Heretic Hunters #2

That is just as ridiculous (re: stupid) as saying that because some priests are also peadophiles that proves the catholic church has failed since the logical conclusion of not allowing priests to marry is that they will turn to children.

Problems with both statements:

1. They are not logical, no matter what the original poster would have you think.

2. There is no proof of either of the latters being caused by the formers.


And, specificially regarding the original post, it has yet to be shown that Protestantism is all about

(the fact that the orignal poster even said so shows an utter misunderstanding, either intentional or ignorant, of what it means to be a bible believing christian)

That is all...carry on.

jason

 

Does Catholicism have no value because of a lot of senators and public officials believe in pro-choice, while the head of the church does not believe in abortion?

Is Catholicism a failed system because of some priests who still insist on offering the Mass in Latin?

Does the Catholic Church still have value even though the pope has had to recall some of their teaching, theologians who have gone off and away from something near to orthodoxy?

Does the Catholic Church have value even though many priests in South America are socialists who believe in subverting governments?

Some of us say that there is such diversity that the church has lost its' credibility. Neither Protestant or Catholic leadership can force its clinetele to always do what is right in the sight of Almighty God. Both systems have their problems, I think.

 

JasonW, Protestantism IS about 'everyone doing what is right in his own eyes'. All historic Protestant churches held a high-view of Scripture, but they interpreted it differently. The 'interpretation' has led to 100's of different denominations...all doing what is 'right' in their 'own eyes'. Without adherence to the Catholicity -promoted by St Vincent of Lerins- there will continue to be chaos in the Christian world.
All of this division says that SOMEBODY (perhaps everybody in their own way)is in error. SOMEBODY is not holding to full Christian faith. And these differences ARE important. They represent REAL issues. For example, many Baptists hold to 'once saved always saved'. Those who disagree, in their view, doubt God's sovereignty and God's promises-
they probably trust too much in 'works'. Those who disagree with OSAS believe this to be a false sense of security, that while it is, in the last analysis, all Grace, it also depends on our response, which is faith, which includes our obedience, and that, must 'endure to the end'. For those who don't hold to OSAS, the view of those who do, comes terribly close to the 'Cheap Grace' that Bonhoeffer warned against. Of course, there are other issues, such as God's Righteousness, imputed or infused...Sacraments...Church Order/polity.
I am convinced that it is only when we have the Bible in one hand, and a thorough awareness of what the early Church taught/believed in the other, that unity will come. It will then, no-longer be "every man doing what is right in his own eyes."


BTW, Bob Tilton, Benny Hinn and all the other TV hucksters wouldn't be ALLOWED to preach/teach in churches that held to 'Catholicity'.

 

Of course, Ray, I'm sure you understand the difference between 'Catholicity' and the 'Roman Catholic Church'.

Second, the Roman Church has much repenting to do.

Third, all 'systems', all 'churches' have problems. All have repenting to do...if we're going to have unity.

 

This has nothing to do with Protestantism. If we were all Catholics, these men would still rise up and draw away disciples after themselves. We see this in the NT, so it has nothing to do with Catholic vs. Protestant. There have been Catholic hucksters, antipopes, etc. too. These men would not be allowed to preach in a Bible following church either. We have apologetic books condemning them. We do not control the airwaves, or the people described in 2 Tim.3:6 who support them.

 

Eric, you're still obviously not reading my posts. You are confusing 'Catholicity' with the ROMAN Catholic church...

 

Again, from St Vincent...

Moreover, in the catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith that has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. We shall observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses. We shall follow antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers. We shall follow consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consensual definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all bishops and teachers.

Many Reformers criticized the Roman Catholic Church, not because she was 'Catholic', but because she was not Catholic enough!


In the late 16th century Lancelot Andrewes described the foundational approach to theology that characterizes Anglican catholicity --

"One canon, two Testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of fathers in that period determine the boundaries of our faith."

C.S. Lewis wrote of Catholicity as well...The church, he said,

… is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. . . .even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?" (Mere Christianity, Preface)

 

I have argued this before, and it appears that I must present the argument again.

One could say that all religion is 'doing what is right in their own eyes' if one uses your logic. As one must interepret the teachings of the catholic and anglican churches, one is left, yet again, with the need to find the truth in the teaching. There is simply another level of abstraction ontop of the original teaching.

For instance, it is insisted that protestants individually interpret the bible and that is why there are "thousands" of denominations. What about the divisions within the catholic, anglican and lutheran churches that derive from one teaching or another.

What about the sect of catholisism to which Mel Gibson belongs that believe as all catholics did pre-Vatican II that those who do not belong to the catholic church are not saved? This is a major division within the supposed unified church. Simply saying they are in error is not sufficient as one says so based upon their private interpretation of the church's teaching on the subject.

So, as you should plainly see, one could argue that all of christendom is subject to what you said. Therefore, you must come up with a new argument....and quickly.

Which early church? Is it the church of heretics? Quoting fathers that have purported many heresies? Origen for instance: which time in his life do you suggest we study? You cannot say "study it all" because Origen fell into heresy, leaving all of his teaching suspect...even if it had value.

So, how is one to know which is right and which is wrong? Oh, I see, we are supposed to go and listen the "church" for what is right and wrong but that leaves us smack in the middle of the dilemna I presented earlier. So, what are we to do?

What are we to do?

Jason

 

The first one points directly to the BIBLE, because that is the definition of the beliefs from the "beginning". The other two fall on the fact that the Bible even prophesied that many would go astray, and there would be almost a universality and unanimity of error.
I think Jason answerd this well.

I did see in the Catholicity thread where you disclaimed some of the RCC's teachings. (And no, my response there was not based on Jason's here, though there are some striking parallels, such as the mention of Gibson. I was over there first, and just came here).
Still, the point of my post was not so much RCC, but the charge you made against Protestantism. It still stands that hucksters are not the fault of Protestantism, and I'm sure there are false people in your Episcopal movement (St. John the Divine here in NYC is totally liberal, from what I hear, and is more a museum than a church). In fact, isn't the Epicopal considered one of the 'mainline' Protestants? (Not only Protestant, but one of the dreaded "mainlines" we have heard about where a lot of churches have for all purposes abandoned the faith)? I know the Anglican is sort of halfway; a lot like Catholic, but since it did leave the pope and joined in the protest against his authority around the same time, it is considered Protestant.
So it seems like you're just another one of those splintering groups. (NT Church--ancient catholic church--RCC--Anglican--Episcopal) Your body as it is known today, does not go back to the original church, except inasmuch as you believe you are holding onto its original truths; just like the rest of the Protestant and independant groups.

Yeah, she was too "Roman". That was the proble. I certainly like the idea of catholicity, but the problem is which doctrines and practices were the universal truths of the NT Church, and which were added later as time went on: in other words, separating the "Roman" from the "catholic".

 

Of course, the Reformation in England was different from the Continental Reformations--England sought to remain 'Catholic', yet separate from Rome...and rightly so, given the abuses, failings, corruption and false teaching that was a part of the Roman church. To understand Anglicanism, you need to know their are several 'strands' in our own history. Their were/are Catholics, Calvinists (Cranmer) and Arminians (Wesley). While the official name of the church is 'Protestant Episcopal Church USA', most clergy that I know dismiss the 'Protestant' label, and will only accept it in the sense that we too 'protested' Roman corruption. But certainly, Anglicanism is not 'Protestant' in the same-sense as it is elsewhere. And yes, allusion was made to liberalism in the Episcopal Church. If you've paid-attention to the headlines, you know that a 'split' in the worldwide Anglican Communion is happening...by October it will be finalized.

Luther and Calvin broke from Rome, physically and theologically. Given the corruption they saw, given their 'worldview', I really don't 'judge' them, but do believe they went too-far.

Any 'denomination' can have 'hucksters'. Look at Fr Andrew Greeley in the RC Church--nothing but an apostate, and I wonder WHY the RC allows him to continue as a priest. (Spong in my own church is another example) Their are countless others, many of them teaching in RC seminaries. But in the 'Protestant' world, the likes of Hinn, Tilton, and most on TBN simply wouldn't have the approval of a Church that was ordered historically, one that had Bishops that guarded and defended the faith, and one that took antiquity, universality, and unanimity (Catholicity)seriously.

 

Exactly? The statement you quoted was a sarcastic comment about a dilemna I presented sandwiched inbetween two questions. What 'exactly' are we to do?

So who is this teaching authority? Obviously you don't think it is the RCC or you would be a RC (you would have to be or you would be damned to hell). Who then? There are so many 'competing' authorities that it leaves one's head reeling.

So, why the anglican or the luther or the rcc or the sbc or any of the others? Which one is the teaching authority above all teaching authorities?

jason

 

Exactly? The statement you quoted was a sarcastic comment about a dilemna I presented sandwiched inbetween two questions. What 'exactly' are we to do?

So, why the anglican or the luther or the rcc or the sbc or any of the others? Which one is the teaching authority above all teaching authorities?

jason [/QUOTE]
I said 'exactly' because you're asking the right question...
"What are we to do?" IS the right question. To say, "all we need is the Bible" doesn't solve the problem, does it?

 

You see, I believe that OSAS, sola-Scriptura and sola-fide are heresies. Most on this board do not. If we both believe in an inerrant inspired Scripture (I do), then HOW do we decide the truth here? How do we decide what heresy IS?

 

And you propose that the 'church' is going to answer those questions, I get it. But, which church?

Don't you see, you are simply left with the EXACT same question about a different subject. People fool themselves into thinking they can release themselves of all critical thinking and searching responsibilities by deferring to an idea of 'church', but by doing so they become victim to their own logical conclusion.

So, now that you have proposed the same question with a new subject:

What is a heresy? How do we know?
Which church is 'the' church authority? How do we know?

So...how do we know?

jason

 

Amen! and I'll give the Scripture that back that up!

Matthew 7:21-23:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

This is what's gonna happen to him and his partner in crime, BENNY HINN!

Somebody hold me back, before I preach!

 

John 10:24-30
The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. "I and the Father are one."

Acts 2:21
`And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Romans 10:8-15
But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!"

1 Cor 1:18-25
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.



1 Cor. 3:14,15
If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

1 Cor. 15:1,2
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Titus 3:5-7
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done/ righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

1 John 5:11-13
And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

1 Peter 1:3-9
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

 

Not only that, But HINN and Tilton, are all doomed to failure, eventually, ANYHOW! Anyone that ever REMOTELY THINKS that the prosperity message is real, look at these pictures:



and this....






wanna know what those pictures are??? That's what's LEFT of JIMI BAKKERS little prosperity ministry that crumbled in his face, because HE GOT HIS EYES ON MONEY! All EMPTY BUILDINGS! David Wilkerson WARNED The vice president of PTL, of what was going to happen and Richard Dorch, The VP Ignored his warning! and now you've got empty, rotting buildings! what a waste! The Jessica Haghn thing was the thing was just the tip of the ice berg... HE SOLD OUT TO THE DEVIL, WHEN took his eyes of GOD and began building stuff for his own personal gain! He got just what was coming to him and HE even admitted his was wrong. I know he's back on TV, however, he's not doing that anymore, (stealing money and building stuff...)

just an opinion...

pics are from This site




P.S. on a Good note, a part of the Studio and place where they had "passion plays" is still being used for the work of the Lord in dramas.

[ April 21, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: SeekingAfterHim ]

 

Someone said, 'So who is this teaching authority?'

The teaching authority is the Holy Spirit as foundationally set in John 14:26 & I John 2:27. Interestingly enough the Apostle John emphasized this in two different settings.

Christians are guided by the Spirit of God. The problem is that many do not bow to the Word of God, the Bible, and we come out the other end with various denominations. God never expected to have one denominational church throughout the whole world. Liturgically speaking alone, not everyone wants to sit under experience of funeral music/chanting; we go to church to sing and personally offer praise to God and to be inspired by the Lord.

Human individuality is so diverse that it is God's will to have various denominations in order to meet human needs. To each his own . . .