Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The Post I Cannot Believe I am Writing
I made a very snide offer to apologize to Challies yesterday because his previous comments concerning Roman Catholicism were mild compared to those of Slice of Laodiciea (I refuse to reward them with another link) - so what does Tim do? He comes out in defense of the contention that the Roman Catholic Church is the beast of Revelation! Oh good, this is a move towards religious tolerance.
SmartChristian does a decent job of responding to this utter nonsense, that I want to expand on. Andy's first point
Before Challies or anyone else defends the post as merely "intellectual investigation" and thus that is the reason for the qualifications -- where's the contrary evidence? How come it does not look at both sides of the issue? No, this is a defense of the contention.
Andy then tackles the fact that Challies does not make his argument scripturally, but does so by quoting a bunch of dead guys. Good point. Andy challenges Tim to make a scriptural argument - I'll leave that the Andy and Tim.
Joe Carter tackles Challies' assertions directly.
Here's some other stuff to think about. The "dead guys" argument rests on the fact that the only kind of valid reform is schism and that it is impossible that the Roman Catholic church might, over the last five centuries, have worked out a few of their problems and, you know, redeemed themselves, or allowed the Lord to redeem them more accurately, or are we to assume that such is beyond the Lord's capability?
Another point - the dead guys contend THE POPE, or some pope, might be the antichrist, NOT the entire church. So, do the misdeeds to Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, etc. condemn the entire Assemblies of God to hell? Based on the fact that there are a few practicing homosexual Presbyterian pastors in my denomination, am I to assume that I too am to be proclaimed "the beast"? (Wait! What am I saying - I blog with a Mormon, albeit solely on politics. No doubt there is a place for me in that special hell for cults.) By the way, that a Calvin or Luther would consider the pope of their time, a pope more temporal potentate than spiritual leader, problematic is something I can understand, but history also shows them to have been wrong about that particular pope being the beast.
You know, Hal Lindsey figured the rapture was supposed to happen about 20 years ago. Now, The Late Great Planet Earth makes good kindling. This speculation is a waste of time, and energy. More importantly, in this package, it's a disguise to be used to spread bigotry concerning Christian brethren.
What is most galling to me is that Challies' claim to be a "most-read blogger" has credence. At this point I do not understand why. There is nothing uplifting, nothing blessed, nothing holy in contentions of this sort. We are reduced, and belittle ourselves when this kind of stuff is allowed amongst us.
Believe that Catholic theology is wrong, I do. Go ahead, think that their form of church government is incorrect, and a ready source of potential corruption. But for God sakes, argue with them about it. Engage, convince, discuss, but this condemnatory, name-calling stuff is simply beneath us. I don't care how much you "almost" say it.
Related Tags: Roman Catholic, the beast, Revelation, condemnation, grace
SmartChristian does a decent job of responding to this utter nonsense, that I want to expand on. Andy's first point
Tim wants to defend Roman Catholic Beast position with several strong qualifiersThis is a habit of Tim's. It's as if Tim thinks if he almost says something completely outrageous he is absolved of the responsibility for the contention. Jesus, I think, addressed this kind of thinking in the Sermon on the Mount.
Matt 5:27-28 - You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.You know, if a guy comes up to me and says "You're a jerk" I might be able to work something out with him, but if he comes up and says "It appears you might be a jerk," I'm just gonna assume he really is one and forget about it. Challies needs to grow a pair and say what he thinks. iMonk appears to think so too.
Before Challies or anyone else defends the post as merely "intellectual investigation" and thus that is the reason for the qualifications -- where's the contrary evidence? How come it does not look at both sides of the issue? No, this is a defense of the contention.
Andy then tackles the fact that Challies does not make his argument scripturally, but does so by quoting a bunch of dead guys. Good point. Andy challenges Tim to make a scriptural argument - I'll leave that the Andy and Tim.
Joe Carter tackles Challies' assertions directly.
Here's some other stuff to think about. The "dead guys" argument rests on the fact that the only kind of valid reform is schism and that it is impossible that the Roman Catholic church might, over the last five centuries, have worked out a few of their problems and, you know, redeemed themselves, or allowed the Lord to redeem them more accurately, or are we to assume that such is beyond the Lord's capability?
Another point - the dead guys contend THE POPE, or some pope, might be the antichrist, NOT the entire church. So, do the misdeeds to Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, etc. condemn the entire Assemblies of God to hell? Based on the fact that there are a few practicing homosexual Presbyterian pastors in my denomination, am I to assume that I too am to be proclaimed "the beast"? (Wait! What am I saying - I blog with a Mormon, albeit solely on politics. No doubt there is a place for me in that special hell for cults.) By the way, that a Calvin or Luther would consider the pope of their time, a pope more temporal potentate than spiritual leader, problematic is something I can understand, but history also shows them to have been wrong about that particular pope being the beast.
You know, Hal Lindsey figured the rapture was supposed to happen about 20 years ago. Now, The Late Great Planet Earth makes good kindling. This speculation is a waste of time, and energy. More importantly, in this package, it's a disguise to be used to spread bigotry concerning Christian brethren.
What is most galling to me is that Challies' claim to be a "most-read blogger" has credence. At this point I do not understand why. There is nothing uplifting, nothing blessed, nothing holy in contentions of this sort. We are reduced, and belittle ourselves when this kind of stuff is allowed amongst us.
Believe that Catholic theology is wrong, I do. Go ahead, think that their form of church government is incorrect, and a ready source of potential corruption. But for God sakes, argue with them about it. Engage, convince, discuss, but this condemnatory, name-calling stuff is simply beneath us. I don't care how much you "almost" say it.
Related Tags: Roman Catholic, the beast, Revelation, condemnation, grace
