Protestants and the Pope

Westminster Seminary California ^ | July/August 2005 | W. Robert Godfrey

[topcat54]

The death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI have drawn great attention to the papacy in recent months. Such intense interest is remarkable. Much of it relates to the personality and accomplishments of John Paul II. He was a man of great courage and contributed significantly to the collapse of communism in eastern Europe.

Part of the interest also results from the powerful images that Rome can offer television cameras. Some of the greatest art and architecture of western civilization serve as a backdrop for elaborate rituals performed by gloriously clad clerics.

Part of the appeal for many—including non-Roman Catholics—is the sense of continuity and certainty provided by the institution of the papacy. The office of the pope connects us with the past, with a time of greater Christian presence and influence at all levels of society and culture in the west. It also speaks of certain moral standards defended against the relativism of our times.

[PAR35]

I heard few authentically Protestant voices challenging the papacy on historical or theological terms.

The papal funeral was probably not the time or the place to be quoting the original version of the Westminster Confession.

At the present time, the modern pre-mil dispensationalists are a bigger threat to the reformed churches than are the followers of the Bishop of Rome.

[Cronos]

After observing the postponement of a royal wedding and the presence of the Prince of Wales, the prime minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the papal funeral, one Oxford historian declared, “Protestant England is dead.”

well, after Genie Robinson, I guess it is.

[Cronos]

Mike Gendron has been given the power to infallibly determine the state of someone's soul.

yes, the power to forgive sins too, I guess /sarcasm

[Cronos]

The anti-Christ was Mahound and the devil resides in a black tent in Mecca

[Cronos]

Many say the same thing of those who question other religious leaders, like Billy Graham

well, I'm Catholic, but I have the greatest respect for Billy Graham. I think he's conducted himself with honor and is not comparable to what I consider sham preachers like Benny Hinn (note: personal opinion here)

[Cronos]

At times it seems to me that many Christian groups seem to define themselves purely in the negative sense as not Catholics.

[Cronos]

more unChristian hateful bunch of Christians I've yet to meet.

oh, you haven't met "Born-against" have you? I have an aunt who's in that grouping and I went for one of their Christmas "services" -- the entire sermon was a railing against the Catholic Church and no message on scripture or God (except saying that God hated the Church). She used to keep asking everyone if we were saved but stopped when we started to answer: "Yes. We were saved through God and through His teachings to our Apostolic Church, the Catholic Church -- are YOU Saved?"

That's when she came up with the "I will leave this house and shake the dust off my shoes" bit (it kind of lost meaning after th 5th time)

[Cronos]

It was because they were decent human beings, and we are trying to have a civilization here.

True and that's much appreciated by us Catholics -- we have differences but we can still have grace.

[D-fendr]

No Bible, no knowledge of Christ, just a heart-felt yearning and living a life apart from the rest will save?

Would you be jealous if Jesus decided saved one like this? Well, maybe that's a good thing for you - if it doesn't cause hate or anger at them perhaps.

[bornacatholic]

I grieve for John Paul II who gained the whole world but forfeited his soul. Year after year he was the most loved and admired man in the world, but because he was blinded by the prince of this world, he never saw the light of the gospel or the glory of Christ. Had he been a devoted follower of Jesus Christ he would have been hated and persecuted by the world. I also grieve for the many who have been deceived by this pope and his religion. It breaks my heart to see so many professing Christians who cannot discern truth from error and genuine Christianity from its counterfeit.

*That author is too dim-witted to realize he drafted a self-refuting paragraph

[Romish_Papist]

You condemn those who have never had exposure to the Word of God or His Son, the Living Word. Problem here bub is that even the Son said that those who do not have the Law (who do not know tha Word) will be judged without it. In other words, if they don't know it through no fault of their own, they will be judged without it.

[Romish_Papist]

Way to change the subject in #32. The mark of one who has no real arguement.

[Claud]

No Bible, no knowledge of Christ, just a heart-felt yearning and living a life apart from the rest will save?

There are two kinds of knowledge of Christ--knowing Christ through the Scriptures and through the Church, and knowing Christ interiorly. It is possible for someone to know Christ interiorly, but never having been exposed to a missionary, to not really be able to put the Name to the Face so to speak. In any case, it is *always* Christ who saves. No other religion is salvific in and of itself, and all those from other religions who might be saved, will be saved solely because of Christ.

Here's the full quote from Graham:

SCHULLER: What, what I hear you saying that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and souls and life, even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

GRAHAM: Yes, it is, because I believe that I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

That is 100% orthodox. He says that it's possible for "Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and souls and life" for those in darkness. This *has* to be the case logically. Else how could a nonbeliever come to Christ in the first place? He must be led on by some hidden operation of grace prior to his conversion.

As for his other quote as follows:

GRAHAM: Well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by GOD. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven.

Graham is not saying that these folks will be saved apart from Christ. He is saying that they may be saved, yes, but I'm sure if you pressed him on it, he would say that they are being saved by Christ, with Christ, and through Christ--whether they know it or not.

[Claud]

I notice that in all the responses, there carries an overall bend towards attacking the writer of the article, as well as the poster who posted it, but no real defense of the points that Mr. Gendron made. No scriptural exegesis to prove him wrong. No attempts to refute his claims that the Pope claimed that Christians and Muslims are united by the same spirit.

Ok tell you what, you pick your favorite one of Gendron's best/strongest points, and we'll hash it out a bit.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>It is possible for someone to know Christ interiorly, but never having been exposed to a missionary, to not really be able to put the Name to the Face so to speak.<<

No, it is not. All reprobate are at a natural enmity with God. There are none who seek. We don't know anything of true salvation until the moment we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, which finally opens our eyes to our sin.

His word will accomplish what He means it to accomplish, and if he means to save someone in a remote location, he will vouchsafe the method of which His word will be delivered.

Graham states that some can be saved having never heard of a Bible or Jesus, but through some belief in "a" god, and living a different life. That's works-based, and not rooted in scripture. If that were indeed the case, Jesus would not have left us with the Great Commission.

Graham also states "I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ."

That is a completely un-biblical position. Ps 10:4, Rom 3:9-18, Mt 25:32-33 state the opposite.

>>but I'm sure if you pressed him on it, he would say that they are being saved by Christ, with Christ, and through Christ--whether they know it or not.<<

Given his growing trend towards ecumenalism, I would say not.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>Ok tell you what, you pick your favorite one of Gendron's best/strongest points, and we'll hash it out a bit.<<

I don't expect to change your mind, nor should you expect to change mine, but ok. Let's try this one:

"The pope said he represented Jesus Christ, yet he lived in stark
contrast to the Savior who had no place to lay His head. He
denied Jesus was man's Creator by teaching evolution is true.
On several occasions he denied that Jesus was the only way to
the Father. When he addressed Muslim leaders, he said there is
"a common spiritual bond that unites us." In 1999 he denied the
blood of Jesus was the only purification for sin by awarding a
plenary indulgence for anyone who quit smoking or drinking
alcohol. John Paul is acclaimed as a great moral leader, yet
he failed to discipline American Bishops for tolerating the
wicked sexual abuse of deviant priests."

So - did the Pope claim that evolution was true, did he fail to discipline the sexually confused Bishops, did he award a "plenary indulgence", does he accept the worship of men as "Holy Father", and did he or did he not play footsie with the Muslims, kissing the Koran and claiming a "unity in spirit" with them?

[Claud]

No, it is not. All reprobate are at a natural enmity with God. There are none who seek. We don't know anything of true salvation until the moment we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, which finally opens our eyes to our sin.

So by your schema, no one could ever turn to Christ, because if sinners/heathens are at *total* emnity with God and cannot even seek Him, they are beyond all hope of grace, beyond all hope of the Spirit ever operating within them.

How, pray, can a man turn from sin to God if not through grace?

[Claud]

So - did the Pope claim that evolution was true,

He did no such thing; and still less did he do what Gendron ridiculously suggested was denying that Jesus is our creator by doing so. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that man was created by God, period, end of discussion. Questions of how he was created and by what means (whether immediately or through some kind of descent) are interesting, but the Christian's sanctity does not stand or fall on them.

did he fail to discipline the sexually confused Bishops

As a matter of fact, yes, I believe his reign was marked by a regrettable laxity in discipline. If that is an automatic sign of damnation, God have mercy on all our souls.

did he award a "plenary indulgence"

Plenary indulgences are awarded all the time for certain pious acts. But in Catholic theology, they come directly from Christ's blood atonement in purification for sin, and are in no way, shape, matter, or form separate from same. The Church has no power save that was given Her by Christ.

does he accept the worship of men as "Holy Father"

He accepted the title "Holy Father" and he rejected the idolatrous worhip of men. The one does not imply the other any more than "Holy Bible" implies a worship of books.

and did he or did he not play footsie with the Muslims, kissing the Koran and claiming a "unity in spirit" with them?

The Koran incident, if it was reported accurately, was scandalous and should in no way have been done. Plenty of Catholics on this forum will agree with that. But how it proves he was damned, I still have no idea.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>no one could ever turn to Christ<<

By him or herself, no.

>>they are beyond all hope of grace, beyond all hope of the Spirit ever operating within them.<<

No, and you've made a large leap to try and connect the two thoughts. They are not beyond hope of the spirit operating in them, they are beyond hope of somehow generating faith all on their own - which is what Graham is suggesting. The point is, they cannot "choose" to seek Christ, unless God is pleased to reveal it to them.

>>How, pray, can a man turn from sin to God if not through grace?<<

I did not negate grace. I said that man cannot do it by his own power.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

NEWSBRIEF: Chicago Tribune, Friday, 10/25/96, "POPE BOLSTERS CHURCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION", by Stevenson Swanson, Tribune Staff Writer, Dateline: New York.

"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, asignificant argument in favor of this theory..."

"If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution's process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists ..."

>>He did no such thing;<<

It appears otherwise.

>>Questions of how he was created and by what means (whether immediately or through some kind of descent) are interesting, but the Christian's sanctity does not stand or fall on them.<<

Does the Catholic Church then not take Genesis literally?

And your answers to the rest still point to "Yes, but...".

A 'yes' is still a 'yes'.