Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood?

    03/04/2015 7:14:09 PM PST · 52 of 59
    daniel1212 to Roos_Girl
    And I’m pretty dingdang tired of the divisive threads like this one that get posted over and over and over again lately.

    So the fact that the RCs post articles over and over again about a church that they promote, and see you as a rebel against, and effectively exclude you from Heaven until you agree with Catholicism, does not call for a challenging response?

  • The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood?

    03/04/2015 7:10:46 PM PST · 51 of 59
    daniel1212 to Jim Noble; Georgia Girl 2; GeronL; RnMomof7; DuncanWaring; stonehouse01
    It’s funny that Biblical literalists, who will confess in the blink of an eye that God has feathers or that reading Harry Potter is practicing sorcery can ignore Christ’s simple declarative sentences about Peter and the Eucharist.

    Your strawman makes you look like a novice, as you are not dealing with Mormons here, nor do we ignore what the Lord said about Peter and the Eucharist. Instead, it is RCs who ignore/dismiss the fact that what the Lord said about both simply does not translate into the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning in Rome, over a church with a separate class of believers distinctively titled “priests,” offering up transubstantiated flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sins, to be literally consumed to gain spiritual and eternal life, around which sacrament all else revolved.

    For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers ” concur with.)

    Nor does the Holy Spirit record or teach any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas, who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or any apostolic successors elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

    Nor did the Holy Spirit ever call or distinctively title any NT pastors "priests," versus presbuteros/episkopos (same office). And who are never shown engaging in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread, as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

    Nor is the church manifested as holding the the Lord's supper as the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

    And as sound Biblical exegesis examines context and literary genres, and compares Scripture with Scripture, in so doing it is manifest that the metaphorical view of the Lord's supper is the only one which is consistent with the rest of Scripture. While the unequivocal imperatives of Jn. 6:53,54 would also force the RC to disallow salvation to all who reject the Cath. view of the Lord's Supper, if they were consistent. But it is the RC who is inconsistent in insisting on a semi-literal view of Jn. 6:22-ff.

    For first of all, nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which manner of eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative. . And thus it must exclude all who deny the literalistic interpretation of this section of Jn. 6, thus Vatican Two affirms baptized Prots as children of God and brethren of RCs.

    Secondly, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc

    For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.

    And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

    To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths must also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

    And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

    And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

    And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

    And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

    And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

    Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

    • In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

    • In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

    • In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

    • In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

    • In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

    • In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

    • In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

    • In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

    Moreover, nowhere in Scripture was physically eating anything literal the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, but which by believing the word of God, the gospel. By which one is born again. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) For His words are spirit, and life. (Jm. 6:63)

    Jn 6, and which we see examples of the Lord,

    speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.

    In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

    Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

    And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

    Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

    And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

    In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

    And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

    And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

    And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

    What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

    And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..

    Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.

    Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission

    he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

    The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

    ...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

    And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

    ...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

    The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

    ...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

    There may be some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.

  • The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood?

    03/04/2015 7:10:39 PM PST · 50 of 59
    daniel1212 to WriteOn; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    This is the problem of analyzing a text with only the text as reference. You are left solely with the authority of the text as a Rosetta Stone for itself. Catholic and Orthodox praxes did not create themselves by misinterpretation of the text. Rather the text’s meaning was manifested through the praxes of a church created by those who lived the text.

    Which does not go far enough. Would not your ultimate argument be that being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ means they are the infallible authorities on what it is and means, and thus are to be submitted to?

  • The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood?

    03/04/2015 5:41:00 PM PST · 45 of 59
    daniel1212 to edwinland; RnMomof7
    There is no Roman Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist. There is a sacrament of the Eucharist as propounded by The Catholic Church. The various rites within the Catholic Church (Roman, Byzantine, Coptic etc.) do not have distinct understandings of the nature of the Eucharist.

    You are correct that Catholic would suffice. But Roman Catholic is used in distinction to the (Eastern) Orthodox Catholic Church as the former is what provides the more precise definition and documentation used.

  • The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood?

    03/04/2015 5:32:03 PM PST · 44 of 59
    daniel1212 to RnMomof7

    I wish you had let me know that you were going to post this. I wrote it several years ago and have wanted to edit and improve it for a long time, including adding a summary intro, but never go to it when i had the energy.

  • Alabama Supreme Court orders halt to same sex marriage

    03/04/2015 4:19:07 PM PST · 74 of 74
    daniel1212 to PapaNew
    At this point the most important thing is to get state involved in this valid, constitutional process.

    And what state might refuse to submit to an unjust Fed. ruling?

  • Alabama Supreme Court orders halt to same sex marriage

    03/04/2015 12:22:07 PM PST · 70 of 74
    daniel1212 to PapaNew
    If a federal law, act, decision, or regulation is not made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution, it is NOT the law of the land but is invalid. and should be repealed at the federal level or nullified and rejected at the state level, including unconstitutional federal meddling in marriage.

    The problem is that the what the Constitution say has too often become what libs want it to say.

  • From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

    03/04/2015 12:19:33 PM PST · 936 of 1,001
    daniel1212 to verga; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    If meant in the sense of Jn. 8:44, the they were not true spiritual brothers. However, contrary to the serpent seed theory taught by such cultic groups as the "Shepherd's Chapel," the Holy Spirit clearly teaches that Cain was a child of Adam and Eve, just as Able was, (Gn. 4:1,2) and refers to them as brothers. (1Jn. 3:12)

    However, one can be a child of God and hold to such a fringe doctrine. a

    . The issue of Adam and Eve and sexual relations has also seen some other strange views, if not as radical as the serpent seed. Harding says, "some of the Fathers [as Athanasius and John Damascene] were so firmly persuaded of the natural integrity of our first parents that they derived marriage from original sin." (Harding: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm)

    For John of Damascus wrote,In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed416 . But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves417 . And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return418 , when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed419 . So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children420.

    ...God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” — John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XXIV; http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/cat_stjohndamascus_exact_exposition_Orthodox_Faith_bk04.shtml

    In addition, Augustine taught that,

    the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm

    For the belief was, as Harding (above) holds, before they sinned, Adam and Eve had perfect command of their passions (reproductive actions].

    But having lost that due to the Fall, then men as Augustine held that martial relations must involve carnal sinful lust, and even interprets Heb. 13:4 which states that the marriage bed is undefiled (unlike under the Law) to simply mean if it is free from adultery!

    (If this was painful I do not think it would be considered iniquitous. But as per the logic that a function which at the last is uncontrollable is sinful, perhaps another yet daily bodily function of relief which can uncontrollable (if you cannot find a bathroom) is also sin.)

    Tertullian argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, "will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication,'' partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor.'' An Exhortation to Chastity,'' Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery, ANF, v. 4, p. 84.]

    Jerome saw marriage as so inferior (at the least) to virginity, celibacy and continence, that he presented a false dilemma engaged in specious reasoning to support him, teaching,

    "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil." (''Letter'' 22). On First Corinthians 7 he reasons, "It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil."

    "If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray.

    You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case—if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer.

    his too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html

    So much for 2 x 2 evangelism!

  • NETANYAHU: ‘EVEN IF ISRAEL HAS TO STAND ALONE, ISRAEL WILL STAND’

    03/03/2015 7:41:22 PM PST · 67 of 81
    daniel1212 to Resettozero
    Very smart and diplomatic speech...and honest.

    And included,

    Netanyahu concluded by citing the Bible, in Hebrew. He quoted the parting words of Moses as the Jews were about to enter the land of Israel, from Deuteronomy 31:6:

    However the ACLU has sued to remove any references to his speech that have anything to do with the Bible. And since Israel certainly does, then support for it also must go.

  • Alabama Supreme Court orders halt to same sex marriage

    03/03/2015 7:23:27 PM PST · 31 of 74
    daniel1212 to Dilbert San Diego
    Do we make laws based on constitutions and laws on the books, or do we make laws and policies based on political correctness???

    I am on Judge Moore's side, and was just quoting from the article.

  • Alabama Supreme Court orders halt to same sex marriage

    03/03/2015 7:21:56 PM PST · 30 of 74
    daniel1212 to Jim Noble
    OK, start here: Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!

    Hold on! I was just quoting from the article, which i should have made clear. May Judge Roy Moore be multiplied!

  • I'm Back After 6 Weeks in Hospital, Thanks for Prayers (Ecumenical, No Fighting)

    03/03/2015 7:19:44 PM PST · 73 of 122
    daniel1212 to RegulatorCountry; Mrs. Don-o; metmom
    you’ve always been one of the more calm, reasoned and, yes, forgiving voices.

    Yes, though I certainly know that praying to created beings in Heaven is not in Scripture, or Scriptural, and hope all your faith is in the Lord Jesus to save you on His account, and thus serve Him out of gratitude.

    But we want the best for you now also.

  • I'm Back After 6 Weeks in Hospital, Thanks for Prayers (Ecumenical, No Fighting)

    03/03/2015 6:15:41 PM PST · 65 of 122
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o

    Ever see “A Glimpse of Eternity” (NDE) - the best one (no crazy stuff and well done) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqhGRD25h2A

    Ian McCormack’s incredible true story who had box jellyfish shock and had after-death experience.

  • Alabama Supreme Court orders halt to same sex marriage

    03/03/2015 5:56:16 PM PST · 9 of 74
    daniel1212 to manc

    Indeed.

    But Kennedy said he believes that probate judges act “at their own peril” if they choose to obey state courts instead of federal court. He said any couple denied a marriage license could sue in the federal district where they live.

    He said the outcome should be clear.

    “Whenever state law conflicts with federal law, federal law wins,” he said

  • Catholics, Protestants and the Bible

    03/03/2015 11:35:06 AM PST · 42 of 60
    daniel1212 to Legatus
    As promised (by God's grace). Let me know of more of such.


    Re Catholics, Protestants and the Bible

    Note that the author of this exceedingly poor polemic is evidently a lay women, “Pauline Zingleman,” a wannebe apologist whose 2 books have no Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and she seems to have given up writing books after 1995. Or perhaps finding a publisher.

    The individual Catholic frequently does not recognize the profound implications of the invitation. What is being proposed is a grave sin against faith, apostasy, exceeding in moral weight adultery, because faith is a gift received directly from God Himself...The process cannot be set in motion without the Catholic's cooperation.

    Yet the Vatican's DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM states, 108. “Where appropriate, Catholics should be encouraged, in accordance with the Church's norms, to join in prayer with Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.” 118. “In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests..” .”..Before the whole world, let all Christians profess their faith in God, one and three, in the incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer and Lord.” 161 “When Christians live and pray together in the way described in Chapter IV, they are giving witness to the faith which they share and to their baptism,.. "In this unity in mission, which is decided principally by Christ himself, all Christians must find what already unites them even before their full communion is achieved." And thus Fr. John Trigilio on 6/11/2005 states, Catholics MAY attend Protestant services and may sing, pray, etc. but they CANNOT and SHOULD NOT ever receive communion in a non-Catholic church. — http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441348&Pg=Forum2&Pgnu=1&recnu=2

    Yet the author Pauline here treats all Protestants with scornful contempt. Thus she has a house divided, and preaches a church which itself has different versions claiming to represent one true faith, while her apologists use a definition of Protestantism which is so broad that you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 through it. Yet evangelicals, who yet are far more unified in core values and beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome, do not promote a particular church as the one true one — while not holding that all churches are valid or equally good — but generally for a basic faith and unity due to a shared Scriptural supernatural conversion and relationship with the one Lord God and Father by the one Spirit through faith in the one gospel, which is greater than their differences among those who walk in that Spirit.

    For the RC alternative to the most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture being the supreme standard for Truth as the wholly inspired and accurate and sufficient (in formal and material aspects combined) Word of God, is sola ecclesia, that the Roman Church is the supreme autocratic authority, as Scripture, tradition and history only validly consists of and means what she says. But which means that, unlike Scripture, with men having the last word then she can essentially reinvent herself via interpretation, and which also fosters uncritically following exalted men. For RCs are not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences, as evangelicals are to, for to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. Under which "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),

    Which in one century this can mean being compelled to exterminate all those whom Rome judges to be “heretics,” and being forbidden to engage in public debate with the same, while in another it can mean affirming such as brethren, and with leaders taking part in Protestant services.

    Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure,..that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church... — Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

    We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”

    ...when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.” [who themselves needed due authorization].” - www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

    Rome, Italy, Feb 19, 2010 / 02:03 pm (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI will visit the Evangelical Lutheran Church located in Rome on March 14 for an ecumenical celebration.

    "Exchange Christ, for Luther?

    Which is an absurd false dilemma, as Luther did not deny the Trinity, while Protestants hardly can be said to follow him as if were a pope (most are quite ignorant of him), and in fact Luther was far more Catholic even after his break with Rome than most Protestants and especially evangelicals are. Even as to rejecting his doubts on James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation (which were ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible, which also contained the apocryphal books, if separately.

    the response is going to be, "But the Church is all believers in every church!"

    Which, rather than being unScriptural, is clear teaching in Scripture, as only the body of Christ 100% consists of true believers, which is not the case with its visible bodies in which these believers express their faith as do tares. When the Spirit tells us that “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it,” (Ephesians 5:25) and “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit,” (1 Corinthians 12:13) then it is not only referring to one particular church. Yet which is not opposed to the visible bodies in which these believers are to exist. As in the OT, the true people of God existed as a general body, under leaders but not an infallible magisterium. By just presuming the latter, let alone what flowed from it, Rome has disqualified herself as being the one true church, and compelled division. (1Co. 11:19)

    Christianity exists as one general nation, with various tribes but manifest by general core beliefs, resulting in evangelicals being most targeted as a problem by the liberal world. Meanwhile Catholicism with Rome and her sects, and the EOs (with her significant dissent) compete with each other, as well as with sola ecclesia cults, for the title of one true church.

    Moreover, as seen in the Lord's word to the churches in Rv. 2 and 3, the churches were quite diverse, and no mention is made of a pope to them. Nor does Scripture teach that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church. Or record any apostolic successors, like for James (Acts 12:1,2) after Judas, who was elected to maintain the original 12. (Rv. 21:14) Nor did they elect any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

    The Catholic has just collided with an invisible force: Protestant oral tradition.

    Here the sophist Pauline resorts to diverting attention away from the material basis for unScriptural teaching of his church, by going on the offensive in charging Protestantism with the fallacious charge of being based upon the “invisible force” of “oral tradition.” It is indeed basically an invisible force, for while there are “traditions” in Protestantism (weddings, etc.) the basis for any doctrines of required assent must be that of manifest Scriptural warrant. The established 66 book canon of Scripture is consistent with souls recognizing both men and writings as being of God, as is manifest in Scripture.

    Other Roman Catholic apologists themselves attest to this, for when they are not vainly charging Protestants with following Luther as a pope, they charge them with division because their faith is based upon what they individually see in Scripture, and as excluding the magisterial office, and of requiring that all doctrine must be explicitly taught in Scripture, and that this is the only source they are to use. All which are strawmen which testify to the ignorance or desperation of dishonestly of such RC apologists.

    This provisional answer-which the Protestant does not even believe himself, although, while he is saying it, he thinks he does-is a dogmatic decree from this infallible Protestant magisterium, which furnishes whatever is needed at any given moment to attack Catholic teaching.

    Which is increasingly ludicrous, as no Protestant can claim to possess the charism of infallibility, which is cultic for man, while the veracity of their claims must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, or evidence as regards what they claim outside Scripture.

    This oral tradition is a manufactured, unbiblical body of teaching, and it is passed on from one generation to the next...whatever "denomination," a euphemism for "sect;" claims him at the moment

    Which is more Roman recourse to argument by assertion, as in reality those who hold most strongly to the most basic distinctive Truth of the Reformation described above have overall been the strongest defenders of core Truths, including ones they hold in common with Catholics. Moreover, it is churches who are closest to Rome that are the most changeable and liberal in doctrine.

    The control over the Protestant exercised by that tradition is a secret, even to him. Its operation is protective and wholly negative. It protects Protestant dogma by preventing the Protestant from believing anything the Reformers denied. It is wholly negative in that while the Protestant Bible reader is indoctrinated and remains immersed in error, he is systematically trained to reject only one thing: the truth.

    It is secret because it is a figment of Pauline's imagination or a product of her dishonest creative writing, as in fact, consistent with the fundamental premise of the supremacy of Scripture, evangelicals overall both affirm core Scriptural truths which Rome also professes, while rejecting things which Reformers held, as reformation is not the work of one day or two, but must continue. And RC apologists actually criticize Protestants for not being trained/indoctrinated, and appeal to them since they are not but can be persuaded by evidence, as RCs are not to be. But poor Pauline is much a papist by herself in her scornful extremism.

    He is free to accept only those few doctrines left after the ravages of the Reformation, e.g., the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth of Christ.

    Which is more absurdity, as not only does the Apostle' Creed see overall assent in historical Protestantism, but many more Truths, while one of the most typical charges by Roman Catholic apologists that the Protestant is free to believe anything!

    the Protestant speaks only of what he does not believe, and why

    More lying or inexcusable ignorance, as the evangelical world far more abounds with classic commentaries supporting what is historically believed, as well as how to live it out. Concerning practical application, the extensive classic Matthew Henry's complete commentary is alone enough to refute the claims

    He does not believe what all Christendom believed for fifteen centuries: the divine institution of a visible Church founded on Peter and his successors, who, acting in his official capacity as head of the Church, is guaranteed not to mislead us, with a separate, sacrificing priesthood and seven sacraments, through which flows the sanctifying grace which enables us to share in the life of God, and eventually, enter heaven.

    Rather, because the basis for Truth for the evangelical is not oral tradition as charged, but is instead the weight of Scriptural substantiation, then it rejects the accretions of tradition lists above. For in FACT there simply is no perpetually infallible papal office in Scripture (which even the tradition-intensive EOs reject), nor is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility seen or promised or necessary in Scripture for the discernment and preservation of Truth and faith. With Scripture being the supreme standard, as is <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/2Tim_3.html#Partial ">abundantly evidenced.</a>

    And which does not teach an infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy, or a separate, sacrificing priesthood, as instead what were ordained were presbuteros (senior/elder)/episkopos (superintendent/overseer), these denoting one office, (Titus 1:5-7) and which are NEVER called “hiereus” (priests) by the Holy Spirit, with the only sacrificing priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church being that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). See here.

    And instead of dispensing bread or transubstantiated flesh and blood as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7; Acts 15:7-9)

    Moreover, they are to baptize and take part in the Lord's supper, ordain pastors, anoint the sick, confess faults to each others, etc.

    Because of the barely-concealed but broad and enduring Gnostic streak in Protestantism, the Protestant recoils from the flesh, imagining that he receives his doctrines from what he calls "the Spirit," all the while obeying Luther,

    Which is more absurd nonsense, as shown above. Pauline seems to think the more she can repeat her assertions then the more credibility they gain. Luther was actually closer to the Catholic conception of the Lord's Supper than Protestants overall today, while it is Rome which channels amorphous oral tradition into doctrine. Listen to Ratzinger explain the Assumption, which is lacking in early evidence:

    Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative...Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…

    But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

    Protestants consistently, habitually, and, wherever and whenever Protestant dogma is threatened, invariably allow their oral tradition to "supersede the Word."

    Which is more vain repetitive Roman rhetoric, bombastic arguments by bare assertion, while the reality is that because the veracity of Protestant doctrine must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, then the repetitive attacking the character of Luther has been in vain, and entire RC web sites have been devoted to compelling Scripture to support Rome in response to evangelicals. As that was the basis for RC doctrine, while in reality the goal of this appeal is to covert souls into implicitly assenting to what Rome promulgates as if she was Scripture.

    It is Luther's, and/or occasionally some other Reformer's, word which is living; where Protestant dogma is concerned, it is the Bible which is a dead letter.

    Which is more ignorant or brainwashed nonsense or dishonesty, as explained before. No class of people personally reads the Bible more than evangelicals, those which hold most strongly to the most basic Protestant distinctive of the supremacy of Scripture, and which people show they are willing to seek to “prove all things” that are taught by that source. Which is what RC apologists criticize as a basis for assurance of Truth.

    The true role of the Bible in Protestantism remains a well kept secret It is a slave to the oral tradition.

    More repetitive nonsense, no matter how comforting it is to Pauline and other papists.

    Those beliefs peculiar to Protestantism cannot be found in Holy Scripture. They are imparted solely by means of their oral tradition. The Bible is forced, whenever possible, to furnish support. It is never permitted to contradict the Reformers.

    Another vain assertion, while instead the sad reality is more like, “those beliefs peculiar to Catholicism cannot be found in Holy Scripture. They are imparted solely by means of their oral tradition. The Bible is forced, whenever possible, to furnish support. It is never permitted to contradict the magisterium.” See here.

    The negative premise is sometimes disguised: "Faith alone" is a repudiation of everything else.

    Another strawman, as sola fide refers to the faith itself which effects obedience is what actually appropriates justification, and thus one is accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6) on His account, not his own merits. And thus Westminster (Chapter 11.2, Part Two) states, “faith is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces,” and like other reformers, in his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is, “a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!” [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

    The "all sufficiency of Scripture for faith and life" is a repudiation of Christ's right to found a teaching Church and His right to delegate His own authority, plus a rejection of any authority but the hidden authority in Protestantism, perceived as the speaker's own.

    Another strawman, as Westminster actually affirms: "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm) For Scripture being supreme and sufficient as the standard for Truth and supplying it does not mean it alone is so formally sufficient so that it has a place in the believers life, but that is provides the Truth such as which validates and defines the teaching office, the use of reason, the witness of the Spirit, etc.

    It is a dismissal of the sacraments, a dismissal of sanctifying grace. It is a denial of man's need for sanctification. It is a rejection of all, in short, which the Reformers rejected.

    But all of which the Reformers did not reject. Even after 1518 Luther was “quite clear that it is in and through the public performance of the sacramental signs in the visible Church that grace is bestowed on those who believe” — http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/004-the-catholic-luther). Thus Protestants are not following “tradition” when they reject this means, and not all do. In addition, all are to uphold the need for grace and further sanctification, and exhortations to which abound in Protestantism.

    As I set forth in the following pages texts from Holy Scripture in support of Catholic doctrine and practices, the question might well arise: How do we know that those in the Primitive Church read the Bible text the way the Catholic Church interprets it? The answer is that there was no text to read. First there was the belief, taught orally

    Which is absolutely absurd, and testifies to either more Catholic ignorance or the superfluous status afforded Scripture in the foundation of the church, or careless apologetics. For in reality, contrary to the RC magisterial model, in which the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture and recipients of Divine promises are the infallible authority to be followed, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p><p>

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    Thus the oral preaching was subject to examination by the established word of God, the Scriptures, as the noble Bereans exampled. (Acts 17:11)

    The Church, whose human representatives spoke for her, had the authority; they instructed and directed the faithful. The first statement below is Our Lord's: And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican (Mt 18:17);

    And which here actually refers to personal disputes, and is nothing new, as this binding and loosing was also given to the OT magisterial authority in cases brought to it for judgment, (Dt. 17:8-13; cf. Mt. 18:15-20) disobedience to which was a capital offense. And which in the NT church in temporal matters is to be a wise man among the brethren. (1Cor. 6:1-4) And fathers and husbands are given some binding and loosing power in regards to daughters and wives respectively. (Num 30:3-7) Even valid civil authorities have a power to bind and loose, physically. (Rm. 13:1-7) .

    Moreover, in spiritual matters the power to bind and loose can also be exercised by the righteous laity of fervent prayer (lacking with me): “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 18:19) “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.” (James 5:16-18)

    James is teaching that any righteous man can be like Elias who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years, and then loosed them again.

    Obey your prelates, and be subject to them (Heb 13:17, falsified in the KJV).

    Another bare assertion, while in fact there is no real difference between her DRB (Obey your prelates and be subject to them) and the KJV here (Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves). There is no distinctive word for “prelates” versus rulers” as the Greek actually just says “Obey rulers/governors [hēgeomai] you and submit for he/they watch for your souls.

    What do Catholics mean when they say, "the Church"? According to St Robert Bellarmine, the Church is the visible society of the validly baptized faithful, united together in one organic body by the profession of the same Christian faith, by the participation of the same Sacrifice, and the same seven sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

    Which testifies to RCs being the ones following oral tradition, not Protestants. As again the NT manifestly was not as Bellarmine describes. No supreme infallible head whom all the church looked to in Rome; no separate class of believers distinctively titled “priests,” offering up transubstantiated flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sins, to be literally consumed to gain spiritual and eternal life, around which sacrament all else revolved. No distinction in titles between presbuteros and episkopos, etc.

    During the very time her bishops were committing to paper the writing which we call the New Testament, as confirmed by that handy history of the apostolic age, the New Testament itself, the Church was a functioning organism.

    Which testifies against Rome, while the NT was not a project of the magisterium, as inferred here, as it was not until 1400 years after the last book was penned, and after the death of Luther, that Rome provided an infallible, indisputable canon of the Bible. See here.

    Surviving documents of historians and the Church Fathers testify to the one Church with one set of unchanging doctrines, identical to those which have continued up to our time in the Catholic Church, despite the fact that the truth is constantly under attack.

    More propaganda that the willingly deceived reiterate, while in reality even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against this propaganda, which in time past included forgeries to say what Scripture will not. The often claimed and vowedunanimous consent of the fathers is far from “unanimous,” while the EOs even deny papal infallibility and degree of power, among other things, and the sects and schism in Roman Catholicism testify to her redefinition of doctrines.

    Then you have the one true identifiable church in times before the Reformation:

    "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

    And behold the unifying modern magisterium. As one poster wryly commented,

    The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

    How shall we respond to the well-meaning Protestant's declaration that "the Church is all believers in every church"? It demands, as an answer, a question: "Why, then, should I go to a Protestant sect of your choosing? I am a believer, and therefore, according to the Protestant definition, I am a member of the Church." The Protestant will now solemnly assure you that one church is as good as another. The logical answer here would be: "That being true, you surely will have no objection if I continue to attend my own?"

    What an absurd argument. As said before, the Church as the body of Christ, which is the one the Lord bought with His own sinless shed blood, does indeed consist of all believers, and only believers, but which is not contrary to the visible church in which they express their faith, as do tares.

    And it certainly does not mean all churches are equal, which is why the modern evangelical movement arose.

    ...his conviction that the Church is invisible, is made up of all believers in every Protestant church, and that it is actually one Protestant church which, in his estimation, is-more or less-as good as another,

    More absurdity from a strawman.

    .And if you point out to him that no church founded by a creature can possibly be equal to one founded by the Son of God,

    Which is simply begging the question again, which presumption is what this attempted polemic proceeds from. And itself proceeds from the RC basis for your assurance of truth, which is that of the ensured magisterial veracity of Rome. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    . The RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

    Which effectively nukes the church. All for now.


  • Catholics, Protestants and the Bible

    03/03/2015 5:08:53 AM PST · 34 of 60
    daniel1212 to Legatus; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Protestants, that feeling you may be having right now is what it feels like to be on the receiving end of thread after thread of anti-Catholicism.

    Which has been result of us seeing thread after thread of Catholic new and commentary and anti-Protestant propaganda.

    The individual Catholic frequently does not recognize the profound implications of the invitation. What is being proposed is a grave sin against faith, apostasy, exceeding in moral weight adultery,

    ..this is an excerpt from a book that led me into the Catholic Church almost 20 years ago. THIS is what polemics looks like.

    Which is frankly embarrassing.

    This is not Scott Hahn/Tim Staples/Karl Keating/Patrick Madrid apologetics. This is EENS/you're all going to burn in hell material.

    Meaning while they tell us to join the church of Rome under the present Pope and affirm Vatican 2, you interpret Rome differently and want to us to side with your sect, formal or informal.

    If i may bring up some of your past comments i saw while quickly seeking to know what type of RC you are (as this can vary, so does the argument), I do not think they would say, "there's a reason the CCC is known as the Cataclysm of the Catholic Church...as a teaching tool I won't let my children be exposed to the CCC. It reads like it was written by a UN subcommittee for the most part." And "I agree the catechism is a disaster." (Imagine if that was the honest appraisal of one of us !). Yet others much recommend and point us to the CCC as being the sure authoritative compilation of RC teaching. One happy family.

    You also said you said "We have very little worth saying to Protestants with the mess we're in. We do need to get our own house in order."

    I respect your frankness and honestly here, and do not bring up your past statements to debate them, but because they relate to your argument. For unlike us you defend a particular church which we are to submit to versus engaging in interpreting Scripture and history to determine the veracity of RC truth claims. Yet you seem to be in some degree of disagreement with other RCs over what must be submitted to.

    And as Rome treats even publicly know impenitent proabortion prosodomite pols as members in life and in death, then you must own them or be in some sort of dissenting sect. If not the SSPV schism.

    have shelves of this stuff, if necessary I'll post all of it.

    So you may join the likes of those who saw their Staple's type polemics exposed as fallacious - absurdity after absurdity, argument by assertions, straw men and question-begging rambling rhetoric, one after another, as your choice polemic is even more manifestly a work of sophistry than Staple's! That any one could be persuaded by this i see as in-credible, unless they were ignorant or deceived or driven by some animosity.

    Thanks for the project. Stand by (my typing takes a while).

  • From Fundamentalist Baptist to Catholic – Steve Wilson’s Story

    03/02/2015 5:02:21 PM PST · 456 of 1,001
    daniel1212 to redleghunter

    Thanks:

    The issue is some churches do not apply exegesis to passages. We have Springfield Reformer on many occasions giving pleasant and constructive instruction on the use of direct metaphors in Jesus Christ’s discourses. I have yet to see responses to those posts other than diatribes on Luther and changing the subject. I cannot replicate the style in which SF opines on this subject but will list the basics of proper Biblical exegesis:

    1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.

    Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

    Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.

    2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.

    So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.

    3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.

    The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.

    4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

    5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.

    And yes, context is very important.

  • Brrr! February brought record cold, snow to Northeast

    03/02/2015 6:40:58 AM PST · 52 of 52
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    Ouch. Maybe that is why they closed Griffis and Plattsburgh, but strangely enough left Grand Forks and Minot open. It was so hot (90 degrees) and humid yesterday, that I spent the day at the beach, two blocks away from my house. 😄😃👍🔥😅 The hot weather takes the energy right out of us.

    Place a fan in your window facing NE!

  • Sungenis Claims: "the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory"

    03/02/2015 6:38:59 AM PST · 88 of 88
    daniel1212 to CpnHook
    To reply without devoting a large chunk of my day I'm going to mostly select the newer things or those still unclarified

    As you must.

    This is the third iteration on this point, and I'm not sure still where the objection or question lays.

    I'm not sure if it's a) you're simply objecting to that Catholic view (in which case the discussion first needs to focus on the nature of justification) or b) you're saying that Purgatory is somehow inconsistent with this fundamental Catholic view on justification/sanctification

    It is simply that while you reject my statement that "this myth is based upon a false premise of justification," since Purgatory has to with sanctification, the fact is that the RC justification is based upon sanctification. And that both justification and final sanctification is based upon the premise that souls must possess complete inherent holiness as the basis for acceptance by God and to be with Him in Heaven.

    Furthermore, in reality to be with Him in Heaven requires not simply being as Adam before the Fall, but the perfection of character that God has.

    Which is set in contrast "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) As Abraham was when he believed God was willing and able to do what He promise, which was impossible for him and Sara, though he did not undergo a radical change of nature at that point and manifestly did not have the perfection of character that God has, nor do any via at baptism.

    Not that Rm. 4 is not simply excluding full obedience to works of the Law as the basis for justification, and which are not mentioned in every reiteration of these statements, (Eph. 2:8,9) but the Law is mentioned because it is the standard for salvation via righteousness.

    Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Galatians 3:21-22)

    The penitent publican "man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:14) Likewise everyone who humbles themselves as unworthy sinners before an infinitely holy God but who trust in His mercy in Christ are justified by His sinless shed blood, even if looking forward to it.

    For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (Romans 3:23-27)

    Note that if James is speaking of justification in the same way as Paul is then he is both contradicting him and Moses, as both plainly declare it was faith which was counted for righteousness, not that they perfectly fulfilled the Law as only Christ did without fail, as He only had the perfection of God's character. Not Abraham nor any other justified person. Yet justificatory faith is only that which effects obedience, and it is those who manifest this that shall be justified in the end, as in being judged as being true believers in the light of their works.

    But the Scriptures nowhere command developing the manner of comprehensive perfection of character which God has as a condition of acceptance with Him and being with Him in Heaven, but true believers will realize as a gift the conformity with Christ which they yearn for when He returns. (1Jn. 3:2)

    we believe that true union with God and joining in His Divine nature in His Kingdom entails the very type of moral perfection that "you must be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect" and "make holiness perfect" and "sanctification without which no one will see the Lord" indicate. You don't think that level of perfection is necessary. OK. But I maintain that Catholic theory here is internally consistent.

    It is not, as it first makes one fit to enter glory based upon being as good as Adam, who was justified as one undefiled by sin, but who obviously had not developed the perfection of character which God only has, and who thus never sins. But then she requires "you must be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect" as a prerequisite to being with God in Heaven.

    In contrast, one who dies in faith has already been accepted in the Beloved, and is only clearly told that they will be with the Lord at death or at His return, which is the believers blessed hope, not purgatory.

    They were imparted. But making this comparison actually validates the Catholic view. Jesus Christ, by His Divine nature, could not actually become a sinner. Sin in any sense and His Divine nature cannot co-exist.

    Indeed, but imputation does not mean actually becoming a sinner, nor does imputed righteousness mean sinners actually are made as righteousness as Christ in their character. All of mankind's sins were laid upon Christ, placed on His account, with Him taking responsibility for them, but as He was actually perfectly righteousness, then He could provide the atonement for our forgiveness.

    If sins were imparted to Christ as righteousness is imparted to souls in Catholicism, then He actually become sinful.

    However, if abased sinners are accounted as righteousness because Christ was accounted guilty, then they can be accepted by God in the Beloved, though practically they are not as holy as Christ, while at the same time they are washed from sins and given the Holy Spirit and grace so as to practically become what they are positionally.

    And thus the appeal to do so is the constantly seen in the Epistles. The Corinthians had problems with aspects of carnality (though they were active in church) yet were told that they were sanctified, and that to be absent from their body here was to be present with the Lord. (1Co. 3:2; 2Co. 5:8; 6:11) Yet impenitent practitioners of sin were those which denied the faith. (2Cor. 12:21; 13:5)

    And likewise they are accounted to have been buried with Christ and risen, though they actually were not, then they are thus called to live according to this position, and have "put on the new man."

    If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4)

    Again, the next even they were to look forward to was being with Christ in glory, which leads to the judgment seat of Christ for rewarding of works, which is not purgatory.

    Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: (Colossians 3:9-10)

    And as they have positionally been crucified with Christ and made to live in the Spirit then they are to live in the Spirit:

    And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:24-25)

    And there are many more, all of which deal with believers which are already positionally sanctified made to sit with Christ in Heaven, and who thus are called to live it out, and none of which make perfection of character a condition to see God/be with Him in Heaven. Instead, apart their spirit being with the Lord upon death, the next event they were to look forward to was the Lord's return and being with Him in glory, which event would make them as much like Christ as they could be, (1Jn. 3:2) fulfilling the longing of the holy believer, versus having to attain perfection of character prior to seeing the Lord.

    But so, too, for us to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4) and join in perfect unity with the Divine in heaven, our souls need to be objectively holy.

    Rather, this is another exhortation on growing in Godly character, to full maturity, in which saints reach various levels, but the text nowhere says this is the goal in order to be with God in Heaven, but that they "neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" and never fall, which is set in contrast to "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." (2 Peter 1:9)

    Holiness as a fruit of faith is required, but as elsewhere in the context of the postmortem, or postterrestrial realization of true believers, utterly absent is any mention of purgatory, with only the suffering of loss of rewards and the Lord's approval at the judgment seat of Christ being what is manifestly taught.

    . Earlier, when I asked directly, you said sanctification is "imputed" (in contrast to personal and intrinsic). Now, you're talking in vague terms about "growth in character." Does that pertain to personal holiness? What about ongoing sin? Does that affect holiness?

    Seriously, what do you think after i have affirmed both imputed righteousness and that "true faith means pursuit of holiness" and that to seek perfection of character "is consistent with saving faith," "which takes testings and temptations"? And that Scripture says faith is counted for righteousness and thus all believers are sanctified "saints," though sinners, and thus calls them to live our practically what they are in Christ? Do you really think I must only hold to one aspect of sanctification or that practically holiness needed more precise definition?

    Others I may talk to speak of "progressive sanctification" in terms of actual, personal holiness. Here's an example pulled somewhat at random:...The amusing thing is I can get some to the point of agreeing that sanctification isn't necessarily complete while we remain in the body, but who will then strenuously assert "there is no Purgatory!!!"

    There is no amusing contradiction as Scripture provides for believers being made as conformable to Christ as they can be, but not thru purgatory.

    I submit it would be perfectly acceptable for Catholic to conceive of that "final sanctification," that final transformative event, to occur when we standing in the presence of the Almightty (as awe-striking, terrifying, uncomfortable, shameful, amazing, etc., as that moment may be). Judgment depictions (e.g., Matt. 25) have that encounter before God occurring before He says "enter into the inheritance awaiting you." Purgatory as the "ante-room" of Heaven is a perfectly fine understanding. Now, in the Catholic view, that General Judgment at the End of Days is preceded by the Particular Judgment which awaits us individually (e.g., Heb. 9:27). The first encounter could be a bit more rigorous experience.

    What is not amusing is that it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics. For rather than all true believers being saints and going to be with the Lord at death, or at His return, at which time they shall be made like Him, as they shall see Him as He is, (Jn. 3:2) and "appear with Him in glory," (Col. 3:4) and go thru the judgment seat of Christ for the recompensing of the manner workmanship they built the church with, and being saved despite loss, (1Co. 8:-17) instead you have souls enduring potentially eons suffering "purifying torments" commencing at death. And with

    We both should want the same end, but presuming one is justified by suddenly intrinsic holiness but who then must attain perfection of character in being perfect as God here or endure postmortem torments in order to be with God in heaven is foreign to Scripture. But not to the need of overall holiness of character as Abraham had, who is justified by faith as he was, and the penitent publican, and the contrite criminal, and every believing Corinthian and believer, if such is to be judged to be a believer and appear with Him in glory. Thanks be to God.

    Now, in the Catholic view, that General Judgment at the End of Days is preceded by the Particular Judgment ..Heb. 9:27

    As there are two resurrections so it appears that there are there two judgments. Believers will see the resurrection of life,” (Jn. 5:29a; Rev. 20:6,7,14) and only face the judgment sat of Christ, which is only for believers. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6) That would be the Particular Judgment.

    After their literal 1,000 year reigns that Rome rejects, is the Great White Throne judgment, in which, like as all believers go to be with Lord at death or His return because they are believers, but then shall be rewarded for works they have done, so also all the lost go to Hell with the rich man in Lk. 16:19-31 because they are unredeemed lost sinners, but who will be "judged every man according to their works."

    And the believers shall be as judges themselves here. The fuller eschatology, which is open to some interpretation, is that the "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

    They shall go with the Lord to fight the Battle of Armageddon: "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints," (Jude 1:14) "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." (Revelation 19:14)

    And after that shall reign with Him 1,000 years, the Lord ruling nations (unregenerate survivors of the tribulation) with a rod, (Rv. 19:15) during which time the devil is bound, and thus as under other situations (Eden=no sin nature) man is shown to choose sin, as when the devil is loosed after that period then the multitude follow the devil into rebellion "and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." (Revelation 20:9)

    After which is the final judgment, of which the Lord says "when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel,' (Matthew 19:28) And Paul states, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2) To the glory of God.

    Yes, there is more to draw upon for the Trinity (but it's also a more vital doctrine).

    As far as the Being of God is concerned, but as regards the believers next realization event, it is incongruous, and untenable that with the majority of believers going to a place of fiery torments for perhaps eons (and as Scripture references our time so much we here) then Scripture would only speak clearly of souls going to be with the Lord upon death or His return, and so often and clearly about the next transformative event being that of the Lord's return and being with Him in glory. And in which believers are made as conformable to Christ as they can be.

    . And, as I'm sure you've heard stated, Scripture itself scarcely hints of a "new testament" to come. The Tradition that proves a 27 book NT is to me the same Tradition that proves acceptance of a postmortem state of temporarl atonement and purification.

    Not so, for as it is Scriptural that the people of God discerned manifestly men of God as being so in the light of their Scriptural substantiation and attestation, for as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, then likewise it is evident (Is. 8:20; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) that they discerned writings as being of God, essentially due to their immediate and enduring Divine qualities and attestation, with complimentary conflative writings, which as the word of God were living and powerful, being made distinctive from those which were not.

    Yet being the corporate stewards of Scripture does not mean all they hold are of God, as the Jews evidence.

    But the point is the idea of chastisement or deprivation leading to perfection of character and holiness is a a very Scriptural principle. For example:

    I was referring to texts such as the ones cited as pertaining to a postmortem experience, as there is a difference btwn being punished to pay off a debt versus undergoing suffering in order to bring one to repentance, and or in order to refine character.

    Purgatory serves both to atone for sin and refine character, while again the only clear teaching of any postmortem suffering is at the judgment seat of Christ, and the suffering there is not to atone for sin or refine character, but to manifest what manner of workmanship one has built the church with, wheat or tares, and to reward each accordingly.

    Or course, related to this is whether chastisement is atonement needed for forgiveness, versus chastisement as a consequence of sin working repentance for forgiveness and refinement of character.

    Purgatory isn't necessarily a "place," and certainly not in the earthly sense of a dimensional space. It's a state a purification. Nor is there necessarily a "time" element. It's a state of existence, ontological and experiential, not temporal in the earthly sense.

    Such is the recourse to the metaphorical that could also be applied to Heaven and Hell, and it takes the teeth out of both the Biblical descriptions of eternal torment as well as the classic descriptions of purgatory, of which some ancients said it was worse than Hell, but not everlasting.

    The Second Epistle of Peter lacks early evidential historical support. There's no truly clear evidence of it being cited until the 4th century. Notwithstanding, after a slight period of stated uncertainty, we observe wide acceptance from the latter part of the 4th century onward.

    True and a valid point; however the lack of support, esp. in the long term for it is hardly comparable to purgatory, of which Ratzinger writes: (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

    But,

    subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

    The "reward" is "eternal life" (Rom. 2:6-7; Matt. 25:31ff).

    Eternal life is a gift, (Rm. 6:23) yet faith has great recompense of reward and thus is not to be cast away, (Heb. 10:35) but 1Cor. 3 is not talking about gaining eternal life, else those whose work shall be burned and who shall suffer loss would not themselves be saved despite this. (1 Corinthians 3:15) Instead, there are various crowns given to believers (to cast at the feet of the Lord i think). And in the relation to being rewarded for how one built the church, Paul states, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)

    Recompense which is "promised" is how I've understood it. The CC says "owed."

    Trent (and the Catechism) explicate the issue correctly. That some may not understand every detail may be a pastoral failure or simply a failure of diligence on the part of the individual.

    Rather, what the masses overall believe reflects what Rome effectually conveys, despite excuses. Her treating even publicly know impenitent proabortion prosodomite pols as members in life and in death sends the message that as long as you die a RC, your merits and those of the church will get you into glory, even if eventually. And i am a former very active RC.

    expressed that he would be

    Correction, that "he would rather be." You and so many like you leave that word out. The text as written doesn't necessarily imply the immediacy you keep impressing onto it.

    It does indeed imply the immediacy, despite the potentially eons of detour you must press into it, as being willing to be "absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," and "having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better" presents one of only two mutually exclusive alternatives (strait betwixt two), with no inference of a state of prolonged purifying that sppsdly the majority of believers must endure. And he even goes to describe the only event that is purifying in the sense of burning up bad material, but which is subsequent to going to be with the Lord and only occurs at His return. What Caths read into this is simply not there by is disallowed.

    Scripture says of the church it is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Jesus says He "will send the Spirit to lead into all truth." Paul speaks of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." So viewed historically it's a proof problem. Indeed there is, as Caths can only wish that a church of perpetual magisterial infallibility, even led by a papal office possessing the same, is what the Lord's promise of progressive revelation and 1Tim. 1:15 says, which they love to invoke, as unique to Rome (or the EOs). 1Tim. 1:15 (in the Greek) simply refers to the corporate house of God, the church of the living God being the support which both stulos and hedraiōma basically denote, the latter perhaps as foundation, but it is unseen in the LXX or Hellenistic Jewish or secular Greek, and i read that a Gk. edition of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses paraphrased it as "pillar and support."

    As " of the" (truth) is missing perhaps it could mean belonging to the truth, but in any case this is far from meaning the church must be the infallible standard for Truth above Scripture, and refers to the body of Christ, the household of faith (cf. Gal. 6:10; 1Pt. 4:17) in which every part works together to edify, evangelize, contend for the Truth, as evangelicals have historically been characterized for doing. (Romans 9:4-5)

    Yet the visible church is an admixture of tares and wheat. And Scripturally an infallible magisterium has never been essential to provide and preserve Truth and faith, and what is said of Israel is what Rome claims for herself: "...because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers..."

    Moreover, God has been progressively revealing Truth before the church, and though i do not see Him providing new public doctrinal revelation now yet He illuminates more from Scripture revealing Him and His Truth, and His revelation will be added to when He returns.

    In addition, all those who are born again have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," just as there is "one body, and one Spirit," and "one God and Father of all" as it says in context, as all in the body of Christ have been born again by that one Spirit, by the one basic faith in the Lord of the one gospel, and thus have been baptized into that one body, (1Co. 12:13) and are to be water baptized in identification with their Lord.

    Where is that church found in each age that is the authentic heir of the Apostolic church? I think I know the answer. The choice is a narrow one, I must grant much to my Eastern brethren, but I still come back to Rome

    The answer is simple: just as in the OT, the people of God have always been manifested as a distinct people, even if as a remnant. Ideally this is under a centralized authoritative, if fallible, magisterium, yet when that failed the "holy nation" continued with God raising up leaders. By presuming the novel and unnecessary idea of perpetual magisterial veracity, with Rome in particular infallibly declaring she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula,and adopting Caesaropapism, along with other unScriptural accretions, and in addition to her moral declensions and recalcitrance when faced with rebuke, then she progressively disqualified herself from warranting the very veracity she presumed, and necessitated the Reformation and another formal division.

    Even before the Reformation, Rome claims to have been the one true and visible church, even though as Ratzinger states,

    "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

    "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

    And today Catholicism exists in schisms and sects, with only limited doctrinal unity which is largely on paper, while with significant disagreements among Catholics in interpreting Rome as well as what is not officially interpreted.

    What we have no is obviously not the ideal, but Rome if not alone is primarily to blame due to her arrogant deformation, while the body of Christ is far from invisible, as can be seen even in the focus of the liberal media on evangelicals as their primary threat due to them being the most conservative religious group (in contrast to the overall fruit of Rome) .

    I find that to be a good authority. If I can trust (as I do, and you do implicitly) they correctly recognixed the Scriptural books, I can for the same reasons accept they preserved correctly the basics of this afterlife notion.

    Do you really understand want to know where this logic leads to?

    Try me. Fine, it leads to requiring 1st century souls to submit to the Jews, since they were the ones who manifestly recognized as Scripture the very books which the NT established its Truth claims upon. When the Lord Himself quoted the Law, the Writings and the Prophets there no arguement over which they were, even if not every book was settled.

    It took Rome herself over 1400 years after the last book was written - and after Luther died - to issue an infallible. indisputable canon, while scholarly disagreements continued thru the centuries and right into Trent. Contrary to RC propaganda.

    A true church has authority, one which I am commanded to obey:

    Indeed, which does not require ensured formulaic infallibility any more than SOTUS does or the OT magisterium, disobedience to which could be a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13)

    Here's a question I've asked many, many times of "Bible believers." And as many times as I've asked, I've yet to get an answer. Who are my leaders? (This clearly isn't talking about secular leaders, as these are said to "keep watch over my soul.") If I have leaders teaching me one thing, and you (or someone else) instructing another way, who am I supposed to obey and grant authority?

    That sounds like Rome, as RCs often debate what their leaders meant, even to the point of sects and schisms. And that you cannot get an answer to your question is absurd. The leaders are the pastors, presbuteros/episkopos, not a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests." But as with enjoined obedience to all authority on earth, obedience is conditional in that in clear cases of deviation from the word of God then there can be dissent.

    RCs find this intolerable on the apologetics level, though Catholics disagree with their church more than most, and which is implicitly allowed and fostered. Yet under the RC model in which the an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, so that those who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God, would disallow the NT church. For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    Besides others ,

    That's quite an amalgam of stuff. More Jason Engwer selective quotes, oh, boy.

    Really? The list is from me, and I know not of any quotes that are from him, or used contrary to what they substantiate.

    The thing I notice about this is that on the early part on supposed doctrinal deviations, there's very little historical commentary; then when it moves on to the papacy suddenly the Orthodox historians and others are called in.

    Really? The historical commentary is first and foremost wholly inspired Scripture, by which we see the distinction from the progressive accretions of traditions of men, while it is primarily Cath authors who provided testimony contrary to the RC propaganda of the church church looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning in Rome. To which RCs have recourse the spurious "acorn to the tree" analogy, but instead we have an acorn being made into a decidedly different tree. Thus Scripture has souls counted as righteous by faith, before baptism or any change into perfection of character, and made accepted in the Beloved on His account, while only clearly teaching that their next stop will be with the Lord forever, and with the only future change mentioned in nature being that of being made like Christ when He appears, and that the only suffering will be that of the losing of rewards due to corrupt building material, and thus the grievous displeasure of the Lord, while inconceivably failing to clearly or consistently teach of a postmortem or postterrestrial state of purifying torments for potentially eons of earth time commencing at death.

    In addition, the very basis for the veracity of this doctrine is invalid, that being of the novel premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, so that only what she says tradition, history and Scripture is and means is authoritative.

    The end.

    Well, this has taken far more of my day than I wished.

    Two days here.

  • Brrr! February brought record cold, snow to Northeast

    03/01/2015 4:27:36 PM PST · 35 of 52
    daniel1212 to mass55th; metmom; redleghunter; WVKayaker; Mark17
    I live in Rome, NY. Our average temperature in February was 7.2 degrees. Also: Number of days with temperatures below zero: 30 Last winter's number of days below zero: 25 Longest streak of below zero days: 11 Coldest day of the year: -21° Snowfall to date: 78.1 - It was the 3rd snowiest February ever with 40.4" of snowfall. It's warmer today...23 degrees, and it's snowing. We're expecting another 2-5 inches.

    You make us seem warm!

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/28/2015 7:32:08 PM PST · 256 of 277
    daniel1212 to don-o
    I don't know why; but, isn't the concept of the invisible church widely held by much of the evangelical / Protestant confession?

    I don't know what you mean by invisible? You mean without visible manifestation, as in a class of people called by a distinctive name which are identified as being so by what they overall basically believe and do (and do not do) - actions constituting the real evidence of that?

    And which people claim historical faith based upon an objective transcendent body of Truth held to be wholly inspired of God, baptize and disciple people, and affirm the magisterial office or role of teachers, and ordain presbuteros/episkopos (elders/overseers as pastors) to preach and shepherd the flock?

    And or do you mean that have a centralized magisterium and one standardized liturgy and claims formal historical descent, under the magisterial office which claims ensured veracity?

    And which ordain hiereus (priests) who primary function is to offer the body and blood of Christ to the flock, which prays to angels and saints in Heaven, etc."

    This sounds like progressive revelation. Are you not a sola scriptura adherent? It is actually progressive realization of revelation, while SS actually fully pertains to a 66 book canon, and is based upon the fact that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    It seems that you are saying that a visible church, over some years, reached a consensus about what would be accepted as Holy Scripture. Have I accurately understood?

    Basically that the people of God, who are manifest in a body, did so. The question then is, must we then submit to that body in all like issues.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/28/2015 9:56:09 AM PST · 55 of 66
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    ...(infants and slaves had no choice)...the only examples we have of the morally cognizant condition of the baptized is that they were able to choose Christ..

    Sorry, my friend, but you may have to rethink your "choice" filter you run everything thru...'Cause it just "ain't" there in the basic Gospels/Scriptures: The Son's Witness to this: 16 You did NOT choose me, but I chose you..."44 “NO ONE can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them. NO ONE one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” EXCEPT by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:3)

    None of those are contrary to what i said, as all these texts refer to souls which could and would make choices, even though it was God who drew them, convicted them, opened their heart, and granted them repentant faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) so that they chose what they otherwise could not and would not do.

    But they all made choices, as God requires them to do in order to be saved.

    And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)

    Meanwhile those who will not make that response, choosing to reject the even light they had and thus their foolish heart was darkened, (Rm. 1:21) will be lost.

    You need to go back to basics re... ...the need to give GOD in Christ & God the Holy Spirit 100% credit & glory for New Life... ...instead of tipping the glory in favor of men & women having (finally) made the "right choice" based upon their acumen & "moral cognizance"...

    Indeed God gets all the credit, as i just substantiated, and which an RC recently attacked me for, but it remains that man is not saved as a comatose soul, but as one who by the grace of God makes a response that otherwise he could not and would not make, versus having merited it by his response.

    And it remains that repentance and faith are requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) which was the point.

    Cocoris wrote in one of his books that he regretted preaching in effect "decision theology"

    That is not at all what i said or was arguing or contrary to what i was, and coaxing sinner's prayers out of souls is unBiblical and a problem in this superficial society. The work of the evangelist is to be a preaching instrument of conviction so that sinners ask, "What shall we do," and yet a command to do something was given, God enabling and motivating. (Acts 2:37,38)

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/28/2015 9:56:02 AM PST · 54 of 66
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    Infant baptism is no special "false confidence" issue -- anymore than what some phrase somebody has mouthed at some point in the past. It goes both ways...and to somehow pretend it doesn't isn't very forthcoming on this subject.

    True indeed, and there was not pretending that the latter was not a problem, while the point is that both are wrong. Glad you agree.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/28/2015 9:55:58 AM PST · 53 of 66
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    Do you know how many times on FR I've had to constantly tell Lds we are primarily baptized into Christ Jesus HIMSELF...and not simply into a church, a sect, a church body, a denomination, or an organization?

    Once again you are overreacting in looking at what i did not say in a certain context and leaping to a conclusion because i did not say what needs to be said in a formal teaching on the subject. The Lord Jesus did not say everything that could be said on the subject of salvation when He told the rich young man to sell all and follow Him to be perfect.

    Of course I know that being "baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13) means being baptized into a person, Christ, who places us into His body.

    Because man is 100% passive when it comes to baptism (yes, I know these baptism verses in the Bible militate versus your apparent unBiblical "choice" theology).

    Only by making "passive" refer to an act of man not being an act because he did it by God's grace. But which is the wrong way to deal with salvation being by faith without works, for as explained before, this does not mean man is comatose in conversion, though not merit of works was the cause.

    Works done due to God's moving and enablement does not means that are not works, as all works that God will reward are a result of that, and yet they are called works, and under grace faith is recompensed in recognition of them. (Heb. 10:35; 1Cor. 3:8ff) .

    12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, HE GAVE THE RIGHT to become children of God— 13 children born NOT of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13) Did you catch that? Did YOU decide to be born? NO? Oh, but you decided to be REBORN?

    This is a superficial analysis, as analogies seldom have complete correspondence in every aspect, but only in the aspect they are invoked for, which in this case is who one is born of and by. That being of God and by God does not negate the FACT that human decision is involved, even if this choice is due to God's moving and enablement.

    That you keep using an extra word "signifies" that isn't to be found in all of these baptism verses (just like too many Evangelicals likewise attach the word "ordinance" to baptism -- even though that word isn't found attached to any of the baptism verses, either!)

    So now we cannot use any words which are descriptive of what Scripture teaches? So much for metaphorical. The clear fact is that Rm. 6 clearly signifies baptism as representing death and rebirth, but since you say it is wrong to use it then it must be dropped.

    [The forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism

    And where is the word "designated" found in all of these baptism verses? What Acts 3:28 says is if one repents and is baptized, which is a human decision, then he will be forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, though it is actually the faith behind the act which appropriates it. (Acts 10:43) And thus by telling them to so something that required that faith then they would assured have what it appropriated. God purifying their hearts by faith.(Acts 15:7-9)

    We've become a 100% grace-based full-beneficiary recipient & hence receive full benefits of all Christ did for us as a free gift (Col. 2:12-15; Titus 3:4-7; 1 Peter 3:21). And don't go stealing glory of powerful divine things that neither you, nor I, can do...

    There is no stealing in teaching a act which is motivated and enabled by God is indeed an act, and a work, though not meriting justification.

    ALL: If you want to know perhaps the #1 untold distinction of how various Christians treat baptism, it lies in this very question: Do you see to be baptized into Christ Jesus as an act of God, or as an act of man.

    Baptism by the Spirit into the body, which is by the kind of faith which is expressed in water baptism but can happen before that act, is an act of God. The act of water baptism by a believer is an act done by man who is moved and enabled by God to do so in obedience to God, which confesses the faith which appropriates forgiveness and justification, just as Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. But who manifested that by offering Issac, which act "justified," validated, him as being a believer. .

    If water baptism effects regeneration then it would be an operation of God via an act by man who does so bcz he is moved and enabled by God to do so. Thus even under your doctrine man is not passive in conversion, while in both cases the act of water baptism does not merit justification, though God blesses obedience.

    Moreover, if you are going to exclude baptism as being a work under the premise that God moves and enables him to do so, the we must exclude all works which God does thru believers from being works, though God recognizes them as works and rewards them.

    If baptism is merely some self-generated "inward act" done by mere men, what? Can we "justify" ourselves?

    That is a strawman, as i never said or inferred that water baptism was any inward act, nor that man effects any, but that God moves and enables man to believe on the Lord Jesus, and which faith is confessed in baptism, but which act does not merit justification.

    Even if "the forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism," meaning baptism is the instrumental means by which one obtains forgiveness, yet this God-enabled act is still one which infants are not shown as being able to make, or need to.

    The Acts' pattern is clear, whether its Pentecost, Paul's conversion, the Ethiopian eunuch, or the Samritans, or the Ephesian dozen in acts 10, or Cornelius, or the Philippian jailer and his family...the pattern is all uniform: baptism is part & parcel of the Gospel and people are power-deniers if they want to de-link baptism to the Holy Spirit as its direct Agent, or de-link baptism to New Life/Salvation, or de-link baptism to empowering of God's Word-in-action, or de-link baptism to forgiveness, or de-link baptism to justification, or de-link baptism from direct adoption into His family.

    Then you have a contradiction which is remedied by understanding that it is the faith that baptism requires and expresses that appropriates justification, not an act.

    For as Peter preached,

    To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

    And as these souls manifested,

    While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (Acts 10:44-46)

    And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

    Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:47-48)

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/28/2015 9:55:51 AM PST · 52 of 66
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    How can an infant believe?

    Let me ask you: How can an adult form Christ in himself? "19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..." (apostle Paul, Gal. 4:19) Adults can't do Biblical requisites for salvation, either!

    Again this is a false dilemma, as you are imagining that an action done by God excludes any God-wrought response by man preceding it from being an act requiring moral cognizance, as well as making that work the instrumental cause of a subsequent work of God.

    You hold that "the forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism," and is directly linked to justification and adoption into His family New Life/Salvation, yet want to deny this act of being baptized as being a responsive work which infants cannot make, such the act of being baptized is one which God moves and enables one to do.

    However, while God certain does move and enable one to do what he otherwise could not and would not do, yet choosing to believe and to be baptized is a stipulated required response by man. (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36,37)

    God certainly could move and enable an infant to believe, but there is no Scriptural teaching that He does this as a norm, but instead He calls all to repentance and faith as a prerequisite for baptism.

    Infants can't believe (but ya know, I've seen a LOT of infants relationally TRUST their mommy's milk supply...and last I knew jesus said eternal life was relational...knowing...trusting...John 17:3)

    That analogy fails, as infants can choose food but are not manifest as culpable for sin, and able to realize their need for a savior, and choose Christ, by God's grace. Conversions in Scripture were preceded conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment, and thus of seeking salvation.

    Also, I'm not sure we should always be discussing baptizing of infants academically...especially given that the Bible that I know talks of at least six people who lived with God from infancy:

    *David: "On you I have leaned from birth" (Ps. 71:6);

    Misappropriation: It says, "By thee have I been holden up from the womb," not choosing to rely in God.

    *From my mother's womb you have been my God" (Ps. 22:10)

    Besides actually saying, "Cast upon womb thou God mother's belly," (Psalms 22:10) the whose Psalm with its poetic language ("I am a worm" "many bulls have compassed me" "as a ravening and a roaring lion") speaks most directly of Christ, and need not literally say that David himself choose God at birth, but can infer that God was his God in caring for him, enabling him to have life and a future from birth, while for Christ as God then God was His God from everlasting, and at birth.

    If David did choose God, then that would be an exception to the norm, and thus it is mentioned as is the case with multitude other exceptions

    *Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-15; 1:5)

    And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)

    So you think Timothy could read scripture as an infant, or is this another example of overreach?

    *John the Baptist... You mean "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb," (Lk. 1:15) Which quite obviously is not the norm, which norm is what you must show.

    * Samuel

    For whom we are told, Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him. (1 Samuel 3:7)

    Which somehow means he choose God as an infant? More carelessness or desperation.

    Joseph

    I cannot even guess what text you are referring to that shows Joseph choosing to believe in God as an infant. Because he had a dream after he could talk?

    Isaac

    Likewise an argument without a text.

    Finally all those people -- like Daniel1212 on this thread -- who said no scriptures are found that specifically say to baptize infants...ignore several Biblical & historical realities:

    1. Every supposed NON "infant baptist" verse of children in the bible also by extension applies to no verses in the Bible that says any aged child -- even teens -- to be baptized!

    Wrong: For the vast majority of descriptions of baptisms are those of souls who repented and believed, manifesting moral cognizance, and thus exclude infants but can include teens, and even souls young enough to "morally "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:16)

    ..."age of accountability" -- also conspicuously absent from the Scriptures

    Wrong: see below, which denotes a time of realization which was not present before. Nor is this age of accountability originally a Mormonic doctrine, but recognized long before that.


    Deuteronomy 1:39 - Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

    James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

    Matthew 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

    Isaiah 7:16 - For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

    With the exception of Tertullian, early church fathers (pre-the 'Rome' of roman catholicism) didn't write against the practice of infant baptism. Origen ...referenced it as "apostolic tradition"...

    Which, along with other traditions of men such held to, testifies to the problem of perpetuation of erroneous traditions due to making tradition equal with Scripture, even if some were unaware of it. Christmas today has centuries of tradition, and is effectively held as required observance, which any minister will realize if he attempt to walk in Scriptural leading in worship.

    Cyprian

    Who was a principle instrument in the Romanizing of the church:

    Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian, finds,

    The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it. The twin process began to operate in the early and middle decades of the third century, with Origen epitomizing the first element and Cyprian the second.

    The effect of Origen’s work was to create a new science, biblical theology, whereby every sentence in the scriptures was systematically explored for hidden [much prone to metaphorical] meanings, different layers of meanings, allegory and so forth...

    Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church.

    With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...

    [Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone...

    ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

    Polycarp (69-155), a disciple alongside John, said at his martyrdom at age 86: "86 years have I searved him."

    That is a doubtful assertion as both your birth and death dates are disputed , and thus 86 years could refer to being from his conversion (and how one serves God is an infant leads to legends).

    Irenaus said that Jesus came to save all through him are bborn again to God...infants, children, boys, ouths, and old men...all stages covered.

    Along with perpetuating other extraScriptural traditions, which here presumes that the Holy Spirit did not think it important to include even one manifest example/description of an infant being baptized, while providing numerous others of believers being baptized, and requiring repentance and faith as conditions of it, unlike circumcision, which is required for infants.

    God knows what He is doing, with in providing what we need and in His silence, which is to be respected, versus adding to His words.

    Furthermore, the overall fruit of those who most preach paedobaptists is that of liberalism, in contrast to those who most preach it follows repentance and faith.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/27/2015 12:17:40 PM PST · 241 of 277
    daniel1212 to don-o
    Perhaps you could ask one question at a time.

    And perhaps you would address mine in post 59.

    Both have been done already.

    Why must "church" refer to an invisible body, versus Godly people of God which are within the visible body progressively showing general consensus as to what and who is of God. Which the powers that be are to affirm, though it remains that what and who is of God are so regardless of magisterial rejection, as it can be wrong.

    Or does being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ mean they are the infallible judges of what and who is of God, and thus that they must be followed?

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/27/2015 8:41:33 AM PST · 50 of 66
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    Dear Colofornian. I just spent 6 hours typing a 5700+ word response by God's grace to a 2700+ word post (takes me hours to type with my stiff fingers and slow mind) which is the latest in a series, and so it will take me a while before i begin to response to your 23,000 word (total) posts which you posted in the space of 3 hours.

    You must wear out keyboards! Good thing we are rewarded according to the quality and effort of labor.

    I will see what i can do latter after a church meeting with God's help. Now going out to move some old snow.

  • Sungenis Claims: "the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory"

    02/27/2015 8:27:00 AM PST · 86 of 88
    daniel1212 to CpnHook
    This was Adam's initial state. The CC adheres to that. At baptism, justification and sanctification are coterminous. They are not necessarily so beyond throughout the believer's lifetime. When I speak of conflating justification and sanctification, the point is that -- regardless whether you agree or disagree on the Catholic view on the formal cause of justification -- purgatory still has nothing to do with justification (souls undergoing purgatory are already justified, by definition).

    You are avoiding the problem. You rejected my statement that "this myth is based upon a false premise of justification" (based on one's own level of holiness), by stating purgatory pertains to sanctification, yet In baptism one is justified due to his holy sanctified state, and thus is fit to enter Heaven. However, having lost that level of sanctification then he ends up in purgatory until he once again attains to the level of sanctification by which he was justified - though actually he must surpass his baptismal condition and finally attain a perfection of character - to be perfect as God is - which even Adam did not have, else he would not have sinned.

    Thus it remains that purgatory is based upon the false premise of justification being originally attained by one's own holiness making him acceptable to God. For even if this sanctifying holiness was originally infused, the principle at work in both in Cath justification and purgatory is that one must actually become perfectly holy to be accepted by God and thus be with Him. In effect is it salvation by grace thru works, that by God';s grace i practically become perfect in character as God is.

    Which is in stark contrast with than God regenerating and "purifying their hearts by faith," (Acts 15:9) which faith justifies the unGodly by being counted for righteousness (since Christ was accounted guilty, being made sin for us), so that they are always accepted in the Beloved, on Christ's account. (Rm. 3:25-5-1; Eph. 1:6) And thus, if they die in faith, will go to be with God at death or the Lord's return, which is what Scripture most plainly teaches. (LK. 23:39-43; Acts 7:59; Phil. 1:21-23; 2Cor. 5:8; 1Thes. 4:17)

    And with holiness being an essential consequential fruit of faith, and the basis for one being judged to be a believer and fit for rewards, but not the means or basis by which he obtains justification and entrance into Heaven.

    Oh, the twisting. The text doesn't say "follow holiness in general." It speaks of holiness to be pursued and (contrary to your mental rewrite) designates a standard "without which no one will see the Lord." So you see a phrase that is inconvenient to your position and you simply read it to be saying something else. How Protestant of you.

    Oh, the twisting indeed! It does NOT point to a certain level of holiness, as it does NOT say "the" holiness as if this was a certain supreme level (perfect as God) you read into Scripture, but instead it simply says to "follow peace with all, and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord," (Heb. 12:14) Thus the holiness is a general term, not a specific level of holiness.

    Nor does it infer hope of a future purification for those who do not seek holiness. Either one has this fruit of faith or he is not of faith, such as fornicators and Essau whom it goes on to warn again being like.

    Scripture here (as with 2 Cor. 7:1) speaks of a holiness to be pursued. Under your view, it seems, sanctification has already fully and finally been accomplished on account of "faith." I see a disconnect between how you picture sanctification and how the Bible does.

    Regardless of what you see, i never said or inferred sanctification has already fully and finally been accomplished on account of "faith," as instead i affirmed "Scripture warns against ongoing sin, which is a denial of faith, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:26-39; Gal. 5:1-4) and exhorts to seek perfection which pursuit is consistent with saving faith," not something one practically attains at conversion.

    And whether this [2 Corinthians 12:4] signifies a bodily ascension into Heaven or more akin to the vision of Isaiah (Is. 6) can be debated.

    Debated?! Caught up to the third Heaven, to Paradise? So now not only must "absent" from the Lord mean encounter, but paradise means purgatory?

    Though, interestingly, Isaiah experienced a bit of purgation:...Purifying fire? There you have it.

    Certainly it can mean that, yet besides being only a vision, it occurred to Isaiah in this life, and was over in a moment. But while you must now describe being with the Lord as being in purgatory for potentially thousands of years in purifying torment , the only "with the Lord" fire the saints will face in Scripture is that of the judgement seat of Christ, which awaits His return.

    The falsity is that it one gain entrance into Heaven by moral perfection, versus faith which is imputed for righteousness

    How tiring it gets beating back the Protestant "either/or" mentality.

    Once again resorting to sarcasm for want of refutation. Wherever the Bible clearly speaks of the next place for believers after this life then it is with the Lord, while Rome has almost all believers going to purgatory, for which she must attempt to extrapolate it out of a few interpretive texts which do not state this, and has even a criminal attaining perfection of character thru a few hours on the cross.

    And come clean here (pun intended). Is sanctification in your view personal and intrinsic? Or imputed?

    Imputed to those whose hearts are purified by faith. Was Christ actually a sinner, or were our sins placed upon Him in imputed guilt? Therefore the repeated call to believers is to live out what they are in Christ, with the resurrection doing away with this vile body with its affections.

    For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:20-21)

    Which motivates one to seek to be as much like Christ as they can be now (i do want what purgatory promises), but . But not as attaining this in order that they may be with Christ.

    (And the linked article contains a great Scriptural example of the personal/intrinsic view of sanctification: "Psa 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.")

    Which is what we uphold takes place in conversion, yet this does not constitute perfection of character, which takes testings and temptations, and which the Scripture only clearly shows taking place in this life. And the ambiguous Scriptures must conform to to and be understood by the clear ones.

    Protestants are adamant there is no Purgatory (no need for any further sanctification), but pinning them down on what sanctification is, how it's attained (or lost), is a bit the proverbial "like nailing jello to a wall."

    Rather, here the problem is that RCs cannot only see what their Roman mind meld allows them. I have said before that it is that "chastisement [and experience] in this world, with its temptations and trials, is where moral growth in character takes place," like as with Job. And evangelicals have much much teaching on practical growth in holiness, with many groups named for their devotion to this.

    I don't have to assume they were all yet perfectly sanctified, since Paul indicates otherwise (2 Cor. 7:1).

    You do indeed, as the apostle teaches that all believers are going to be with the Lord at His return, and which they expected in their own imperfect lifetimes. And adding i adding error to error, you take a call to perfection of holiness and read into that a requirement for being in Heaven, in order to negate all believers going to be in Heaven.

    Nor do I have to assume that "being with the lord" somehow precludes an element of final purification. So your second objection is means you have to come up with a texts which shows a element of final purification in the presence of the Lord, which is what i provided, (1Co. 3:8ff) and which disallows it from being purgatory!

    Here, you're still stuck on the same "absent from the body" fallacy you suffered from earlier.

    "Fallacy?" Rather it was your example that was manifest to be in error, with your false analogy! It being better to be "absent from the body and be present with the Lord" denote one event meaning another, and does not infer choosing to suffer purifying torments for perhaps thousands of years. It is incongruous in the light of Scripture that such a events like this would even be left out of such a statements.

    So, in your view, it's "let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement in body and spirit and make holiness perfect, [(2 Cor. 7:1] but if we don't, there's really no consequence at all".

    Wrong, as you are reading into my response what i did not say, and not what i did say, which for one is that one will suffer "loss of rewards, (1Cor. 3:15) and thus also (implicitly) the grievous disapproval of the Lord." For realizing the Lord's "Well done" is to be the motivation of a believer, versus being ashamed. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. (1 John 2:28,29)

    Thus Paul, after expressing "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," (2 Corinthians 5:8) does not presenting hope of a future purification, but speaks of the next event, that of the judgment seat of Christ, and finding the Lord's complete approval then.

    Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him, and fearing His displeasure with their fruit. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:9,10)

    The word for accepted, "euarestos" means "fully agreeable," "wellpleasing" in Phi_4:18, Heb_13:21 and "acceptable in Rom_12:1-2 (2), Rom_14:18, Eph_5:10. " And the apostles next adds, "Knowing therefore the terror [phobos=fear] of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." (2 Corinthians 5:11)

    Thus the only postmortem suffering is that of the judgment seat of Christ at His return, and which should be the focus. And which is only for the saved, and which suffering is the loss of rewards by corrupt fruit being burned up and thus the Lord's grievous displeasure, but which consumption is not a means of their sanctification in iorder to see God, but they are saved despite this loss.

    Of course, having (twice) hauled out the fallacious "absent from the body" bit, it was inevitable you'd try the even more fallacious appeal to the Good Thief.

    Of course, the invisible major event interval who place btwn "absent" and "present" is what is fallacious.

    The thief died under the Old Covenant. He was not "born of water and the spirit" (John 3:5) either(whether you view that as a reference to baptism or simply the conversion experience),

    Regardless, the principle is the same. If one needs to "be perfect even as your Heavenly Father is perfect" to see/be with God in paradise, then then OT believers as the contrite criminal here must have a postmortem purification, or else such perfection of character can be achieved by just suffering on a cross, which is a means of atonement, not moral perfection.

    And we know that Jesus did not immediately ascend to heaven, but descended to "preach to the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 3:19). Even casting this into a NT framework, the thief could most certainly have undergone such purification as necessary when the moment came for Jesus to enter Heaven with the OT righteous.

    "Most certainly" means "most certainly' RCs must read that into the text as a reality to convince themselves as the text most certainly does not state or infer that, and the only revelation we have of the postmortem condition of OT believers is that of rest and being comforted. not tormented - now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." (Luke 16:25)

    Moreover, the souls the Lord preached to are said to be those who were "disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah," (1Pt. 3:20) which would be that of preaching judgment to them, that by rejecting Noah then they rejected Him. Likewise does every unbeliever who rejects the light given them, which if obeyed would lead them to Christ.

    It being"not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4) then "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing," (Hebrews 9:8) and thus believers when to paradise, Abraham's Bosom. (Lk. 16:23) But at the moment of the Lord's death when Christ made complete atonement for sin, crying "It is finished," (Jn. 19:30) then that veil which stood before the holiest of all "was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent," (Matthew 27:51) and thus many OT believers "even came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:53) For while the Lord preached judgment to the lost, He set those in Abraham's bosom free, and poured out the Spirit (Jn. 7:39; 15:26; 16:7) and gave gifts to men from the Father, from whom every good and perfect gift comes. (Ja. 1:17)

    Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (Ephesians 4:8-9)

    Abraham's Bosom being emptied, paradise is now the third Heaven, (2Cor. 12:4) not purgatory, and thus the contrite criminal, the "good thief" (Scripture does not actually say he was a thief) went with the Lord to Abraham's Bosom, which is not even inferred to be a place of fiery purgation, and then to Heaven.

    Well, at last we get to your ultimate fall-back assumption -- that a thing would have been clearly stated in writing....Given that Jesus instructs the Apostles "go and teach," rather than "first go write it down" makes your assumption a dubious proposition at the outset. That both Catholic and the E.O., which have consciously sought to "hold fast to the teachings" handed down from the Apostles, accept a notion of a postmortem temporary state for atonement for sin is strong indication that the concept has Apostolic origins.

    That is your fundamental error, as first of all you are attempting to support this tradition from Scripture, which provides clear revelation of Heaven and Hell, and of souls going to one or the other, while a place and experience most every believer must endure is must be argued as "deducible from Scriptural principles," yet even this fails to establish it and contradicts what is clearly stated about the next event for believers after this life.

    And in reality, the claim to "hold fast to the teachings" handed down from the Apostles via amorphous oral tradition, includes the novel premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, which means Rome can make a binding doctrine out of something that is not in Scripture, and leads to what is contrary to what is (saints are only crowned at the Lord's return), and is lacking in evidential early historical support . But under her premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, Rome can potentially claim to "remember" whatever she wants. And which is the rest basis for the veracity of RC doctrine.

    For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    Thus,

    “the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

    Purgatory is implicit, or deducible, from Scriptural principles, much as the Trinity

    But the latter rests upon clear statements of the deity of each person ("the Word was God," "my Lord and my God" "the Spirit of the Lord hath made me," "the Lord is that Spirit" etc.) and of them possessing attributes of personality and uniquely Divine attributes, titles and glory (which i have shown - by God's grace - for Christ in particular). And of God referring to Himself in the plural, all which define "one" and in complimentary totality of necessity reveal God as a trinity of 3 persons of one being and nature.

    The challenge of the Trinity doctrine is really not that is lacks explicit statements of Deity and of uniquely Divine attributes for more than one person, but of reconciling this to "one God," but it is shown that one can mean a composite unity.

    In contrast to Heaven and Hell, as well as the Trinity, purgatory has no clear statements such that another place exists which the majority (lets be realistic) of believers go to, but is first based upon the premise that perfection of character is essential to be with God in Heaven. But which is contrary to clear statements that the next stop for all NT believers after this life in to be with the Lord, and which is set forth as the permanent state. While the only revelation we have for the postmortem status of OT believers before the resurrection was that id that of rest and comfort.

    And it is contrary to the fact that all believers now are washed, sanctified and justified, and accepted in the Beloved, and made to sit together with Christ in heaven, from where they await full conformity with Christ at His coming, and with the only suffering being that of bad fruit being consumed and thus the Lord's displeasure and loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ at His return. (1Cor. 3:8ff) Secondarily purgatory is based upon statements of chastisement which are ambiguous as to where this takes place, and do not speak of attaining perfection of character but of punishment, while in Scripture the only manifest realization of these descriptions is in this life, or the judgment seat of Christ or in Hell. Thus none demand Cath purgatory.

    There is most certainly an "and," unless you think that Adam did not enjoy an original justified state with God. But he did. He enjoyed an original state of holiness AND justice.

    There is no contradiction, for Adam was holy as in undefiled, as innocent, and without a sin nature, and thus was justified by his holiness. Yet while being a perfect creation, meaning undefiled and able to make moral chooses, he did not have perfection of character s God does. And angels which choose not to follow Lucifer did better than him.

    [re: 2 Cor. 7:1]Of course true faith means pursuit of holiness, which is an evidence of true faith, but it is not that of requiring moral perfection to be saved, or saved in the full sense . . .

    You're just winging it here. Again, as with Heb. 12:14 (where you take "holiness without which no one will see the Lord" and water it down to signify a vague "holiness in general") here you take "make holiness perfect" and argue that it isn't talking about any type of perfection.

    Rather, consistent with your inability to see what refutes Rome while seeing what is not there in order to justify your source of security, Heb. 12:14 does not say "the holiness" as if referring to a certain supreme level of holiness, while here i did not argue 2Cor. 7:1 was not talking about any type of perfection, but of perfecting holiness as a requirement to be be saved, or saved in the full sense. Which this does not say, but which RCs insist upon reading into most every exhortation to holiness.

    Instead, imperfect Paul has already told these believers (if they were believers) of their going to be with the Lord at His coming, at the last trump, even if it happened in their lifetime, (1Co. 15:51,52; cf. 1Ths. 4:17) and of his willingness "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," with the only event after being absent being that of the judgment seat of Christ. You must insist upon making this mean being with the Lord in purgatory, and which major event Paul forgot to include of thought was superflous to mention!

    which basically places one back under the Law, with justification being attained by practical purity and performance,

    Boy, you really can't stop yourself from bootlegging justification into the discussion.

    There is no bootlegging, for in reality since Cath justification is based upon having a certain level of actual perfect holiness, then so in the end they must again attain it. While in Scripture to be justified is to be accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ, and looking for His return and being glorified and made as totally like Him as we can be, (1Jn,. 3:2) while the only other camp is in the lake of fire, in Catholicism one can be justified but not fit for Heaven or Hell, as one is not good enough for the former and not bad enough (mortal sin) for the latter and thus a third state must be invented.

    I've already addressed your "absent from the body" verse. I guess it makes you feel good to restate the same point.

    Since your address is a dead end then it remains a refutation.

    And why you think 1 Cor. 15 and the future resurrection of the body has applicability to discussion of a present question of sanctification is indeed a "mystery."

    It is not mystery was a RC may not see this due to their blinders, but it is clearly stated that when the Lord returns then believers shall "ever be with the Lord," (1Thes. 4:17) but which your must read as some being be with the Lord in purgatory, even though this is an eternal position, and it is incongruous the apostle would leave out potentially eons of years in suffering for the majority. But RCs can see what they need to for Rome.

    I hadn't brought up 1 Cor. 3:15

    Yet that is a fairly standard "proof text" and supposedly yet absurdly a clincher in the dispute with the Orthodox (another example of the poor light of such).

    So can v. 15 "saved as through fire" be applied in a secondary sense to the individual believer?

    Indeed, Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.." (1 Corinthians 3:8,14)

    St. Augustine (among many others) says "yes" and very directly applies this in the sense of a 'purifying fire.' You say "no." The difficult in making the argument that v. 15 CANNOT be read in Augustine's sense is that the metaphor of the purifying fire is SO consistent throughout the Scriptures:

    What? I nowhere say it was not a purifying fire as in burning up corrupt combustibles, but actually affirmed this. And which is indeed a consistent metaphor throughout the Scriptures. But what you somehow do not see is that the undesirable combustibles burned up her are the works one used in trying to build the church with (directly or indirectly i would surmise).

    And which is not a means of attaining perfection of character, but of testing fruit with the consequential loss or gaining of rewards (i think all will realize at least some rewards).

    Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (1 Corinthians 3:12-13)

    The overall context of chapters 3-5 is what manner of men the Corinthians were following and building His church with, and the Corinthians were, like as Rome promotes, thinking of instruments of God “above what it written” (1Cor. 4:6, and “written” almost always refers to Scripture), and also counting manifestly gross sinners as members, which Paul proceeds to chasten them for. (1Cor. 5) Seeing as the fire of 1 Cor. 3 would exclude such, so were they to exclude such now. (1Cor. 5:11-13)

    The fire burns up the fake stones, which like the tares of Mt. 13:40 at the end, are represented here as wood, hay or stubble, while the precious stones with fire-tried faith (1Pt. 1:7) endure, and gain rewards for the instruments of their faithfulness. Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)

    And which texts and others also reveal that the judgment of believers which 1 Cor. 3 describes only takes place at His return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which has souls suffering upon death. This fact alone disallows 1 Cor. 3 from referring to purgatory.

    Those who lack characteristic practical holiness in the obedience of faith, which (like David) includes repentance when convicted of sin, (1Jn. 1:7-9) but who assent to a different gospel (such as based upon morally earning it: Gal. 5:1-4) or who deny the faith (1Tim. 5:8) by knowingly continuing impenitently in sin, departing from the living God, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:25-39) evidence they have rejected true faith (or never had it) and will be lost if they die in that state, and not go to purgatory.

    "Meriting one's way into Heaven" is Pelagianism, which the Catholic Church has expressly condemned.

    Then if you think teaches being one being saved by faith, not on the basis of the merit of works, (Eph. 2:8,9) but judged to be a true believer (Heb. 6:9) and fit to be rewarded for works, (Mt. 25:31-40; Rv. 3:4) versus having "truly merited eternal life" as Trent states, and that the good works that one performs by the grace of God merits the attainment of eternal life itself, with "merit” meaning recompense which is owed, then whatever distinction is missed by the masses.

    So you take the bad paraphrase you make of the Scripture and paraphrase my example accordingly. Brilliant.

    Rather, that is more recourse to sarcasm faced with a losing argument on your part, as the second was not a paraphrase (saying the same thing with different words), but a rendition that showed what consistency with the text would warrant, while the first was an accurate summation, that Paul "yet expressed that he would be with the Lord, not purgatory, if he left and became absent from the body," as he provides two contrasting either/or mutually exclusive possibilities, not even inferring a major event which most all will experience according to your doctrine.

    And which follows from the mutually exclusive scenario of 2Co 5:6: "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord."

    While you would also read into this a third alternative by analogy if needed to defend Rome, instead the more you defend your denial of what Scripture most clearly says then the more your sophistry is revealed. Brilliant.

    I'm saying Purgatory (the final application of God's sanctifying grace) can be understood as a very intense "being present" with the Lord once we are absent from the body. So you're frequent appeal to 2 Cor. 5:8 is misplaced

    No, it i not misplaced, as instead purgatory is mis-placed if it did exist, as the only place of suffering after this life is with the Lord at the judgment seat of Christ, as heretofore described, at His return, not an ongoing perfection of character commencing at death.

    Paul explicitly states that God will render (reward) eternal life in accordance with works (Rom. 2:6-7)

    Which i have affirmed, and which does not all militate against what i said. 'By their fruit ye shall know them," as God does.

    . It's one of those verses as a Catholic I can read more straightforwardly (correctly understanding the "works" in view) than can Protestants (who have to do more textual manipulation).

    No more than a Mormon can read more straightforwardly read Scripture as showing God having many human body appendages as an exalted man. Until they get to the feathers by which logic He would be a bird).

    Which incredibly is the best you have,

    Only when trying to hold this discussion under your restricted frame of authority. The better support I have is a church Jesus constituted with a true teaching authority

    Which incredibly is the best you have, an autocratic church under which tradition, Scripture and history only means what she says in any dispute, and which cannot be allowed to contradict her. Brilliant.

    (this can be Scripturally demonstrated),

    No, it cannot be, as the claim is not simply historical continuity, at whatever cost, and which can be debated, but that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (EPMI), under which the evidence means what she says. For which the argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16, etc.)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

    I find that to be a good authority. If I can trust (as I do, and you do implicitly) they correctly recognixed the Scriptural books, I can for the same reasons accept they preserved correctly the basics of this afterlife notion.

    Do you really understand want to know where this logic leads to?

    And the more fanciful examples from the Talmud you gave were not such that were carried forward, if ever they had acceptance in the Apostolic years. It's a wheat and chaff sort of thing which the Spirit guides.

    But which is determined by a self-proclaimed autocratic entity which can presume to call things that were not of God as if they were. As thru "spirit guides" indeed.

    Besides others , the Holy Spirit provides over 200 hundred prayers by believers in Scripture, but absolutely zero are addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, with the only offerings and supplications being any else is by pagans such as to the only Queen of Heaven" in Scripture.

    Nor are any created beings shown able to hear and respond to so many prayers addressed to them (elders and angels offering prayers as a memorial at the end do not constitute that) , or of any conversation btwn created beings that did not require them to both be in the same realm.

    Yet this is a most basic practice we are to believe was part of the common life of believers, and all else failing as it does, support is extrapolated out of human relationship, but which ignores the separation of realms in which only God is shown being addressed in prayer to Heaven and and able to hear multitudinous prayers to Heaven.

    There is a difference in view on the primacy of the Roman see,

    Typical understatement. Rejecting ensured papal infallibility is no small difference, and in Rome the authority of the bishops themselves flows from that.

    You raise the Papacy as significant, but that goes to church polity.

    The papacy is significant as purporting that the NT church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme in Rome as their exalted head, which is invisible in the NT. You Joseph Smith's googles to see it.

    Also presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denote the same office, (Titus 1:5-7) though one may have oversight over more than one church. You can disagree on the exact model of church government, which should actually work toward a central magisterium of manifest male presbuteros of God and spiritual power, as in Scripture it was not by institutionalized forms but the manifest moving of and empowerment by God the leadership was established by. And not as in the Romanized system, whose pseudoPetrine successors lack both the requirements and credentials of apostles. (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)

    What exact model befita this should be another thread as it warrants extended definitions and examination.

    Or, that is to say, how do you purport to measure departure from "NT historic Christianity" when you don't know what that is?

    That is absurd, as this refers to a number of manifest main and plain things which Rome in particular stands in stark contrast to, while it is RCs who evidence they do not know or do not care what Scripture says to the contrary, as what Rome says is the supreme law, as it must be for you. This the primary issue is the premise of her ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

    Enough said.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/26/2015 2:18:17 PM PST · 207 of 277
    daniel1212 to don-o
    I am an Orthodox Christian.

    Ok. I thought you were the husband of Mrs. don-o, and thus i assumed you were both RC. But while EO theology tends to be less technical and precise, and it would seem you are at odds with the premise than a perpetually infallible papal magisterium is essential, would you care to explain why none of my questions apply to you?

  • Faith Alone v. Forgiving Trespasses: How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    02/26/2015 7:24:11 AM PST · 197 of 439
    daniel1212 to metmom; tjd1454
    And just where on FR have you ever seen anyone advocate that now that we're saved we can commit any sin with impunity? That charge is laid at the feet of Christians ONLY BY the RC's, who accuse us of believing that. I have yet to see ONE poster advocate that. Perhaps you could point us to the post where someone has said that.

    I think you need to take into account that this is from a poster whom i have never seen posting on the RF till i quickly searched just now, yet he states has "a Ph.D. in Theology from a Jesuit University, and my B.A. and M.A. from well-known Evangelical colleges" who believes in salvation by faith, but who also sees believe that “faith without works is dead.”

    Which is what Reformers preached , and evangelicals far more testify to than the fruit of Rome , yet in reflection of society ever our faith has become more superficial than in Scripture.

    Moreover, sadly tjd1454 apparently does not see Rome as an adversary of real salvific faith, unlike reformers and so many founders of American, and imagines we can have a united from with elitist coreligionists as we supposedly have a "shared faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior," which itself is a form of declension. And i need to be stronger in faith and love for God, souls and the Truth.

  • Faith Alone v. Forgiving Trespasses: How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    02/26/2015 6:56:35 AM PST · 192 of 439
    daniel1212 to pgyanke; Mark17
    Says who? You?

    A good question. Certainly the magisterial office is Scriptural, as Westminster affirms, and has authority, but the question (asked of another also) is whether being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means they are the infallible judges as to what is of God and what it means?

    How about the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth... The Church.

    And just what do you extrapolate out of this text, based upon what it says in Greek? And has this verse been infallible defined as meaning what you say, or are you validating personal interpretation of Scripture as long as you say it supports Rome?

    Sure, there was the suggestion that we might choose that course of action as a solution to our sinfulness... but it wasn't a direct command.

    So "if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (Matthew 5:29) is not a direct command but further on "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48) is?

    You define the term too narrowly: Door is also defined "any means of approach, admittance, or access:" Seems to fit to me.

    Nor is everything literal, and the point is that only the metaphorical view is consistent with both John and the rest of Scripture.

    First, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc

    And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

    To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths must also insist this was literal. After all, David clearly said it was blood and refused to drink it, consistent with the Law, and this poured it out as an offering unto the Lord.

    As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

    And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

    And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

    And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

    And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

    And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

    Moreover, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

    • In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

    • In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

    • In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

    • In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

    • In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

    • In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

    • In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

    • In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

    • In John 6, Jesus is the bread of life — but who does not give His physically flesh to eaten tio gain life, any more than He lives by the Father by eating His, (Jn. 6:57) but reveals that like as the Son lived by every word which proceeded from the mouth of God, (Mt. 4:4) and thus doing the Father's will was His "meant," (Jn. 4:24) so the flesh itself profits nothing, but the words He spoke are spirit and are life. (Jn. 6:63)

    And nowhere in Scripture was physically eating anything literal the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, but which by believing the word of God, the gospel. By which one is born again. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

    And which is consistent with the rest of John, in which not only is faith in Christ, not eating, the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, but like as in Jn. 6, John often reveals the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning.

    In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

    Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

    And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

    Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

    And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

    And again, in so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

    And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

    And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

    And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

    What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

    And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..

    And which is made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation For as shown, the fact is that the allegorical understanding of Jn. 6:27-69 is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, and again, which nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which manner of eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative according to the literalistic interpretation. Which RCs do not take fully literally as they render it an unbloody blood and transubstantiated presence, nor do they exclude all who do not believe the Cath. theory from having eternal life.

    Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.

    Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission

    he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

    The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

    ...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

    And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

    ...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

    The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

    ...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

    There may be some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/26/2015 5:53:45 AM PST · 184 of 277
    daniel1212 to xone; Elsie
    Special badges or dress for Jews Special taxes for Jews Forcing Jews to remit debt of Christians Banning, confiscating or burning Jewish law books and other writings. Encouraging or forcing conversion of Jews Expelling Jews from Papal territories or forcing Jews to live in ghettos. Inquisition for backsliding converted Jews

    Where is the "see no evil" pic? 🙈 🙉 🙊

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/26/2015 5:48:04 AM PST · 182 of 277
    daniel1212 to don-o; redleghunter; CynicalBear; Greetings_Puny_Humans; dartuser; metmom
    Because I have no interest in the magisterium. I asked a simple question in post 59. It is based on a snip from the OP. Of course, it is the acme of foolishness to try to discuss the content of the article that was posted.

    What? An RC who has no interest in the magisterium? And you ask questions that challenge an argument without having an alternative to how one is to know what is Scripture? So your argument is not that if the consensus of the church is invoked then it must be an affirmation of the church of Rome via its magisterium, and that this means it is to be followed in all things?

    Instead, it seems obvious to me that you are avoiding my questions because they challenge that alternative. If you have none, say so, if you do, tell me what it is.

    Why must "church" refer to an invisible body, versus Godly people of God which are within the visible body progressively showing general consensus as to what and who is of God. Which the powers that be are to affirm, though it remains that what and who is of God is so regardless of magisterial rejection, as it can be wrong. Or does being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ mean they are the infallible judges of what and who is of God, and thus they must be followed?

    Unless you answer my questions then you are simply a protester that has no real argument, like liberals.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/25/2015 7:09:03 PM PST · 155 of 277
    daniel1212 to don-o
    Where exactly do you see that? Where, beyond a sola apologetic? How do you know that your scenario is what happened?

    Easy, it is implicit in Scripture, in which men discerned what is of God versus what is not, without an infallible magisterium. Do you deny that? Tell me how the Scriptures, by which substantiation the NT church established Truth claims upon, came to be established as authoritative Scripture.

    And how come you did not answer my questions?

  • Sungenis Claims: "the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory"

    02/25/2015 7:02:50 PM PST · 84 of 88
    daniel1212 to CpnHook
    Again, you're conflating sanctification and justification and erecting much the same strawman for which I chided you earlier.

    Again, you are ignoring that Rome has justified due to sanctification (state of holiness) in the beginning and thus have souls seeking to obtain that sanctification in the end. Except in reality this is not merely being forgiven, by attaining a level of perfection of character.

    This is spoken to a group of believers, those who had come to Jesus Christ. Yet, sanctification is stated as something ongoing, something yet to be perfectly attained. And "the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord" indicates a standard - a level of perfection -- that is necessary.

    Wrong. It says nothing about a level of perfection, nor to seek "the sanctification" without which no one will see the Lord - as there is not "the" as if to denote a certain level - but simply to follow after holiness in general, which is indeed a necessary fruit salvific faith.

    Paul himself testified that he was not already perfect, (Phil. 3:12) yet was cught up to the 3rd Heaven, "into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:4) And expressed that he, along with other believers, would be with Lord once absent from the body. (2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-23).

    Intrinsic righteousness isn't a "false premise." You plucked out one line from the Catholic Encyclopedia; following that it lays out the Scriptural bases for that view.

    It is indeed a false premise, nor did i misrepresent what the CE said, as i stated this was initially via infused holiness via baptism, while in purgatory it is thru fiery torments. The falsity is that it one gain entrance into Heaven by moral perfection, versus faith which is imputed for righteousness, through they are washed but not morally perfect in character, just as sin was imputed to Christ, though He was perfect in character.

    For one, you must assume that all the Thessalonians (and believers) had attained perfection in character in the 1st c. since if the Lord returned then they would ever be with the Lord. (1Thes. 4:17)

    And in speaking to the problematic Corinthians he basically states the same thing, with no mention at all of their next stop being purgatory, though if any believers of these letters needed it, then it was them.

    And it can hardly be presumed that the contrite criminal attained this same perfection of character in just a few hours on the cross. More penitence and suffering does not make one perfect in character, as only Christ was, as it requires testing of faith under various kinds of temptation, which Scripture incontrovertibly only presents this world as providing. Thus the Lord Himself was made "perfect" here, in the sense of being tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15)

    If a such postmortem purification was necessary for most all, then we would certainly see it clearly taught, saving Catholics from "it could be," arguments and extrapolations

    Adam was created in an original state of holiness and justice with God.

    There is no "and." Adam was holy as one who was undefiled.

    Baptism, which effects an infusion of grace, restores us to that state of original justice and holiness first enjoyed by Adam. So in that sense, baptism both justifies and sanctifies the recipient. But the inclination toward sin resulting from Adam persists, and ongoing sin is defiling. Hence, the lifelong struggle for sanctification.

    But in reality, the baptized is justified by this holiness/sanctification. Which means he must usually regain it in the end of his salvation system.

    Of course, there is inconsistency here.

    That inconsistency is simply a function of your misunderstanding the Catholic point of view.

    A mere assertion, but in fact there is inconsistency, as you have the newly baptized fit for Heaven with no further refinement at baptism, though he may have a multitude of character flaws that will show up. And then you demand not simply atonement and the washing of sins, but a level of perfection of character to see the Lord/enter Heaven.

    "...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224 )

    But that souls must attain moral perfection is what RCs teach.

    Yes, as that is what Scripture indicates: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt. 5:48. The heavenly Father (like Jesus) is not merely 'covered' in righteousness; he is morally perfect, entirely free of any element of sin.

    Which is a classic proof-text proffered by purgatory polemicists, which examples isolationist superficial exegesis of Scripture. For in context the Lord was giving an exhortation to be like God, perfect, as in treating enemies as He does, referring to a kind of excellence, working toward a degree of excellence.

    And likewise the apostles states, "Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children," (Ephesians 5:1) but which is not a command to be perfect in order to become a child of God (v. 45) and or see Heaven, which being born again is, (not "Verily verily, "I say unto you, unless you become perfect as your Heaven Father, you shall in no wise see the kingdom of God"), which neither this nor the rest of Scripture where it plainly speaks of the postmortem or postterrestrial place or experience of believers will support. From the contrite criminal to the Corinthians to the Thessalonians etc. the next stop is always with the Lord.

    Instead, RCs must rely on texts which refer either to this life or the lost, or the judgment seat of Christ, or to holiness being a necessary fruit of saving faith, but not earning it or requiring one to be as perfect as God in order to see Heaven.

    Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God." 2 Cor. 7:1 This is another instance where Scripture indicates that there is an ongoing need for sanctification, an ongoing pursuit to "make holiness perfect."

    Of course true faith means pursuit of holiness, which is an evidence of true faith, but it is not that of requiring moral perfection to be saved, or saved in the full sense, which basically places one back under the Law, with justification being attained by practical purity and performance, just will more help given. Salvation by grace thru works.

    Paul has already told these Corinthians that We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8) and that when the Lord returns then that is when they would experience their bodily change,

    Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

    And that they would then face the judgment seat of Christ, (1Cor. 3:8ff), which not about making postmortem expiation for sin and or being purified, but about receiving or losing rewards, with fire consuming any false building material one used for building the church (tares vs. wheat), directly or indirectly i assume. But with the only suffering being the consequential suffering of loss of rewards, (1Cor. 3:15) and thus also (implicitly) the grievous disapproval of the Lord.

    Yet one is not saved because of this consumption of dead fruit, but despite of it. And which only takes place after His return. (2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev. 11:18)

    However, what Caths do, since they hope to merit their way into Heaven, is presume every call to holiness is a call to moral perfection of character, which is contrary to what Scripture clearly reveals.

    Paul himself testified that was not yet perfect, yet expressed thatr he would be with the Lord, not purgatory, if he left and became absent from the body.

    You should be ashamed to trot out that standard poor paraphrase: We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5:8 Nothing in that text precludes a notion of a "final sanctification."

    What? It is you who should be ashamed of taking away and adding to the word of God! He distinctively states that out of two options, to stay or leave, his next stop if choosing the latter is to be with the Lord,

    . It's like me saying "I'd rather be away from the office and at home with my wife." Does that mean the instant I step out of the office I'll be at home?"

    No, it is like you saying, To be absent from the office is to be at home with my wife," and in this case your office is essentially next store as it is possible for you to be there instantly. You need to take that polemic back to Catholic Answers for a refund. At best what you are doing is reading into the text a possibility based upon what you want the grammar to allow for, but the plain import is that to be absent from my body, is to be with the Lord.

    And which the context supports, as thus Paul labored that he would receive "Well done" at the judgment seat of Christ (2Cor. 5:9,10) i referred to above, which was the next event on Paul's calendar, versus laboring in order to escape purgatory.

    In any case, since Purgatory is the final application of Jesus's sanctifying grace, I see no reason to view it as an "absence" from the Lord. To the contrary, it could be seen as a rather intense encounter with Him, as a Father disciplines a child (see Heb. 12).

    Now that is by necessity creative. To be absent is to have an encounter? Rather, to be absent from the Lord means not to be with Him, while to be with the Lord means to be with the Lord, which Scripture promises believers after this leaving life.

    Only intense encounter with the Lord after this life is that of the judgment seat of Christ described above, but they are indeed with the Lord.

    RCs can imagine that one can be justified yet not fit to enter Heaven, but that is simply not the plain teaching of Scripture.

    To the contrary, Scripture contains repeated warnings against ongoing sin and the converse exhortations to make holiness perfect. And Scripture indicates a standard ("Be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect;" "nothing unclean shall enter")

    Which conclusion simply does not follow from the premise, for of course Scripture warns against ongoing sin, which is a denial of faith, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:26-39; Gal. 5:1-4) and exhorts to seek perfection which pursuit is consistent with saving faith, but not the latter as a condition for salvation, for which Scripture clearly states is appropriated by effectual faith, and immediately makes one accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ in heavenly places, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and who will be with the Lord at death or at His return, whichever comes first.

    Such faith is characterized by "things which accompany salvation," Godly character, esp. love of the brethren, (Heb. 6:9,10) and pursuit of practical holiness, and repentance when convicted of sin. Thus one who impenitently sins will-fully after receiving "the knowledge of the truth" (a synonym for believing the gospel: Ti. 2:4) is one who is drawing back to perdition.

    Conversely, since saving faith is characterized by works of faith, those who manifest such are judged to be saved, and fit to be rewarded under grace, (Heb. 10:35; Rv 3:4) which faith God rewards souls for in recognition if its effects even though they owe all to Him, and their wages for sin really means Hell. (Rm. 6:23)

    But it remains that what made them counted as righteous and accepted in the Beloved in the first place was not their holiness, and Abraham was a good man before Gn. 15:6, but faith as imputed as righteousness, at the same time they are enabled to live thusly.

    Abraham was counted as righteous for believing that God could so what he utterly could not, and likewise one can never become good enough to be with an infinitely holy God.

    However, Caths see grace as a means of becoming holy enough in actual character to be with God, as if Christ only provided an atonement, yet which does deliver them from postmortem atonement torment, and explain away the examples of believers going to be with the Lord at death or the Lord's return as pertaining a class of believers non-Scripturally distinctively titled "saints."

    Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven, but believers are not the unclean, but washed, sanctified and justified, and made to sit with Christ, and are told they will be with the Lord at death or His return .

    You (like many) see one verse you like and stop there.

    Nice trry but it is you who are relying upon interpretive texts in isolation and not on what the NT collectively teaches wherever it clearly refers to the believers next stop after this life. And i expect more of the same.

    LOL. Given the Protestant objection to Purgatory is the absence of what they see as a clear positive Scriptural confirmation of such, their posture is mostly "an argument from silence." You're funny.

    Your recourse to sarcasm only examples your sophistry, as it is clear that the Protestant objection to Purgatory is not simply the absence of what they see as a clear positive Scriptural confirmation of such, but it is primarily the fact that wherever the Scriptures manifestly speak of the believers place in the next life, they only teach of believers being with the Lord. You can only wish you had the same for your mythical place.

    OK. How about this? 25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. Matt. 5:25-26 The verses come in the context of many that speak to judgment and eternity. So the context is eschatological. The 'judge' is clearly God. Our 'accuser' is Divine Justice. If we have not satisfied our accuser before being judged (through atonement while on earth), then we are not 'released' from that obligation in the afterlife until atonement is complete ('paying the last penny'). Which incredibly is the best you have, yet even this fails to provide what you desperately need to counteract the clear texts to the contrary of your extrapolated conclusion, and instead you must declare as fact that this pertains to suffering in purgatory in the afterlife. However, first note immediate context is that of settling accounts with your brother who has a valid charge against you, "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift," (Matthew 5:24) which otherwise is the adversary. It reasonably follows that this serves as a warning to settle accounts lest you face Divine justice. but not with the adversary being Divine justice, but the one who has something against you, be it individual or body, else the Lord Jesus, who shall judge living and dead, shall send His officer/servant to deal with thee. Not that this describes an impenitent man, not some forgetful saint or one merely with some character flaws, and the punishment here is retributive, not for refinement of character such as Job endured. Looking for application of this, we this manner of judgment in this life, as in the case of the incestuous man in 1Cor. 5, whom the Lord, thru Paul and the church, pressing charges and delivering an impenitent man over to the devil for the destruction of his flesh, until he is brought to repentance. Apart from chastisement in this life, the only other application is that of the judgment of the impenitent lost, The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:41-42) In this case the "till [heōs an] thou hast paid the uttermost farthing" - to the utmost extremity - refer to as if it were possible, but which really denotes hopelessness, as for the impenitent, "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26-27) RCs themselves contend heōs (at least by itself) can denote ongoing. The Ethiopic version reads it, "till thou hast exactly paid all"; which seems to express the inexorableness of the creditor, and the impossibility of the debtor's release. (Gill) Thus while you attempt to build your building upon this interpretive verse, it fails to manifestly teach purgatory, both by failing to establish this as pertaining to the afterlife and by being contrary to the manner of persons it is for.

    In my prior post, I showed where Tertullian (writing in 203 C.E.) utilizes this same passage in much the same sense. No medieval invention here. Which does not help, as neither Rome nor myself esp. hold the fathers as determinative in doctrine, nor do they universally all agree with themselves or Rome.

    n contrast is being justified by faith, a faith which effects obedience which justifies one a being a true saved believe, and fit to be rewarded under grace, though in justice what he actually deserves is Hell.

    That is the contrast Protestants set up, though I find much Scriptural warrant for the Catholic view of intrinsic righteousness. By contrast, the notion that "faith effects obedience" isn't as clearly borne out. Protestants very often seem to exhibit this view that once one pushes the "faith" button, that obedience and good works will automatically roll off the assembly line. Scripture doesn't state that obedience automatically follows faith.

    What Bible are you misunderstanding? Scripture does indeed teach that true faith always effects obedience, given opportunity, and thus it calls them saved who do obey. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12) We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13) What you do always manifests what you really believe, even if at that moment, while failure to act according to what you profess shows you do not really believe it. Thus James says,

    Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)

    Hence, the frequent warnings in Scripture to the faithful not to be overconfident, not to relax into sin, to urge the faithful to obey the commandment to love. In fact, Paul has a whole segment on "if I have faith, but have not _____" Believers exhibit obedience to widely varying degrees.

    Which are exhortations to continue in the faith, and warnings against unbelief. If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:23)

    Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12) Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35)

    Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:38-39)

    aspects of purgatorial belief and practice find precedent in pre-Christian Jewish thought and practice. OK, that was the point I was making.

    As do all sorts of nonsense and other myths. That was the point I was making

    C'mon, be serious. How on earth do you think appealing to the E.O. helps you here? All you're doing is showing again how Protestantism is a departure from historic Christianity.

    Oh, rather quotes as "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional," (Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135) example how 2 tradition-based competitors for the title "one true church" can significantly (even if their purgatory is close), while the deformity of both from NT historic Christianity is clearly evident , more so in Rome.

    And at some point, perhaps, we'll have occasion to consider the response of Patriarch Jeremiah II to the Lutheran Theologians. (Short answer: "stop misreading the Church Fathers; get out of here with your noveau theology.")

    Oh i am sure there are some here that could get into that with you, but even with their variety they tend to more serve as an example of how errors of tradition can be perpetuated, and even Rome judges them more than they judge her.

    And finally, purgatory remains wanting to be proved, while what is clear is that they next stop for believers - if they are true holiness seeking believers - is with the Lord in spirit. With the only future change besides that being at Lord's return ,

    Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:21) Which is not in purgatory.

  • Faith Alone v. Forgiving Trespasses: How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    02/25/2015 1:26:05 PM PST · 26 of 439
    daniel1212 to NYer
    How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    Just refuted, but what the Lord's Prayer does Contradict is praying to anyone but the Lord, as the Lord instructs "Our Father who art in Heaven," not "Our Mother." The Holy Spirit provides over 200 prayers in Scripture, but not one single one addressed to anyone else in Heaven by the Lord.

    That the Lord Jesus can be prayed to is a testimony to His deity.

    Only pagans are show making supplications to someone else, that being the only Queen of Heaven in Scripture. (Jer. 44)

    Nor is there any other heavenly intercessor but Christ, (1Pt. 2:5) whom the Holy Spirit sends us to as uniquely qualified and able and who alone is said to ever do so. (Heb. 2m4; 7:25)

    Nor is any created being shown having the Divine ability to hear virtually infinite amounts of prayer from earth.

    Angels and elders offering prayers as a memorial at the last days does not do it, and and attempting to extrapolate PTDS from earthly relations ignores the manifest division God set up btwn the two realms, which requires both to be in the same realm for any two way communication.

  • Faith Alone v. Forgiving Trespasses: How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    02/25/2015 12:50:44 PM PST · 17 of 439
    daniel1212 to NYer; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. So to be forgiven, you must forgive. If you do, you'll be forgiven. If you don't, you won't be. It's as simple as that.

    Another objection due to superficial consideration. Sola fide refers to the means of appropriating forgiveness, God "purifying their hearts by faith" as Peter said, (Acts 15:7-9) referring to souls being washed and born again before baptism, and thus confessing the Lord thereby, but which is not contrary to repentance and what that may require.

    For to believe on the Lord Jesus is to assent to obey Him, according to light realized. And asking forgiveness means we must be forgiving, and this prayer is dealing with believers. Who by faith, have God as their Father, but who will work to chasten them unto repentance if they do not repent, or repent fully.

    But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:32)

    That is where even torment in this life may come in, in working to preserve souls by faith from the torment that would result from "an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." (Heb. 3:12)

  • Repentance

    02/25/2015 12:34:42 PM PST · 96 of 181
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:1-2)

    But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:26)

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/25/2015 12:30:45 PM PST · 125 of 277
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    Luther nor did Popes write Scriptures

    And while both are invoked for support, both have things which impugn their character, but which for RCs is more critical, as they are far more leadership-intensive, as seen by the daily posts on the pope for months.

    And if Luther has letters were invoked by Nazis, Rome has actions and provided much for antisemitism. But cultic defenders of Rome only see what is in someone else's eye.

    In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

    “the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9). More in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 . And see here .

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/25/2015 12:22:01 PM PST · 120 of 277
    daniel1212 to don-o; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Is there supposed to be an answer in the block of Scripture to my question: How is consensus derived from an invisible entity"?

    Where is he making that assertion? I see the people of God within the visible churches overall progressively establishing certain writings as being "Divine classics" by them being on their "best sellers list" (essentially due to their excelling qualities and attestation) without an infallible magisterium?

    If I were a Christian living in that time and place, how would I know how to find the invisible church so I could participate in building the consensus?

    Does this presuppose the people of God can correctly discern both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium.

    Or is Cardinal Avery Dulles right in saying, "People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received it from on high.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72;

    ...It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

    And is your argument that being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ means they are the infallible interpreters of it, and thus we must submit to them, or is it possible these instruments and stewards (via the magisterial authority) can sometimes be wrong?

    And how critical is an infallible canon?

    Hope your wife is doing better, and resting in Christ as Savior.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/25/2015 11:46:58 AM PST · 115 of 277
    daniel1212 to redleghunter; CynicalBear; daniel1212; metmom; Mark17; NKP_Vet; editor-surveyor; roamer_1
    What they don’t realize is that the position “the Catholic Church gave us the Bible” nukes them. For in this supposed man-made approval process is a collection of books which clearly condemn their church.

    Not only, but the logic behind this polemical assertion is that the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation are the infallible interpreters of it, which are to be submitted to. And you know what this leads to.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 8:28:17 AM PST · 173 of 177
    daniel1212 to Elsie; Alex Murphy; RnMomof7
    It was so bad one-sided a few years ago; that I thought JimRob must be a Catholic!

    One RC even asserted that he was (despite such inferences otherwise as this ).

    Another interesting posts from the past: Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone?

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/25/2015 8:24:59 AM PST · 42 of 66
    daniel1212 to LeoMcNeil
    Like I said, you don’t have a proper understanding of the connection between the Old and New Testament covenants.

    Like I showed, you don’t have a proper understanding of the differences between the Old and New Testament covenant, even incredibly asserting "The old covenant isn’t different from the new covenant, it is only extended beyond Israel"!

    Circumcision is forward looking, it looks to Christ. Baptism looks to the work of Christ which has already been done.

    Indeed, that is not in contention, but shadows do not have complete correspondence to their fulfillment, and you continue to insist on ignoring them. Again, under the Old circumcision is stipulated for infants, which placed then within an physical nation of lost and saved, and which waged war by physical means, but circumcision was not contingent upon repentance and faith (infants and slaves had no choice), though obedience was required.

    Baptism signifies being made by faith part of a spiritual nation only made up of believers, having passed from death to life, being crucified with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life. (Rm. 6) and is never stipulated for infants, but repentance and faith are, with the only baptisms in which the state of the believers are mentioned being those who were morally cognizant and able to fulfill those conditions.

    That is the plain teaching of Scripture, in contrast to the eisegesis of paedobaptists, leaving them to extrapolate infant baptisms out of a few simple statements of whole household baptisms, as if the Holy Spirit would not provide a manifest example for infant baptism while providing many examples of believers baptism. Yet which you incredibly must deny is not the plain teaching of scripture, in order to support your tradition.

    Your problem is that you view baptism as a meaningless ritual which is why you discount the several occasions when scripture says the entire household or family was baptized.

    I do not view baptism as a meaningless ritual any more than the Lord's supper or putting on a ring in a marriage, but as repentance and faith is the stated required condition, and the only examples we have of the morally cognizant condition of the baptized is that they were able to choose Christ, then baptizing infants leaves them wet, and does not signify that they have passed from death to life, being crucified with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life. And instead it can give them a false confidence that they are already children of God.

    You get so close when you cite 1 Cor. 7:14 because that passage teaches us that even the children of one believer are blessed. Paul is clearly teaching that even in families where only one parent is a believer, those children are entitled to admission into the covenant via baptism. You’re denying children Christ by denying them admission into God’s covenant.

    That is absurd, and is another example of how carelessly or willingly you compel Scripture to support your tradition! For this text neither says or infers baptism, and what it actually shows is that the family is sanctified by God even though they are not believers and baptized! For the unbelieving husband is under that umbrella of sanctification as are the children! Baptism is not here or in their closet.

    And are infants are guiltless, which are not be condemned, then they do not need salvation, while as soon as "the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," (Isaiah 7:16) then he can believe on Christ and be baptized. This needs to be emphasized, while it is those who give souls the false idea that they became part of the family of God via paedobaptism who are fostering their absence from God’s covenant.

    Time to move on, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God. (Hebrews 6:1) (Hebrews 6:1-2)

  • Repentance

    02/25/2015 6:43:46 AM PST · 55 of 181
    daniel1212 to metmom
    I guess the rule of the day for RC's is..... *The less evidence there is to support it, the more true it has to be.*

    And the more it must be promoted. Consider the Assumption, and the claim to remember, using a misappropriated text.

    Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

    But,

    subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 6:39:55 AM PST · 169 of 177
    daniel1212 to MamaB

    Glory to God. Thanks

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 6:38:19 AM PST · 168 of 177
    daniel1212 to stanne
    It is an anti catholic site. I’m on record as having stated so

    I never said I didn’t want this to be an anti Catholic site.

    Fine; you can argue with the many RCs who whine about it. But i rarely have never even seen you on the RF.

    It’s an observation. Catholics don’t fade at criticism and anti Catholicism

    They do indeed, as i can show you post after post in which RCs whine or cannot defend Roman traditions from the Scriptures, but must resort to manifest egregious extrapolation in seeking to support such.

    For indeed, the weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching (else they would be as evangelicals), and thus RCs are not to engage in searching them in order to ascertain the truthfulness of RC teaching.

    Care to differ or defend that?

    For the basic RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God

    Care to differ or defend that? Put the gloves on boaster.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 6:30:08 AM PST · 165 of 177
    daniel1212 to stanne
    The what you call the presumptions of the Church, the Church itself, is never challenged here.... Not curious enough to consult the theologians, the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications.

    Yet here is one i sent to you just a few day ago which is based upon Catholic teaching.

    A challenge like facing a champion boxer in the ring wearing no gloves, wearing street clothes.

    Really, then what did i not received any reply from you on that in my posts to you except things like "Blah blah blah Take it up with the theologians in the Church"? Or Ask Cardinal Dolan. He’ll be at the NYC Parade.

    Which means you are unwilling to put the gloves on, which retreat admits defeat.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 6:10:25 AM PST · 160 of 177
    daniel1212 to stanne; Elsie; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; BlueDragon
    Note that catholic is almost always the 3rd or 4th most popular keyword, and it is not because of articles as these, but the incessant posting by RC devotees. If they want to do that, then do not complain when her elitists presumptions are challenged.

    There are no presumptions in the Catholic Church. The what you call the presumptions of the Church, the Church itself, is never challenged here.

    Then you are either one who does not frequent the RF, or you define "challenged" contrary to any dictionary. As i have never seen you here then the former may be the case. Hopefully.

    Not one poster hateful of the Church have I ever spoken with here has ever been curious, except the afore mentioned. Not curious enough to consult the theologians, the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications.

    As others can attest, multitudes of my heavily referenced posts refuting RCs have been abundantly based upon what theologians, and or the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications etc. say, as here , here , here , here , etc.

    A challenge like facing a champion boxer in the ring wearing no gloves, wearing street clothes.

    Rather, your blindness is like a thief who cannot find a police station.

    It’s just a lot of bigotry

    Which dismissive is often the recourse of RCs when faced with refutation, while they can assert they have never seen any anti-Prot bigotry here!

    You can not find one serious challenge to the Church o FR to cut and paste and post (Now there’s a challenge for you) I have never seen one.

    The latter ignorance or blindness the cause of the former. Put your gloves on and respond to some these i posted recently , which are based upon Catholic teaching or apologetic, which i can show.

    it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) that is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,

    1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.

    3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

    4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

    5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

    6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

    7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

    8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

    9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

    10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

    11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

    12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

    13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

    14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

    15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

    16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

    17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

    an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

    whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

    who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

    and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

    and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

    for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

    "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

    so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

    and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

    for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

    Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

    and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

    including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

    whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

    and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

    and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/24/2015 7:55:25 PM PST · 73 of 177
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan; RnMomof7
    Besides being not commanded by Jesus Christ (John 20:23), confession to a priest is self-deception.

    Fixed, as there simply was and is no separate class of believers distinctively titled “hiereus” (priests) .

    And James 5:16 distinctly says presbuteros (elders) NOT hiereus (priests) which distinctive title the Holy Spirit never gives to NT clergy (except as part of the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers. (1Pt. 2:9) A separate sacerdotal class of NT clergy titled hiereus/priests was a later unScriptural development due to imposed functional equivalence.

    In addition, while God can forgive sin thru the intercession of others, in the sense of removing judgment/chastisement due to unknown or perhaps not fully repentant sin, (Mt. 9:1-6) and in which the elders are to be the primary righteous confessors, yet this power is not restricted to them.

    For as in Mt. 18, the spiritual (if not judicial, the binding/loosing power of which the OT magisterium also had: Dt. 17:8-13) power of binding or loosing also pertains to every believer who is a righteous man of fervent prayer, and is not restricted to the elders, let alone the non-existent Cath. priesthood.

    Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)

    Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:19)

    And which, in the context of the general exhortation, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) James says Elijah exampled, binding and loosing the heavens. (Ja. 5:17,18; cf. 1Ki. 17:1; 1Ki 18:18,42-45) Blessed be God. I am no Elijah sadly. Nor are RC priests.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/24/2015 7:45:23 PM PST · 71 of 177
    daniel1212 to stanne
    And, yes, AMg is correct. It is an anti catholic site. I’m on record as having stated so

    Note that catholic is almost always the 3rd or 4th most popular keyword, and it is not because of articles as these, but the incessant posting by RC devotees. If they want to do that, then do not complain when her elitists presumptions are challenged.