How can we blame the Pope for being devisive? We live in a divided world. There are those who accept the authority of God and His morality and those who don't. Within that frame of reference, it is no surprise that the election of a "traditional values" pope such as Benedict XVI should make the unbelieving cry out in opposition. CNS News has shared several articles about that: Homosexual Advocacy Group Criticizes New Pope; Feminist, Homosexual Groups Turn Thumbs Down on New Pope.
But the believing are also crying out - and for good reason. There is no biblical authority for a Pope in the first place. And evangelicals do well to recognize that. See BP News Article. I don't believe in the authority of the pope either. However, politically, he has more influence, perhaps, than any other man - even G. W.! His army is all who call themselves Catholics. That just about spans the globe.
I for one am glad he stands for the morality of the Bible. And I am not surprised that those Catholics opposing him are in opposition - for they also oppose the morality of the Bible. I'm not sure they even read the Bible (but the Catholics who support papacy, works salvation, Mary-olatry, etc. might be asked if they also read the Bible???).
I suppose I should close by saying that I'm glad that someone with as much influence on our world as the pope has today will stand for Biblical Morality. At the same time, I am also continuing in my grief over the deeper spiritual deception he wields over people world wide. But my God and Savior are Supreme - and He will save whom He will - Pope or no Pope!
May the Lord bless you, keep you, and cause His face to shine upon you today!
Brother Greg,
ReplyDeleteHi! It's Miguel your old (actually, still middle-aged) classmate from your LRS evangelism class. I hope this finds you rejoicing in the goodness, greatness and mercy of our Lord God. Thanks for starting this blog (whatever that means).
Getting to the point, I must respectfully disagree with you entirely on your position regarding the pope. Going back to one of your previous postings:
"As a Southern Baptist, I am not impacted in the same way as Catholics by the passing of the Pope, but as a Christian, I am nevertheless impacted. I'm not mourning the loss of MY spiritual leader, for He is Christ, and He will never die! Glory to God. I'm not mourning the passing of my denominational leader either.
However, as a Christian, I am mourning the loss of the single most influential believer worldwide. Pope John Paul II has stood for Biblical morality around the globe when no one else could get past the "politically correct" line of thinking. Pope John Paul II demonstrated a love for people (individuals as well as humanity in general) which should be the standard, not the goal, for everyone who calls himself a Christian.
I'll not debate the doctrinal differences I have with the Pope. Whatever differences I may have are now settled for Pope John Paul II forever. I will say that I trust him to be with the LORD, for he has certainly borne the fruit of the Spirit in his life. But I also must say that MY trust that he is with the Lord does not make it so. That still is God's judgment to make. Whether or not the Pope has been saved through faith in Christ Jesus will better be judged by God than me, for man (me) can only judge the outward appearances. God judges the heart!"
You say that you mourn the passing of a BELIEVER. You also say that you will not debate the doctrinal differences you have with the pope, as if these "differences" were inconsequential because you and he are both "believers". This necessarily begs the question, "Was the pope a believer?" and "What constitutes a believer?"
Let us go back to the Protestant Reformation for a moment. We must ask the question, "Why did Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al, 'protest' the Catholic church and is this 'protest' still valid?" It is important to note that ALL of the Reformers of any importance of that timeframe pronounced the sitting pope an THE antichrist. Why? Martin Luther was a doctor of the Catholic Church. He was steeped in Catholic doctrine...he knew backwards and forwards and could quote the writings of Catholic theologians, popes and Catholic councils without using notes. In a word, he was a brilliant scholar, theologian, priest and professor at a Catholic seminary. His problem was, that the works-righteousness which the Catholic church taught AND STILL TEACHES made Martin Luther tremble because he knew that just one sin which he had not made penance for would bring the wrath of God down upon him. Then the Catholic church made the mistake of having Dr. Luther teach the Bible. As Luther studied and taught, he discovered that he was justified before God by faith ALONE and not as the Catholic church taught AND STILL TEACHES that one is justified by faith AND WORKS. Thus began the return of Christianity to its biblical roots. The "solas" of the Reformation were re-established, embraced, and taught leading to a God-ordained return to biblical Christianity. Because the Reformers went to Scripture ALONE for their authority and their doctrine, everything that made the Reformers "new" Christianity distinctly different from Roman Catholicism was officially condemned by Rome...and still is condemned. The Council of Trent officially and systematically condemned all of those biblical doctrines you and I believe and condemned all of those who hold to those doctrines. The pronouncements of this Council were reaffirmed by the second Vatican Council of 1967. You and I know what the Gospel is (the LRS doctrinal statement is a good summary). We both understand that to take away anything from this Gospel or to ADD anything to this Gospel is NOT THE GOSPEL. The Catholic church ADDED to this Gospel and STILL ADDS to this Gospel…today… NOW! Thus, because the Catholic church ADDS to this Gospel, it can not be, by definition, a biblical, and therefore, a Christian church. The leader of this church can’t be assumed to be a Christian simply because he says he is or because he holds to the morality of the Bible. I know of agonists and atheists who hold to and practice the morality of the Bible better than some evangelical Christians do; this does not make them Christian, it makes them moralists. The pope does not lead a Christian church, he leads an aberration of the original Christian church. It was God who opened the eyes of Martin Luther and many, many others (before and after him) to see the truth of the biblical Gospel, alone, and to cause them to stand up to and protest the heretical teachings of the Catholic church and its most prominent advocate and its leader, the pope. This is why they called the pope the antichrist and I, presumptively say, with the Bible as my authority, he is not a Christian. One example: The Bible teaches that a person must believe in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in order to have eternal life. It also teaches that upon his death, this person’s soul goes to heaven to live in paradise with Jesus Christ. The Catholic church also teaches that a person must believe in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in order to have eternal life…AND produce good works, that is, meritorious works in order to maintain their salvation. A believer, according to Catholic theology, is justified by faith AND good works (see Romans 1.17). Because we are not Jesus, we can’t be perfect and thus, according to the Catholic church, we don’t go to heaven when we die; we go to an unbiblical purgatory to “work off” our unpaid for sin. We could be in purgatory for thousands or millions of years “paying” for our unforgiven sins. I submit to you, my dear brother, that this is NOT the Gospel. This (and much more Catholic theology) is an aberration of the Truth and is therefore NOT the Truth. As a champion of a LIE, then the pope should be considered, presumptively, not Christian and anyone who relies on a Catholic works based righteousness in order to enter heaven is not saved and therefore, not a Christian…regardless of their morals. Because of this, we must evangelize Catholics, assuming they are not Christian (I did this just last week) because they are relying on a works-based righteousness and instruct them that they should leave the aberrant Catholic church.
I will say nothing of frank idol worship (they call it “veneration”), the re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ at the mass (the once and for all sacrifice on our behalf), Mary being born without sin (Immaculate Conception…often confused with the Virgin Birth), Mary as the co-redemptrix (i.e. Father, Son, H.S. and the absolute necessity of Mary for our redemption), praying to saints, papal infallibility, the pope allowing himself to be called “Holy Father” a title used only once in all of Scripture…Jesus addressing His Father in heaven, penance, condign merit, the recent veneration of the heart of Mother Theresa, etc. Brother, this is NOT Christianity!
I have the original Martin Luther film (1954 version – black and white) and I would be happy to share it with you (DVD or VHS). Let me know.
In Christ,
Miguel