Christian Denominations

•

"Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit" by Gary Wills.

This author is a (liberal) Roman Catholic and many★★★★★★ Roman Catholics will disagree with him and detest the book.

Many of the points that he makes (and conclusions he comes to) I disagree with. The main use that I would have for this book would be as a source for outside information (footnotes and citation lists, encyclicals, books and history).

AsI said, the author comes to conclusions that I would not come to, even after reading his book and finding the history accurate. Even in disagreement, I found the history fascinating.
I have a few books in my library that are very good resources - not for theology, but for the history. This may become one of them.

The first section of the book deals with the holocaust. The history is good, but it is history. Even if Rome had been more outspoken about what was happening, who can know how much of a difference it would have made? There is an interesting story of Ste. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, canonized in 1998. Born Edith Stein, this Roman Catholic saint was a Jew who converted to Roman Catholicism and became a nun. She was killed (along with her sister Rosa and many other ethic Jews) at Auschwitz on August 9, 1942. Whether or not she died because the Nazis were killing Jews, or whether she died because she was preaching the Gospel is debatable. But she is now a Roman Catholic saint.

As a result of Wills' book, I've read about Stein and - wow. I'd urge you all to google and read, this was an incredible woman.

The second section is called "DOCTRINAL DISHONESTIES" - here is the list of chapter titles:

  • The Tragedy of Paul VI: Prelude
  • The Tragedy of Paul VI: Encyclical
  • Excluded Women
  • The Pope's Eunuchs
  • Priestly caste
  • Shrinking the Body of Christ
  • Hydraulics of Grace
  • Conspiracy of Silence
  • A Gay Priesthood
  • Marian Politics
  • The Gift of Life

Topics include contraception, the history of unmarried clergy, the various sexual scandals. On "excluded women", I believe that male clergy and leadership is right and Biblical, I do think that the way Wills describes Rome's way of getting there is convoluted and based on the magesterium, not the Bible.
The last third of the book looks at honesty and truth. A lot of time is spent on Augustine; I like the history.

MY CONCLUSION:

  1. If you trust in the infallibility of Rome, you will not like this book.
  2. If you are interested in the history of theology, you may like this book
  3. If you want the side of the Roman Catholic coin, from a man who does believe that Rome holds the truth but has erred in some places, this will be an informative book.

The next time I go through it, it will be with a highlighter and sticky tabs.

• 6 Comments

•

I got a letter from my old church; a reply to my letter (read my letter here).

(There's a question at the bottom that I would dearly love to have somebody on the outside give some thoughts on...)

Up to this point, the differences have been largely about the decisions made by the pastors and elders, concerning who the allowed into their pulpit (guest speakers) and who the built ongoing relationships with. I have not had doctrinal disagreements with what I heard my pastors and board teaching, either from the pulpit or in a small group.

This week, that changed.

"Before", it was actions that concerned me - having a "relationship" with a church that didn't believe the same things was not the same as teaching those things.

"Before", a relationship with a church in New Orleans could be spun as rebuilding a "community center".

"Before", I questioned the discernment level that would allow Family Firehouse Ministries' apostle and prophet to speak from the pulpit at Sunshine...

"Before", as long as Sunshine wasn't teaching those things, it was a matter of behavior (what they did) and not a matter of doctrine (what they teach).

This week, that changed; I received a reply from my church board of elders.

...continue reading →

• 2 Comments

•

I'm posting a comment from Moonshadow and following up in a post - the only reason is that she asked good questions for a follow up and it's going to be long and have links - I's way rather do the links in a post than in a comment, since Blogger does it for you in a post...

anyway...Moonshadow said...

...continue reading →

• 6 Comments

•

I just posted on hope - and how knowing the future can interfere with it.

It's Wednesday now and I've had a little more "processing time" after seeing the "prophet" at my church. I've been waiting on a call from my pastor since Monday (sometimes it takes a while to get through his assistant, who was out of the office).

I've led a sheltered life. This is the first time that I've seen (in person) a "modern day prophet" in action.

I didn't trust her. Here's what happened. The "apostle's" wife (the prophet) came up on the stage at the end of the service and offered a prophecy to the pastors and their wives. She had talked about the time they had all spent together and the prophecy didn't seem like anything that she would not have gleaned just from being with these people for several hours over dinner. Then she "prophesied" over the church. Basically, follow your leaders. (I think there might be a reason for that.)

Then, after the congregation was released, she stayed on the stage and "prophesied" over individuals. Some things I'm pretty sure that she could not have known, others she might have asked a question or two and found out something.

But there was a crowd of people who wanted to know what was in their future. Is this what God wants for us - really?

Does He really want us chasing after the Christian equivalent of fortune tellers, or does He want us leaning on Him; trusting in His goodness?

God didn't send His prophets to tell His people that they (as individuals) were going to marry this man or that woman; that they were going to move to a different city, that they were going to change jobs or that their future was rosy.

No.

When God sent His prophets, they told the people exactly what they did not want to hear.

The woman I saw on Sunday told people only good things. And vague things. And things that will be forgotten in a short time.

We laugh at the "prophet" on the street corner. You know - the one that doesn't look the way we think a prophet should look. The one that probably looks the way John the Baptist looked after living in the desert and eating grasshoppers for a few months. The one that tells us that the end is near. Yeah. That one.

But the pretty one in the nice suit, we flock to. You know - the one that tells us that everything is going to be good. The one that tells us we're going to lose weight. Or that we're not going to be alone. Yeah. That one.

It brings doubts to my mind when we only embrace the "prophet" that tells us the pretty things.

thought?

• 6 Comments

•

I have days when I feel like I have no future. It’s not that it’s not there…it’s just that I can’t see it. And that’s a good thing. Not so long ago I thought that I knew what my future would be. It might not have been great, but it was at least consistent.

Now – not so. I don’t know what the future holds – it’s hidden from me. And that’s a good thing.

We had a “prophet” at our church on Sunday. It disturbed me. A lot.

I sat in the sanctuary for the time that she was speaking (after the service) and just watched. I’d really like to be able to look into the future and see how a couple of different things turn out – but I didn’t want to ask a “prophet”. There were other reasons, but my spirit just wouldn’t let me.

It dawned on me yesterday. It’s hope.

If you already know what is ahead of you on this earth – there is no reason to hope.

Romans 8:24 “For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?”

We run around like mice worrying about the future.

Matthew 6:27 “Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life ?”

Planning this way and that way.

Matthew 6:34 “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

Planning our own plans, going our own way, but we just don’t get it.

Proverbs 20:24 “A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?”

Who do you (I) trust?

Psalm 52:8 “But I am like an olive tree flourishing in the house of God; I trust in God's unfailing love for ever and ever.”

Do we really trust God?

Psalm 91:2 “I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust."

Are you (am I) in a hurry, or do we rest (wait) in the promised of God?

Psalm 130:5 “I wait for the LORD, my soul waits, and in his word I put my hope.”

How do you (I) get this hope? It is through the trials of life.

Romans 5:3-4 “And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint… “

Is it really worth it – all this “hope”?

Romans 5:5 “And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”

A long time ago, I had a friend whose brother died at age 29 of a heart attack. She went with her sister to consult a psychic. He told them what they wanted to hear and he sent them away with hope.

On Sunday, I went to church and saw people crowd around a “prophet”, who told them largely what they wanted to hear and she sent them away with hope.

But that is not where our hope should be. We don’t need to know the future – in fact, if we do know the future, we are less dependent on God’s promises!

People can (and will) disappoint us. The “prophets” of today can (and will) disappoint us. Ecclesiastes 8:7 “Since no man knows the future, who can tell him what is to come?”

But hope will never disappoint us.

Read that last verse again – “Hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us.”

Today, I do not have my future. God does. My hope lies in Him.

I don’t need a prophet to tell me that God holds my future in His hands. That’s what I’d really like to sink in (for me).

I don’t know what lies ahead for me – but my trust is in God.

Psalm 13:5 “But I trust in your unfailing love; my heart rejoices in your salvation.”

• 1 Comment

•

I got the original story here: Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics: Pope Making Friends With 75 Million Reformed Christians

First, I think it's important to note that the partnership with Rome involves social justice, not doctrine.

And that when Bishop of Rome talks about ecumenicalism, he means that he wants to bring all protestants back under the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

We are "separated brethren". Referring to the Roman Catholic faithful, Vatican II says, "Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic"

Also in Vatican II, "Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism..." (my take on this - ok...we're saved, but we're not that saved)

Vatican II says that "The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect." (Again, we're saved, but Christ's finished work on the cross isn't finished unless we're under the leadership of Rome)

Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI said, in his first messages as Bishop of Rome, "But what is most urgently needed is that "purification of memory", so often recalled by John Paul II, which alone can dispose souls to accept the full truth of Christ." (Who has the "full truth of Christ"? According to Rome, the Roman Church is the church that has the full truth)

My questions are: Whose memory needs to be purified? What do they need to forget in order to "accept [Rome's] full truth of Christ"?

• 13 Comments

•

Firehouse Family Ministries (Guest Speakers at my Church)

“Apostle” Sherman L. Shelton and “Prophet” Corrine Shelton of “Firehouse Family Ministries” in New Orleans, LA.

I have concerns. BIG concerns.

I’m not quite sure where I stand on “prophetic gifts” and one thing I’ve said pretty consistently is that whether “gifts” are active today or not – the Pentecostals are doing it wrong (according to the Bible). But that’s for another day.

Today, let’s talk about doctrine.

I’m “reformed”. Not “Truly Reformed”, but reformed, so I’m coming at this from the reformed direction. I won’t be quoting the Confessions or Catechisms as though they are the Bible, but as a summation of what we believe the Bible teaches.

(words from Firehouse Family Ministries will be in green)

Section 1. The Scriptures Inspired.The Bible is the inspired Word of God, a revelation from God to man, the infallible rule of faith and conduct, and is superior to c onscience and reason, but not contrary to reason. (II Timothy 3:15-17; I Peter 1:15-17; Heb 4:12)

The Westminster Confession says, “IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

The last of the Scripture they list here (Hebrews 4:21) says: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

This is important, because it says the Bible judges my thoughts and attitudes. I don’t know about anybody else, but my thoughts and attitudes (and thus, my reason) are contrary to Scripture on a regular basis. By saying that Scripture is not contrary to (man’s) reason, we are using our own humanity as a God’s judge. Not a good plan. As the Confession says, the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend on the testimony (or reason) of any man.

This is important, because antitrinitarians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to reason; their statement of faith says that the Bible cannot be contrary to reason, therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is false.


Section 2. The One True Godhead. The triune Godhead is comprised of three (3) separate and distinct personalities, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, who are eternally self-existent, self-revealed and function as one entity. Jesus Christ, who is God manifested in the flesh, is the second member of the Godhead, co-equal and co-eternal with The Father and The Holy Spirit.

It is not entirely clear here whether this church is anti-Trinitarian. I suspect that they are. Key phrase is “three (3) separate and distinct personalities”. A Website that Firehouse Ministries links to says that “We believe in one God, eternal and self existent, self-revealed and manifested to man as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” This denies the Trinity, in that they deny three persons – instead claiming “personalities”.

As the “United Pentecostal Church” website asks and answers, “Do these titles (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as used in Matthew 28:19 mean that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead? No, they refer to three offices, roles, or relationship to humanity."

The Westminster Confession states: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

I’ll let you decide where you think Firehouse Family Ministries fall.

Section 4. The Salvation of Man.

Man’s only hope of redemption is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. On the cross Jesus Christ became sin and sickness providing both salvation and divine healing for all mankind.

Key phrase: “sin and sickness” – providing both salvation and divine healing. This opens the door for “Word Faith”.

2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

There is no mention of Christ becoming "sickness".

Section 8. The Evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The full consummation of the Baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance,

At least some of the early Christians spoke in tongues. There is not Biblical evidence to say that all believers spoke in tongues or that it is the “initial physical sign”.

1 Corinthians 12: 29-31 asks, "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts."

The answer is clearly, "no." Not every Christian in the apostles' day spoke in tongues - thus it could not have bee the evidence of the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit".

Paul goes on to say, "And now I will show you the most excellent way." This way is love, not tonuges.

Section 10. Total Prosperity.

 

“Name it and claim it”. “Blab it and grab it”. “Health and wealth” Gospel.

Section 14. Five-Fold Ministry. We believe that in order for the Church to truly reach God’s expectations we must have the presence and influence of the Apostle, the Prophet, the Evangelist, the Pastor and the Teacher operating through us. (Eph 4:7-16)

This is the sole passage for the “five fold ministry”. Here is a great article on apologeticsindex.org.

There are 15 sections; these are the most problematic. Thoughts, anybody?