Anyway, i do not intend to go thru all 150 now, but as usual, examination the 27 that i did exposes the specious nature of his assertions. And which is followed by 22 reasons why you should not be a RC. Sorry for the length, but you started it. .
False Reasons for being a Catholic.
Doubtful, as the fact is that Armstrong's assurance that Rome is the One True Church® cannot on the basis that the Biblical data is the supreme standard for determining Truth, as for him the church of Rome is. In contrast, the evangelical basis for Truth is that which the church began upon, Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Under which, to the degree that we have men like the NT apostles — which all fall short of, especially Rome, we have Scriptural doctrinal and organizational unity. But which is not based on implicit assent to a church presuming assured veracity. And as judged upon Scripture, the Roman Catholic Church critically fails conform to all of the biblical data for what the NT church is, and instead provides a coherent view of the history of deformation of Christianity (based on false apostolic Tradition), which in essence became cultic (with herself as the supreme infallible authority). And which provides a most profound and sublime example of aberrational Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy, in addition to still affirming basic gospel truths by which some could be saved.
Again, if this were the basis for his assurance he would be an evangelical. Rather, I am a not a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, as a former Roman Catholic, raised by devout parents, and as a weekly Mass goer, and who served as a CCD teacher and lector during the 6 years that i stayed after becoming truly born again and realizing the profound changes that this effects (including a greater awareness of sins), that Catholicism is not true in critical areas. But is a visible example of a Church contrary to that which is divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, and which has become as the gates of hell (Mt 16:18) for most of her multitudes. Nor can she prevail against churches which are part of the body of Christ which reprove her, and does not possess the supreme authority to which she presumes to be, and requires every Christian to submit to.
Yet if so, then as a result of Armstrong becoming a Catholic purportedly by examining the evidence, he now is in Romanism which discourages her subjects from objectively examining evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of Roman Catholic doctrine. “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” “Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” “The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;” “Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ; http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm)] “The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. - John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals. (More: — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm ) More. For Armstrong was relying on his fallible reasoning, by which he cannot have assurance as an Roman Catholic, to fallibly decide to render implicit submission to an institution that has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Now that's assurance. Now that's cultic. In reality, Catholicism is seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., assured infallibility, infant regeneration by sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, justification via interior holiness, salvation by grace through merit,, a separate class of called called priests, gaining spiritual life by eating human flesh, praying to the departed, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, the demigodess Mary of Rome, including her being a perpetually sinless virgin, Queen of Heaven, etc.) — if it even claims such traditions are based upon Scriptural warrant, which they are not.
Deception, as you have EOs, the sedevacantists, and sects as the SSPX, as well as the multitudes of Catholics interpreting Rome differently, including on what cannot be interpreted differently, not to mention Scripture. "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135. The unity that Jn. 17:20-23 refers to is most essentially that which is of the body of Christ through regeneration” Christ in them and they in Christ, which few RCs know of and thus have no fellowship of the Spirit which evangelicals realize across denominational lines, centered on a common conversion to Christ and Scripture based relationship with Him, Instead, Roman Catholics incessantly promote their church, as that is where their treasure and and security is. And Rome makes a mockery of Rom 16:17, as having lost her unholy secular sword, she abounds with doctrinal deviants to her own doctrine, while her own basis for determining truth leaves her cultic.. As for 1 Cor 1:10-13, the ONLY way Catholics are “”perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” is on paper in a very limited amount of things, which themselves can be subject to some interpretation.
Incredible insolence. Rather, “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.” (Romans 2:24) The legacy of Rome is that of becoming like the government it was founded under, and ended up using its means. History testifies to such things as her Caesariopapacy, assured (additional) infallibility, papal sanctioned institutional torture and murder of theological dissidents, hindrance of personal Bible reading, cultic devotion or perfunctory professions, and spiritual deadness and overall liberalism after she lost the power of the sword of men, by which she owes much of her predominance. Thus most of the multitudes who leave Rome for evangelical churches did so due to her spiritual deadness. Rather than making Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world, her deadness, arrogance and and aberrations makes a supreme mockery of the Christian faith. Not that i come short of what i should be, and evangelical churches do also, but we do not claim to be the One True Church or little popes.
The man is reading too much of Roman PR. Instead, what Rome overall fosters is liberalism and secular socialization. And as what we really believe is known by what we do and convey, this is what Rome believes, as she treats even notorious impenitent proabortion, prosodomy public sinners as members in life and in death. Like Teddy K.
This is becoming like talking to a used car salesmen. The idea that Catholicism has no schism in the body; but that the members have the same care one for another is absurd. Catholics actually disagrees with their church more than most, and are far less unified in core truths than evangelicals. And the typical mass shows little real community outside of prescribed observance the ritual.
Another lie. Read the notes in the Roman Catholic NAB for decades. And of Muslims adoring the same God as Christians. Etc. And dogmatic certainty means, among other examples, damning all who are not in the bosom of the church in many previous centuries, then redefining that to mean such are separated brethren in another. Meanwhile the centrality of the papacy is itself an unScriptural error.
More imagination or deceptive advertising, as in reality it is in Roman Catholicism that lack of discipline is supremely evident. Known pro-homosexual, pro-liberal Catholics, as well as the divorced etc. can go from one parish to another parish, but rarely need to. And ones who needed to go to another parish included pedophile priests whom Rome shuffled around for decades, until exposed by external agencies. Yet this apologists boasts about her discipline. Meanwhile Catholicism ignores evangelical ecclesiological unity based upon shared personal regeneration to the Lord Jesus, which transcends external divisions, and instead Rome substitutes institutionalized religion and overall mere religious unity in spiritual deadness.
Besides repeating himself, what he should have said was “in theory.” See #8. In addition, Armstrong and repeatedly engages in a false comparison, that of comparing one church (since Rome is in schism with the EOs) with multitudes of churches, many which are no more Protestant in the classical sense than Santería is Catholic, while also including many who operate under the sola ecclesia model like as Rome does. In contrast, those who are most committed to Scripture being the supreme authority as the infallibly basically literal assured Word of God have far more unity than Catholics overall in core truths. The modern fundamental evangelical movement arose due to a shared contention for core truths in opposition cults and liberal revisionism, which much of Roman scholarship is infected with.
More insolence. What he means is that Catholicism has not rejected the state church as long as she dominates it. Any rejection of the state church is quite recent, and is a result of Rome losing her unholy secular power of the sword of men. And considering how she has redefined herself in the past, she could sanction such use by her in the future. In contrast, fundamental evangelical type churches depend upon conversion for their membership, not paedobaptism or the marriage of state and church.
Absolutely incredible. He must think his readers know nothing about history. It was Rome which majored in nationalistic theocracies, while being unable to be so herself, recently you have papal promotion of a one world government (“there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago...vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice” — CARITAS IN VERITATE) And Catholics are less likely to favor such groups as the Tea party than evangelicals.
Oh yes, we all long for the good old days of the positions. What he doesn't say is this required marriage of church and state church. And cults have the most degree of unity, as the dissent therein is alsostrongly suppressed. Neither of which is New Testament Christianity. Meanwhile, the religious wars were much a result of the holdover of theocracies which Rome fostered, and also were due to her elitism and recalcitrance in the face of reproof. But division is often necessary because of truth, and such is far greater than unity at the expense of it. But as he seems to fondly look back to the days of the inquisitions, Armstrong's solution would be for Rome to reign as a universal monarchy, in which all dissent would be suppressed.
More spin. Meaning that, Rome's understanding of mystery and the supernatural means that she opposes the most committed evangelical Christians who hold Scripture as the supreme infallible authority, and longs for the day when she could have the power to limit their influence under a unified Catholic Christendom with the state enforcing her ecclesiastical decrees.
More insolence. Ask a liberal if he thinks evangelicals have left the “public square barren of Christian influence.” Instead, the fruit of Rome is primarily responsible for the decreased esteem of the opinion of the church, and Catholics are among the least committed to conservative values, versus evangelical, which liberals count as the greatest threat to their preeminence, which for RCs is the primary issue.
More insolence. For once again, it is Catholics who are overall more liberal and less less committed politically to conservative values then there evangelical counterparts.
More fallacy. A “vision” of the church emphasizing holiness, or another emphasizing evangelism, or another emphasizing doctrinal purity and service, or another emphasizing the use of spiritual gifts, are not traditions of men, but emphasis upon aspects of the church, as a whole they work to complement each other. And as we see in the Scriptures, churches were not clones or unified by looking to supreme head in Rome. Meanwhile many examples could be given of popes contradicting each other,and of unScriptural teachings. The fact that people stay in Rome despite her aberrations is not a positive sign but a negative one. There certainly is division within Protestantism, but due to the diversity usually ascribed to it, a valid comparison between churches is on the basis for determining truth, with Scripture being supreme as the infallible inspired and basically literal word of God, or that of the church being the supreme authority on truth. And under both models you have varying degrees of unity and of division. Therefore, we must examine a which basis the church itself began. Which is not under the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, but upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Therefore the church was founded in dissent from those who were the stewards of Scripture, and instead followed an itinerant preacher who reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established claims upon the scriptural means stated. The stronger the scriptural substantiation, the greater unity one warrants.
Moore insolence. If anyone has been historically guilty of making their leaders into infallible demigods it has been Rome. The closest I see within Protestantism is amongst certain so-called “faith teachers” with their version of papal palaces. But as yet I have yet to see any of them having their feet kissed as a matter of protocol, and with royal crowns, Sum Young Moon being the only one I can think of, but that is hardly Protestant. And none of them, except those in cults, claims assured veracity whenever they speak of faith and morals to the whole church. But n Rome an individual is declared to be assuredly infallible, and infallibly declares itself to be so, and fosters I high level of faith dependence on herself. Thus Catholics become extremely reactionary when their source of security is impugned in the least. And the reason pastors are very important in evangelical congregations is because gifted preachers are expounding the word of God in lengthy sermons, rather than watching a ritual every week in which they give prescribed responses, and try to listen to a (typically boring) 10 min. sermonette. Yet, rather than being lost without their church, evangelicals overall rather easily adapt to new congregations, in which they find the unity that transcends divisions.
Increasingly it is evident that Armstrong entertains a mystical vision of his own church, while opposing an objective view of those without. Even if he is looking to some official documentation of his church as determining what it really believes and teaches, as sedevacantists while argue, these can be somewhat radically interpreted. And yet Scripturally, (Ja. 2:18) what one does is what it really believes, and what Rome really actually teaches and fosters is much accommodation to the spirit of the age. Including in Bible scholarship.
More mythology. Scripturally, you cannot find any example of an apostolic successor after that for Judas, who was selected by a method Rome never used (which could eliminate the politics usually involved), and which was to maintain original number of the twelve, thus, only one was elected, which Rome also deviates from. And her idea of unbroken succession is an embarrassment, nor is historical dissent the basis for authenticity. For God can raise up from stones (Mt. 3:9) men who had the faith of Peter, to continue to build his church, the body of Christ, which is manifest by faith working by love.
Actually, they should know Christian history, which exposes the deformation the Christian church realize as it became more Romanized. It is thus understandable that knowing the history of Rome would lead to anti-Catholicism, as it testifies to her "reinventing the wheel," or in this case the NT church.
More sophistry and lying. The church itself was anti-Pharisee from its inception, and yet it was from the Jews, from which the bulk of our Scriptures came, that they inherited the bulk of their theology. Therefore, according to Catholic logic, the church was invalid since it began in dissent from the people who actually sat in the seat of Moses, having historical descent. However Protestantism is not based upon the premise that the church ceased to exist before the Reformation, but although deformed, basic Gospel truths were held to, sufficient for souls to be saved by looking through the institutionalized trappings and errors coexisting with it and Catholicism, especially its elitist Roman variety. As for the Catholic Church not being anti-Protestant, that is absurd, for despite whatever deceptive sophistry justifies a statement, the fact is that one cannot be for Rome being the one true church, and not be anti-Protestant, nor can one uphold (among other things) Scriptures as being the supreme authority on truth and not be anti-Catholic.
And yet Rome disagrees with Eastern Orthodox in substantial matters, while Ecumenical Councils were not assuredly infallible even if Rome infallibly declares that she is when speaking according to her infallibly declared formula. Reformers also upheld and contend for much of what Ecumenical Councils held as truth, just as the church upheld things the Pharisees held as truth, yet which did not make them infallible while Scripture is the supreme judge of both.
Here, the apologists is writing like a novice, unless he really believes such a spin, for there were not two offices of bishop (episkopos=overseer) and elder (presbuteros), they both refer to the same pastoral office. (Titus 1:5-7) And New Testament pastors are never titled “priests” by the Holy Spirit which in Greek is a distinctive word only used for Jewish or pagan priests. But which Catholics entomologically extrapolate from “presbuteros,” by imposed functional equivalence, based upon the erroneous premise that they engaged in a unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into body of Christ. Yet all believers constitute the only priesthood in the New Testament church, (1Pt. 2:5,9) and all engage in sacrifice, (Rm. 12:1) and in no place is a New Testament pastor shown presiding over the Lord's supper and dispensing bread, let alone being described as changing it into the so-called “real presence” (a word apparently having its beginnings with Anglicans).
And even without a universal centralized magisterium, which actually should be a goal if we can find people like the apostles, those who are the most committed to Scripture as the supreme authority testify of far greater unity than Catholics overall. Thus we must ask, which is most effective? Sola ecclesia is easiest way to attain unity, but only in so far as it enforces doctrinal conformity, which for Rome is too much rely upon the ultimate threat of physical coercion as often seen in the inquisitions. However, neither sola ecclesia nor the use of the sort of man to deal with doctrinal nonconformity is scriptural. Unity in the New Testament church was based upon scriptural substantiation, establishing the authority of the apostles, the degree of which we do not see today, especially in Rome. Yet, while strong expository preaching of the Scriptures as the authoritative assured word of God, does more to foster scriptural unity on the practical level then sola ecclesia, which unity is of far greater quality than that which is based upon implicit assent to a presumed infallible magisterium. In addition, the the best an individual Protestant can do is not a head count, as denominations usually have a teaching office that upholds basic doctrinal truths, and provides a statement of faith, The reality is that it is far easier to find priests with very diverse views on core doctrines than among fundamental evangelical pastors, which Rome counts as her greatest ecclesiastical enemies.
Based upon this premise. The church itself must be ruled invalid. For it began approximately 30 A.D., and historically is a Johnny-come-lately, having begun by following a pious man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant preacher of great power and holiness, both of whom were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses, and who had historical descent, and were the stewards is Scripture and inheritors of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. But if indeed the church began upon the premise of scriptural substantiation, and of God can raise of stones children to Abraham, and thus men who had the faith of Peter in the divine son of God, then he can raise up men to continue to build the church when it's magisterium continues in his pride and errors. Thus God did so in the past (“prophets, and wise men, and scribes:' Mt. 23:34) and thus the church began and thus it continues.
Indeed it would be if it meant the church is only “invisible” but it does not. But what is Scriptural is that the only One True Church is the body of Christ, the “household of faith,” as only it consists of true believers, and is what the word “church” normally refers to, to which Christ is married. (Eph. 5:25ff) But this body is indeed manifest as organic congregations, having ordained pastors, and exercising discipline, etc. And which Rome is a critically deformed example of. Her boast is that of a universal centralized magisterium, but as she lacks the actual apostolic supernatural power and credentials of the apostles of Scripture — who did not even claim the perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome - she cannot exercise universal power overall Christendom. Thus despite her “infallible” pretensions, she is one of many magisteriums, and cultic in her claims. |
I have yet to meet a modern Catholic or many other Christians of any division that takes this warning literally. IF Christ had already foretold all things, before the so called new testament got placed upon plant fibers or animal skins and even Peter taught, then few will escape that first tribulation of deception.
The majority of Christians completely ignore the key of David, but, again God did say He would send a famine of hearing the words of the LORD GOD.
Some in more recent days twisted Paul's instruction on where those that have already passed through this flesh age journey are, into meaning a security blanket of gonna be gone before the bad stuff happens. I cannot get the rapturites to correlate the idea that Christ is coming here, to God's green earth to set up His Kingdom. The only Christians of whatever divisions/sects to escape the tribulation of deception are those Christ and Paul describe were elected ‘before the foundation of this world’ (age), that are still walking in the flesh body when the sugar daddy gets dumped out of heaven playing Jesus. Nobody in a flesh body can claim they will still be here in the flesh when that specific event takes place.
Rome's doctrine has it own security blanket named Mary. It was not Mary weeping for her children, it was Rachel, Matthew 2:18. But according to Catholic doctrine Rachel is not important enough to even be acknowledged, let alone studied to understand why she would have so been particularly mentioned in the so called New Testament. Just plain strange.
There is but one Creator and His intent was that all His children be saved. Salvation is a constant subject throughout the old testament, but, modern Christians too are so wrapped up in which church mantle is closer to Jesus. Was not that question even asked of Jesus?
Now to be absolutely clear nothing I wrote above is about my judgment of any soul to any future. Rather an admonition that it is a total waste of Christian time to be arguing over who sits closest to Jesus.
Great work. Working through the post. Wanted to opine on #13. I am sure the Byzantines who have to say something about the supposed peaceful unity prior to the 16th century.