If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

Sounds like you are riding the fence--

Truth mixed with error, is still error. Rat poison is 99% nutritious, 1% poison--it will still kill. It's true that there are saved Catholics--but 9 times out of 10, they come out of that false Church once they KNOW the truth.(2 Cor.6:14). Why did you not remain in the Catholic Church? Do you believe that those "saved" in the Catholic Church should be "set free" from bondage, as you were?

Castigating men like Jack Chick only proves that the "message" he brings is "offensive" to that person. People attack the "messenger" (ad hominem attacks) because they don't agree with the "message". If you don't believe that Jack Chick is "Christ like", why don't you pray for him instead of the "ad hominem" attacks? Do you realize that everyone (this includes you) will be judged for their words?

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:37)

 

Linda,

Ad hominem attacks refer to more personal attacks on an individual and his/her character.

I stated that when I read Chick's material (as I have) I see bad things. I also stated that I think many catholics are closer to the truth than Chick. Both are objective observations, neither is an ad hominem attack.

As a former catholic I not only know catholic doctrine (which actually many catholics do not) but I also know many ordinary catholic people and many catholic clergy.

Since I now attend a bible-believing conservative baptist church I have no allegiance to the RCC as a body. But I can objectively appraise the good and bad points about the RCC.

And yes I am distressed by those who continue to spew hate at catholics. If Jesus were to return today He would no doubt have some reproof for ALL of our churches, some more than others. But based on Jesus' actions and words I think He would have strong condemnation for those who spew hate and judgment. I think (my opinion - I could be wrong - but I doubt it) that Jesus would have more criticism for Chick than for the average catholic.

This is not because I think the catholic church is right - but because the rabid anti-catholics are so unChristlike in their attitudes, actions, and witness. I think this is to whom Jesus was referring whem He said some will say, "Lord Lord".

 

Jack Chick deserves to be righteously castigated because he's a false teacher. His false teachings are by no means clandestine, they're quite visible. Anyone who does not see this is obviously blind.

It's funny that you say "Truth mixed with error, is still error.", but appear to have no problem with Chick's abundant error mixed with some truth.

Please tell me I'm wrong, and that you're not defending Chick.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

Where in the Bible does God tell His people to "murder" heretics? Scripture says to "reject" heretics (Titus 3:10), not murder them!!

What about the Waldensians ? The Waldensians are a Christian denomination believing in poverty and austerity, founded around 1173, promoting true poverty, public preaching and the literal interpretation of the scriptures. Declared heretical, the movement was brutally persecuted by the Roman Catholic church during the 12th and 13th centuries and nearly totally destroyed, but the Waldensian Church survives to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians

 

As with most teachers, there is truth and there is false doctrine. False doctrine being taught be someone does not automatically cast them as "false teachers". I do not agree with some theology of Piper, Macarthur and Graham. This does not mean they are false teachers. While I agree Jack Chick is "out there" on a lot of things, I would not agree he is a false teacher as he does teach salvation in Christ alone.

 

Well, so do Hinn and Tilton, but I think they qualify as false teachers for an abundance of other teachings.

 

Originally posted by Johnv:

I'm not defending anybody--all I am saying is that we need to watch the "ad hominem" attacks on people--whether we agree with them or not. I don't see anybody "correcting" Jack Chick--all I see is a personal attacks on him. I don't agree with everything Jack Chick writes--but we need to be more "Christ like" in the way we approach the "messenger".

 

They do? I would never have known it just by listening to them. I guess to the listener, anyone can be classified as "false teacher" if they do not agree with the main message.

 

Okay, I agree with you there. In regards to Chick, it does not bring me any glee or joy in having to say such about Chick. In fact, I do so with a heavy heart.

There are probably as many past threads about Chick as there are about wine. I think that topic is reasonably talked out. But if someone wants to start yet another Jack Chick thread, they're welcome to. It won't be me, however.

Point taken. Remember, you yourself said that truth mixed with lies is still a lie. That makes Chick a bona fide liar, and I don't say that lightly or with any frivolity.

No, it's not on the basis of whether one is in agreement. I don't agree with my pastor sometimes, but still respect him. I disagree with D James Kennedy a lot, but still respect him. I disagree with Falwell a lot. Okay, bad example. I don't particularly respect him, but he's not a false teacher.

Tilton and Hinn are Word of Faith movement teachers that make God out as some kind of ATM machine: Just punch a button, and out comes cash or healing. I think that qualifies as of false teaching in abundance.

 

Linda
"Where in the Bible does God tell His people to "murder" heretics?"
"
The Book Joshua comes to mind.
What?
Those aren't heretics?
I agree with you, but medieval theologians like Bernardus de Clairvaux didn't exactly see any reason to seperate heretics out from other enemies of Christendom.

 

Heresy in Roman Catholicism

Heresy is defined by Thomas Aquinas as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." The Roman Catholic Church teaches that its doctrines are the authoritative understandings of the faith taught by Christ and that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from falling into error when teaching these doctrines. To deny one or more of those doctrines, therefore, is to deny the faith of Christ. Heresy is both the nonorthodox belief itself, and the act of holding to that belief.

While the term is often used by laymen to indicate any nonorthodox belief such as Paganism, by definition heresy can only be committed by someone who considers himself a Christian, but rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church. A person who completely renounces Christianity is not considered a heretic, but an apostate, and a person who renounces the authority of the Church but not its teachings is a schismatic.

The Church makes several distinctions as to the seriousness of an individual heterodoxy and its closeness to true heresy. Only a belief that directly contravenes an Article of Faith, or that has been explicitly rejected by the Church, is labelled as actual "heresy."

the rest of the article: Heresy in Roman Catholicism

 

Uhhh, you were dissappointed with a funeral because the salvation message wasn't shared? Sorry, but a funeral is supposed to be for the living to remember the person. Look, I concur that the Gospel message needs to be presented, but I don't think that this example is an appropriate example to critique the RCC. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree with you. A funeral is the perfect time to give hope to the grieving lost people in attendance by proclaiming the gospel. Do we grieve at the death of a fellow Christian? Yes, because we know that we will miss seeing them, expeiencing the joy of their company, their shared wisdom, etc. (for a time). However, we (born again Christians) can rejoice, even at a funeral, because of the hope (the sure promise of resurrection) that we have in Christ. This hope only comes through the saving message of the gospel.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

Where in the Bible does God tell His people to "murder" heretics? Scripture says to "reject" heretics (Titus 3:10), not murder them!!

What about the Waldensians ? The Waldensians are a Christian denomination believing in poverty and austerity, founded around 1173, promoting true poverty, public preaching and the literal interpretation of the scriptures. Declared heretical, the movement was brutally persecuted by the Roman Catholic church during the 12th and 13th centuries and nearly totally destroyed, but the Waldensian Church survives to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians </font>[/QUOTE]Linda, the Waldensians I have no problem with as proto-evangelicals. But the Albigenses/Cathars are a different matter: they were Manicheistic gnostic dualists and were heretics; that of course doesn't justify their extermination by the likes of de Montfort under the aegis of the Catholic Church but it does make Eliyahu's comment that they were 'true Christians' risible.

 

Linda64
Reread my previous post carefully.
I'm pointing out what kind of texts in the Old Testament were used as justification for killing heretics. That the citizens of Jericho weren't exactly heretics was conveniantly ignored.

 

Nothing has really changed:

Judges 12
5 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
6 Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

HankD

 

What if the real "heretics" are the ones called "orthodox" in the "history" books?

Another point to ponder: What if the "holy? see" did not exist before the 4th century A.D.?

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. History is usually written by the victorious, not necessarily the righteous.

 

And your evidence for this assertion is...?

 

Orthodoxy is written by the powers that be who call themselves orthodox--this is the same group which recorded and censored much of the history which we have available today.

While the pseudo-orthodox may agree with the commandments of men, the Word of God shows it up for what it is: false.

Sola Scriptura,

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

In that case, perhaps even the MORMONS are right after all.

 

"What if the "holy? see" did not exist before the 4th century A.D.?"
"
Well actually it did. It came into existance after the end of the 1st century, but before the 4th.