Piper on Open Theism

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.
“How does this worldview help us conceal the idolatry of our soul? It works like this. Open Theism denies that God is the final, purposive disposer of all things (Job 2:10; Amos 3:6; Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11). Therefore it asserts that God’s wisdom does not hold final sway (Rom. 11:33-36), and thus God is not fulfilling a plan for our good in all our miseries (Jeremiah 29:11; 32:40). Open Theism implies, therefore, that we should not think about the wisdom of God’s purpose in causing or permitting our calamities. In other words, Open Theism discourages us from asking what sanctifying purpose God may have in ordaining that our misery come about.”
-John Piper

 

RC Sproul – White Horse Inn – The State of Evangelicalism

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.

End of post.

 

The State of Evangelicalism (RC Sproul and M. Horton – WHI)

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.

On this edition of the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton talks with R.C. Sproul, Chairman of Ligonier Ministries and author of numerous books including The Holiness of God, The Truth of the Cross, and Knowing Scripture. Mike & R.C. discuss many of the themes relating to the year-long WHI theme, “Christless Christianity,” and evaluate the overall health of Evangelical Christianity.

http://www.whitehorseinn.org

Author: LaneCh
Keywords: evangelical evangelicalism rc sproul michael horton white horse inn rick warren joel osteen
Added: September 7, 2008

 

The State of Evangelicalism (RC Sproul and Mike Horton WHI)

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.

On this edition of the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton talks with R.C. Sproul, Chairman of Ligonier Ministries and author of numerous books including The Holiness of God, The Truth of the Cross, and Knowing Scripture. Mike & R.C. discuss many of the themes relating to the year-long WHI theme, “Christless Christianity,” and evaluate the overall health of Evangelical Christianity.

http://www.whitehorseinn.org

Author: LaneCh
Keywords: evangelical evangelicalism rc sproul michael horton white horse inn rick warren joel osteen
Added: September 7, 2008

 

THINK YOU’RE A ROMAN CATHOLIC IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE POPE; BETTER THINK AGAIN

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8, ESV)

The Roman Catholic Church Speaks

We will begin this Apprising Ministries short piece concerning apostate Roman Catholicism by looking at what the Church of Rome herself has to say about her “infallible definitions” of her dogma i.e. essential doctrines. First we’ll examine the document Unam Sanctum — “a Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302.” And this has never been changed, nor has the Roman Catholic Church ever denied it—even to this day.

Pope Boniface the VIII said:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,… she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5].

We venerate this Church [of Rome] as one,… Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, [the Pope]… For since the Apostle said: “There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God” [Rom 13:1-2],…

Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal…This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19].

Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2],…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Online source, emphasis added).

The late Dr. Walter Martin who founded the Christian Research Institute was a recognized authority in the field of Comparative Religion. He informs us that this papal decree Unam Sanctam was declared by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning—himself “an authority on papal bulls and decrees”—to be “infallible and beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra” (Roman Catholicism, Walter Martin’s Religious InfoNet).

Ex cathedra means that when the Roman Pontiff—the Pope—speaks “from the Chair of Peter,” with his alleged supreme apostolic authority as the supposedVicar of Christ, Head of the universal Church, and makes a decree on faith and morals, this statement would therefore be considered an infallible decree.

And as such, Unam Sanctum has to be considered as “irreformable.” The fact is that this Bull from Pope Boniface the VIII is indeed considered official dogma by the Church of Rome even to this day. Which, of course, would be understandable from the point of view of Roman Catholic theology. After-all, how could one ever change an infallible doctrine by the supreme representative of Jesus Christ on earth!

Now this would seem clear enough but most people you are going to run into, whether they are active Roman Catholics or just “cultural” ones, will simply tell you that they personally don’t believe all of that. And we would have no reason to doubt that this indeed may be so. However, what they don’t know is that what you’ve just read is the official position of the Church of Rome and the individual Roman Catholic does not have the freedom to deny this. Not if they wish to actually be Roman Catholics.

First we need to make sure that you understand that James Akin writing for Catholic Answers, which is actually a pro-Roman Catholic apologetic organization tells us that:

The anathemas do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication. This does not mean that the Church no longer rejects the beliefs that had been anathematized. The formula “let him be anathema” is a traditional expression that ecumenical councils used when making infallible definitions. Therefore, the dropping of the canonical penalty of anathema does not “undo” the infallible definitions expressed in Trent’s canons. An infallible definition, by its very nature, can never be “undone.” The Church still believes and teaches all the definitions Trent issued.
(Online source, emphasis added)

So the late Dr. Carl F.H. Henry a leading evangelical theologian is actually proved right when he says, “evangelical–Catholic dialogue must now begin with [the Council of] Trent.” The aforementioned Council of Trent was held by the Roman Catholic Church in response to Luther and the Reformers and ran from 1545–1563, a span of some 18 years. This would appear to be more than enough time to make sure that you have fully formulated the doctrine of your Church.

In addition this would also give one ample opportunity to be quite certain that you have then articulated it in such a way as to let people know exactly where your organization stands. Wouldn’t you agree? Dr. Henry goes on to say:

The Reformers affirmed the full authority of the Bible. They were prepared to accept in Catholic tradition only what Scripture authorizes. The [Roman] Catholic church rejected the Reformation emphasis on both the Bible alone (”sola scriptura”) and on faith alone (”sola fide”). It excommunicated Luther, who sought to remain in its ranks in the interest of reform, while it accommodated critics who deplored the Roman church’s very existence. The church defended its institutional vices, many of which it later rectified or moderated. Yet the basic issue was not moral and institutional corruption alone, but the legitimacy of established and inherited church doctrine as well. In the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent (1545–1563) the Roman church officially approved and canonized the doctrine of justification by faith-and-works, and thus condemned what had earlier been one strand in its own message, justification by faith.

The opportunity that the Reformers offered of a reformed church that would remain unified and universal was therefore rejected. A historic moment for theological dialogue and a major opportunity for doctrinal understanding were squandered. In consequence, evangelical-Catholic dialogue must now begin with Trent. Trent cannot be bypassed as merely the time-bound echo of one spectrum of influential Catholic dogmatics, since it expresses church doctrine that Rome identified as authoritative and irreformable. (Online source, emphasis added).

The True Roman Catholic Must Obey The Church

At this point it’s important that we return briefly to the subject of an individual American Roman Catholic who would tell you that they do not “agree” with some of these so-called infallible teachings. Let us take a moment to consider the following from the Second Vatican Council of the Church of Rome, which many are under the mistaken impression somehow changed the the RCC’s views on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his supposed authority over all churches as well as individuals within who would be considered Christian:

just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. (14*) Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ. (149)(16*) (Lumen Gentium, emphasis added).

Further, in the current edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia we are informed:

The title pope, once used with far greater latitude…is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth… The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”:…

[the Pope] is “the supreme teacher of the [universal] Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful,… [and he] can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council;… (Online source, emphasis added).

And then finally in The Code Of Canon Law from the official Vatican Website itself we read:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church (Online source, emphasis added).

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer (sic) the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer (sic) all particular churches and groups of them.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff. (Online source, emphasis added)

Now these citations above are beyond any reasonable doubt the official declarations of the Roman Catholic Church. And as you can very plainly see according to the above authoritative Church resources, no individual Roman Catholic can disagree with these dogmas and remain in good standing with this communion—well, at least on paper. So let’s stop playing the word games shall we?

The time has now arrived for evangelical Protestant leaders to make a firm public stand and to bring this issue to a head. Either the Church of Rome formally repents of these teachings; or, she should stand firmly by them. Don’t you agree? And the question we should ask someone who tells us that they don’t believe these teachings of the Church of Rome is this: If you don’t agree with these things, then why would you even want to be a Roman Catholic and waste your time and money on this man-made organization?

 

Reflections: Family Friendly Christian Apparel and Giftware

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.
My sister in the Lord, Carla Rolfe, runs an online store called Reflections where she carries merchandise from Alpha and Omega Ministries and Iron Sharpens Iron among other fine things. (I actually purchased a Radio Free Geneva t-shirt from there just prior to posting this.) Here’s the link to the store (click the picture). You might even recognize a “model” on there or two. :)

Photobucket
END OF POST

 

At Last, an Honest Headline

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.

Following up on my earlier Osteen post, this header from The Christian Post really says it all about Joel Osteen. Apparently, hope and doctrine are mutually exclusive.

ShareThis

 

BAPTISM AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.

The “new birth” according to the Church of Rome is their so-called “sacrament” of baptism. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says regarding baptism:

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”5 (Online source, emphasis added)

And if the above isn’t clear enough that apostate Roman Catholicism teaches baptismal regeneration under “The Necessity of Baptism” we’re instructed:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. (Online source, emphasis added)

Being of a skeptical sort I can’t help but wonder, if the “Lord Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for Salvation,” then why is it Christ Jesus neglected to mention that to the thief on the cross in Luke 24:42-43. Well now, maybe it had just slipped the Master’s mind. After all, it had been a very long and difficult day for our Lord. And when considering this subject of baptismal regeneration in Roman Catholicism we also need to realize here that the vast majority of human beings who are baptized, and thus considered “born again” in the Roman Catholic Church are infants.

Let me show you a little something about baptism from the Bible itself; 1 Corinthians chapter 1, verse 14 to be exact. If baptism really is the “basis” of the “whole Christian life,” and if baptism really is “necessary for salvation” — in addition to the blood of Christ, then we have most certainly added a “condition” here. We will have an additional work that would undoubtedly have to be considered required in this essential part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And if baptism “assures entry” into Heaven then we no longer have solus Christus i.e. Christ alone as our hope of Heaven.

The Apostle Paul And Baptism

If we are “born again” when we are baptized then we should expect to see this clearly outlined in the Bible, should we not? And if being baptized really is part of the salvation process itself then baptism should also comprise a very important aspect of every minister’s work, wouldn’t you say? However, what we do need to keep in mind at this point is that we are told right within the pages of Holy Scripture itself that the thief on the cross mentioned before was himself clearly saved through God’s grace alone; by faith alone, in Christ alone. At this point we must also remember that nothing found its way into the Bible by some “accident.”

In 1 Corinthians 1:14 the Apostle Paul writes —  I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Chrispus and Gaius. Now, you do have to admit that this a very odd statement — I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you  — if baptism really is necessary for salvation. Verse 15  — so that no one could say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else).

What? Paul says — I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else. Why, that’s a rather strange comment if baptism really is “the basis for the whole Christian life.” The Apostle Paul, arguably the greatest evangelist after Christ Jesus Himself, doesn’t seem to place much importance on baptism. Hmm, I wonder why that is? And as always, the answer is found right here in the Scriptures themselves. We look at verse 17  — For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to — [what] — preach the Gospel.

As I will say every time, a funny thing happens when you just let the Bible speak for itself. You find the truth! The great Apostle Paul just said the Lord did not send me to baptize those who had already believed the Gospel, and had already received Jesus as their Lord and Savior, just as the thief on the cross had done. And we do need to be mindful here that Paul was only writing under the direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit; and, one might suppose that the Lord Himself would be a reasonably good Source for proper Christian doctrine.

No men and women, Paul wasn’t sent to baptize; he was instead called to evangelize, and his mission was to preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard the Good News. He is teaching us here that it is after someone believes the Gospel, which is something an infant cannot possibly do, then they are baptized. Here in fact, the Apostle Paul is actually making a crystal clear distinction between the Gospel and baptism. And if you remember from 2 Corinthians 11:4, not only are there “other” Jesuses, and “different” spirits, but there are also “different” gospels—which are really no gospels at all.

The Apostolic Gospel Is The Only Gospel

If you need further proof there are other gospels we need only go over to the Book of Galatians chapter 1 and verse 6. And it is going to be vital for you to come to grips with this passage of the Bible here in this age of universalisalism; but for now, let’s consider this from the Apostle Paul — I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the One Who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel. One, which I will inform you added works and was very close to being exactly like the false gospel of works-righteousness currently taught by the apostate Roman Catholic Church.

Verse 7 — which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven. We stop right here as you may find this of interest. The appearance of an angel, one named Nephi—or Moroni—depending on which version of the account you read; however, the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith allegedly led to the Book of Mormon and resulted in the false gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Wouldn’t you say that’s kind of an interesting “coincidence” considering Galatians 1:7?

But — says Paul — even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than we — this would be the Apostles — preached, let him be eternally condemned. The Greek word used here for eternally condemned is the word anathema, which the Council of Trent of the Roman Catholic Church once tossed around so easily. Men and women I say it again, false gospels like the one taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and as the one preached by the Roman Catholic Church are really nothing new.

However, the proclamation of the pure Gospel of our Lord is so important—and so critical—that the Apostle now repeats his stern rebuke in verse 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 eternally condemned. God the Holy Spirit saw to it that this warning was preserved in Holy Scripture, which will give you a fairly good idea of just how seriously the Lord takes His Gospel. And this is because these attempts by Satan to pervert the true Gospel of Jesus Christ—by adding some kind of works to it—have been going on ever since Jesus of Nazareth defeated him crushing that serpent’s head on the cross in the first century.

Let’s go a little further along in this passage of Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia. And as we do you will see something which will prove quite interesting in regard to just where the great Apostle Paul received this Gospel in the first place. Verse 10 — For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. This now brings us to a couple of tremendously important verses. Verse 11 — For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. And then verse 12 — For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it,…

Paul Received The Gospel From Christ Jesus Himself

We are about to uncover an extremely important point here. Think of it now, this information has just come from the former Saul of Tarsus the chief antagonist of the primitive Christian faith. He has an encounter with Jesus of Nazareth after our Lord was resurrected from the dead then suddenly he turns completely around and becomes a fierce defender of the very Gospel that he once tried to wipe out. And not only that but the Apostle Paul then goes on to write half the New Testament!

Back to Galatians 1:12 and what Paul tells us concerning this Gospel which he would go on to preach. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Here is very good reason to believe that the Apostle Paul was taught this Gospel of Jesus Christ by the very Lord of Glory Himself! In any event, this much we do know for certain—no mere man taught it to him. Rather, Paul tells us, he received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Now oddly enough there have been those who have taken issue with how I have been teaching at Apprising Ministries but a large part of what I’ve been doing here is bringing us back to basics to make sure that we know exactly what the Bible actually says about these fundamental cardinal doctrines of the historic orthodox Christian faith. And the single most basic issue that there is for the Christian is this doctrine of justification, which undoubtedly is the very heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Upon such a great salvation (see—Hebrews 2:3) as this, we can never compromise.

And as I have previously pointed out this is precisely why God the Holy Spirit made sure that the Gospel itself—what was actually preached by Christ’s Apostles themselves—was preserved right within the text of the Bible itself. If you have been following my teachings about the Roman Catholic Church then you already know this. But it seems good in the Lord to look at this Gospel one more time just to make sure we’re prepared to defend it properly.

We go back to the Book of 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 1 to see the actual  Apostolic Gospel of Jesus Christ in its simplicity once again:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,

Keep in mind we have just seen that Paul received this Gospel from the risen Christ Himself and there’s a reasonably good chance that Jesus knew what His Gospel is, wouldn’t you agree? The Apostle now continues — For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

So there it is; that’s the Apostolic Gospel. Period; end of story! Here we have the beautiful simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And as anyone can plainly see there are certainly no “sacraments” of Roman Catholicism needed nor are there any Mormon “Gospel Principles.” The absolute truth of God’s inerrant and infallible Word—Sola Scriptura—unquestionably shows that there are no human works of any kind involved.

As we know from the Gospel of John the price of our salvation was paid in full; and, further we know that Christ’s work was “finished” right on the cross. Remember the Scripture says — When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit (John 19:30). By the way this is recorded for us in the eyewitness testimony of the Apostle John who was standing right there and personally heard Jesus say what he would record as — “Tetelestai.” Which as you probably know is the Greek for “finished”; i.e. a debt paid in full.

Let’s end with this: If Jesus is God in human form; and if He finished His work on the Cross, and if He paid your debt in full, then what exactly is there left for you to do? Nothing, but to fall at His feet in reverent awe for such a great salvation.

 

ECUMENISM AND THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.

by Mary Ann Collins

(A Former Catholic Nun)

www.CatholicConcerns.com

December 2001

Revised November 2002

There is a hidden agenda behind the ecumenical movement. Official Catholic documents from the Second Vatican Council show that the purpose behind ecumenism is to bring Protestants back into the Catholic Church.

The Council of Trent anathematized every Christian who disagrees with any detail of Catholic doctrine. These anathemas have never been canceled. An anathema means that the Catholic Church has placed someone under a solemn ecclesiastical curse. (Anathemas will be explained more fully later in this paper.)

VATICAN II AND ECUMENISM

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) wrote 16 official documents. It also gave some groups of experts the task of working out the details of how to apply the principles and directives of the Council. These groups of men wrote official “post conciliar” documents to more fully elaborate what had been written by the Council. The conciliar and post conciliar documents are published together in a two-volume work.

The Council’s “Decree on Ecumenism” states that ecumenical activity cannot result in changing any aspect of the Catholic faith. [Note 1] This foundational principle is reflected in the post conciliar documents dealing with ecumenism.

For example, Post Conciliar Document No. 42 says that the purpose of ecumenism is to transform the thinking and behavior of non-Catholics so that eventually all Christians will be united in one Church. It states that unity means being “in the Catholic Church.” [Note 2]

In other words, as far as Rome is concerned, “unity” means that all Christians will become Roman Catholics.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Reaching out in a friendly, respectful way to “separated brethren” seems inconsistent with the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) was the Roman Catholic Church’s response to the Protestant Reformation. It denounced every single doctrine which was proposed by the Protestant Reformers. It declared that any person who believes even one of these doctrines is “anathema” (officially and ritually cursed by the Catholic Church). (The documents produced by the Council of Trent were published as a book. It is available online.) [ Note 3]

It also defined Catholic doctrines, detail by detail, and declared that anybody who denies even one of these details is anathema. These include the authority of the Pope, the practice of indulgences, veneration of Mary and the saints, and the use of statues. So the Council of Trent anathematizes all Protestants.

ANATHEMAS

According to the 1913 edition of the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” when the Catholic Church anathematizes someone, the Pope ritually puts curses on them. There is a solemn written ritual for doing this. The “Catholic Encyclopedia” article describes the ritual in detail, including extensive quotations from it. (You can read this article online.) [Note 4]

In pronouncing the anathema, the Pope wears special vestments. He is assisted by twelve priests holding lighted candles. Calling on the name of God, the Pope pronounces a solemn ecclesiastical curse. He ends by pronouncing sentence and declaring that the anathematized person is condemned to hell with Satan. The priests reply, “Fiat!” (Let it be done!) and throw down their candles.

As we will see, the Catholic Church considers heresy (disagreement with Catholic doctrine) to be a crime. The Council of Trent, and other Church councils, declare that any person who disagrees with even one of their doctrinal statements is thereby anathematized.

When the Pope pronounces an anathema, he is said to be passing sentence on a criminal. The “Catholic Encyclopedia” says that the anathema ritual is deliberately calculated to terrify the “criminal” and cause him to repent (in other words, to unconditionally submit to the Catholic Church).

For those whose crime is heresy, repentance means renouncing everything that they have said or done which conflicts with Catholic doctrine. In other words, they have to renounce their own conscience and discernment, and the conclusions which they reached in their best efforts to understand Biblical principles. And they have to submit their minds and wills unconditionally to every official doctrinal declaration of the Catholic Church. As we will see, Canon Law says that this unquestioning submission of the mind and will is required.

OFFICIAL MODERN ENDORSEMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

The declarations and anathemas of the Council of Trent have never been revoked. On the contrary, the decrees of the Council of Trent are confirmed by both the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the official “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (1992).

The documents of the Second Vatican Council cite the Council of Trent as an authority for doctrinal statements, both in the text and in the notes. The “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” states that the Second Vatican Council “proposes again the decrees of” three previous councils, one of which is the Council of Trent. [Note 5] The “Decree on the Training of Priests” says that the Second Vatican Council continued the work of the Council of Trent. [Note 6]

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” was written for the purpose of summarizing the essential and basic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1992 and the English translation was released in 1994. It has numbered paragraphs, and has been published in many languages.

The Council of Trent is mentioned in seventy-five paragraphs of the “Catechism”. It is always mentioned in a positive, authoritative way. Some paragraphs mention it two or three times. Paragraph 9 of the “Catechism” says that the Council of Trent was the origin of Catholic Catechisms. The other 74 paragraphs in the “Catechism” which mention it cite the Council of Trent as an authoritative source which supports their doctrinal statements. [Note 7]

RELATED ISSUES

According to the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” a person’s religious belief is “outside the realm of free private judgment”. This is consistent with the spirit behind the anathemas of the Council of Trent. (You can read this article online.) [Note 8]

In his opening speech to the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII said that the Catholic Church has always opposed “errors” (disagreement with Roman Catholic doctrine). He said that the Catholic Church has often “condemned” them with great severity, but now it “prefers” to use mercy rather than severity. The Pope said that the Catholic Church is presently dealing with “errors” by doctrinal debate rather than by “condemnations”. [Note 9 has a link to this speech.]

The Catholic Church has never renounced its past practice of killing people that it considers to be heretics. On the contrary, the Office of the Inquisition still exists. It is part of the Roman Curia (the group of men who govern the Catholic Church). In 1965, its name was changed to “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”. It is headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. [Note 10]

Pope John Paul II issued a new edition of Roman Catholic Canon Law in 1983. According to Canon 752, whenever the Pope or the college of bishops makes a declaration concerning faith or morals, “the Christian faithful” are required to submit their mind and will to it. Furthermore, they must avoid anything which disagrees with it. (You can read this law online.) [Note 11]

According to Canon 1311, The Catholic Church has the right to coerce members of “the Christian faithful” who fail to comply with Canon Law. Canon 1312 says that offenses can be punished by depriving people of spiritual goods (such as the sacraments) and temporal goods (such as property, freedom, and other things relating to life in this world). [Note 12]

On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. After defining the dogma, the Pope said that if any person dares to disagree with his declaration then that person is cut off from the Catholic Church and is “condemned”. The Pope went on to say that if any person says, or writes, or in any other way outwardly expresses his or her “errors” then they become subject to punishment. (This encyclical is online.) [Note 13]

The Pope’s reference to punishment is significant because a man had been executed for heresy 28 years before this papal bull was issued. In 1826, a Spanish schoolmaster was hanged because he substituted the phrase “Praise be to God” in place of “Ave Maria” (“Hail Mary”) during school prayers. [Note 14]

On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII issued a papal bull defining the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. He ended by saying that it is forbidden for any person to oppose his declaration. He also said that any person who attempts to oppose the dogma will incur the wrath of God and the wrath of the Apostles Peter and Paul. (This encyclical is online.) [Note 15]

Although this papal bull doesn’t openly threaten punishment, it still implies the possibility of some form of punishment. The difference in tone may be a result of the fact that in 1854, a man had recently been executed for “heresy”. In 1950, the Catholic Church had less power.

Spiritual intimidation is not confined to doctrinal issues. For centuries, Popes used excommunication and interdicts in order to pressure secular rulers into submitting to them. Forty years ago, the Archbishop of Malta (a small island near Sicily) used spiritual intimidation to prevent Catholics from voting for the Labour Party candidate during Malta’s 1962 election. For documented information about this, please see my paper entitled “Spiritual Coercion”.

THE ANATHEMAS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT CANNOT BE REVOKED

According to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” the Catholic doctrine of infallibility applies not only to the Pope, but also to Church Councils (including the Council of Trent). [Note 16]

As a result, the official statements of the Council of Trent are considered to be infallible. This means that they cannot be changed. Therefore, the anathemas of the Council of Trent cannot be revoked.

The Catholic Church may find it expedient not to call people’s attention to these anathemas, but it cannot revoke them.

The present preference for a gentler approach to people who disagree with Catholic doctrine may explain the apparent discrepancy between the Council of Trent and the ecumenical movement.

The Catholic Church is engaging in ecumenical dialog with Protestants, calling them “separated brethren,” and speaking as if it respects their beliefs. But at the same time, behind the scenes, it still officially declares that they are damned to hell because of their beliefs.

USE OF THIS ARTICLE

I encourage you to put this article on your website or to link to it. I encourage you to quote from this article, to copy it, and to distribute copies of it.

NOTES

1. “Unitatis Redintegratio (“Decree on Ecumenism”), Paragraph 24. In Austin Flannery (Editor), “Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,” Volume 1, New Revised Edition, fourth printing. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1998, page 470.

2. “Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue” (Post Conciliar Document No. 42). In Austin Flannery (Editor), “Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,” Volume 1, New Revised Edition, fourth printing. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1998, pages 540-541. The quotation is on page 541.

3. This article from a Baptist web site gives general information about the Council of Trent. It quotes a number of decrees relating to Evangelical doctrines.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/trent.htm

This article is from a Catholic web site which is run by a Catholic priest. It has quotations from the Council of Trent on several subjects, including 11 decrees dealing with communion.

http://www.trosch.org/chu/trent-1.htm

The entire text of the Council of Trent is available online.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ctbull.html

4. “Anathema” in “The Catholic Encyclopedia” (1913 edition), Volume 1. (To read this online, search for “anathema” + “Catholic Encyclopedia”.)

5. “Lumen Gentium” (“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”), paragraph 51. In Austin Flannery (Editor), “Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,” Volume 1, New Revised Edition, fourth printing. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1998, page 412.

6. “Optatum Totius” (“Decree on Priestly Training”), Conclusion. In Austin Flannery (Editor), “Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,” Volume 1, New Revised Edition, fourth printing. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 1998, page 724.

7. The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” used to be available online with a search engine that enabled you to search for things by key word or by paragraph number. I searched for “Council of Trent” and found the phrase in 75 paragraphs. I printed those paragraphs and read them. Unfortunately, that search engine is no longer working.

8. “Inquisition” in “The Catholic Encyclopedia,” Volume VIII, 1910. (To read this article online, search for inquisition + “Catholic Encyclopedia”.)

The article says that, under the Law of Moses, people in Old Testament times were killed or tortured for heresy. That is not correct. They were stoned to death if they tried to get other people to abandon the God of Israel and worship “foreign gods.” Having a mob throw large stones at people would probably kill them pretty quickly. This was not torture. It was the usual method of execution. Worshiping “foreign gods” was not heresy. Heresy means having a baptized Christian disagree on a point of doctrine. For example, during the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church said that it was heresy to believe that people are saved by faith alone (as opposed to faith plus works). Worshiping “foreign gods” not in any way comparable to heresy. It would be the equivalent of telling people to abandon Christianity and worship Hindu gods.

“The Inquisition: A Study in Absolute Catholic Power”

http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html

A study of the history, theology, and methods of the Inquisition

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/inq/inqcont.htm

9. The Opening Speech of Pope John XXIII is on pages 710-719 of the 1966 edition of “The Documents of Vatican II” (Walter M. Abbott, general editor and Joseph Gallagher, translation editor). The section on “How to Repress Errors” is on pages 715-716.

10. Bill Jackson, “Inquisition”

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Inquisition.html

11. “Code of Canon Law,” Latin English edition, New English Translation (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1988), page 247, Canon 752. The 1983 “Code of Canon Law” was translated into English in 1988.

12. “Code of Canon Law,” page 409, Canons 1311 and 1312. These canons are in the beginning of Book VI.

13. “Ineffabilis Deus” (“Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception”). Encyclical of Pope Pius IX issued December 8, 1854. Near the end of this papal bull there is a section entitled “The Definition”. The statements that I described are in the last paragraph of that section. (To read this encyclical online, search for “Pius IX” + “Ineffabilis Deus”)

14. Paul Johnson, “A History of Christianity” (New York: Simon & Schuster, a Touchstone Book, 1995), page 308. Paul Johnson is a prominent historian and a Catholic.

15. “Munificentissimus Deus” (“Defining the Dogma of the Assumption”), paragraph 47. Encyclical of Pope Pius XII issued November 1, 1950. (To read this encyclical online, search for “Pius XII” + “Munificentissimus Deus”)

16. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Paragraph 891. The “Catechism” is available in many languages and many editions. It has numbered paragraphs so you can locate things precisely, no matter what language it is in or what edition you are using.

Copyright 2001 by Mary Ann Collins.

E-Mail: MaryAnnCollins@juno.com

www.CatholicConcerns.com

 

Is Jesus Christ God? James White vs. Jalal Abualrub

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.
Part 1

Part 2

End of post.

 

O God of God, O Light of Light

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.

Here is one of my favorite hymns of praise and adoration that we sing at our church. In the Nicene Creed these words we say refer to Jesus as,  “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made…” clarifies the biblical doctrine that Jesus Christ was not a created being, of lesser power and glory than the Father which some heresies claimed then and still do today. Biblical truth about Christ is the doctrinal basis of this hymn as well.

O God of God, O Light of Light,
Thou Prince of Peace, Thou King of kings!
To Thee where angels know no night
The song of praise forever rings.
To Him who sits upon the throne,
The Lamb once slain for sinful men,
Be honor, might, all by Him won,
Glory and praise! Amen, Amen.

Deep in the prophets’ sacred page,
Grand in the poets’ winged word,
Slowly in type, from age to age,
Nations beheld their coming Lord,
Till through the deep Judean night
Rang out the song “Good will to men!”
Hymned by the first-born sons of light,
Reechoed now, “Good will!” Amen.

That life of truth, those deeds of love,
That death of pain, mid hate and scorn,
These all are past, and now above
He reigns our King, once crowned with thorn.
Lift up your heads, ye heavenly gates;
So sang His hosts, unheard by men;
Lift up your heads, for you He waits.
We lift them up. Amen, Amen.

Nations afar, in ignorance deep,
Isles of the sea, where darkness lay,
These hear His voice, they wake from sleep,
And throng with joy the upward way.
They cry with us, “Send forth Thy light,
O Lamb, once slain for sinful men;
Burst Satan’s bonds, O God of might;
Set all men free!” Amen, Amen.

Sing to the Lord a glorious song,
Sing to His name, His love forthtell;
Sing on, heaven’s host, His praise prolong;
Sing, ye who now on earth do dwell:
Worthy the Lamb for sinners slain;
From angels praise and thanks from men;
Worthy the Lamb, enthroned to reign,
Glory and power! Amen, Amen.

ShareThis

 

Joel Osteen Withholds the Truth

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.

Apprising Ministries has already shown you in Joel Osteen and John Osteen that he also shares his late dad’s corrupt Word Faith teachings and prosperity gospel as well. The fact is that Osteen believes and quietly preaches the same Word Faith doctrine as John Avanzini Word Faith Wolf and Prosperity Preacher and that of Kenneth Copeland, which begs the question: Do Regenerated Christians Really Teach Jesus Christ Is A “Born Again Man”?

In this piece using a September 5, 2008 puff piece on America’s smiling pastor from The Washington Times we look at the tragic issue that by Joel Osteen ”preaching” his pseudo-Christian message with no “sermonizing on sin” and which appeals “to people of all or no faith” he isn’t really lifting people up at all. No, here we have a man who claims to be a pastor-teacher sent by Christ Jesus who is consciously withholding the Truth from these packed-out crowds, which then leaves them right in their sin.

HT: Slice of Laodicea

See also:

JOEL OSTEEN: SMILE WHEN YOU LIE

JOEL OSTEEN: APPRISING HIS WORD FAITH TEACHINGS

JOEL OSTEEN WITH WORD FAITH MOVEMENT

 

Already Chosen

September 7, 2008

Click the post title to be taken to the source.
“In regeneration, man is neither worker nor coworker; he is merely wrought upon; and the only Worker in this matter is God. And, for this very reason, because God is the sole Worker in regeneration, it must be thoroughly understood that His work does not begin only with regeneration.
No; while the sinner is still dead [...]