I think we need a new topic.
I’m tossing back and forth which one of these quotes to put up first because both are wonderful and revealing in their own way. One of them will be a thought for the day, the other will serve as a segue for a short post I will put up later this afternoon. Both tell me something about being judgmental (an icky, gross word); both are patently myopic. And they both come from the January/February 2010 issue of Modern Reformation magazine. Here’s the first, written by Annette Gyson who is an editor at a ‘Christian book publisher’ in Grand Rapids. She is commenting, in conclusion, on the book Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be:
This is an excellent book, one that all Christians would benefit from reading. Emerging Christianity does ask some valid questions, ones that should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, their own answers draw from sources other than Scripture. Like Jude in the New Testament, DeYoung and Kluk remind us that our comfort in life and in death is the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. (40)
It may not appear to be much, and maybe it isn’t, but that one word ‘unfortunately’ really bugs me for some reason. I know we’ve been down this road before, but let me ask the obvious question: Is it unfortunate?
237 Comments(+Add)
It is impossible to address all the many trbutaries that may call themselves emergent with one “Emergent Christianity” term. The unfortunate part of using sources other than Scripture is when they conflict or dilute Scriptures themselves.
I have used words much less gracious than “unfortunate” in those instances.
So you think that this is a fair assessment then?
Do you think it is fair when those ‘other sources’ do not dilute Scripture?
“Fortunately” for us St. Jude and the boys didn’t limit themselves to the written words of the bible when passing on the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Why Brett. Did you never learn not to exceed what is written?
1 Cor 4:6
Jerry – I often used outside sources or illustraionts to support Scripture. It is when people use sources to alter Scripture, even if unintended. That includes personal “revelations” as well as pagan sources.
The writer says unfortunate but does she give specific instances that are unfortunate?
Sounds like a nod to the illusion of sola scriptura to me.
I’m not a mind reader so I won’t put words in St. Paul’s mouth. But if that’s what he meant in that letter to the church at Corinth, we should not have the 4 gospels in our bibles (sincle they were beyond what was written at the time)
smiley , smiley, and double smiley to you too!
Every instruction book — including the Canon — has an “in development” stage.
My “Snark-O-Meter” got a jiggle there. But fortunately seems to have settled back down.
I would give the answer I’m starting to learn on a number of fronts: It depends.
For example, when we interpret the Bible in English, we’re already using a number of extrabiblical sources. Sources that looked at the Hebrew/Greek and determined which definitions most applied, how the clauses from another syntax translated into English syntax, and what the literal and figurative meanings were (and which should be translated to English).
When we read our English Bibles, we are also using some comparative literature techniques that studied the form/language from extrabiblical sources contemporary to the biblical texts to determine meaning and nuances for English translation.
I believe that a number of hermeneutical techniques which rely on extrabibilical sources – primarily contemporary extrabiblical sources to the original text – are valid and decidedly NOT unfortunate…
On the other hand (of the “it depends”), if the extrabibilical sources are not contemporary, or completely pagan, or driven by a pre-determined agenda, then perhaps that type of use IS unfortunate.
Is that like the illusion of autographic inerrancy and infallability?
#8
So St. Paul should have said, don’t go beyond what is written; unless what is written is “in development”?
And St. John should have said “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Now there are also many other things that Jesus did “[but none of them are part of THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH, because we did not write them down]
I do not believe in “sola scriptura”. I can understand why many Christians accept it because it has been taught and handed on by some pretty smart people.
I even agree (to an extent) that if you are only going to have one reliable source, well you can’t do any better that the bible.
But don’t give me bible verses and claim that they prove “sola scriptura”. I’ve read the new testament many, many, times and I don’t see it in there. And the first Christians did not practice “sola scriptura”.
Well Brett with you as a Catholic I understand your position on that, but that is exactly how your Church developed such things as Novenas to St. Jude and the boys you referenced earlier, scapulas, indulgences, icons, the rosary, veneration and prayers to Mary, treasury of the merits of the saints, transubstantiation, etc., that are anathema to Protestants. I also find it just a ** little ** ironic that the pope is infallable, but not scripture. /sarcasm off.
I was (and am currently) trying to remain civil. This is also coming from one who lived in New Orleans many years and had/has many Catholic friends whom I consider “saved”. (Not to get your panties in a wad over that presumption).
and up you a 
Yes, heaven forbid we try to establish Christian norms via Scripture.
what’s i found “unfortunate” about that book was not only the hack job that it’s content was, but even the title was stupid.
“by two guys who should be”…
that claim demonstrated how they missed the boat and really don’t understand what they claim to understand…
that book should have been titled:
Why we’re not Tony Jones/Doug Pagitt/Brian McLaren…from two guys who were never told they should be…
to the question, i don’t know if it’s really unfortunate…
i mean, do we consider books by John Piper, extra-biblical as they are, unfortunate sources of theology shaping thought?
sola scriptura is the formal position, but prima scriptura is where people actually live…IMHO
happy new year.
Like Jude in the New Testament, DeYoung and Kluk remind us that our comfort in life and in death is the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
yes, they remind us of how fortunate we are that without the particular developments of particular strain of Reformed thought developed in early 20th century North America we would be without the unfettered faith/doctrine of the particular, but somehow universal, thought of the 1st century church…
yes, i’m breathless with appreciation…
it’s awesome how a baby baptizer like DeYoung is allowed to make interpretive choices, but that courtesy can’t be extended to others…
and i say that as one who baptized my kids…
sheesh…
#18 – hear, hear.
#14
John,
You have proven your civility by referencing numerous stereotypes that have nothing to do with “sola scriptura”.
After breaking up fights between my 3 sons calling each other poo poo heads over the last few weeks, I’m starting to not have to try to be civil anymore. Patience and civility are slowly becoming 2nd nature to me, by the grace of God. (and all without praying a single novena)
I never claimed that believing in “sola scriptura” makes anyone inferior to me, and I’ll gladly claim you as a brother in Christ.
I just believe that Christians are not merely a people of the book. Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, the living God has spoken only one single word.
“in these last days he has spoken to us through his son”
Works for me.
it could be, if they draw from sources other than scripture but not scripture itself…
yet, in and of itself, draw[ing] from sources other than scripture is not unfortunate… in fact it’s nigh impossible not to.
we should develop some kind of punishment, a time-out chair or dunce cap for comments that employ this tactic.
bret makes a very specific comment regarding scripture and one certain doctrine and john rebuts with a swipe about norms.
c’mon people THINK before you TYPE!
i would embrace sola scriptura as defined HERE.
i would reject sola scriptura as defined HERE.
so i guess it depends
OK Neil, Bret gets a pass for stating “don’t give me Bible verses” in a biblical discussion but I’m a dunce. So just what “tactic” are you refering to? It’s not kosher to use Scripture when arguing church doctrine and if one can’t use Scripture in arguing the use of Scripture then what higher authority can one resort to? And my “swipe” was in response to . . . well never mind.
I will plant a flag that the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of Tradition co-equal to Scripture has created all those pesky nuances between RC and Protestantism.
That is not to say we can’t be civil and recognize brothers in christ when we come across the. But, I will say this, the civility is only possible in the USA. Just talk to just about any protestant missionary in Mexico and hear the horror stories regarding their mix of pagan supersitition and christianity as condoned by the RC there. American RC and 3rd World RC practices are quite different animals.
John #14,
I was going to let it slide, but I can’t:
1. I believe that scripture is 100% infallible and never claimed otherwise.
2. The pope for damn sure believes that scripture is infallible and I’m pretty sure he has written several books attesting to that fact. (Neither my Latin nor my German is too sharp, so I can’t provide you with the sources at the moment.)
3. “Papal infallibility” is a very narrowly doctrinal defined area, which I won’t go into; because something tells me you don’t really care. I’m sure if you ever run into the pope he would tell you he is very fallible (scratch that / maybe running into the pope is not such a good idea given recent events)
4. The only Christian I know of that is truly infallible is Pastor Ken Silva.
john,
bret said “don’t give me bible verses and claim that they prove ’sola scriptura’.” which clearly means he does not believe that the scriptures teach the doctrine.
you replied with “heaven forbid we try to establish Christian norms via Scripture.” bret did not say the scriptures do not establish norms for christians.
see the difference?
we see this all too often. someone says something very specific and someone else rebuts as if they denied some general broadly held position.
The simple point was (thanks Neil, by the way for noticing) that you are not going to find bible verses that PROVE sola scriptura.
You wanna believe “sola scriptura” knock yourself out. But you pickup your bible and start reading it with that belief beforehand.
“Presuppositional” I think is what the smart guys call it, right?
brett,
do you believe in papal infallability in the way it is employed by the roman church (as opposed to the caricature that is often employed by protestants)? when was the last time a pope spoke ex cathedra?
as i said in 24… i’d say it depends what ya mean by sola scriptura.
YES!
I probably can’t explain it perfectly at the moment; but I believe it is a charism (from the holy spirit, a.k.a. God). Just like when Peter resolved the 1st council in Jerusalem (Acts 15 I believe.); even though he was a knucklehead that had previously denied Christ 3 times.
Disclaimer: I provide this anecdote without claiming that Acts 15 PROVES papal infallibility.
Gentlemen, I’m fully aware of the doctrine of papal infallability. sorry to dissapoint.
I don’t know how I feel about the whole ’sola’ thing. I mean, I don’t think it says anywhere in the Bible ’sola’–that I should necessarily exclude all other voices. What about the Holy Spirit? Should we ignore the Holy Spirit?
re 32: john, no disappointment from me, i never said you didn’t.
#33 – The Scriptures are the voice of the Spirit. What other “voices” do you suggest when you say “should we exclude ALL other voices?
I think that’s the key to the matter; whichever of us is right. I accept the catechism’s doctrinal teaching on papal authority, but this scripture book sums up my understanding of it pretty well:
He goes on to relate the Holy Spirit’s role in relation to the pope and the lay faithful:
I admit this is only my partial understanding of the subject (and not even in my own words), so I’ll defer to John Hughes who has the full understanding on the matter.
Rick, I define that statement with the second statement concerning the Holy Spirit.
Finally!
Brett,
But don’t give me
bible versesquotes from Catholic theolgians and claim that they prove“sola scriptura”papal authority. I’ve read thenew testamentCatholic Catechism many, many, times andI don’t see it in there.I’m not convinced.#36: Isn’t it amazing that the single most notorious purveyor of false doctrine and errant teaching – far, far off the mark of the biblical foundation – has papal infallibility in its back pocket?
I wonder how infallible the pope was when he introduced indulgences, directed the Crusades, literally raped a continent for about a millenium, declared the assumption of Mary, decided to adorn every place of worship with idols, encouraged praying to saints, instituted a priesthood and a “celibate” one at that… the list goes on.
re 39: i don’t think he offered them as proof, he offered them as definition/explanation.
re 41:
Thanks again Neil,
for noticing that I was not trying to convince John Hughes of anything. Because John Hughes in his current state of civility obviously doesn’t care what I believe about anything.
Not really worth a tear spilled in my beer over
oh he cares, he’s just not being very precise.
beer?
so, both apostate AND a bibber?
re: 40
Hello There Paul C, and Merry Christmas to you!
Still out there battling the evil Crusaders I see
A hate to detour down this road, but for the record:
A “celibate” priesthood is not part of the deposit of faith and therefore not a dogmatic teaching of the catholic church.
However the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the one priesthood of Jesus Christ, “the one mediator between God and men.” A close reading of the scriptures reveals, maybe not coincidentally, that the one great high priest was “celibate”. Go figure?
#45: doesn’t strike you as odd that there were no priests ordained or even mentioned in the NT?
What about Mary and all the saints that people actually pray TO? Remember, you’re speaking to a former Catholic. In reality, Christ being the sole mediator is not correct. Ever been to Mexico or Africa? Europe?
probably could say the same things about the position of “pastor” as we have developed it in the states and europe.
#47 – not sure where you’re going with that.
Perfectly biblical. Timothy and Titus were basically pastors/elders, as were many others.
When did priests first make it on the scene?
i’d say a paid position requiring an advanced degree is about as “biblical” as celibacy.
What exactly is this conversation about anyhow?
genesis 14:18
whether or not the scriptures show paid professional vocation clergy – isn’t that what the op assumed?
The infallibility of the pope.
Interesting you would mention that. Christ is our High Priest. But the NT declares us ALL kings and priests.
I’m not sure if you’re just playing dumb, but to try and make a case for the priesthood of the RCC is very lame. It was a powerplay.
When I asked the question as to when the priesthood arrived on the scene, I was referring to the NT.
Who makes this requirement? This is not how it works in our church.
relax paul… my intent was to point out that ordained priests as we find them in the roman church is as biblical as ordained pastors in most american/european (even canadian) protestant churches.
but since you decided to play the concordance card, i did as well… that’s all.
The Last Supper?
Maybe you actually were paying attention to those catechism classes:["Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."] CCC #1546
I thought the OP was about whether or not we can find truth in places outside of Scripture and whether or not that truth is of any value, should be listened to, and carries any weight in trying to understand who we are, why we’re here, and what we’re doing.
Or something like that. I didn’t make any assumptions one way or another about paid clergy. Sorry.
Although, for the record, i think paid clergy ought to be done away with.
re 56 – i understand, but i made my point in 22 and 24, but no one bit.
The Roman Catholic Church is the most prominent dispenser of damnable doctrine of all time. Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
Rick,
Give us Protestants time to catch up.
They have had more than a 1000 year head start on us.
I am not a Protestant. I am a believing follower of Jesus Christ, fallible and falling short, but following the true Christ nonetheless.
Rick,
A Catholic can and would say the same.
We will see one day.
Obviously, Rick, with statements like #60, you think you are following the true Christ whereas a Catholic is not. And obviously, you must think that unless one is following the “true Christ” they are damned.
Doesn’t it bother you at all that only one of you can be right in this construct? How do you know it’s you?
#63 If Catholics are following their theology of Vatican II, they are not following the same Christ. But that does not matter does it? They will all wind up in heaven.
Same question still applies. How do you know you are following the right one?
#65
The scripture. The testimony of the Holy Spirit. Bearing fruit in keeping with repentance. God’s promise. I could go on and on, and publish scripture to show it, but you know and deny it all already….Like Ephesians 2…in the other thread. God has saved us by his grace. Catholics believe in works.
blah blah blah.
And a Catholic will say the exact same thing.
The problem still remains – only one of you can be right (according to your construct). How do you know you are?
You don’t get it, do you?
You are every bit if not more dependent on works than the Catholics you decry.
In the final analysis, your faith is not really in Christ but in your ability to perceive Christ.
Grace has nothing to do with it.
“Brain and brain. What is brain?”
I found the following prayer and prayed it this evening. Perhaps we could all benefit from praying it:
Oh wait that one is a prayer to Mary. Never mind.
#68
“I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace.” C.H. Spurgeon
i guess i’ll never understand the point in posting something that has as it’s only “value” the attempt to be snarky and nasty,
#72 – you can quote other preachers till Jesus comes, PB, it doesn’t change a thing.
The fact is, your faith lies in you ability to properly perceive Christ, not in Christ himself. You rely on works every bit as much as the Jew before Christ or the Catholic after.
Grace has nothing to do with it.
#74
What does that even mean, Chad? Of course, I am a believer only because the Father drew me to Himself, after penning my name in the Lambs Book of Life before the beginning of time. Why do I have the ability to perceive Christ? God gave it to me. But salvation is still by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Christ is the author of, perfector of, and finisher of my faith.
I do not need articles, fake apostolic lines, worship of the sun god in communion and in my icons, pieces of the cross, seven sacraments, prayers for the dead, or indulgences to get me out of purgatory and into heaven, for the shed blood of Christ has already done that. My faith is in a living High Priest who stands at the right hand of the Father making intercession for me without the help or the intercession of his mother. MY God is not a dead god on a cross but a risen savior. My god is not resacrificed in the mass. His sacrifice was once for all and effective as such.
PB -
You can cloak your faith in all the fancy language you like – it doesn’t change a thing.
The question still remains, how do you know you perceive Christ better than the Catholic? How do you know you are not the one who is deceived?
Do you really think the Catholic knows they are following a false Christ yet do it anyway?
Neil,
#70 was, well, OK maybe snarky, but not nasty. Such posts are used for their shock content, an avenue to draw people by thinking they are reading one thing and then “bam” throw in the zinger to expose something totally different. The point is to get people to re-examine their beliefs.
In this case, this particular prayer appeared very orthodox and actually sort of cool, because one would normally associate it with a prayer to the Father. “I offer you my soul, my mind and my heart”. This mirrors the command to love the Lord with all your heart and soul and mind.
The “big reveal” — that this is not a prayer to God but to Mary — would hopefully cause a Catholic to step back and think about this and perhaps re-assess their beliefs. The RC veneration of Mary is a serious heresy. In Mariology you will find time and time again Mary being assigned the prerogatives of God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Even in this prayer, for example, the venerator transposes the care of ones soul from the Father to Mary. I could give you many such examples. This is a serious, and potentially damning, heresy.
So, “snarky” maybe. “Nasty” definately not. But it definately had a bigger purpose than just make a dig at someone. (1) Perhaps it could get a RC to reassess their beliefs and (2) it would remind non-RCs that no matter the simularities of our two faiths there remain HUGE un-breachable gulfs and the break with Rome happend for a reason.
#76 Because God has drawn me, placed my neme in the Lamb’s book of life, He has saved me, redeemed me, purchased me, pardoned me. I perceive Christ because He has allowed me to.
The Catholics (and many Methodists, Muslims, Baptists, Mormons, Athiests, Agnostics, Nature religions…etc) have their eyes blinded, they have a veil over them. It is easy with Catholics to discern the blindness and the veil; clear when the worship idols and pray to mary, and rely on works of the flest in addition to the blood of Jesus Christ to get them to heaven.
PB, Chad is simply dragging you around in circles.
I was a Catholic, though a very, very poor one, but still a Catholic and therefore, voila, saved. Though I didn’t know and never once heard the gospel.
Anyone who cannot see the fallacy of the RCC put forward in the name of Christ is blind. I say this not of individual people but about the organization as a whole.
Did I see a quote from Spurgeon in the above context?
Srsly?
Spurgeon?
Talk about someone who knew little of what to do with Scripture. Wow, he could mangle it with the best of them in his day–and that is evidenced by his mega-church.
Spurgeon? We’re talking Spurgeon?
The thing about that prayer is that Martin Luther himself would have approved of it. Luther had many issues with the RCC, but the veneration of Mary generally wasn’t one of them.
To all,
I guess I’ll refrain from the discussion. Believe it or not, I actually like most of you guys and I’m not your enemy.
Hope you won’t mind; since Rick reminded me of another of my favorite dead apostates.
ugh.
Blessed Epiphany to you all.
#82
Yeah, that, but more importantly may you be able to depart from the prison of Catholicism, being released by the Grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ to worship and serve Him alone above all other idols and vain religion of man.
First, totally irrelevant to the argument and I am no great fan of Luther.
Brett,
I don’t know why, but your last comments got caught in the spam filter. I set them free. I saw the second one was essentially a duplicate, so I deleted that one.
Thanks, Phil.
(I think Pastorboy and Paul C have conspired to place some sun god indulgency-spam hex on me.
I guess I’ll refrain from the discussion. Believe it or not, I actually like most of you guys and I’m not your enemy.
Hope you won’t mind; since Rick reminded me of another of my favorite dead apostates.
The Maryology of M. Luther, the converted Catholic Monk, was convoluted at best, but evolved further and further away from his RC roots as his life and ministry progressed.
But again, Luther’s opinion is a moot point to me.
If I give **ALL** my heart, mind and soul to Mary there is no room for Christ.
The former Pope’s motto was “Totus Tuus” i.e., “I am all your’s Mary”. You do the math.
Brett #87. That is an excellent quote. I fully consider you a brother in Christ and also have several Catholic friends who I have no doubts are born again. (Rick has also said the same on a number of occasions).
Church affiliation has absolutely no bearing in my world view regarding salvation.
That being said, I believe many official RC beliefs and teachings keep multitudes away from saving faith and contain much, much error.
i’m pretty sure the grace of god releases us from sin, not systems. i take your belittling of the precious grace of god as offensive.
on behalf of brett, how dare you declare that he needs god’s grace yet applied to his life?
i could well (but would not) say the same thing of your ethnocentric view of the church as it must be played out in your modernist/traditional manner.
Hey PB you can pray that God would extend His grace to me on a daily basis in all aspects of my life and ministry. You too Neil.
#92
Why ask PB and Neil to pray for you; isn’t it enough to just ask Jesus? Do the math.
this prayer and pastorboy’s declaration are apples and oranges…
Sorry Neil and John Hughes, we will have to disagree.
I have dear Catholic friends, who (as much as one can know) give the appearance of being born again. I have had lengthy discussions with them, their conscience allows them to minister in the Catholic Church and preach the gospel from within.
That being said, they are the exception rather than the rule. Catholicism is not Christianity, holding to the doctrine of demons that there is anything that can save you outside the blood of Christ, or that the blood of Christ alone is not sufficient to save you is HERESY and BLASPHEMY.
Here are several others that are, in my opinion, rising to the level of Idolatry, Heresy, and Blasphemy:
1. Papal Authority
2. Priest Authority
3. Sacrifice of the Mass
4. Worship of the Mass
5. Icons
6. Statues
7. Prayers to the Saints
8. The Apocrytha
9. Pagan practices
I could name many more, but that will suffice. How one can worship in a place where demons dwell I have no idea.
I basically agree with #95. However there are tow things that you must have forgotten.
Transubstantiation
and
Baptismal regeneration
(I believe both of those are Chris Rosebroughs views)
BTW PB – The CMA would never ordain someone who believed that communion and baptism were a means of salvidic grace in addition to faith.
#97
Amen
#96 That would be covered under ‘Sacrifice of the Mass’ and ‘Pagan Practices’
My friend Chris, as well as other confessional Lutherans do not believe in Transubstantiation, but have a view of infant baptism/covenant baptism which I do not agree with. Being baptized as an infant will not save you, nor will it condemn you to Hell.
PB – Here is a post by Chris R.. See if he believes in transubstantiation.
I can’t believe I’m actually sort of defending Chris Rosebrough, but here goes.
Typically, the Lutheran position on Communion is known as Consubstantiation. It’s kind of between the view that the elements are purely symbolic and Transubstantiation.
To Luther, it all came down to what he called the “real presence”. He said that Christ’s blood and body were present in some way during Communion, but the elements themselves were not transformed into the actual flesh and blood.
#101 That is the position of the Lutherans that I know, and the official lutheran theology position
He states that “we cannot believe like the Roman Catholics do that it becomes the actual body and blood”
None of this is blasphemous. Ironically, the only reason you believe it to be so is because of tradition – something you despise amongst the Catholics.
Papal Authority is Idolatry and Blasphemy, for he calls himself the vicar of Christ on the earth. Priests give themselves the authority to forgive sins. That is something only God can do ultimately. When a priest offers the sacrifice of the mass, and has the people bow to the wafer, they are calling the wafer Jesus and claiming to make it his body. That is blasphemous and idolatrous. The worship of Icons with the symbol of the sun god Apollo is blasphemous and Idolatrous. The worship of statues is idolatry. Prayers to the saints is idolatry. The Apocrytha is false added on to scripture.
That’s not idolatry.
Actually, Jesus gave that authority to us. I do it nearly every Sunday morning during corporate confession and pardon. It’s one of the most holy moments in a service.
Something that can be debated, but not blasphemy or idolatry.
No one “worships” icons. You should read Henri Nouwen’s book on icons – it’s illuminating.
blah, blah, blah…
“worship icons”?
i don’t think Church History or current practice really reflects that claim.
so formalized “authority” for the Pope is idolatry, but functional daily “authority” given in practice to the Protestant Popes like John MacArthur, Mohler, D.A. Carson, John Piper is not idolatry?
really?
i don’t know a single Catholic who doesn’t believe in the centrality and efficacy of the blood of Christ.
“but have a view of infant baptism/covenant baptism which I do not agree with.”
What a charitable way of putting it. He believes that baptism saves. How much more heretical can it get? It’s not what you know that makes an heretic, it’s who you know.
I wouldn’t say any of these things in and of themselves are really blasphemous or idolatrous. Some of them may run the risk of venturing into that territory, but that could be said of a lot of theological constructs in general.
As far as the imagery related things, I’d say that I’ve yet to meet a Catholic or Orthodox person who actually worships them. Actually, icons have their origins in the church trying to present Biblical concepts and stories in a graphical way so that largely illiterate congregations could use them as a tool to learn these things. It was really a misunderstanding of the prohibition against graven images that led to overzealous iconoclasts trying to rid them from churches.
Was he drunk when he wrote it?
#111 Have you ever asked yourself why there is a disc called a halo around their heads?
It is a representation of the Sun god Apollo. It is a cary over from Roman art and pagan idolatry.
#109 Thats just like a Mormon saying he believes Jesus is god. What they say with their mouths and what they do in practice are two entirely different things.
#108
John MacArthur has no authority over me or any other individual believer. The Pope claims not only religious authority but every Catholic is a Catholic first, A dual citizen of Vatican city and his or her country, and is to submit to the Pope’s Authority primarily.
PB and Neil are alive. Intercession is biblical. The saints and Mary are dead and the Bible prohibits necromancy. The living are prohibited from communicating with the dead. (Dead being defined as the soul absent from its physical body seeing that souls are eternal and Mary and the Saints are currently alive with God in Heaven but no longer present on the earth).
PB, I think he’s got you here. They don’t worship them. All they do is petition them, kneel before them, pray for them to speak to God on their behalf and the like. They also carry around charms in the cars to ward off accidents. There’s absolutely nothing pagan about these icons at all.
blindness.
Why do you have to spoil everything with the truth?
now why would you say that?
fortunately i read this in the evening… whilst not drinking coffee…
my argument is not about the details of catholicism, it’s about your attitude as expressed in comment 84.
i’m trying to understand this question… is there a reason for it other than you being one of the nastiest men i “know”?
It is your smug, self-righteous comments like this that confirm for me that you merely pay lip-service to “grace.”
If you think Nouwen is off the charts, you ought to read Merton. That dude was bonkers for Mary!
And a beautiful writer.
“About the wrong thing we are far too worried,”–Yoda.
Ooopps! My bad. I quoted an outside ’source.’
Do you own any books? Wait for it…wait for it…wait for it…
“The only book I need is the Holy Scriptures”.
And your source for this claim is…?
I think that is sarcasm.
126: thanks Jerry. You are correct.
125: chris. You are asking for a source for what? That is precisely what people do (coming from an ex-Catholic).
Can I ask a question to some of the Catholic apologists on this site? What do you make of this painting – courtesy of the Vatican?
LINK
As was I. Your source please?
The same thing I make of all paintings. It’s an artist rendering. IOW it’s art. The sistine chapel isn’t, probably, theologically correct but it’s still really nice to look at.
ditto to chris.
It’s beautiful art attempting to depict the ineffable.
For people who aren’t looking for the devil behind every rock it can be a wonderful invitation to bask in the presence of God. Seriously, I feel sorry for people who can’t just appreciate the myriad of ways God reaches out to us.
129: that is not accurate.
What is accurate is that it depicts the mindset and understanding of many millions of Catholics throughout the world (probably more so in the past than now).
The very fact you see nothing wrong with this and dismiss it as “art” says a lot. Look where Jesus is gesturing (”Hey, it’s not me. It’s her.”). Look at the angels posture below. Who are they kneeling to? How about all the angels above? Who are they centered on?
Nope. No concern here. Just “art”.
No idolatry. No issues. Move along.
I love the use of “blah, blah, blah” lately in the comments section of this blog by various commenters. It is an arrogant and condescending way to essentally say to another person “what you’ve written is mindless drivel and I’ll simply dismiss it”. How very Christian, charitable, and gracious.
Neil,
Take it easy on Pastorboy. He may be wrong, but I admire his honesty. Sometimes the virtues are more valuable than reason.
Pastorboy,
I sincerely welcome and thank you for all prayers offered on my behalf. But I can assure you that the
only “catholic prison” I’m trapped in is a little 3 bedroom house packed with a beautiful catholic wife, 4 kids, and a dog. (Although the dog if she’d been gifted with free-will would probably prefer to be a good German Lutheran like my daddy was.) Until the big trumpet sounds I’m staying in this prison, and you can throw away the key. (Of course the dog does stand guard while the rest of us scurry down the block to assist at mass every Sunday morning)
Since I know you aspire to have your teaching held accountable to the clear and correct teaching of the Word of God; I would ask you to prayerfully consider the 20th chapter of St. John’s gospel:
“”If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven.”
132–blah, blah, blah…
Eric,
When you have been around here long enough and heard the same tripe from the same person for so long, “blah, blah, blah” is about all there is left to say.
I don’t consider myself a Catholic apologist at all. If you’d asked a few years ago, I probably would have flat-out said the painting was idolatrous. Having learned a little bit more of church history, though, I’d give a little different explanation.
The reason Mary came to be venerated has roots in the debates surrounding the nature of Christ. Did He have two natures or just one. There were some who claimed He had only one – divine. The response to them was that He had to have two natures in order to provide what was necessary for salvation. He had to be a representative of both God and man.
So if He had two natures, what does that say about Mary? If Mary was able to give birth to a sinless human, that must mean there was something distinctive about her. That is why the early church began venerating her.
I’m not saying I necessarily agree with all this reasoning, but it does make me give pause to labeling others heretics simply because they were attempting to explain something that is at its core mysterious.
Now I do think that there are people who have gone overboard with the focus on Mary, just like there are people who go overboard on many pet theological things. So that’s my take on it.
Chad,
So are you excusing your behavior of disputing my description of “blah, blah, blah”. Here’s a suggestion: when you feel something is “tripe” and not worthy of a response, don’t respond. Truth be told, there are things that you write that some may view as “tripe” also.
#137 – “of” should be “or”… and while I’m at it, my question should end in a “?”
Thanks for your thoughtful answer. But I disagree.
Not the early church – the Catholic Church. In the early church, she was respected. In the apostate church she was venerated and idolized as the painting depicts.
Phil, have you done any research on “Mother-and-child” worship that existed in other pagan religions? Do you see any striking similarities between this and Catholicism in this regards?
Very, very generous. Look at the painting again. It is not an attempt to “figure out” anything. It is idolatry plain-and-simple. Mary, elevated to a central part of the Godhead with God the Father and Jesus in the shadows so-to-speak.
This painting just serves to show how the veneration of Mary works itself out in the minds of millions of Catholics. We’re scratching the surface here.
And to be clear, Chad, my original comment was not directed specifically at you, and I realize that “blah, blah, blah” has been directed at you as well.
There are references to the Theotokos going back to the third century. The use of the word was formalized at the Third Ecumenical Council. This is why generally Eastern Orthodox Christians have a strong vein of Mary veneration today. It wasn’t something that was invented by the RCC.
Nouwen like his alcohol, and he liked his men, though it was simply written about in his journals and it is not been proven he ever broke his vow of celibacy.
More importantly than all of that is his stand on Jesus Christ:
Which is likely why Chad likes him.
Brett:
Contxt, context, context.
Even the Jews believed that no man could forgive sins, and Jesus confirmed it in his healing of the paralytic.
What it is saying, in John 20:23 was not that individual Christians could forgive sins, but they could declare with certainty that sins could be forgiven based upon the finished work of Jesus. Conversely, if one would not receive this grace, we could declare with certainty that their sins would not be forgiven.
I do pray that the Lord frees you from the prison of false doctrine, and that you could be saved as well as your entire household.
re 112 and 142:
i know heathen bikers who have a nicer spirit about them than you do pastorboy… and they do not possess the indwelling power of the spirit of god as you do.
you are arrogant.
you are mean.
you are a little man.
i think someone may be in need of a time-out to sit in a corner and ponder their nastiness.
Well said Phil, and something even popes may have pondered a time or two.
so now you are determining him as unsaved? add this to the list above.
Jesus wasn’t a flowing blond haired, blue eyed, 6 foot tall, chiseled bodied man either but much of the protestant church see’s no issue with that.
Again your source on “millions of Catholics believe…” ?
brett, though i doubt it would matter to pastorboy… for the record and if you care to respond; on what or who do you place your trust for salvation? are you saved and on what basis do you have this assurance?
i do not ask in a manner of judging you, i ask to give you the opportunity to set the record straight.
So what? The use of Theotokos was formally affirmed at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It is a RCC doctrine.
Aside from that, Mother-and-child worship has been a prominent part of pagan religions going back to the days of Nimrod. That’s the foundation of Maryology – nothing to do with a biblical debate.
#148
I am waiting with baited breath. See #113.
Catholic Language Interpreter:
Born Again: Baptized as an infant in the RCC
Receiving Jesus: Taking the Eucharist
Saved by grace: See one and two above
From what I have read I believe Brett is a brother in Christ. But Brett is not the issue and PB’s prayer for his salvation is self serving and spiritually arrogant. Even if he believed Brett is lost that should be shared as a prayer request in private and not stated publicly to his face and to others on the internet.
Confessional Lutheran Language Interpreter:
Born Again: Baptized as an infant
Is Chris Rosebrough saved?
From Wikipedia:
The Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe was the most visited Catholic shrine in the world, with over six million people attending the anniversary weekend commemorations in December 2009.
Tons more if you need it. Remember, this is just ONE country. Portugal? Spain? Africa? South America? Philippines?
pastorboy,
i will grant you your honesty… thanks for admitting beforehand that no matter what brett may answer (if he cares to and his silence will not be used against him) you will not believe he is a brother in christ.
[insert comment 144]
[insert comment 144 - again]
Well it is an RCC doctrine, but it was part of the doctrine of the church prior to the Great Schism. That’s what I’m getting at. Did you miss what I said about the Eastern Orthodox church?
I would agree that there are elements that have their roots in Roman paganism that made there way into various Christian practices. That’s undeniable. I still have one up in my house. I guess I’m still not done worshiping my Christmas tree yet, though.
You know little of Baptism and the Eucharist in other strains of protestant denominations (Reformed denominations at that) if you think RCC is the only church to do that.
#148
I trust in the grace of God, through my lord and savour Jesus Christ for my salvation. I am saved, am being saved, and hope to be saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ who suffered, died on the cross for my sins, and rose again on the 3rd day.
Romans 5:9 -
“How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath”
The difference is simply that with the RCC, they do use these terms. The confessional Lutheran believes he or she is saved by faith alone in christ alone through grace alone. Ask Chris Rosebourough yourself, i have asked him personally and am convinced that he is born again. If Brett (or anyone else) gave a similar testimony, I would say the same, not that I can say with certainty anybody is born again.
My prayer is not self serving, but, to respect Rick and Neil, I will not place it on this forum. Just know that I pray for people on this and other forums regularly.
Great…Also from Wikipedia:
Hmmmm…we could do this all day. “Well they did this…” and I will say “Yeah but there was this…”
Proof that the RCC condones idolization of Mary?
#158
Hallelujah, by that testimony, I consider Brett a brother. I will pray that God continues, as you have said, to be saved.
I wonder, Brett, can you say with certainty that you will enter into heaven when you die?
No I did see that. I don’t see how it’s relevant though. Eastern Orthodox and the RCC are basically the same thing and hold most of the same doctrines.
Thanks for your honesty. These “elements” are rooted in paganism and simply adopted by the RCC. they have no basis in the truth of scripture. Paul would have referred to Maryology as a doctrine “of devils” – which it is.
I have to be honest and say I am a little unnerved by the laissez-faire attitude toward the painting referenced.
I wonder why the RCC gets a free pass and people apologize for it, when they get up-in-arms over the claims of Joseph Smith and the like.
I guess it’s because they’ve been around a little longer.
But even Joseph Smith would be hard-pressed to introduce more false doctrines than the RCC.
#161
I’ll leave it to you to judge, whether my testimony merits a get out of jail free card
WHO CARES? Who are YOU to ask such a question when you have shown nothing but disdain towards him and his faith?
Honestly, you are probably the worst person I have ever known online.
It is because of fools like you that so many run as far from they can from the church. Don’t bother praying for all the people you consider lost. Start with yourself.
Give him the 4 spiritual laws?
brett – thanks, i am sorry if that came across as a condescending request…
#164
I care Chad. I do. If that makes me a rotten person in your eyes, I am sorry. My greatest concern for all I come in contact with is that they are saved. It is all about eternity! This life is but a breath! if you are not born again, your eternal destiny is first hell, then the lake of fire. There is no getting out.
I consider Brett a brother, but Chad, I am truly concerned for you. Thank you for your concern for me, I question my faith, and examine myself every day to make sure I am in the faith. I thank God that He has chosen to keep me this long. I serve a gracious God.
God’s Word is very clear, we are all by nature children of wrath, we are all already condemned, but Christ came into the world to save sinners. If we will trust in Him alone (as Brett has testified) we will be saved. If we do not, we will remain condemned.
Hey PB – as I have said before, if you were the only voice the church had I’d be the loudest and most ardent atheist the world ever knew.
So please, save your self-righteous concern for someone who cares. Really.
Does this mean we get to have some kind of party or something now? You can kill the fatted calf, and I’ll bring the beer as to avoid scandal.
Don’t tell an Orthodox person that unless you’re prepared to hear why you’re wrong for several hours.
I have several somewhat close acquaintances who are EO, and there are some very significant difference between the two branches of Christianity.
#168 If it was self righteous, I didn’t communicate very clearly. If it were me alone, I could care less about what other people believe. But my God has filled me with compassion for the salvation of others.
Chad, what you say is why I am concerned for you. You keep blathering on about being an athiest based upon my opinion. Dude, have you truly been saved? I hope so. Really. I do.
#169
Can we do a lamb? I love roasted lamb.
PB – when someone like you questions my salvation I consider myself on the right path. So, thanks for the affirmation.
#173 What difference does it make anyway? According to you and Nouwen, you are all on the right path no matter what you believe!
Too bad that stands at odds with the truth of the Bible.
John Chisham, you are an idiot. I am ashamed to think of you as a fellow pastor. Which is why I will for now on, if you speak to me here, I will not refer to you as “PB” or “Pastorboy” but by your real name.
aww, that hurts, Chad.
But points for respect, Pastor.
and points for Love, Pastor.
Yep, you are demonstrating your faith.
pastorboy – as much as i oppose chad’s universalism, describing it as something it is not shows you either do not understand it, or you are careless in your comments.
as i understand chad he does not say “you are all on the right path no matter what you believe!”
based on your behavior and beliefs i believe this to be an accurate self-assessment.
yet while you really do have a passion for people’s salvation you model very little compassion for people.
[insert #144]
I admire PB’s evangelism. However, coming from a Jack Hyles “everything is soul winning” I can accurately attest to a major element of self righteousness. Everything is reported, things are video taped, numbers are kept, and the verse that tells us not to let the right hand know what the left hand is doing is considered a Scribe’s addition. :cool”
For the love of Pete, PB, take a step back and analyze how you communicate. The truth that you attempt to communicate is almost always lost in how you present it. An honest assessment of how you chose to phrase your characterization of others’ beliefs cannot possibly be viewed as charitable and loving. There is a common attribute about your comments that many notice and comment on – must all these people be wrong? Is it possible that you continually derail the conversation away from fruitfulness by the way that you say things? PB, in the abundance of counselors there is wisdom (and don’t construe this as advocating for groupthink, it is a Biblical admonition – see Proverbs). When an abundance of professing Christians see a continuing unloving outworking in the tone and characterizations in your comments, you would be wise to heed the admonition.
#179 is an accurate assessmnet; when you are dealing with law it is esy to get caught up in a spirit of legalism and self righteousness.
Something evangelists must fight and struggle against daily, for the law only brings death.
It’s always good to see brothers drinking from the same spiritual font.
Eric,
A valiant effort, but one that has been said ad nauseam to John Chisham over the last several years.
This is why most of us have condensed your very wise comment above to a simple, “blah, blah, blah.”
I did apologize, though I should not have hit ‘enter’ on that one…
“For the love of Pete”
Are you refering to the first Pope’s love?
re 179; couple this with a modernist approach, best illustrated by the 4 spiritual laws, and evangelism (and the whole gospel) get’s reduced to checking boxes and mental ascent.
passion for salvation, but easily lacking compassion for people.
lol Paul C – talk about the pot calling the kettle…
I consider everyone who comments here an idiot. Not in a demeaning sense, but in a comparitive sense juxtaposed against my intellectual and oratorical prowess.
I say this is utter and profound humility.
paul c.,
once an apology has been offered i believe it best, and biblical, not to bring it up again.
#179 I reject the four spiritual laws in their form presented.
Amen Neil. Forgiven and forgotten.
Chad,
RE: #183 – I do realize that PB has been exhorted in such a way before, but don’t feel that that is reason enough to cease exhortation. Any one of these times the light bulb might turn on. I do not think that resorting to “blah, blah, blah” is the correct response, and I truly believe that if you step back for a minute, you’ll not see it as edifying. Let’s not find ourselves guilty of returning “evil for evil”.
Eric, I completely agree it was not edifying. And I assure you I am very intentional with every word I write.
peace.
You know, I was angling for that title. Always a bridesmaid…
“Honestly, you are probably the worst person I have ever known online.”
No one really knows anyone online.
Jerry,
There is plenty of time in 2010 to make it a banner year for you! But I must say, you are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to taking John Chisham’s title.
Neil, I have repeatedly asked Chad not to use my name on this site, he is doing so to incite anger (which will not work) but I request, as you have called me on using names like Rob Baal etc. that you would call him on using my name as I have requested him not to.
chad,
i understand the point you are trying to make, but please honor john’s request and use his preferred name on this blog.
thanks.
chad,
is you are averse to referring to john as pastor – may i suggest “john c.” – that would alleviate you the pain of calling him “pastor” and alleviate him of having his full name plastered here.
What is John Chisham worried about? Does he not want his thoughts and comments seen by others who know him personally? What are you ashamed of, John?
I am glad that there is consistency on this site. Thank you for the attempt Neil. It appears that Chad is a small man and lacks even a small amount of Christian charity and respect,With the total lack of orthodox belief, this demonstrates the education at Duke ‘theology’ school has had its effect of removing any semblance of cogent principles or christian formation.
#201 – I enjoy a collage of moral and etiquite issues, jumbled through a kaleidoscope, and communicated via a a creative set of multi-tangential issue fragments.
John Chisham, the easy way for you to ensure I don’t use your real name is to just simply stop addressing me.
I would love to know what it is you are so afraid of, though. No one else around here uses an alias. Why do you? If you are embarrassed by what you say here, then don’t say anything.
Rick Frueh is an alias. My real name is Peter Rollins, but I prefer Rick Frueh.
Chad, my name is linked to my sites. I am not ashamed of what I say. The only criticism I get from outside is hanging out with people who my friends say will never get it.
I am beginning to believe them in your case.
John Chisham, you should listen to your friends, then.
i figure requests on what someone wishes to be called need no justification – as far as i am concerned.
Chad,
Allow me to encourage you to use the full name John Chisham. Others in the internet world do it and John Chisham calls them friends.
John Chisham is a pastor, but he is not a boy I would not think given his age. So one wonders why does John Chisham want to not be called pastorman? Too much like posterman? or maybe poserman?
Anyway, Chad Holtz and John Chisham take care and have fun tonight. You too Neil.
#207
Then you refer to him however you like. Personally I find your covering of his hypocrisy to be repugnant. The man never minds when Ken Silva uses his full name and even lists his church and city. Seems to fly in the face of the whole, “I do this to protect my family thing.”
Neil, I disagree. John Chisham is apparently concerned with truth and yet he hides behind a fake name. Why? What is he afraid of? Is he embarrassed of the way he talks to people here?
A senior pastor I once worked with used to get the occasional hate letter under his office door by a disgruntled church member who never signed his name – only “Anonymous.” He read the letter from the pulpit one Sunday and called the person a coward and said that if someone can’t own what they say than it is nothing but gossip and meaningless drivel.
That is what I think of people like John Chisham (and his buddy jazzact) and others who throw stones behind a pseudonym
I think such a small request seems like we should accommodate. Whatever happened to bless your enemies, or if he desires to go with him one mile, go two?
I sometimes have called him “John” and he never objected. I have no problem, as a Christian, acquiescing to such a minor request. And I have no qualms confronting John on issues.
I hope everyone will honor my request to be refeered to as:
“The Grand, High, Exalted, Mystic, Ruler”
Neil,
Thanks for trying. Although, by now I would have already been placed on moderation.
http://wp.me/pjabD-4g
I think I can accept “Big Poppa”
supreme pontiff would be nice….
I’ll make you a deal, John Chisham. I’ll stop calling you by your real name when you stop questioning the salvation of others and stop posting self-righteous, derogatory, misguided pictures like the ones you just linked. Talk about misrepresentation. But hey, when you hide behind a fake name you can say anything you like, right?
Joe & chad, it’s certainly not something i care enough about to argue. i just figure if someone says “please call me…” i’d comply – within reason.
i agree that the whole family protection issue seems unlikely given his open use of his name other places.
sounds fair enough… how ’bout pastorboy?
Those posters are nothing more than self righteous crowd pleasers that use satire and disdain to entertain the choir. I am especially offended, ESPECIALLY OFFENDED, by the pictorial of the family who look goth.
On one side of your mouth you profess compassion while on the other you crap on the lost. (I hardly ever use the word crap but it is appropriate in this case) I abhor mocking sinners…and my God abhors it as well.
using someone’s real name is a far cry different than twisting someone’s name to imply they are a servant of satan.
granted, chad is doing it to make you mad and that may be petty. but that is minor compared to your swipe at nouwen in 112 and 142
those swipes were only meant to be nasty against a departed brother in the lord… and you choose to highlight his weaknesses.
SHAME!
i know heathen bikers who have a nicer spirit about them than you do pastorboy… and they do not possess the indwelling power of the spirit of god as you do.
you are arrogant.
you are mean.
you are a little man.
if it wee up to me you’d be in moderation for one week for un-christ-like nastiness.
rick, re 219
like i said…
passion to make converts
no compassion for people.
John – I ask you as an elder in the church to take down that poster of the family.
on the other hand rick, it does exemplify pb’s worlview… clearly he assumes these people are not christian, or are worldly, based on their appearance.
talk about ethnocentrism!
Which family?
The one that look goth under the heading “missional”. Using sinners as posters is unequivocably wrong.
I don’t know if they are non believers or not, but the original picture is of a huge crowd I just thought it looked good.
I agree. The problem here is what exactly is “within reason.” This isn’t an issue of blessing or cursing, this is using the name his parents gave him and he signs to his checks.
This is not allowing a bully to lie and manipulate. It’s that simple to me.
I’m not mocking his name, I’m not twisting it to make fun of him. Heck, I’m not even increasing the chances that anyone will find this page by searching his name all that much. I’m just calling him by his name.
Oh and if I had my way he’d be in permanent moderation but imagine the cries of persecution then.
#226 – Well then replace it with a picture of Wall Street executives.
#228 Will that communicate the same message? It is far more often that we get tattoos, piercings, wild hair color, and put peanut butter in our arpits to be ‘missional’ which is what I am getting at with that poster.
Joe, I tagged you on that because you chose not to honor my request.
so what?
Haha. John Chisham, that is absolutely a priceless quote. Thank you for proving my point that you are really just a little man with an internet connection and a keyboard.
That sentence and action honestly made my day. Ah, John Chisham, you never disappoint.
The very fact that you have chosen them because they “look like the world” proves your use of the biblical term “worldly” is flawed.
you are an ethnocentric evangelist… wanting to make clone disciples who look like you, act like you… etc…
you motto is: if you want to be one of his you got to act and look like us!
Re:232
Spot on.
BTW, John Chisham, did you tag Chad too? I don’t actually read your tripe all that often.
Oh John Chisham, it seems you have a slight obsession with little ole me. I mean if a person were to check the wordpress tags, all they find is your stuff. Cute.
BTW, click the link. It’s beautiful man.
In some ways you both are little men. How childish are your links, Joe. The issues always become personal. Prophets, Priests, and Poets.
Yea, right.
Ha! I think that is what Mastercard would call…..”priceless.”