Bowing the Knee to Rome

The Berean Call ^ | February 1, 2015 | T.A. McMahon

[WXRGina]

Berean Call ping

[javie]

“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

Revelation 18:4

[cuban leaf]

My wife was raised in a devout Irish Catholic family in Chicago. They went to mass daily, IIRC. She became protestant at around 30 years of age after her first husband died of leukemia. This was partly due to the way these protestants treated her compared to her catholic brethren.

That was also about the same time I became a Christian (formerly intellectual agnostic).

13 years later we met and were married. Her family almost didn’t show up because we were not catholics.

It’s been 18 years now. Her dad is in his mid-80’s and is very concerned about his salvation because, of all things, how he treated his parents as a teenager. My wife is doing all she can to counsel him on what the bible actually says, but he’s having a hard time trusting her authority compared to his church leaders.

Same thing happened with her late husband’s father in law. In his 90’s, a bit of a letch (came on to her and one of her sisters a couple of decades ago) but his is a strong Polish Catholic family. He also was concerned for his salvation because he’s never cracked a bible and doesn’t believe he could possibly comprehend what is in it. And what his church fathers say is so contradictory and laced with the Catholic message he’s in absolute terror about the afterlife.

Again, she’s trying...

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I love the Berean call. Thanks for posting.

[WXRGina]

Me, too. This is a solid piece, and it is compassionate.

[Salvation]

Catholics genuflect to Christ.

[Salvation]

Your father in law needs to sit down with a priest and talk.

[sasportas]

Thank you for posting this testimony, a very good one indeed. It’s not often nowadays to see the sharp contrast set forth between the gospel and the RCC system, what we see instead is compromisers - identified and exposed in your article.

But, then, with the coming of Jesus so near, and the “falling away” (apostasy) going on around us, 2 Thess. 2:3, preparing the world for the antichrist, we should not be surprised at the ecumenical compromisers. Thankfully, we are encouraged here on the RF, seeing many who still understand the true gospel, as you saw it when you were first converted from Romanism.

[cuban leaf]

Your father in law needs to sit down with a priest and talk.

---

You just hit the core of the problem - he did.

[steve8714]

If one is “a strong Catholic” one realizes the power of Confession and repentance for the remission of sins, and would not worry about salvation.

[steve8714]

Haters gonna hate.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"became a born-again believer"

I guess this person is not one of The Elect. Obviously the essayist believes incorrectly (according to Reformed doctrine) that he needed to perform some act (becoming born-again) in order to receive the Lord's grace.

Sucks for him.

[bunkerhill7]

Sorry, 1.New Testament appears not to be written down until 40 years after Jesus` Resurrection, by which time the Roman Church was firmly established in Rome under Peter with Paul.
2.Also, the Roman Catholic Church determined which books would be included in the New Testament. Thus you have PRECEDENCE and DEPENDENCE of the Catholic Church as pertains to the New Testament.
3. The Catholic catechism Didache is older than the New Testament. [40-60AD]
4. The Apostle`s Creed is older than the New Testament.-—
Matthew also issued written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

---

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).{Matthew circa 70AD]
==
Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

Thus all who follow SOLELY the New Testament for their faith are totally dependent upon the Catholic Church for its choosing which books belong in its canon content, for the Church came before the New Testament was ever written
down, because it was transmitted Orally by the apostles.

viz
The Catholic Church officially decided at the Council of Trent in 1546;
although Martin Luther protested the inclusion of some books.
But the original 4 gospels were defined by Irenaeus, c. 160.
By the early 200’s, Origen may have been using the same 27
books as in the modern New Testament.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon.

viz the Catholic Church established the first
canon of the Bible after a period of discussion between the
the 4th and 5th centuries. Scrutiny was employed so as to
make sure the books included were consistent with the Faith as
was handed down from the Apostles. The Church has never been
about pleasing the pagans; it has been about keeping the Faith
and testifying to the Truth, who is Jesus the Christ. The canon of
the Bible was reapproved in 1546 by the Council of Trent.

[Steelfish]

Here’s what’s indisputable:

It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.

Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: A) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified? B) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established?

An “Extra-Biblical” Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.

Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can one know with certainty which books belong in the Bible – specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him.

Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the Bible would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.

Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon a the Council of Trent in 1546 – naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century.

If the Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals?

Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it.”

The Catholic Church does not claim that by identifying the books of the Bible it rendered them canonical. God alone is the author of canonicity. The Catholic Church instead claims that it and it alone has the authority and responsibility of infallibly pointing out which books comprise the Biblical canon already authored by God.

[WXRGina]

Haters gonna hate.

Who is showing hatred? If you're referring to this article, there is not a shred of "hatred" in it. It is a solid, Biblical-based piece. The truth of God's Word is not hatred. The Berean Call writers care deeply about catholics and simply want to see them come to a knowledge of the truth found only in God's Word. That' not "hate."

[cuban leaf]

The bible is good for learning, reproof, etc.

My relationship with my Lord and savior is not because of the bible, but it enhanced by it.

That being said, some people’s incorrect interpretations of the bible have gotten into my Christian sensibilities, but one by one they are being rooted out through prayer and study.

The two most blatant:
1. I used to be a strong pre-tribulationist until I was presented with alternative viewpoints and then studied it myself, prayerfully analyzing the veracity of the arguments made by the various sides.
2. Via the same method and similar events, I went from believing everlasting conscious torment for the lost to simple annihilation.

I’m sure more will come with time, as my own knowledge of His word increases to to where it is close to or equal to those who originally taught me.

[delchiante]

Jesus born on December 25, killed on good Friday and raised easter Sunday are roman ‘truths’.

None of those are biblical, scriptural Truths..

Maybe Rome has created a different jesus to fit their Roman calendar..

After all Paul preached His ‘gospel’ from the ‘scriptures’ that He knew- Torah and the prophets..

Not Rome’s gospel based on the Roman catholic catechism and their pope Gregory calendar..

Maybe all of christendom kneels at Rome’s false teaching, and their false Jesus..
Created with Rome in mind, not Jerusalem..

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

Deceivers gonna deceive. There, fixed it.

Read up on church history, you know, the Church before your baby church broke off. Read about the early church fathers, how they believed in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and DIED for that from right after Christ’s death until...this morning in Levant.

Why don’t you google what the haters of Christianity scoffed at Christians for believing for the first few hundred years....they scoff at exactly what you scoff at....the Eucharist being the unbloody sacrifice f Christ, the Successors of Peter....you know, the Virgin birth isn’t just the virgin giving birth, it’s her hymen never rupturing, like Jesus walked through the door to the upper room...there is SO MUCH you haven’t a clue about....deceive yourself some more, or show your faith in Jesus and look at history, look at Truth, Be Not Afraid, as the Angel said to Mary. Pray for me THEN, for those prayers will mean a lot more. We’ll both shudder.

[WXRGina]

Deceivers gonna deceive. There, fixed it.

Belief in the truth of God's Word--alone--is not deception. We will not agree on this.