There are three basic objections to the idea that the papacy is the Antichrist. The first is easy to answer from Scripture, the second is a legitimate point that isn’t as easy. The third is complicated to explain. The first objection is that Scripture clearly refers to one man of sin, a future personal opponent of Jesus Christ. The papacy is an institution, not an individual. The second objection is that the pope is often an example of moral living, and generally does no evil. The final objection is that, because Catholicism is Christian, the pope is not denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Archive for the ‘Roman Catholicism’ Category
Answering Objections to the Identity of First Beast
Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 18, 2009
Posted in Eschatology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Sin, Theology | 6 Comments »
Atheists Less Than Human?
Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 17, 2009
Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor, on a recent radio interview, made the comment that he thinks atheists are less than human:
What I think that the Cardinal is trying to say, badly, is that atheists haven’t embraced the fullness of their own humanity. It doesn’t make them less than human; on the contrary, they are as much human as any Christian. In some cases maybe even more so. But there is, and until they embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, always will be something missing from their soul.
However, saying it in the way that he did, the Cardinal has effectively shut off dialogue with the atheist community, and has crippled the Roman Catholic Church’s ability to reach atheists.
Posted in Roman Catholicism | 5 Comments »
I Can’t Take a Day Off!
Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 16, 2009
It seems I can’t even take a day off from blogging without something major happening. It appears as though I’ve been issued a challenge, and Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor said that atheists are less than human! More on the Cardinal in another post.
There are three fallacies with the challenge. First, Rey wants to know how Calvinism can be true and Wesley’s words false. When was the last time we assigned infallibility to Wesley? We believe that the Bible only is infallible, therefore Wesley is simply wrong, which brings us to the other two fallacies.
What obligates God to save a sinner in the first place? Arminian theology assumes that everyone starts with an “A” in class and by our sins we move to an “F.” But that isn’t the case. Humankind is born into sin, and we start with an “F.” We have no desire of our own to move to an “A,” and we don’t live our lives with that intention. Natural man, in his natural state, supresses the knowledge of God and tries to live for himself. The wonder of it all is that God saves any of us rebellious, undeserving sinners! Nothing obligates him to do so; he would be just to let us all burn in hell for the sins we commit everyday. But that isn’t what he’s done; instead, he lovingly predestines some to glory. The Bible’s focus is never on the ones that perish, but always on the ones who are saved. That’s where we should keep our eyes: on the ones that God will save.
Which is why Calvinism believes in evangelism as strongly as it does. Since we don’t know who the elect are, we should never lose an opportunity to reach out to someone with the gospel. God might use you to draw one of his elect to himself. Some might ask, as Wesley does, why bother if the elect are already decided? To that I say, turn your Bibles to Judges 3:28, where it is said that the Lord has given the enemy into Ehud’s hands. That doesn’t mean that Ehud and the Israelites simply sat down on the ground and said, “Why bother? God already gave us the enemy.” No, they fought the battle anyway, even knowing the outcome.
With Arminianism, we have no confidence that anyone can be saved. It is up to the reprobate sinner to decide to let Christ into his heart. Apart from that invitation, God can do nothing. Calvinism teaches the opposite. With Calvinism, we have confidence that many will be saved because God promises to save his elect, fully and completely.
Bottom line here is that God acts with and through us, not over and against us. Ehud still had to fight the battle, even though God gave the enemy into his hand. We still have to preach the gospel, because that is the means by which God will bring his elect to himself. We still have to fight the good fight, just like Ehud did. The Israelites saw no contradiction here, and neither should we.
Finally, what necessitates that God love everyone equally? Are you telling me that God loves Christopher Hitchens–a man who wrote a book entitled God is not Great and is outspoken in his rebellion against God–with the same love as a Christian who loves God first in his life and tries to keep his commands? That reduces God’s love to subhuman capacity. Humans are able to love at different levels. God commands it! I’m supposed to love my wife as Christ loved the church. However, I’m not supposed to love my neighbor’s wife that same way. The love I feel for my wife is very different than the love I feel for my daughter. If humans, made in the image of God, are able to love at different levels and intensities, why can’t God? Why can’t God love some of his creations more than others; so much more, that he elects them and saves them for eternal life with him?
Predestination is not a doctrine of hate, despite how Wesley and others see it. Predestination is God’s ultimate expression of love for the sinner. We love him because he first loved us.
Posted in Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 17 Comments »
Plenary Indulgences Being Offered in Year of Priests
Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 12, 2009
And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mk 2:5-11, emphasis added)
The Pope is, once again, taking the authority of God on himself and offering a plenary indulgence to priests and faithful who pray for priests during the upcoming Year of Priests.
The very idea of man being able to declare that sins are forgiven is a blasphemous notion, as the above passage from the Gospel of Mark points out. Who can forgive sins but God alone? The text grants the authority of forgiveness to God and to the Son of Man. The pope is neither.
Posted in Heresy, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Sin | 5 Comments »
The First Beast of Revelation 13 Demystified
Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 11, 2009
The pseudonymous TurretinFan, both on his blog and on Alpha & Omega Ministries, has identified a number of arguments that Protestants should avoid when addressing the errors of Catholicism. While I agree with much of the list, I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify one particular argument that we should avoid, and that is arguing that the Pope is the Antichrist.
TurretinFan rightly points out that there are major historical reasons for believing that the Pope is the Antichrist, the Beast of Revelation 13:1-10. It is extremely difficult to articulate those reasons in a short conversation for a few reasons. First, most people are ignorant of the rampant symbolism in Jewish apocolyptic literature. It is difficult to build a firm foundation so that they understand all of the issues at hand in the time often alloted for these short witnessing moments.
Fortunately, with a blog post, that restriction is gone. This article will answer, once and for all, why we Protestants who understand these issues will never submit to the papacy.
Posted in Eschatology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 7 Comments »
Monument to the Failure of a Teaching Magisterium
Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 27, 2009
On March 30, Patty Bonds, sister of Reformed apologist James White, wrote the following on her blog:
I remember sitting in Patrick Madrid’s van on a corner in Granville, Ohio. We stopped at the stop sign and Patrick says, “Here we are, a monument of the failure of Protestantism. Indeed, every corner of the intersection had a prestigious looking church on it. There was a Methodist Church, a Lutheran Church, a Presbyterian Church, and a Baptist Church; all preaching God’s Word straight from the Bible. (source)
Patty goes on to say that these churches can’t agree on the basic tenets of the Christian faith, which is a big misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, all of these churches teach that we are saved by grace through faith, plus nothing. This is a recurring theme in the New Testament and is supported by the Catholic teaching magisterium.
I didn’t have a comeback then, but I do have one now. Here is the monument to the failure of a teaching magisterium:
Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg recently did an interview on German television, evidently for the edification of German viewers during Easter week.
Asked if Christ died as a “sacrifice” for the “sins of the people,” the Archbishop answered,”no.” He then explained that Christ’s death was an act of “tremendous solidarity” with the poor and the suffering.
Asked again if Christ “died for our sins,” the Archbishop answered, “no.” Last year, the Archbishop said that priestly celibacy should be “voluntary” and that he did not oppose marriage for gays and lesbians. (source)
Now let that sink in.
For the benefit of my readers unfamiliar with the Catholic hierarchy, “archbishop” is as high as you can get without being the Pope. This is one of the top officials of the Catholic Church, and he denies one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The substitutionary atonement is agreed upon by all Protestants who truly practice sola scriptura. But not all Catholics.
Not only is Zollitsch an archbishop, but he is also the head of the German Conference of Catholic Bishops; which means that he is the teacher of, and the example to, the other bishops of Germany. Yet, in that short quotation, Zollitsch firmly opposes three basic Catholic teachings: substitutionary atonement, priestly celibacy, and the opposition to homosexual “marriage.”
One has to wonder how this man got that high in the Catholic hierarchy, and how many others like him lurk in the wings.
So, to Patty Bonds: Don’t throw stones at your neighbor’s house when your own is made of glass. Catholic thought is not as united as your apologist friends present.
Posted in Apologetics, Heresy, Roman Catholicism | 3 Comments »
Why I’m Not Roman Catholic
Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 20, 2009
James White had a very thoughtful post on the theological issues that underlie the decision to be or not to be Roman Catholic. Reading that post, as well as listening to his extended Dividing Line podcast has led me back into the fold of Calvinism, which I believe is a very good thing. I need to solidify my theology if I expect to defend it against outsiders.
But it leaves me with the question of why I’m Reformed and not something else, like Roman Catholic. Regular readers of this blog will recall that I was raised Catholic–baptized and confirmed. So why am I not still Catholic?
I’m not Catholic for four very important theological reasons: dispensing of grace by sacraments, veneration of saints and Mary, the Eucharist, and the alleged infallibility of the Pope. I simply cannot agree to the Roman theology behind these three items.
I’ve found recently in two snippets from the news and the book Justification by Hans Kung that the Roman view of justification is essentially the same as the Reformed view. I admit that I haven’t read Justification carefully enough, but I’m assured that that is the conclusion of the book. Man is justified before God solely on the basis of grace through faith, plus nothing. That is the Reformed view as well as the Catholic view.
However, Catholicism differs from the Reformed view of grace significantly. Grace is dispensed through the sacraments in Catholicism. In the Reformed view, it is God’s discretion upon whom grace is given; in other words, it is a free gift and not of works (Eph 2:8-10). Since grace is unmerited favor, it makes no sense that one has to work for it in the Roman view. On the other hand, the Reformed view makes much more sense; God bestows grace upon whom he will (see Rom 9).
Worshiping anyone or anything other than God is idolatry; Scripture makes that clear (see, for example, this post from TurretinFan). Therefore, I see no justification for the veneration of saints, angels, or the Virgin Mary that one sees in Romanism.
The rubber justification that the Romanists often use is that they only pay latria to God, while offering dulia to the saints and Mary. Latria is pure worship, while dulia is more like a deep reverence. This is a distinction without a difference. One should err on the side of caution, especially in light of the first commandment’s harsh penalty proscriptions for idolatry.
Consider the severe punishments that God pronounces on the entire nation of Israel for her disobedience and idolatry. Consider the judgments of the pagan nations in the Promised Land due to their idolatry. This is something that God takes very seriously. As an extension, so should we!
The Eucharist is a fancy form of idolatry. The Eucharist isn’t merely a symbol of the body and blood of Christ; in Romanism, it becomes the body and blood of Christ, and therefore an object to be worshiped. Worshiping bread and wine is idolatry, regardless of what it symbolizes.
The Eucharist is disgusting in another way. It “re-presents” the sacrifice of Christ, so that Jesus is sacrificed over and over again on the altars of Romanism. This makes light of the fact that Jesus declared on the cross, “It is finished” (Jn 19:30) because he offered himself once for all (Heb 7:27). There is no need to offer sacrifices daily because Jesus took care of all of that with the sacrifice of himself (Heb 10:11-14).
Finally, papal infallibility makes Roman Catholicism into a cult. The power of the pope to define doctrine ex cathedra, thus binding all Roman Catholics to that teaching for all time, is too much power to vest in one man. This is nothing less than an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture in faith and practice.
I’m not a Protestant out of mere preference, as James White suggests many are. I understand the theological issues that divide us from Roman Catholics. Ultimately, I know that Catholics aren’t saved because of what Rome teaches, but in spite of what Rome teaches.
Posted in Liturgy, Mariology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Transubstaniation | Leave a Comment »
Heed the Words of Cardinal Pell
Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 12, 2009
George Cardinal Pell, the archbishop of Sydney, Australia, gave us some wise words that we would do well to heed: Secularism is becoming totalitarian.
James White has said it, Michael Spencer has said it, now I’m going to say it: evangelicalism in America is on its way to enormous and spectacular collapse. Our influence in public policy is waning fast, and we have no one but ourselves to blame for it.
Read the Cardinal’s words for yourself and understand that the only way to fix this problem is to live the way that Christians are supposed to live, and to be the salt and light for the world that Jesus called us to be.
Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Roman Catholicism | 3 Comments »
What are Doctrinal Divisions Really About?
Posted by Cory Tucholski on December 28, 2008
Doctrinal divisions that permeate the church so profusely, at their core, aren’t about what Scripture says. Only the King James Version Onlyists dispute what Scripture says. We’ve taken them, and the famous NIV Quiz, on before. The divisions are over what Scripture means.
Case in point is the recent informal blog debate between Matthew Bellisario and the pseudonymous “TurretinFan.” The crux of the debate is whose interpretation of Romans 14 is correct–Mr. Bellisario, or TF. Mr. Bellisario insists, and correctly I believe, that Romans 14 is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day who would impose the Law on Christians. Further, such a passage doesn’t remove from the Church the authority to impose new holy days and bind Christians to obeying them.
I agree with Mr. Bellisario’s assessment of the passage. I agree that it is aimed at the Judaizers of Paul’s day and I agree that it doesn’t preclude the Church from imposing holy days upon Christians.
However, the imposition of new holy days goes against the spirit of the passage, and indeed the spirit of the Gospel. Jesus died and rose again to free us from the legalism of the Jewish Law. This is TF’s primary point. However, Mr. Bellisario doesn’t see the Catholic Church as imposing a new legalism on Christians. This is why the two are talking past each other–Mr. Bellisario is unable to empathize with TF’s position. Mr. Bellisario sees the Catholic Church as the sole infallible authority for determining Christian morality and living, rather than giving Scripture that place.
So, what is my opinion of Romans 14? I believe that it applies to all holy days, new or old. As TF points out, Scripture is like a fine gem with many facets. It is important to look at all opinions, past and present, to get a feel for something that you might miss. I also agree with Mr. Bellisario that Romans 14 doesn’t preclude the addition of new holy days, however there is no authority anywhere in Scripture that confers the power to bind Christians under threat of mortal sin to observe these new holy days.
Does that mean that we are free of the Sabbath day? By no means. As TF reminds us, the Sabbath goes back to creation and is therefore binding on all people. The obligation to reserve a day of worship for God alone was not erased by the cross, since it predates the Law. The Cross is the end of the Law.
While I agree that new holy days aren’t out of the realm of the church’s authority, binding them on all Christians under penalty of mortal sin is out of the reach of the church.
I highly reccommend reading the informal debate. The links above are to the start posts of the debate.
Posted in Bible Thoughts, Jesus, King James Onlyism, Roman Catholicism | 3 Comments »
Pope: No Contradiction Between Faith and Works
Posted by Cory Tucholski on November 26, 2008
In another nod to Protestant theology, Pope Benedict XVI has declared that there is no conflict between faith and works. He says that good works, performed in love, are a natural outgrowth of the faith we profess in Christ. Provided that faith in Christ is genuine, good works will manifest in the person who professes that faith.
In a previous nod to Protestant theology, the Pope acknowleged that we are saved by grace through faith plus NOTHING. That works are not necessary for salvation was a Protestant idea, condmened by Catholicism. Catholic lay apologists scoff at the idea, one referring to it as “Luther’s convienent doctrine.”
We have now seen the Pope tip his mitre to two formerly Protestant ideas. It will be interesting to see the spin that Catholic lay apologists put on this. These are two ideas that the lay apologists have previously scoffed at and ridiculed as heresy. I expect either silence from their end, or else they will try to claim that Protestants stole the idea from “Sacred Tradition.”
Posted in Humor, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 4 Comments »
