Lorraine Boettner "Roman Catholicism"

  • Thread starter Thread starter alexaustralia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
alexaustralia said:
Yeah…at work I meet with other Christians for fellowship meetings, and his name pop up and one of my co-workers suggested reading some of his work. He used to be Catholic but left several years ago so I am interested to what kind of protestanism he has latched to so I know how to approach him. So how much of a hard liner was Billy?
Click to expand...

Billy Graham - who is still very much alive 🙂 - is actually very pro-Catholic. He has often been severely criticised precisely because he has been prepared to work with Catholic clergy, rather than denounce them as non-Christian. At his rallies, for example, he has referred Catholics to Catholic clergy - instead of bringing them over to Protestantism: for which he has been severely blamed.​

  1. “For at least 50 years, Billy Graham has affirmed Roman Catholicism as the true gospel and has sent Roman Catholics who come forward at his crusades back to the Catholic churches they had left. Billy has praised John Paul II as a preacher of the true gospel,[52] has declared that he and the Pope agree on almost everything, and has hailed Bishop Fulton Sheen as the “greatest communicator of the 20th century.”[53] Though Sheen preached a false gospel, claimed to turn a wafer into Christ and to offer Him repeatedly in a propitiatory sacrifice for sins, Billy thanked him for their “common commitment to evangelism” and expressed his gratitude to Sheen “for his ministry and his focus on Christ.”[54] Yet Sheen’s hope of heaven was that Mary would let him in because of his 40 pilgrimages to Marian shrines at Fatima and Lourdes.[55] When Sheen died, Billy said, “I mourn his death and look forward to our reunion in heaven.”[56]”
http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=260

Or. more briefly:
  1. “Billy Graham has done more harm to the cause of christianity than any man alive.” — Christianity Today (x, no.13, 1 April 1966) [Bob Jones II, apparently]
http://www.holysmoke.org/solos.htm

So it really is not fair to treat him as anti-Catholic. 🙂
 
alexaustralia said:
Hi all,

I have often heard reference to this author and his anti-catholic “bible”. Just wondering how widespread is this book within Protestant circles (If you are protestant your (name removed by moderator)ut would be highly welcomed). Is it generally accepted by major sectors of protestanism or is it something that very few ill informed protestants believe?
I am asking because thinking of buying it to have a read but no point wasting my time if its contents are not adhered to by the general protestant christian.

Cheers

Alex

Being that I already started a thread …any recommendations for study of OT. I am not so much interested in doctrine development but just in a historical/geographical prespective. BTW letting u know in advance already have Navarre OT.
Click to expand...

His book’s appeal is to Fundamentalist Protestants, especially to those who are Calvinistically-inclined. And Protestant Fundamentalism, however widespread in the US it may be, is not typical of Protestantism as a whole.​

 
WOW! Thanks for the information on Billy Graham! I never knew all that about him. Of course, I’m still learning much about my own faith.
 
Reformed1 said:
I’m not Catholic and believ much of Boettner’s book to be utter rubbish.

And you are right, the list he chooses to provide of supposed “inventions” is, for the most part, easily refuted by most Catholic apologists.
Click to expand...
I have the BEST Loraine Boettner Roman Catholicism story of all. A young man I know, an earnest Pentecostal minister, gave me a copy when I came into the Catholic Church. After I had read it, I said to him, “You knkow, that book is absolute rubbish, don’t you?” (The kid is really knowledgeable). He said, “Yes! of course I know it’s rubbish! I wanted YOU to know what other people think of the Catholic Church!”

Give this kid 25 years. He’ll be crossing the Tiber. Count on it.
 
brotherhrolf said:
Thank you, Karl. I work in Baton Rouge which is, of course, the home of Jimmy Swaggart. I bought your book back in the late 80s when a co-worker brought Boettner and put it on her bookshelf in her office and told me that I should look at it when I had a chance. I had not seen such taurine foecal matter in all of my life. I was completely and totally outraged. Our unit, in state government, was composed of college graduates. I demolished the young lady’s arguements from an historical view point alone and my apologetics leans towards the historical.

I grew up in New Orleans which is predominately Catholic and never encountered any anti-Catholic sentiment until I moved 70 miles northwest to Baton Rouge.
Click to expand...
Woah…cool. Can I see proof please?
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
I don’t recommend spending money on the book.
Click to expand...
Alex, if you want to read the book without spending any money on it, how about the public library? I rarely buy any books, but I read a lot of them borrowed from the library.
 
(Quote): The real question is: Why does he single out [making the sign of the cross] at all? The answer: Because the sign of the cross is not mentioned in the New Testament.
Yes it is!

Many years ago, my Protestant pastor, who has NO liking for Catholicism, cited Ephesians 3: 18-19a:

"…may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge…

The pastor told a story about a prisoner of war in Viet Nam. (The pastor had been a missionary in Viet Nam from the mid 1950s until 1972, so this was a true story.) Among the prisoner’s “wall scratchings” was a picture of a cross with “height” at the top, “depth” at the bottom, “length” on one side, and “breadth” on the other side."

Our pastor called it “the Sign of the Cross.”

In my old Protestant Bible (New American Standard Version), I have a little cross drawn next to these verses.

I converted to Catholicism in 2004, and to this day, when I make the Sign of the Cross, I not only say “In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” but I also think “height, depth, length, and breadth.” Truly the cross is Christ’s expression of love for us, love that “surpasses knowledge.”
 
“Roman Catholisim” is a biased view of the Catholic faith to put it lightly and is a staple book of anti-Catholics (Fundamentalist/Protestants). If you read it take it lightly and then read “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating. It exposes the bias views of Boettner and his history in detail. Reading “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” brought me closer to the Catholic church with my Fundamentalist beliefs I had even as a Catholic. I think most Catholics that question the “whys” of Catholicism should read Karl Keatings book to find out the answers. He details the reasons in scripture also. I had both my NKJV study bible and my NAB study bible out while reading this book. You can see the bias in the NKJV when you set the scripture side by side. It’s all about context. Reading the footnotes is important because you get the feeling of what the author is conveying. I hope this helps.
 
I’m not the brigthest bulb in the box but isn’t every author biased in some way, no matter which side of the debate they are on? You can’t tell me that Catholic authors are completely objective, when many of their beliefs are based on subjective interpretation.
 
hoosierdaddy said:
I’m not the brigthest bulb in the box but isn’t every author biased in some way, no matter which side of the debate they are on? You can’t tell me that Catholic authors are completely objective, when many of their beliefs are based on subjective interpretation.
Click to expand...
I’ll give you that point – atlhough Boettner’s book wanders over into the realm of ‘bearing false witness.’
 
Well, you are free to see it how you want to I guess. I have taken the time to read the material and made an objective view of my own. You do what you need to do. If you haven’t read both sides I suggest you do and then make your own decision. When you buy a car you would test drive a couple first right to see what you are comfortable with. To each his own.
 
ddmason said:
Well, you are free to see it how you want to I guess. I have taken the time to read the material and made an objective view of my own. You do what you need to do. If you haven’t read both sides I suggest you do and then make your own decision. When you buy a car you would test drive a couple first right to see what you are comfortable with. To each his own.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

In the old days, some used car dealers used to put sawdust into differentials to make the car run very well - for a time. After a while the sawdust broke down and the differential froze up and the car was worthless. Test driving the car is not enough. You gotta look under the hood and probe the differential.

Boettner’s book is full of sawdust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top