I do not doubt that Bush will convert to Catholicism. There is not a whole lot of difference between Episcopalian Theology and Catholic Theology anyway. Bush by his previous statements also makes it quite clear that he really thinks that all religions worship the same God. So, Bush really does not have understanding of the biblical statement that says that no one comes to the Father accept through Jesus.
I think Bible believing Christians need to realize that George Bush and most of those around him really have religion not biblical Christianity. George Bush believes in globalism and a pluralist world religion just like Tony Blair. The world elite have already determined that the Pope will lead this world religion. Other world leaders will follow suit and become Catholics.
This move back to Catholicism by political and religious figures and their common attack on Bible believing fundamentalists as being dangerous is the obvious rise of the “Woman that rides the Beast” of Revelation and will lead to persecution of true Christians. Maybe Bush is looking for a role to play in the promotion of the Tony Blair Foundation that has been set up for that end.
These world leaders are very self deceived or they are deliberately deceiving. They intend to bring in a world religion and world government run by power elite with a common mind. They are really paving the way for the Beast Antichrist.
Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism – Telegraph
George W Bush and Pope Benedict XVI have held an intimate meeting in Rome as rumours mounted in Italy that the president may follow in Tony Blair’s footsteps and convert to Catholicism.
A source close to the Vatican said that Mr Bush was the most “Catholic-minded” president since John F Kennedy, who famously played down his Catholicism. Mr Bush belongs to a Methodist church in Texas and prays at an Episcopal church in Washington.
However, it is thought unlikely that Mr Bush would convert until after he has left office. Jeb Bush, the president’s brother, has already converted to Catholicism.
Catholics have noted that during the contested election in 2000, Jeb Bush travelled to Mexico and prayed to the icon of Our Lady of Guadelupe. His victory was announced by the Supreme Court on December 12, the feast day of the Lady of Guadelupe.
Catholic Christianity insists on the uniqueness of Christ AND of His Church. Your ‘multi-faith’ model of Catholicism is false. You need to read a few books beyond the level of Ralph Woodrow’s Babylon Mystery Religion.
You will ultimately be held responsible by the Lord for lying about this.
First of all I was raised a Catholic and went to Catholic schools so I know much better than most about what Catholicism teaches.
Granted that there is no multi-faith model within the Catholic Church because Catholics believe they are the only true Church. They expect all other Christian religions to come back to the Mother Church and they expect other non Christian religions to acknowledge them as having the essential truth (Some of which is not agreed to be the truth by others within Christianity)
Also be aware that I was not talking about the Catholic Church as it is now. I was talking about what it will become after all true Christians are removed from the earth and those left behind assimilate into a world religion led by what remains of the Catholic Church. You might have to know something about Bible prophecy to know that but that is why this is in part a Bible prophecy blog.
Nevertheless, Catholics allow people like Tony Blair to become members and you know they believe in pluralistic paths to God besides Jesus. How do you rationalize that? You also allow native religions to mix their native pagan beliefs with Catholicism to create a religious hybrid.
Because you are not keeping your own doctrine pure you are becoming multi-faith, multi-path no matter if that is the official position of your church or not.
If Catholics want to have pure Catholicism in practice the Church might discipline members who are doing these things. But no, you do nothing about these heresies but the Pope does kowtow to Islam and Eastern religions. Worse yet, he kisses up to unbelivers but attacks Bible believing evangelicals who hold the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
You cannot see a problem here? I do!
I am appalled that Blair was received into the Church. Let there be no doubt that. Bush would not be a problem as far as I’m concerned. He has fought well for life issues and against the pseudo-Nebuchadrezzar Saddam Hussein.
From what I can see the entire internet is full of fundamentalist hysteria against the Catholic Church. You think we are attacking “Bible believing” evangelicals? At the most, Benedict XVI has pointed out that these communities are lacking, deficient, in certain marks of historic Christianity.
There are many distortions in evangelical theology because it is ahistorical and adrift form the teachings of its sub-apostolic martyrs and confessors. Justin Martyr and Ireneaus were Catholic as was every bishop at the Ecumenical Councils that defined real Christian orthodoxy including the Real Presence. I’m not going to sling scriptures at you but you’ll know well that many evangelical pastors with extensive theological training ‘Cross the Tiber.’ The classic testimony book is Patrick Madrid’s (ed.) Surprised By Truth.
Of course there are heretics within the Catholic Church, and the same with evangelicals; I have watched the GOD channel you know. However, the Catholic Church is indestructible as promised by Christ. Henry VIII’s murderous extermination attempt failed and the so-called states Reformation churches are the real modernist heretics.
People join the only one true Church (the body of Christ) by repenting of their own way and believing in the promises of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of their sins and through spiritual rebirth. The good deeds of George Bush in no way qualify him.
Actually the Catholic Church Papacy did take a very hostile stand against evangelicals in South America. It is a matter of record so I don’t know how you can deny it.
The protestants in general have huge problems so I do not deny that. Yesterday I posted something that I heard on ABC. They said that 86 percent of mainline Protestant Christians do not believe that their religion is the only way to God. 79 percent of Catholics said the same thing. Even 2/3 of Evangelicals said this. There is something wrong in river city! Jesus is the only way to God yet few who call themselves Christians believe it.
I bring that up because in truth most Protestants are not Christians they just identify with a cultural religion that calls itself Christian. The same is true of most Catholics we should not confuse religion with Christianity. One is a religion the other is a spiritual relationship with God.
Believe it or not almost all the Catholics I know are going to vote for a politician who promotes abortion and homosexuality. Almost all I know totally separate their religion from their life except for going to mass, and observing the church sacraments (I come from a Catholic family). That is Christianity? I think not!
So there are many in Protestantism and in Catholicism that identify with their religion but they do not follow the essentials of their own faith. They have a pick and choose religion where everyone does what is right in their own eyes. This is harlotry it is not Christianity.
Obviously everyone was Catholic prior to the schism. There has always been only one Church. The Catholic problem is in thinking that their worldly institution is that Church but that is not the case. The Church is all true believers. They are in many Christian denominations and some are in no denomination. Your also wrong about the Catholic Church institution being indestructible. The woman who rides the Beast of Revelation is burned with fire in the last days.
Also this promise of Christ was to His Church Body not to any Christian institution. And don’t give me the Peter thing it is a tired argument and we do not agree with it. Jesus was saying He would build the Church on those who came to the the truth that Peter just received (that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God).
It would be nice if the Church could all be in one denomination again but you know as well as I do that if somehow you could get them to agree on everything it would just split again over something and the Mother church would want to burn the heretics. Unless everyone so watered down doctrine that everyone is allowed to believe almost anything. Unfortunately that is where all of Christianity and all religion is heading at the moment. It is being done in the name of peace and unity. But in this unity they will be no Christian truth.
Dear Donaldo,
You have a great Genoese name Don, this is my grandfather’s name. You may have gathered by now that I am part of Istanbul’s Catholic community. We are very devout and we have kept our Catholic faith here in the face of Islamic occupation. No one here is multi-faith, we are the real deal. Remember, my English is a lot better than your Türkçe so forgive my grammar. Actually I have done a MA in Historical Theology in English @ the University of London.
I don’t know anything about South America. I have been to a few evangelical churches. I don’t understand why someone would leave the fulness of Catholicism. All they did was a little sermons and the worship music was a bit noisy really. I really missed the fulness of the mass, the prayers, the liturgy, the reading of the word of God, the Eucharistic in all its fulness, proper hyms, a deep homily. Sorry Don but I found it shallow. I left half-filled.
I know that evangelicals have their scriptural interpretations but it doesn’t seem to cohere that well to me. I raise the difficult questions and I feel they fudge verses. My bible doesn’t teach faith alone saves but is about striving, giving, perservering, and obeying Christ and following in his sufferings. I only read about faith alone once as in James 2:24, namely what we are not saved by. The writings of the early Church follow the literal Catholic rendings, our so-called ‘interpretations’ follow the plain sense of the text such as baptism washes away sins Acts 2:38, 22:16.
Now let’s not argue faith alone or scripture. I have a maternal aunt who left the Catholic faith. She preaches to me about Scripture forbidding infant baptism but I can’t find this in Scripture. Frankly, my guess is she changed religion because of the canonical complexities of her broken relationship. The evangelicals let her re-marry.
1) Do you have a testimony. I really what to understand why a knowledgeble man would leave the faith of St Augustine, St Jerome, St Cyril et al for such a ‘lite’ version. I’m not asking for a 20-page testimony written specially for me. Perhaps you have written a testimony already.
2) Are you based in the U.S.A.
3) Are you baptised in the Holy Spirit, that is are you a tongues speaker. Is that what you mean by prophetic.
The crux for me is that where there are verses that Protestants, soory evangelicals differ from Catholics I can see that the Christians of the first few centuries definitely believed the Catholic view. Evangelicalism seems to me to be very new. I have read church histories and evangelicalism roots are found around 160 years ago. Randall Balmer’s book Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: The Evangelical Sub-culture in America respectedly is extremely new. Contrary to what you have been taught, your version of Christianity doesn’t go all the way back to the New Testament. Not even close. I guess you all want to be the early “primitive Church” but history shows the earliest Christians indisputedly celebrated a Mass.
I love to read testimonies and would like to read why you left the indestructible Church of Christ founded in 30 AD on Apostolic succession and which spread like wildfire to conquer the civilized world in those first few centuries.
Durkan
Istanbul? cool I was in Turkey for a year while in the military. I was on a nuclear storage site in the Eastern part of Turkey when the USSR was the big threat. I love the flee markets and the pastasio nuts. The people were nice.
You seem to like the high type of Church with the liturgy and rituals. I understand why religious people like that but to me Christianity is a personal relationship with God not a Church service. I have been in many types of services and there are good and bad points about most of them. It really comes down to personal preference. Again being Christian is about the relationship you have with the Father through the Son.
The Bible teaches that God’s grace saves but you must accept that grace through your faith in Jesus Christ. You obviously cannot do works of the Spirit before you are born of the Spirit into the Body of Christ. So believers will have good works if the Holy Spirit is working through them but good works of men can also be done by unbelievers. That certainly does not save them.
We say there is a huge difference between justification and sanctification. You are justified by the works of Jesus but you go through the sanctification or Christian growth process by a joint effort of you allowing God to change you through life. So much of what you are saying we also say but we say it can only happen after one is saved. It is not part of the salvation process. We believe once you are born of the Spirit you are a new Spiritual creation. So although sanctification has nothing to do with salvation it has everything to do with spiritual maturity and your position of standing or rewards for eternity with Christ. Yes your Bible does teach this as mine also does.
You say baptism washes away sins but what is baptism? John the Baptist said one is coming (speaking of Jesus) that will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire (or Power). So Jesus is the baptizer.
The scriptures do not say we will have to continually baptized for new sins. His blood sacrifice washed away our sins once for all time and we are therefore are pleasing to God, being covered by the blood of His Lamb. After you are identified with Him (which was one of the ancient understandings of Baptism) God sees His Son in us and we are free to enter into the Holy of Holies being baptized and justified by Jesus Christ..
However just because we are saved and have access to the Father does not mean that we will not have to account for what we did in our bodies, good or bad. We will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ but it is a judgment of God’s children in Christ. It is a judgment of rewards and taking away of rewards it is not a judgment to determine who goes into the second death called the Lake of Fire. We who believe have already been saved from that death by the sacrifice that Jesus made for us.
Scripture does not forbid infant baptism because it never brings the subject up at all. That is because infant baptism makes no sense. All Baptisms in the Bible followed belief in Jesus. Infants cannot believe what they do not know. Baptisms always followed belief because it is belief in Jesus that saves a person. Jesus does the baptizing with the Holy Spirit. The outward act of baptism is simply an outward witness of what already occurred inwardly when you believed.
By the way, Catholics get around divorce. They call it annulment and it is all about who you know and how much you are determined to get one. My Brother-in-law divorced his wife and then married my sister and then he got an annulment of his first Marriage of over thirty years. You might not call it divorce but it is.
I guess I need to write a personal testimony one of these days. Let me just say here that after twenty years growing up Catholic and doing everything the Catholic Church said I never found a personal relationship with Jesus. I had to fall away from the Church and seek God myself to find Him. That is one of my big beef’s with the Catholic Church. They do not offer a clear message of salvation. They indicate salvation comes if you do what the Church says and if you follow what they say and persevere until the end but that is not how one is saved at all. Salvation comes from turning from your ways to God’s way and trusting in what Jesus did for you, period. I wrote a long article on why?
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/How%20one%20is%20saved.htm
Yes, I am in the USA.
Your third question is do I speak in tongues? Thirty five years ago I was in the Charismatic movement and I did. I stopped doing it several years later after I started interpreting by own tongues and came to the realization that what I presumed was coming from God was myself telling myself what I wanted to hear. So no, the word “prophetic” in my website has nothing to do with the Pentecostal prophetic movement. My website is called “The Prophetic Years” because I think we are living in the prophetic end times of Bible Prophecy. The times the prophets prophetically spoke about.
The first century Christians saw things the Catholic way only because you want to see it that way. I see no such thing. The early Christians saw things much the same as true believers see them today. If you want true Christianity learn to understand the scriptures.
My version of Christianity goes back to the Bible not Catholic Church dogma and traditions that have an atrocious history. Believe it or not the whole history of the Catholic church is flawed. There was no formal unified church before 400 AD and no real Pope before 600 AD. There were Bishops from the time of the apostles but they certainly were not totally unified on what they believed and did not answer to the Bishop of Rome. The early Church cannot even be traced back to Peter. Paul was the founder of the Gentile Church and James was Bishop in Jerusalem. Peter mentions Babylon and some suppose that this meant he went to Rome but there is no record of Peter ever being in Rome he actually did spend some time in Babylon where there was a large Jewish contingent and when he said Babylon he probably literally meant Babylon..
I will recommend a book for your information to aid in your history of the Roman Catholic Church.
“The Woman Rides the Beast” by Dave Hunt.
The earliest Christians calibrated a love feast it was not a Mass. The Mass came centuries later in 394AD. The wolves in sheep clothing were at work even before Paul died and he warned us of them.
As I already implied I did not leave the indestructible Church I just left a worldly bastardization of it, a worldly counterfeit that likes to call itself the one true Church. The Church is not an earthly institution by any name and it certainly is not subject to pompous men in robes who love to Lord over everyone and make rules for everyone else like did the Pharisees (they are just like them).
The Church is the Body of Christ. If you cannot understand that perhaps you can start with learning how to be saved and knowing how you can know that you are saved. Read my article and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free..
Dear Don,
Our posts are getting longer and I would need about three hours to write the same length posting as you.
It is cool you spent a year in Turkey. I am not familiar with the East of the country though. I am not ethnically Turkish as I mentioned. Turkish peopel are nice but there have been recent killings of both Roman Catholics & evangelicals.
http://www.opendoorsusa.org/content/view/544/139/
There are many modernist Catholics for sure. However, I admired Joseph Ratzinger for years before he was Pope. He represents proper Roman Catholicism.
I have to go for now merely because my wife is kicking me off her computer!
God Bless,
I’ve read your link and I can’t understand why all faithful Catholics wouldn’t be saved according to your schema.
I admittedly don’t agree that I can’t be ‘cut off’ because Scripture says I can be.
Romans 11:22 RSV Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.
But for argument’s sake say I was wrong on this. Let’s give you an analogy: I love my daughter unconditionally; let us say she thought see had to ‘work’ for me to love her and she tried to do this. She wouldn’t need to but I would still love her unconditionally anyway.
Also, and this is why I’ve asked how come you left Catholic Christianity, surely if you had known your faith as well as you know the evangelical arguments you’d realise Catholics can make a very strong Scriptural defense of their doctrines, which at least for me seem far more coherent and faithful to the whole New Testament.
I have this book Scriptural Roots of Catholic Teaching: How the Bible Proves the Truth of the Catholic Faith by Chantal Epie and have marked up hundreds of verses in my Bible.
http://www.amazon.com/Scriptural-Roots-Catholic-Teaching-Proves/dp/1928832539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214412259&sr=8-1
Funnily enough, I did read 1 serious evangelical book many years ago. It was 1995 and that was Dave Hunt’s A Woman Rides the Beast. I remember reading 50 pages a day and reading it in 10 days. I lost this book years ago but I remember mainly about accusations the Vatican had hidden Nazi criminals in ratlines (monasteries and convents).
The inverse is true. Many Catholics were honoured by the Jews in their ‘Righteous among the Nations’ (Gentile heroes of the Holocaust). These include Pope John XXIII and the war-time Dutch Cardinal. The Cheif Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, converted to Catholicism just after the war. He had been protected in the Vatican with 477 Jews. Thousands of Jews were protected in these monasteries and convents. Hunt seems to be to be the liar. All you need to do Don is to do some historical reading to verify the real happenings.
I don’t think any proper histories would support Hunt in these contentions. I remember him saying there had NEVER been any Catholic martyrs, only popish plotters who were reasonably executed. I have a Master’s degree in Historical Theology, I’ve read very widely in the academically respected tomes and I assure you Hunt is not presenting the truth here.
Yes, I think Mr President Bush will join us. I have hope for you Don because you have a false image of Catholicism. You should be joining us too Don because the Catholic Church was founded by Christ: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
QUOTE:-
John Henry Newman was one of the more famous converts to Catholicism. After studying the Early Fathers he wrote: “The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).
“Christianity was started by Christ 2000 years ago and it has existed for 2000 years. It didn’t go away for 1200 years and come back. Indeed that would have rendered Jesus’ words impotent. In Matthew 16:18 as He was establishing His Church Jesus gave us a guarantee. He said: “I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar. But of course such is not the case.”
I can’t spend a lot more time on this I really have other things to do.
I obviously said in my article that believers would be saved. If a Catholic is a true believer in Jesus Christ that person will be saved but did you not see yesterday’s article that said that 79 percent of Catholics do not believe that Jesus is the only way to God. So, it is not the majority of your church institution membership that will be saved. It is a minority as it is with Protestants.
Even some protestants think Christians can be cut off if they depart from the faith but that can only be true if the person is not a believer. No biblical passage says a believer will be cut off. The debate really is about if the person was once a believer but stopped believing or was never a true believer at all. In any case, I believe in eternal security for the believer not the unbeliever.
I know many of the scriptural defenses of the Catholic Church for their doctrines. In court any one sided case sounds good until your hear the opposing argument. Any Christian denomination can make a strong defense of their doctrines from scripture. That does not make them all correct. In fact none of them are all correct. You also must be aware that not all of your doctrine is based on scripture or it least it cannot be supported by any normal reading of scripture and that is why you make certain Catholic Church decrees to have equal authority to scripture. When you started making sinful men infallible you opened a Pandora’s box that cannot be closed. How does anyone ever correct infallibility? So now you are stuck with heresies that you can never change.
It is strange that all you remember from Dave Hunts book is his views on Catholicism and the Nazis, that was one chapter in a very long book. His opinions on that might be controversial. Dave Hunt is not a liar because there were both good and bad Catholics. He obviously focused on the bad he discovered in his research. We see good and bad in the institutional Church throughout history. After all Luther was a Catholic. Hunt had much more to say about your history. OK, Calvin was not much better then some of your Popes but that is my point. No religious institutions that have both believers and unbelievers or sheep and wolves or good doctrine and wrong doctrine can claim to represent Christ on earth. The Body of Christ, the believers, represent Christ on earth not a fallible institutional church. The Body of Christ is those who actually believe the Christian essentials of the faith.
You can say the Catholic church was founded by Christ and I will agree the universal body of Christ called the Church was founded by Christ but the institutional Roman Catholic Church is a man-made physical mutation of the spiritual. Man always does that, he takes what is of God and he tries to remake it in his own natural image. Pretty soon the natural image is worshiped. Now a man-made institution says it is the church but the Church is all that are in the Body of Christ, it is spiritual not a poor human effort that is corrupted.
Nobody said the Church disappeared and came back. The Church has always been here before Catholics, during Catholicism and after the split in both Catholicism and Protestantism. The Church is believers not worldly institutions. I do not know why you cannot understand that the Church is spiritual not some pampas play actors in funny robes who want to be called fathers and vicars of Christ.
I do not have to convert to Catholicism. I have never been excommunicated but if you think you can convince me to put myself self back under the bondage of that presumptuous pampas system of pharisees and legalisms you are quite wrong. You are not by a long shot the first Catholic who has presented their views to me. I have been on the Internet for a decade. It is such a waste of time on both ends because I know that you are blinded by your church dogma but you think I am not getting the message. Remember I was a Catholic I know the message and reject it. So what is the point? When you have been in a dozen different denominations like I have you might not only see Christianity through your Roman Catholic glasses.
I have other things to do too Don but I’m doing 4 things at once. See I’m watching Turkey playing football against Germany on TV. I’m talking to my friend and I’m drinking a Tuborg and writing to you.
One thing I find funny is that you say so many evangelicals are not believers. I find this really odd because my experience of them is that them are all very fiery and small in number. Of course all Catholics are not saved, you have 68 million in the U.S.A. what would you expect.
I think you see Christianity through you America-centric glasses. America’s new religion is not ancient Christianity.
God will actually call the judgement on our differences. This we both know.
Durkan
I get email and blog responses from others as well so that becomes a time issue. I am also looking for new posts to write on. Can’t do everything at once.
Evangelicals have changed a lot in the last few years in the U.S. The church growth movements and the Emergent church movement have really watered down doctrine and redefined Christianity. The Youth are dropping out like flies, as soon as they get off on their own they are gone. I would have to say about half of those who call themselves evangelicals are not believers anymore. The survey yesterday said that 57 percent of Evangelicals in the U.S. did not believe that Jesus is the only way to God. I do not know how a true Christian could say that. From my experience evangelicals overseas have not joined all this postmodern nonsense. They are still quite biblical and fiery.
Many Christians in America do see Christianity through America-centric glasses I would not put myself in that category. 79 percent of Catholics in other countries would probably not say that there are other ways to God besides through Christ but the article was talking about the U.S..
America’s new religion is moral relativism and that goes for both Catholics and Protestants alike..
God is a fair judge.
Enjoy your Tuborg. I Have not had one of those since I was in Norway.
I appreciate your responses to me Don. I don’t know President Bush’s mind of course but I guess he would be considering the Catholic Church for the same reasons Protestants and evangelicals always cite. I don’t think it is because of globalism or that because he’s a insider concerning some ‘illuminati-esque’ New World Order plan.
Converts always cite: Greater historic plausibility, more coherence in the explication of Scripture, shame at the myriads of denominations (often quite bitter against each other).
I haven’t got Roman glasses (although as a ‘scholar’, I think a good MA entitles me to that moniker) I’m well aware that we can’t view our cultures/value/prejudices from the outside. This is a postmodern observation that is obviously true.
I am deeply aware of historic Christianity. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was composed near here. Chalcedon (Kad?köy), just opposite across the Bosporos where the church council of 451 defined the dual natures, divinity & humanity, 5 mins by ferry! I went there to pray last year when I was struggling with continuing to believing in the deity of Christ; we all stumble at times especially against Islamic monotheism. We have mainly Orthodox Christians and Armenian Christians in Istanbul. I have really had my beliefs dragged over the coals by a very important Orthodox historian trying to poach me with free books he had written himself , yes, they have certain favourable historical points: evangelicalism does not. There was never Christendom without bishops.
And there are certain reasons evangelicalism appears wrong Scripturally. A good example would be the ‘cut-off ‘verse we discussed from Romans 11:22. You wrote:
“some protestants think Christians can be cut off if they depart from the faith but that can only be true if the person is not a believer. No biblical passage says a believer will be cut off. The debate really is about if the person was once a believer but stopped believing or was never a true believer at all. In any case, I believe in eternal security for the believer not the unbeliever.”
I really read and re-read this text for you Don and it the evangelical interpretation extremely fanciful. How can ‘you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe…continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off’
How can this be butchered into referring to the unsaved with no such warning for the saved. This is a terrible agenda driven-exegesis. Note the use of the YOU throughout, i.e. the recipient of the letter.
Let me quote Martin Luther on the Real Presence.
Luther, in a letter to Albert, Elector of Prussia, writes as follows :— ‘ This article,” says he (the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar), ‘ is not a doctrine or opinion invented by men, but clearly founded and laid down in the Gospel by the plain, evident, undoubted words of Christ, and, from the origin of the Christian Churches, down to the present hour, hath been unanimously believed and held throughout the whole world. This is proved by the dear Fathers, books, and writings, both in the Greek and the Latin tongues; and, moreover, by the daily use and practice of this Institution, down to the present day. This testimony of all the holy Christian Churches (had we even nothing more), should be alone sufficient to make us adhere to this article, and not to listen to, or be led by any fanatical spirit; for, it is dangerous and frightful to hear and believe anything contrary to the unanimous testimony, belief, and doctrine of all the holy Christian Churches, as from the ‘beginning, and with one accord they have now taught, for upwards of fifteen hundred years, throughout the whole world. Had it been a new article, and not from the foundation of the holy Christian Churches ; or, had it not been so unanimously held by all Churches, and throughout all Christendom ; then it were not dangerous or frightful to doubt it, or to dispute whether it be true. But since it hath been believed from the very origin of the Church, and so far as Christendom extends ; whosoever doubts it, doth as much, as if he believed in no Christian Church, and not only condemns the whole Christian Church, as a damned heretic ; but condemns even Christ himself, with all the apostles and the prophets, who have laid down this article, which we utter, ” I believe in one, holy Christian Church,”
People like me, with our Roman glasses, understand the Eucharistic verses literally. Historical Christian writers and exegetes for a thousand years understood verses like 1Co 11:27 literally ‘Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.’ and of course John 6:55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” The Orthodox believe it, the Armenians believe it, the Lutheran’s believe it almost as the Catholics and then you have the evangelicals telling us what amounts to a dismissal of the texts by them is the correct interpretion: against the unanimous consent of 1500 years of Christian understanding and against the plain sense ‘This is my Body’ ‘This is my Blood.’
Yes, I really did read A Woman Rides the Beast. I am soory I seem to have forgotten other parts of the book other than the Ratlines. I remember Woodrow’s Babylon Mystery Religion almost photographically. Maybe I read that several times though. I note Woodrow renounced the book and wrote an about-face retraction. Is he Catholic yet?
Your historical dates are all wrong and maybe from Hunt. St Justin Martyr describes liturgy and a sacramental mass in his writings. Here is a snippet “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
There was certainly a Pope in Rome before 600 AD. All the essence of the Vatican I definitions of papal primacy can be found in the writings of Pope Leo the Great. Eastern Orthodox Christians of Leo’s time supported these ideas, and even now the Orthodox still consider him a saint.
If you could read one thing it should be this:
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/0.1/solved.htm
It’s the story of an evangelical missionary working in Guatamala.
Reply if you have time Don, if not worry not. I do not always have much time. I want to start a PhD in September. I am supposed to be thinking up a topic and making a submission to my university college here. Maybe if you suggested an area of study I might be inspired.
Hi there Don,
You wrote above ‘don’t give me the Peter thing it is a tired argument and we do not agree with it.’ Who exactly is we?
Every major Protestant commentary on Matthew written within the last half-century concurs that Simon Peter is the rock upon which Christ promised he would build his Church in Matthew 16:18. So much for our “tired” eyes & our Roman
glasses.
Baptist Scripture Scholar D.A. Carson, who contributed the commentary on Matthew in the theologically conservative Expositor’s Bible Commentary lists five reasons why the exposition of Matthew 16:18 given by fundamentalists couldn’t be correct, stating that “If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”
E.g., Craig L. Blomberg, New American Commentary,
R.T. t France, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries;
W.F. Albright I and C.S.Mann, The Anchor Bible;
David Hill, The New Century Bible Commentary;
Howard Clark Kee, Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible;
H.N. Ridderbos, Bible Students’Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., vol. 8, I Ibid., 368.
The best evangelical scholars don’t agree with your interpretation. How can you expect me to?
And this is a “key verse” as you know, to understanding where the Church is: ‘Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia’
Ho?çakal?n
Durkan
I think you understand that the discussion allowed on these blogs need to be limited to the issue of the blog post. If I allowed everyone to continue a never ending discussion on their theology viewpoints I would not have the time to respond and they would just waste my disk space. I also cannot just let your comments stand either or I would be allowing a platform for a one sided argument. I see that you are also limited in time so hopefully this discussion will wind down. Having said all that, let me try to respond briefly to what you said in you last two comment.
About Peter being the Rock the church would be built on how did I know that you would just have to bring that up? All Catholics do because your whole foundation stands or falls on your view of that statement. Classical commentators are not always right. Certainly you can look at the passage and say it says the Church will be built on Peter but as you know there are two different Greek words used for Rock in that passage and people do differ on what is meant.
My position it that Jesus was saying the Church would be built on all that came to the same truth that Peter proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah. Certainly that would include Peter so yes the Church is built on Peter he is part of the foundation but it is not exclusively built on Peter. All who followed after Peter and confessed the same truth would be part of the building project called the Church of God.
That in no way implies that there is apostolic secession through Peter to other Bishops of Rome and that is the real bottom line issue here. Why the Bishop of Rome anyway? Why not Babylon, where Peter was actually at part of the time? There is no record of Peter being in Rome as far as I know. He certainly was not the Bishop of Rome. Why not Jerusalem where James was the Bishop?
The real point is that you continue to see the Roman Catholic world institution as the Church that Jesus was talking about and I see believers as being the Church they Jesus was talking about. One is worldly temporal and subject to corruption and only as good as its leaders and the other is spiritual without flaw or blemish being covered by the blood of Christ.
Oh I could give you many scriptures that prove my point that all who believe are saved. I did in the article link I sent in my last discussion. So it really comes down to do we believe in once saved always saved as many protestants do. Or do we believe a person can loss their salvation? I say I do not necessary believe in once saved always saved (only God knows) but I will also say that God promises salvation to the believer. So as long as the believer is a believer he is saved. I see no scriptures against such a view.
For example I have been in many sins but through them all I still believed in Jesus Christ and I would still have been saved had I died If salvation depends on daily performance we can be saved one day and lost the next we just better hope they we die on a good day, Huh?. The Bible does not teach any such concept.
My relationship with Jesus Christ drove me to hate the sins I was in and that changed me but if I had not been one of His there would be no correction and no reason for me to repent. Had I chosen to just reject Jesus then I would no longer be a believer so then obviously unless I believed in once saved always saved I could be lost but that never happened I never sopped believing in Him.
Here is what I think is our security. If you confess Jesus with your mouth and believe in your heart that He is Lord you will be saved. In all my wretched past as a Christian I never once stopped believing in Jesus’ Salvation. Those that do confuse me because I simply do not know how one who is born of the Spirit and has the Spirit’s dwelling in them can doubt their salvation?
This is one reason I feel sorry for Catholics their assurance of salvation is not based on what Jesus did at the Cross it is based on their own performance. If you are having a bad day you can feel lost. If you are having a good day you can feel saved. This is not what John talked about. He said he was telling us these things so that we could have the assurance of our salvation and know that we are saved. I am trying to keep this short so obviously I am not addressing everything here.
You quote Luther but Luther was a Catholic all he knew came from Catholic theology and the later from reading scripture. There was only one major theology in the days of Luther so it is not surprising that they would quote church dogma. It was only later that people gradually started comparing the church doctrines against what the scriptures actually said. It is still an ongoing process today and as we learn more, we learn more.
I really do not want to get into your Eucharistic views. It would get to long. I do not even agree with most Protestant communion views. I obviously think it was symbolic and not telling us that wine and bread would become the Body and Blood of Christ but I think if your read the whole context of the passage where is talking about taking the communion service in an unworthy manor and not discerning the Body of Christ, you have to go back to the previous versus to understand it. In those verses we see that gluttons and drunks were doing that by eating and drinking the love feasts before most of the church even got there and thus they were not discerning the other members of the Body of Christ. In other words, they were looking out for number one and it pertained to more than just the love feasts many claiming to be Christians were not taking care of their brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ at all. Paul then confirms it when he wraps the instruction up by saying:
33″Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come”
I get a little put off in protestant churches who put on a long face at every communion service. We should be calibrating what Jesus did for us. it should be joyous occasion not a funereal dirge
My date of the mass came for Tim Lahaye’s “Revelation” that was probably when the mass became an official part of the Church liturgy. I Do not doubt that there were communion services before that but I have no way of knowing the percentages of those who thought of is as symbolic versus literal.
I am aware that some were called Popes before 600 AD and there were occasions when there were more than one claiming the throne of Christ at the same time but again I do not think it was dogma and accepted by all before 600 AD. By the way, I am not a historian so I could be wrong.
God be with you on your quest of a PhD. What topic would I suggest? That is a tough one. Your background is in history so I would expect you would want to stay on that tract. How about a doctrinal account of all the politics behind the Inquisition or the indulgence system. Perhaps the original good intentions, the bad outcomes and the ugly truth of it all. A better understand of what drove men to do this could go a long way to healing the breach between Christians regions. Another thing you might look into is the 100 Anathemas or curses that still stand against the Protestant church today and how can that be possibly remedied after infallible decrees.
Well I have to go off to the store. Hopefully it is readable.
Don,
I do detect in your writings a conviction that truth matters and you really believe biblical historic Christianity is what you are promoting. Give me a devout evangelical over a liberal Catholic anyday.
I appreciate you don’t want to leave one of my challenges unanswered so have the last word my friend. it is your website.
Do you know that when I was searching for a link for my father-in-law for “George Bush conversion Catholic” your site came up right near the top. It is an impressive and intelligent website, I will read your other articles.
I visited the U.S.A. I went to Seattle it was very beautiful but seemed a New Age stronghold. You must return to Turkey one day.
http://moogie.info/travel/pcEc2000/pc25Turkiye.jpg
Thanks you for your kind words. I can say the same thing about Catholics. Give me a devote Catholic over a liberal protestant who denies the essentials of the faith any day.
Yeah the Northwest Coast of the U.S have many new age pagans. I once was thinking about living up there but they are becoming hostile and intolerant for anyone who say Jesus is the only way and does not embrace their green religion.
I try to keyword my titles and articles so they will rank well in Google. One major mistake I made on most of my main website posts was to put spaces in the file names (search engines do not handle that well). It is very difficult to change file names once they are indexed without losing page rank. I guess I could fix them if I had a week to do nothing but change names and write 301′ redirects but fat chance.
So being in Turkey do you think you are ever going to be allowed to join the EU? Of course with the Ireland referendum the future of the EU is also in question.
I think the EU Catholic countries do best to distance themselves from the EU proposed laws. The EU will eventually demolish the laws/prohibitions in place against abortion in places like Poland, Malta & Ireland.
Remember I, ethnic Genoese but a Turkish citizen belong to a minority group and it is to our advantage for Turkey to be accepted into the EU if only so that international standards of humans rights in religion are recognised and there is international transparency. Turkey is still a police state with the current constitution favours only the nationalist Turks. Turkey is moving rapidly away from acceptance into the EU and efforts made to qualify for entry have now dramatically lapsed.
Catholics hope St Paul Year opens church in Turkey
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/catholics.hope.st.paul.year.opens.church.in.turkey/19732.htm
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=108285
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=108271
IMHO if would be best in Turkey are accepted anyway and the human rights issues can then improve. Do I see a great endtime conspiracy in the EU led by Rome/Brussels. probably not, the EUs main function seems to be an attempt to ensure the spectre of fascism can never threaten Europe again. Unfortunately, its left-wing agenda is disbalanced; politically I am right of centre.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2614566502_546af4ffda_m.jpg
Thanks for your insights, articles and the pictures you sent.
I guess I would argue that the far Left is fascism and yes they will continue to take immoral stands on social issues. This is also happening in the U.S.
Much of my website http://www.thepropheticyears.com/ is how everything will shake out prophetically. I do not think we will have to wait long to see.
I have a book called Catholic Prophecy by Yves, Dupont written in 1970. It is quite interesting. If I recall correctly at least one of the Catholic mystics indicate that Turkey first sides with anti Catholic forces against Europe and then after some great battle or intervention switches sides.
Turkey was once in the Roman Empire and I think she continues to be confused in which world she belongs. But you would know these things better than me.
Blessings,
Don
Don,
I’m no political analyst. I’m not making claims that I understand Turkey or the EU’s role in the end-time prophecy. It must be said that Turkey & ?srail have enjoyed a special relationship for centuries. Turks are not antisemites like Arabs.
Yeah, I know plenty about the pre-Turkish Byzantine Empire and classical Christianity. Beyond this please don’t say I would know these things better than you. Secular Turkey is simply a sick nation, hopeless, sexmad, heavy drinking: the same godless materialist existence as so many without Jesus Christ.
Modern Turkey’s constitution is based on the secular positivistic sociological reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He was no friend of the Islamists and certainly no friend of the Greeks/Christians. As regards prophecy I know little but many have made fools of themselves with false prophecies (Gorbachev’s birthmark etc), so I am quite cynical of naming details.
I’m sure Turkey will be mentioned in biblical prophecy because she has been part of the many shifting empires of foreign powers that threatened and persecuted the Jews for millenia. I wouldn’t presume to be able to make sense of the prophetic denunciations or to divide what was for then, and what is reserved for the end of time.
Regarding George Bush, there is an unusual amount of anti-American feeling regarding the handling of the disputes of the ‘land corridor’ and the perception that the PKK is attacking Turkey with America turning a blind eye. I was in Marmaris a couple of days before the bombings in 2007.
Sorry, 2006.
I did not observe the drinking and all the debauchery except among some in the military but I was in Eastern Turkey thirty years ago.
I agree that many that many have been very presumptions about their claims about Bible prophecy. It is still happening today. I get many emails telling me who the Antichrist is and there is a big thing today about 2012 being the end of the world. It is all nonsense. I think the Church can know the general season but anything more before the birth pains actually start is nothing more than speculation.
Turkey is mentioned in Bible Prophecy as coming down with Gog in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. It seems that this is Russia with an alliance of Islamic nations. Togarmar is believed to be the people of Turkey.
I guess the U.S. was between a rock and a hard place with the Kurds.
Well I need to shut down the computer. There is a violent thunderstorm moving in. I also will probably be away from the computer all day tomorrow.
Thanks again for your insights.
There are villages in Eastern & indeed rural Turkey that are traditional and Islamic. Neverthess, the typical Turkish city is exceedlingly secular, comparable with the European liberal states. Turkey TV is very permissive. America’s fixation with religion is quite unusual, I think it’s because so many of you are descended from enthusiastic religious dissenters who fled Europe.
I had some very good Kurdish friends who really liked me when I more secular. The atmosphere became terrible between us when I became serious about my faith. I mean a nasty total disintegration. There real problem I suppose is Islamic fundamentalism but they probably hate religion’s way of dictating a man’s politics.
I actually think your suggeestion about the 100 anathemas is very good. I might move away though from the Catholic~evangelical clash though. But its a topic that one imagines would really lead to a deep understanding. My father did a PhD in science and said he didn’t really understand his subject until he’d done a PhD.
Durkan
Hi Don
I have just followed this right through, your lead included http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/How%20one%20is%20saved.htm
Sooo interesting and I must say your defence in that lead was superb.
Fellowship can be had even in the nether regions of the Internet, and as was obvious in your ‘discussion’ with Durkan so also friendliness and respect for one from another persuasion.
Phileo to you my Brother.
Thanks Brian, It always means a lot to me to get positive evaluations from grounded astute Christians such as yourself.
Brian From Oz,
re: Belief implies trust in Jesus and by this faith you are saved
I think every Christian should read that article…and every pastor should embrace that article.