False prophets - Matthew 7:15-18

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angainor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Angainor

Guest
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize theim. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit…” - Matthew 7:15-18
What is the Catholic understanding of this? Why is Jesus warning against false prophets? False prophets should be easy to point out. Any prophet that disagrees with the Pope is false, right?

Furthermore, this passage seems to imply that some prophets may turn out to be real prophets. Take, for example, Martin Luther. Luther is a prophet. He claims to have insight on the word of God. What now has to be determinied is if he is a false prophet or a real prophet.

Jesus tells us how we can test if Luther is a false prophet or not. Why would Jesus bother to do this? The Pope is there to declare Luther to be a false prophet.
 
I discern that you are only hear to cause trouble, why not go to the sight that others suggested to you on another thread earlier? Please, go in peace, to love and serve the Lord!!
 
Well, to a Catholic, obviously any prophet who disagreed with the Pope on an issue of faith and morals would be a false prophet. This verse reminds me of the long process the Church goes through to certify if private revelation is in accord with the teachings of the Church and can be approved. An individual claiming to be receiving private revelation might seem to be very holy, but the claim to be receiving divine revelation can be motivated by pride, so it’s necessary to really investigate.
I’m not sure what you’re considering a prophet to be. A prophet isn’t necessarily someone who tells the future. The job of the OT prophets was to call the people back to fidelity to God. In that case, the false prophets might be those who deny the legitimacy of Vatican II or the current papacy by insisting that they are calling people back to a fidelity to God that was somehow lost in the modern-day Catholic Church.
I’ve never seen this verse as a real problem for Catholics.
 
proph·et (pr f t)
n.

  1. *]A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
    *]A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
    *]A predictor; a soothsayer.
    *]The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.
    40.png
    Angainor:
    False prophets should be easy to point out. Not necessarily… A clever speaker can exploit weaknesses of an individual by carefully guiding them to his beliefs. How do you think the anti-Christ will be so successful? Essentially a false prophet leads people away from the Truth Christ established through clever and convincing argument or by a manipulation of emotions.
    Click to expand...
    40.png
    Angainor:
    Any prophet that disagrees with the Pope is false, right? Not necessarily… Only when the “false prophet” actively contradicts matters of faith and morals as defined by Popes and/or the Magisterium. It is possible that a person can disagree but also remain obedient to the Church. If I disagree with my boss, but do as he asks; am I any less an employee of his? If I disagree with my wife are we any less married?
    40.png
    Angainor:
    Furthermore, this passage seems to imply that some prophets may turn out to be real prophets. Take, for example, Martin Luther. Luther is
    Click to expand...
    a prophet. He claims to have insight on the word of God. What now has to be determined is if he is a false prophet or a real prophet. Luther was by no means a prophet; he was a priest who wished to reform the Church. In the classical sense a prophet receives divine revelation or inspiration; to my knowledge Luther claimed none of these.
    40.png
    Angainor:
    Jesus tells us how we can test if Luther is a false prophet or not. Why would Jesus bother to do this? The Pope is there to declare Luther to be a false prophet.
    Click to expand...
    Since you consider Luther a prophet I put it to you that you can tell a false prophet by his fruits… In the wake of Luther and the “Reformation” what do we have? Centuries of division, dissention, hatred, prejudice, bigotry, chaos and tens of thousands of denominations. These are the fruits of the “Reformation” and all of this, ironically, from a man who said “it is not by dividing the Church that we can make her better” and who did not want to remain separated from the Church forever. What happend to the unity Christ prayed for?
 
Angainor said:
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize theim. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit…” - Matthew 7:15-18

What is the Catholic understanding of this? Why is Jesus warning against false prophets? False prophets should be easy to point out. Any prophet that disagrees with the Pope is false, right?

Furthermore, this passage seems to imply that some prophets may turn out to be real prophets. Take, for example, Martin Luther. Luther is a prophet. He claims to have insight on the word of God. What now has to be determinied is if he is a false prophet or a real prophet.

Jesus tells us how we can test if Luther is a false prophet or not. Why would Jesus bother to do this? The Pope is there to declare Luther to be a false prophet.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. If you are a Bible believer, then you can not say Luther as a Prophet according to Luke 16:16. John the Baptist was the last prophet. I don`t understand how you Luthern are calling him as a Prophet. Please read Luke 16:16 once again and find out the meaning. Do you have any answer, why did Luther ommit the 7 Books?
In Christ,
selvaraj
 
Pax! :D said:
proph·et (pr f t)
n.

  1. *]A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
    *]A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
    *]A predictor; a soothsayer.
    *]The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.

    Luther was by no means a prophetLuther was acting as Prophet in the sense of definition 1B. Luther was interpreting the will of God.
    Pax! :D:
    Since you consider Luther a prophet I put it to you that you can tell a false prophet by his fruits… In the wake of Luther and the “Reformation” what do we have? Centuries of division, dissention, hatred, prejudice, bigotry, chaos and tens of thousands of denominations. These are the fruits of the “Reformation” and all of this, ironically, from a man who said “it is not by dividing the Church that we can make her better” and who did not want to remain separated from the Church forever. What happend to the unity Christ prayed for?
Click to expand...


  1. Luther himself is not the issue. We could probably go back and forth for weeks discussing the fruits of Luther’s prophesy.

    The issue is Prophets in general. Jesus tells us how to distinguish the real ones from the false ones. You have begun this process above for Luther by judging the consequences of the Reformation. To Catholics, such scrutiny is unnecessary because the Pope already declared his teachings false.
 
40.png
Angainor:
Luther was acting as Prophet in the sense of definition 1B.
Click to expand...
No he wasn’t… Luther’s inspiration had a very human source: "…John von Staupitz, whose influence led Luther to say in 1531, “I have received everything from Staupitz.”
answers.com/topic/martin-luther
40.png
Angainor:
The issue is Prophets in general. Jesus tells us how to distinguish the real ones from the false ones. You have begun this process above for Luther by judging the consequences of the Reformation. To Catholics, such scrutiny is unnecessary because the Pope already declared his teachings false.
Click to expand...
Well, you did bring up Luther and call him a prophet… As far as false prophets in general go we can recognize them by thier fruits.
 
I am a Protestant, and over the course of this post I mean absolutly no disrespect to the Catholic church or the Pope. As a history major and reader of many different theological works, it is easy to understand why you may consider Luther a false prophet or guy that was generally wrong. Now, I will confess, the Catholic church was the original Church founded by Peter. However, Luther noticed as do I that the Catholic church of today has changed dramatically from what it was long ago. Just take a look at events like the Crusades, led by Pope Urban II. Was murdering unbelieving Muslims a very Christian-like action? It is no different than the terrorists of today. Which brings me to another point…

Many believe the Pope is a divinely inspired man, chosen specifically by God, and generally, without flaw. However, it is obvious, throughout history, that is just not so. Urban II and the First Crusades, Pope Paul III and the Roman Inquisition of 1542, Pope Gregory X and the The Second Council of Lyon of 1274, just to name a few. Now, I have the upmost respect for Pope Benedict, but where do you think the false prophet mentioned in Revelation 13 will come from? The Protestant church? Honestly, how many people would listen to a Protestant “prophet”? The Scriptures indicate that “many (Christians too) will be deceived.” I, as well as many Protestants Christians, hold the Pope to a great degree of respect, and agree with many of the things he says. Would it not be easy for the Pope to have “two horns like a lamb” (Rev. 13:11). Would not satan steal many more lost souls via the Catholic church than any other channel?

In closing, I mean absolutly no disrespect to the Catholic church or the Pope. My prayers are for the salvation of the lost, the healing of the sick, and peace on Earth just like all of you. I also know, however, according to Revelation, when “peace” does come, be wary for the end is near. Peace will come only from the antichrist INTIALLY, THEN from the true Christ. Peace be upon all who read this.
 
40.png
justathought:
I am a Protestant, and over the course of this post I mean absolutly no disrespect to the Catholic church or the Pope. As a history major and reader of many different theological works, it is easy to understand why you may consider Luther a false prophet or guy that was generally wrong. Now, I will confess, the Catholic church was the original Church founded by Peter. However, Luther noticed as do I that the Catholic church of today has changed dramatically from what it was long ago. Just take a look at events like the Crusades, led by Pope Urban II. Was murdering unbelieving Muslims a very Christian-like action? It is no different than the terrorists of today. Which brings me to another point…

Many believe the Pope is a divinely inspired man, chosen specifically by God, and generally, without flaw. However, it is obvious, throughout history, that is just not so. Urban II and the First Crusades, Pope Paul III and the Roman Inquisition of 1542, Pope Gregory X and the The Second Council of Lyon of 1274, just to name a few. Now, I have the upmost respect for Pope Benedict, but where do you think the false prophet mentioned in Revelation 13 will come from? The Protestant church? Honestly, how many people would listen to a Protestant “prophet”? The Scriptures indicate that “many (Christians too) will be deceived.” I, as well as many Protestants Christians, hold the Pope to a great degree of respect, and agree with many of the things he says. Would it not be easy for the Pope to have “two horns like a lamb” (Rev. 13:11). Would not satan steal many more lost souls via the Catholic church than any other channel?

In closing, I mean absolutly no disrespect to the Catholic church or the Pope. My prayers are for the salvation of the lost, the healing of the sick, and peace on Earth just like all of you. I also know, however, according to Revelation, when “peace” does come, be wary for the end is near. Peace will come only from the antichrist INTIALLY, THEN from the true Christ. Peace be upon all who read this.
Click to expand...
By bringing examples of bad popes, you seem to be under the impression that the Catholic Church teaches that all popes are impeccable, and since they are not it disproves the (non)teaching. Perhaps this will help: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Scott
 
Scott Waddell:
By bringing examples of bad popes, you seem to be under the impression that the Catholic Church teaches that all popes are impeccable, and since they are not it disproves the (non)teaching. Perhaps this will help: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Scott
Click to expand...
Scott,

According to other members of this forum such as Angainor and many others entitled religious militant as well as general Catholics I know personally: “if the pope says it, we believe it (he is the successor of Peter, so he must be right).” Now that may not be the common belief of Catholics, but it is widespread. For myself, “if Jesus said it, I believe it” not any MAN.

To explain my former post a little more clearly, I only stated the misguided popes as a means to say, popes are not impeccable, which you have been quick to agree with. However, this disproves nothing. Will you deny that the Catholic church has changed dramatically from its origins with Peter? If you do, try studying a little history. Look up the use of indulgences in the Bible if you need a start. This my friend is why Luther found it neccessary to “reform” the Church. To say that a man who saw problems and tried to solve them makes him a false prophet is just wrong.

Again, I mean absolutly no disrespect. If the Lord wills it (and she agrees), I will one day marry a Catholic. I only mean to give a rebuttle to what seems to be the demonification of Luther.

Peace be upon all who read this.
 
40.png
justathought:
Scott,

According to other members of this forum such as Angainor and many others entitled religious militant
Click to expand...
as well as general Catholics I know personally: “if the pope says it, we believe it (he is the successor of Peter, so he must be right).” Now that may not be the common belief of Catholics, but it is widespread. For myself, “if Jesus said it, I believe it” not any MAN. You referring to me? If so…get the name right. :rotfl: :rotfl:

You can console yourself with this interpretation of something that you don’t understand and are predisposed to disagree with if you want to, but even the way you phrase all this shows that you have no real understanding of what you say you disagree with.

I gotta ask this.

Don’t you guys ever bother to read through the topical tracts on CA’s ma(name removed by moderator)age before you dive into these forums armed for bear and thinking that you know what we believe so that we don’t have to mess around with answering questions that you should have already had answers to?

Futhermore Angainor’s opening post is a shining example of a loaded question baiting Catholics and is almost surprising for a guy who’s been on ths forum as long as he has!

So hey, you guys read the ma(name removed by moderator)age tracts. Here’s the Library Link
Pax vobiscum,
 
Church Militant:
Futhermore Angainor’s opening post is a shining example of a loaded question baiting Catholics and is almost surprising for a guy who’s been on ths forum as long as he has!
Click to expand...
I don’t know what’s so surprising about it. I honestly don’t know why we need Matthew 7:15-18. We don’t need advice on how to determine if a prophet is false. If someone comes along and claims to be a prophet, we don’t need their friuts or anything else to recognize them. We just need the pope. If the prophet is false, the pope will excommunicate him, or worse.

Throw out Matthew 7:15-18. You don’t need it.
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
Since you consider Luther a prophet I put it to you that you can tell a false prophet by his fruits… In the wake of Luther and the “Reformation” what do we have? Centuries of division, dissention, hatred, prejudice, bigotry, chaos and tens of thousands of denominations. These are the fruits of the “Reformation” and all of this, ironically, from a man who said “it is not by dividing the Church that we can make her better” and who did not want to remain separated from the Church forever. What happend to the unity Christ prayed for?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can pin the Reformation as strictly a fruit of Luther. Did you ever stop to think that some sort of reformation movement would be the natrual result of the structure of Catholicism, ergo a reformation would be a natural fruit of Catholicism? Luther was not the first to rebel, just the first sucessful one.

It is certianly not ironic that Luther would think that "it is not by dividing the Church that we can make her better”. Who was it that took an action to make the separation complete? Protestants and Catholics were not truely separate until Luther was issued a writ of excommunication. The Church kicked him out, not the other way around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top