again the perversion with which man has twisted Christianity to serve his own lusts. How much we need truly holy men preaching for reformation according to the word of God. How many multitudes walk in darkness and yet claim to follow the light!
The conclave for the next pope is due to begin on the 7th May.
The film has brilliant cinematography, but behind that it reveals again the perversion with which man has twisted Christianity to serve his own lusts. How much we need truly holy men preaching for reformation according to the word of God. How many multitudes walk in darkness and yet claim to follow the light!
Last edited:
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
My family and I just watched it Saturday to get a feel of what might be going on too.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Same here!
Correct I would say a lot of Catholics are saved by default they just don’t know it perhaps. They believe in Christ as their Savior. they also just believe they have to do extra things that they don’t. They also have many traditions that are accepted but not mandatory to do. They don’t have to pray to saints or angels for example. They can pray directly to God and I would say most probably do. But they’re Trinitarian, they’re nothing like JW, Mormons, Etc. every Mass has 2 readings from books of the Bible and one 1 reading from a Gospel. I’m southern Baptist, but I consider hyper charismatic / Pentecostals way more cringe.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
You say that, but a little over 3 years ago I faced this very choice on a quick trip out of state. The Roman church was 2 blocks from my hotel and I decided to catch the early mass before my airport shuttle over the early service at another church.
Couldn't do it. Got about 20 minutes in and shortly before the epiclesis I just couldn't stand it anymore. I walked out, went back to the hotel, and found an online sermon from a preacher I know. I thought that it would be better than the charismatic church for the same reasons - the trinitarian common ground, the biblical elements of the liturgy - but it turns out that syncretism really is just as bad as outright idolatry. It was foolish of me to even attempt, but now I know.
St. Gerdt
Puritan Board Freshman
No. I apologize for my frankness, but no. This is nonsense.
PhilalethesIrenaeus
Banned
Fisher's Catechism 98.35
Q. 35. If we are to pray for all sorts of men living, how may we pray about the Roman Antichrist?
A. Out of the love we should bear to our fellow-creatures, who are under the yoke and dominion of the Roman Antichrist, we ought to pray no otherwise about him, than that the Lord would soon “consume him with the Spirit of his mouth, and destroy him with the brightness of his coming,” 2 Thess. 2:8.
Q. 35. If we are to pray for all sorts of men living, how may we pray about the Roman Antichrist?
A. Out of the love we should bear to our fellow-creatures, who are under the yoke and dominion of the Roman Antichrist, we ought to pray no otherwise about him, than that the Lord would soon “consume him with the Spirit of his mouth, and destroy him with the brightness of his coming,” 2 Thess. 2:8.
erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
In Zechariah 9, God pronounces judgment on the enemies of Israel and part of the judgment is that some of them "will belong to our God and become a clan in Judah". To destroy one's enemy can include making them your friend, as God demonstrates by making us who were His enemies His friends.
[automerge]1746730656[/automerge]
I don't agree with all that @Epp780 said but even Luther in speaking of the Lord's Supper in 1527 wrote regarding Ulrich Zwingli that he would “Rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics” (The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ – Against the Fanatics). Luther even considered EO to be part of the church. Many Reformers, Reformed Scholastics, and modern orthodox Reformed people consider the RCC to still have "true churches among them" (as Calvin states in his Institutes)
pianoviolin
Puritan Board Freshman
Even after Trent, there may be many in absolute terms, but not in relative terms (i.e., not anywhere near a majority) of people within the RCC or EO that are saved. This is in spite of their doctrine and not because of it though - no they are not "saved by default." A lot of missionaries to Catholic countries in Europe say maybe 5-10% seem to be saved? (It is probably lower in Latin America/Phillipines). Because in their hearts they trust in Christ alone for their salvation. I recall reading a sermon from the early Reformation days on "what will be of our forefathers" (please let me know if you can find it) and it basically said that upon the mercy of God alone there may have been some laypeople who were saved (but barely) in the Roman church.
Luther's statements are also a little hyperbolic, as was his tendency. There was still hope at the time in Europe that a council would be called, the Pope would repent and everyone would reunite. If Rome had adopted duplex iustitia (which is arguably present in Augustine) there may have been more room to dialogue about sola fide and a more thoroughly Protestant view on justification. See .
Last edited:
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Many Poles are fairly pious in terms of bible reading and simple prayer to God. But this still seems like a gross overestimate.
pianoviolin
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm not sure, I'm happy it's not up to me to decide these things. I've heard that Latin American Catholicism is really bad (i.e., no bible reading, very little influence from Protestant culture, super syncretic, super idolatrous, liberation theology, etc.).
erickinho1bra
Puritan Board Freshman
As a Latin American, my anecdotal experience, would say you are totally right. Big emphasis on the syncretism part. Native religions and witchcraft really easily blend with the imagery of Catholicism. This being an example: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...n-synod-pachamama-was-thrown-into-tiber-river
[automerge]1746733408[/automerge]
You do still see people in the modern Reformed tradition that consider RC theology (along with quasi-sacerdotal traditions like Lutheranism) to still be at its core "Christian" even if many in the RCC are not Christian. Dr. Lane Tipton, former professor at WTS, is one of them (you can listen to his series on Reformed Forum on Salvation).
Last edited:
pianoviolin
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm pretty sure Machen called Romanism a "perversion of Christianity" but not as far off the deep end as universalism or liberalism. Of course, this was before Vatican II - why debate justification if you believe that justification isn't required. Roman Catholicism builds up a true gospel (Apostle's and Nicene Creed, in some sense preaching Christ) and then bury it under 2,000 pounds of accretions, errors, and heresies like works righteousness, the treasury of merit, invocation of the saints, plenary indulgences, the four Marian dogmas, etc. As long as we acknowledge the chasm that is exists between us and Rome, I am content to acknowledge Rome as a false church that nonetheless retains the sacrament of Baptism and that while denominationally apostate, may contain true believers. We must oppose Rome while also acknowledging a tension that exists between us and Rome (which does not exists between us and Mormonism or JW). The history of the Roman (western) church before the 1500s is indeed our church, regardless of the abuses and errors. Anything that is good and true and right within the Western church is rightfully our heritage.
It's incorrect to label Lutheranism as quasi-sacerdotal, even if we might strongly disagree with their idea of baptismal regeneration, absolution, or real apostasy. First, both Lutheran baptismal regeneration and absolution involves faith and is not ex opere operato. Even if some modern Lutherans seem to have a more ex opero operato view, the core Lutheran teaching is that baptism/absolution needs to be rightly received by faith. Second, they are very firm on justification by faith alone, probably better than many Reformed today who often slip into legalism and navel-gazing. (Yes, Lutherans have a third use of the law). Third, their idea of apostasy is not one where you are constantly moving in and out of a state of grace. Just because some aspects of Lutheran practice are similar to Roman Catholicism (e.g. the Lutheran mass, absolution, high church liturgy, incense, church calendar, etc.) doesn't mean that they aren't our brothers and sisters in Christ. I've benefitted greatly from Lutherans like Dr. Jordan B. Cooper and the YouTube channel Lutheran Scholastics.
Last edited:
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, it's very bad. I've been in Peru for years and I've never met a Roman Catholic that has read the bible, or even part of the bible. But they love getting really really drunk and dancing in honor of the patron saint of their village.
Also, witchcraft and shamanism are widespread.
WithinThePale
Puritan Board Freshman
Seems like Ireland in an earlier age (which seems to be coming back, given that Brigit's day is now a thing)
Claes Jacob Heijndericksz
Puritan Board Freshman
Today I was reading A journal of the first voyage of Vasco da Gama, 1497-1499 and this post came in mind. Apparently when the Portuguese sailors visited India for the first time in the late 15th century they mistook the hindu's for christians, a hindu temple (in Calicut) for a church and a hindu goddess for the virgin Mary and prostrated themselves in front of the idol in veneration.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
The irony is how not far wrong they were.
pianoviolin
Puritan Board Freshman
“veneration”
dulia
hyper-dulia
hyper-hyper-hyper-dulia
"asking the saints for intercession is the same as asking a friend to pray for you"
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
