Anyone getting information from this web site who has an open mind should research Mr Bennett's references and consider context of the quotes he puts forth. God gave us a brain and freedom so that we can give Him the full assent of our intellect and will. To do this, we should look at all the information available to us and not just accept a guy who comes along and demonstrates "irrefutably" the errors of our faith system. (I mean this for non-Catholics as well as Catholics. If I tell you some doctrine of yours is wrong and give you some quotes, I hope you don't just accept my word without question. Look into it, prayerfully, and use the intellect and will and conscience God gave you to determine if I'm right.)
Everything for which Mr Bennett criticizes the Catholic Church is based on Scripture alone (actually, his own private interpretation thereof). He points out the errors of Catholic doctrine and behavior. The problem is his own private interpration is flawed. He does not consider the proper context.
Here's Mr Bennett's letter "Identifying the Early Church"
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/03_Church_History/Identifying_the_Ea\ rly_Church.pdf
To put into proper context his Scripture references and his concept of "Church", here are Scott Hahn's lectures on Salvation History...
One Holy Family
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst1.html
One Holy Tribe
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst2.html
One Holy Nation
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst3.html
One Holy Kingdom
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst4.html
One Holy Church
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst5.html
ON THE CHURCH FATHERS...
Mr Bennett sees the Apostolic Fathers as supporting Sola Scriptura as opposed to a visible hierarchical organization to spread the Gospel. His quotations seem to support his view. But, as he does with Scripture, he doesn't consider them in context.
For example, Here's a quote from Jerome contradicting him...
'And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have
Scripture authority since the devil himself has quoted Scripture
texts...we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture,
read into it some novel doctrine'
ibid 28
Sola Scriptura in the early Church...
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm
Pat Madrid shows how "sola scripture is unhistorical, unbiblical and unworkable."...
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT
Here's a collection of quotes of the Fathers. As with Scripture, quotes must be taken in context. More of the Father's writing must be read in order to see what he meant by any given quote...
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/TRAD.TXT
ON THE REAL APOSTOLIC BIBLE-CHURCH...
Mr. Bennett sees as truly-Biblicaly-Christian some particular groups in history, notably the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Paulicians. Does Mr Bennett know what these groups believed and practiced? They were each obviously counter-Scriptural in belief. They were heresies which were suppressed because their false doctrines were threatening the salvation of many souls with their preaching and in that day and age the secular authorities saw heresy as a threat to civil order.
Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia entries on these groups...
Waldenses: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm
Paulicians: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583b.htm
Albigenses: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm
it does not surprise me to find someone refuting Bennett's ministry. Then again, there is nothing new..." For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:17-21) It seems that Peter Bennett, once in darkness; came to the light: He came to Jesus Christ because Jesus is the only Way, Truth and Life. It is true that no one man or ministry has the corner on the truth, but it is apparent that Bennett knows enough truth to get right with the Lord God. His teaching will lead a man to the Living Water. What does your teaching do? Lead one away from it? At one point the Lord Jesus said, " He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matt. 12:30) Peter Bennett has chosen to serve the Lord Jesus. Will you?
You may choose the way in which you shall go but do not come against any man who in sincerity gives his all for the Lord Jesus. Do you serve a church or the Truth of God? Jesus is the Truth!
I would be willing to converse more on the subject if any are interested.
I've read a myriad of protests by Catholics concerning Dr. Bennett.
DeleteNone of them refute him on Biblical grounds. Why? Because they can't. They've attacked him personally; they've attacked him on the basis of Catholic tradition; but, they're unable to attack him on the basis of his stand on Holy Scripture. In keeping with present day vernacular, it's the "same old, same old." The Catholics hold to a false unscriptural position. As the Simple Man said: "Light has come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light." I too would like to converse with Catholics (priests or lay persons on such topics as the anathemas of the Council of Trent; the anathema Paul pronounces in Galatians first chapter, etc. I've tried this before, and so far, I have no takers.
I've given refutations based on Scripture. You just haven't followed my references which do so. Those references provide Scriptural proof that Mr Bennett is wrongly interpreting.
DeleteWhat interests you about the anathemas of Trent, and St Paul?
Hi, thanks for commenting. (And Merry Christmas, btw.)
ReplyDeleteI am not critiquing Richard Bennett just to bash a fellow Christian. The reason I have "come against" Mr Bennett is because a friend of mine who is a sincere Christian showed me the website in order to show me the errors of Catholicism and I am going through the site to see what Mr Bennett has to say. I am then posting my conclusions after considering and researching his statements. In this way, my friend can see my thoughts and views on the issues. (I started this blog to let anyone else who is interested see also.)
I don't deny Richard Bennett has a sincere heart for Jesus. I cannot really know his, or
anyone's, heart. I can only say that he is incorrect in some of his Scriptural interpretations and historical views. He may be sincere but is sincerely wrong oftentimes.
The way I see it, he walked away from the fullness of the Gospel when he left the Catholic Church. His testimonial shows that he rejected, or just didn't learn in seminary, the correct, contextual interpretation of Scripture. He may have witnessed some abuses and bad people & behavior in various positions within the Church hierarchy. It is indeed shameful that there is any corruption at all associated with the visible Body of Christ. But such is not dis-proving of the entire organization and it's proclaimed basis in Christ. It's doctrines and dogmas and their related practices are the determinants of that. And the validity of those is judged against Scripture and Tradition. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, and this (Catholic) Church is still here after nearly 2000 years, despite those human-related failings, because His Spirit indwells it and keeps it standing.
We all do choose the way in which we shall go. I serve the Truth of God. The Truth subsists in the Church He established on the foundation of the Apostles (Eph 2:19-20). I follow Jesus Christ, the God-Man who was killed and resurrected. Christ is Truth. The Church (its members and its leaders, too) is the Body of Christ (Col 1:24, Eph 5:30) When I see someone preaching errors which can pull or keep people away from Truth (the Body, the Church) I will point out those errors. Most non-Catholic Christians believe sincere Catholics are saved. (Likewise, inversely.) But Mr Bennett is a sub-category of non-Catholic Christian... an Anti-Catholic. As such he believes all Catholics are doomed to Gehenna. However, I do not believe that Mr Bennett is automatically doomed to damnation due to his views. He seems to have a sincere love of Christ (who he sees as true God and true man who was killed and resurrected) as his savior. This is enough to get to heaven, ultimately. The thing is, someone who accepts the fullness of Truth has a better chance of remaining and growing in the Spirit and hence getting into Heaven. Some of the non-Catholic doctrines can be dangerous. For example, the concept of once-save-always-saved can lead to this scenario: a Christian temporarily backslides into a grievous (mortal) sin but deliberately never really repents of that sin before he dies because he believes nothing he does can separate him from his inheritance. In this case his soul can be lost due to his lack of repentance. He had lost his inheritance by committing and not repenting of a mortal sin because he believed the false doctrine once-save-always-saved. (You might say he never really knew Christ in the first place if he wasn't sorrowful for a mortal sin, but he did sincerely accept Jesus as his savior and receive salvation.)
So, when I see Mr Bennett in Heaven I will tap him on the shoulder and smile at his shocked expression at seeing a Catholic there. (Though, of course, he'll grasp the truth of the whole matter right after the end of his life on Earth.)
Cheers,
Dan
It is beyond hilarious to see you using Scott Hahn's words to undermines Richard Bennett's - for Scott Hahn leans on Rome for what he says, whereas Richard leans on the Bible. And only one of those is divinely inspired in all things (unless of course you deny the very words of the bible itself on that matter!).
ReplyDeleteScott Hahn leans on 2000 years of Christian interpretive tradition. Richard Bennett (and you) leans on a newer & novel tradition of interpretation, <500 years old. The Catholic tradition of intrepretation is traceable back to the Apostles themselves, while your tradition of interpretation is traceable back only <500 years, to Luther, Calvin, and/or Zwingli.
DeleteLook at the post-apostolic christian writings to see what the infant Church believed and practiced and how they interpreted Scripture.
http://americanberean.blogspot.com/2013/12/early-christian-writings.html
You'll find that the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were not part of the Christian Church until 1500 years later.
BTW, which of my rebuttal points in particular do you disagree with?
DeleteOne other point - you say that Richard is not automatically doomed to damnation due to his views. Although your own church, the RC church, says that all priests who leave the priesthood and the RC church are apostate, that is, unsaveable. You need to decide whether your church is right or wrong!
ReplyDeleteYou may be right. But I know that the Catholic Church teaches that no one is "unsaveable", but they must repent of their sin in order to be saved. I also know that the Catholic Church never says, infallibly, someone is definitely in hell. If he died right now, maintaining his hate for the Church Jesus built, he will probably die unsaved. But it's still possible Richard can repent on his deathbed, and be saved.
DeleteOnly God know the heart, and it's up to Him to determine ultimate destinations. We can only have reasonable intellectual certitude (a a solid 100% conviction as far as humanly knowable), but not infallible certitude, that we'll ultimately get to heaven.
I pray that Richard and all anti-Catholics know & grow in the Holy Spirit & Jesus Christ every day. (I pray the same for all people.) That is the only way anyone gets into heaven. (And that's the be-all/end-all purpose of the Church Jesus built, to help people know & grow in Jesus.)
God Bless us everyone.
Catholism is a cult. That explains why no Catholics will actually debate without hiding under Rome's skirt. Rome has trained their minds so that they can't read scripture without reading into it what Rome has said it means. I was a Catholic. I talk to Catholics. Its always the same. I can't have a discussion with a person. It's always with someone who regurgitates what Rome says.
ReplyDeleteIf Rome contradicts the Bible the Catholic will always believe what Rome teaches.
It is the same with discussions with Muslims, J. Witnesses, Mormons, and liberals.
I don't have a problem with a Catholic quoting his teachers but when that teaching clearly contradicts the Bible or at least there should be some soul searching before going along with Catholic teaching which they don't do that's a problem.
Catholics error in two ways.
When Jesus said to Peter you are the rock I'll build my church on you and you have the keys to the kingdom they interpret that incorrectly.
Firstly Peter doesn't decide who goes to heaven. That's where we get all those jokes about Peter at the Pearly Gates deciding who goes in. that seems to be what the Catholic Church believes and secondly the verses where Jesus talk to Peter never talk about papal succession.
So Catholicism is basically giving the power of the Pope to decide who gets into heaven and basically makeup doctrine while Jesus is sitting on the sideline.
Catholics will go to great lengths to make up doctrines of the perpetual virginity of Mary and disregard the fact that scripture is silent and also seems to imply that Mary had more children.
Scripture says that there will be evil doctrine of people saying people can't marry and that's what the Catholic Church is done and the priests are many homosexuals because of it.
I talked to a Catholic who said it's okay if they're homosexual as long as they teach what the Catholic Church teaches and do it correctly.
And that was from a Catholic who claims that he studied and knows what room is talking about.
You haven't talked with the right Catholic, apparently. There are many Catholics who only know how to regurgitate teachings without real understanding. The same is true of yourself, bro. You were a Catholic. You then decided to follow a different tradition of interpretation. You abandoned the tradition which which is rooted waaaay in the 1st century. The tradition you now follow is composed of newer, novel doctrines of men. The body of doctrines you adhere to are less than 500 years old, where the Catholic body of doctrines is over 1900 years old.
DeleteThe Pope is not believed to have the power to say who gets in to heaven. That is a serious misunderstanding. The "keys" which King Jesus gave to Peter are a symbol, a sign that Peter had the King's authority delegated to him, to lead/teach/guard/discipline the inhabitants of the Kingdom. See Matt 16:19ff in light of Isaiah 22:20ff. The "key of the house of David" is the "keys to the Kingdom", and the holder has plenary authority over the Kingdom, even to be a "father" to the inhabitants of the Kingdom. The "keys" also represents succession of that office, so Peter must have handed on the keys to his successor, down through the years, and that office (bishop of Rome, since Peter moved there) came to be called "pope" (from greek for father) within a few centuries. That is true Christian history.
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is consistent with Scripture, even if not explicit in the Bible. It is also ancient, not a later invention of men. The later-invented doctrine is that Mary was NOT perpetual virgin. The early Christian writings support it. See http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin .
Celibacy of the priesthood is not a doctrine, it is a practice, a mere custom, and could be changed. It is beneficial and no priest is gay because of it. Statistically, there is no more gay-ness among catholic clerics as there is among non-Catholic ministers. And sexual crimes are actually slightly less in the Catholic institution, compared to non-Catholic Christian institutions. (And, public schools are VASTLY higher in sexual crimes than Christian groups).
It is true, a priest can be gay. But the key point is he must also be practicing celibacy. For a priest, it doesn't matter what you are susceptible to be sexually attracted to, because all sexual activity is prohibited. No hetero sex and no homo sex. (This extends to single folks, as well. Homosexual inclinations are not a sin. It is only sinful to act them out, just as hetero attraction is not sinful, but acting out hetero sex without one's spouse is sinful. That's because human sexuality is a sacred thing and reserved for married couples (one man-one woman). Any sexual activity outside of marriage, even with oneself, is, de facto, sinful.)
Get deep in Scripture and history, and you will know the truth.
Pilgrim who is it that hides behind fictional names: you. 1. the bible can't teach perhaps you failed to read all of at Gal 3:22 is says it keeps you imprisoned under sin. and at 2 Cor 3:6 it claims its writings kill. The truth is that Jesus is the Catholic Church cf Acts 9:5, 22:8 and you are supposed to listen to those He sends Lk 10:16. Disobeying results in the wrath of God remaining on you Jn 3:36. And at the end of Acts 1 Peter says quoting God (in David) (Ps 109) "let another take his office" Surely God spoke to Peter about it!
Deleteyou have a problem you just have belief but not faith in Jesus. You don't trust what he said. And you don't have faith He is LORD of everything including his Church.
I'm so glad you wrote this and answered people's debates on Richard Bennett. The man makes a living of misconstruing Catholic teaching, misquoting Catholic teaching, and/or completely taking Catholic teaching or of context. Great job and keep it up!
ReplyDeleteThanks, I'm glad my own research can help others.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with a Roman Catholic's rejoinder that Roman Catholicism is used as evidence to prove Roman Catholicism, which is Roman Catholicism declared self-evident because it is Roman Catholicism, a problem Roman Catholic's can't solve because it is too soiled with heresy. In short, it is an extremely diabolical anti-Christian cult that claims it is the true Church, which is true only because they say it is true. Thousands of years of heresy can not make a truth. Further, the Church is the Body of Christ. It is not necessarily an organization, but an organism. No need to argue with me about that. I'm right because I can provide evidence that proves I'm right because I said I'm right, which means I'm right. And I've been right a long time, which means my right became even "righter."
ReplyDeleteCatholicism does not justify itself based on it's own statements about itself. Documentary history illustrates that modern Catholic doctrines existed in the early Christian Church. The Church Jesus founded is a visible society as well as a spiritual association of believers. It features a visible hierarchical leadership, based on the foundation of the Apostles (the first bishops, as they're called in the KJB). That Church came to be known as the "catholic" Church by the 2nd century and has been called thus ever since.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with catholicism is obvious. By name you can tell its about catholic , not about jesus. So how to make it sound work? Do your best way connecting jesus with earthly and flesh things. Here will show up teaching and things like visible church. Repetation prayers. Mother of god. Graven image. Kiss the holy father ring. All is physical things force to be something thats essential and related to jesus. Even if there is weird any kind activity in catholics you can think of , they will do outmost effort just to make it sound and look biblical.
ReplyDeleteBut jesus teaching is never about that. You have to be born again. God is spirit. Like nicodemous dont understand that , this is the same today for religious leaders. People that time praise mary for actual give physical birth to jesus. The same today.
Untill a man lift up The Son of Man, he will never see kingdom of God.
You state "By name you can tell its about catholic , not about jesus."
DeleteThis shows you don't know the Catholic faith. It's all about bringing people to know, love and serve Him. A prime example: the Christological heresies of the early centuries (ie gnosticism, monothelitism, monophysitism, Arianism, Nestorianism). It thanks to the Catholic Church alone that you can know the true Christ today. You see, those heresies attacked some aspect of the Son of God (ie His humanity or His divinity, or both). If any of those heresies had succeeded (which Arianism very nearly did), we today would not know that God is three divine persons, Father Son, Holy Ghost, and that the Son, Jesus, is one divine person with two natures (human and divine). Those two doctrines are the very core of the Christian faith and the bishops (especially the bishop of Rome, aka pope) of the Catholic Church (and the Holy Spirit who worked through them) deserve our thanks for preserving the True Faith.
Your other contentions have been addressed in my postings. In short, your position is a recent development, utterly alien to the Christian faith before the 1500's.
"You have to be born again"... Of course you do. And that is precisely what Catholicism teaches.
Please read the Catechism. It will tell you what the Catholic Church actually teaches and support it with references. http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html
Pax Christi