Saturday, 21 June 2014

Comments on recent Ecumenism between Anglicans and Catholics

I'll be blunt and honest here, ecumenism is NOT an option for Christians.

Recently I found out in the Metro newspaper that there are Catholics and Anglicans who are teaming up with each other to combat human trafficking and are attempting to stop this abominable practice. While it is fine and dandy to speak out evil and injustice, it is abominable for any Christian to team up with Roman Catholics.

As one who is an Anglican, though probably not forever, I am appalled by this.

This isn't new as High Anglican churches have much in common with Roman Catholicism, minus the Pope.

Those who seek communion with Catholics in fellowship such as William Lane Craig, the late Chuck Colson, Rick Warren and the Archbishop of Canterbury, are disobeying God's word, as the scripture tells us not to seek communion or fellowship with heretics.

Anti-Trinitarians such as Modalists like T.D Jakes or Itzhak Shapira or Roger Perkins or individuals such as Greg Stafford and Anthony Buzzard and many others should not be fellow shipped with, Eastern Orthodox AND Roman Catholics included, despite their acknowledgement of the Biblical Witness of the Trinity.

Keith Thompson of Reformed Apologetics Ministries, along with interviews with Richard Bennett and Robert Zins, have exposed Roman Catholicism as the fraudulent church it is, namely it's mariolatry, idolatry, works salvation, transubstantiation, necromancy, and it's denial of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, in a documentary which can be found here:

I would exhort the Anglicans who support Roman Catholicism and are reading this to move away from Rome and seek to evangelise them and bring them to the glorious knee of Jesus to whom every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that as Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum, I Meant to say Christians are not to team up with Catholics, NOT Christians are not to team up with Christians. The error has been corrected.

Addendum 2: This article deals with the comment that has been made by XM Flash below:

1 comment:

  1. As usual you have yet to prove your accusations, one bombastic Anglo-Centric (Dare I say racist) statement after another, vague hints at an over-riding theology that Anglicans, Lutherans, & all Protestants hold in common against Catholicism. But what are these things you hold that make Catholics heretics? You're against idolatry, so are Catholics and Anglicans. If you wish to make the odd, historically bizarre argument that Iconography is the same thing as Idolatry, then you would have excommunicated the author of the Torah and the entire Jewish community at Europos. Iconography and even the veneration of pictures, is a solidly Jewish concept. Such is why Cherubim are depicted on the Ark of the Covenant. Showing that the Decalogue is not warning against iconography, but rather idolatry (The worship of statues). Perfectly coinciding with the Jewish synagogue at Europos, and reports of iconography in Jewish oral tradition.

    Further you assert that "God's Word warns us." Can you give me a biblical definition of God's Word? I find the usage of the phrase comical, as the vast majority of times that phrase is used in the Biblical texts it's referring to an oral transmission. Not something that is scripture. Once again, sola scriptura is a man-made heresy, found nowhere in scripture. Totally debunked by 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Which says scripture is ophelimos, and "Every" scripture. Not all.) and the entire culture and theology of the Jews which heavily relied upon oral traditions, such as the Oral Torah which Christ himself frequently references and approves.

    You say transubstantiation is evil and leave it at that. Ok. No biblical argument. Perhaps you can start by presenting a single usage in the Koine Greek NT where "Trogo" is used in a metaphorical sense. So your argument isn't even worth dealing with. Then you state Catholics reject the dogma of "Justification by faith alone." Yeah, I think I'd rather stick with what James says, that man is not justified by faith alone. And I think I'll go with Martin Luther's interpretation of the verse, which is that it solidly confirms Catholic dogma and debunks Protestantism. Which is why Luther came to the conclusion that James was not apart of the canon. Oh, also I'll agree with the consensus of bible scholars that read Koine Greek and read the verse as it is.

    What can one expect from your typical, Jew-worshiping, Ethnocentric Anglo-Saxon (With little understanding of a first century Levantine Honor-based Jewish society) that is in fundamental disagreement with the early reformers and vast majority of Evangelicals on key issues.