A Baptist's Search For Historical Proof of St. Patrick Takes Her To Rome

CH Network ^ | Patty Patrick Bonds

[mdmathis6]

"Having been fervently protestant all my life I can honestly say I have never seen Christ so lifted up and honored in any protestant tradition as I have in the Catholic Church"

I don't know what Protestant churches you have seen...but the ones I've seen not only have him LIFTED him up for our sins..but they also declare him..TAKEN Out of the ground via the resurrestion...and TAKEN UP into heaven to prepare a place for us as well as to Allow the Spirit to come to lead us in all truth!

I see plenty of eternally dying Christs on Crucifixes in Catholic churches but no images of empty tombs...now why is that?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The school was committed to dispensationalism and required agreement of faculty and students. But I studied under Dr. Walvoord and heard him speak and preach often. I can not ever remember him making dispensationalism a test of fellowship. I agree that some/many dispensationalists have. But Walvoord has no more done this than I have. Now as a debater, I know you want to be "precise" *grin* so I am allowing you this opportunity to correct your misstatement.

Well, now that I think about it, I seem to remember that you already had this conversation with "the_doc" a coupla years ago; if memory serves, it was finally acknowledged that DTS's "commitment to and required agreement with Dispensationalism" did not constitute a Test of Fellowship in the ecclesial sense...

So, discretion being the better part of valor, I'll agree with the outcome of that argument and retract the Charge as worded.

Walvoord is now with the Lord. Past tense would be more precise unless you believe he still seeks to sell a lot of books.

This is a terrible oversight on my part, and I apologize. You're right, of course.

Now that Walvoord is with the Lord, and is therefore now an Amillennialist -- I am absolutely certain that he has no interest in seeing any of his books sell, at all. Your point is granted. ;-)

[fishtank]

"Now that Walvoord is with the Lord, and is therefore now an Amillennialist --"


Of course, there's always that pesky problem of the re-gathering of the Jews to Israel that puts a fly in the ointment of amillenialism.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The fact is, not all theologians are interested in truth -- some are, some aren't -- and not all debaters are interested winning arguments. Based on my exeprience with debaters and debates, I think many of them seem to be much more interested in winning arguments and squashing an opponent (if it were possible) than in really seeking the truth and embracing it.

I think that's very often the case with Debaters, but I'd also have to agree with the preceding statement -- "all theologians are interested in truth; some are, some aren't". I'd wager that the Church in history has refined more Truth in its creeds and confessions in a few Debates amongst the delegates to the Ecumenical Councils, than from all the "speculative" theology of the Twentieth Century put together.

Although he did not make an impressive showing in that debate, and Scott's biblical case against SS steamrolled Dr. Knudsen's arguments very effectively, Dr. Knudsen did impress me as a sincere man who deeply believed what he expounded that evening.

Well, at least there is that. I haven't heard that particular tape, but Dr. John W. Robbins (who is in no way ill-disposed towards Knudsen) has -- and "Professor Knudsen’s performance is embarrassing and incompetent." (sigh....) Oh, well, we all have our good days and bad, I suppose.

By the way, I just received the promised copy of "Pope Fiction", and the unexpected bonus of "Surprised by Truth". I've read most of "Surprised" before, here and there, but I'm grateful to have a copy for my own reference. "Pope Fiction" is entirely new to me, and I'm looking forward to the read. Just scanning the "Table of Contents" with a view towards which Protestant arguments actually impact Papal Supremacy, Succession, and Infallibility....

I personally like, and have used, arguments 1 & 2.
I don't think arguments 3 & 4 are particularly relevant and I'm not sure why Prots use them.
I'm reasonably confident argument 5 is just plain false.
Arguments 6 & 7, OTOH, are just plain trash.
Argument 8 is also (IMHO) just plain false.
I personally like, and have used, arguments 9 & 10, or rather variations thereof.
Argument 11 is new to me, but looks irrelevant.
Arguments 12 & 13 are also irrelevant.
Because arguments 12 & 13 are irrelevant, arguments 14, 15, 16, and 17 are likewise rendered irrelevant.
Argument 18 was always great "fun" to use against Romans, but not strictly useful.
Argument 19 is just plain trash.
Arguments 20 through 25 are sad legacies for the Papacy, but don't really do anything to "disprove" Papal Supremacy.
I like, and have used, argument 26.
Argument 27 is simply false.
Argument 28 is more of an "in-house" squabble between Trad and VatII Catholics than a useful Protestant argument.
I like, and have used, argument 29.
Argument 30 is just plain trash.

Well!! That's my cursory, two-minute review of the Arguments you analyze; I'll try to post some additional thoughts on your treatments thereof when I'm done reading the book.

Thanks again!! OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Of course, there's always that pesky problem of the re-gathering of the Jews to Israel that puts a fly in the ointment of amillenialism.

Why on earth would that "put a fly in the ointment" of Amillennialism?

Oh, wait -- lemme guess: You've never even heard of the fact that a number of 19th century Amillennials were forecasting the re-gathering of the Jews in expectation of the fulfillment of Romans 11, while the Dispensationalist movement was still in its ecclesial swaddling clothes.

Since you've always been taught to believe that the re-gathering of the Jews came as a great shock to Amills, it therefore comes as a great shock to you that 19th-century Amills (and even some Post-Mills) were among the stronger proponents of the "Israel-Restorationist" reading of Romans 11, in some cases even before there was a Dispensational movement to claim the credit for this reading to themselves.

Do I have you figured about right?

[drstevej]

You are most gracious.

***Now that Walvoord is with the Lord, and is therefore now an Amillennialist ***

In heavwn that's pronounced Ahhhh... Millennialism!!!!

[drstevej]

heavwn = heaven

[Pyro7480]

"Eternally dying?" That is not what the Church teaches. What the crucifix portrays is the great sacrifice Christ made for the sins of mankind. Of course, Catholics do not forget that Christ also rose from the dead. Hence, the many pieces of religious art that portray Christ Risen. There's one in my home parish in Delaware.

[mdmathis6]

"Eternally dying"


You missed my point....It is one thing to stick up crucifixes ever-where with a depiction of Christ's suffering, but balance those images with depictions of his resurrection...man. With-out the resurrection, Christ's death on the cross is an empty gesture..."You might as well eat, drink, or be merry, if there be no ressurection of the dead." (Paul)

I have always considered a plain crucifix, with or with-out Christ, an unbalanced symbol. Christ said that his sign would be the sign of Jonah, a symbol of a man who was in its belly for 3 days and 3 nights, before being released. The early sign of Christians were of a fish, symbolizing not only Jonah but of the men who were to be called the "fishers of men".

That is what I meant by "eternally dying". To merely display crucifixes, states that God loves men, but to co-emphasize Christ's resurrection adds an exclamation point of POWER to his gesture of love. Should the Catholic Church start emphasizing Christ's power over death by his resurrection, in addition to his death for our transgressions, and it will have started a major revival and a step back from the abyss of apostacy! This goes for the major mainline Protestant churches as well!

[mdmathis6]

The image one is always confronted with in many churches...mainline Protestant and Catholic is a centrally located crucifix. That is all well and good. But Christianity's real power is not the mere death of a man on the cross, but of his resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit. That is the real power that modern church goers are increasingly denying, while allowing paganistic and hedonistic philosophies to hold sway in these churches.
If this power could be explained away, then the reason by which we worship falls away. I like to see empty crosses and empty tombs; your church may have a depiction of an empty tomb but many do not, nor is the resurrection emphasized.

To tell you the truth, imagery itself can be a dangerous thing, I feel all of us believers walk close to violating the first and second commandments as they relate to imagery. Christ said the only sign he would give this "accurse generation" was the sign of Jonah.

[Pyro7480]

Should the Catholic Church start emphasizing Christ's power over death by his resurrection, in addition to his death for our transgressions, and it will have started a major revival and a step back from the abyss of apostacy! This goes for the major mainline Protestant churches as well!

Your point that Catholics are "apostates" is a matter of theological viewpoint. If you want the Catholic Church's teaching on the Resurrection check out this link: Catechism of the Catholic Church

[mdmathis6]

Don't be so sensitive, Apostacy is rampant in all churches, not just the Catholics. We are being betrayed by so called priests and pastors who are "like wolves crept in unawares", who hold "to a form of Godliness but deny the power there-of"!

Our whole age may be witnessing that "great falling away" that the Bible warned about. True Christ believing followers of all faiths maybe forced to reconcile their differences...the use of the early Apostles and Nicene creeds may once again become important enough so that true believers can tell from false. After-all if we are in that age, religious Christians will come under severe persecution.

"To Live is Christ and to die is Gain" stated Paul. Believers are promised resurrection power to live a day by day transformation of their inner personalities. That is what Christ died to bring us, and that is what all Christian churches must begin to re-emhasize so that men may at least see a difference between true light and true dark(even if they reject the light..they had an oppurtunity to see the difference). In proclaiming God's love we must emphasize the power in that Love.

[Saint Athanasius]

I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide me in that direction as well...

seeking the Truth rather than trying to win the argument...

I notice though that is not always the case with me...

maybe that is one of my many faults... mea culpa

[fishtank]

Are you in support of the nation of Israel?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian Are you in support of the nation of Israel? 154 posted on 07/16/2003 7:15 AM PDT by fishtank

What are you asking?

If you are asking me, "Does Orthodox Presbyterian believe that the Modern Socialist State of Israel have a Legal right to Exist?", then I answer absolutely yes.

I refer you to my essay A HISTORY OF BETRAYAL: The Zionist Establishment of Israel. As a former Collegiate Debater, I try to be very exacting in questions of Logic and Ethics; and reviewing the International Case Law on the matter, it is my opinion that -- in regards to the Legal Establishment of Modern Socialist State of Israel -- the Zionists were (and are) 100% in the Right, and the Arab Nationalists who betrayed the Zionists were (and are) 100% in the Wrong.

And I would even go so far as to say that I think that "Jewish Palestine" (i.e., Israel -- read the Link) has a Legal Right of Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, the so-called "West Bank". (Although I would also say that Arab Gaza, aka Philistia, is an albatross around Israel's neck, and they should grant Gaza complete independence immediately -- while retaining Judea and Samaria -- if only to be rid of this troublesome burden).

Judea and Samaria are, IMHO, the Legally-Sovereign Territory of Jewish Palestine (i.e., Israel -- read the Link). Arab "Palestinians" should either accept the Fact of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the so-called "West Bank") or else move to Jordan -- the true "Arab Palestine".

BUT THAT SAID, I do NOT support every single action of the Israeli State without question.

• I do NOT support military atrocities against Palestinian Civilians (which even Likud will admit, have happened on occasion).
• I do NOT support Israel's economically-suicidal policy of "Zionist Socialism", financed with US Tax Dollars. I oppose ALL Foreign Aid (including that given to Israel), and ALL Socialism (even when it is labelled "Zionist Socialism"). In fact, I think that Israel would be better off in the long run -- in terms of both Politics and Capitalism -- if every dime of US foreign aid to Israel were terminated today, immediately.
• And last but not least, I reject and abhor the Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist vision of Israel as the Abattoir of Armageddon, in which at least two-thirds of all Jews will die in a Hal-Lindsey-style Holocaust before they finally convert to the Messiah. I prefer the Amillennial reading of Romans 11 -- that God is gathering the Jews together in anticipation of the day that ALL ISRAEL shall be saved, not a few tattered remnants who are left over after the Hal-Lindsey-Holocaust of the late, great 20th Century (or, 21st century. Whatever. Pre-Mill Dispensationalists always keep revising their dates -- they always have to).

Do I support the Nation of Israel?

By every standard of International Law, YES, absolutely.

Do I support the Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist "vision" of the Nation of Israel?

Not no, but HELL NO. The Dispensationalist "vision" is just downright Bad Theology. If Romans 11 means anything, God has a much better Plan in mind for the Jews than anything the Pre-Mill Dispensationalists have ever imagined (despite the fact that "imagination" is all that Dispensationalism has to go on).

So I repeat: What exactly are you asking??

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You are most gracious.

No, I'm not.

I honestly try to be (well, on occasion, anyway), but all the same I am nonetheless a self-educated young white-trash Metalhead Punk who occasionally allows my Emotions more free reign than I (as a good, Dour Calvinist) should really allow.

In fairness, my personal remembrance of Dr. Walvoord is entirely positive. I only met him once, more than ten years ago, as a young Calvinist (indeed, I was probably more of an Amyrauldian at the time). He was invited to preach Morning and Evening services at the Oklahoma Church wherein I was Baptized (an Amyrauldian, Dispensationalist, "Independent Baptistic" Non-Denominational Church founded by Continental AnaBaptists).

I still Love that Church... but why they never simply covenanted themselves with the London Baptistic Confession according to the Amyrauldian interpretation, I'll never know -- these days, I see little particular Virtue in Non-Denominationalism; they might as well simply declare themselves to be Amyrauldian Baptists, and have done with it!! IMHO...

He appears in my memory as a very earnest, good-hearted, sincere and scholarly Man of Learning. (I hasten to add, his "Learning" was positively atrocious -- I have learned, genuinely learned, more about Revelation in one hour reading Gentry than I learned in six teen-age months reading Walvoord). But he was earnest, good-hearted, sincere.

At the same time, I also remember that -- as a Young Calvinist -- when I asked him to explain the correspondences between Calvinism and Dispensationalism, Walvoord simply advised me to steer clear of Calvinism, as it was "heresy".

EXCUUUUUUSE ME?!?! Were it John MacArthur, rather than Walvoord, I think he would have been pleased to find himself a new Calvinistic Dispensationalist Baptist, and at least given me a Lollipop and patted me on the head, and sent me running along.

But Walvoord? Walvoord had no interest in the Doctrines of Grace whatsoever -- save to demean them, hardly an appropriate stance for a University President whose University was (allegedly) committed to Four-Point Amyrauldian Calvinism, if not (specifically) the Five-Point Variety.

No, Dr. Walvoord did his best to deter me from the "heresy" of Calvinism -- which immediately set off Alarm Bells in my head. I knew even then that he was Simply Wrong.

And now, over a decade later... having wasted years, entire years, upon the Debaucheries of Twenty-something abandon -- Obeying my Ego, worshipping Mammon, and spending literally months at a time in the intimate company of Stolichnaya inebriation -- I am convinced that Dr. Walvoord is Still Wrong.

Heck, Calvinism is the only Doctrine of the Church which has kept me theologically sane. Absolutely Irrefutable and Undeniable, it is (by the power of the Holy Spirit) the only thing which is always bringing me back to the Church (call it the "Fifth Point of Calvinism, in action").

Walvoord tried to steer me away. In Biblical terms, Walvoord essentially advised me not to Build my House upon that Rock, he had a nice Sand-Plot to sell me.

And that is how I will always remember Dr. Walvoord: Nice, well-meaning, sincere, and basically a Spiritual Idiot.

A very nice and decent and honest and friendly and helpful and humane and generous Man. Also, an Idiot.

Like I said, I try to be Gracious, but I'm really not. However, in this case, I'm just relating my own personal experiences with the Gentleman (which, in fairness, he always was).

[drstevej]

Interesting account. In labeling Calvinism a heresy in his remark to you, I believe he was specifically focusing on Limited Atonement, not the other four points. Here's why I say so and I could be wrong (have been before).

When I was at DTS [around 1979] a few of the faculty had embraced limited atonement, most notably S. Lewis Johnson who was chairman of the NT Greek department. SLJ's influence at DTS was immense at that time.

Dallas' doctrinal statement makes no call on the extent of the atonement so SLJ was not out of bounds of the school's doctrine in advocating limited atonement even though the Chafer, the founder and president preceeding Walvood, had been clearly Amyraldian.

With more students and faculty adopting the position (SLJ was also a teaching pastor at Believer's Chapel at the time. This church embraced limited atonement and was drawing growing numbers), Walvoord in seminary chapel blasted limited atonement and those who held the doctrine. The implication, though not explicitly stated, was that the doctrine had no place at the seminary.

My reaction to Walvord's words (I was in the audience) was frustration. I considered the remark (and still do) totally inappropriate. I felt that if that kind of denunciation was to be made by the President in that forum then Walvoord should have sought to change the doctrinal statement first.

So when Walvoord said to you

***Walvoord simply advised me to steer clear of Calvinism, as it was "heresy".***

I think he was referencing limited atonement and not the other four points.

[fishtank]

Just trying to see where you are coming from.

[fishtank]

I'm reading a very interesting book by Joseph (Jody) Dillow called "The Reign of the Servant Kings".

It has some good chapters on Calvinism.

[wordsofearnest]

St. Patrick's Day bump.