- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (06/12)
- Next Post »A La Carte (06/13)
The Beast of Revelation
- 06/12/06
- 101
Every now and again I receive an email, often as part of a group mailing addressed to a wide variety of the most-read bloggers, asking me to use my site as a platform to post or provide comment on a particularly inflammatory issue. I got one of those emails today, this one from Andy Jackson of "SmartChristian" fame. Andy noticed that Ken Silva, one of the writers at the "Slice of Laodicea" blog, quoted Robert Murray M'Cheyne and his suggestion that the beast of Revelation is the church of Rome. On his blog Andy declares that "this is absolutely ridiculous" and in his email says: "Please take a look at this post at Slice and either post on it or provide a comment. I understand apologetics and standing for right teaching, but I have concerns about this blog labeling and condemning others in the body of Christ that we might not agree fully with."
Here is the offending quote from M'Cheyne:
Now, we know quite well that the beast is the Church of Rome; we are told that the beast sits upon seven hills; and we are told at the end of the second verse that the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. So that there is no doubt, dear brethren, but that the great enemy of the sheep the false shepherd, who comes like a lamb, but who has the paw of a bear - is Antichrist. Now, there can be no doubt but that he gets his power from Satan.
M'Cheyne is by no means unique in suggesting that the beast is none other than the Roman Catholic Church. One could easily argue that this is nothing more than the consensus of historic Protestantism. If Ken Silva does believe this, and nowhere in the article does he affirm such a belief, he finds himself in good company. It is only in the past few decades that this belief has fallen out of favor. Not surprisingly, this change coincides with increasing efforts to bridge the theological gaps between Catholicism and Protestantism.
I'd like to take a look at what some great Protestants of days past have had to say about the beast of Revelation. As you read, remember that we tend to misrepresent the meaning of the prefix "anti-" in the word "antichrist." We most often think of the prefix "anti-" as meaning "against," but in context of antichrist it actually means "in place of." So these men were not looking for someone or something that sought to fight explicitly against Christ (such as the Muslim faith) but something or someone that sought to set itself up in place of Christ. Of course the two means lead to the same end, but a person who puts himself in place of Christ is likely to be far more subtle and may arise from within rather than from without the visible church. Those who look outside Christianity for antichrist may miss him altogther. This is the true sense of what the word means and this is the sense in which Christians used it in days past.
Before we look at some interesting quotes, I will affirm that Protestants do not have a great track record when it comes to predicting just who the antichrist is. Some time ago Stephen Nichols wrote an article entitled "Prophecy Makes Strange Bedfellows: On the History of Identifying the Antichrist" in which he argued that Christians should not attempt to identify the antichrist. After examining the biblical case for antichrist and the history of biblical interpretation regarding this figure, he suggests that prophecy makes strange bedfellows, for Protestants of all stripes, many of whom would agree on little else, have affirmed their belief that the pope or the Catholic Church is anitchrist. He goes on to list some other people who have been so labelled. "The studies of Paul Boyer...chronicle the vast range of likely and unlikely suspects including Juan Carlos of Spain, Mussolini, Hitler, Ronald Wilson Reagan (whose name contains three words of six letters each and who almost moved to a 666 street address), Elvis, JFK, FDR, Henry Kissinger, Gorbachev (who has an uncanny birthmark on his forehead), Moshe Dayan, Anwar el-Sadat, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and Saddam Hussein." I would like to note three things about this list.
First, while it is true that all of these men have been labelled as the antichrist, this has never been done with any sort of consensus within the church. If we were to look through church history since the time of the Reformation for the church's consensus, we would soon find that all roads, or most roads at any rate, lead to Rome. Second, all of these figures are from recent history. Prior to the twentieth century, there was, as I have indicated, a much more consistent consensus. Third, we should note that most of the men listed by Boyer are dead, and those who are not will surely die soon. And yet the Catholic Church lives on; the papacy continues. Rome is, by her own testimony, semper idem: always the same; never changing.
Some time ago I discovered an interesting list of quotes from some of the great Reformers and spiritual giants of the past concerning the Roman Catholic Church. I will post them below that you may understand the consensus of these great men of faith.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) (Lutheran): "Luther ... proved, by the revelations of Daniel and St. John, by the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, that the reign of Antichrist, predicted and described in the Bible, was the Papacy ... And all the people did say, Amen! A holy terror siezed their souls. It was Antichrist whom they beheld seated oÂn the pontifical throne. This new idea, which derived greater strength from the prophetic descriptions launched forth by Luther into the midst of his contemporaries, inflicted the most terrible blow oÂn Rome." Taken from J. H. Merle D'aubigne's History of the Reformation of the Sixteen Century, book vi, chapter xii, p. 215.
Based oÂn prophetic studies, Martin Luther finally declared, "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520). Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.
John Calvin (1509-1564) (Presbyterian): "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.
John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church." As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks." The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.
Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) (Anglican): "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.) Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ oÂn earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not oÂnly above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God." Taken from Philip Schaff's, The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, III, p. 658, 659, ch. 25, sec. 6.
Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): "The oracles of God foretold the
rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom's book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.
John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone." Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.
Charles Spurgeon: "It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description."
"Popery is contrary to Christ's Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray."
A Great Cloud of Witnesses: "Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist." Taken from All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.
These are but a drop in the bucket. It would not be difficult to fill a book with similar expressions. Protestants have long held the Roman Catholic Church with great suspicion, and more often than not, have done so for good reason.
Back at "Slice of Laodicea," Silva posted a brief article to provide a point of clarification regarding his intent. "My intent with the Robert Murray M'Cheyne quote was simply to illustrate how far Christians have fallen from a proper view of the apostate Church of Rome, and not to state that I personally believe Rome is the 'great whore' or 'beast' in Revelation." He does well to quote John MacArthur who says "The Catholic Church claims to be true Christianity. And...we [can't] reverse 450 years of history and just throw our arms around the Roman system, which...we have to say in all honesty is not a group of wayward brothers, but is an apostate form of Christianity. It is a false religion; it is another religion." It is, indeed. In fact, it is a false church that sets itself up not against but in place of the true body of Christ.
Like Silva, I am not arguing that I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the beast of Revelation, but am saying that one could make such an argument and make it forcefully. And of course, through the history of the church, many have made that argument. Those who do so today have many heroes of the faith on their side--men who knew their Bibles and loved God. Some of these were even put to death by the church they labelled antichrist. Among these was Thomas Cramner, who, when asked to renounce his heresies, said "And as for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ's enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine." He was soon led to the stake where he often spoke the "words of Stephen, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,' till the fury of the flames putting him to silence, he gave up the ghost."
In his article, Nichols writes, "Naming the antichrist probably reveals more about the person naming than anything. In some instances naming reveals a person's interpretation of texts or theology. In others, the naming has more to do with one's sociological or political views." He warns against improper hermeneutics, saying "Overcoming what one brings to the text is, as many contemporary writings on hermeneutics conclude, not so easy, if even possible. Nonetheless, a reading of the text that is governed by what we bring to the text as opposed to what we find in the text is likely to lead to a misreading of the text." As we saw in a previous quote from this article, Protestants have a long history of seeing antichrist only within the context of a particular time and culture. How else could anyone understand Henry Kissinger or Elvis Presley to be the antichrist? In the days of the Reformation and the years that followed, Christians brought to Scripture their understanding of a Church that was adamantly and violently opposed to their faith and was seeking, by fire and sword, to stamp it out. It is little wonder that they saw the Church in the beast. In our day and in our culture we bring our understanding of a Church that regards us as but separated brethren and which seeks to unite us under the papacy through gentle persuasion. We bring an understanding of the faith that is, in many ways, blind to the history of the church. It is little wonder that we do not see the Church in the beast.
In the days of the Reformation, the Catholic Church sought unity through force. Today, many Protestants and Catholics seek unity through dialogue. But unity comes at a cost whether it be with a clash of swords or a meeting of minds. As the ends are the same, so must be the ground we give. That ground is the pure, true gospel message of justification by grace alone through faith alone. Surely the exhortation of Charles Spurgeon, even with the offending word "antichrist" removed, stands true today: "It should be the daily prayer of every believer that [the Roman Catholic Church] might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray."
Is the Roman Catholic Church the beast of Revelation? I don't know. Truthfully, I have never invested a lot of time or effort in examining the evidence and forming such a judgment (and, in fact, the same is true of me in most areas of eschatology). I am not convinced that God has enabled us to know the identity of the beast with any great certainty. But it seems to me that if we are to ignore the testimony of so many great believers, from Luther to Spurgeon, from Whitefield to Lloyd-Jones, we may do so at our peril. To simply ignore the consensus of so many great men, and to label such a consensus as "absolutely ridiculous" seems to me to be far more ridiculous.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (101)
What?! Challies posts a controversial post?
I ... I don't believe it ... it's the end times!
Whoa.
um... whoa. I have a hundred questions but no words for them. Great article. I believe I will be contemplating this for awhile.
z.
I have read somewhere that "Faith makes a Christian but doctrine creates a church."There is a considerable measure of doctrinal man-centered compromise out there... and so many heretical churches, my head spins.It is interesting to study church history and the rotating heresies that always come around time and again with different labels. However, Catholicism seems to have stayed a steady heretical course.Roman Catholicism seems to have this confidence that they stand for all Christianity.What is that "great apostacy" presided over by the "man of sin?" (2 Thess. 2:3)
Very thought-provoking, frontal lobe pulsating post.
What about Eastern Orthodoxy? Are the Eastern Orthodox churches apostate as well? I'm just wondering what your position is on this.
Good post Tim. I appreciated Ken Silva's post and appreciate yours as well.
You've nailed it when you say:
"It is only in the past few decades that this belief has fallen out of favor. Not surprisingly, this change coincides with increasing efforts to bridge the theological gaps between Catholicism and Protestantism."
You'll see this increased effort in just about every "movement" going these days.
Fact is, you can't bridge these gaps. Those who try, do so at the cost of sound doctrine and prudent discernment.
SDG...Carla
tim. great post. i will be in Rome next week and will be sure to bring regards from readers of Slice.
we should take our precedessors seriously yet if we conveniently defer every element of the Beast's influence and the sway of fame and fortune through Babylon the Great to those in the Other camp, then we are in danger of unwittingly becoming part of what we hate. We should be more on guard and examining ourselves as well as others.
I hear ya on this one... It'd be like saying Islam, or the Mormons were the beast. Of course any other religion besides Faith Based Christianity is an antichrist type religion. Nobody really knows, just like Daniel didn't know what his prophecies meant fully when he received them. What I mean is Daniel didn't know exactly which men were going to be the next world leaders.
But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep our heads up.
Perhaps Challies next book reviews can be "Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism" or "A Woman Rides the Beast: Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days"
Tim,I noticed that you started out by talking about the beast of revelation, and then almost immediately begain referring to quotes from people like Luther talking about anitchrist.
One mistake that is commonly made is using the terms 'beast' and 'antichrist' interchangeably, when they are two very distinctly different things.
There is NO mention of antichrist in Revelation...none whatsoever. Most people who attribute Revelation as all yet to happen in the future with the rise of the anitchrist don't even realize this.
Antichrist is only mentioned four times in the Bible, three of them are in 1 John, and the other is in 2 John....possibly a fifth time with Paul's reference to a man of lawlessness.
John is VERY specific in Revelation about the identity of the beast...he makes it clear that it is a man...NOT a system or office. That man's number is 666, and I think if you look at it objectively, you will see that it does indeed refer to someone within the first century, that being Nero. Revelation is a letter written by the apostle John to first century believers with whom HE was a fellow partaker in the tribulation (1:9), and this letter was a description of the things which would soon take place.
As to the meaning of antichrist, I think you are correct...it refers to anyone/thing that takes the place of the one true Christ. Another aspect of antichrist that most people don't realize is that John said to his fellow saints in the first century that anitchrist was already present.
Rome, the Babylon of Revelation 17, has drunk more deeply of the blood (slight theological pun intended) of the saints than any other entity (though she may one day be overtaken by Mecca). This at least puts her on the beast's back, and as seen in Tim's post, the descriptions of the latter are so apt that it is not difficult to believe they are references to the same entity. If this surprises you, may I commend Foxe's Martyrs to you for some Lord's Day afternoon reading? (Not the DC-Talkified edition, if you can help it).
Notice also that the the reference in 1 John is to "many antichrists" and that they had already appeared at that time:
1 John 2:18 - Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
John Knox (1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian)
Ack! I beg your pardon, Mr Challies, but never use the adjective 'Scotch'. It's 'Scottish'. :)
I have a friend who is convinced that the AntiChrist will be some European bureaucrat who even now is setting up the One World system, aided and abetted no doubt by the Bilderberger group (or whatever they call themselves!)
Of course all the informed Reformed folk posting here will have heard all that stuff before. :)
I grew up with it: pre-or-post-tribulation dispensationalism, etc.
I guess I would call myself an amillenialist these days. I think that the huge climactic events that herald the end of human history as we know it- the Second Coming, the last judgement, etc. - will all happen all at once ... however or whatever that means. But yes, I do believe they will happen.
Rome as AntiChrist. Well, I guess I feel about that the way I do about any other AntiChrist theory.
It's possible. Although I have to say that many of the Catholics I have met don't seem particularly brainwashed.
Yes, I do have theological problems with Roman Catholicism but I can't help reflecting that it's an inevitable aspect of Protestantism that suspicion and dislike of Rome is hard-wired into some Protestant thinking. So, hardly surprising that Luther & Co. wrote the way they did ...
I do find it curious though,, when there are so many other equally dodgy political and religious systems in the world - past and present.
Surely Communism killed more saints than the church of Rome ever did during the worst excesses of the horrible religious wars of the 16th century, Mr Hakim?
It's also worth remembering that Protestants did their fair share of persecuting too ... against other Protestants, sadly. :(:( The Anglican Church treated the Scottish Covenanters appallingly. And then, earlier on, there were the Anabaptists ...
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to check if the Illumunati have tapped my phone ...
I'm with Andy Jackson on this one. The slice website seems to be a stream of increasingly bitter attacks on anything which doesn't strike them as "pure." After comparing the Catholic church to the beast of Revelation, they had a second post stating that it could just as likely be the "evangelical church." Are you on board with that one as well?
As forRevelation itself, I'm with Brain Thornton (pleased to meet you, Brian) who seems to have a good handle on things. All of the New Testament including Revelation is "other people's mail." We make a mistake when we read everything that was in their future then as being yet in our future.
And since James (another commenter above) brought it up, I'd like to suggest a comparison. Rev. 18:24 says (speaking of the harlot) "In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth." Now compare with Matthew 23: 34-36 where Jesus is speaking of Jerusalem:
Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
I think it's difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the harlot was Jerusalem. I quick word study on the use of "harlot" in the Old Testament will confirm that this term was frequently used (often by God himself) in reference to God's wayward people.
The Catholic church has many serious problems, but they've come a long way since the reformation. Suggesting that they are the height of evil today (the anti-Christ) is like something out of a Dan Brown novel or worse yet a Tim LaHaye novel. Absurd is the perfect word for it.
John said;
"The Catholic church has many serious problems, but they've come a long way since the reformation."
??? Did I MISS something?!!! - Explain this assertion John.
Actually we seem to be forgetting that Religious Unity, Ecumenism, which started at the Tower of Babel, and yes perhaps at the last, being visibly headed by the Roman Pope, - (Maybe then seated at a unified JERUSALEM!?!) - will probably be the locus of the manifested Anti-Christal Spirit.
But why pick out ONE particular stream of visible religion? Haven't the Protestant Churches fallen further from their light than Rome, who has not really budged in spirit from ANY of her abominations.
$peaking of inflamatory i$$ue$ and platform$. I wa$ ju$t wondering today if you had ever written anything on the $ubject of tithing.
I thought to my$elf, I $ay$... it wouldn't matter what he wrote, there would be over 200 comment$.
That'$ a bea$t of another color.
I am a bit nervous about John's assertion that the Catholic Church as come a long way. Years ago I had Catholic business partners. We used to get into friendly debates all the time. One was over communion which they insist is actually Christs blood and flesh. Yep, those little wafers are really Him. I asked them if the manufacturer of the wafers knew this.
They tried to tell me that praying to the saints was sort of like God's management team who interceded for them. I guess the Holy Spirit is too busy?
I would ask them what is up with the Mary worshipping. Well, she was favored by God, they said. I would ask them to show me in the NT where we should pray to her. But then, they would actally have to read the Bible and that is not exactly encouraged by the priest.
These are people who think the first pope was Peter and he wore one of those hats! :)
There are millions who believe these things and consider themselves Christians. Seems like they are in line for anything the pope tells them is true.
I'm not going to "hijack" this thread and get into a discussion of Catholic theology, but it's obvious from previous comments that many of the readers here are completely misinformed when it comes to actual Catholic doctrine and the historic doctrines of the Church. If you really want to know what Catholics believe, I suggest that you pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You might be surprised at what you find. As a lifelong Protestant (until recently), I found myself shocked at how much I could agree with in the Catechism and how slanderous and erroneous what I had been taught about Catholicism as a child was.
Might I also suggest that people study Church History *before* the Reformation more closely? A study of the Early Church shows that the beliefs and practices that so many of you condemn as anti-biblical and apostate were held by early Christians: infant baptism/baptismal regeneration, invocation of Mary and the saints, belief in the perpetual virginity and bodily assumption of Mary, and belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christians in Rome were requesting the prayers of Sts. Peter and Paul by the early 2nd century. Luther and Calvin both believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (and later, Wesley). Luther believed in baptismal regeneration and in the Real Presence of Christ around (not in) the Eucharist - consubstantiation. Most of the Reformers would have far more in common with Catholics today than they would with contemporary evangelical Christians. And of course, many of these same beliefs and practices are and always have been held by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which traces its traditions and doctrines right back to the founding of Christ's Church. So are they apostates, or Christians?
>>A study of the Early Church shows that the beliefs and practices that so many of you condemn as anti-biblical and apostate were held by early Christians:>>
I agree. This is ONE reason why Paul wrote so many letters to the churches. To straighten them out when they had wrong beliefs.
Tim:
Spot on. I recall fondly learning in Greek that the prefix "anti" means "instead" or "in place of" and at times "against." The historic view that the church of Rome is antichrist in many respects (if not "THE" antichrist) cannot be easily ignored.
Take the bishop's miter, for instance. The pope's three-tiered cap that not only is wonderful in lightning storms (he'd take one for the flock if he were standing in a field with some parishoners during such a storm...), also signifies that he is the vice-regent of Christ on the earth over heaven, earth, and hell below.
The idea that the Roman See is the earthly representative of Christ, holding the keys of the kingdom in a monolithic fashion, as the earthly viceroy of Jesus Himself, is the very definition of antichrist.
BUT
John *did* speak of "many" antichrists, as others have pointed out. The blue devil herself obviously wants to point the finger at the Eastern Church, others mention the LDS and other religions. Let's not forget Muhammad who proclaimed that HE was the "paraclete" (holy Spirit) of John's Gospel, promised of Christ in John 14 and 16...
There are many. But Rome? Sure. Her too. Synagogue of Satan. Let's not rest there, however. The Reformers were right in their time to point this out, but let's be vigilant, lest we welcome some other in the name of Christ only to find that Satan had us looking east when he snuck in the back door! Let us test every spirit and teacher, every doctrine and remain Bereans--let the Word of God prove our cases, and let's not think that Satan would be so easily classified as merely the pope or Roman Catholic. His followers look like the rest of the sheep, whatever the denomination.
Do you want a good test for the anti-christ?
Read I John. God's standard for His true disciples were meant not to point fingers so much as they were meant to be used to examine ourselves. Sure, we can be cautious around other "believers," we can test others through conversation, etc., but the whole while: is the love of the Father in us? Do we say to someone, "You know, you're Roman Catholic. I think you're anti-christian," as we walk on the other side of the road (the opposite of the "Good Samaritan" parable)?
Let's take heed and realize that Satan would silence us easily by simply raising our suspicions and making us too afraid to go out and conquer our neighbors with the Gospel of Truth while we huddle safely amongst those in our same denominational lines.
The devil is the most cunning of all the creatures. Deadly subtle, that snake.
"I will establish my church, and against it the gates of Hell will not prevail."
Anti-Christ or not: we've won. Christ won it for us.
--James H
I had a Roman Catholic friend who just suffered through three years of ALS, and whose faith in Jesus Christ as his only hope and savior was exemplary. Still, both the historical and formal positions and actions of the Roman Catholic church kept me at a place of discomfort about his faith and that of other friends. Biblically, one can't deny that the doctrines of that church, taken as a whole, are aberrant and dangerous.
While I would agree that this discussion is fruitful, along with all discussions that might expose the error that supplants Biblical truth, I must continually look at my own heart and faith, and that of those I sit beside in the pew. Certainly, even our right doctrinal position (imho) can be set up as "anti-christ," where our hope and faith is in the system and our rightness, rather than in the One and Only. And that, even for the elect, as something that can be done on a moment by moment basis when our focus is only on our right beliefs and the error in others' rather than Christ himself.
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Tim. Keep up the good work.
Steve P.
"infant baptism/baptismal regeneration, invocation of Mary and the saints, belief in the perpetual virginity and bodily assumption of Mary, and belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist."
Anyone who believes the above is in need of serious help and of reading their Bible. Invocation of Mary is enough on its own to show you are in need of serious help. It would mean that Christ was not sufficient and that dispite what the Bible clearly teaches, Christ is not the sole intercessor between man and God.Oh dear, oh dear. See Rom 8:34 There is nothing about Mary in this context, nothing.
A few bits and pieces about the discussion. First: the Pope's title is the "Vicar of Christ". The Latin root of this word means "substitute" (We, of course, get our word "vicarious" from this same root) - the "Vicar of Christ", "substitute of Christ"...pretty close to "in the place of" Christ...ie, "antichrist". His assumed position as head of the universal church - with all the claims of spiritual and political authority attendant upon this - also usurps Christ's role, putting him in Christ's place. A very scholarly Scottish pastor I know of claimed the early Christians prayed for the continuation of the Roman Empire as they expected the lawless one, the antichrist, to assume power out of the rubble of the empire's disintegration. They refer to this, but not by name for fear of political repercussion in forecasting empire's demise , in the following statement: "For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back (ie.Rome) will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed...etc. The Roman church did fill this vacuum, and later claimed, in forged documents, that Constantine had officially "donated" his western empire to the Bishop of Rome.Finally, as to doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and how closely it now approximates Biblical, Protestant doctrine: the crystal-clear way for Rome to make clear it now accepts Biblical truth is not to throw more words into joint statements, etc., but to revoke all the anathemas hurled at the heart of Reformational thelogy.
In for a penny, in for a pound...
James H. stated "...The idea that the Roman See is the earthly representative of Christ, holding the keys of the kingdom in a monolithic fashion, as the earthly viceroy of Jesus Himself, is the very definition of antichrist."
So, who does hold the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven' given by Christ in the Gospel of Matthew? (Matt 16:18-19, Isaiah 22:20-23)
Glenn Piper stated "See Rom 8:34 There is nothing about Mary in this context, nothing.".
Amen. Correct. This verse states that Christ intercedes to the Father. It states nothing about anyone's ability to intercede with Christ, i.e., Mary. (It also states nothing about whether pizzas should have anchovies, nothing.)
We know from the Wedding Feast of Canna that Christ kept the commandment and honored his mother, Mary, when she interceded for the wedding guests. (John 2:1-11)There is nothing in the Bible which says Christ has since ceased honoring his mother and denying her requests.
Of course, some would argue that Mary is dead, but we see in Matt 22:32 that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. " So that arguement is moot.
Back to the discussion, as one of the resident Catholic commentors at Slice, I too made Brian T's point that the term antichrist does not appear in Revelations. My copy of the bible also only shows four appearances and it means someone who denies Christ is Lord.
As I found out, Slice readers have been taught a Protestant tradition and they're sticking with it. They have to. They have no choice. To not claim that the Catholic Church is the beast is to claim that the Catholic Church is true and their theology crumbles.
G.K. Chesterton described their dilemma best;
"...it is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it . . ."
- Timothy
Timothy,To justify your position, you must also believe that scripture CONTRADICTS itself. So which is it? God contradicts himself, or you are picking and choosing the verses that support what you want to believe (out of context) and disregarding the other truths???
Tim,
As someone who was born and raised Roman Catholic but was saved by Grace through the ministry of a different organization (Scripture Union) it is my personal opinion that labelling the Church of Rome as "the Beast" is counter productive to evangelism.
I have found that the best way to point a Catholic to true christianity is to get them to read the Bible and pray for the Holy Spirit of God to open their eyes. That is what worked in my case. After I became a Christian, statements like the Roman Church being "Babylon" or "the Beast" only made me defensive but I was blessed to have a mentor who taught me to read and study the Word of God.
In the last paragraph of your post you admit that you do not know if the Roman Catholic church is the "beast" but everything you write in the article fuels the speculation. I have read Sliceof Laodicea since February this year and continue to read it occassionally. I would humbly suggest you look more carefully at the other writings of the Reverend Ken Silva. I personally worry about the claims he makes about himself on occassion, but that is another story.
sincerely in Christ, Raymond
PS to Jabbok- if you an interested please take a look at a discussion on TITHING at a blog I share with a few friends, thank you
Tim:
It seems Spurgeon also likes the word Scotch:
"Oh! if we had some of the old Scotch preachers! Those Scotch preachers made kings tremble; they were no men's servants; they were very lords, wherever they went, because each of them said, "God has given me a message; my brow is like adamant against men; I will speak what God bids me."
If the papacy and the teaching of the Eucharist were not found in Holy Scripture, I'd be likely to agree with Tim.
However, when Catholics believe in Christ's presence in the bread and wine, they are only taking Him at His word. Read John 6 a few times, and notice how many times He says "my flesh is real food and my BLOOD is real DRINK". This was after some questioned Him and said they couldn't accept the teaching. He didn't correct and say, 'no, I was only speaking figuratively'. Rather, he spoke even more forcefully in favor of what Catholics believe even to this day.
I know as a Protestant, it seems blasphemous to say that God could take the form of bread. But it was equally scandalous to suggest to 1st Century Jews that God took the form of a man. So, since Jesus taught it so forcefully, is it possibly prideful for us to think "well, God could take the form of a man, but He couldn't take the form of bread and wine. That's just too beneath God. I guess it's okay to believe He took the form of man. But bread and wine? That's just too much."
Also, instead of just studying the "Papacy", I suggest doing a biblical study on Peter. There is a lot there, so it'll take a while to do a full study. Notice if Jesus treats Peter in any sort of unique way. Notice if the other apostles and Paul treat him uniquely.
Then, do a study to find out if the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura and find out what the Bible teaches is the pillar and foundation of truth. I contend that the Bible does not teach Scripture alone as your only source of knowledge about truth.
Papacy and Eucharist are two very important Catholic doctrines, (not the most important) and they are found in Scripture.The two most important Protestant doctrines, Faith Alone and Scripture Alone, are not found in Scripture. In fact, the only place where the words faith and alone are in the same sentence is in James 2 where it is taught we are justified by what we do and "not by faith alone".(even if you twist the meaning to say "demonstrate that you are saved" by works, it's still the only place faith and alone appear together. So faith alone is still not taught anywhere in Bible.)You would be on much better grounds if you argued that we are saved by grace alone. Grace alone and faith alone is not the same thing. The Bible does teach that we are saved by grace. It does teach that faith plays a primary role (but not faith alone).(It even teaches that in the absense of an opportunity to do any "works", such as the thief on the cross, you can be saved by grace through faith. Unless you count the thief's defense of Jesus to the other criminal as a work.)
Grace is God's first move toward us.Faith and works are both our response to God.Faith without God's grace making it count for something is nothing.Works without God's grace making it count for something is nothing."Saving" faith is a gift.Works that count for anything are also a gift.Without grace, our works AND faith would be useless.
I could take the time to look up all the verses to support my stances on the papacy and the Eucharist, but since you are all Bereans, I will leave that fun up to you for now. ;-)
The bottom line is this - if you want to learn about Catholicism, learn it from Catholic sources. Of course I would believe all sorts of falsehoods about Calvinists if everything I knew about them came from Catholic or Eastern Orthodox sources (but, I was raised in a Reformed Church, so I'm quite familiar with Calvinism). Why do so many evangelical Protestants find it acceptable to learn about the Catholic faith secondhand? There are plenty of Protestants who have actually engaged with Catholic doctrine instead of with a slanderous caricature of Catholic doctrine (like Kevin Johnson at Reformed Catholicism, and Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed). You folks are swinging at straw men.
Lin -
I was not speaking of issues on which the apostles and Fathers had to correct Christians in error. I was speaking of the universal consensus of the Christian Church, both in the East and in the West, until well after 1500. I'm a medieval historian, so I flatter myself that I know of what I speak.
Glenn -
On the issues of baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I'm afraid you're quite wrong to say that they are not taught in the Bible. The relevant references here are 1 Peter 3:20-22 (for baptism) and (for the Eucharist) 1 John 6:52-59, 1 Cor. 11: 23-29, and of course, passages on the Last Supper in the Gospels, in which Jesus says rather plainly that the bread "is" His Body and the wine "is" His Blood, not that they "represent" His Body and Blood.
On the other two issues, of course, neither the Catholic nor the Eastern Orthodox Churches view Church Tradition (which teaches the invocation of the saints and the perpetual virginity of Mary) as contradictory to Scripture, since they have been taught from the beginning. On Mary's perpetual virginity, I would point you to a series currently being written by Scot McKnight over at Jesus Creed (which is a Protestant blog, so you don't need to worry about being tainted). He shows persuasively that belief in Mary's perpetual virginity was widespread (I would say universal) in the Early Church.
"He shows persuasively that belief in Mary's perpetual virginity was widespread (I would say universal) in the Early Church."
How early? Not in scripture!
No one refutes that parts of the early church believed this, that does not make it a biblical belief? There are many other things that are not biblical that have filtered in and out of the church (even the early church). The Lord left us scripture for such things. We could go on for days on how many errors crept in with Constantine and mixing paganism with Christianity.
The point is, does scripture support it (not just a verse but scriptures complete revelation as best we know)? Or does the belief make God out to be confused? I think not. If what we believe conflicts with what God has revealed in scripture (especially when it comes to who we pray to, or believing in an extra redeemers and other heresies)...we might want to pray for understanding and go to scripture again).
"The bottom line is this - if you want to learn about Catholicism, learn it from Catholic sources. "
If I want to learn about being a pedofile should I go to a pedofile?
The anser is already in scripture
Donna -
First of all, it's "pedophile." Secondly, have you ever heard of a logical fallacy?
Look at it this way. Say you wanted to witness to a Catholic. Do you think this person would be at all inclined to listen to you if you insist that s/he believes things that s/he does not, in fact, believe? Don't you think that would damage your witness? I'm not saying everyone should become experts in Catholic theology. I'm just saying that we Catholics might be inclined to take you more seriously if you made some effort to get your facts straight.
I promised not to hijack this thread with explanations of Catholic doctrine, so I won't make a lengthy response to your first comment. All you have to do is Google to find a biblical defense of Mary's perpetual virginity. Also, what do you suppose the Early Church did for the 400 years in which it did not have a set canon of Scripture?
When you first establish that the Apostle Peter was never in Rome, then you can begin to understand that Peter was not the founder of the Catholic Church. So who was the "Peter" that founded the Catholic Church? Simon Magus. Davidson's Hebrew Lexicon show that the consonantal word p-t-r (Peter) means "to interpret". Simon Magus interpreted early Christianity and adultrated it.
There is plenty of Biblical evidence that Simon Magus was in Rome at the founding of the CC, and none that the Apostle Peter was ever there, ever! Simon Magus was influenced by the miracles that Philip performed and decided to take his Mystery Babylon religion, and adopt some nominally Christian attributes.
"I'm not saying everyone should become experts in Catholic theology. I'm just saying that we Catholics might be inclined to take you more seriously if you made some effort to get your facts straight."
You know, that's a valid point, but in my experience (and in this area it is fairly extensive) I have found that I will almost always be told that I don't understand. I've read the Catholic Catechism and have studied Catholicism. I don't know it backwards and forwards but I do know a lot about Catholic theology (a lot more than most Catholics I meet). And yet when I bring up points against Catholicism I'm almost always told that I don't understand.
And yes, you may recognize that as the same strategy used by the emerging church folks!
Tim -
I'm not suggesting that simply getting facts straight will erase all differences between Catholics and Protestants. The simple fact that no faithful Catholic or Eastern Orthodox could ever accept sola scriptura, and that no faithful Protestant (I don't include Anglicans) could ever accept the authority of Tradition, makes it impossible for any true understanding to come about apart from actual conversion. So yes, it's perfectly reasonable that even with your knowledge of Catholicism, Catholics might tell you that you don't understand their faith. We apply very different hermeneutic principles to biblical interpretation.
That said, it is immediately obvious to any informed Catholic that several of the commenters in this thread haven't the faintest notion about Catholic doctrine or Church history. Those are the people to whom my comment was directed.
Tim -
Dumpster Juice's comment is a prime example of the biblical and historical ignorance to which I referred. Simon Magus was universally abhorred by the Early Church and there is no evidence whatsoever that he was a leader of the Church in Rome.
Also, lumping in Catholics with emergent folk is the kind of rhetorical move that is really beneath you. Never mind the fact that plenty of evangelical Protestants completely sweep aside any objections that a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox might raise to their faith. You're perfectly willing to consider one particular biblical interpretation shared by the Reformers (i.e., that the Catholic Church is the Beast) because it aligns with or does not contradict your understanding of Christianity. But you completely dismiss out of hand the fact that the Reformers all practiced infant baptism and despised Anabaptism, or the fact that most of them continued to believe that Mary was perpetually virgin, or that they retained some measure of belief in the Real Presence. You adopt metaphorical interpretations of Scripture where Christians for over a millienium and a half had adopted a literal interpretation (baptism, communion). And when Catholics point all of these things out, you just point a Bible at them without ever engaging with the fact that sola scriptura is a historical innovation which no one in the Church believed for 1500 years!
diablaazul-
http://www.historicist.com/articles2/peter.htm
"no evidence whatsoever", this is only a sample of "no evidence whatsoever" for those whom care to investigate.
Tim - apologies for the digression which is about to follow.
Dumpster Juice - Linking to a site that is full of errors and logical fallacies is hardly "evidence" for an argument that no credible scholar, Catholic or Protestant, buys.
1) Peter did not have to be in Rome in order to be the first pope. In case you didn't know, the papacy was actually situated in Avignon, France for some time during the Middle Ages. A number of popes have had to flee Rome for their own safety. Their physical absence from Rome does not mean that they ceased to be popes.
2) No Catholic disagrees that Paul was the first apostle to preach in Rome. The See of Rome is actually known as the See of Peter and Paul. Both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox recognize that Jerusalem, not Rome, was Peter's first See.
3) The site you linked to claims that Peter was in Babylon at the end of his ministry rather than Rome. The only problem with this theory? Babylon did not exist - not as a metropolis, anyway - in AD 66. In fact, it hadn't existed as a city for over 200 years. Protestant and Catholic scholars alike believe that Peter's reference to "Babylon" in 1 Pet. 5:13 is a reference to Rome. It was fairly common for Christians of the time to refer to Rome as Babylon. This, coupled with the tradition of the Church, offers us a pretty good clue that Peter was in fact in Rome at the end of his ministry.
4) It has been the teaching of the Church from very early on that Peter was martyred in Rome. Clement of Rome wrote in the late 1st century that Peter was crucified in Rome during the reign of Nero. Clement wrote 30 years after the death of Peter. So who should I believe? A shoddily researched website, or someone who lived within a generation of Peter? Hmmmm . . . . tough call.
Wow, Tim...if I didn't know any better, I'd say this was becoming quite a platform for Catholic apologetics.
"Wow, Tim...if I didn't know any better, I'd say this was becoming quite a platform for Catholic apologetics."
Strangely, that doesn't bother me a whole lot. I've got nothing to fear and nor should any other well-read Protestant!
Like I said, I have no desire to get into lengthy debates over Catholic theology in this thread. I am under no illusions whatsoever that anything I say in this context will persuade anyone, one way or the other.
It's just very hard to keep one's mouth shut when someone is perpetuating a bald-faced lie against one's faith, as Dumpster Juice did, or when someone uses straw men arguments and logical fallacies as weapons against that faith. I think most reasonable people can relate to that.
And certainly no Christian has anything to fear from the Truth, and even less to fear from lies.
Diablaazul said;
(Quote)'As a lifelong Protestant (until recently), I found myself shocked at how much I could agree with in the Catechism.'(unquote)
You must have read a 'different translation' than the one on the Catholic web-site Diablaazul! - (or you were not really a Protestant at all, at least not by doctrine!)
John MacArthur recently preached on the pope and the papacy.Here's the link:
http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=230597
Here is his summary statement:
Oh, they've got a clever system. How to preserve error. How to perpetuate error. Make heresy infallible. And the arch heretic unassailable, ir-reformable and absolutely authoritative. It is possible that the final Antichrist could be a Pope because the final Antichrist will be a dominating world leader. He will be not subject to any other world leader. He will be an imitation of Christ, an anti-Christ, a pseudo-Christ. He will have international power. He will be a Gentile. And his system seems, in the book of Revelation chapter 17, to be headed up in Rome. If the Pope can fool evangelicals, it seems to me that the Antichrist won't have much trouble doing the same with the world.
Joel,Sorry, John MacArthur has zero credibility on the topic of Catholicism. As a Catholic, it's not worth my time to consider anything he's got to say. A friend once e-mailed me a link to a sermon from MacArthur asking me to comment. The sermon was entitled "Roman Catholic Mary Worship".
MacArthur needs to be reminded of the commandment, "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor." In the sermon, he says that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit and had no human father, just like Jesus. MacArthur is not to be trusted as an expert on what the Catholic Church teaches. If he was, he would know what the Immaculate Conception teaches. It does NOT teach that Mary didn't have a human father. She was conceived just like anyone else, but at the moment of her conception, God saved her from original sin and her own sin. If he is not informed on this very basic issue, then why should I trust that he's made an honest effort to find out what the Cath. Church actually teaches about Mary or the papacy or anything else. So my friend follows up with another MacArthur link. In that link, he says the Catholic church denies the universal priesthood of all believers. Again, not true. When every Cath. is baptized, there is a part of the baptism that talks about their role as priest, prophet, and king. The ordained priesthood does not take away from our priesthood as a regular Christian. It adds to it. Of course, maybe that's too in depth for MacArthur to take the time to read about and understand.This is all in the Catechism and easy to learn about if there is an honest desire to understand.
Alas, I did go to the MacArthur link above and found more misrepresentations of what Catholics believe.
I also found an interesting quote of his and I'd like to demonstrate the kind of selective quoting that MacArthur uses against the Catholic Church. Watch while I accurately quote MacArthur but misrepresent what he is saying:
"It conducts a horrific exaltation of Mary above Christ and even God." - John MacArthur
It is clear by this statement that John MacArthur does not believe that Jesus is God! Anyone who believed that Jesus was God would not need to say that the Catholic Church exalts Mary above Christ and EVEN God. For by saying she's exalted above Christ, would be saying that she was exalted above God. Blasphemy! It's sad to see that MacArthur denies the divinity of Christ and has millions of deluded followers, such as Joel above, who also have been deceived to disbelieve in the Trinity.
Okay - back to reality....I don't think MacArthur does this on purpose. I just think he is VERY sloppy in his study of Catholicism and he lets his prejudices cloud what he reads.
Hello Tim,
Thank you for your correct assessment of my position re. this post which is no longer available. I am grateful also for your permission to use it in this series I've just begun at Apprising Ministries.
"What Has Changed Regarding Roman Catholicism?" : http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/06/what_has_change.html
I offer encouragement that the Lord will bless you for your stand Tim. :-)
"The Catholic church has many serious problems, but they've come a long way since the reformation."
You are so right... the Whore of Babylon has found people to make her statues bigger, her Rosaries of more expensive materials and her interactions with other apostates and unregenerate sinners more intimate. Before the Second Vatican Council, the Whore was only adept at broadcasting her own unique heresies; now, since Vatican II and especially since the sinful reign of Karol Wotyla, she has taken to linking arms publicly with heretics of every stripe, from the un-orthodox 'Jew' to the animists and even the homos.Yes, friend, they HAVE come a long way... they have gotten even worse, as if that were possible.
I have found some of the comments on this particular blog entry some of the very worst things I've read regarding Catholicism; and this on a Christian website. Assuming that Catholicism is the enemy of the true church (no doubt the 'true church' is composed of many folks here), how does Christ tell us we MUST treat our enemies? Certainly not the way many people are demonstrating in this thread of comments. As I've said elsewhere, orthodoxy without love is not orthodoxy.
Let us jettison virtually anything the reformers have to say about Rome. They spoke with such pugnacity because Rome stood in their way. Moreover, let us ignore Martin Luther, whose theological objectivity was disproven the moment he began to reject huge portions of the New Testament canon because they did not fit in with his protestantism: he knew that James, for instance, not only defied his paradigm but bolstered the Catholic Church.
Anyone paying the slightest attention to world events sees that the most reviled (perhaps) institution in the world is the Catholic Church. Why? Well, it is largely reviled because it is the only intransigent bulwark against the ordination of women, and the promotion of homosexuality, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. In other words, the political progressives of this planet (you know this if you are paying attention) upbraid and villify the Catholic Church at every turn. And they believe that if the Church topples, the earth will finally be free. It is Martin Luther par excellence. (And only those evangelicals on the political and theological right who align themselves with Rome are listed as the most feared and loathed of the Religious Right among Protestant believers.)
Of course, to the Roman Catholic Church, it is the "reformed Protestants" who are anti-Christ (or at least come perilously close to it). After all, it is Protestantism that has given the world Christian nihilism; it is the Protestant Church that has disfigured the body of Christ, setting denomination against denomination; setting up little popes in pulpits proclaiming personal inerrancy and infallibility in "rightly dividing the word of truth." Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarianism, The United Church of Christ, Shelby Spong and a gay Episcopal bishop: These are Protestantism's gifts to the "true church".
Here are a few questions to consider: Are Protestants infallible and inerrant in their understanding of the infallible and inerrant Scriptures? If so, why dismiss papal infallibility? If not, then what are the Protestant mistakes; what errors have Protestants embraced, and continue to embrace, and how do we recognize them? Who here wants to come forward and detail their theological errors and heresies? Or should I conclude from the silence that everybody here has his or her theology in order? Come now. Who can list what they have wrong? Or does no one here think they have anything wrong? (Does this not prove that Christians ASSUME infallibility?)
Moreover, if Christ is indeed the head of the Church, and if the Bible is the only rule of faith for a believer, then one must ask two things: Did Jesus Christ Himself tell you that you MUST NOT be a Roman Catholic, and where in the Bible does it tell you that Catholicism is not for "true believers"? You see, one cannot have it both ways. If Christ is the only head of the Church then the only thing you should be heeding is Him; and if the Bible is the sole guide of faith then the only thing you should be basing your anti-Catholic position on is what the Bible explicitly says on this matter. And if the Bible is not explicit here, then how is it that God and the Apostles could be so quiet, so subtle and nuanced, about whether the Church of Rome (and not the Church of Geneva or Canterbury) is the BEAST?
Peace of Christ to you all.
BG
A good pro-catholic work out is titled Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. I found myself strengthened in my protestantism after reading it. He quotes one particularly flawed doctrine on Mary: 'Mary is the mediatrix of all graces because of her intercession for us in heaven. What this means is that no grace accrues to us without her intercession . . . through God's will, grace is not conferred on anyone without Mary's cooperation. True, Scriptural proofs for this are lacking.' [Catholicism and Fundamentalism, p. 279]
If this is true Catholic teaching - which I think most Catholics agree it is - can anything be more disturbing and unbiblical?
Keating talks about the presuppositions of the fundamentalist. What about the presuppositionisms of the Catholic. If the church teaches it - it must be true. The reality is that Luther - Huss and others would never have questioned the 'traditions' - if they hadn't found them to be in such glaring contradiction to the Scriptures which the same church held to be the Word of God.
Keating also makes the often used argument against salvation by grace through faith alone. The argument is that 'For fundamentalists it makes no difference how one lives or ends his life.' [p. 167]
That was not true of the reformers nor is it true of a good portion of Protestants today.
Calvin: 'faith alone saves but the faith that saves is not alone' [Institutes] - meaning it bears the fruit of good works.'Christ justifies no one whom he does not also sanctify'
They found this to be the perfect balance of Eph. 2:8-10
When Jesus confronted the Pharisees - he often took them back to the book. He said, 'Is this not why ye err - that ye understandeth not the Scriptures?'
He Himself established the pattern that led to Sola Scriptura. Let us follow Him lest we be guilty of invalidating the Word of God by holding to our traditions.
Psalm 119:18
To any Catholic in the room,
What does 'perpetual virginity' mean? The Bible makes at least two references to Jesus' brothers. Tradition also teaches that a James (the one who wrote the book) was Jesus' brother. So 'perpetual virginity' must be some kind of metaphor, right?
GWilly,Very quickly, gotta run....Perpetual Virginity does mean Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, not just until Jesus' birth.There are two explanations for the references you cite. 1. Original language usage studies (Aramaic, Greek) allow for use of brothers for those who are actually cousins. Greek does have a word for cousins, but the explanation is more involved than that. Also, James is named later in the Gospels as being the son of not Mary the mother of Jesus, but Mary the wife of Clopas, (if I'm remembering this right.)2. Some Church fathers maintained that Joseph had children from a previous marriage and was a widower. In this case, the brothers mentioned would be Jesus' step-brothers.