Sunday, May 13, 2007

More for the Papists

From Christian Research Network: This piece concerning the apostate Church of Rome over
at Apprising Ministries
begins with a quote from Dr. John MacArthur who says, "The papacy is unbiblical; it is unbiblical. There’s not one tiny shred of evidence in Scripture for the papacy,… It was all developed by evil people, satanically led to create a false religion that would be the enemy of the Truth." Here you will see from official Roman Catholic sources themselves that this "office" of the papacy has "the function of proclaiming the gospel [which] has been entrusted principally to the Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops.”

To read more click here.
"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm..." -Jeremiah 17:5


JSU said...

Great verse and comment by MacArthur!

Jon said...

I'm simply awestruck by the overwhelming sense of Christian charity that has been exhibited in these last two posts and comments.

JSU said...

Is charity to take the place of truth?

Jon said...

Well a "dead theologian" once wrote, if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

JSU said...

1 Corinthians 13:6
"Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth."

Jon said...

Nothing says "ecumenical dialog" like calling your opponent evil. :)

There are real differences that Catholic and Protestant Christians can argue and debate in good faith and charity (extrinsic vs. intrinsic justification, for example). However I've read enough over the last 10 years to know that most of the stuff I've read on this blog about what Catholics supposedly believe is just wrong or taken way, way out of context. I'm not going the belabor the point anymore (life is too short), but I'll just close by saying there is far more held in common than what divides. I guess you could label me a Presbyterian just trying to be fair.

JSU said...

I did not say or imply that anyone was evil here. The point was about truth and love. The original question was not answered: Is charity to take the place of truth?

You are right. Life is short and sometimes we can't convince the other side. Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). Sometimes the common ground of peace is just not possible. Even if the discussion ends here on this blog, it will continue for a long, long time among others. Scripture is the only support I lean on. It's truthfully dividing.

approvedworkman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
approvedworkman said...

As a former roman catholic I will tell you that almost everything practiced by the rcc has no biblical basis whatsoever. I heard an rcc priest on the EWTN (roman catholic)network the other day who said that we cannot go by scripture alone; there is tradition,typology, and "doctrinal development" which is papal code for "we can add and change things however we wish as time progresses".
The quote from 1 Cor 13 is a good one. Paul never said that love tolerates the unscriptural.
Fellowship is biblical,"ecumenical dialogue" (gag) goes right along with Babel.
If someone comes along with another Jesus and another gospel, where are we told to sit down and see if perhaps their point of view is valid?
The rcc is empirical Rome in religious clothing.It is pagan and worldly to its core.

Caspar said...

The critiques of the Church hold water only if your premises hold water. The problem with the premise of sola scriptura is that it is not scriptural. Nowhere does Christ preach this. Nowhere is this commanded by the apostles. So to demand, firstly, that all your doctrines be justified out of scripture is unscriptural.

Secondly, many Protestants have not taken a good, hard look at the scriptures cited in Church documents in support of the positions taken or looked at the scriptures gathered together by apologists to answer the charge that Catholic teaching is unscriptural. For example, the issue of the papacy. The prime scripture in support of the papal claim is carved into the stone of St. Peter's basilica, where Christ declares Peter the rock on which he shall build his church. Scott Hahn has done a great exegesis of that passage, with reference to Isaiah especially for the full import of the keys. It's long, but worth it.

There is a great deal more out there in answer to the Protestant claims. These are not the fullness of the answers, but they are a start. The Catholic Church has a great deal going for it--I will not take Protestant claims very seriously until I see you deal with the Church's responses in an irrefutable way.

approvedworkman said...

Sorry caspar,
The rcc is completely subjective in its eisegesis of Scripture.

Deut 8:
3And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

Jesus quoted portions of this passage in Matthew 4 when tempted by Satan, and in John 6 when speaking about the bread of heaven. In fact the entirety of John 6 does not tell us that we are to eat the literal flesh and blood of Christ. When seen in the light of Deut 8 and other related Scripture, Jesus is saying something entirely different. Thus transubstantiation is not a Biblical teaching.
I start with this, as this will be my next study on roman dogma in a series that I have been writing on my own blog.

As for your comments here:
Deut 8 and Jesus' citing of it are the foundation of sola scriptura.
The traditions of the church which are erroneously referred to as apostolic traditions contradict and/or add to the Bible. The traditions of the apostles are found in the New Testament, i.e. the book of Acts and the letters.
It is ridiculous to assume that the apostles wrote the narratives and the doctrinal letters, and then acted in anyway contrary to what is now Canon, i.e contradict what they had written..
Therefore the Bible contains the "traditions" of the apostles and the church. All else is hubris.
So, in regard to sola scriptura rather than get lengthy here, I suggest that you go check out what I have already written on the subject here:

As for Peter as pope and "apostolic succession", I have written on that here:

I also expanded on it in a reply to a papist by name of Timothy, who critiqued what I had originally written. You may read that here:

Scott Hahn's piece is "eisegetical" (as is all rcc doctrinal teaching) and seriously flawed.
It seems to be the only one that Catholics cite, btw.

Isaiah 22 has nothing to do with what Jesus said to Peter.

Isaiah 22:
15Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16What have you to do here, and whom have you here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself, you who cut out a tomb on the height and carve a dwelling for yourself in the rock? 17Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you 18and whirl you around and around, and throw you like a ball into a wide land. There you shall die, and there shall be your glorious chariots, you shame of your master's house. 19I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station. 20In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
24And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25In that day, declares the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken."

A study of the Hebrew names Eliakim and Hilkiah are most interesting;

God of raising; Eljakim, the name of four Israelites: - Eliakim.

hilqîyâh chilqîyâhû
portion of Jah; Chilhijah, the name of eight Israelites: - Hilkiah.

So the authority of David is given
to Eliakim the God of raising up, (resurrection), the SON of Hilkiah, the God who is our portion, (the I am,Yah)
Now read this passage in light of Isaiah 22;

Rev 3:
7"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens. 8"'I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut. I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.

Jesus said to Peter, "I give you the keys of the Kingdom"
which involve binding and loosening,
a distinctly Rabbinical concept.

Jesus has the Key of David that Isaiah spoke about and He quotes Isaiah 22:22 as the Scriptural AUTHORITY, Remember all scripture is God-breathed, and men live by every WORD that comes from the mouth of God, i.e. that He breathes out. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 and back to Deut 8)

Jesus also has the keys to death and Hades Rev 1:17-18
So if Christ has the key of David and the keys to death and Hades, then the keys of the Kingdom represent something else entirely.
All authority is given to Christ. (Matthew 28:18-20; Eph1:18-23; Colossians 1:15-20)
The claims to authority that the rcc makes are un-biblical. The claims of the pope as vicar of Christ, and as infallible when speaking "ex cathedra" are equally un-biblical. Jesus gave no such authority to the church so as to add to the Word, or change its’ meaning.
In fact Rome should be careful in light of Rev 22:18-19.

Hahn’s teaching on Isaiah 22 is wrong, which then taints his entire study.
I suggest that you read my posts first before replying as you are the one who requested Scriptural refutation of the RCC’s dogma and traditions.

caspar said...


Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I must admit, your first sentence strikes me as rather funny, considering the logical consequences of sola scriptura. The Church’s exegesis is not purely subjective. If this were true, we would ignore tradition and those interpretations which have been handed down in favor of the most modern ideas, the most current trends. But as is made abundantly clear by the ongoing struggles between many modern commentators and the magisterium, the Church refuses to be subjective in its interpretation. The Protestant, faced with a text he is told he will be able to interpret by its very clarity, by the fact of the Holy Spirit guaranteeing the individual believer access to the truths of God’s revelation without having to listen to any other, is much more likely to end up with subjective interpretations of the word of God than a Catholic, obedient to a tradition and a magisterium extrinsic to himself.

Hence the whole purpose of a teaching authority in the first place, really, similar to what the Jews had. Authority to teach was conferred on a certain group of people independent of their individual sanctity, for they spoke from the chair of Moses--ex cathedra, in fact, for cathedra means chair or seat. (Matt. 23) This explains how Catholics can hold the doctrine of the Pope’s teaching authority, even though we have had some bad ones in the past.

Regarding the Eucharist…actually, you have brought up several dozen major issues in the course of a single post. Were I to address all of them as they deserve, I would need a great deal of space. We shall need to limit the discussion to a larger extent for me to be able to give you readable responses. I can gladly point you to resources with responses to most of your questions. I don’t have the time to go back and examine your blog, I’m afraid—other obligations and limited access to a computer make that impractical. I didn’t specifically request refutation, by the way—and as the above shows, I think, I have not found your post irrefutable.

Again, thank you for your willingness to engage. So long as Christendom remains divided, the devil will have a field day.

approvedworkman said...

Christendom and the Body of Christ are two different things.
The Body is never divided and can never be divided. That is Paul's point in 1 Cor 12. The hand or the eye cannot say they don't need one another, as it is impsossible for them to do so. It would never occur to them to say such a thing.
The unity of the body is an established fact. God has done this. The unity is between Jew and gentile.This is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.
Eph 2:11-22 Romans 11:17-25
We "maintain" unity not create it.
Eph 4:3

As for sola scriptura.
You said:
"The Church’s exegesis is not purely subjective. If this were true, we would ignore tradition and those interpretations which have been handed down in favor of the most modern ideas, the most current trends."

I do not follow current trends.I abhor them, and I abhor pragmatism. However I would suggest you read up on some of the most current practices of roman catholics. The RCC has never had the united doctrine and practice that it falsely claims to have always had.
If the original traditions are wrong then the entire system is faulty. This is the case. Rome has concocted new traditions over the entire history of its existence. Most of the traditions and interpretations were formed post-reformation.

I am the one who should laugh.

caspar said...

Hello, Workman,

Thanks for responding.

It depends on what you mean by Christendom. If you mean the areas under the control of overtly Catholic or Christian government, then I agree with you. If you mean by Christendom the Catholic Church with hierarchy and sacraments and visible authority and so on, then I would have to disagree.

The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, a formulation of faith normally accepted by Protestants as well as Catholics. I’m not sure why you brought up “the Body of Christ is one” bit, really. The Church has never taught otherwise—indeed, as creedal statements fall under the charism of infallibility, we can never teach otherwise. And the Pope’s job is to maintain unity, just the job of the foundation is to prevent a disturbance in the unity of the house.

I am glad you are skeptical of current trends. There are some that are good, of course—with God acting, it could hardly be otherwise—but to go with the times must be done carefully, if at all. I track the current practices of Roman Catholics very carefully, being one myself, and being concerned always for the good of the Faith. I am well aware of many problems in the West, the particular issues in India, the persecutions in China, the trouble of the Middle East. I am aware of creeping new ageism in the religious orders and parishes. So, you see, is the Church. And the mere fact that some practices occur does not mean they are a part of the Catholic faith, just as some people who call themselves Christian or at the very least followers of Christ do things in his name that the rest of the Body look on with horror. This is the good of the magisterium—we know where to look to find what the faith is, what the allowed practices are, what is orthodox and true. We have always had unified doctrine and practice—we have rarely had full conformity. Why? Because we are not as so many think of us. The Pope is not an omnipotent ruler. There are sinners in the Church—we tend to try to bring them in. The leadership knows this too shall pass, and so excommunication is very rarely directly handed down.

You must go to the source for the real teaching of the faith: the catechism, theologians determinedly loyal to the Holy See, the Bible, the conciliar documents, the creedal statements.

I am interested in the way you conflate two separate charges here. You say if the original traditions are wrong, then the whole system is faulty, but our original traditions come from the Apostles, and the men the Apostles “discipled”, to use your terms. After attacking our original traditions, you then claim we have added traditions, making up most of them post Reformation—seeming to suggest that our original traditions (that is, those that the pre-Reformation Church was grounded in) were fine. It was what you see as theological innovations from Trent that cause the problems. Yet I can cite for you the Church Fathers, from the 100s-200s, for a great many Catholic traditions. Go to, look through the library, and examine the ones that are marked Fathers.

I hope we can both laugh in the joy of God.

Be blessed, my brother in Christ.

Will said...

JSU said...
Is charity to take the place of truth?

For the true Christian, neither Truth nor Charity is, in reality, an abstraction or idea, but rather, they are both a Person, namely, Jesus.

Therefore, one will always be found with the other.

I am a Roman Catholic.


JSU said...


Where did you come up with the truth-charity Jesus combo? That is irrelevant to my discussion with Jon and has no Scriptural backing.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin