Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

John MacArthur Versus A Roman Catholic Priest And Billy Graham

Posted by Job on January 26, 2008

A comparison between John MacArthur, a Catholic Priest, Joel Osteen and Billy Graham.

In this post you will see videos from three prominent men of the Christian faith and one Catholic. Each one is interviewed by Larry King and each one is given an incredible opportunity to share the true Gospel of Jesus Christ with millions of viewers; an opportunity of the like that the Apostle Paul never had.

I present the following short video clips for your examination. Please view each and every one of them before coming to a conclusion. When you’re done, I’d like to hear from you.

Of these four men, (preferences and preconceived notions aside), which one best defends the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and which one’s teachings would you want to sit under as the shepherd of your church?

JOHN MACARTHUR

Part One

Part Two

CATHOLIC PRIEST, MICHAEL MANNING

Part One

Part Two

JOEL OSTEEN

Part One

Part Two

BILLY GRAHAM

Part One

Part Two

Advertisements

32 Responses to “John MacArthur Versus A Roman Catholic Priest And Billy Graham”

  1. Pilgrim said

    Thank you for picking up this piece. Since I originally put it together and posted it on November 06, 2007, it has received almost 700 hits (and with barely any challenge from naysayers).

    I hope these videos bless those on this blog as they have on mine.

    Sincerely,
    – The Pilgrim
    from http://www.ReformationNation.net

  2. Job said

    Pilgrim:

    Thanks! I actually used to like watching Father Michael Manning on TBN until the day that he stated that the Roman Catholic translation of John 3:16 is “whosoever believeth in Him MAY be saved”, a reflection of their faith + works formula that goes against the doctrine of their own saints Jerome and Augustine. One issue though … I seem to be missing the first Billy Graham video. Can you provide the link for it?

  3. Pilgrim said

    I’m not sure what happened to it (just another problem with Godtube I guess).
    I’ve included another video in its place.

    – The Pilgrim
    http://www.ReformationNation.net

  4. Lynn said

    I took the time to phone the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. They assured me that Billy Graham has NOT changed his position or what he preaches about the true gospel. You can view their statement of faith at:
    w w w .billygraham. o r g/StatementOfFaith.asp

  5. Job said

    Lynn:

    You have the statements of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association on the telephone versus the statements of Billy Graham himself to the media on repeated occasions, statements which his own son Franklin Graham quickly distanced himself from. So Lynn, who am I to believe are the true representatives of Graham’s beliefs? The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, or Billy Graham himself?

  6. I suspect they’ve been getting calls and had that response ready, but it does not mean Graham really feels that way.

    Joel Osteen posted an apology on his web site after he made those statements. It was there for a while and then he removed it.

    Joel Osteen Issues Apology

    Lakewood posted beliefs

  7. Job said

    IC:

    “It was there for a while and then he removed it.”

    Looks like whoever is REALLY responsible for Osteen’s becoming an international mega superstar began pulling his strings and reminded him EXACTLY who’s boss and what his boss wanted him to say! Whether the entity that has made him into a puppet controlled by strings is of the material world or the spiritual one I leave to speculation, but it does not really matter because the result is still the same!

  8. Tom said

    I will answer your question, which is: Of these four men, (preferences and preconceived notions aside), which one best defends the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and which one’s teachings would you want to sit under as the shepherd of your church?

    Answer: Father Michael Manning. As he said, all salvation is THROUGH Christ. That doesn’t mean the person being saved has to believe in Christ specifically. If my house is on fire, I don’t have to say “I believe in firemen” in order for a fireman to come into the house and save me.

    The gospel is “good news.” I don’t think it’s “good news” at all to
    find out that though I have faith in Christ, since my dead father didn’t (and many of my dead relatives and friends)that he will burn in hell forever.

    The other problem, as several of the people in the videos pointed out, is how do you judge another’s heart? How do you know what did or did not go through their mind right before they died? You don’t, so we should be very careful about “deciding” that this person is saved, and this other one is not. Unless you’re God, you don’t know.

    Before jumping my stuff, check out the site at http://www.tentmaker.org. It’s not my site, but it’s a great resource that explains Christian Universalism, and how it is most congruent with the bible.

    In the meantime, just chew on this: God tells us to love our enemies. Should we expect less from God? Would he let even his enemies, much less one of his children, burn in hell forever, even if the person “wanted” to? I am a father. I don’t care what my children did or said. Even if they were to kill me and say they never wanted to go to heaven, if I had any say in it, they would not go to hell forever. I am not unique in this regard. Should we expect God to be more callous than me?

  9. Ricky Kyles said

    Tom,

    I humbly submit you are deeply flawed in your logic. Your logic turns Jesus own statements on their head. Jesus indicates He is the way, truth and life and no one goes to the Father but through Him. No one is going to ever be in heaven without making a conscious decision to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

    While the statement no one can judge the heart of the person is certainly ture it still remains the reality the heart must believe and the tongue must confess.

    A person must express a geniune faith in the Jesus Christ so Pastor John McArthur was the only person who spoke in the different vignettes whose teaching I would ever sit under.

    There is only one name given amongst man that leads to eternal life and that name is none other than Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

  10. Carl said

    Macarthur is the only one that gives a Biblical response. Jesus says He is the only way to heaven. The others all say, they don’t know or won’t tell.

    If your neighbors house is on fire, what is more loving: to pull out some lawn chairs and watch the show, or go pound on the door, awaken them from their sleep and get them out of the house.

    Obviously the answer is to wake them up. Even if you hated the person, you would go and wake them up.

    That is what Jesus has called His believers to do. There is a coming judgment. It is appointed once for man to die and then the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). Are we too sit idly by watching people perish? Or warn them of the coming doom. We know how God will judge. It is based on the Ten Commandments. All have sinned by breaking God’s Law, so they need to be awakened from their sleep and given the chance to repent and trust in Christ.

  11. Chris said

    At least after over 18 and 1900 years of all these false teachings we finally get men like Macarthur to come along and tell us all the truth. I wonder why it took God so long to get it right and send us these great truths? You guys can find whatever ways you want to put down the Catholic faith, but there is a reason it’s still here and the most powerful church on earth. It’s still the only church linked to Christ. But what else can you do but deny that fact and the Catholic faith? It nullifies your man-made denomination. Why do protestant/pentecostal churches continue to divide and branch off today? Is there any wonder why they can’t agree?

  12. Armand Martinez said

    I am married to an Evangelical Christian, converted out from the Muslim faith. As a Roman Catholic from birth I have had to try to find and apply the “in the essentials unity” precept of St. Augustine, to bring peace to myself and to my marriage. In the process, Meister Eckhart(a priest)perhaps the first “protestant” way before the Protestant Reformation, has helped me learn the essentials that unify rather than divide. I think the ego, the flesh has a compulsion to exclude and gloat in “I am in, you’re not” mentality; when you walk in the Spirit your focus is Love and Compassion as Billy Graham and Father Manning are emphasizing here-we are to be “as He is” by Grace. Life’s too short to spend one minute with using the “you’re going to hell if you don’t convert” phrase over and over. If that’s all we got — or we think there is no way we can communicate our faith to others without using this argument to scare people into Christianity, then that’s a sad state of affairs. Christ’s blood saves persons whether they know it or not.

    • Job said

      2 Corinthians 6:14
      Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

      That verse is often applied to Christians’ only marrying other born again Christians. However, in the actual intent that it was written, this verse and the context surrounding it obviously refers to the fact that Christians should not fellowship with heretics and apostates. By refusing to practice Biblical separation, evangelical Christians disobey a direct, oft-stated and very important commandment of the Lord to His covenant people.

      And what is this “love” of which you speak? How can this “love” allow you not to tell someone that their practices are stenches in the eyes of the Lord and that they are in peril of an eternity in the lake of fire? And tell me: does this “love” only extend to Catholics? Why not Mormons? Simply because their cult is a few hundred years younger than the Catholic one and has fewer people?

      This is precisely the problem with this touchy-feely evangelicalism that is governed by human emotion, our own personal feelings of comfort and right and wrong. Instead, we should study the scriptures. The commandment of Jesus Christ as given in Mark 12:29-31 and Luke 10:27? Love God with all your heart, soul and strength. That comes first. We are to love God first, and we love God by keeping His commandments according to John 14:21. Biblical separation from unbelievers, apostates and heretical movements is one of God’s commandments for Christians. It isn’t the only one, it isn’t the most important one, but it is most clearly one, and an extremely important one. Then AFTER we love God by OBEYING HIM with all our heart, soul and strength, THAT is when we love our neighbor. Loving God, which means OBEYING God, comes first. Then we love our neighbors.

      And I will go further to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to love you neighbor if you are not loving God through obedience. If you aren’t walking with God, you won’t know HOW to love someone else. You might think that you are loving someone but all that time you are mistaking love for hate and hate for love. You are loving after the world or after the flesh instead of the Holy Spirit. Even the born again often mistake the love of God for hatred or unfair treatment and despise it, because we think that the chastening, refining, conforming to image of God’s son that requires much suffering, struggles, trials and tribulation and rejection to be bad things and evil treatment. So many of us believe, are taught to believe, that being a Christian means good times and getting along with everybody when the Bible tells us that sometimes being a Christian means that even our own families will reject us. But the Bible tells us that God reproves us because we are His children, not His servants! And there is the book of Job which is a huge book designed to teach us that fact!

      So if you are not walking with God, you are not loving your neighbor in the way that God wants you to do so. It may be a type of “love” that an indulgent parent who hates to discipline his child because he can’t stand conflict or to see the child cry or always wants to hear “thanks daddy!” metes out … a love that spares the rod and leads the child on the path to destruction. Even a simple example: if your child is sick, do you withhold medicine from that child because it tastes very bad and the child would strongly prefer not taking the medicine? Or say that instead of being a bad tasting medicine that it is an injection? Is allowing your ill child not to “get a shot” because your child doesn’t want one because it will hurt loving that child? Or is the small hurt or the bad taste in the child’s mouth more than worth avoiding the great illness down the line, and one who truly loves the child will know and insist upon this? Well if this is true of a child who has a bad cold, why is it the same not true of the Roman Catholic? Why are we so much more concerned with physical illness, physical peril, but not spiritual illness and peril and then have the audacity to call ourselves Christians? If we were truly believers, we would look to the spiritual sickness first and trust God to heal our bodies!

      It is amazing that so many Bible-believing evangelical Christians ignore the fact that there is NO WAY that the same Holy Spirit who inspired Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and the other epistles that were written primarily to combat false doctrines and movements in the church would turn around and claim that what the Roman Catholics teach and believe should be suffered. If that is the case, what was the problem with Simon Magus in the first place? What was the problem with the Judaizers? The Nicolataines? The Jezebels? Why should the Bible have rejected evil doctrines in the first century only for us to accept evil doctrines in the 21st century?

      Evangelicals who refuse to practice Biblical separation either aren’t reading scripture or aren’t heeding it. There is no way to get around that fact.

  13. Armand Martinez said

    This message of Job is so replete with error it is difficult to figure out where to start.(1) Re your reading of 2 Corinthians 6:14 for your doctrine of “biblical separation”: it is just that, your reading. This Second Letter of Paul by no stretch of the imagination refers to “unbelievers” as “persons not members of” so called “born again Evangelical Christian Church” let alone to Roman Catholics. It can only refer to Paul or the writer’s contemporaries who were unbelievers –ie., pagans engaged in “lawlessness” &“darkness” . Catholics believe in God the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit unlike the pagans referenced here. (2) Your calling the Catholic Church a “cult” merely highlights that its easy to redefine words like “unbelievers” and “cult” and appear to be “reading the bible”. But let’s be honest: when you make the distinction, “biblical truth” vs. unbiblical” or “cult Church”, all you really mean is: “my interpretation of the bible is right, and your interpretation is wrong”. And let’s face it, it is always about one Church’s interpretation (like your Evangelical church) vs. another church’s (like the Catholic church). Psychologically speaking, cults involve overwhelming control over members by usually “elders” or a body or individual, and specific forms of mind control and pressure. I think most fair minded people would agree that neither Catholic or Evangelical congregations per se engage in this. If you define “cult” as meaning any church with doctrines that are “unbiblical” (“as I define that”) then this is no longer an intellectual or spiritual exercise; its insanity and infantile mudslinging.

    • john kaniecki said

      Armand,

      Hi hope you are well.

      And you cannot read the Bible see for yourself that the Catholic Church flagrantly disregards the teachings therein?

      At least an evngelical humbles himself and tries to obey the Word of God.

      If you want a list of errors I certainly could provide one. The idea of a pope, the elevation of priests, cardinals, forbidding or married, worship of Mary, sacraments, praying to saints, sainthood not being the body of believers, the building being holy, holy water, bowing down before the alter, having a mass or sacrifice, calling people father, salvation by works. And this without even getting into deep scriptures.

      Love,

      John

  14. Armand Martinez said

    RE Job comment: My response to the rest of this comment is: its so easy to take material and “argue it” — lawyers do it all the time – argue both sides. Human language lends its self to multiple interpretations. That’s why you need a good Church to guide and humility in knowing that its possible what pops in one’s head on reading a verse may be of the Holy Spirit, or it may not

  15. Armand Martinez said

    it may be our prejudice and bias or false self/flesh being read into it. Witness the the Racists of Martin Luther King’s day (and some still today) that pick up the bible and find a White Supremacist doctrine to apply, or Masters who could preach for slavery.

  16. Armand Martinez said

    Dear John:

    I think we should try to stick to the issue at hand on this string of this website: namely, the video clips re the question of universality of Salvation, rather than “why Catholicism is wrong on doctrine” or worse.

    I can’t answer your questions re Catholic Doctrine better than Karl Keating in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians. Read that and then we can debate its premises and get into some interesting discussions dealing with actual Catholic positions, rather than “straw man” distortions of Catholic doctrine and scriptural interpretation. His basic premise is that the 19th Century writing, “The Fundamentals”, spread most of the current of Evangelical and anti-Catholic thought that still circulates today, and then he addresses each of the category of doctrines.

    I appreciate that in your reply you did not engage in Ad Hominem* type (“Why Catholics are cults” or the like comments). The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person or organization do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

    Here, the clips show diversity of opinion within the Body of Christ** –John MarcArthur, Catholic priest Manning, the Methodist, Joel Osteen, and Billy Graham. I think there is enough material, issues and subissues –to deal with on the theological/biblical interpretation question at hand.. For example, it would be interesting to examine or identify what Protestant tradition is behind the varying Protestant views here reflected. The first Protestant Churches were the Anglican –King Henry the 8th – and Lutheran, from Martin Luther, and then from their followed the plethora of branch outs culminating in the late 1700s and mid 1800s onward with the precursor congregations to the current Evangelical churches.
    Anyway, dealing with the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made), and avoiding personal or group attacks, is tough—but it can lead to the Truth being shared and at least a better mutual understanding among the diverse members of the Body of Christ.

    *Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.” An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person (or of the group he belongs to) presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
    1. Person or Organization A makes claim X.
    2. Person B makes an attack on person A or Organization.
    3. Therefore A’s or Organization ‘s claim is false.

    ** At least in the case of the Catholic Church, every properly (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) Baptized Christian is a member of the “Body of Christ” which St. Paul speaks of — of which we Christians are the members (eyes, ears, hands, figuratively and mystically speaking).

  17. john kaniecki said

    Amand,

    Hi hope you are well.

    I do not have access to the videos so I don’t respond to them.

    This is not a hard thing here. Catholicism does not obey the Word of God. They put tradition or what the Pope says over the Word. Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiment of the world, and not after Christ.”

    How can people be probably bapitzed in the Catholic Church. Do the research. Mathew 28 tells us that to be baptized one must be taught. Romans 6 tells us baptism is a burial. No infant baptism does not add one to the ‘Body of Christ’. It is a useless ritual that has no meaning and only serves to deceive.

    The issue here is the Catholic Church flagrantly disobeys God’s will as told in the Bible. Catholicism is another gospel.

    Galatians 1:9 “…if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accuresed.”

    Love,

    John

  18. john kaniecki said

    Amand,

    Hi hope you are well.

    Furthermore we have history as a witness. We are after all known by our fruits.

    Any group that would want to kill a person for translating the Bible in the vernacular is evil.

    Throw in the crusades and the inquisition as well as the vile evil of ‘conversions’ in the ‘Americas’ and elsewhere.

    The Catholics are wrong both in word and in deed.

    Love,

    John

  19. Armand Martinez said

    Dear John:

    I am sorry you cant see the video clips on this website.

    Again the issue in this string was universality of salvation, or not–Catholic Priest citing Second Vatican Council Modern Catholic theology, said: a devout Jewish Rabbi (who was near him in the Larry King show clip shown in this website) who loves God the Father, could be saved by Christ’s blood (even if the Rabbi doesn’t acknowledge Christ as his Lord and Savior). The Protestants represented in the video clips showed diversity of opinion and reasoning: John MacArthur-stated the clear conservative fundamentalist interpretation – ie the above Jewish Rabbi notwithstanding his love and devotion to God the Father, is going to hell; and then others kind of were “left” of that strict position: the Methodist, Joel Osteen, and Billy Graham for different reasons and on various different grounds (“I can’t judge” or “I don’t know what is in the heart” of any man (ie like the above “unbeliever” Jew), no once can limit God’s loving mercy or presume to say who goes to hell and who not, or “I don’t say that…my calling is to spread the love of God).

    Re your comments re Catholic Church: now you’ve delved in the mud of Ad hominen attacks which is too bad. And you know, this is the same fallacious argument that atheists and those who hate any Christian or Catholic church always bring out–my response is to them as to you on this point: show me one group of humanity who does not have blood on his hands and has not committed attrocities of some sort — you can’t. Martin Luther was anti-Semitic: should all protestants who have built their various churches on his foundational thoughts now just “pick up and leave”? No he got that wrong–but he got some things right– the Catholic Church institution of his day was corrupt and screwed up, while a group of saintly Catholics then (as now) prayed with tears for its revival and reform. Southern “bible” believing churches in the South before and after Emancipation oppressed, very savagely and inhumanely blacks–so Have i now “proved”: Don’t believe anything coming out of Modern Southern “bible” believing churches in the South –having any roots to the earlier Churches in the time of Slavery or Jim Crow ?–are you kidding?! I watched Fireproof from the Georgia church-filmakers, watch some TBN broadcasts, and listen to Gene Kudrow’s tapes on Flesh Spirit over and over its so good and powerful-just to gve a few egs.
    I hope I live to see the Body of Christ members begin to more regularly learn from each other and have respect for each other, even while politely disagreeing, so that we can build up the true “Church” that is not&never was in any building now standing or ever built.

  20. John Kaniecki said

    Armand,

    Hi hope you are well.

    Yes slave owners in the South were certainly not following Jesus when they forced their slaves to work in brutal conditions, raped their women, and sold the children on the auction block like cattle. I expect no slave masters in heaven unless they have repented and ceased their evil.

    Yes the Puritans of this country were evil when they taught ‘health and wealth’ and committed genocide against the Native Americans.

    Yes the Lutherans did wrong to oppress the various other factions of Christianity and to have a carnal war with the Catholics.

    Look if you want to move forward in God and Christ Jesus then denounce the evil of the past. Denounce the wickedness in your own group. Something which the Pope has not done. If one of these other groups have changed and transformed by repentence so much the better. Yet if they cling to the past and say that slavery, or genocide or any other evil is okay then I have a serious problem with the fundamentals of their doctrine.

    Concerning ‘God fearing’ Jews who do not accept Jesus I will simply quote Jesus “I am the way the truth and the life no one cometh to the Father but by me.”

    Let us draw a chart on the wall that measures goodness. On the right side we will write the name Jesus my Lord and Saviour. On the left side we will put a very evil person, say Hitler. Now we will put Armand Martinez on the board. I hope you agree that your name will be somewhere in the middle. Exactly where it lies does not matter as long as you don’t think it is the same with Jesus. Now the Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death. The Bible also teaches that to be made perfect by the law one must keep the entire law, which only Jesus did. Now it just takes one sin to make you dead. But I am reasonably certain that you would agree Armand that you have sinned many times. Therefore Armand spiritually you are dead. Now salvation is of grace. We must be in Christ. Only one person is going to be saved and that is Jesus. Now the Church of Christ is of course the Body of Christ. If your are outside of Jesus you are outside of grace. John 3:16-18 “For God so Loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

    So you explain to me by scripture how a Jew, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Budhist can every be saved? It is not by works!!! You say the Jewish man in the video is Loving and God fearing. Can you see his heart Armand? Are you above God to change His Word? If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with the Lord and admonish Him! After all it is His Word you are contradicting.

    Please you are not looking at scripture but talking through some other medium. You are using human reasoning or misguided Catholicism.

    Simply put, no relationship with Jesus no salvation. If you can’t agree with this then I suggest you give me scripture that would refute it.

    First of all be honest and admit the great evil done by the Catholic Church. Secondly admit that the Catholic Church does not adhere to scripture but has another authority. It places the teachings of the Pope over God’s Word. Without being honest this discussion will never produce fruit.

    Do not point fingers at other groups and say they are just as evil as the Catholic Church. All the proves is the Bible is true when it says wide and broad is the way to damnation and many walk down it. God hates all sin. Christians must hate evil no matter who does it.

    Love,

    John

  21. Armand Martinez said

    re “Yet if they cling to the past and say that slavery, or genocide or any other evil is okay then I have a serious problem with the fundamentals of their doctrine” and “Do not point fingers at other groups and say they are just as evil as the Catholic Church.” — I am “pointing fingers”

  22. Armand Martinez said

    (cont) only in the sense that i want to point out we are all on equal ground–you can get any group or church or institution or country and find some “skeletons in the closet” which give you some ad hominen amo. So let’s cut that out and move on to the issues. You still speak of the “evil” Catholic Church clearly implying that the Catholic Church of today is the same as the one of yesterday–of all the evils you recount–and you know it isn’t. And the same can be said of the Protestant churches. I agree evil is evil – when protestant King H the 8th beheaded Thomas More that was evil, when the Inquisition killed “infidels” and “heretics” that was evil. I am just saying let look at today’s reality not yesterday’s. Today the Catholic church does not punish anyone for masses in the vernacular — thanks to reforms of Vatican I and II – the Church has evolved. I cant call K H’s church (anglican) church “evil”–they dont persecute catholics now – so why would I speak of the “evil Anglican Church”–the modern Churches is different. But yes there are different readings of the bible and different doctrines –and each church or its leaders claim to be “led by the Spirit”. I believe each church whether or not they admit it, promulgate both their authority based on sacred scripture and tradition (their traditional way of looking at how to read the bible and of formulating key doctrines of the faith). Evangelicals read the bible under the lenses of fundamentalism as its evolved since “The Fundamentals” publication came out more than a century ago – and Catholics are guided by the “Early Fathers of the Church” of the first centuries and their views on scripture and the Christian way–then in the 4th Century Augustine set major doctrines down (for good and for ill) that affect Western Christianity (catho and protestant) to this day, and distinguish it from the eastern Orthodox Churches’ doctrines that deemphasize Augustine’s concept of Original Sin and talk more about how through grace we can become “as He is” in this life, divinized. I think humility in this context means, maybe my 1 Church does not have all the answers and so it’s worth it to hear what other members of the Body of Christ have to say on this matter and why – or learn from how they try to deepen their relationship with Christ.

  23. John Kaniecki said

    Armand Martinez,

    Hi hope you are well.

    The main point is that the Catholic Church has never denounced their evils, and admitted they were wrong, let alone make reperations. The Catholic Churches in Spain are lined with the gold from the ‘new world’ of the Americas. Gold bought with blood and slave labour of the Native Americans.

    I have talked to the Mormons about their religion. They had both massacred the Utes and denied membership to blacks. Yet now they have apologized for their killings and have changed their policy about darker skinned members. Though I certainly reject Mormon doctrine this openness and is a very good thing. Has the Catholic Church done this regarding the blood on their hands?

    No one church or one person will never have perfect knowledge. Yes what others say are important. But the main teaching comes through the Bible as guided by the Holy Spirit. As far as the Catholic Church and the Bible when I was raised in that group not once in eighteen years did we open a Bible to read out of it!

    Saying these things let us move on unless you feel you have more to say.

    I really want you to address how one can be saved outside of Jesus.

    Love,

    John

  24. john kaniecki said

    Armand,

    Hi hope you are well.

    In my own group the Church of Christ some supported slavery before the civil war. That is wrong and evil.

    One difference between the Church of Christ and the Catholic church is that we do not have a hierarchy. That is each congregation is independent and Jesus is the head not a Pope. (The International Church of Christ is a seperate entity.) Getting aside the non Biblical status of having a Pope let us deal with the reality.

    I believe it is just recently that the Catholic Church has admitted wrong doing to Galileo. Yet there is much other blood on their hands. Unlike the Moromon Church who readily admits their error the Catholic Church has not. Furthermore a question I pose to both groups is that if your leader is infallable then how can they be so wrong? I mean totally contrary to the Word of God. The Catholic Church killed people for translating the Bible into common languages.

    Be that as it may unless you have further comments I would like you to address how one can be saved outside of Jesus. Please give scriptures that you feel support that.

    Love,

    John

  25. Armand Martinez said

    first thing: we start out with a bias and read the bible and interpret it in accord with that bias — ie the bias of “what my church believes” –whether the “doctrine” is stated explicitly in canon law and creeds and catechisms like the Roman Catholic church and via professions of faith in mainline protestant denominations, or implicitly in case of most Evangelical Churches, when congregants here the doctrines esp of the “The Fundamentals” stated and restated, of course, after the statement, “the bible says…”. Yes, we are all biased–at least let’s admit that. but you and I would have more in common in our interpretation than an atheist who hates all Christians.

    as an eg. you present Church History, Evangelical Church version; I present the Catholic Church apologist version, highlighting how the modern Catholic church has more humane and “open” practices than before; you harp back to Galileo and the vague reference to the “much other blood on” hands (i am amazed that in your anti-Catholic zeal, you lift up the Mormans, who are not even Christian–a group denying the essential creeds of the faith). And this may be because “The Fundamentals” document was nothing if not an anti-Catholic diatribe–in other words an anti-Catholic bias may be inherent in evangelical fundamentalist mind set — I hope not — and

  26. Armand Martinez said

    so with that hope I proceed:
    1. Father Manning at one point explained one of the rationales for his position, that he has a lot of trouble believing that, Jesus — who invited (and this was revolutionary in the jewish world of his day) persons to pray not to YHWH the unspeakable God, but instead to “Abba”–daddy– would be upset if a person returned to Jesus’ Father to love and obey him — and in fact send such a person to hell. How could you possibly read the parable of the Prodigal Son that way – you really cant — unless we put on the map/lense/blinders of a pre-given denomination. Check it out: Luke 15: 1-32. I think Jesus made the point there that the reprehensible outsiders at least as far as the religious establishment was concerned–“tax collectors and sinners” had no chance spiritually speaking: but Jesus preached: they are immensely loved as prodigal sons in the mud (in the case of our issue-the “mud” of non-Christian teaching)–yet what does the father–not religion–require? Just return to the Father, contrite & humble. I think Father Manning, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, the Methodist–dont want to fit the role of the grumbling elder brother — who is like the guy Jesus says calls out, “Lord Lord – we preached in your name…” and is told: “Get away from me!” I don’t see how once can interpret into this parable the idea that the Father’s heart will reject other “prodigal sons” because they’re different, like maybe Samaritan–and we know what Jesus thinks of samaritans!

  27. john kaniecki said

    Armand,

    Hi hope you are well.

    I agree one hundred percent we come to the Bible with a bias. To say otherwise would be denying our humanity.

    The issue with the Catholic Church is that they refuse to admit to the wrong they have done. I could bring up the Catholic Church’s close assocation with the Nazi Part in Germany or more recently the sexual abuse of children by preists. The problem with the Catholic Church is that you claim the Pope to be infallable. Now if your infallable leader is dead wrong on many issues and past things then the whole legitamacy of the system crumbles. The evil deeds of the past have never been admitted as wrong.

    I could bring up a better scripture regarding salvation by works. Look Mathew 25 and the parable of the sheep and the goats. However we must look at the Bible as a whole. There are plenty of scriptures, John 3 and John 14:6 that say without Jesus there is no connection with God.

    I have to return to work as lunch is over. I hope that you can address my comments to this point.

    Love,

    John

  28. John Kaniecki said

    Armand,

    Hi hope you are well.

    I only lift up Mormonism as far as they have done right. They have done wrong and have admitted to that wrong. It is more than the
    Catholic Church has done! Admitting mistakes is a good thing. I reject Mormonism as a hersey. Look how Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder, died, in a gun battle. Far from how Stephen died or our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet still the Mormons reject part of their past and admit they were wrong. This is simply telling the truth about them. It is more than the Catholic church has done.

    I can show you scripture which the Catholic Church violates. A bishop must be married and have children. We are commanded to call no man ‘father’. What do you listen to, the Bible or the teachings of your church?

    Love,

    John

  29. shad said

    I think Larry King did a good job of getting straight answers from his guests. At least the listener can’t say “all religions are basically the same”. John MacArthur teaches the Bible. The others are teaching philosophy based on tradition or other source.

  30. taharkaj01 said

    Not sure if one could decide by a video clip. However, watching sermons from these ministers, I could not place myself under the pastorial leadership of someone or anyone who peaches hate. When love is not present in your message, when you attack Christians and deny the work of the Holy Spirit, you have not Christ but are only spewing hate and confusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: