My interaction on my last post presupposed that you were trying to say something *relevant* to this discussion with your observation that Rome is reformeable. Accordingly, when you said that “anathemas” are reformable, given the doctrinal context of our exchange, it would stand to reason that you thought that *doctrinal* anathemas are reformable. I did catch that you noted that “faith and practice” pronouncements are not reformable, but how would it be clear that you appreciated that *faith* and *doctrine* are indeed the same thing? Again, my rendering of *your* words was based upon my assumption that you had something relevant to say with your remark. What relevance is it that non-doctrinal anathemas (whatever they might be) are reformable? We were to have been talking about Rome’s unambiguous anathema upon the appropriation of Christ’s work on behalf of sinners, which is doctrine indeed. Even if the anathema could be Reformed, the doctrines they’ve been placed upon cannot comport with Rome – ever! Rome is stuck with the fact that they have placed their unambiguous curse upon the gospel – and in doing so upon Rome itself.

Ron

Thanks for bringing out those quotations. It’s funny, I’ve seen them in Lane, but recall encountering them for the first time in Turretin. He happily adduces the ‘testimony of two cardinals’, Contarini and Bellarmine (quite a mix!), and remarks–it would seem with some relish–that ‘vi veritatis victi, nobis adstipulantur’. Perhaps Turretin had more hope for the likes of Bellarmine than many a Protestant does today?

Thanks for responding. You posted:

>>You are simply trying to re-define Romanism.>>

Me: I disagree. Could you provide a concrete expamle were/when I have done so?

>>Trent is irreformable, which Vatican II even affirms.>>

Me: I never said that the dogmatic decrees of Trent (or any Ecumenical council) are reformable. Once again, elements of Trent that were not dogmatic (i.e. not pertaining to “faith and morals”) are reformable.

>>Moreover, even if Trent could be reformed (which it can’t lest Romanism seizes to be what it is), there has been no repentance regarding its official teachings. All the Roman communion can do is make the poison of another gospel, “which is not another”, more attractive.>>
Me: Once again, could you provide a dogmatc teaching from Trent that is “another gospel”?
>>BTW, weren’t you equally zealous at one time for the Jehovah Witness cult, or am I confusing you with someone else?>>

Me: I was born into the sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses (4th generation); not much choice in the matter! I guess you could say I was a “zealous” JW until the end of 1975. BTW, is this relavent to our little discussion?

Grace and peace,

David

David,

You are simply trying to re-define Romanism. Trent is irreformable, which Vatican II even affirms. Moreover, even if Trent could be reformed (which it can't lest Romanism seizes to be what it is), there has been no repentance regarding its official teachings. All the Roman communion can do is make the poison of another gospel, "which is not another", more attractive.

BTW, weren't you equally zealous at one time for the Jehovah Witness cult, or am I confusing you with someone else?

Ron

First off, sorry about the “Don” typo in my last response. Now, on to what you just posted:

>>As for Trent, I am very well versed on the matter. What I respect about the delegates to the Tridentine Council that I cannnot respect about the average Roman “Catholic” today is that at least they understood that somebody was under God’s wrath. In other words, David, somebody is preaching another gospel.>>

Since you are “very well versed on the matter”, then you must know that only matters actually pertaining to “faith and morals” are considered to be infalliblly defined in an Ecumenical Council—history, science, Church pratices, anathamas, etc., may or may not accurate, and as such, are reformable.

Further, are you suggesting that the Catholic scholars and officials behind the Joint Declaration are to be lumped into your “average Roman “Catholic”” category? I sincerely hope not.

I also hope that you get a chance to read the threads I linked to earlier; I would be greatly interested in your thoughts, for if I have actually ‘missed’ something, I want to know…

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. Have you read A.N.S. Lane’s, Justification By Faith ?

“After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.”

Christians are to be concerned not only with the Person of Christ but also his work on behalf of sinners and the way in which that work can be appropriated.

There is no reason to doubt that the Galatians were orthodox when it came to Christ’s person, but they were certainly becoming “bewitched” when it came to receiving pardon before God. With that said, Hahn is apostate in the truest sense of the word; for he has departed from the Bible’s teaching on justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Yet, apparently, you require that for one to be considered apostate he must “believe in a different God.” That, David, is not apostasy. Rather, that is what it is to be a cultist(!), which is something Romanists are not. But don’t let that be a comfort to you; for the first century Jews were not cultists either, yet they called for the crucifixion of Christ and desired to atone for their sins through a ceremonial system of law-works, which is not unlike that which we find within the allaged sacrament of “penance”. So, please, don’t let your comfort in life and death be that you have not tampered with the doctrine of the Trinity. After all, even the devil believes that God is one, and he even trembles.

As for Trent, I am very well versed on the matter. What I respect about the delegates to the Tridentine Council that I cannnot respect about the average Roman “Catholic” today is that at least they understood that somebody was under God’s wrath. In other words, David, somebody is preaching another gospel. Let us make no mistake about it. Romanists like Patrick Madrid appreciate that much, as does the current pope.

Ron

You posted:

>>Hahn is an overt apostate who functions as an apologist for damning dogma, and the pope places God’s anatham on himself in his affirmation of Trent.>>

Apostate from what? Does Dr. Hahn believe in a different God now? I think not…

As for Trent, you are probably (mis)reading into it’s decrees something that just is not there. The following are just a few of the threads which address such a tendancy:

A Catholic affirmation/understanding of “faith alone”;

James Whte: “he’s not really like the Pope”, so let me tell you what Trent really says;

Matthew Heckel’s “Is R.C. Sproul Wrong About Martin Luther?”;

An Evangelical critique of R.C. Sproul’s “Faith Alone”;

Justification and the Council of Trent.

Hoping for a little more ‘light’ and a little less ‘heat’.

Grace and peace,

David