Has anyone read this book?

[aReformedPatriot]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0851515711/qid=1096817444/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7450449-2010442?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[MatthewPoole]

No, I haven't, but there are others like it...:

and here for history of the true Church:

baptistbibleman.home.comcast.net/bh.html (http://baptistbibleman.home.comcast.net/bh.html)

and before any says... "oh that's men's opinion..." Matthew Poole and C.I Scofield BOTH had these things to say about the Roman Catholics...:

it is incredible that in a prophecy covering the church period, there should be no such foreview. These messages must contain that foreview if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after (Rev_3:22). Again, these messages by their very terms go beyond the local assemblies mentioned. Most conclusively of all, these messages do present an exact foreview of the spiritual history of the church, and in this precise order.
Ephesus gives the general state at the date of the writing; Smyrna, the period of the great persecutions; Pergamos, the church settled down in the world, "where Satan's throne is," after the conversion of Constantine, say A.D. 316. Thyatira is the Papacy, developed out of the Pergamos state: Balaamism (worldliness) and Nicolaitanism (priestly assumption) having conquered. As Jezebel brought idolatry into Israel, so Romanism weds Christian doctrine to pagan ceremonies. Sardis is the Protestant Reformation, whose works were not "fulfilled." Philadelphia is whatever bears clear testimony to the Word and the Name in the time of self-satisfied profession represented by Laodicea. -- C.I. Scofield on Revelations 1:20

Rev 2:6 - Nicolaitanes

From Greek, "nikao", "to conquer," and Greek, "laos", "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic, it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood (Mat_23:8) into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" (Rev_2:6) had become in Pergamos a "doctrine (Rev_2:15). - C.I Scofield on Reverlation 2:6

Rom 10:10 -

with the mouth confession is made unto salvation: our adversaries the papists make great use of this text, to prove that good works, as confession, &c., are the cause of salvation; whereas confession is required here, not as the cause, but as the means thereof. The apostle makes faith here to be the cause, as well of salvation, as justification; because confession of the mouth, to which salvation is here ascribed, is itself an effect or fruit of faith; and so, according to that known rule in logic, the cause of the cause, is the cause of that which is caused thereby. -- Matthew Poole on Romans 10:10

So, you see... it's not just modern men's opinions, it's the truth passed down through the years.

MP

:preach:

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, TLE

I have not read that particular book, I have read some of the other book that this one is paired with and have found it to be well done.

Peace to u,

Bill

[MrJim]

No I've not seen it.

I'm working on another called A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong. Stuff in there I'm not convinced of but still a good informative read. Lots to learn from our Catholic friends-respect them though I disagree with some of their teachings...but hey, I disagree with all my calvinist friends on some of their teachings just as strongly-but still love you all :hug: .

Ya know, as protestants we all have some degree of "self-interpretation" and then we believe it is the final truth and will defend it to the death--but it's still sort of our own interp so it is sort of our own thing-you know, we pick and choose what we like and explain away the parts we don't like and build ourselves a doctrine. We want people to respect our choices-how 'bout extending a bit of grace to those you may not completely agree with? I ain't talkin' about JWs or Mormons or arian heretics (ya ever hear of "christadelphians"?). But if they hold to the Nicene Creed (filioque or not, sorry Orthodox brethren) then maybe they are part of the family and we should seek to understand them a bit better instead of just huntin' up another way to rip them apart.

I stayed up till 1:00 am Christmas eve/Christmas morn to watch the pope's address and was completely blessed by it. Yeah, I was put off a bit by the pomp but the idea was to see what I could understand from them, not to watch and see what I could find wrong with it.

I'm not much of an ecumenical sort of guy-won't even get into that-but you can't always pick your relatives;) . Personally I'm trying to get these 7th Day Adventist folks figured out....

'nuff said:preach:

[aReformedPatriot]

No I've not seen it.

I'm working on another called A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong. Stuff in there I'm not convinced of but still a good informative read. Lots to learn from our Catholic friends-respect them though I disagree with some of their teachings...but hey, I disagree with all my calvinist friends on some of their teachings just as strongly-but still love you all :hug: .

Ya know, as protestants we all have some degree of "self-interpretation" and then we believe it is the final truth and will defend it to the death--but it's still sort of our own interp so it is sort of our own thing-you know, we pick and choose what we like and explain away the parts we don't like and build ourselves a doctrine. We want people to respect our choices-how 'bout extending a bit of grace to those you may not completely agree with? I ain't talkin' about JWs or Mormons or arian heretics (ya ever hear of "christadelphians"?). But if they hold to the Nicene Creed (filioque or not, sorry Orthodox brethren) then maybe they are part of the family and we should seek to understand them a bit better instead of just huntin' up another way to rip them apart.

I stayed up till 1:00 am Christmas eve/Christmas morn to watch the pope's address and was completely blessed by it. Yeah, I was put off a bit by the pomp but the idea was to see what I could understand from them, not to watch and see what I could find wrong with it.

I'm not much of an ecumenical sort of guy-won't even get into that-but you can't always pick your relatives;) . Personally I'm trying to get these 7th Day Adventist folks figured out....

'nuff said:preach:

Councils and Popes enact the same form of 'self-interpretation' performed by Protestants. The only difference is that thier Bishops gather in a large formal group in order to decree them. 1 some odd billion Catholics believing numerous false doctrines (infant justification, papal hierarchy, the "pinnacle of worship" The Mass, etc.) is worse than the divided protestant camp who bicker largely over trivial matters.

The matter is not as simple accepting the defined Nicene Creed, as it were. The issue at hand is Justification which is at the core of the Gospel. How is one justified? Are they justified "by faith" at infant baptism or are they not? Cooperation on several moral issues is grand but the theological differences override them and seperate us. Theologians through the centuries have recognized this distinction. If interpretation was simply picking what we like and explaining away what we don't, then truth has become obscurred-- granted this is done. The Gospel is quite clear and Rome has distorted it.

The final thng I will say regarding your post is that this is not simply a matter "of just huntin' up another way to rip them apart." Their claims should be dissected and examined under the biblical microscope and rightly discounted. Much the same as we should analyze ourselves, critically and unafraid of the truth. I have added your book to my wishlist.

I've not read the book I am asking about myself but found it on amazon and was curious at to what people thought if they had read it.

[MrJim]

Councils and Popes enact the same form of 'self-interpretation' performed by Protestants. The only difference is that thier Bishops gather in a large formal group in order to decree them. 1 some odd billion Catholics believing numerous false doctrines (infant justification, papal hierarchy, the "pinnacle of worship" The Mass, etc.) is worse than the divided protestant camp who bicker largely over trivial matters.

The matter is not as simple accepting the defined Nicene Creed, as it were. The issue at hand is Justification which is at the core of the Gospel. How is one justified? Are they justified "by faith" at infant baptism or are they not? Cooperation on several moral issues is grand but the theological differences override them and seperate us. Theologians through the centuries have recognized this distinction. If interpretation was simply picking what we like and explaining away what we don't, then truth has become obscurred-- granted this is done. The Gospel is quite clear and Rome has distorted it.

The final thng I will say regarding your post is that this is not simply a matter "of just huntin' up another way to rip them apart." Their claims should be dissected and examined under the biblical microscope and rightly discounted. Much the same as we should analyze ourselves, critically and unafraid of the truth. I have added your book to my wishlist.

I've not read the book I am asking about myself but found it on amazon and was curious at to what people thought if they had read it.

But at least a council has a biblical basis to it [Jersusalem Council]. Individual self interpretation seems to have the seeds of destruction sewn into it. Still comes down to this: I am the center of biblical interpretation for me. I will look to others-preachers, authors, mentors, but ultimately I am the center of deciding what I will understand the bible to say. Appreciate the efforts-those that have gone before me-but it's all me. Relativism~I am seeing this in the SS class at the ABC I go to. They are "tackling the tough issues" in some book and while there is scripture reading it essentially is "up to you".

I can't defend all catholic doctrines and dogma. I will say that Cyprian-Bishop of Carthage wrote around 258 ad that infants were to be baptized. He was executed by the Romans for being a Christian. Irenaeus (who sat under Polycarp, a disciple of John) said that infants should be baptized. So maybe they were wrong-but maybe they weren't either. Calvinists (Presbys & Reformed), Lutherans, and other protestants baptize-so maybe they aren't wrong.

I would tend to agree with the Orthodox regarding the papal infallibility thing (though I heard a quote from a catholic remarking how everyone else in the Christian world can be infallible-except the Pope!).

Regarding the mass I would assume you are speaking of the eucharist and the elements becoming the body and blood of Christ. Irenaeus again said that "[The wine and the bread] having received the Word of God, become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ". There is a similar quote by Justin Martyr. Ignatius (105 ad) said "They [Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ..."

Maybe these old dead guys were all wrong and the church just fell to pieces after the last apostle died and it languished upon the throes of sin and folly until Martin Luther woke it up.:confused: That is what I was taught in the Mennonite church. (Of course those reformers remained too Roman:holy: - (Luther/Calvin/Zwingli didn't go far enough so some more guys decided to keep the reformation going and you know the rest of the story.)

Pardon my tone if it seems strained-I'm a little strained. The more I study the more I feel I've been sold a bill of goods by the evangelical/protestant/anabaptist movement. And I've been studying this stuff for-well I guess I'm working on my 19th year.

As far as justification being the core of the gospel...never bought that line. I recall an Old River Brethren teacher preaching on this. That was Luther's cry "Get Justified". But it doesn't stop there. Funny thing, the Orthodox and the historical anabaptists agree on this point, is that the idea of a forensic "one time event" of justification just doesn't seem to fit with the entirety of scripture. There is to be a living, obedient love relationship with God through Christ. One of the charges of the anabaptists to the Lutherans was that their "justification" didn't change their lives. But that's what they were banking on, and I fear many of us bank on--hey, I got saved in 1974-I walked the aisle-got baptized-said the prayer-went to church for a while. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't-but it's just not the picture of the church I see in scripture or history (but then again, that's just my view, which is flawed.) And that just isn't any more ludicrous than baptizing babies into the New Covenant following the pattern of the Old Covenant (to borrow those wacky Presbyterian's terms).

Anyhow hoss, nevermind my prattle. Just venting a little bit trying to figure some stuff out. Thanks for hearing it out--you're a good guy and I'm sure you get frustrated about theological stuff-just like Paul did. Ever wish we could have an apostle for just a little while (and I don't mean "those" apostles)? I would want to ask "Who is right?" and though I got a gut feeling that the question would be turned back upon me-that the Kingdom of God is within and until the heart is with God then the rest is just road noise.:sigh:

:hug:

[mlqurgw]

Haven't read the book but have many like it. I have spent some time learning what the RCC teaches and have debated their apologists but find it to be an exercise in futility. There can really be no fellowship between the RCC and Baptists as the core beliefs of both are extremely different. When the RCC speaks of salvation by grace they mean something entirely different than Baptists. I honestly abhor the modern efforts to bring Catholics and Protestants together because it ignors the very core beliefs that make hem different. They are in reality 2 different ways of salvation.

[MrJim]

Haven't read the book but have many like it. I have spent some time learning what the RCC teaches and have debated their apologists but find it to be an exercise in futility. There can really be no fellowship between the RCC and Baptists as the core beliefs of both are extremely different. When the RCC speaks of salvation by grace they mean something entirely different than Baptists. I honestly abhor the modern efforts to bring Catholics and Protestants together because it ignors the very core beliefs that make hem different. They are in reality 2 different ways of salvation.

Same case can be made for Calvinist's and Arminian's salvation. Two very different things. Two different Gods.

[CandleLightSky]

Haven't read it. I tend to agree with mlqurgw when it comes to catholic doctrine...lukewarm to say the least. That's what happens when the Bible isn't held as authority, so it can be expected.

So within the parameters of their use of scripture and tradition i guess they've done okay but I won't become Catholic anytime soon.

[JPPT1974]

Haven't read it myself
But then again, I am not catholic.
Sorry. :sorry:

[Happy to be His]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0851515711/qid=1096817444/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7450449-2010442?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
no but than again I am not catholic. ( sorry if spelled wrong )