Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/21/2009 7:49:12 PM
|
|
|
wkirscher
Posts: 341
Joined: 3/28/2009
Status: offline
|
JKaplan,
Have you read Hahn's "The Lambs Supper"? It's one of my favorites. I also like Alex Jone's "No Price Too High". He sought to get his Pentecostal congregation to be more like an "Acts 2" church so started reading writings from the early church. Not long after, he and many of his flock entered the CC church where he is now a deacon.
I echo your feelings too about Beckwith, Hahn, and the many other Protestant pastors entering into the CC. Surely one can't argue that they are "scripture-lite". The trend I've noticed is those entering into the CC will acknowledge their love for scripture and fairly deep understanding of it. Those who leave the CC typically don't (don't see how this can happen with the ammount of scripture proclaimed in the Liturgy). It's probably because of poor catechesis which seems to be getting a lot of attention in many diocese today.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/22/2009 4:37:00 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5086
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManimalX
quote:
Although, worldwide RC is losing numbers and evangelical Protestantism is gaining significantly in third world countries. God is gracious as He brings the truth to those nations..."So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.".
...reminded me of Matthew 7:14, ""For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few". It sure seems like an argumentum ad populum (that is, an appeal to popular support of a certain position) is one of the weakest debate positions a Christian can take. Another weak argument is the appeal to antiquity. Once a sovereign papacy was established and unscriptural doctrines tumbled forward at lightning speed, the method of reading-back into Scripture was cemented. No longer were doctrines established from Scripture. Instead, RC first established doctrines and then searched high and low for something which could be used as support.
Thus began the system of not using the Bible to find truth but using it as a means to find something anything that was at best tangential or extraneous.
We can use an analogy between secular governments and that of RC. On the one hand, dictatorships can appear to be tidy and without dissent compared to the sometimes "messiness" of a democracy. Yet, who would ever want to renounce his freedom of speech?
quote:
I hesitate to use the next two verses, Mt 7:15-16, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?", because even though the Roman church is FULL of false prophets and bad fruit (as non-Roman denominations are as well), there is still a lot of good fruit being produced by our brothers and sisters in the Roman denomination in terms of charity and justice on the behalf of the poor, hungry, orphan, widow, and downtrodden around the world. My fear is the corruption of those fruits by a rotten gospel message (trust in the Roman Church for salvation rather than Christ). Yes, God has created man with the desire to help others. We see this all the time in the secular world. However, God has ordained that His Truth be broadcast to the world and only true believers can do this. And while acts of mercy are certainly biblical, the spread of the true Gospel is the main concern for the true believer.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/22/2009 4:47:16 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5086
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JKaplan
Kman,
quote:
Must have been pretty light on the "scripture study" since RC's doctrines are not found there.
Ouch. Hey, I admit I'm no theologian. More of a common sense person. The scriptural interpretations of my Baptist pastor just were not adding up. I can't imagine how RC interpretation would "add up" any better.
quote:
quote:
Beckwith was raised RC. Yep, of course, some Protestants have converted to RC but there are millions who have fled when they were actually exposed to Scripture.
Yea, I can see why Beckwith and other former Protestant Pastors converting to the Catholic Church is a threat to certain preconceived notions. What "threat" and what "preconceived notions" would that be? I'm not threatened by a Protestant converting to Roman Catholicism. After all, it's not as if it were a one way street.
You know God did not choose "wise" men to reveal His Truth to. There are many brilliant theologians but without the leading of the Holy Spirit they have no truer understanding of God's Word than did the well-educated Pharisees of the Lord's time.
quote:
Take a look at the work of Dr. Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian pastor and his study of covenant theology and let me know what you think of his level of interpreting scripture. He was never a Catholic by the way.  If Hahn endorses the papacy, Marian doctrines and a dozen other RC doctrines, what I think of his "level of interpreting scripture" should be obvious.
quote:
Again, my point was in response to posts that were implying people leave the Catholic Church once they are exposed to scripture. My case is the opposite, that's all. My statement was based on my personal experience and that of many people I know....anecdotal, of course, but nevertheless...
quote:
Sorry to have hit such a nerve.
What nerve do you suppose you hit?....I didn't feel anything.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/22/2009 5:06:44 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2565
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Yea, I can see why Beckwith and other former Protestant Pastors converting to the Catholic Church is a threat to certain preconceived notions. What "threat" and what "preconceived notions" would that be? I'm not threatened by a Protestant converting to Roman Catholicism. After all, it's not as if it were a one way street.
Excellent point that both "sides" would do well to observe. I think we should all avoid claims of "such-and-such non-Roman Christian is now a Roman Christian" as well as "such-and-such Roman Christian has denounced Rome and become a "protester"". It happens back and forth all of the time, and isn't really evidence of anything except that people are fickle. For every former-Protestant that the Romans can load into their catapults and launch at the Protestants, the Protestants can load a former-Roman-turned-Protestant into their catapults and fire back. (and, in consideration of my messianic brother ben.rawr, by "Protestant" I mean any non-Roman Christian)
Besides, we all know that the rejection of Rome by devout former Romans such as theological heavy-weights Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin gives Protestants the win anyway
(I kid, I kid!) 
< Message edited by ManimalX -- 11/22/2009 5:13:35 AM >
_____________________________
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth." - 2nd Timothy 2:24,25
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 11/22/2009 3:47:15 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 595
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
Once a sovereign papacy was established and unscriptural doctrines tumbled forward at lightning speed, the method of reading-back into Scripture was cemented.
...I think the seeds of the Papacy are clearly Biblical and historical between 33 and 300 A.D., and beyond ... and ... the idea of going by Scripture alone ... like the idea of "it must be explicit" ... is not in the Scriptures ... which also don't overtly contain their Canon ...
quote:
If Hahn endorses the papacy ... what I think of his "level of interpreting scripture" should be obvious.
...the Church seems to have universally believed in Petrine primacy from the earliest centuries ...
lastly, WKirscher is correct to observe the Church's universal belief in Apostolic Succession between 33 and 500 A.D. ... and beyond ...
"Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, they appointed ... and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Clement. Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). Cf. 2 Tim 1:6, 2:2, Acts 1:20, 1 Tim 4:14.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 11/22/2009 5:52:23 PM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
