It’s good to know that the doors are always open at the religious brothel – for those who want to commit whoredom.

Rev 17:5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”

Your next to the last statement reveals volumes about what you believe. “The Sacraments are a channel of grace.”

Sad because the religion of Rome has changed doctrine (which simply means teaching), just as they change the Word of God to suit them. The Catholic system of religion does NOT line up with Scripture.

As an example, we could begin with Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by GRACE are you saved through faith, and NOT of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest any man (read Catholics) should boast.”

TJM

The Catholic church teaches you attain God’s grace by something you do, something you partake of, this is false teaching; this false teaching leads to robbing God of glory, which He clearly states in Isaiah He will NOT share with anyone, not even the RCC, “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” Isaiah 42:8
There is another problem with the RCC, their images, statues of Mary, which God forbids giving praise to.

You said, “Your priests, cardinals, and popes are in disagreement with what you profess to believe about the Romish church.” Some might be in disagreement, that’s true (although the vast, overwhelming majority are not in disagreement at all). But do all of the members of the church you attend believe the same thing about everything? Try raising the question of infant baptism, or perhaps the question of whether it’s acceptable to use repetition in prayer, among your friends at your church and see if they all agree on everything. You will likely find at least a couple of people who don’t agree with the others. The point is, whether the individual members do or do not agree with/practice all of a church’s teachings is irrelevant to what that church’s teachings actually ARE.

You said, “Sadly, they will rarely spend time speaking about such in their homilies at Sunday Mass when they recrucify the Lord of Glory again and again.” I have two points to bring up here. One is that I have heard these issues arise over and over again in homilies from many priests in many parishes, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Second, and more importantly, you have demonstrated in this sentence that you are ignorant of actual Catholic teaching; the Catholic Church does NOT teach that Christ is “recrucified” at Mass, and in fact the Church believes such a teaching is grave heresy. What the Catholic Church teaches is that in the Mass, we revisit and re-present the original Sacrifice on the Cross. It’s not a re-crucifixion of Christ, it’s the one and only original Crucifixion, made present in front of us. If it helps, think of it like a time warp – we jump back in time, through the pages of history, and experience the events of Calvary firsthand. Time means nothing to God; He can bend time back on itself if He so wishes, and that’s what He does in the Mass.

I’m sorry you and your family feel that the Roman Catholic Church is evil and insidious. My heart hurts over your departure from the Church. I will pray for you and your family, that wherever you go, you may find fulfillment in the grace of Christ. Just remember that, if you want to come home, the door will always be open.

Lastly, I did stay up late, spending a long time reading through all the comments, and not once did any of the opponents of the Catholic faith here manage to accurately represent Catholic doctrine. That’s why I issued the challenge in the first place. It has not yet been done. The most egregious misrepresentation I saw, or at least the one that stood out to me most, was JcVindica’s statement, “[Catholics'] main point of departure (i.e. believing in sacraments for salvation instead of God’s pure grace through Christ)” – and JcVindica was even trying to be courteous to the Catholic faith in their comment. This is a grossly inaccurate statement, however, because the Catholic Church’s teachings clearly state that the Sacraments are a means by which the pure grace of Christ is applied to us. In Catholic theology, the Sacraments and grace are not diametrically opposed; on the contrary, the Sacraments are a channel of grace. This is, of course, only one of many examples, but it is the one that hurt my heart the most.

Your history and the theology of the religion in which you are trapped can be rewritten each and every day, but it will not change the facts. Your final statement about “words bear a different definition to Catholics than they do to non-Catholics” is definitely true. The religion of Rome seeks to ever redefine itself in order to make it more like true Biblical Christianity which it will never be able to accomplish. Your priests, cardinals, and popes are in disagreement with what you profess to believe about the Romish church. Sadly, they will rarely spend time speaking about such in their homilies at Sunday Mass when they recrucify the Lord of Glory again and again.

As for knowing about Roman Catholicism, my family was saved out of the insidious evil of Rome after being trapped for generations. I know the truth and cannot be blinded again.

Re: your “challenge” – Has already been more than addressed in other posts here. I would recommend you take the time to read through them carefully before continuing to comment. You will find answers you do not like, but they are truth from the Word of God. We will pray that you will be given a heart to learn the truth before it is eternally too late.

TJM

It appears that many here believe the Roman Catholic Church is varying degrees of corrupt, from “misguided” all the way to “Whore of Babylon and spawn of Satan.” I have a challenge for anyone who believes such things about the Catholic Church.

I challenge opponents of the Catholic faith to do one thing: to prove that they have an accurate understanding of any single given doctrine of the Catholic faith. Notice I am not saying “disprove a doctrine.“ Before you can disprove something, you must show that you actually know what it is and how it works first. I would be willing to bet that no opponents of Catholicism on this site can actually demonstrate that they know what Catholics believe on any given essential Catholic doctrine. I’ll even help you get started by nipping some popular misconceptions in the bud:

- We don’t worship Mary.
- We don’t worship statues.
- We don’t believe you can earn your way to heaven by good works.
- We don’t believe the Pope is anything more than a human being, and we do not worship him.
- We don’t believe that anything or anyone other than Jesus Christ is the way to heaven.

You should be aware beforehand that many words bear a different definition to Catholics than they do to non-Catholics. For example, we believe in prayer to saints; however, “prayer” does not necessarily mean “worship” to a Catholic like it typically does to a non-Catholic. If you see a quote or teaching that seems to fly in the face of Christianity, the problem may actually simply be with your understanding of what is meant; do not assume that all words mean to a Catholic precisely what they mean to you.

Good luck to anyone who takes up this challenge.

If you love Jesus, why do you sit under false teaching? Why do you submit yourself to error, to idolatrous worship of Mary, and calling a sinful man ‘holy Father’? Do you know what Jesus taught about this? Matthew 23:9, ‘”Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.”
I have seen pictures of people kissing this guy’s ring, like he is their ‘god’.
Your statement, ‘I am in love with Jesus, worship Jesus, live for Jesus…and yet I am a Catholic. Crazy, huh?’ is hard to believe, for if you loved Christ, you would flee from the dead religion you belong to and their apostate teachings.

I am saved because I believe Jesus, the second person of the blessed Trinity, died for my sins. I freely cooperate with His free gift of salvation. I am in love with Jesus, worship Jesus, live for Jesus…and yet I am a Catholic. Crazy, huh?

In Christ,
Teri

Teri, can you explain how you are saved from God’s wrath?

Yes, I am familiar with syncretism, and if you were a wedding ring, you are also guilty of adopting a pagan practice.

Peace,
Teri

“God loves each of us as if there was only one of us to love.” Augustine of Hippo

As for David Crowder, there is no issue as to his poor theology as long as a person understands the truth of Scripture. You cannot mix truth with error and end up with a modified truth. Truth mixed with error becomes no truth at all.

As for Francis of Assisi, his adherence to false doctrine also made him a false teacher. Francis did not teach the truth of Scripture but continued to hold forth the traditions of men and the heresy found even today in the Catholic church.

TJM

There was apostasy in the church long before Constantine. Constantine merely married the parts of Christendom that he liked with the ancient Babylonian worship in what is known as syncretism. The Catholic religion has long sought to perfect this method. Constantine as your first pope was a depraved sinner and never knew the Lord Jesus Christ as a true believer any more than any other popes that have continued the heresy out of Rome.

The Holy Spirit did protect the church, but that Church is not and never has been the Catholic religion. I am afraid that you are sadly mistaken about your claim to the knowledge of truth from the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures make it clear that the Holy Spirit will not teach something that was different than what Jesus Christ taught. I do believe in the Trinity and each member of the Godhead is perfect in holiness. Is there truth available? Yes, of course, there is, but it does not reside in any man-made system of religion such as the Catholic system of religion. The Holy Spirit could not reveal something to you that confirms Catholicism for to do so would undermine His perfect holiness.

I’m wondering if you believe in the Trinity?

I’d be interested to find non-scriptural writings of early Christians (say before A.D. 300) that contradict Ignatius and the other “Church Fathers” and support your understanding of Biblical Christianity (on the Eucharist, for example). Was there a faithful remnant that lived at the same time as the proto-Romish? Or was apostasy universal for a time? If so, when did it start and end?

Secondly, Francis held to some doctrines that are not found in Scripture. His teaching of seeing Jesus “in” everyone led him to include such thoughts about the animal kingdom as well which is why he would baptize animals as well as humans. The truth of Scripture is not easy to swallow because the truth is that Jesus is NOT “in” everyone. Only those who are true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ have Christ dwelling in them. The rest are children of the devil and are currently abiding under the coming wrath of God. All are NOT brothers, nor are all God’s children. The Almighty God of heaven is NOT the Father of all again as taught by Rome.

Finally, there will be many who say on the Day of Judgment, did we not do all these things in Your Name? He will reply, “Depart from me, you workers of iniquity, for I NEVER knew you.” Whether it be Francis, Teresa of Calcutta, or the popes will not make one bit of difference. You cannot do good to others, for others, or for God and expect that this will gain one entrance into heaven. There is only one way to heaven. Stating that one loves Jesus is only valid if we keep His commandments.

TJM

Thank you for your words.

We obviously have a basic disagreement here. I see absolutely nothing wrong with admiring the ability to disassociate oneself with “stuff” (ie: covetousness) and the “trappings” of that stuff. Even when it comes from a non-believer (which by the way i make no claims about in the case of SFoA).

You have to inject trajectories and assumptions about one’s intent and derive the specific root of their admiring to make the claims you making about WHY Crowder admires the saint.

Here’s where I think we differ.
I believe there is truth, beauty and God’s glory to be found in the characteristics of fallen, un-repentant people BECAUSE as image bearers of the Almighty they simply can’t help it. These things do not save them, do not “count as righteousness”, and do not come from the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Yet, they Glorify the Maker because they are His mark… and therefore, can be admired by the redeemed man.

In brief, the Christian can find the mark of the Maker in the un-redeemed image-bearer of the Almighty. (and use as a means of revealing the Gospel to them).

Yes, I mean even those who are called “children of wrath”.

So let’s leave it there, because defending this isn’t something I’m willing to do online.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” I Cor 10:16

Praying during this week of Christian Unity.
Teri

OK, try not to read into this that I’m picking a fight, because that isn’t my intention as I’ve said before. I will attempt to clarify. There is a difference between disassociation from “trappings of stuff”, and repentance. Every Christian should, as a matter of basic repentance, have a denial of self, hold the world and it’s ways as being hostile to God according to the Scriptures, and be separated unto God (holiness), The problem is that Crowder, instead of appealing to Scriptural truth regarding repentance and our separation from the world, chose instead to appeal to a Catholic mystic (Francis), then presenting his mystical asceticism (disassociation from “trappings of stuff”) as something laudable, when in reality it is a distortion of what God calls us to do (repent). For that matter, why not adopt some Buddhist practices, and say “I’m a follower of Jesus, but I admire Siddhartha Gautama for the Four Noble Truths”? Are you understanding the point here? The Christian has no business adopting, much less publishing/proclaiming and/or giving endorsement of beliefs which are part and parcel of belief systems which are in conflict with the truth of God’s Word.

And it’s not just that he’s giving good press to a Catholic mystic. The article testified of his other Catholic associations as well. And since such association is directly in conflict with the Scriptures, and contrary to the basic meaning of repentance, the question becomes, how can one truly be of Christ, and not understand even rudimentary repentance?

Dude… there’s nothing wrong with this sentence from Crowder:
“I’m equally attracted to and repelled by. I long for his powers of disassociation from the trappings of “stuff.” I’m beset with consumption and materialism, and he is a compelling symbol of contentment.”

One would have to interject what one THINKS Crowder means by these sentences to be able to make the kind of claims many are making about Crowder in these comments.

I can admire a mother’s long-suffering for her children, a father’s tireless work effort to support his family, the self-sacrifice that Gandhi had for his people, the creativity and beauty of Chopin’s Nocturnes… WITH the knowledge that all/any of these people aren’t Christ followers, but instead exhibit characteristics of the One who made them because they cannot help it… they are His image…

It’s ridiculous to expect some-one to ALWAYS tag onto the end of every such admiration that “ah… but they aren’t believers… so all of their characteristics are garbage.”

You’re cutting the bread too thin. Which is a bad way to argue.

If we’re going to say Crowder’s music isn’t helpful… there are far better reasons to do so in my opinion than that he admires St. Francis for his ability to disassociate “from the trappings of “stuff.”

In my opinion most contemporary worship music leaders/song-writers aren’t reading ENOUGH OF ANYTHING! I’m sorta relieved to hear that Crowder DOES read something other than “Relevant Magazine”.

I still think you’re trying to pick a fight ;)

For the cause of Christ and not any man.

********

Teri, I am afraid that what is sad is that you have been taught error by a religious system that is built upon the traditions of men instead of on the infallible, inerrant Word of God. Several here at DefCon were saved OUT of Roman Catholicism, so to say we know nothing about it is to assume that you know who we are. Finally, as we have already pointed out, and more importantly, as the Scriptures reveal, you cannot worship both God and idols. A true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ cannot and will not ever be able to remain in the Catholic church. The two are completely and totally incompatible. We will pray that you will soon come to the truth of Scripture that reveals salvation is found only in Christ Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, not in a religious system built not just upon the traditions of men, but upon the ancient cultic worship found in Babylon.

Signed,
A fellow Christian and devout Catholic

The point was that the specific thing Crowder mentions about Francis’s character is not “definitely biblical.” Biblically sound “character” is displaying the fruit which proceeds from a right relationship with the Lord God Almighty through being connected to The Vine (Jesus Christ). Without that connection, one simply cannot display or practice biblically sound good fruit. What Francis displayed and practiced was Asceticism. And the distinction is especially born out when we consider Francis’ overall philosophy.

Trying to pick a fight? Not at all. The info is given for your consideration.

what’s your point… ?

I never said SFoA was a believer… i said that “the SPECIFIC thing Crowder mentions about St. Fancis character is definitely biblical.”

You just trying to pick a fight? ;)

“I mean c’mon, no way you can say that everything St. Francis stood for was Catholic as opposed to Christian. In fact, the SPECIFIC thing Crowder mentions about St. Fancis character is definitely biblical.”

Francis of Assisi was a Roman Catholic mystic, loyal to the Pope, and canonized a saint of the Roman Catholic Church due to such loyalty. Though he had some “good sayings”, that does not make him a true Christian in the biblical sense. By virtue of his adherence to a religion of works, and of adopting Asceticism rather than obedience to the Scriptures, he thus cannot be considered “Christian” (in the Biblical sense).

justforreflection:

” it would also be discerning from our part to realize that we have inherited some of our orthodox doctrines from the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity).”

Wow. If you truly believe that true, bible-believing Christians have “inherited” the doctrine of the Trinity from the Roman Catholic Church, then you’ve been seriously misinformed. The Scriptures testify of the Triune God. We need no organization of men to defer to on this. To further infer that our other basic Christian doctrines (such as the hypostatic union) have been “preserved” by the Roman Catholic Church is bogus as well. Bible believing Christians have held to the unity of humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ since the days of the Apostles, since that is what the Scriptures teach.

I would agree in principle that some “old Christian writings” can be of benefit. But if we’re talking about spiritual benefit, rather than some generic old feel good type of writings, then we must be quick to acknowledge that those fallible authors must be mature born again disciples of Jesus Christ (as evidenced by their fruit) AND their teachings are not in conflict with the Scriptures (see Acts 17:11). That would rule out Francis of Assisi.

“So, if we’re gonna judge David Crowder, let’s do it based in his theology and life, not based on something he read.”

That’s the whole point of the post. We are taking notice of his theology and life. His very claim that Roman Catholic teachings have influenced the very formation of his faith, makes Roman Catholicism a significant part of his theology. That he gravitates toward Catholicism (as described in the article above) is evidence of his significant lack of understanding of Biblical Christianity (which is in conflict with Roman Catholicism). In light of this, we need to ask ourselves: what testimony then is his life bearing?