Monday, October 19, 2015

What Posts Catholic Answers Deem Ecumenical

The moderators over at the Catholic Answers discussion forum have a knack for deleting my posts or charging me with devious behavior. Here's the sort of love notes they appear to not have any problem with:

Yesterday, 3:24 pm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2012
Posts: 9,641
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Martin Luther's translation of the bible.........

Quote:
Originally Posted by FollowChrist34 View Post


Yee shall knowe them by their fruits: Doe men gather grapes of thornes, or figges of thistles?
1. New International Version
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

2. New International Version
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.


3. Martin Luther: I have no clue if he said this or not quite honestly but we are dung heps
covered with snow; he did have a bathroom fixation it seemd.

4. Might go along with #3

Isaiah 64:6New International Version (NIV)



6
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

34 comments:

TheDen said...

Haha...well, if it makes you feel any better, I as a Catholic have been reprimanded on the Catholic Answers board--and had my post deleted. I can't remember the specific details but they took offense when I referred to Pope Benedict (at the time) as "Ratzinger"--as I was quoting one of his books that he wrote while he was Cardinal.

I'm pretty sure it's generally acceptable to refer to his Holiness as Ratzinger if you are quoting a book that he wrote as Joseph Ratzinger.

Well...apparently not on Catholic Answers.

James Swan said...

I realize that "moderation" of a popular online forum is very difficult. I've been in the moderator chair on a forum, and it is difficult to be fair while maintaining convictions. However, some ofthe folks over at CA just seem downright arbitrary and petty at times, and inconsistent with their own rules. Certain rules are strictly enforced for non-Roman Catholics, while for Roman Catholics, they can often get away with what their rules disparage, like the comment of this very post that I've highlighted.

One thing that troubles me about CA is that I wrote one particular moderator about applying rules, and he never wrote me back, and then went on to a rather arbitrary standard of applying the rules to my posts. At least explain what's going on- I think he didn't because he realized that the CA rules are not applied consistently, and he knew I snagged him, and he didn't care. I'm allegedly this awful "anti-Catholic" so fire away.

I still can't figure out why they simply don't ban me.

PeaceByJesus said...

I'm pretty sure it's generally acceptable to refer to his Holiness as Ratzinger if you are quoting a book that he wrote as Joseph Ratzinger.

I wrote one particular moderator about applying rules, and he never wrote me back, and then went on to a rather arbitrary standard of applying the rules to my posts.

It is such peevish, immature attitudes by such inquisitorial mods that is consistent with the cultic mentality so often manifest by many RC defenders of the crown, and as such it serves as a negative "answer" for what Catholicism produces among its more dedicated devotees.

But another thing they do not seem to have a problem with it asking me for money, after I was banned for life due to countering a RC screed against Protestants.

The latest email states that "Catholic Answers Forums is a favorite resource among our audience, but it is so popular that "it needs your help to stay online and keep helping people. Specifically: We need to raise $85,000."

And for a "one-time gift of $200 or more" they will give me "The Glory of the Crusades" (but no indulgence offered for reading it with due devotion), and the "The Protestant’s Dilemma" propaganda by Devin Rose, a poor apologist (not surprising they give the book away), some of whose parroted polemics ("The Protes­tant looks to the Bible alone to tell him what is true") and strawmen (the “per­spicu­ity” of Scrip­ture, which means that the Bible is clear to any who take it up") I briefly dealt with a while ago, by the grace of God, and also debated an RC blogger promoting his book.

TheDen said...

I do enjoy listening to Catholic Answers and I think for the most part they do a good job with the moderating. Sometimes the responses (from both Catholics and Protestants) there are little over the top. i.e. They are focused too much on rules and laws and not on what Jesus taught.

PBJ, regarding the money thing, I think you might find this interesting. Michael Voris (who is likely off your radar) is a traditional Catholic who is trying to reform the Church from within--something all Catholics are called to do. He's a bit more vocal about it than most and is often very critical of the Church and the US bishops. He has a video discussing the CA need for money and the reasons why and is critical of their salaries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g1OPvJ3GIMs

I personally don't have a problem giving CA money but it would be through buying one of their books or something. I have learned a lot listening to them.

PeaceByJesus said...

They are focused too much on rules and laws and not on what Jesus taught.

Because they think what they think Jesus taught was that their church is the supreme autocratic infallible authority on what Jesus taught. In short, 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.

And this arrogant presumption is reflected in the attitude of peevish mods on CA defending the object of their devotion.

Michael Voris (who is likely off your radar) is a traditional Catholic who is trying to reform the Church from within--something all Catholics are called to do.

But where or how clearly do do you find that stated versus,

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 Pastor s . - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

“All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” - —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur)

Assent of mind and will (though one may internally disagree, public dissent is disallowed) is required even to encyclicals (which includes social teaching):

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent , since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed . No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biased. He may have been misled..But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak... . - Life of Cardinal Newman, Vol. 2; Chapter 26. The Deadlock in Higher Education (1867); http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html
.
To such some trad. RCs add:

when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey...

The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

To be cntd

PeaceByJesus said...



What traditional RCs are doing by dissenting from aspects of modern teaching is that of becoming Protestants in principal. The latter ascertain the validity of truth claims by what wholly inspired Scripture says, which RCs censure as "private interpretation" (wrongly interpreting 2Pt. 1:20 in so doing), while Trad. RCs ascertain the validity of modern church teaching claims based upon their judgment of what certain historical RC says, instead of trusting the present magisterium to rightly interpret the past.

As no less than Manning asserted:

The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”

The question is, upon what basis did the NT church begin?

TheDen said...

PBJ,

Because they think what they think Jesus taught was that their church is the supreme autocratic infallible authority on what Jesus taught. In short, 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.

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with anything in this statement.

Some Trad Catholics (I can't attest to all of them) prefer to following laws as opposed to following Christ. Similarly to what Pharisees (and perhaps some radical Fundamentalists) do. So, they lose sight of loving Christ and rather obey the Church. While this is noble, the emphasis is misplaced.

Catholics are called to follow the Church out of love for Christ. We love Christ and Christ is found in His Church so we follow the Church. Out of love, we trust that she's infallible in all that she declares. We trust that in following her, she will lead us closer to the bosom of Christ.



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 Pastor s . - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

“All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” - —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur)



Neither I nor Michael Voris would disagree with any of this. We are called to follow our pastors. The problem arises when the pastors do sinful things (which definitely happens). If our pastor is found to be stealing money, then we call them to the carpet. If they are found to be molesting children, then we should protest.

The call to reform isn't to reform the teaching. The Church is always the teaching authority. It's to reform the people. If there is corruption found in the Church hierarchy, it should be rooted out. It doesn't mean the Church teaching is wrong or corrupt. That was given to us by Christ.

I think what you have a problem with is that the Catholic Church sees itself as the teaching authority for Catholics. So, if the Catholic Church says that Baptism is essential for salvation (John 3:5), you would rather read John 3:5 and discern for yourself what Christ meant. Rather, you prefer to give the Bible your own Nihil Obstat and let your words be the Imprimatur.

TheDen said...


What traditional RCs are doing by dissenting from aspects of modern teaching is that of becoming Protestants in principal.

Traditional RC's are missing the point. The point of Catholicism is to establish a relationship with Christ through His Church. It's to love Him and be obedient to Him. It's to worship Him through His liturgy and partake in His life through obedience and the Sacraments. Everything points to Christ and Christ is our all in all. We follow the Church because we love Christ.

Traditional Catholics (some of them) have a tendency to lose sight of what is important. They believe liturgy is more important than relationship. They believe that following rules is more important than loving Christ. They partake in Sacraments out of duty as opposed to love of Christ. Because of their misplaced emphasis, their arguments end up weaker as they don't understand what is truly central to the Gospel.

If I were to think that being married to my wife meant having dinner with her, sleeping and living with her but not really thinking about my relationship with her, then there is something fundamentally wrong with that relationship. Love always has to come first (in our faith and in our marriages).

In regards to Protestantism, I can't speak to all Protestants as I quite honestly don't know that many but some of the people I come across—especially on blogs like this—focus more on Sola Fide/Sola Scriptura or Papal authority etc. Instead of what's truly important...ie your relationship with Christ. Don't get me wrong, I do know quite a few Protestants who have a great love for Christ and we get along very well.

On a blog like this, I enjoy reading about how Catholics get Luther wrong because you're probably right as we likely don't really understand Luther. I enjoy a good defense of Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide and while I may not agree, I generally won't argue with Protestants about this. I don't know James Swan personally but from his writings, he seems to at least understand that the relationship with Christ is more important than attacking the Church. I don't really see that in others.

Jay Lynn White said...

If you are at a church that came into a name for itself, so not Universal, then you are split from God. You have not been obedient to your superiors (Hebrews 13:17). His Church has spoken and you chose to not hear so you did not hear Christ and rejected His Church. You reject His Church, you reject Him who sent Jesus (Luke 10:16). Look at James 2:24 "You see that by works a man is justified as not by faith only." Is this verse the reason Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28? "In the path of righteousness is life, but the way of error leads to death" (Proverbs 12:28).

Check out John 17:21. Jesus asked us to be ONE church. Martin Luther split us. He is Satan's superhero we could call Splitman. He created 33,000 protestant denominations and growing. Martin(6) Luther (6) Bibles (6) split us. Now if that doesn't sound like a superhero worker of Satan then I'M a guy named Jay. So funny James! Check out Reverend Know it all blogspot. You will enjoy his September posts.

zipper778 said...

Hi Jay,

I've already responded to your Martin Luther Bibles formula that you came up with in the Honoring the Saints post here, but you said something that I wish to respond to.

Jay Lynn White said:

"He created 33,000 protestant denominations and growing."

Two things here.
First, Luther didn't create 33,000 denominations. He was excommunicated. Th ere isn't a lot that people can do within a church if they've been kicked out and are facing execution for it too.

Two, Catholics are still using that false 33,000 number? That was debunked long ago. See here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/08/22/the-33000-denominations-myth/

 http://www.lazyboysreststop.org/apol44.htm

The Reader's Digest version of this is, that number came from a study of Christianity in the 80's and included Roman Catholic denominations, and other non-sola scriptura denominations. You might want to double check figures before you use them against yourself.

But then again, I find myself trying to correct someone who thinks that Protestants have some kind of secret Martin Luther 666 code.

Jay Lynn White said...

Hey Zip
It's easy to make comments and be argumentative but how about doing the full research for yourself? I did. Research when your church got its name and who authored your Bible. Does it have 65 or 67 books? Why 66 books? Isn't it easy to see Martin=6 Luther=6 so the head case signed his own book? 66, yes clear as a blue sky day. Jesus prayed for ONE church, His church. He loves all of us. It is Satan that divides and that is what Splitman did with his Martin Luther Bibles "666" so simple a child of God can see it. Why would you argue in favor of Splitman Zip? Gods Holy Bible has 73 book, 7+3=10, as in Ten Commandments. Let us pray as Jesus taught us.

zipper778 said...

Jay, you're accusing me of not doing research, even though I presented research on your 33,000 denominations claim. Makes a lot of sense. Plus, trying to prove your point using some kind of alphabet code isn't doing research. That's the definition of being argumentative. Try dealing with the actual reasoning behind why Protestants don't accept the apocrypha. That would be doing research. I could make all sorts of accusations that the Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, but that doesn't prove anything and is truly an emotional appeal. I would prefer to deal with actual arguments. Same thing goes for people who are obsessed with the end times. They read the news and read that into the Bible. That's not real evidence. Real evidence demonstrates that the papacy didn't exist for centuries and that for the first 6 centuries of Christianity, most of the bishops of Rome denied being the Bishop of bishops. Or that the papacy gained most of it's power through the use of fraudulent documents.

The Roman Catholic Church is plagued with problems and it's due in most part because the RCC places man where only God should be.

PeaceByJesus said...

I can't speak to all Protestants as I quite honestly don't know that many but some of the people I come across—especially on blogs like this—focus more on Sola Fide/Sola Scriptura or Papal authority etc. Instead of what's truly important...ie your relationship with Christ.

Sorry for forgetting about this thread, and you are correct in your emphasis, but which is the reason why so many evangelical types contend against RCs. Because while among many of ourselves we enjoy an essential, and even spontaneous fellowship of the Spirit with others, due to a shared Scriptural, profound transformative conversion of regeneration and relationship with Christ, and which transcends external organizational divisions, we seldom find that among RCs (nor most mainline Prots.).

Which is due to them never having a day of salvation, as instead they are told they are children of God due to the act of sprinkling as an infant, which makes them good enough for Heaven at that point. And thus (as most fail to cooperate fully with the grace dispensed from the RC treasury) they usually must end their salvific journey by becoming good enough to be with God (and atone for sins) thru tormenting postmortem purgation and the merits of Rome;s intercession.

Salvation by grace for a RC typically means that by God's grace (thru Rome) they become good enough to be with God, all under the rubric of God's mercy in Christ. And which Trent's talk of having truly merited eternal life helps foster, as does treating all her members, even liberal pols, as children of God, which have postmortem hope of Heaven due to the merits of Rome's intercession.

Thus when we met Caths and ask them why God would accept them into Heaven it is confidence in one's own works and the merits of Rome that they typically express, and what the devout typically preach is their church.

And thus such never come to the place where they realize that they are damned and morally destitute sinners, and must cast themselves upon the mercy of God to save them on the risen Christ's account, by His sinless shed blood.

It is this conviction and conversion that i realized at age 25 (conscience and evang. radio helping) while yet being a weekly Mass-going RC, and resulted in profound changes in heart and life (not that I thought myself superior, or did not backslide to some degree).

Even nature seemed new to me as declaring the glory of the Lord, and the Bible became a living powerful book, with deep hunger to know how to please God by it, which evang. radio much helped. Knowing only RCs, for 6 years I sought others who knew of like spirit, but only found a rare few, mainly in RC charismatic meetings (which the hierarchy stifled by hooking them up with socialist nuns in "peace and justice commission). And withing that time i sougt to serve the Lord by being a lector and CCD teacher.

But the Lord convicted me of my need to witness to others, and along with progressively realizing the contrasts btwn what I saw in Scripture and aspects of Cath teaching, this led me to sincerely pray to the Lord that "if it your will that I go to another church then I trust you will show me," which the Lord manifestly did the next day as I was trying to witness to someone who turned out to be a believer.

But for a real Christian what church he goes to is more a basic peripheral issue, as the immediate cause of their fellowship is that they both know Christ, and known they have come to known Him, and thus contend, or should primarily contend for the gospel which saved them, though they often differ on other issues. Likewise, as for RCs their church and works are much their basis for their hope of salvation, that is what they primarily contend for, though they often differ on other issues.

PeaceByJesus said...

If you are at a church that came into a name for itself, so not Universal, then you are split from God.



Rather, "Catholic " is not a proper formal name for any church in Scripture, but which refers to a basic common ("catholic") faith, (Jude. 1:3) which Catholicism is a critical deformation of . And it is RCs who are in a church that came into a name for itself, and if you belong to a church which exclusively claims to be the Catholic church, and does not even consider the most conservative evangelical churches worthy to properly be called churches, then your organizational church is split from God.

For the only one true church in Scripture is the universal body of Christ, as it alone only consists 100% of believers, while the organizational church is an admixture of true and false believers, both expressing their faith therein. It is this church that is married to Christ, (Eph. 5:25) which He bought with His own sinless shed blood, (Act 20:28) and to which only born again members of visible churches exist, relative few of which are Catholics (see my above post).

Protestant churches, AKA "ecclesial communities" as per Rome, may be named such things as "First church of Hampton," while RC ones may be named "Holy Rosary," but neither nor their denomination can be called the one true church.

You have not been obedient to your superiors (Hebrews 13:17).

Rather, true born again evangelicals to believe in obedience to authority, and Westminster affirms the magisterial office, but Scripture does not teach implicit Romish obedience, in which "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS) but obedience is to God as revealed in Scripture above all.

The church began under that basis, thus it began in dissent from the stewards of Scripture, who sat in the seat of Moses, as the common people recognized what was of God, and followed itinerant preachers who established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

And under that basis the unScriptural "priests" and prelates of Catholicism have no more claim to authority over us than the so-called "elders" of Mormonism.

You reject His Church, you reject Him who sent Jesus

Which is mere question begging, and as your premise is false (Rome is manifestly NOT the NT church) then so is your conclusion.

Look at James 2:24 "You see that by works a man is justified as not by faith only."

Indeed, since works are faith in action, and manifest that one is a believers, justifying him as being one. But which is not the same thing as teaching that one has"truly merited eternal life" by the very works which he has been done in God, as per Trent. God rewards faith (Heb. 10:35) in the light of its fruits, but which is not merit in the sense of actual worthiness of eternal life, which is an unmerited Gift, unlike damnation which is what man has actually earned. (Rm. 6:23)

Moreover, it is SS type believers who most manifest faith which does effect works, which kind of faith reformers preached .

" Is this verse the reason Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28

As with the canon , Luther had RC company in seeing it as warranted as that is what it teaches, unlike RC translations turning repentance into penance, and "highly favored" into distinctly "full of grace."

To be cntd.




PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2:

Check out John 17:21. Jesus asked us to be ONE church. Martin Luther split us.

Rather, Catholicism was in sects and division before the needed Reformation, at one point being so bad that according to Ratzinger "she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution."

. He is Satan's superhero we could call Splitman.

Then the devil must have converted, since the Reformation greatly increased the kingdom of God, and those who hold most strongly to its most foundational aspect, that of reverence for the authority of Scripture as literally being the very word of God are far more committed (and conservative) than the overall fruit of Rome. And have effected changes beneficial to all. Left to Caths this country would become the United States of Sodom even more quickly.

And your present social gospel pope shows the judgment of the prelates you would have us look to.

He created 33,000 protestant denominations

Which is more evidence that you live off RC propaganda . Regardless, even if true then it is meaningless unless each one can be shown to hold to core reformation distinctives and be less unified as a people then RCs.

And beyond the limited and largely paper unity of Catholicism its exists in sects and schisms, and abounds with variant interpretations of Cath teaching and Scripture. Do you even affirm the notes which our NAB study Bible has taught for decades?

Meanwhile your own church affirms such fruit of the Reformation "who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal" as being united with RCs in Christ thru baptism. Of course, it also affirms proabortion, prosodomite pols as members of their church, which brethren you (not us) must own, and cannot separate from as we must. But some think they are more Catholic then the pope to whom they tell us we need to submit to. A confused church for sure.

PeaceByJesus said...

Martin Luther Bibles "666"

Are you teach RC doctrine here, or engaging in private interpretation? If so, then you must allow others to play the 666 game with their interpretations which peg Rome as being the Anti-Christ:"

Pope John Paul II is the very first Pope in history to actually fulfill this prophecy two fold. As you will soon see below, there are many 'names' to the office of Pope Each of these names do in fact have a numeric value simply because LATIN, the chosen language of Rome, is not only their ALPHABET, it is also their NUMERIC SYSTEM! To this day the Latin "Numeric System"is called, ROMAN NUMERALS. For example, in their alphabet, the letter "I" = 1, and the letter "C" = 100 in Latin.

Take a look at the name "JOHN PAUL II" in Latin... http://www.remnantofgod.org/666.htm

And from some of your ownis Vatican II - Antichrist Council of Apostasy: http://prophecyfilm.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-vatican-ii-revolution.html

And "666 and Catholic Prophecies:" http://www.marianland.com/prophecy/666.html

Lots of people can engage in such, but if you want to to be defending RC teaching by your own private interpretation, then you are validating what RCs condemn.

Jay Lynn White said...

Hey Pea.B,

Welcome back to the thread.
Did you know Martin Luther had a high opinion of himself? ""He once said,"
St. Augustine or St. Ambrose cannot be compared with me.” (Ref. Erlangen, Vol. 61, pg. 422). Luther added a word to the text of Scripture on which he and much of the world have based an entire religious philosophy. In St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, (3:28) we read “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” Martin translated it to read, “a person is justified by faith ALONE.” The word “alone” doesn’t appear in the text.

When one of his students said that all Christendom was wondering why he had added a word to the text, Martin simply said, “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Ref. Amic. Discussion, 1)

I guess that includes Ambrose and Augustine. Being personally infallible, Martin just assumed that he understood the phrase “works of the law” meant kindness and generosity and morality. It is a shame that he hadn’t read the Dead Sea Scrolls. The phrase “works of the law” appears in only two places as far as we know St. Paul’s letters and the Dead Sea Scroll. Allow me to quote Miqsat Ma’aseh HaTorah (Some Works of the Law, Dead Sea Scroll 4QMMT, a real page turner.)" Quote of RKIA.

Infant baptism is from John the Baptist. I was not infant baptized but after attending the Catholic Church for two months I renounced the Prince of Darkness and became a Servant of Jesus Christ. God is first, and that is before myself, family or friends. My relationship with our eternal Father is based on obedience to the directives of the gospel. He has made me His by claiming me and I love Him whole-heartedly. Nothing shall separate us not even my own sin for I have given my will to the Father.

Pea.B. says"And thus such (RC. Roman Catholic...Rome as in where Our Lord was put to the cross, Catholic as in Universal) never come to the place where they realize that they are "damned" and morally destitute sinners...". How is it you know they are going to hell? I know Satan would like to lay claim to that but only God has that power.

I am sorry I find it humorous that one day you very much wanted to leave the Church and the next day you did. Of course you did because you very much WANTED to. Wasn't there a King that very much wanted a new wife instead of the one he had? Christ suffered and are we not to follow Him? If you were suffering at His Church you should embrace it. You were carrying a sliver of The Lord's cross. He loves us. It's called agape.

The Holy Bible was compiled in 367 A.D. by St. Athanasius. Martin Luther Bibles came into print in 1522. How can you not mull that over? He removed 7 books, deleted verses in two books (why not just remove them? Because that would make 64 books!) and he added a word to Gods Holy Bible! He picked not 65 or 67 books but 66 as in Martin 6 letters Luther 6 letters. The author of this changed "bible" signed it with his name! And protestantism sprouted from this quack!

Pea.B. says"...left to the "Caths" (we are the "RC" NOT Reformers strange you want to use it but the Lord knows the wheat from a weed that looks like it) this country would become the United States of Sodom more quickly". Really?! Who is Pea.A? ML?

It is the sin within that separates us from Him. Let not our ego rule us but let us be obedient. IT IS THE NARROW ROAD. In unification as ONE church we could please Our God. Peace be with you all.

TheDen said...

PeaceByJesus,

Which is due to them never having a day of salvation, as instead they are told they are children of God due to the act of sprinkling as an infant, which makes them good enough for Heaven at that point. And thus (as most fail to cooperate fully with the grace dispensed from the RC treasury) they usually must end their salvific journey by becoming good enough to be with God (and atone for sins) thru tormenting postmortem purgation and the merits of Rome;s intercession.

A large problem with Catholics is they haven't been properly catechized. So, they get their responses from others who may also be misguided. Let me try to explain this a different way:

Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin. For a dead person has been absolved from sin. If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. (Romans 6:3-8).

So, what this is saying is that that in Baptism, we are baptized into Christ's death. We are united to Christ into His body at Baptism (v.5). It's in His death that we can rise with Him to new life. In our baptism, we are freed from sin (v. 6-7). So, we are children of God due to our baptism (usually at our infancy), we become adopted sons of Christ (1 John 3:2, Ephesians 1:5).

Paul continues in Romans:

We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him. As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God. Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as [being] dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, sin must not reign over your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires. (Romans 6: 9-12)

What this means is now that we are baptized, we can no longer slaves to sin but rather to be slaves of Jesus Christ...slaves of righteousness. We no longer sin. We live for God (v 13). So, it's not that we “become good enough for God” but rather we cooperate with God. We become slaves to Him. We do what He commands so that we are no longer called slaves but rather friends. (John 15: 14-15). When we die in friendship with Christ, we see eternal salvation. If we are not in friendship with Christ, if we are slaves to sin, then we have eternal damnation.

(To be continued)

TheDen said...

Thus when we met Caths and ask them why God would accept them into Heaven it is confidence in one's own works and the merits of Rome that they typically express, and what the devout typically preach is their church.

If I may answer this question, God accepts us into heaven based on His mercy. The only way I can get into heaven is through the grace and mercy of God. How does this happen? Christ tells us that we are forgiven based on how much we forgive (“forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...”) The parable of the unforgiving servant tells us that God forgives us first but if we don't forgive others, God will “hand us over to the torturers” (Matthew 18:21-35). So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart So, we are accepted into heaven based on grace and mercy and that mercy is dependent on how much mercy we show in our lives. This is what Catholicism teaches. Perhaps the other Catholics with whom you've dialogued weren't being clear enough.

Based on what you wrote, it seems that you and I have similar backgrounds. I had 12 years of Catholic school and have been a lifelong Catholic. When I was in my mid twenties, (after years of fighting the Church) I had a pretty strong conversion experience. I think the only difference is that I came across a Catholic who was very well grounded in his faith and was able to teach me how to properly read Scripture and understand Catholic teaching. If I had come across a Reformed person and wasn't properly catechized, I may have very well left the Church as well.

PeaceByJesus said...

The only way I can get into heaven is through the grace and mercy of God.

The doctrine is in the details.

How does this happen? Christ tells us that we are forgiven based on how much we forgive

Which is written to believers (our Father), not for converts who may be unable to forgive until they call upon the Lord to save them in their dire state, on Christ's account. You fail to make that distinction.

if we don't forgive others, God will “hand us over to the torturers..."

After conversion, impenitent disobedience in heart or deed will result in chastisement in order to produce repentance, consistent with saving faith, lest we be condemned with the rest of the world. (1Co. 11:32)

So, we are accepted into heaven based on grace and mercy and that mercy is dependent on how much mercy we show in our lives. This is what Catholicism teaches.

Really? This simply illustrates both the errors of Rome and the interpretive variant beliefs of RCs, all claiming to represent what Catholicism teaches.

What you are preaching is basically Christianized Karma which renders salvation to be based upon the degree of one's goodness, and you do not even include faith in Christ!

Instead, forgiving others and showing mercy is not the cause of salvation, but is a characteristic of salvific faith, which faith is what appropriates justification, being counted for righteousness.

Forgiving others was also part of the Law, (Lv. 19:18) which is the epitome of salvation systems by merit, "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)

But in speaking specifically of the means of justification, the Holy Spirit excludes all systems of salvation by actual works-merit:

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)

For like aged Abraham, who was utterly unable to produce the children needed to fulfill God's promise, so is man utterly unable to become good enough to be with an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God. But like Abraham who "being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform" (Romans 4:21) and it was counted unto him for righteousness, (Romans 4:3) so those who come to God as damned and destitute sinners but believe the promise of God to save those who trust in risen Lord Jesus, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood," are likewise accounted righteous.

To be contd.


PeaceByJesus said...

You can invoke James 2 who states that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24), but if he is speaking of justification in same sense as Moses (Gn. 15:6) and Paul then he is contradicting them both. Instead, while Paul's protest is against salvation on the basis of merit of law-keeping, and preaches Abrahamic faith as salvific, James is protesting against an inert faith that does not work to fulfill the righteousness of the law by the Spirit, (cf. Rm. 8:4) and rightly teaches that only that kind of faith is salvific.

(Yet as seen in such places as Acts 10, God sees such justifying God-given faith before one does any work, with God "purifying their hearts by faith," (Acts 15:7-9) and leaving Rome to have to allow such justification, but only as an exemption clause.)

For as expressed, the faith that saves is a faith which follows the Lord in whom it looks to for salvation, and thus it drops the charges against the penitent in one's heart, though allowing for dealing with offenses of the reproved impenitent, (Matthew 18:15-17; Lk. 17:3,4) though not even pursuing that is the higher standard. (Lk. 23:34; Acts 7:60; 1Co. 6:7)

And which effects of faith justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) to those who actually earned damnation, (Rm. 6:23) versus truly meriting them eternal life, as if they were actually good enough to be with God, as per the false postmortem purgation gospel of Rome.

I think the only difference is that I came across a Catholic who was very well grounded in his faith and was able to teach me how to properly read Scripture and understand Catholic teaching.

If, like Rome, you do say so yourself, while like Rome, the evidence is against you. Here you are both preaching salvation by actual merit, confusing the effects of faith as the basis for salvation versus its cause (justification on Christ's account), as per Rome, while unlike her, you do not even include the work of Christ as somehow essential.

Due to RC emphasis on merit, , we hear professions similar to yours such as this:

I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... — http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2

PeaceByJesus said...

A large problem with Catholics is they haven't been properly catechized. So, they get their responses from others who may also be misguided. Let me try to explain this a different way:


I dare say other RCs would charge you with not being properly catechized, and if you disagree with what i said then you are not.

So, we are children of God due to our baptism (usually at our infancy),.

Wrong: as in such places as Gal. 3:26, Romans 6 is referring to baptism as signifying conversion, that being the commanded initial formal confession, for only faith which effects such works is salvific, but Paul already taught that it is believing which appropriates justification, and the Spirit makes it clear that the Gentiles were born again and thus spiritually baptized into the body of Christ, (1Co. 12:13) with God purifying their hearts by faith, before water baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-10)

What is what Peter preached to these "that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," which is not in contradiction to Acts 2:38 any more than Rm. 10:13 is to that. For as explained, since one who is baptized is sppsd to be expressing true faith, thus it can be promised that if you do what faith requires then you will be saved. Rather than lead 3k+ souls in a "sinner's prayers" by mouth, or sprinkling the crowd with holy water, they confessed faith in the Lord Jesus by moving their bodies in baptism. (And it is unlikely the 12 apostles did all the baptizing.)

And what none of your texts teach is the the act of baptism effects regeneration, and renders one fit to be with God due to their own level of holiness.

So, it's not that we “become good enough for God” but rather we cooperate with God.

Wrong, as Purgatory itself mean"to make clean, to purify" (Lat., "purgare"), and one of the two purposes of purgatory, besides its fantasy of atoning for sin, is that one must be purified of character defects and its attachment to sin, to be with God, since no unclean thing will enter glory.

The CE explains that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc.

And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Thus Kreeft states,

"...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

As do lay RCs such as say,

"ones who will go directly to heaven are the ones who have already shed every last trace of self-love left in their hearts...Their hearts are left with nothing but pure love for Christ." -http://stillcatholic.com/CATHPurg.htm

The CE also explains that under Roman soteriology, although" the Redeemer has merited for sinners the grace of justification (causa meritoria), neverthelesshe is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis).” Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace

It seems that you are not properly catechized, or are choosing not to express what was reproved.

To be ctnd.

PeaceByJesus said...

When we die in friendship with Christ, we see eternal salvation. If we are not in friendship with Christ, if we are slaves to sin, then we have eternal damnation.

Actually, while being practicing impenitent slaves to sin would mean damnation since that is contrary to what salvific faith effects, which is that of characteristic obedience and repentance when convicted of the contrary (ass with David), yet the flesh "is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be." (Rm. 8:7) And if friendship with Christ was obtained by becoming slaves of righteousness then no one could become a child of God.

But if God justifieth the un Godly by faith which is counted for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) then it cannot be the level of personal holiness that justifies one, unless you make the sanctifying effects of regeneration the cause of justification. Which means Abraham become born again when God counted his faith for righteousnesses in Gn. 15:6, and that it was. counted for righteousnesses because at that point (or in Gn. 22 if you want to make James 2 as referring to obtaining justification) he actually become good enough to be with God. Likewise the contrite criminal in Lk. 23 somehow became good enough to be with God.

Which is RC theology, via the complete cleansing and remission of the temporal punishment the act of baptism is held to effect. Leaving the souls having to maintain or attain to that pristinated state to be with God, and requiring the bureaucracy to invent a place to place those who were not bad enough for Hell nor good enough to be with God in the meantime.

Of course, on one hand that want to make souls fit to be with God simply due to being forgiven with no sins needing temporal punishment, thus the newly baptized can directly go to be with God, yet on the other hand they want to argue that one must be purged of character defects, of self-love to have no nothing but pure love for Christ, to be perfect, yet the baptized have not attained to this level of development, but stil have an irreformable corrupt nature they must learn to die to (presuming they even are born again).

Instead, if God justifieth the un Godly by faith which is counted for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) on account of Christ upon whom God laid "the iniquity of us all," bearing our sins in His own body, and "was numbered with the transgressors," (Is. 53:6,12; 1Pt. 2:24) then he can both be presently accepted in the Beloved (and only in Him, on His account) and seated with Him in heaven, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and forever be with the Lord at death or at His return, Which is what Scripture always teaches wherever it manifestly speaks of the the next conscious existence after this one. (2Co. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-13; Acts 7:59; Lk. 23:39; 1Ths. 4:17)

Yet as said, since impenitently living in sin is contrary to justifying faith, but living Godly is, then Scripture assigns damnation to those who do the former, and salvation to those who practice the latter, with repentance when convicted of the contrary.

This is what reconciles the texts which teach justification by faith and those which promise salvation in the light of works, but Caths confuse the effects of justifying faith with being the cause, or basis.



Jay Lynn White said...

Hi Pea.B. ;)

Why would I research another language unless I would desperately be grasping for straws to support my own head strong opinions? I only speak English. Do you speak Latin or Rome language or are you grasping for straws...spending time finding something somewhere that supports what you WANTED to be truth instead of what truly is?

How can you explain Martin Luther making his bible 66 books like his name? He obviously wanted to get rid of the books Daniel and Esther but he couldn't because that would make "Martin Luth". It just doesn't work for Luther the egotistical author. And because he tampered with Gods Holy Bible his own human creation is marked with a 666 for all to see. It is simple and easy isn't it? We all make our choices. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. The horse decides if he will die.

God makes things simple and easy. He leads, I follow. I'M obedient so that would be the narrow road home. It's just that easy. He did not stop until He found His lamb. He has me in the palm of His hand. He has chosen me and I said yes. God is so amazing, so kind, so cool and mysterious. He is a love I have found no where else. He brings peace and happiness. One day I will be with Him always. He loves me. I belong to Him, my Lord and protector. Praise God!

Jay Lynn White said...

Splitman superhero of Satan was a man named Martin Luther. He took God's Holy Bible that was inspired by the Holy Spirit compiled in 367 AD with 73 books and in 1522 Martin Luther changed it! He removed 7 books, deleted verses in 2 books, and added a word in 1 book. He, a man, signed his name as author.

Will you follow God or a man?

Galatians 1:6-9, if we pervert the gospel by changing it, we will be accursed.

Revelation 22:18-19, For I testify unto everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book,if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and from the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book.

If you do not believe Martin Luther intended to mislead or split the Church of Jesus Christ would you suggest he was just blind?

Matthew 15:14 And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.

PeaceByJesus said...

Jay Lynn White has left a new comment
Hey Pea.B,

Quite the irrelevant translation of a title from Acts 10:36

Did you know Martin Luther had a high opinion of himself? ""He once said,"

Did you know James here has done extensive research into such out-of-context (or fallacious) "Luther quotes" including this one ? Thus unless you want to continue to example uncritical parroting of RC propaganda then you should take the time to do a site search on such, or here by God's grace.

Moreover, while the preoccupation with Luther by RCs gives rise to refutations of the polemical use of them, I among others find their preoccupation with him puzzling, as they seem to think that we look to Luther as a pope, and thus by attacking his character or the nature of his writings then they somehow refute what we believe.

Yet rather than following him as some pope, Prots even differ with Luther's judgment on the NT canon, and standard evangelicals differ with Luther on the nature of the Lord's supper as well as certain holdovers of tradition. Which is due to the foundational premise of Scripture being the supreme transcendent authority, under which premise the NT church began.

Luther added a word to the text of Scripture

Likewise It saves us typing. For as said and ignored, Luther had RC company in this, for as with many other supplied words, which RC translations bound with (without and indication, unlike the KJV), it is warranted due to the context.

As Swan states ,

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer has shown in his book, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361 that the word “alone” had been previously used in translation in Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] . He cites Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Theophyylact, Theodoret, Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine- thus vindicating Luther’s point “I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

And as explained in above posts at length, since the Law is the epitome of systems of salvation by works-merit, "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law," (Galatians 3:21) then the exclusion of justification by works of the Law excludes all systems of salvation by actual works-merit, in which, as with Rome (again see above) one becomes good enough to be with God.

To be justified under "by the law of faith" "without the deeds of the law" (Rm. 3:27,28) is consisted with "the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," (Romans 4:6) leaving Rm. 3:28 as teaching that a man is justified by faith alone - by the faith which effects works - without the deeds of the law. But only alone in appropriating justification, but not alone the sense of an inert faith which does not effect works, by which one is justified as being a believer.

Pt. 1

PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2:

For what Luther also taught was,

This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow. [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

...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]

More .

Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing.

And your point is what? That Luther was claiming to be a pope with binding decrees? No.

That by attacking Luther on this then you somehow impugn what we believe? Hardly.

That he was pointing out his qualifications, which, being a theologian of the highest rank (Doctor of Theology) as RC author Franz Posset states in "The Real Luther." And you need not be a scholar to know Scripture itself often linked man to things as animals (dumb dogs, etc.).

Being personally infallible,

As your premise is false, so is any argument based on it.

ls. The phrase “works of the law” appears in only two places as far as we know

That "ergon" (works) and "nomos" (law) only appear together in the NT, as they do in 8 places, and twice with "the" before law, and as not meaning "kindness and generosity and morality" is a fallacious argument.

First, that Paul was not simply referring to the ritual law in Rm. 4 and similar texts but to the law in its totality as a system of salvation is manifest by the context. For after indicting the pagans in Rm. 1 for disobeying the work of the law which they innately knew, and commending pagans who obeyed it in Rm. 2, he indicts Jews as disobeying the Law as being a form of knowledge and of the truth. (2:20) And as both pagans and learned Jews have disobeyed the Law, he states, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Romans 3:19)

This is the same law which he excludes as salvific, and does so broadly to the Gentile Titus as "works of righteousnesses" (3:5) as well as in Eph. 2:8,9 in writing to Gentiles. Which does not abrogate fulfilling the intent of the holy law, and keeping the moral law, but excludes salvation based on actually earning worthiness of salvation by works.

As for the linguistical aspect, the Greek nomos (law) corresponds tôrâh in Hebrew with its mitsvâh (commandments),and the Greek "ergon" (works) corresponds to ma`aseh {mah-as-eh'} in Hebrew, meaning works, which in 2Chron 31:21 is used as describing doing the works of the Law. "Hâlak" can also describe works, "walking in" "doing" the tôrâh, which it frequently appears with, as in 2Ki 10:31 while "dâbâr" in the OT can also means "deeds" in the Hebrew Scriptures, and which describes doing the acts of the Law in 2Ch 35:26 For the purpose of the law was to show them the way they should walk/act, and the work that they must do. (Exodus 18:20)



PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 3

Infant baptism is from John the Baptist.

Are you serious? John was not baptized, and preached repentance in order to be baptized, as did Peter, which infants cannot do, nor need to as they are not culpable for sin, upon which basis and the degree eternal judgment is based upon. Instead, in one sense we must become like children in simple humble faith.

Nothing shall separate us not even my own sin for I have given my will to the Father.

And thus such (RC. Roman Catholic...Rome as in where Our Lord was put to the cross, Catholic as in Universal)

Wrong, as Catholic as in Roman refers to a particular elitist church.

never come to the place where they realize that they are "damned" and morally destitute sinners...". How is it you know they are going to hell? I know Satan would like to lay claim to that but only God has that power.

How, simply because if they never come to that place then they will not be converted. The devil knows that and thus Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.

If you suppose I meant i know all RCs are damned then you are ignoring context (nothing new) in which i am describing a certain scenario.

I am sorry I find it humorous that one day you very much wanted to leave the Church and the next day you did. Of course you did because you very much WANTED to.

Now it is you which is claiming omniscience, as did not very much want to, but would have willingly stayed there had I seen the contrary answer.

The Holy Bible was compiled in 367 A.D. by St. Athanasius.

Thanks you. Among other books, Athanasius includes the Letter of Jeremiah while placing the Book of Esther among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, being with the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Martin Luther Bibles came into print in 1522. How can you not mull that over? He removed 7 books,

More uncritically parroted propaganda, despite what I linked to. You mean that as with some other scholars down thru the centuries and right into Trent who did not hold to what was latter infallibly defined, he did not include certain disputed books in his non-binding canon, which they and he had freedom to do since there was no binding infallible canon until after the death of Luther. Which you should and could have known if you looked outside RC sites.

he picked not 65 or 67 books but 66 as in Martin 6 letters

Sad to see you have to resort to such desperation, which somehow your church missed. Since you rely on private interpretation then you must agree that Prots who find such things as 666 equals LATEINOS in Greek leading to Rome fulling it!
this country would become the United States of Sodom more quickly". Really?!

Yes, Really !

PeaceByJesus said...

Why would I research another language unless I would desperately be grasping for straws to support my own head strong opinions? I only speak English.

Dude, you are the one who invoked "works of the law" as only being in the NT and DSS. Were either penned in English?

..spending time finding something somewhere that supports what you WANTED to be truth instead of what truly is?

Resorting to such a baseless assertion is an admission that of your lack of a valid argument, while the 666 argument fits your description.

How can you explain Martin Luther making his bible 66 books like his name?

What's next, 911 conspiracy theories? If you are arguing for Catholic interpretation then it is fit for debate, otherwise it further testifies to your desperation or lack of real argumentation, and belongs in the realm of other 666 theories or Harold Camping disciples.

The name "Luther" was actually also variously spelled 9 different ways, Ludher Luder, Liider, Lutter, Liitter, Lyder, Lothar, or Chlothar as well as Luther. And the reformer himself varied in his spelling of it. And it appeared in the University records at Erfurt as Ludher, and and in the Wittenberg records as Luder. Luther signed his name in the preface of his first book in 1517 as Martinus Luder, though he also wrote it as Luther in the same year. (History of the Christian Church, Volume 2
by John Fletcher Hurst, cp. 11; History of the Christian Church. A.D. 1-311. Modern Christianity. The German ... by Philip Schaff, p. 106) But as 9 upside down is 6...

It is simple and easy isn't it?

Sure it is. You can pay the receptionist after your hour is up.

zipper778 said...

Wow. Here I came to defend PBJ, but I see that he obviously is more than capable of defending himself. You see Jay, you come on here demanding that we do research, then when research is provided you claim that we are desperate. This coming from the person who wants to claim some kind of 666 code that I've NEVER seen from a Roman Catholic, and I would suspect that any Roman Catholic that I know of would rather argue about doctrines rather than building up strawman arguments.

Are you sure that your name isn't Jim or guy fawkes?

Jay Lynn White said...

Hey Pea.B.

I don't know how you get the time. Does the comment section poop out after a max of words? Pea. B. Oct.31 at 11:42;6:30;6:52 Nov.1 9:12 OK then Nov.2 10:31;10:32;12:19; 1:41; 7:21;7:22;7:22 and 11:13. Seriously? For the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:20)...By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious; anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. (1 John3:10)...why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word, see John 8:44-45.

You go on and on Pea.B. but where is the love you, or Zip, have for God? We hear only anger and hate but no love. I pray you accept love. God loves you and so do I brother. Peace be in your heart.

As God's child, in my case Catholic, I wanted to thank you James for giving me the courtesy of allowing my posts when you posted the Catholic forum did not for you. I will remember you to the Lord Jesus. May we pray for one another as we journey together in the presence of the Lord. Jaylynn White.

zipper778 said...

Jay, we all have a passion for the Lord here. I've read PBJ's posts over the years and he seems to have a passion for the truth.

You came here making false accusations against your "separated brethren" such as us following a Martin Luther 666 code, which PBJ demonstrated that Luther spelt his name a number of different ways in his lifetime. You accused Luther of separating the church into 30,000 denominations, yet when I gave the resources that proved your point to be incorrect you ignore it.

Do you want to keep showing your anger and lack of charity by falsely accusing people of different things?

PeaceByJesus said...

He took God's Holy Bible that was inspired by the Holy Spirit compiled in 367 AD...

Since you apparently will not/do not read what refutes you but persist in posting refuted propaganda, as well as desperate private perversity, you have marginalized yourself as one unworthy of further attempts at meaningful exchange, and are an argument against being an RC. May God grant you repentance unto the acknowledging of the Truth. (2Tim. 2:25) Bye. .

PeaceByJesus said...

This coming from the person who wants to claim some kind of 666 code that I've NEVER seen from a Roman Catholic,

At least we were not charged with being anti-Caths driven by bitterness and guilt, but when we think we have heard them all then there comes along a new one. Here its 666, then or the standard recourse to imagining that contending for the faith of God's word and against error does not show love for Him.