Is the Pope a False Prophet? By Andrew P. Napolitano

[Eagles' Wings]

You affirmed my point, moostraks. Thank you.

 

[Sola_Fide]

~~~peace

No. Its not how you look at it, it's what Paul said in Romans 2. Romans 2 completely refutes your point. You quoted it and thought that it actually bolstered you point, but I showed you how it didn't because you really have no idea what Paul is talking about in the book of Romans.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Sola would rather just answer the morons it seems

 

[Sola_Fide]

I've always believed the same thing about this. Justification is by faith alone. If you deny that, you're not saved. The Roman Catholic church denies it, thus they are not part of the visible church. There are, nevertheless, some people who are in the Roman Catholic Church who don't believe the damnable theology of Rome. I would not say such people are necessarily unjustified just because they happen to be in Rome. I have NEVER taken a position different from this. You haven't been paying attention if you thought I ever believed differently from this.

What the heck does this have to do with recon?

Because Reconstructionism is very strong on common grace. Common grace is a seed that sprouts into many other heresies.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Great quote, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Jesus there is talking about how a "brother" deals with another "brother". He's not talking about how a believer deals with an unbeliever.

Furthermore, Jesus was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who were judging people as lawbreakers, when they were lawbreakers themselves. Paul reiterates this in Romans 2.

What's the point in this? The point is that no one is good and no one is a lawkeeper. Jesus was the only one who was a lawkeeper, and to be saved, one must have faith in His perfect lawkeeping.

 

[Ender]

Great quote, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Jesus there is talking about how a "brother" deals with another "brother". He's not talking about how a believer deals with an unbeliever.

Furthermore, Jesus was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who were judging people as lawbreakers, when they were lawbreakers themselves. Paul reiterates this in Romans 2.

What's the point in this? The point is that no one is good and no one is a lawkeeper. Jesus was the only one who was a lawkeeper, and to be saved, one must have faith in His perfect lawkeeping.

Why, how selective of you- whodda thunk?

Jesus was NOT selective in His teachings. We are ALL brothers.

And, if no one is good and all are sinners then straighten the guy up in the mirror before you sling darts at others.

THAT is what Jesus meant and THAT is for everyone.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Why, how selective of you- whodda thunk?

Jesus was NOT selective in His teachings. We are ALL brothers.

Jesus was not selective in his teachings, but you seem to be selective in how they apply. How are we all brothers when Luke 12:53 states that the faith will divide actual nuclear and extended families, let alone schismatic Christian sectarians? Heterodox teachers of Universalist errors are not Christ's sheep, nor can they be counted brothers of such. The law applies to everyone, the gospel promise does not, and there are so many verses right in the synoptic gospels about election and predestination that I don't really feel the need to cite any, so I'll just offer my disapproval to your liberal, hippie doctrines.

 

[moostraks]

No. Its not how you look at it, it's what Paul said in Romans 2. Romans 2 completely refutes your point. You quoted it and thought that it actually bolstered you point, but I showed you how it didn't because you really have no idea what Paul is talking about in the book of Romans.

~~~peace

 

[Ronin Truth]

1 John 5:19: We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of Satan.

 

[hells_unicorn]

This site is filled with exegetically illiterate morons.

I know Sola is busy but I'm going to wait and see if he ever actualy tries to prove that Reconstruction is a denial of the gospel. Unless he does I'm done with this thread as there is very little of value here.

I feel your pain, I'm off to my weekly Covenanter seminar for instruction on the Westminster Larger Catechism, it's very good medicine for the rubbish that gets thrown around on here.

Sola's point about Reconstructionism sounds like complete rubbish, it's probably because he's harboring some hostility towards ecclesiastical authority of any kind given the anarchistic tendencies in even the more Reformed of Baptist sects. I have some criticisms regarding how Reconstructionists deal with The Law, both in terms of natural/moral law and also how the church relates to the civil magistrate, but I wouldn't put any Recon in the Gospel Denier camp, though I would put every single Antinomian sectarian in that camp.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Because Reconstructionism is very strong on common grace. Common grace is a seed that sprouts into many other heresies.

RCC is also strong on common grace. Rather than pray for a pope, it is better to pray that Christ's sheep come out of the RCC immediately. Sola, I am reading more and more common grace nonsense on Reformed blogs, websites, etc. There seems to be only a remnant of Reformed believers who don't/won't affirm it.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Sola would rather just answer the morons it seems

The little smiley does not negate this unkind remark, CL.

 

[Ender]

Jesus was not selective in his teachings, but you seem to be selective in how they apply. How are we all brothers when Luke 12:53 states that the faith will divide actual nuclear and extended families, let alone schismatic Christian sectarians? Heterodox teachers of Universalist errors are not Christ's sheep, nor can they be counted brothers of such. The law applies to everyone, the gospel promise does not, and there are so many verses right in the synoptic gospels about election and predestination that I don't really feel the need to cite any, so I'll just offer my disapproval to your liberal, hippie doctrines.

My God loves all His children and my Jesus died for all mankind.

I'll just offer my disapproval of your selective Neocon better-than-thou doctrines.

 

[Sola_Fide]

RCC is also strong on common grace. Rather than pray for a pope, it is better to pray that Christ's sheep come out of the RCC immediately. Sola, I am reading more and more common grace nonsense on Reformed blogs, websites, etc. There seems to be only a remnant of Reformed believers who don't/won't affirm it.

It goes back to the Gordon Clark/Van Til controversy. Every reformed believer needs to understand the sides that both these men took.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

It goes back to the Gordon Clark/Van Til controversy. Every reformed believer needs to understand the sides that both these men took.

I'm a big fan of Hoeksema, who has written extensively on this topic. I'm presently reading his book, "Whosoever Will". What a blessed man of God.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm a big fan of Hoeksema, who has written extensively on this topic. I'm presently reading his book, "Whosoever Will". What a blessed man of God.

Yes, I have been greatly blessed by him too. He was a stalwart.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I feel your pain, I'm off to my weekly Covenanter seminar for instruction on the Westminster Larger Catechism, it's very good medicine for the rubbish that gets thrown around on here.

Sola's point about Reconstructionism sounds like complete rubbish, it's probably because he's harboring some hostility towards ecclesiastical authority of any kind given the anarchistic tendencies in even the more Reformed of Baptist sects. I have some criticisms regarding how Reconstructionists deal with The Law, both in terms of natural/moral law and also how the church relates to the civil magistrate, but I wouldn't put any Recon in the Gospel Denier camp, though I would put every single Antinomian sectarian in that camp.

It depends on what you mean by antinomian. No Christian is an antinomian because Christians believe that God's moral law is the standard for all judgement.

You say that you are going to a study on the Confession. Well, here is a Westminster divine, Sedgwick, describing the threefold division:

1. Ceremonial, which consisted in Rites, and Ordinances, and Shadows, typifying Jesus Christ in his sufferings, unto which there was a full period put by the death of Christ.
2. Judicial, which respecteth*the Jews as a peculiar Nation and Commonwealth, being made and fitted for them, as in such a particular*polity: And all those judicial*Laws (especially these*de jure particulari) are ceased by the cessation of that Nation and polity.
3. Moral, which are set down in the Decalogue, and are called the ten words (or Commandments) which God spake and delivered.* Of the ten commandments (which we call the Moral Law) is the question to be understood, whether believers, or people in the New Covenant are bound by them.

In Reformed or Biblical understanding, there has been the view that the laws of Moses were for the adjudication of Israel only. But I think the London Baptist Confession went further and got it right when it said that, not the general equity, but the moral equity of those laws remain as a standard for the believer.

I don't read anywhere in Scripture that God has covenants with the governments of the world. There is the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. Men are going to be judged by the laws in these covenants. I don't see any obligation in Scripture that governments enact the judicial polity of Moses. Neither did the Westminster divines.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Because Reconstructionism is very strong on common grace. Common grace is a seed that sprouts into many other heresies.

I've always believed in common grace though, and common grace is in the Bible

I feel your pain, I'm off to my weekly Covenanter seminar for instruction on the Westminster Larger Catechism, it's very good medicine for the rubbish that gets thrown around on here.

Sola's point about Reconstructionism sounds like complete rubbish, it's probably because he's harboring some hostility towards ecclesiastical authority of any kind given the anarchistic tendencies in even the more Reformed of Baptist sects. I have some criticisms regarding how Reconstructionists deal with The Law, both in terms of natural/moral law and also how the church relates to the civil magistrate, but I wouldn't put any Recon in the Gospel Denier camp, though I would put every single Antinomian sectarian in that camp.

Thank you

 

[hells_unicorn]

Despite have a fairly good night discussing a section of the Larger Catechism regarding how all men fell into sin in Adam (yikes, this bible is loaded with collectivist terminology), I got home tonight with a bit of a headache, which may be reflected a bit in the sarcasm in the response I am about to give, but I will write as such anyway as it may prove to help ram the point home here.

It depends on what you mean by antinomian. No Christian is an antinomian because Christians believe that God's moral law is the standard for all judgement.

The antinomian title was not specifically meant for you, though the harping on monergistic sanctification (a logical contradiction) lends itself to having problems with how the law functions in the context of justifying grace. The Free Grace Baptists disagree pretty strongly with you on your point that no Christian is an antinomian, because they hoot and howl all day about how Christian they are and they'll have none of that Law nonsense, moral or otherwise. That's Old Testament stuff to them, over and done with.

In Reformed or Biblical understanding, there has been the view that the laws of Moses were for the adjudication of Israel only. But I think the London Baptist Confession went further and got it right when it said that, not the general equity, but the moral equity of those laws remain as a standard for the believer.

I'm not in disagreement with you on this point, I'm not a Reconstructionist, so I don't favor reinstating the entire Levitical code with all of its peculiar judicial punishments. The problem is that you are talking about Law, not Gospel, and misinterpreting the positive character of the Levitical OT laws is not the same as denying the Gospel. If someone confesses justification by faith alone, and places works of the law into their proper context as sanctification, that person is not misunderstanding the Gospel. There are parts of being a Christian that pertain to The Law that don't necessarily inform one's understanding of The Gospel, though they might reveal a lack of understanding regarding how God's covenant passed from Israel to the church.

Furthermore, there are moral aspects of the OT law that are binding upon the magistrate because of their universal natural applications, and it is in keeping with the Christian religion that these laws be observed and enforced by a lawful magistrate. Many of these natural applications preclude one from holding social views that are fairly common in American libertarianism.

I don't read anywhere in Scripture that God has covenants with the governments of the world. There is the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. Men are going to be judged by the laws in these covenants. I don't see any obligation in Scripture that governments enact the judicial polity of Moses. Neither did the Westminster divines.

God does not covenant with governments of the world, governments of the world are to covenant themselves to him. The Solemn League and Covenant and the corresponding ones that various Magistrate Reformed nations enacted during the Reformation were not of the same peculiar species of the biblical covenants of works/life and grace, but they were necessary in establishing a Godly governance upon Christian nations. These covenants, once made, were as binding as vows of those committed to the covenant of grace. As Matthew 28:19 states, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", as opposed to "Go ye therefore, and teach all individual, freethinking Baptists, immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, provided that they are of the age of reason, oh, but works still won't save us so we'll just say we don't Baptize babies because Rome does it".

Being a Christian is not a license to be an island unto yourself, and complaining about common terminology regarding grace in the context of the church betrays somebody who thinks more like an American than a Christian.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The little smiley does not negate this unkind remark, CL.

I like Sola generally, but the comment was appropriate. He always tells me I'm a heretic because of this but he never proves it. At most he tries to prove that i'm incorrect, but he never proves the assertion that I'm supposedly denying the gospel. He does, however, spend a ton of time refuting the people that actually ARE denying the gospel and are easy to refute.