Am I also really to believe that Tim Staples "took great delight in convincing Catholics that their belief in the Pope's authority was just a lot of Romanist nonsense"? I mean really. Who takes great delight in that? I have relatives, who are Roman Catholics. I don't sit around taking great pleasure in that sort of thing. In fact, I find it most difficult to explain to a person that their faith is misplaced.Learn the shocking truth!
If there's one thing that unites non-Catholics of all stripes, it's a refusal to accept the Church's teaching on the authority of the pope. Tragically, that refusal has led to wide divisions among, and heated arguments between, Christians all over the world.
Catholic apologist Tim Staples knows these arguments all too well. Having once been a "Bible-believing Fundamentalist" himself, he took great delight in convincing Catholics that their belief in the Pope's authority was just a lot of Romanist nonsense based on human tradition instead of Scripture.
But then Staples was challenged to actually study the faith he was bashing. After scouring Scripture, history, and the writings of the Church Fathers, Staples was forced to conclude that Christ himself had established the institution of the Papacy.
So the rejection of the authority of the Pope is my main mission in life. I am out to get Roman Catholics to reject the Pope. I guess in a sense that is true. I would like to see not only Papists reject the Pope as the ultimate authority, but I would also like to see Jehovah's Witnesses reject the authority of the Watch Tower, Mormons reject the authority of Utah, Muslims reject their tribal leaders such as Osama Bin Laden, Buddhists reject Buddha, and so on and so on.
Are we really going to believe that Roman Catholics are more united than everyone else? There really is no division among RCs at all that would be as significant as divisions among Protestants? If you believe that, then I guess if a lie is told often enough it will be believed.
But also notice that Tim Staples claims to have found this doctrine in Scripture. Was his study of Scripture his own private interpretation? Does he offer an infallible exegesis of certain texts? In other words, was Scripture sufficient to explain to Tim Staples that Scripture is not sufficient to explain to Tim Staples and that he needs the Pope to rightly understand the text of Scripture?
The claim that God is not able to sufficiently tell His church through His Word what needs to be believed and that some man must be looked to in His place is simply blasphemous.
5 comments:
Am I also really to believe that Tim Staples "took great delight in convincing Catholics that their belief in the Pope's authority was just a lot of Romanist nonsense"? I mean really. Who takes great delight in that? I have relatives, who are Roman Catholics. I don't sit around taking great pleasure in that sort of thing. In fact, I find it most difficult to explain to a person that their faith is misplaced.
Well, this woman for one.
Thanks for the link Kelly,
It seems to me that if someone disagrees with a Roman Catholic then they are anti-catholic and hateful. This woman seems to be a KJV Fundy. Yet she wrote,
"I will not judge you, if you send your children to youth programs, are not dresses only, are not KJV only, or if you are a Roman Catholic, etc. I don't know your heart, thoughts, intents, motives, or future. However, if you're going to read this blog, you will certainly see the occasional articles you disagree with. You may choose not to read those particular articles, or you may choose to do honest research based off of the information in my articles. The choice is yours.
I hate no one, nor do I harbor malice toward anyone. Life is too short for such nonsense. The Lord calls us to love all (including our enemies), and I strive to do this every day."
So if you disagree with her then fine. I didn't gather from my brief viewing of the site that she hated RCs or loved telling them her how wrong they are.
Good thing I clicked the comment notification. Sorry, I was just a drive by, having landed on your blog from an unrelated Google search. I've never read your blog, and mean no criticism or anything from my previous comment.
I suppose Candy's blog isn't the best example because of her extreme editing, but I've been following her for a number of years out of morbid fascination.
She pretty much believes anything Jack Chick has written, and is very much into Catholic related conspiracy theories.
Among her previous (now deleted) postings she has written about how Catholic priests have relations with nuns and then murder the babies born of their union.
She believes that the Jesuits murdered Abraham Lincoln.
Once of her frequent commenters asked Candy to pray for a Catholic grandmother who was near death. When she updated that the grandmother had died without becoming a born again Christian, Candy told her that she was sorry to hear that her grandmother was burning in hell.
When John Paul II died, she said she was sorry that he was now burning in hell. She mentioned that he, like Mother Teresa, was probably surprised to find out how things really stood.
My absolute favorite was when someone wrote that she had Catholic friends and neighbors, and while she disagreed with their theology, they seemed like sincere Christians. Candy's response was that if you studied history carefully as she had, then you would know that Catholics assimilate and lull the population into a false sense of complacency, and then they stage a bloody uprising and kill all of the Protestants. She warned that we are probably getting close to that time now.
So, I don't think that anyone who disagrees with Catholics are anti-Catholic and hateful. I feel that the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians fall under that camp. I'm sure you will say that Candy is extreme, and I agree. However, I do feel that there really are people who take pleasure in convincing Catholics that they are wrong. Or "duped" as Candy would say.
Howdy again Kelly,
Just so you know, I took no offense at your first comment.
You mentioned she is a Jack Chick. Well, Jack Chick and I have absolutely nothing in common. In fact, I am certain he would despise me as much as he does you.
The Blog you pointed me to is one I have seen in years past. For all of the KJOnlyism and all of the Fundamentalist nonsense that may be written there, I still see no evidence that she sits around and enjoys or takes pleasure in seeing anyone go to hell from her perspective.
If we are going to argue that way, then it could be said that Popes in the past took great pleasure in killing Protestants when burning them at the stake. In my opinion, a Pope doing such an action would be far more likely to be having pleasure in such an activity. So the argument is flawed.
As for stating that she believes the Pope went to hell, as politically incorrect that language may be, why is she not entitled to believe that? It was not long ago, before all of this ecumenical nonsense, RCs believed Protestants were anathema (and yes, I know full well what that means).
Also, again, you seem to define everyone from your beliefs. For instance, everyone that disagrees with RCism is anti-Roman Catholic. This may make for great propaganda among your RC friends, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with truth.
In fact, after looking at your Blog, you might be anti-Candy (I say that tongue and cheek). Of course you are simply interacting with things she has written.
It is like when RCs define James White (I'm sure you know who he is) as being anti-RC. Yet the facts are so far from this assertion that to maintain such a conclusion is to close one's eyes to the facts.
I suppose I could sit here and call you anti-Protestant or anti-Gospel or whatever, instead of referring to you as a Roman Catholic or a Papist (as I would be a Calvinist or Reformed Baptist) or whatever would positively describe your beliefs.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
One other thought that I keep forgetting to write, I'd be curious to read what you have to say about the substance of the arguments I originally wrote about.
God Bless
Post a Comment