Catholic Sympathizer on Staff at RZIM
July 19, 2007
To my utter amazement, while doing some research on Roman Catholicism, I found this staff bio at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM)
Jill Carattini
Jill Carattini graduated with a degree in Theology from Hope College in Holland, Michigan where she also attended Western Theological Seminary. She has enjoyed living and working in diverse ministry settings including urban ministry and university campus ministry. She has also spent time in a Native American community working within a local church in rural Oklahoma. Jill has studied in the Middle East, participating in a program aimed at understanding the culture, history, and politics of the Middle Eastern conflict. She enjoys studying and reading widely in areas of theology, sociology, and psychology. Among her favorite thinkers are Malcolm Muggeridge, Henri Nouwen, and many of the early church pilgrims, though the writings of C.S. Lewis have been most formative in her own thought and writing. Jill is a native of Pentwater, Michigan, and currently resides with her husband Tony in Atlanta, Georgia. Jill Carattini is a senior associate writer at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.
I have serious concerns given RZIM’s reputation for conservative evangelical apologetics. I don’t know Jill Carattini’s personal doctrinal positions (Reformed, Roman Catholic, etc.) but I am concerned that she puts so much stock in the men listed in her bio. Malcom Muggeridge, Henri Nouwen where both Roman Catholics and C.S. Lewis was very sympathetic to the Catholic faith.
In Jill’s article “With All the Saints” I quote.
If you have ever read anything of Saint Simeon the Stylite, undoubtedly, you have not forgotten him. Simeon was the first of a long succession of “pillar hermits” who held a great reputation for holiness in Eastern Christendom. Practicing a rather peculiar form of asceticism, Simeon sat atop a freestanding, fifty-foot column for 36 years. Upon his pillar, Simeon devoted himself to silence, prayer, fasting, and the writing of letters.
Saint Francis of Assisi lived his life on land, but like Simeon, with his heart firmly planted in the heavens. He is celebrated as the gentle saint with the all-embracing love of nature. He ate with lepers, sang to flowers, and preached entire sermons to birds. Saint Francis served Christ passionately, giving away everything–his wealth, his clothes, his rights. Even his asceticism was clothed with a sort of divine romance; he often referred to “Lady Poverty” as his wife of surpassing beauty.
There is something within the lifestyles of the early Christian saints, mystics, and martyrs that wakes me from my comfortable slumber and woos my soul to rise. Their stories are filled with a curious intensity, so far from the Laodicean neutrality that is widely prevalent today. Many lived lives full of visions of Christ’s suffering, others spent months or years in caves wholly devoted to prayer and fasting. In each story, however extreme or strange the expression of faith, I am touched by the incredible thirst of a soul, the passionate pursuit of God, and the delight of a life lived in the presence of Christ the King. At a time when we can look around us and see the dire thirst of the world, such lives depict a deep well of hope–a well these men and women drank deeply of themselves–indeed, living their lives solely to pursue.
These men, no matter how pious and ascetic, did not follow or walk in the presence of Christ. At least not the Christ of Holy Scripture. Roman Catholicism is not a Christian Church, they are an apostate church. Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma denies the essential truths of Orthodox Christianity.
This is the question we are left with. Can a ministry be faithful to the truth when they have ministry staff steeped in Roman Catholic literature and doctrine?
Helpful links:
Apprising Ministries Articles on Roman Catholicism
Proclaiming The Gospel Ministries
Has Ravi Zacharias Gone Contemplative?
Posted in Apologetics, Catholicism, False Doctrine, RZIM, Ravi Zacharias
July 19th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Hello Shane,
This needs to be pointed out. I personally don’t quote from Zacharias due to his ecumenical leanings.
It even goes so far as his “preaching” at the Mormon Tabernacle and the “apology” to this despicable Christ-hating non-Christian cult. If you haven’t seen it I cover it in THE ETERNALLY DEADLY FALSE HOPE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
This article is also disturbing http://absolutedominion.blogspot.com/2007/04/has-ravi-zacharias-gone-contemplative.html
Keep up the good work my brother because the Lord is now shining light onto the squalid compromise within the American Christian Church. It’s going to get worse…
July 19th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Your analysis is spot on here, Shane.
One wants to cry out, “Say it ain’t so, Ravi!”, but his ecumenical pattern is clearly and irrefutably established.
Additionally whom one surrounds oneself with speaks volumes. Either Ravi has a lot of house cleaning to do within his ministry, or his hirelings and hangers-on are calculated and intentional employees.
The din of silence on these troubling subjects coming from Ravi’s ministry is deafening.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:17 am
While I fully agree that the Catholic church is apostate, I think you’re going too far criticizing a ministry because they are making references to or quoting adherents of Catholicizm. Just because someone is a member of a cult or apostate church does not mean that we can’t learn lessons from their lives. Just because the Mormon church is cultic does not mean that with alot of prayer and given a clear leading of the Spirit that one could feasibly be called to address them — I have heard Ravi speak of the decision concerning speaking at that particular event, and he clearly felt this to be a God-ordained opportunity, and approached it with a great deal of prayer.
I would suggest that if you have concerns, you look up the phone number of RZIM on their website and call their office to discuss and understand where Jill and Ravi are coming from. I have done this with various organizations in past and it’s worth the effort, especially when it comes to making statements concerning an entire ministry. There are significant assumptions underlying your posts. If I were spending my entire life travelling the globe trying sincerely and in His strength to preach and defend the Word, I would be disheartened at fellow members of the Body making public-facing statements that question the valididty of my ministry without coming to validate these with me directly, first.
Just my thoughts. Not intended as a flame or anything like that … just a caution against making statements in a public forum like this questioning a ministry without all the facts. We are one Body and there are clear instructions for dealing with conflict or issues with someone’s teachings in the Word … Blessings.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
You guys are the apostate and dividers of Christianity!
You are just one more of the 35,000 protestant denominations
Remenber Jn. 17:21 - .. that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you
October 30th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Jose,
That would certainly be the ‘pot calling the kettle black!’
Tell me…was your harsh comment meant to bring unity here, or do you simply fall into the same category as those you have falsely judged?
The proper way to dialogue here (if you wish to be taken seriously) is to provide evidence and/or statements of support to back your claims.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:02 am
“The proper way to dialogue here (if you wish to be taken seriously) is to provide evidence and/or statements of support to back your claims.”
I got ya. Your talking the kind of dialogue you did with me on the Mt. Tereas post. You claim stuff, i reply back then i dont hear from you again. I wish you guys would just shut me up by answering my questions.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 am
Whoa there Phil,
You might need to refresh my memory. I don’t remember any dialog with you where I left your questions unanswered. Am I wrong about that?
Michael
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Michael i am honored to talk with you. I have never had the opportunity get in depth discussion with a professional evangelist. I checked out your site, i appreciate the zeal you have. I actually live in Rob Bell’s city. the interesting discussion i have had. Trying to make doctrine important to these people makes me want to pull my hair out. At least with you guys, we can bypass the importance of doctrine.
Yes you are wrong on that. If you go the mother Teresa section you will find on sept 20th and on sept 25th, you didnt answer any of my questions. Maybe on my sept. 25th post you can use it for your next newsletter about Catholicism and the god of islam.
Lastly, from what i read i too would be passionately reaching out to catholics if i believed what you believe we believe. Too bad what you believe about Catholicism is not correct. But that is why we are having these discussions, so again i am honored to by able to dialog with you.
November 4th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Phil,
You are right about the postings. I completely overlooked that, and I apologize.
I’m traveling again this weekend and will be home Monday evening. I’ll follow up with those posts.
Thanks for your patience.
As for the previous comments….It made me laugh that you called me a ‘professional’ evangelist. I know what you meant, but I’m a real nobody. I sometimes laugh at what most people consider when they think of an ‘evangelist’. What they are usually referring to is nothing more than a traveling preacher [a person with a suit on carrying a briefcase, who has three hot sermons and a fast car (so he can get away quickly)]. So, I do laugh at that though. A true evangelist is someone who is called to, and gifted in, the art of winning souls. That is my passion, and what I desire to become.
A dear friend of mine won ‘music evangelist of the year’ several years ago at the CCMA awards and told me that he felt awkward about it because he hasn’t really (personally) led anyone to Christ. He was broken over the fact that he had been honored with something that he did not deserve. Since then, however, he has made a point to be a soulwinner.
I look forward to talking with you soon.
Michael
November 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Phil,
I have taken some time to answer the questions, and I will be able to do more perhaps tomorrow. At the end of this, I have included a link to my website where you will find audio messages by John MacArthur on the topic of Catholicism. I strongly recommend listening to them, as I will be bringing much information from them.
1. Concerning Logic Errors…
It is illogical to argue from a standpoint which is based on assumption. I addressed that in the first of the two points that I brought up, which is the idea that Peter was the first ‘pope.’ This is one of the primary differences between the theologies of Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholics base everything on that assumption, and I deny the assumption.
I have a greek new testament and have studied this passage several times. In the passage, there are two separate words used for “rock” (boulder) and “pebble” (small stone), the latter of which is attributed to Peter. These two words are Petra and Petros. The ‘rock’ that Jesus was referring to (upon which He will build His church) is revealed in the preceding passage. The ‘rock’ is the revelation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If Peter had been the rock that Jesus was referring to, then the word Petros would have been used twice. Here is a link (http://www.carm.org/catholic/peter.htm) to some further study on the topic.
2. Concerning the use of the Mt. 16:18 passage….
If your argument for Catholicism does not stem from that passage, then what does it stem from? That is a foundational teaching of Catholicism, upon which everything else is built.
3. Concerning the doctrines of the Council of Trent…
You disagree that the findings of the council of trent made ‘traditions’ equal to scripture?
Here is an excerpt from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, paragraph 82 (here is the source - http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm)
“Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (Par. 82).
4. Concerning the authority of scripture (alone)…
I think what you are doing is confusing logical truth and theological truth. Here is a simple explanation of the difference. We know that 2+2 = 4. That is a very simple truth (unless you are a post-modern emergent). LOL. So, that simple math is true, and it is logical, but it is not written in scripture. However, when we are looking at theological truths, we have everything in scripture that we need, in order to determine doctrine, and we need not add anything to it (i.e. purgatory, worship of Mary, etc, etc…). I believe that we should be like the Bereans and search the Word to ‘see if these things are so.’
5. Concerning which church to attend…
We are shown in scripture (references here http://www.carm.org/doctrine/essentials.htm) what is required belief for Christianity, and why. So, in looking for a church, I would certainly begin by looking for one that affirms these doctrines. The Catholic church affirms all but one, and that is salvation by grace through faith alone. Good works will follow a believer, but they are not essential to salvation. If your good works required for you to be made righteous, then you are bringing into question the sufficiency of the atoning work wrought on the cross. This is one doctrine that the catholic church embraces that challenges the sufficiency of the cross (some of the others are purgatory, penance, indulgences, etc). So, for this reason (and many others), I would strongly encourage people NOT to attend the catholic church.
6. This, again, is a false assumption. Peter was not the leader of the church. If he were, logically, then why is there no evidence that he ever pastored a church in Rome (as catholics say)?
7. The scriptures say that the church has been given Pastors, Teachers, Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry. There is a great number of Protestant pastors (and other various ministry leaders) who have done a terrible job in living up to that calling, just as there is a great number of catholic leaders guilty of the same. Again, we must be like the Bereans and search the scriptures to validate the teachings, not just accept what someone say’s. We are supposed to remain humble and learn from our teachers, but when that teaching violates the Word of God, then we should no longer submit ourselves to it. I have had many debates with Catholics over the last few years and so many of them have told me that they have been instructed not to read the Bible. Perhaps it is because they might read verses that contradict the things that they have been taught. like Hebrews 7:27 (in speaking of the mass), which states “who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” This one passage (in my opinion) dismantles the Catholic mass (which is a false sacrifice, of a false Jesus, by a false priest on a false alter – again, my opinion). For further clarification on this, please click the link below to listen to the Audio Messages by John MacArthur.
8. The church is built on the revelation of Jesus being the Son of God (Mt. 16), so I don’t see what the problem is with the 1 Timothy passage. The only trouble comes if, and when, someone begins with a false interpretation of what the church is actually built upon (Jesus or Peter).
9. God did use fallible men to write the word, but it is still God’s Word. Let me explain. When you sit down to write a letter, does your pen write it, or do you write it? Obviously you are the one writing it, and the pen is just an instrument. That is the same with the writing of the Bible. God wrote it through man, and it is infallible because of God, not man. When groups (like Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others) begin adding to the finished word, these teachings cannot be considered infallible.
http://www.carm.org/bible/inspiration.htm
I’ll write more soon. In the meantime, I STRONGLY recommend listening to these messages on Catholicism.
They are by John MacArthur, and they bring a great deal of light to the topic.
http://www.streetreach.com/Audio%20Messages.htm
Michael
Michael P. McGrath
StreetReach Founder
StreetReach.com
michael@streetreach.com
P.O. Box 9535
Longview, TX 75608
StreetReach Office/Fax 903-663-4035
Sign up for the StreetReach newsletter by clicking here. Be sure to select .html format.
“Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria”
“Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone, in Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone”
November 9th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Michael I knew you wouldn’t disappoint. Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions and begin a dialogue.
I went to your site and listened to MacArther talk on the pope. Actually I first accidentally clicked on his teaching about the priesthood. If you remember, he started out the talk with a joke. It was how Catholics don’t use the bible. I will give him credit it was pretty funny. I did laugh and am laughing again as I write this.
I just wanted to quickly comment on what he talked about and then continue our discussion. I want to say that I agree with about 95% of what he said. I too reject the protestant misrepresented and distorted view of the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church was what he presented than I too would be zealous about converting Catholics. Like I said in a pervious post, If I believed the lies about Catholicism you did, than I too would be doing what you do. But since I understand the Catholic Church the way her Husband views her without all the deception and half truths, I cant but defend her honor. So with that let’s further our discussion to hopefully glorify God and grow in a deeper relationship with the Lord.
1 and 2. Do I believe everything is based off the assumption that Peter was the first Pope? No. My view of the Catholic Church stems from me being a good Berean. The Church of the New Testament is the same, just a lot younger looking than the Catholic Church of today. Here is how my view is formed (please read carefully, tons of scripture references):
Believing that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I see that it teaches that Jesus Christ founded a church…one church. I also see that the gates of Hell will not prevail against this church. This church, as the Bible tells us, is the Body of Christ. Christ is intimately linked and identified with the church. In Acts, we see that Paul was persecuting the church, then later on we see that Jesus asked Paul, “Why are you persecuting Me?” Jesus identifies Himself with this church. It also tells us that this church is the bride of Christ and that the two have become one. It also tells us that, within the church, there are those who have been given the power of binding and loosing on earth, that which will be bound and loosed in Heaven. It also tells us that within the church there are those of whom Jesus says, “He who hears you, hears Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me.” This church is also described as the pillar and bulwark of the truth. This church is shown to be the final arbiter in disputes between Christians. This church also has leaders who can say, “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” Also, we see that this church called a council to settle a doctrinal dispute and that the leaders of this council spoke on behalf of the Holy Spirit. This church has the Holy Spirit guiding it unto all truth. This church has Jesus with it unto the end of the age.
So, if the leaders of this church can bind and loose on earth, that which will be bound and loosed in heaven, and since God cannot bind and loose error, then these leaders must not be able to commit an error in this binding and loosing process. If the gates of Hell will not prevail against this church, as Jesus promised, then this church must not be able to teach error…because Satan is the father of all lies, so if this church teaches error, then the gates of Hell have indeed prevailed against it. If this church has leaders who can say that we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error by seeing who does and does not listen to them, then they must not be able to teach error. And, if this church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, then it must not be able to teach error. How could an error-filled church be described as the pillar and bulwark of the truth? And, if it is the final arbiter among Christians, then it must not be able to teach error. And, if this church has leaders who, when we hear them we are hearing Jesus, it must not be able to teach error, because Jesus cannot teach error (Just to let you know my buddy wrote this awhile back).
I would say that I was being a pretty “good Berean.” I would say my position is more than the “illogical assumption that Peter was the first pope.” I would also say that this “assumption” has a lot of more backing from scripture than your “be a good Berean” defense, which I plan on dismantling in #4.
3. (Could you sum up your arguments from other sources instead of just adding links. There is so much I could comment on that it could be a discussion in itself. And this way it will make sure that I cannot pick and choose what I want to discuss.)
- Yes I disagree that the findings of the council of trent made tradition equal to scripture. My argument wasn’t that I disagreed with trent it was that it did not make tradition equal to scripture, St. Paul did. 2 Thes 2:15 says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Here Paul demands that we hold to the traditions either by their epistles (scripture) or by word (this is what Catholics call Sacred Tradition). He did not say you must only accept what I taught you in letter. Nor does he say that you must either accept tradition or the bible. What he says is you must stand fast and hold to the TRADITIONS, which come to you in two ways; word and epistle. Paul sounds not very “Epistle alone” to me. Sounds pretty catholic.
- The council of Trent was just clearly defining what Jesus’ believers have always believed. The church only defines things when heresy arises. For example, I assume you believe that Christians from the time of the Apostles always believed that Christ was God. Well, this doctrine wasn’t argued over and officially defined until the Council of Nicaea. Now you could be like the Da Vinci code people who say that it was at this council were the Catholic Church made up the belief that Jesus was God or you could be like every other believing Christian and understand that Christians always believed Jesus was divine, and it wasn’t until there was rampant heresy that motivated the church to officially define the nature of Jesus.
- Here is food for thought. Maybe the next time you hear McArthur say that “the Catholic Church just made up the belief of Papal infallibility in 20 century”, just remember the example I just explained, and ask yourself, “is he fairly presenting Catholic teaching or is he using a double standard? A standard he wouldn’t use if he was challenged by the followers of the da vinci code regarding the nature of Jesus.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
4. I like the postmodern joke. Funny! I will be posting the answer to this question soon.
5. My question wasn’t what church should I attend. My question was what church should I take Shane to? Because Mt. 18 says I need to take him to the church because he has bared false witness against me by misrepresenting the Catholic Church. So how am I going to have Mt. 18 fulfilled in your view of church? What I was trying to highlight is that there is no church in the Protestant system that can have this kind of authority. Because if one was going to disagree with his church he would just say that that church was not interpreting Scripture correctly, so I don’t have to listen to him. I will just listen to my own individual, fallible interpretation. Would you agree the way Protestants view the church there is no way that this verse could be fulfilled? Would you agree that in reality you are not really relying on scripture alone, you are relying on your individual judgment, your fallible opinion, as to what Scripture says. It is your opinion of what Scripture says, which is the final authority, not Scripture itself. Do you agree or disagree, if disagree why is this not true?
6. We can discuss this when we talk specifically about the primacy of Peter.
7. I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You wrote, “We are supposed to remain humble and learn from our teachers, but when that teaching violates the Word of God, then we should no longer submit ourselves to it.” So in your bible it says for Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority, unless their teaching disagrees with your individual, fallible interpretation of scripture?” Hmm, that is interesting my bible doesn’t say that. You wouldn’t be adding to scripture would you? Do you actually believe the writer’s intent was what you just wrote? Or do you think that you have to make up that interpretation to be consistent with your bible alone assumption?
You wrote, “they have been instructed not to read the Bible.” It is so sad that Catholics do not know their faith enough to believe that they shouldn’t read their bibles because “The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” (CCC133) If you hear that again, ask them if they have ever read their catechism because in the official teaching of their Church it forcefully tells them to read their bibles. (if they own one).
You wrote, “Perhaps it is because they might read verses that contradict the things that they have been taught.” That is an interesting theory, but untrue of course. I would bet that Catholics receive more bible at their services than any Protestant service out there. At every Sunday Mass, Catholics hear the word of God proclaimed straight from the bible without any commentary from the pastor. We hear from the old testament, hear from one of the epistles and then we hear from the gospel. In a two year time, Catholics would have pretty much have heard the whole bible. How much bible does your congregation hear in a two year time period?
About the Mass. Interesting opinion. I can understand why one might think that, if I had a false understanding of the Mass than I would probably believe that to. So for right now, lets put that topic on the self and just stick to the role of church authority in the sola scriptura world.
8. Maybe I don’t understand what you wrote but it sounded a little like what you did in #7. My bible says that the “church is the pillar and foundation of truth.” Your bible says, “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth only if you agree with their interpretation of Scripture.” I guess if I believed that every Christian was given the right to interoperate scripture any way he wants or to say it more charitably the way he believes the holy spirit is leading him, then I too would twist the scripture to say that. At least you are trying to be consistent in your heresy. Question: If there is no one who can authoritatively declare what is true and what is false in the areas of faith and morals, then what are we left with?…. Protestantism.
Also please do not think that it’s Peter or Jesus. Its not an either/or proposition. Its you are obedient to Jesus when you are obedient to Peter. Remember what I wrote in #1. Remember “he who hears you, hears me.”
9. I agree that God wrote the bible through man. I agree it is infallible because of God not man. The point to my question was that the same way God used those men, he is using the Catholic Church. Not to add to his Word but to infallibly interpret it. My point was not to prove that this is true but to open your mind and heart to the possibility that it could be true because God did it in a similar way when he used men to write His bible. So my question to you is do you believe it is at least possible, especially since we both agree God has done something similar to this before, that the Catholic Church could be infallible, yes or no?
November 10th, 2007 at 12:30 am
WOW! There sure was a lot of misrepresenting going on there (your Bible / my Bible). It was a good laugh, but seriously, have you ever heard the term ’straw man argument?’ You sure did that a lot. Lots of practice, perhaps?
I’ll be commenting on these things this weekend.
November 10th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
i cant wait for your comments. I certainly wouldnt want to pull a MacArthur. Seriously, if you think that is what i am doing please call me out on it and then prove to me that is what i am doing.
November 10th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
You don’t want to pull a MacArthur?! Thats funny. He gives fact, after fact, after fact, continuously (with documentation) for over 7 hours in those audio files that I directed you to. Can you refute the things he say’s? Or, do you just want to accuse him of being wrong with no verification? Perhaps we should go through all of those audio files together and pick them apart point by point. Then you would have the chance to prove him wrong, not just accuse him of being wrong.
Lets start with the audio file The idolatry of Mary worship, Part 1.
Here’s the link … http://streetreach.com/Audio%20Messages.htm
As for the previous questions your presented (and the misrepresentations), I’ll respond soon.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:08 am
“Fact, after fact, after fact…” So just because you quote some documentation, does that mean you are then putting it into the correct context? Just because you quote some documentation, does that mean you are expressing it with the writer’s intention? Just because you quote some documentation, does that mean are using words to mean the same thing? Come on Michael, I know you are not that naive to believe that.
“Do I want to accuse him with no verification?” that is my hope by talking with you- to help clear up some of your distortions about Catholicism (and hopefully by God’s grace welcome you into the Catholic family). Could we in the future discuss his talks? I wouldn’t have a problem with that. But I think what we are doing now needs to be further explored. We need to continue to do two things…see if Catholics are adding to the Word of God by including Sacred Tradition or are Protestants subtracting from the Word of God by limiting it to Scripture alone. We also need to discuss the authority issue because basically every issue ultimately comes down to who or what has the final authority to decide these matters.
Lastly, are praying that you are open to the Holy Spririt to seek truth no matter where it leads you?
November 14th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Naïve? That’s hilarious. Especially coming from someone who prays to a dead woman and believes in transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, sinlessness of Mary, perpetual virginity, etc, etc. All that…yet I’m the one that’s naïve? That’s funny.
I’ll tell you, there is absolutely no hope of converting me to your false religion.
You blindly accept the teachings of the magesterium (which, in your opinion, makes you a good berean), and if someone brings an opposing viewpoint, you say that they are not being a good berean. You’ve completely missed the point as to what makes someone a good berean. The Bible (Acts 17) says that the bereans searched the scriptures (not tradition) daily to see if what was taught was true. Yet, you believe in things (a few of which are listed above) that cannot be found anywhere in scripture. And you call me naïve?
I can see that this conversation is not getting anywhere, and I don’t plan to waste any more time. Its been interesting. I’ll be praying for you.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Michael I am sorry if i offended you. I was actually letting you know that I think highly of you, but if it came off as I was attacking you I apologize. My whole point was people can take things out of context sometimes, and that is what i believe he was doing alot. And it is going to be through our discussions to determine if he was correct in his presentation of the Catholic Church and if he was then i need to repent of my false beliefs.
You wrote, “prays to a dead woman and believes in transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, sinlessness of Mary, perpetual virginity, etc, etc.” Maybe I am naïve to believe this stuff. Maybe I am naïve to believe God loves us so much that He will guide his Church so that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, so that we can be one as the father and son are one. Maybe I am naïve to believe that God loves us so much that he wants to be in such an intimate relationship with us that he actually wants us to consume Him. Maybe I am naïve enough to believe that God loves us so much that He gave us His mother to continue to bring us to Jesus. Maybe I am naïve to believe that are older brother and sisters in the faith love us so much that they would pray for us. Maybe I am naïve? Either way I am willing to discuss these issues in the future.
Lets recap what we talked about so far… we only have talked about church authority and the belief in the sola scriptura. And so far we have only searched the scriptures (I have only quoted scripture not tradition) to see what was true on these two issues. And so far we have not come to any conclusions on what God had intended for his Church, thus we could say we are still in the searching the scripture stage to see if what you are saying is true.
When we disagree we are not just disagreeing on information, we are disagreeing on Christ. Christ is the Truth, so when we disagree on truth we are disagreeing on Him. And that breaks my heart. My heart breaks seeing Protestants rejecting all the gifts God has given His Church (in my opinion of course). My heart breaks seeing the horrible witness Christianity is giving the world because we are splintered in to so many denominations. So I plead with you in Jesus’ name, lets not quit, we are just getting started. If talking about Truth is a waste of time for you, then so be it. But I love you and want to continue our discussion. So please reconsider.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Phil,
I should say, first of all, that I apologize for the tone in which I wrote the last comment. I know that it was very condescending and rude, and for that, I sincerely apologize. Regardless of how I felt, there was no excuse for that.
My intention, as well as yours, is to seek and find truth. So, I will continue the dialogue with you. I do ask, though, that we could keep the questions on each comment to a minimum, simply because of the fact that I am working so much and don’t have time to write much.
Thanks,
Michael
November 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Apology accepted. I think the intensity shows this is something we really care about.
I appreciate the humilty.
I am glad that we will be continuing the dialogue. I look foward to your comments.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:02 am
Phil,
I have not forgotten about the conversation. We left town for Thanksgiving for about a week, then my grandfather died, so I was gone for several more days.
Life should be back to normal soon, and I’ll be back posting.
Michael
January 21st, 2008 at 11:36 am
The first time I heard the name Malcolm Muggeridge was from Ravi himself in one of his books and on his radio program, “Let My People Think”. references to him are not limited to Jill’s bio as far as RZIM is concerned.
I am a Catholic and I enjoy listening to Ravi. When you speak of Unity in the church keep in mind that Catholics are also Christians. You will get nowhere with me by labeling me otherwise.
Dan Adams
Woodstock, GA
March 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I have worked on the itinerant speaking team with Ravi Zacharias and am a personal friend of Jill.
She isn’t Roman Catholic. And I find your post so straw-mannish it needs a flammable warning.
Muggeridge became RC at the end of his life. The large corpus of his writings come from him as a journalist while a skeptic and then as a journalist as a follower of Jesus. He spend the vast majority of his Christian life as a non-catholic. So to blanket your judgment as RC gives evidence your argument is thin. If you read his writings, much of it is very helpful and difficult to disagree with. When he says the Kremlin fell into the trap of killing truth rather than killing God, do we say this is false because he, 50 years later, became RC?
Even someone like Chesterton became RC, though is most influential book, Orthodoxy, was written while he was Anglican.
Many of the church fathers, while labeled as RC, have more in common with evangelicalism today than much of RC today.
Just because an RC person, like Nouwen says something helpful about the Gospel and about Scripture doesn’t mean it is automatically false because of his allegiance with the RCC. That’s called a ‘genetic fallacy.’ Even my non-believing pagan grocer can tell the truth about how much change to give me.
When baring claws to attack our fellow brothers and sisters, be sure you look again at the nature of love and charity in the New Testament. If you feel the need to criticize for the sake of truth, make sure your criticisms are born out of love and research and not speculation. These are real people you’re dealing with who take hits from pagans all the time. I can relate. It’s bad enough when the gates of hell attack you. It’s even worse when the church sticks you in the back.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
If anything “disturbs” me, it’s that you are picking on people about their affiliation. Dr. Zacharias and Mrs. Carratini are not the problem, I won’t say you are either, but this is really getting on my nerves. I understand what is said about the Roman Cstholic Church on here, but I’m of the mind that praying for God to make HIS changes in a person’s mind, heart and spirit in HIS TIME not ours is at the heart of the matter here. I’d be VERY CAREFUL about passing judgment here. Dr. Zacharias is a very well-needed voice of reason in light of the damage that Hank Hanagraaf has done. Let’s be careful that we dont start “throwing rocks in glass houses” here.
I’m neither defending his hiring her nor condemning it. He may have had his own reasons for it. Maybe you should ASK HIM instead of yammering on behind his back.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Some of you that criticize Ravi about him going to the mormon church need to read l Corinth9:19-22, 27; and think about why Ravi go to some of these cults. In 16th verse you’ll see the reason why he do these things. Some of you ought to learn more by reading scriptures before you judge, or assume anything. One last thing here’s Matthew 5:46 For if you love them that love you, what reward have ye?
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Back to the original post… surely the author is aware that Saint Simeon and Saint Francis lived prior to the Protestant Reformation? Are we simply to ignore the early church between the time of the New Testament and Reformation for fear of being misled by the “apostate church” of Rome? While there were many diverse voices in the church in these centuries, much of our basic Christian orthodoxy was settled during this time (early creeds such as Nicene and Athanasian, for starters). This kind of 21st century myopia is disheartening.
September 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
He doesn’t need to apologize to any of us! This man and his ministry is an all too important witness for Christ in our world today. One of his staff members displaying Catholic sympathies does not negate their effectiveness in the world as a TRUE witness-plus, I’m sure some of you have better ideas as to how we can evangelize the world-that’s why you spend so much time judging successful witnesses for Christ. Thanks,
T.R.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I think that we protestants are just a little jumpy when we hear in the church world phrases like “emergent, ecumenical, or interfaith”. Let’s face it, Rome, for years has tried to unify the religious world for years. They have spear-headed alot of global church ideology. I think that’s why we are so easily concerned about Protestants showing interest or sympathy to the Roman church. We do know from our studies of Revelation that a one world church is on the horizon & is being formed in our midst. That’s why the Book warns us to “come out from among her”. At the same time, what are protestants doing by joining the World Council of Churches?? Absolutley heretical!!
The truth is, there are alot good people that are in the Catholic church. However, that goodness doesn’t mean that they are biblically correct. I personally resist & refute any teaching, protestant or Catholic that doesn’t line up with the teachings of Christ or the original Apostolic writings. I don’t answer to a Roman pope, I don’t need a church to intepret the Scriptures for me, & I call no man of God ” Father”. I also don’t need relics, beads, or statues to encourage my faith. I have Christ & the Scriptures.
Now in all fairness, we protestants need to look at ourselves also. We tend to be narrow-minded toward each other. We also worship buildings as much as the medieval church did. In addition, there is not enough conviction & fear of God in our churches. So we don’t have it perfect either. There is only one perfect Christ without sin. In addition, we have his Holy Word & the Holy Spirit to guide us & warn us of our errors as the Church of Jesus Christ.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I was raised Catholic but have been Protestant for my entire adult life. That being said, I have really learned a lot, that I did not know about the various positions of the RCC. The issue of Sola Scriptura has been rekindled in my mind. In theory, the Catholic position does make a lot of sense. After all, it does seem that personal interpretation of the scriptures does seem to open the door for a whole lot of variation in the meaning of them. And an official interpretation by “the church” would seem to be a solution to that problem. But is that what we have with the Catholic Church? Take this scenario:
I have an issue that I need to resolve but I am not quite sure how the Lord would have me deal with it. So I decide to go to my priest and find out what the churches interpretation of the relevant scriptures are so I can base my final decision on biblical truth. Here’s the question: Should I expect that ALL priests will be in agreement on the interpretation of the scriptures in question. It seems that that would be a naive assumption on my part. With out going in to details, I have heard of several cases where a particular priest differs from others on rather significant issues. Since that is the case, I now must try to figure out which priest is correct. I am sort of back to where I started but now instead of trying to determine the meaning a particular scripture myself, I must try to evaluate the trust-worthiness of individual priests.
But if we assume that even if the individual priests vary on the interpretation of the individual scriptures (which would seem to be a rather significant issue), the church itself (the pope) still is the infallable last word on scriptural interpretation. Is that the real deal? How would any changes in the official church interpretation of a given scripture be explained? It seems to me that there have been many examples of changes in the RCC position on various issues. It seems to me if I walked in seeking truth the day before the official church position changed, I would leave with one interpretation but if I came back the next day, I would be blessed with another - new and improved - interpretation.
I am all for constantly seeking the truth and if I find I have been in error, I am willing to change my position. But I do not claim to be infallable. The church, on the other hand is claiming (or so I have been lead to believe) that the pope is infallable on matters of scriptural interpretation. I can’t get my head around this apparent logical contradiction. Two statements (in this case, statements of biblical interpretation) that are mutually exclusive can not both be true. So infallable does not seem to mean infallable.
So where does this leave me? It seems to leave me where I started. If I truly seek the truth, I will find it. I don’t need to rely on my priest, or the pope or anyone else to find the truth. All I need to do is believe what the Lord has promised - that those who seek, find.
I really do seek the truth. If I have made incorrect assumptions about the RCC, please , someone set me straight.
Thanks.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
Hello Tom M,
I don’t know if I can set you straight, but from your very thoughtful comments you apparently already know the One who “straightens” us all out.
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.” - Proverbs 3:5-6
The incorrect assumption I noticed in your comment was that the pope’s personal interpretations of scripture are infallible. The Catholic Church has never taught that; but I’m sure you would agree that the pope is entitled to his opinions just like the rest of us.
There are very few texts of scripture that the Church has officially infallibly interpreted. But the scriptures do teach that the Lord created a church and intended His church to have a certain authority and mission.
“Should I expect that ALL priests will be in agreement on the interpretation of the scriptures in question?”
I’m afraid that on this side of heaven (given that priests are sinful men just like the rest of us) that ain’t going to happen. Good news though! We can have infallible faith that wherever a priest is celebrating the Eucharist we may receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Tom, it’s always a joy to talk to fellow believers in the Truth. Shane’s blog might not be the most appropriate place (I don’t want to be disrespectful); but I would love to discuss these matters further.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Can I just point out that Phil, simply by quoting from the Catholic Catechism (which includes all of the official teachings of the Catholic Church there in black and white for anyone who cares to look it up for themselves), directly refuted John MacArthur’s irresponsible misrepresentations (viz. that the Church exhorts its people to read the Bible, NOT forbids them to!). Unfortunately, Michael seems to have missed it, or doesn’t care and is content to NAIVELY trust everything John MacArthur says without looking into the FACTS for himself. See, it’s very sad when demagogues like MacArthur get up and say whatever they please, knowing their audience is going to blindly trust them because they assume (why? I don’t know) he has their best interests at heart. Protestantism opens the door to this because it makes each private interpreter and demagogue accountable to NO ONE… except at the end of their lives.
December 28th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
…spoken like a true Catholic. Bring your ‘FACTS’ and we can discuss them.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Um… I have no idea what “spoken like a true Catholic” is supposed to mean, but let me just say again what I already said: Phil quoted “chapter and verse” from the Catholic Catechism, which includes all of the official teachings of the Catholic Church there in black and white for anyone who cares to look it up for themselves. Capiche?
Of course, if you’re simply not interested in challenging your anti-Catholic prejudices with facts, and prefer to swallow uncritically everything John MacArthur bilges forth, never mind.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Oh, wait, I get what “spoken like a true Catholic” means… it means anyone who defends the Catholic Church is therefore, ipso facto, not to be paid any attention. Isn’t that right? And isn’t “prejudice” what that’s called?
Phil has the patience of a saint in even attempting to talk to you people. He’s quite a witness.