Why John MacArthur Is Not "Reformed"
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 at 10:17AM 
John MacArthur's opening lecture at the Shepherd's Conference created two main points of contention. The first has to do with the on-going debate over eschatology (specifically the millennial question). MacArthur--who is an ardent dispensationalist--stated and defended his position. That's OK and no one is surprised or upset about that. But people are upset because MacArthur so badly misrepresented amillennialism, and because he defined "premillennialism" as though it were dispensationalism. Not true. The loud howls of protest to MacArthur's dispensationalism coming from historical premillennarians is proof. We'll talk more about this matter in the coming days.
The second point of contention is MacArthur's questionable attempt to co-opt "Calvinism" from amillenniarians and claim it for the dispensationalists. This is seen in MacArthur's remarkable claim that amillennialism is inherently "Arminian."
As I thought about drafting a response to this claim, it occured to me that it has already been done. In 1993, Richard Muller--who was my Ph.D. dissertation advisor and acknowledged by all as the leading authority on Reformed scholasticism and Calvin (Click here: Amazon.com: The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford Studies in His)--published a short essay entitled, "How Many Points?"
In this essay, Muller demonstrates why people like MacArthur are not Reformed. MacArthur may hold to the "five points", but Muller shows why MacArthur is not "Reformed" nor a "Calvinist" in any meaningful or historical sense of those terms.
Before you read Muller's essay, please remember that the issue he's tackling is not whether those outside the Reformed churches are truly Christians (they are, if they are trusting in Christ). Muller is not saying that they have nothing good to contribute to the cause of Christ, nor any other such thing.
The specific issue Muller tackles is "who is Reformed?" And John MacArthur is not.
__________________________________
How Many Points?
By Richard A. Muller (and published here with his kind permission)
I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a "five-point Calvinist." I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely "ordinances" of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ's Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the "five points" in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in "accepting" Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of "born again" adults who had "a personal relationship with Jesus."
In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister — although at the time I was astonished. After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of "Calvinism" at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches. He was, in short, an American evangelical.
To read the rest of this essay, Click here: Riddleblog - "How Many Points?"
Kim Riddlebarger
Dr. Scott Clark has weighed in on what he calls the recent "breakthrough in Calvin studies coming from the San Fernando Valley."
Scott addresses the theme of "What Would Calvin Say?" i.e., about premillennialism -- Click here: http://www.oceansideurc.org/ - The Heidelblog (Scott Clark).
The Heidelblog is always worth reading, especially if you want to know what confessional Calvinism is all about. Scott is currently going through the opening questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism.
Reader Comments (207)
Thank you, thank you. You understand what I was trying to communicate. I am the Chief Among Sinners and if I caused offense to anyone I do apologize. The quote was from the ACE booklet published by Crossway Books written by Michael Horton whose link is above. It is a great little booklet as are all the booklets in this series which is ed. by Dr. James Boice. Monergism Books have most of these booklets by the way. It is my wish that more people, like E, would follow the examples of Drs. Sproul, Horton and Riddlebarger. The later two have great chapters in the book entitled Roman Catholicism ed. by Dr. John Armstrong, which is also linked above. If you don't have them I highly recommend that you get them.
The questions I have are the following - if Kim would honor us it deserves a new post, the thread here is getting far, far too long. Christians who follow the Reformed Confession of Faith claim to be Catholic. What does this mean exactly? And on a related note - Dr. Scott Clark's linked post at the top (actually there are 2 posts of his on this topic so don't miss both of them) makes the point that Dispensationalists are closer to being Catholic than Reformed. That's an interesting observation and there is some truth in it, but I can assure you there are no Catholics who are Dispensationalists. Most if not all Catholics are amillenialists regarding their eschatology - their view on the Last Things (Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell). I would argue Confessional Christians are much more Catholic than being Dispensationalists. Consider for example how Confessional Christians understand word and sacrament - the meaning of the Lord's Supper (Real Presence, etc.). I also recognize our differences on the Lord's Supper, sacraments, Scripture/Tradition, justification, etc.
Note - a slight criticism of Dr. Clark's posts. One might percieve from his comments that there is nothing good about being Catholic. If that perception is correct of Dr. Clark's post, is that really fair and correct from a traditional Reformed perspective? Sometimes I feel that Confessional Christians in trying to describe their distinctives they often fail to recognize the truths in being Catholic. For the sake of unity rooted in truth let us pray about this and continue a dialog.
Chris,
You said:
"As much as I tend to agree with most of what you're saying...that last comment on the R.C.C. was out of bounds. I would love to see the R.C.C. embrace the teachings of the reformation. May we pray for this, rather than seeing her burnt to the ground."
Yeah, I'm glad there are people out there like you, because you're definitely seeking to err on the side of love. I find your stance admirable in this regard.
For my part, however, I think these words of Christ to the Pharisees applies neatly to the Roman church:
Mat 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
And this:
Mat 23:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Mat 23:29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
Mat 23:31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
Mat 23:34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,
Mat 23:35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
How much blood of true reformers, true believers who hoped in Christ is on the hands of the Roman church? How many did they put to death?
Not to mention that the Council of Trent declares that all of US who believe in justification by faith alone are anathema.
Don't be misled: the Roman church has declared the apostle Paul and the other writers of Scripture to be condemned to hell! The Roman church has CONDEMNED you. If it were up to them, you would go to hell for hoping in Christ ALONE to the exclusion of your own works.
Don't underestimate the seriousness of this. This is a BIG DEAL. It's not that they're confused and get justification a little bit wrong. No, they know exactly what they're doing. They understood CLEARLY what the reformers were saying, and pronounced them condemned to hell, taking on God's office of Judge for themselves, and doing so idolatrously, out of accordance with the Scriptures, condemning ALL TRUE BELIEVERS to hell. Besides the fact that they have no right to do this, they've condemned the wrong people. They should have condemned themselves.
By STARK contrast, Paul, speaking in his apostolic office, speaking FOR GOD, being the voice of God on earth in the Scriptures says this:
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Paul is hopefully not being unclear here. He is saying that ANYONE who preaches a contrary gospel IS IN FACT condemned, accursed by God.
This is no ordinary man speaking here, this is an apostle who bears Christ's authority, speaking in Scripture. Make no mistake, this is the Word of God. This is GOD speaking.
And GOD says: if anyone preaches a different gospel, he is accursed. NOT by man, NOT by the church, but by GOD.
The question is, does Rome preach a DIFFERENT gospel?
The CLEAR answer is yes. You see, they don't just get some minor point of doctrine wrong. It's not a minor disagreement we have with them among brothers. It's not some little polite disagreement.
Their gospel is ANOTHER gospel from our gospel of salvation in Christ by faith alone. THEY know that it's a different gospel, because they have declared OUR gospel to be anathema, thus condemning us. THEY recognize that their different doctrine of justification amounts to a DIFFERENT GOSPEL. We believe in justification by faith alone, they do not. They consider our gospel to be a different gospel, and on that grounds, they declare us to be accursed, thinking that they are simply parroting what Paul said. They believe their gospel to be the true gospel, and our gospel to be a false gospel. THEY recognize that both cannot be right.
And on this point, they are entirely correct. We CANNOT both be right. Either justification is by faith alone or it isn't. It can't be both. They understand this CLEARLY. They know exactly what they are doing. So the question is, are they right, or are we right? Who gets the gospel right?
Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. Paul says that justification is by faith alone, and this is attested to all over Scripture. But somehow, Rome has claimed Paul's apostolic authority, along with Peter's apostolic authority, thus claiming God's authority for themselves, in order to declare that Paul himself is wrong about justification, is bringing another gospel, and is thus condemned.
I don't have any idea what has happened to common sense in the Roman church, but it is apparently completely lost. Justification is in fact by faith alone, and the entire Scriptures point to it in stark clarity.
It's not a mystery. It's not hard to figure out. It's not complicated. Our hope is in Christ alone, NOT ourselves. Our hope is in the obedience of Christ, NOT in our obedience. I can sympathize with a layman who finds this hard to accept, but for the Roman church to declare this doctrine, attested to by the entirety of Scripture, to be ANATHEMA is to render Christ's work on the cross and in his resurrection null and void.
Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Rome is seeking to be justified by the law, and they are encouraging others to do the same. But if they are right, Paul says that Christ's sacrifice is worthless.
Gal 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Gal 5:5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.
We who actually DO hope in Christ, have a hope of being made righteous on the Last Day by faith alone. We hope in the covenantal obedience of CHRIST on our behalf, NOT in ourselves.
Rome knows and clearly understands that this is our hope, and they have declared this to be VAIN. They have said that our hope in Christ is worthless, meaningless and wrong, indeed, that even this very fact condemns us.
Well, in response I say, may fire rain down from heaven and destroy them.
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
Heb 6:5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
Heb 6:6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
The Word of God, NOT ME, pronounces them to be lost, condemned, and set apart for destruction.
Make no mistake; don't be deceived. The Popes do in fact manifest the spirit of antichrist. Far from helping people enter heaven, they keep them out, hindering them from entering, just like the Pharisees.
They are like the wicked shepherds depicted by the prophet Ezekiel:
Eze 34:1 The word of the LORD came to me:
Eze 34:2 "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?
Eze 34:3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep.
Eze 34:4 The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them.
Eze 34:5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts.
Eze 34:6 My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
Eze 34:7 "Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD:
Eze 34:8 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep,
Eze 34:9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD:
Eze 34:10 Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.
Eze 34:11 "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.
Eze 34:12 As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness.
These Romans, these so-called "fathers" who were supposed to feed the flock feed only themselves. And the sheep are on the menu. They devour the people of God, consuming them and preying upon them, declaring the TRUE church to be condemned. They do this for their own wicked gain.
As Israel wanted a king, so too did the church eventually long for a king, to fight their battles for them. And they received their king, and he has named himself father, papa, and Pope.
He is a liar, a sham, a fraud, a deceiver, a mouthpiece of Satan, and he seeks your eternal soul, that he might drag you down to hell with him.
Don't be deceived! The Pope, the so called vicar of Christ is a liar and a blasphemer! He has set himself up as a god in the church as if he were God incarnate, but in so doing takes Christ's office for himself. Christ and Christ ALONE is king of the church!
May the false Christs who name themselves Pope and claim to be God in the flesh be consumed, and may the Vatican burn to the ground!
Christ alone is the Good Shepherd, who far from devouring the flock, gives them his own body and blood for food. What a stark contrast to the wicked shepherds now exemplified in the Roman system!
Jesus said, by their fruit you shall know them.
Tell me, what kind of fruit is it to declare all believers in the true gospel to be anathema? Good or evil?
Tell me, what kind of fruit is it for there to be SO much child molestation and victimization that has taken place?
Tell me, what kind of fruit is it when the blood of so many reformers stains their hands and clothing, when those men were burned at the stake for believing the truth of Christ?
Tell me, what kind of fruit is it when the previous Pope kissed the Koran and declared it to be the Word of God?
Judge for yourself.
Does it matter when priests have the authority to forgive sins according to the doctrine of pennance? Does it matter that Christ is resacrificed in the mass, and people are taught to hope in it? "In the doing it is done." Does it matter that the Cardinal who was so involved in covering up the Boston child molestation cases was allowed to carry the previous Pope's coffin? Do these things bother you? Are these things good fruit or evil fruit?
May God destroy the Roman church, that it might be no more.
Millions upon millions of people have been deceived by them and will burn in hell forever thanks to their propogation of a false gospel of justification by works.
May God destroy them without mercy, to vindicate his justice as he has promised to do on the Last Day.
May those true believers who are in the Roman church separate themselves from it, as long as it is called Today, because Tomorrow is coming. Come out from her, My people, and be separate.
The Roman church is no church, but a synagogue of Satan.
Echo_ohcE
To be fair, I think you are venting rather than giving an argument or any analysis. I am not Catholic or Reformed for that matter, but the issues are far more complicated than you make them out to be.
If you want to be fair, then sit down with the best works that the other side has to offer. Read some Newman on Justification, Aquinas on Grace, Scotus on Predestination, etc. These people weren't stupid and they read Scripture sincerely. And until you've read what they have to say, you simply are stacking the deck.
Besides, this isn't a two way argument between Rome and Protestants but a three way, between Rome, Protestans and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Seriously....
"Tell me, what kind of fruit is it when the previous Pope kissed the Koran and declared it to be the Word of God?"
Can that possible be lack of education and ignorance? I doubt it.
"Roughly two-thirds of top U.S. Catholic leaders have allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to keep working, a systematic practice that spans decades and continues today, a three-month Dallas Morning News review shows. The study - the first of its kind - looked at the records of the top leaders of the nation's 178 mainstream Roman Catholic dioceses, including acting administrators in cases where the top job is vacant."
See the evidence for yourself:
http://www.dallasnews.com//cgi-bin/bi/dallas/2002/priests.cgi
And this is helpful:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6742968
Here's a pdf document summarizing the sexual abuse of priests from 1950-2002. There were well over 4,000 priests accused.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/prev2.pdf
We are catholic, notice the lower-case "c," in that we hold to the following doctrines: 1. The Doctrine of the Trinity (3 Persons 1 God), 2. The Two Natures of Christ (Fully Divine and Fully Human), 3. The Canon of the NT and 4. the importance of missions. These are "universal" or catholic doctrines. We use catholic and universal in the same sense. Therefore I can say the apostles creed in good conscience.
Echo,
Alright, Alright...Yes there are many things that the R.C.C. has taught and done that we would and should highly disagree with. Absolutely we say that the R.C.C. or any other church that does not teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone to be a church that has strayed from the Gospel. And, we should resist with vigor the types of "eccumenical" get-togethers like "evangelicals and catholics together." But, how is spouting off about how the pope is the anti-christ and a servant of satan going to help your R.C. neighbor see the truth? Its not. Its going to turn them off. They'll never listen to you anymore. Instead, tell them of the promise of God, preach to them the Gospel. Show them the greatness of their sin and misery and then tell them how all of this has been taken by Christ on the cross. And pray that the R.C.C. will repent and come to embrace the Gospel.
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/
And especially:
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/extras/gays.htm
Please stop the ad-homminen attacks. Its not what Christ would have you do. It doesn't further the discussion. Thanks. "Come let us reason together."
Chris,
Ad hominem:
[adj] appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason); "ad hominem arguments".
So are you saying that I'm not appealing to facts, or that I'm not appealing to reason?
Here's the facts: the Roman church is the ENEMY of the gospel, barring people from heaven by making them think they're saved when they aren't. Their fruit is completely consistent with that.
Here's a nice logical argument.
1. If you are not for the gospel, you are against the gospel.
2. If you are against the gospel, you are against Christ.
3. The Roman church has declared the gospel to be anathema.
4. To declare something to be anathema is to be against it.
5. The Roman church is against the gospel.
6. The Roman church is against Christ.
7. If someone or something is against Christ, it is our enemy and of the devil.
8. The Roman church is our enemy and of the devil by their own declaration.
Now you are free to disagree with these points if you like, but surely calling my attack ad hominem is no longer valid.
Thanks,
Echo_ohcE
Chris - You, my friend, are a reasonable man. Thank you very much for your input.
E. - I'll allow others to judge your actions. It would be good to follow Chris' witness. I shall pray for you.
Chris,
By the way, you said this is not what Christ would have us do. I don't know why you think Christ would want us to pretend like the Roman church ISN'T victimizing the people of God, but here's an apostolic example:
Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Gal 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Just to be clear, Paul opposed Peter to his face because he was not acting in accordance with the gospel.
And for your edification, here are some of the canons of the Council of Trent, from the 6th session:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.
CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity ; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
OK SO...
I'm not making it up. If you are a true believer in the true gospel of Christ, the Roman church condemned you almost 500 years ago, and it remains part of the Roman dogma.
Now if, of course, the Pope repented and declared all of this to be wrong and evil, well, of course that would be a great thing. But until and unless that happens - may God send fire from heaven to destroy them and consume them, as they have sought to destroy and consume his flock, his people.
Right now, the Roman church is an abomination and great blasphemy toward Christ. Wouldn't you like to see that removed? Wouldn't you like to see God's great name vindicated?
We will. One day. When Jesus comes back. He will take vengeance on his enemies, and we will sing the song of Moses. May he come and destroy them soon.
Rev 6:10 They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"
Indeed, how long, Lord? Come quickly, Lord Jesus, and vindicate your name.
Echo_ohcE
David,
You said:
"E. - I'll allow others to judge your actions. It would be good to follow Chris' witness. I shall pray for you."
- Echo:
Yep, my conscience is clear before God, and he is my only judge. And he is Rome's only judge too. I'm just very eager for that judgment to be manifested, and when it is manifested, I will give glory to God for it.
I really am quite eager for the return of Christ and the destruction of Rome, in that day when he saves us from our enemies and vindicates his name.
Yep, Tomorrow is coming.
E
Well since Aquinas represents a fair amount of Catholic theology and dogma,(he is a doctor of the Roman Church after all) specifically an affirmation of Augustine's teaching that Justification is synergistic, you are condemning him, along with Augustine.
I understand that the Reformation happaned for a reason, but it may not be the reasons that you think it did. Major historical events are hardly as simple as we often think or would like them to be. Do you know what the formal cause of justification is? Do you know what a formal cause is? How about the role of the debates over realism and nominalism and how they influenced the exegetical practices of the Reformers and Counter-Reformation? If not, then I can't see how you are even in a position to properly understand Trent. The central issues in the Reformation concerning justification turn on specific notions of causation, the nature of taxonomies, realism/nominalism, etc. Both sides are by and large reading the same texts but with different philosophical glasses that color their exegesis. If things were as simple as you are making them, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and Scotus would be morons.
There simply is no theoretically neutral access to the text. Make the Bible as clear as you like, the issue will still be the clarity of the mind of the reader. If the Bible were a mirror, you can't have an ape looking in, and an apostle looking out.
But again, even if everything you claim about Rome were correct, this would still not prove Protestantism to be correct. The Orthodox for example certianly have no great love affair with Rome and yet they don't teach sola fide for example. (Even Augustine didn't.)
As for pedophilia, abuse by clergy is hardly new. It has happaned for centuries and will continue to happen. People sin, horrorably. This is not excusing it in any way, but Protestants and Jews for example have a higher rate of offense from their clergy than Catholicism has if you look at professional studies. For Protestants and Jews, it ranges from 6-8% and with Catholics it is about 4%. (See http://www.amazon.com/Pedophiles-Priests-Anatomy-Contemporary-Crisis/dp/0195145976/ref=sr_1_1/002-4713119-2844825?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174314361&sr=1-1)
This is not to say that in certain locations thins haven't been bad, but the pedophilia line is a red herring. Judas betrayed Christ. Are all apostles then false? Moral failure does not imply theological failure. You are simply not being fair.
I must go to work, but I shall comment later.
That's true.
But I do think, moral failure aside, Echo has pointed our some significant theological failures.
As Chris pointed out, the question is how we win Catholics to the truth.....with rants against catholicism, or with clear presentations of the truth.
But can't we all agree that the catholic church 2007 is apostate? Do you actually know any catholics? Mary our co-redeemer? Her blood crossed the placenta and when Jesus died he was shedding Mary's blood too? ( maybe not papal decree on that one, but I know folks who believe it) Do I even need to say one more thing? Kissing the Koran as God's word?
Echo may not exactly have the ideal approach to evangelism here, I'll grant that. But any defense of the Roman catholic church theologically seems absurd.
My point is that the claims of theological failure aren't as easily substantiated as most people would like to think. Things look easy when you only spend time reading works from one side of the fence. If you sit down with the best theologians from Rome, you will find that things aren't so simple. People tend to either inerit such views from people they listen to or they read critique books and only read the other side to cherry pick quotes. Most people lack the ability to perform a logical analysis of the data.
I mean be honest, have you sat down with Augustine and Aquinas? Can you clearly articulate their concepts of grace, faith and justification in a way that someone who disagrees with you would assent to as accurate? I bet most people clamoring here haven't. When if ever have you read Bernard or Anselm or contemporary Catholic theologians like Lonergan, Rahner or Lubac? Until you and others have, a bit more humility seems to be in order.
My subsidiary point is still left untouched, namely that this is not a simple two way conversation. Christianity has more traditions than simply Rome and the Classical Reformation.People like Menno Simmons (Anabaptist) or Gregory Palamas (Eastern Orthodox) represent traditions which are ignored here. Hence even if Rome were wrong, it wouldn't imply that the Classical Reformers were correct.
As for kissing the Koran, assume for the moment that it was wrong. I think it was. There is no dogmatic teaching that indicates that whatever the Pope does is correct. Rome clearly acknowledges the fact that there have been morally corrupt or even personally heretical popes. Moral faults do not knock the claims of Rome out of the park as they do not represent anything essential to Catholicism.Peter denied Christ no less. He was still an Apostle.
As far as the "Mary's blood" deal, you'll have to forgive me since I haven't a clue what the reference is or the context. If you could supply it, I'd be in your debt.
Again, to be clear, I am not Catholic. I am only pointing out that the issues are far more complicated than what people here are claiming they are and so they are being unfair. You should treat the other side with a bit more respect.