Wednesday, August 15, 2007

NEVER!!!!

It seems that a Catholic Bishop has figured out a way for other religions and Muslims to live in peace...for everyone to call God "Allah."

NEVER, NEVER and NEVER!!!

For all of my Papist readers, how can someone encourage this and be saved? This is a slap in the face of a holy God. Allah is a demonic illusion posing as God. Allah's real name is Satan.

Truth cannot be put aside for the sake of unity.

56 comments:

bridget said...

This man is clearly a heretic. Any true Catholic knows better than this. Stories like this should be avoided because they are so out of left field that they are ridiculous.

wade said...

Bridget,
Actually this type of story is not out of the left field but quit common for the Catholic Church. I have pictures of John Paul 2 kissing the koran in the presence of a muslim cleric. Several times during his tenor, JP2 had interfaith prayer services with muslims, buddhists, animists...would you call him a heretic for these unChristlike actions? Personally I would...but that is my postion concerning the entire roman system of works salvation.

JSU said...

I agree with Wade, this is nothing new. Actually, this Rodney King theology is an epidemic in the world of religion. I just pray that the true church won't conform to this level of demonic unity.

approvedworkman said...

bridget is a "sede vacantist" papist, which means she views every pope since John XXIII,that is since 1958 to be anti-popes and heretics.
She and her buddy, pope st.felix III have an incredibly bad blog,
http://forchrist-contramundum.blogspot.com/

I just put up a new post over at Papal Bull, on some of their more recent and bizarre posts.

http://nonpaxromana.blogspot.com/

I am amazed that bridget is criticizing this dutch bishop, as she and her compadres constantly side with Iran and other Islamic countries, against the "satanic zionist jews", and their zionist puppet known as the USA.

bridget said...

AW: what are you talking about? What does being opposed to Zionist Jews have to do with a bishop that is clearly a heretic?
Wade and jsu obviously think that the church that you see is the true Catholic church. They are heretics - JPII was a Jew. Just as AW said, we believe that the last true pope died in 1958- Pope Pius XII and we have proof that the rest of the bunch were Jews/Mason/Zionists.
BTW - AW -- if our blog is so "incredibly bad" why do you visit us so often?

Anonymous said...

If we follow your logic we would have to judge every denomination by its questionable member..

I seem to remember the Pope made some pretty stern statements about Islam recently.With all that wrong with the Protestant denomination,i think your on shaky ground.
andy

Dead Theologians said...

Andy,

With all due respect to Scripture I think that your latest statements might need to be withdrawn until you can make sure you are "in the faith." Because if you are not born again then sovereignty, election, original sin and etc will not make any sense to you.

DT

Dead Theologians said...

Bridget,

You said "we believe that the last true pope died in 1958- Pope Pius XII and we have proof that the rest of the bunch were Jews/Mason/Zionists."

What is wrong with the Jews?

Is this like the schism? Who is real pope?

DT

JSU said...

DT,
Don't worry, all the previous real popes are in hell. The current phonie is on the way there too along with that bishop.

dk said...

DT,
YOur strong sentiments made me look up some sites for what Allah stands for.

I read somewhere
"If you pick up an Arabic Bible, you will see the word "Allah" being used where "God" is used in English."

What do you think they should use in Arabic language for God?

dk

wade said...

Bridget,
your comment "any true catholic knows better..." now makes sense. I have never heard of your group before. It's interesting to hear a catholic calling his/her pope a heretic. I'm assumimng you consider yourself a true catholic. False catholics being defined in what way--following a current pope?

I am concerned for any person claimining to be in the "true church" and denying the truths that are found in Scripture. In particular the substitutionary atonement of our Lord Jesus for the elect of God. I'm not saying you are not one of the elect, but at this point it's obvious that God has not opened your eyes.

I always find it interesting that groups claiming to be the "true church" never consider the claims of others calling themselves the same, for example the mormons. Once while I was in Taiwan, I asked a mormon missionary what he thought of a Taiwanese cult called "the true church of Jesus Christ" Their claim to the title of 'true' was that they washed members feet and placed it on par with believer's baptism and communion. The young mormon missionary was at a loss for words. He realized his claim of truthfulness was no more valid than their claim for truthfulness.

Bridget, what is your claim for being 'a true catholic'. I'm sure this is syonymous with "true believer"--right?

May the Lord Jesus who is the " Way, Truth, and Life" open your eyes before you must face him on judgement day. On that day you will truly know how deceived are. Repent of all the papal bull you believed and turn to Jesus...your only hope.

I have one other question--does being a 'true catholic' mean that your are in favor of and agreement of all the murders of "True disisples" during the inqusition period of your roman history and faith?

Dead Theologians said...

Wade,

Good post. You would like some of the earlier posts about the papacy and the RCC.

DT

Dead Theologians said...

dk,

I think they should call upon the name of the Lord or face the Lord in judgement.

The god that the muslims worship is none other than Satan.
What name you call him matters none. His identity is still the same.

DT

approvedworkman said...

There are several traditionalist rcc sects in existence. The sede vacantists, which means the "holy see" is vacant, believe that there is no current valid pontiff. Some of these sects have elected their own popes,some call themselves Tridentine, etc.
They promote hatred for the jews for the state of Israel, and especially for us poor offspring of the reformation.
It is amazing that the rcc which claims to be unified and the one true church, actually has at least 23 divisions, if you count the eastern orthodox churches, of which there are several also.
I suggest a tour through bridget's website which will give you a clue as to where these "nuts" are at.

btw bridget, I visit your site as it gives me good material for my anti-papist blog. You make it too easy.
As for my comment re: this dutch "bishop" if you call God "allah" that would be a slap in the face of the jews that you despise. You are constantly defending Iran, and the other Islamic nations, as being attacked by the US, and others,who are in thrall to the zionists. In terms of your pseudo-nazi theology you have more in common with islam than with the true religion of Jesus Christ.

As an "fyi" I will say that talmudic rabbinicalism, i.e. the religion of the pharisees, is no friend to Jesus and I believe that most of the "christian" organizations that are throwing money at Israel are in for a rude awakening, as these religious leaders will never allow the gospel to be preached, but they do appreciate your financial support.
However I pray for their coversion, I don't spew fascist hatred for them.

dk,
using the Arabic word for God, i.e.allah in a "christian" Bible and praying to the "allah" of Islam are two completely different things.They are two different gods.

Anonymous said...

Why Dead? I cant make a comment based on common sense??

Am i to judge protestants by Westboro Baptist Church?? Its ridiculous to judge Catholics by one person,especially when most Catholics would agree with you and not the Bishop..andy

Anonymous said...

I'm pulling out of this thread sorry..I skipped some post and missed the tone against Jewish people..

On the subject of Jewish people i am in full agreement with the late Art Katz ideas and writing..
andy

wade said...

DK,
Your question about which word to use for God in any culture is a good one. One that many Bible translators stuggle with today.

When Scriptures are being translated it is important to tranlate as closely to the Original as possible. However, that is not always easy--for example how would you translate "white as snow" in a culture that doesn't have snow. Translators must use cultural idioms to get Biblical thoughts across. This leads to a danger of syncretism --this is allowing too much of a culture to dictate what is truly Scriptural...a very sensitive issue.

To allow muslims who come out of deception to continue to call the True God "allah" is a dangerous syncretism that will lead to greater confusion and a watered down theology at best. Translators are good a developing new words and terms that present the truth in a God honoring way. It is very important that we pray for these men and women laboring to provide the Word of God for lost cultures. All that said, it is important to remember that our Sovereign Lord is in control and He will call the elect out of every tongue, tribe and nation for His glory...that's what it is all about!

In the meantime, we are called " to earnestly defend the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" Jude 3. Stay focused on the Critical issues as a watchman and workman that needs not be ashamed.

M said...

Andy, Catholic doctrine is the problem, not Catholics per se.

The doctrine of Christ's substitutionary atonement plus works makes the entire Catholic Gospel a false one.

Read Gal 1 for Paul's (and the Holy Spirit via Paul) take on false gospels.

Dead Theologians said...

Andy,

I did not say that you could not post. I am saying to break down Scripturally (hermenuetically) with you not being sure of your salvation is not a good idea nor a scriptural one.
Logical discussions are fine.

I resent you putting me in the camp of Westboro Baptist. Your ignorance of me and my beliefs has become apparent.

DT

bridget said...

DT: To answer your question, we don't have a pope. Our Bishop is our authority. After all, the Pope is the "Bishop of Rome" and many times in history there have been periods without a pope. A heretic cannot be a pope. It's very simple.
There is nothing wrong with Jews except that they do not believe that Jesus is Lord and Saviour. That is pretty major, wouldn't you say?
AW- your comment is mostly lies. The "traditonalists" are worse than the novus ordo. No true Catholic "elects his own pope". See above explanation. We do not hate Jews - they hate Christ. We do not hate you - just your phony heretical beliefs.
M: read James chapter 2. Faith without works is dead! It's in YOUR Bible. Whats the matter, don't you believe what it says???

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

Sorry bridget,
I don't lie. You are all papists, which means you are all the same in my book, and in His. Nobody outside of your extrememly small universe makes the fine distinctions between the cultic roman sects that you do.

You hate everybody who isn't roman catholic. Anybody browsing your anti-jew/prot, conspiracy theory, nutjob site would agree with that.

As for the stale James 2 argument.
Eph 2: 8-10 defines the faith, and the works, that justify. The pre-destined works that are of the Lord prove that we have the faith that HE gave us.Thus we are justified by faith. James is showing that the faith and works are synonymous. If James says what you claim, then he contradicts Paul.
Papists are not taught to go to the scriptures in total, just parrot the papal party line.

Anonymous said...

Hi Dead you miss my point..Just pointing out the ridiculousness of judging a group by one maverick..

But as i said i felt some post have a very anti Jewish tone,as does the persons blog,very distasteful..

I apologize if you felt i was making a comparison with you and Westboro Baptist,of course i know your not like them,as not all Catholics are like this bishop..andy

Anonymous said...

The concerns about using the word Allah for God is rather a mute one,Allah is a pre-Islamic word,Palestinian Christians use the word Allah..

The issue is for people to be converted,not make them Englishmen ;-)..

Something tells me your not overly concerned French people call God Dieu..andy

JSU said...

Andy,

If Christians can use the word "Allah" just as a reference to God, don't you think the Muslims should use the name Jesus as a reference to God. Both parties believe that each is referring to God, right? You know they would never allow themselves to even think that. Why? They believe that is completely heretical to the Koran. And so it is with Protestants. We will not use the name of a false God from another religion just as a reference to our Lord. This isn't just a language or word association problem (ie. dieu), but "Allah" is making distinct reference to the god of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jsu..

If a Arabic Christian uses the term Allah,i don't see the issue,its their language!!

Its not the 19 cent where we shaved N/A Indian hair and insist that they speak English!!!

But if a Arabic Christan said Allah Akbar that would be questionable,because it is Islamic and as connotations of the
Salaat which is un-Christian ..

Also if your not Arabic and you use the word Allah,yes that would be questionable..

Your argument about using Jesus is not a fair comparison.. NO Muslim would be concerned if you called Allah God,when i reverted to Islam for 2 years, my friends were extremely pious Muslims,and never chastised me for calling Allah God..

andy

wade said...

Andy,
I am having a difficult time understanding your personal views. Your posts seem to dance around many many topis but never really make a point. In your opinion, will good muslims, catholics, buddhists, or moral non-religious people enter the kingdom of God if they try their best to live according to their religion or moral convictions?

wade <><

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry i confuse you Wade,the original post morphed into another subject, which was should Arabic Christians still use the term Allah..

I find it offensive to believe an Arabs Christian shouldn't use the term Allah,its offensive and boarders on racism,to say a person can't use their own language..

It reeks of 19 cent missionaries trying to tame the "natives" while they systematically ruined their culture..I would agree with Paul Washer, who mission Heart Cry try to train/use native people..

As far as your question about my beliefs,i would say i was rather conservative other then on two issue :

I believe that Christ is God and the 3rd being of the trinity..He was sent by the Father and died on the cross for our sins,while on the cross he took upon himself the wrath of the Father,he was resurrected and sits at the right hand of the Father,and will return at the second coming..I believe everything that Jesus said,so i believe no man can come to the Father other then through him..

But i draw the line at saying ALL Catholic aren't Christians..

I would imagine i believe differently from you about God and time,but thats not to say i believe in open theism i don't..Also i believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second experiences as did M L Jones..

andy

Anonymous said...

To be honest it worries me that you lump Catholics in with other faiths,their Christians imo..

As far as the other faiths,i have to believe what Jesus said.

andy

JSU said...

Andy,

How is Jesus the 3rd person of the trinity? It is understood by most that He is the 2nd.

I know NO muslim would care if called God by the name Allah. They would be pleased. Why? Because it endorses their religion (yours too). Referring to my Lord by the name of a false God is repulsive. Why not call Him Baal, Amen-Ra, Zeus, and etc.? This is degrading our Lord by using the names or words for false gods. A true Arab Christian wouldn't use the word Allah to address the true Lord. Have you ever heard about the converted muslim by the name of Ergun Mahmed Caner? He gives some real honest insight into Islam and Christianity.

You said that you worry about us lumping Catholics with other faiths. What's to worry about? If you believe what Jesus said you can see that they don't align with Scripture. Just ask Approved Workman.

What is the standard of truth for you? Is it the Bible solely or your personal experience with other religions? I'll come clean: I'm 100% Sola Scriptura!

Anonymous said...

Hi ok i'm working all night here for my flat mate,so i'm tired lol..

Let me write this straight!!

Your splitting hair,i was just trying to stress i believed in the traditional view of the trinity, sorry Hes the 2nd being geeeeeee...

Also i believe in Penal substitution..

Just thought i'd stress those two because there coming under fire of late..

Also i don't agree with everything Catholics do or practices i.e Mary worship or praying to the Saints or purgatory,but i don't agree with everything Calvinist believe ;-)..Christian can make doctrinal mistakes but still be saved you know!!

As far as scripture only,yes of course its all totally true or totally untrue,i don't cherry pick..

I believe that people are spoken to by God personally or by outside events,but they must be in agreement with the bible..

So for example a woman i know told me recently she had left her husband for another woman, God had told her it was ok because God is love etc etc, of course that is ridiculous because God doesn't change is view on sin..

Of course are interpretation of scripture may differ ;-)

Andy

Anonymous said...

As far as Christian Arabs calling God Allah..Its a pre-islamic word,Arab Christians were calling God Allah way before Islam was invented..

We will have to agree to disagree...andy

JSU said...

Andy,
I don't think it's appropriate for you to make comments about Calvinists, Christians, and Scripture if you don't embrace the theology of original sin (as you mentioned in "Spurgeon of Free Will". If you don't understand original sin, you know nothing about Calvinism and the Bible as a whole. I can dialogue with bridget because I know her beliefs. Yet you side with Christians and don't understand basic Protestanism. Please refrain until you know where you stand.

Anonymous said...

hmmm ok i would do as i please,but why stay where your not wanted haha

This is my last question...

Would it be wrong for a Calvinist to accept the financial support of this heretic? do answer you may save me some money..

andy

Anonymous said...

Hi jsu there is no need to reply..I apologize if i have come across as rude or sarcastic..

The blog as convinced me that i need to work out where i stand,and that i should refrain from supporting people,that i in some ways compromise due to my beliefs..

Thks all
andy

dk said...

JSU,
I feel your comment was quite offensive, asking Andy to refrain from commenting. Atleast he was truthful in expressing what he believed. Is that wrong according to you? If you think he is a lost soul, the more reason to engage him in dialogue. You seem more like Martin Luther "Burn the jews" attitude. If you truly believe its God's grace that saved you, you should always have that "unworthy" attitude when talking to others, believers (of your kind) or not.

Andy was also right in asking the question about financial assitance. Do you ask people about their conviction before taking money? If not then why do you do that when they make comments that you think is against your beliefs?

dk

Anonymous said...

awww guys don't get into one over me...

I know the truth mentally, but not in my heart..For 25 years ive tried to make it real,but its always stayed head knowledge..So the more frustrated i got,the more argumentative,till Ive become what i am today..

I struggle way to much over what are mysteries this side of heaven..I'm a contradiction i know whats right on some things like emergent and seeker friendly,but then i will go off on some dead avenue for ages..


Its not that i don't believe in orginal sin or tulip,i just hate the outcome of those doctrines for me and my non saved friends (which is 99% of them)..

Don't worry about me DK i was just spitting my dummy out ;-)..I know i'm double minded i cant help it sorry..
Andy

dk said...

So nice of you Andy. I myself have gone through a lot of confusion. A few things that has helped me are
1. As Paul says, "Knowledge puffs up. But love edifies". It is love of God that matters most. Concentrate on what God has done for us, and the suffering of Jesus as obedience to the father.

2. Try to take your mind away from worldly lusts and temptations. In Philippians Paul reminds us that if we set our mind in worldly things, our end is destruction.


God bless you.

dk

JSU said...

Hi Andy,
I never took you as rude or sarcastic and it was not my intention to come across that way in my former comment. If you are uncertain, ask questions. You are not unwanted, it's just hard to know where you are coming from. Most commentors on this blog are passionate and dogmatic about their beliefs. If you're seeking answers, ask questions. It won't hurt.
I wasn't sure what was meant by the financial support question. Please elaborate your request.

DK,
You have yet to answer my request on a comment you made from a previous post. I asked you to elaborate your meaning when you said, "Let us not restrict Him [God] to the Scriptures." You claim that we shouldn't restrict God to His Holy Word but yet you try to use it. Please explain...

dk said...

JSU,
The scriptures contain what people wrote, inspired by the Holy Spirit. I don't believe the 66 books that we consider as inspired by Holy Spirit describes all about God. However, it is safe to restrict our knowledge about God to the scriptures, as the early fathers told us.


Like Paul, I believe

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!"

2. I don't remember the exact verse in one of the Gospels where it is written that goes something like .. if someone was to write down all that Jesus taught and did, it would fill the whole earth.

BTW, I think an apology is in order to Andy. But you may have your own justifications not to do so.

dk

Anonymous said...

Hi no problem Jsu..

I do have a question about Sola Scriptura..I have a cool book called the Bible list book, its written to save us time, it collect all the conceivable list you could imagine times,lifestyle,books,weights and on and on..

One of the list is other books quoted from in the bible which is surprising big..The obvious one is Jude quoting the book of Enoch how does a apostle quoting not the ot, but a outside book, stand with scripture only..andy

no apology needed i asked for it i'm to smart mouth for my own good! Lets move on

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

Andy,

Well, how do we know that the Book of Enoch wasn't written after Jude was? The Book of Enoch could be quoting Jude and not vice versa.

It is believed that Enoch wrote the Book of Enoch. Considering that Moses is the earliest writer of the Bible, I find it hard to believe that Enoch was long before using an established writing system.

The Book of Enoch centers around the flood and the events leading to it. Oddly, Enoch lived hundreds of years before Noah, his great-grandson.

Also, the Book of Enoch promotes an event that never occurs in Scripture and is never mentioned by the Bible. Not even the Jews included it in their Hebrew canon.

All of these factors convince me that the Book of Enoch was not written by Enoch, it was written after Jude, it quotes Jude, and it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit since it presents an unnatural, unscriptural event.

Anonymous said...

HI Jsu,i didn't mean that he was quoting from the book of Enoch that we have now..

I meant he still quoted from a out side source,wouldn't Sola Scriptura expect him to quote only from scripture?

For example the book Book of the Wars of the LORD is quoted in Numbers 21:14-15 For Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites. That is why the Book of the Wars of the LORD says: '... Waheb in Suphah and the ravines of Arnon, and at the stream of the ravines that lead to the dwelling of Ar, which lies along the border of Moab.'"

Doesn't that validate outside sources as insightful
andy

Dead Theologians said...

Andy,

There is a difference in saying that a book or article is helpful or historical in points and saying that a book is inspired as scripture. The two books that you mentioned cannot be juxtaposed to scripture.

DT

JSU said...

Andy,
What I'm saying is that the Book of Enoch is quoting Jude. This could be the same scenario with Numbers. The Book of the Wars could be quoting Numbers so as to make it seem valid.

andy said...

So Sola Scriptura means Bible only,but outside sources are helpful,only if there confirmed by the Bible?

andy

andy said...

I think thats what most Christians believe isn't it by Scripture alone?
Of course i believe outside source are used to,like when God spoke to Samuel,but they mustn't say something different to the Bible..I thought 99% of Christians would agree with that unless i'm being naive!!

BTW Ive been listening to a lot of D A Carson hes a excellent teacher do you like him?

andy

JSU said...

Andy,
Yes, most Protestants will say they believe by Scripture alone. Outside sources are helpful, but are not equal with Scripture or even close. If they contradict Scripture, they should be tossed out. Sometimes it's good to read commentaries on the Bible, but it never beats reading the Bible.

Congrats on the new blog development. You have joined the blogosphere.

JSU said...

BTW, most books that claim to be a "lost book of the Bible" are typically false. Christians avoid them because they normally contradict the Scriptures.

andy said...

haha i'm aware of book with titles like "lost book of the Bible" My old Church are closely related with Steve Chalke of the famous "cosmic child abuse" quote..
andy

approvedworkman said...

jsu
I don't understand your statement that Enoch is quoting Jude. There would have to be some knowledge of statements or extant writing "attributed" to Enoch for Jude to reference him. I do not believe that Enoch wrote anything.
Paul refers to apocryphal literature, and Greek poets. Jude also makes reference to the battle between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses.
My main concern is that people take these references as tacit endorsement of apocryphal writings, or extra-biblical sources for revelation. That is simply not so.

JSU said...

Approved,

Like you, I don't believe Enoch wrote anything. I don't even think the wheel had been invented when Enoch was alive, so I'm sure no writing pattern had been developed. Honestly, I think some anonymous author wrote the Book of Enoch and quoted Jude so as to make the Book of Enoch seem like an extra-biblical source. My last paragraph of that comment said:

"All of these factors convince me that the Book of Enoch was not written by Enoch, it was written after Jude, it [the book of enoch] quotes Jude, and it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit since it presents an unnatural, unscriptural event."

I would NEVER intend to imply that these books are extra revelations or additions to Scripture. I reject the Apocrypha and the Book of Enoch as additions to Scripture.

approvedworkman said...

jsu
I am in agreement with you. I had a question about Jude quoting Enoch and where that came from.

andy said...

Jsu you seem to be looking at it the wrong way round..

The book of Enoch doesn't quote Jude,Jude quotes Enoch..What Jude was quoting from i'm not sure,but it must of been an acceptable source for Jude to of quoted it surly?
andy

andy said...

Hi a interesting sub story to this in the UK..

There was a story floating around the newspapers,that a school teacher got her students to copy out a Muslim prayer saying “There is no God but Allah”.It includes the lines “Allah is the greatest” and “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah”.

Apparently it was all in the name of learning about Islam,caused a storm with some of the kids parents allegedly..andy

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin