Follow
There are certain names our evangelical readers may hear from time to time on Sunday mornings from the pulpit, or in Sunday School, or perhaps in a small bible study fellowship, or in the latest book to fly off the shelves of the book stores. These names pop up quite frequently, and they are usually offered up as examples of a bold or simple faith, godliness and a lifestyle of prayer and contemplation. What may surprise our evangelical readers is the fact that the people being offered as examples are Roman Catholic counter-reformational mystics who worked tirelessly against the Protestant Reformation to try to stamp it out.
We would therefore like to introduce our readers first to the Roman Catholic counter-reformation, and then to its most prominent players so that they may be better prepared to resist those who might otherwise deceive them. To that end, we will provide a short biographical sketch for each one, and then provide a few examples of how evangelicals are slipping these deceivers into the diet of their unsuspecting sheep.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Roman Catholic counter-reformation refers to
“efforts directed in the 16th and early 17th centuries both against the Protestant Reformation and toward internal renewal; the Counter-Reformation took place during roughly the same period as the Protestant Reformation. … New religious orders and other groups were founded to effect a religious renewal … especially the Jesuits. Later in the century, John of the Cross and Teresa of Ávila promoted the reform of the Carmelite order and influenced the development of the mystical tradition. Francis of Sales had a similar influence on the devotional life of the laity.”
The key players in the counter-reformation were therefore Ignatius of Loyola (founder of the Jesuits), Teresa of Ávila, John of the Cross, Francis de Sales, and to some degree, Brother Lawrence, a follower of Teresa and John, but one generation removed from them.
Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), was the founder of the Jesuit Order, but more importantly for our discussion this week, he was a counter-reformation Spanish mystic who was “converted” through a mystical encounter with an apparition of Mary, and on another occasion experienced a vision of “the Blessed Trinity in the form of a lyre or harp” (The Autobiography of St. Ignatius of Loyola, (New York: Benziger Brothers, ©1900) 40-41, 54). He was also known to have visions of something “in the shape of a serpent” hovering before him in broad daylight, which comforted him deeply:
“this form gave him much consolation because it was exceedingly beautiful … it somehow seemed to have the shape of a serpent and had many things that shone like eyes, but were not eyes. He received much delight and consolation from gazing upon this object … but when the object vanished he became disconsolate” (The Autobiography of St. Ignatius of Loyola, 40-41)
Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582) was the foundress of the Discalced Carmelite Order, but more importantly for this week’s discussion, she was a counter-reformation Spanish mystic, who claimed to have had mystical encounters with Satan:
“Locutions (inner voices) that come from Satan not only do not leave any good effects behind, but do leave evil effects. This has happened to me; but not more than two or three times. Our Lord warned me at once that they came from Satan.”(Teresa of Avila, The life of St. Teresa, by herself, XXV.13)
When saddened and grief-stricken at an early age, she went “to an image of our Lady, and with many tears implored her to be my mother” (The life of St. Teresa, by herself, I.7). Later in life, she would write of her encounters with “God” that left her so physically tortured that
“it is disjointed, as I said, in such a way that for three or four days afterward one feels great sufferings and doesn’t have the strength to write… When one experiences a very sharp bodily pain, other bodily pains are hardly felt even though there may be many. I have indeed experienced this…. O God, help me! Lord, how you afflict your lovers!”(Teresa of Avila, The Interior Castle, ch. 11)
John of the Cross (1542-1591) is the author of the famous Dark Night of the Soul, a mystical work that is often cited to encourage those struggling with their faith. For this week’s discussion it is important to know that John of the Cross was a counter-reformation Spanish mystic who helped Teresa of Ávila found the Discalced Carmelites Order, and also was passionately devoted to the worship of images:
“Once, on seeing an image of Our Lady while he was preaching to the nuns in Caravaca, he could not conceal his love for her and exclaimed: ‘How happy I would be to live alone in a desert with that image!’”(General Introduction to the collected works of St. John of the Cross, ch. 7 “A Portrait of the Saint,” trans. Kieran Kavanaugh, OCD & Otilio Rodriguez, OCD, rev. ed. © 1991 ICS Publications)
Francis de Sales (1567-1622) was the bishop of Geneva, and was a French mystic who dedicated himself to winning Calvin’s followers back to Roman Catholicism. He produced a great deal of mystical literature, including Introduction to the Devout Life, and Treatise on the Love of God. He is alleged to have had a vision of Francis of Assisi, and is most remembered as “a missionary to the Calvinists, … preparing leaflets explaining the principle doctrines of the Church as opposed to the errors of Calvinism.”
Brother Lawrence (1614-1691), while not formally a part of the counter-reformation, was nonetheless a lay member of the Discalced Carmelites, and was a Spanish mystic of the generation following Teresa and John. His famous work, The Practice of the Presence of God, is frequently cited and read by Protestants seeking a guide for their contemplation. Lawrence allegedly perfected the practice of always being in the presence of God. But as we shall see, the way he “practiced the presence of God” was to constantly imagine that he was away from the distractions of the world and back in the presence of his precious idol.
In addition to the fact that Ignatius, Teresa, John, Francis, and to some degree, Lawrence, were all counter-reformational mystics, they also all had a profound devotion to the idolatrous practice of the adoration of the Eucharist (about which we wrote here):
Ignatius of Loyola: “…while assisting at Mass, he had another vision… At the elevation of the body of Christ Our Lord he beheld, with the eyes of his soul, white rays descending from above. … the manner in which Our Lord Jesus Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament was clearly and vividly stamped upon his mind.”(The Autobiography of St. Ignatius of Loyola, 55-56)
Teresa of Ávila: “When I went to Communion once I called to mind the exceeding great majesty of Him I had seen, and considered that it was He who is present in the most Holy Sacrament, and very often our Lord was pleased to show Himself to me in the Host; the very hairs on my head stood, and I thought I should come to nothing.” (The life of St. Teresa, by herself, Chapter 38.24)
John of the Cross: “Requiring little sleep, he spent much of the night in prayer, sometimes kneeling at the altar steps before the Blessed Sacrament; …His greatest suffering during the imprisonment in Toledo was being deprived of the Eucharist. The Blessed Sacrament was ‘all his glory, all his happiness, and for him far surpassed all the things of the earth.’ The one privilege he accepted when major superior in Segovia was the cell closest to the Blessed Sacrament.” (General Introduction to the collected works of St. John of the Cross, ch. A Portrait of the Saint)
Francis de Sales: “..the most holy, sacred and Sovereign Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist,—the very centre point of our Christian religion, the heart of all devotion, the soul of piety; …Saint Chrysostom says that the Angels crowd around it in adoration.” (Francis de Sales, Introduction to a Devout Life, Part II.14.1-3)
Brother Lawrence: “The time of business does not with me differ from the time of prayer; and in the noise and clutter of my kitchen, while several persons are at the same time calling for different things, I possess GOD in as great tranquility as if I were upon my knees at the Blessed Sacrament.” (Practice of the Presence of God, Fourth Conversation)
Let it suffice to say that these counter-reformational mystics have nothing to offer us but mysticism, idolatry and a false gospel. They had visions of “Jesus,” “Mary,” ” ‘Saint’ Francis”, “the blessed Trinity in the form of a harp,” and some sort of glowing serpent with a lot of eyes; they heard voices speaking to them from the Eucharist, and worshiped it as if it were God Himself in the flesh. But they did not know the truth. Not only were these people not Christian, they were deeply, firmly committed to the eradication of the Protestant religion. They would have hated the evangelicals who now recommend their works. Or would they?
These counter-reformational mystics have found new, and unlikely, fans in modern evangelicals who love the very mystics who hated Luther and Calvin, and who persecuted the saints of God. Listen to just a few of them gush over the spirituality of these mystics who had visions of demons, heard voices in their heads, worshiped a piece of bread, and despised the gospel of Jesus Christ:
Tim Keller (PCA Minister): “The best things that have been written [on meditation] almost are by Catholics during the counter-reformation—Ignatius Loyola, Francis de Sales, John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila—great stuff!”(Meditation—What it is, (October 5, 1998), leadership training session at Redeemer Presbyterian Church (24:50-25:00))
Steve Brown (PCA Minister): “Saint Teresa of Ávila (the sixteenth-century contemplative) expresses the experience of all believers who have been called to a life of prayer. … There was a time when I felt that Roman Catholics who left the real world for a life of contemplation were simply ‘copping out’ on the need to get on about the business of serving God. I’m a lot older now and a bit wiser, and sometimes I feel that those who give their lives to a life of prayer and contemplation are probably doing more for the kingdom than all the evangelists, priests, pastors, professors, and teachers of the church combined. … I love to read and learn from the desert fathers; John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila have much to teach us; Brother Lawrence inspires me to worship while doing things I thought were trivial.” (Approaching God: Accepting the Invitation to Stand in the Presence of God, (Simon and Schuster, 2008) 99-101, 181)
Rick Warren (Saddleback Church): “When I was writing Purpose Driven Life … I asked the question, ‘How do you write a book that lasts 500 years?’ For instance … Practicing the Presence of God, by Brother Lawrence, the Desert Fathers, St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila. All of these great classic devotional works.” (EWTN, “The World Over” with Raymond Arroyo, April 10, 2014, (1:00 – 1:50))
Dr. Michael Milton (PCA Minister, president of Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS)): “Thorns can produce, we must admit, a sense of God’s abandonment. St. John of the Cross called this the dark night of the soul… St. John of the Cross, in The Dark Night of the Soul, written in the middle ages, a Spanish mystic, said after this experience of depression, this experience of distance from God… and he says ‘I’ve come to see that I know Jesus Christ more now after this period than at any other time in my life.’ May it be so with you.” (Dr. Milton, Michael,(March 21, 2010), A Theology of Thorns, (37:40-40:14))
There are many, many more examples of this. What would make this comical—were it not such an affront to the ministry of Holy Spirit Who presently guards the purity of the Church (John 14:16-26, Acts 20:32)—is that sometimes the point at which the mystics are cited is actually the precise point at which they were waxing eloquent on their unbiblical doctrines and their hatred of Christians! For example in his sermon, “Arguing about the Afterlife,” Tim Keller refers to Teresa of Ávila’s comparison between life on earth and a bad hotel:
“St. Teresa of Ávila, one of my favorite quotes, she says, ‘The first moment in the arms of Jesus, the first moment of heaven, is going to make a thousand years of misery on earth look like one night in a bad hotel.’ You know that. I like to bring that out every month or so.”(Keller, Tim, July 1, 2001) “Arguing about the afterlife,” (40:00-40:20))
The actual context of that quote is from Ávila’s Way of Perfection, in which she exhorts her followers to endure the humiliation of a bad hotel in order to reduce their time in purgatory:
“Why, a pampered person (and most of those who go to hell are that) can hardly bear to spend a single night in a bad inn: what, then, will be the feelings of that wretched soul when it is condemned to such an inn as this and has to spend eternity there? Let us not try to pamper ourselves, daughters. We are quite well off here: there is only a single night for us to spend in this bad inn. Let us praise God and strive to do penance in this life. How sweet will be the death of those who have done penance for all their sins and have not to go to purgatory!” (Teresa of Avila, Way of Perfection Ch. 40, para. 9))
Thus does Keller use Teresa’s teachings on Purgatory to instruct his flock about the glories of heaven. But why use Ávila when “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, etc…” would have sufficed? (Isaiah 64:4, 1 Corinthians 2:9). Is it really necessary for the edification of the flock to have a Spanish Roman Catholic counter-reformational mystic instruct them “every month or so”? Sanctification is by the Truth (John 17:17), not by Roman superstitious mystical nonsense.
Consider, as a second example, Steve Brown’s quote of Teresa of Ávila in his book, A Scandalous Freedom. He wrote,
“Saint Teresa of Avila, the Spanish contemplative of the sixteenth century, prayed the way many of us would if we were more honest and free. She prayed, ‘Lord, you would have more friends if you treated the ones you have a little better.’ ” (Brown, Steve, A Scandalous Freedom, (Howard Publishing, 2004) p. 201)
This oft-repeated quote is from an event in Ávila’s life that has been so distorted by transmission that it no longer bears any resemblance to the original story. One rendering has her being thrown off a cart and shouting at God, “if this is the way you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few of them!” Another has her saying this to the pope. Yet another has God saying to her while she prayed, “But this is how I treat My friends,” and Teresa responding as above. Still another has her being thrown from her donkey prior to the exchange. At the very least, Steve Brown’s writers really should have done their homework. They would have found that these renderings of the story are all fictitious.
But read the actual story as Teresa relates it, and you will find that when she lamented that God had so few friends and so many enemies, she was referring to a “great evil” that was working across the French landscape, through which many souls were being lost. And that “great evil” was Protestantism:
“At about this time there came to my notice the harm and havoc that were being wrought in France by these Lutherans and the way in which their unhappy sect was increasing. This troubled me very much, and, as though I could do anything, or be of any help in the matter, I wept before the Lord and entreated Him to remedy this great evil. I felt that I would have laid down a thousand lives to save a single one of all the souls that were being lost there. And, seeing that I was a woman, and a sinner, and incapable of doing all I should like in the Lord’s service, and as my whole yearning was, and still is, that, as He has so many enemies and so few friends, these last should be trusty ones, I determined to do the little that was in me…” (Teresa of Ávila, Way of Perfection, Chapter 1, para. 2)
Thus did Steve Brown ingratiate himself with Roman Catholics at the expense of the martyrs and saints of the 16th century. But why use Ávila when it would have sufficed to say, “Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you” (1 Peter 5:7)? And why draw on a Roman Catholic Spanish mystic when the Word of God was available for the instruction of the sheep? Sanctification is by the Truth (John 17:17), not by Roman superstitious mystical nonsense.
What Keller and Brown have illustrated for us is the practice of reconstituting and repackaging unbiblical Roman Catholic mysticism as if it ought to be the norm for today’s mature evangelical Christian. A recent example of this practice is Glenn T. Stanton’s awful attempt to recast The Dark Night of the Soul by John of the Cross as a beneficial meditation for “serious Christians”:
“As serious Christians, we should honor our spiritual forefathers on whose shoulders we stand by speaking correctly and truly of important facets of the various disciplines and spiritualties that many in Christ’s Body practice and have practiced for hundreds of years. …The sacred history of Christian practice is worth exploring…”
He assures us that John of the Cross’s only interest was “to work with Teresa of Avila in her effort to reform the Carmelite Order.” But this is an embarrassing historical gloss. Teresa wanted to reform the Carmelite order in order to quash the Protestant Reformation. And this, she had on the authority of “Jesus,” who spoke to her about “the Lutherans”:
“…she heard of the Protestant Reformation, and she thought that if there was to be any success against this movement breaking up the Church, she would have to live out her vows more perfectly. She also underwent a conversion around 1554 when she saw a statue of our Lord overcome with wounds. At the sight of this statue, she fell down and prayed. She was granted her prayer, and she began a reform of the Carmelite nuns… From there she continued to find other communities picking up St. John of the Cross and other friars along the way.” (Mangiaracina, George, A Lenten Journey with Jesus Christ and St. John of the Cross (Christus Publishing, ©2009) 15)
“I learnt from our Lord … What Satan was doing among the Lutherans was the taking away from them all those means by which their love might be the more quickened; and thus they were going to perdition.” (Teresa of Avila, The Life of St. Teresa of Jesus, p. 437)
For those not familiar with The Dark Night of the Soul, it is actually based on John’s eight sentence poem—comprised of a mere 200 words (in English)—called “Stanzas of the Soul.” John of the Cross then attempted to provide an exposition of his eight stanzas, and after 115 pages of a rambling, mystical journey, he had only expounded through the beginning of Stanza Three. The remainder of Stanza Three, as well as Stanzas Four through Eight, were never expounded. But the purpose of his Dark Night contemplation was to purify and cleanse the soul. About this, John was very clear:
“And it will also be seen how many blessings the dark night of which we shall afterwards treat brings with it, since it cleanses the soul and purifies it from all these imperfections.” (John of the Cross, Dark Night of the Soul, Ch. 1.3)
John of the Cross describes his own work as one of “purgative contemplation.” Because Christ’s sheep know nothing of cleansing of the soul but by Christ’s blood for our Justification (Romans 5:9), and His Word for our Sanctification (John 17:17), Stanton must recast Dark Night as a beneficial practice for mature believers, insisting that “purgative” merely “refers to an emptying” and not a cleansing. John of the Cross thought otherwise, as did Pope John Paul II, who explained that the Dark Night is just as “purgative” as it sounds: “Physical, moral and spiritual suffering, like sickness… are for the believer all purifying experiences which might be called night of faith” (John Paul II, Master in the Faith, 14). We do not often cite John Paul II authoritatively, but we suspect he knew more about his own “saint” than Stanton does.
This sorry state of affairs would be lamentable even if the culprit was just poor scholarship and sloppy research. But it is not. There is movement afoot within the Evangelical community to put the Reformation behind us once and for all, or as Peter Leithart recently described it, to make an End of Protestantism, so we all become “reformational Catholics.” Unfortunately, Leithart’s “end of Protestantism” requires that the sheep join with the shepherds in opening the gates to those who would destroy our very souls if it were in their power to do so:
“A Reformational Catholic gratefully receives …, Ignatius and Teresa of Avila, … as fathers, brothers, and sisters.”
“It’s time,” says Leithart, “to turn the protest against Protestantism and to envision a new way of being heirs of the Reformation.” But the Scriptures say otherwise:
“For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie, and have told false dreams; they comfort in vain: therefore they went their way as a flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd. Mine anger was kindled against the shepherds… ” (Zechariah 10:2-3)
May the Lord strengthen His people (Zechariah 10:12).
Tim,
Thank you so much for this article. It is something I never knew until now the extensive counter reformation foundation by those who based their position on visions, signs, wonders and miracles.
This makes perfect sense now to me who these Jesuits and counter reformation giants in Catholicism base their entire position upon mysticism and visions. I’m starting to see how much of Roman Catholicism is founded largely though the ages of the supernatural events that are warned against in Scripture, but yet they have become the extrabiblical drivers for Rome.
I often would ignore Rome’s focus on the beatification by Pope’s and the further glorification of the saints using “proven” miracles as foundational. Now, as you are exposing these historical significant events that draw so many Catholics into mysticism and counter reformation theology, I can see so much clearer why I left Rome after I started learning Scripture.
There is so much in Romish theology that is counter to Scripture that indeed it is Anti-Christ and now I see much clearer why the Reformers identified the Papacy as that great Anti-Christ and that great whore. Someone I greatly respect in eschatology shared with me the following:
“The whore is representative of the Papacy as a harlot wife–as an high influential unfaithful and idolatrous group of professing Christians–ecclesiastically considered. When the whore is destroyed the Papal influence “ecclesiastically” is effectively destroyed–her power to influence churches into further defection in church matters is greatly altered. However, the Papacy’s influence as false prophet, to encourage the world to worship the civil beast, and the Papacy’s direct involvement with civil and banking evils can still continue to wreak havoc on the earth. Even then, with the Papacy’s ecclesiastical influence severely curtailed, they also may continue to have much influence politically as a king and leader in the EU and as a banking empire. I cannot see how one can define “the beast of the sea” as a symbol which entirely excludes the Papacy or their civil influence in union with the ten horns.
Think of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon–he was both king and high priest of Babylon. If he was removed as high priest he still may function as a king. I believe God will judge the ecclesiastical side of Mystery Babylon first, and then proceed to eliminate the beast and the false prophet as stated in Rev. 19. First the Papacy will be dismantled and destroyed as a religious influence, then finally as a civil influence.”
Your detailed research is making this all come far more obvious and true to me in my own research. Thank you.
Walt,
Here’s a video for you.
Does anyone know the total number of Saints canonized in the RCC? This is the only site I’ve found with an incomplete number.
http://saints.sqpn.com/
I also found this answer.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/25/sainthood-explained/
So how does one become a saint?
In one sense it’s a democratic process, beginning with a grassroots conviction that a given person lived a holy life. From there, things unfold in three stages. First, Church officials make a study of the person’s life. In John Paul’s case, a four-volume study stretching over more than 2,000 pages was produced, including testimony from more than 100 witnesses.
Next, one miracle after the candidate’s death is required for beatification – and another for canonization. Usually the miracles are healings, which must be instantaneous, permanent, and complete, in addition to scientifically inexplicable. Catholics see the miracle as God’s seal of approval, a way of verifying that the saint really is in heaven.
As pope, John Paul II made the sainthood process faster and simpler – but it’s still not cheap. The biggest expenses are usually the ceremonies for beatification and canonization. When St. Josemaría Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, was canonized in 2002, Opus Dei estimated that it had spent roughly $1 million on the process from beginning to end, stretching over three decades.
Wlat,
C’mon. You guys are just jealous because you don’t have any miracles.
Of course miracles are a sign of God working or Jesus would not have done any.
Tim,
Watch this video if you have chance…it is an amazing expose.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=122313153205
Thanks, Walt,
That’s terrific. I think Richard’s videos are quite good. It reminds me of Spurgeon’s warning about “having so often beheld the depths of Jesuitical cunning and duplicity.” It will be, and already is, interesting to watch Francis’ administration unfold.
Tim
It will be, and already is, interesting to watch Francis’ administration unfold.
You’ve seen this, haven’t you, Tim?
Pope Francis says he would baptise aliens: ‘Who are we to close doors?’
Bob,
Ever wonder why it was the Spanish and Portuguese who Baptized the people of the new world while the English and Dutch exterminated them as aliens ( non human reprobates made for hell)?
Jim, as to your comment,
It is ironic that a Roman Catholic in Portugal would make this accusation. Have you never heard of “El Requerimiento“? For our readers who are not familiar with the “evangelization” efforts of the inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula in the 16th century, “El Requerimiento” (the Requirement) “was a declaration by the Spanish monarchy of its divinely ordained right to take possession of the territories of the New World and to subjugate, exploit and, when necessary, to fight the native inhabitants.” Of particular interest is this additional tidbit from the history books:
El Requerimiento was read as a legal formality, whether the natives could hear, or even understand the demands or not:
These “evangelists” were so despised by the native population that there were cases in which sailors “were not allowed to land by the Indians until they had sung three particular Huguenot hymns.” (Ribault, Jean, The whole & true discouerye of Terra Florida, Introduction, (University of Florida at Gainesville, ©1964) xlv). If they could not sing the French protestant hymns, they were presumed to be Spaniards and were denied a landing.
In sum, I think your brief description of “Spanish and Portuguese who Baptized the people of the new world” is a little light on details.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
No, I had not. I am learning not to be surprised anymore.
Thanks for forwarding this.
Tim
Tim and Bob,
I clicked on your link and read some of it. ( I will try to read more later). It’s hogwash.
Please go to Thomas Wood’s vidoe series on How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.
He talks about how international law was born at that time. You see, at the time of the Discoveries, the Council of Trent was fighting the Protestants and their bleak view of human nature. The Spanish, due to the Council, had to concede the Indians, although pagans, were men with rights despite lacking grace, and could not be robbed or abused for no reason. Gotta go. Check out Thomas woods.
A “spurgeon warning”? But spurgeons don’t actually have teeth. They can’t hurt you. They have a short trunk that they use to suck up garbage off the muddy bottom of rivers. But they don’t bite.
( I understand they can be full of caviar so they are good for something ).
Walt and others,
Do you honestly think the Church is the Whore and the Pope the Anti-Christ?
The Church and only the Catholic Church is fighting the anti-christ. Do you know one thing about, the U.N. population control, the E.U., Obama, Bill gates, Planned Parenthood’s infiltration into everything, abortion, contraception, egg and sperm selling, surrogacy, cloning, etc. etc,
Are you living on an island?
I never seem to see the Scottish Coventers on TV fighting against the Dragon’s taking over the world, Just the Vatican.
The Church is the Woman. If you are opposing her, you just might be one of the Dragon’s heads or horns.
Jim, those are pretty straight-forward questions that deserve straight-forward answers.
No, I do not believe that the Church that Jesus Christ established is the Whore. I also do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ founded. I believe that the pope is the anti-Christ. The Whore of Babylon “is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth” (Revelation 17:18), and your church insists that true Christianity must be Roman, or it is not authentically Christianity. So yes, the primate of your church sits in Rome, the Whore of Babylon, and the papal antichrist insists that Christianity must be Roman.
If by “church” you are referring to the Church Jesus Christ founded, and if by “anti-Christ” you mean Papal Rome, then yes, I agree that the Church is fighting anti-Christ. We’d be delighted if you’d join us.
What I do know is that there are at least three ways that God punishes idolatry:
What I find interesting is that Roman Catholics are frequently asking that I join them in fighting social ills like the gay movement, heterodoxy and abortion, and further, saying that the most effective weapon against these social ills is to worship the Eucharist. But Eucharistic adoration is idolatry, the practice of which only increases homosexuality, heterodoxy and abortion.
I am not living on an island. One of the most effective ways to fight against the social scourges of homosexuality, heterodoxy and abortion is to stop worshiping the Eucharistic idol. That would be a good start. Next would be to preach the true gospel of justification by faith alone, through Christ alone. It has the remarkable and counter-intuitive effect of reducing sinfulness in a society.
There are many “dragons” taking over the world. Rome is the one we are warned about in the Scriptures, and so it is the one we resist.
The Church is the Woman, indeed. The only reason she survived Rome’s reign of terror against her was by the providence of God.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
“. But Eucharistic adoration is idolatry, the practice of which only increases homosexuality, heterodoxy and abortion.”
I would love to see you defend that in a logics class.
The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is true worship, not idolatry, to worship the Eucharist, and it is blasphemy to condemn worship of the Eucharist.
Tim, you are doing such a necessary thing warning the saints. Let this article be a constant reminder of what satan can filter into Evangelical church thru its Pastore and teachers. These men being enamored with the mysticism and pageantry. We must stay attentive and fight these errors. Just the thought of Evangelicalism throwing their arms around Roman Catholicism should make us sick, and remind us of our calling. Peace with Rome, never, we can’t have peace with her and she cannot have peace with us. Spurgeon said “war!” To the knife with her.” Popery is the very Antichrist. We have to pray against the seduction of the Reformed by Roman Catholicism.
Jim, take the veil off your eyes and see!
Tim, It is obvious to me that the whole affinity for Rome coming out of Reformed or other evangelical churches is a lack of knowledge of Scripture. When you hear Jason Stellman say something to the effect that he never really was Reformed it makes you wonder just what many of these people know. MacArthur says the ignorance of scripture in Protestantism can only be matched by the lack of courage. And I think the ignorance in both the RC and the Protestant church find each other in ecumenical embrace. But those of us who know the differences can easily discern that Roman Catholicism isn’t a different denomination, but a different religion. Men, like Keller, Rick Warren, Steve Brown are naive in using the counter reformation mystics because they are ignorant to the things you just pointed out. Any appeal to Roman is a naivety that is born out of an ignorance of Doctrine. K
Kevin,
I can’t find your answer to my question; why didn’t God just create us in heaven or hell already?
Also, do you believe God creates each human soul at conception? If yes, man and God work together. ( Synergism )
Also, if God creates each soul, how do you account for our corrupt and depraved natures?
Perhaps you, like Robert, hold to traducianism.
Kevin,
I see your answer on the other thread. Is that it? How is God more glorified if you live 77 years than if you live .77 seconds?
I mean, in a monergistic system?
Jim, your first question I answered to the best of my ability. Number 2, What are you saying that God saves someone the way he creates a baby? Psalms says Salvation is of God. And Romans and Ephesians tells us we were chosen and predestined from eternity past, before any cooperation or infused love. Adam’s corruption came from sin, he broke a covenant, he fell morally, not ontologically. Grace and nature aren’t opposed, grace and sin are opposed. The scripture says all that God created was good. By RC locating a need for sanctifying grace in pre fall Adam, they make an attempt to locate their pollution in God’s creation instead of their own sin. The whole of man’s nature was corrupted, not just the lower appetites. Aquinas tried to fulfill Aristotle’s dream by attaching a pagan philosophy to a christian faith ethic, hence the medieval false gospel.
Kevin, Does God create an evil soul? Or does He create a good soul and when it comes in contact with an evil body it becomes corrupt? Not just Adam’s guilt but his corruption is passed down. How?
You believe Adam had a natural right to heaven. You deny that he needed grace to elevate him above his nature. You don’t distinguish between the natural and supernatural.
What right did Adam have to live in Eden, with all the preternatural gifts associated with it, apart from sanctifying grace? Adam did not earn his righteousness, his home in Eden, or his fellowship with God, but rather received these things by God’s grace.
Kevin,
” By RC locating a need for sanctifying grace in pre fall Adam, they make an attempt to locate their pollution in God’s creation instead of their own sin”
Huh? Explain this.
Jim, look my comments on Jason’s site. I deal with the Reformed view of the fall. The need for sanctifying grace in pre fall Adam makes God responsible for sin. Adam did not fall ONTOLOGICALLY, but morally, he broke a covenant, a commandment. Sin cannot be located in God’s creation but when man sinned he broke the relationship. Adam had everything he needed to obey God and would have been justified. Christ is the second adam that redeemed his people. He didn’t return us to the garden to let us on our own, but saved us a and gave us eternal life. God condescended to man in creation. And he condescends further in redemption. Again grace isn’t opposed to nature but it is opposed to sin.
Adam would have been justified?
No, Adam was justified.
Kevin,
Do you follow lifesitenews? I check it every day. It’s about 95% Catholic stuff. That’s because about 95% of the culture war against the Brave New World is conducted by Catholics and Catholic groups.
I would laugh if it weren’t so sick, your and Tim’s assertion’s about the Church are so out of touch with reality.
Tim says the Mass offends God so God punishes us with homosexuality. ughhhh. I could puke. Earlier today I shrugged it off as nuttiness. But as I am listening to a prolife program at the moment, I see you guys on the side of the prochoicers. If you are fighting us, you are on the other side.
You guys are PCA, right? You know I had to look up your sem-prolife position as nobody knows it!!!!!
Why don’t I see PCA on lifesitenews? Are Presbytrian hospitals being hassled by Obama? Are Presbyterian orphanges being put of of business for not giving kids to gays? I don’t see the Presbyterians arguing of the floor of the U.N. Is the E.U. trying to marginalize the Presbyterian church in Scotland? Where are the Presbyterians? Come out, come out wherever you are!
A couple of years ago I phoned the minister at St. Andrews in Lisbon to ask about the life issues and gay marriage. The Scottish minister said he couldn’t discuss it as it was being voted on up in Scotland at the time. Imagine, the minister, Graham by name, couldn’t say if abortion or sodomy was wrong or not because he didn’t know how his kingpins were going to vote! ( And you guys say Catholics check their minds at the door. Ha! )
The Presbyterians used to condemn contraception. Now you are all wearing a condom on your nose. Were you wrong then and right now? Or right then and wrong now?
The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon? Ha! People who live in glass houses…
Boys, The reason we have a break down of the family, kids without fathers, swelling prisons, redefiniton of the family, 50% divorce and the poverty and welfare moms problem, abortion which leads to euthanasia, declining/greying population/ Muslims outnumbering Christians in some countries, etc. etc. is because you and Huckabee and James Dobson push contraception from which all these other evils flow. ( I think the PCA is good with the anti marriage freaky frankenstien medical procedures of in vitro, surrogacy and egg/sperm donation too right? I think Robert said so. )
The birth control pill is also causing breast cancer to leap. And the women taking it pee and the estrogen goes back into the water cause freaks of nature to be popping up as creation itself cries to heaven for vengeance. ( And its being consumed by us men now too in our food supply ).
Don’t blame the the Mass. Blame your own perverse ministers who say it’s okay to render asunder what God has joined together, the unitive and procreative aspects of conjugal relations.
The Woman and her children stand alone against the Red Dragon and his contracepting seed and his 7 heads and 10 horns of Obama giving PP $1,000,000 per day!, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Ford Foundation, Starbucks, Ben& Jerry’s, Ted Turner, George Soros, Hugh hefner, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, the Sex in the City wenches, the U.N. the E. U., Hollywood, etc etc.
Please my dear Presbyterians, standing around in your kilts and tam o’ shanters, if your aren’t going to help us, stand aside and quit calling is names. We are fighting a culture war and you guys are flashing your knees.
Jim, Homosexuality in your church is a result of sin that has characterized your Priesthood for centuries. Spurgeon said call yourself a Priest sir, I dare say you would take the name. When I consider all the villainies and crimes committed by a special Priesthood, I would rather a man looked at me in the street and called me the devil, than call me a Priest. Please don’t lecture us about the catholic church and abortion when Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are in good standing in your church. Jim, is it possible for you to take a objective look at your church? They have never dealt with the abuse issue in any real way. And Ratzinger is rumored to resign because Homosexuality is so much of a problem in the Priesthood, he didn’t know what to do. Jim, as you trumpet the RC stance against abortion and contraceptives do you realize JPII kissed the Koran and said anyone who lives a good life can go to heaven. Message,, stay where you are and do the best you can. Would Jesus have kissed the Koran Jim? And yet we are considered schismatics. I’m glad your hear, because I would advise any Catholic to consider Tim’s words. And even though you have brutally treated me like pond scum, I pray that you may know the gospel of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. When you really study the RC Jim, what you find out it is mostly a mixture of paganism, greek philosophy with a little Christianity sprinkled in. A false church, apostate, a front for the kingdom of Satan that has bewitched the gullible world. But hey Jim I could break bread with you, and drink a little vino due.
“When I consider all the villainies and crimes committed by a special Priesthood,”
Oh My! This is hilarious. Crimes and villainies, Kevin? Is this hyperbole?
Jim, MacArthur does a message which is excellent of the failed attempt for christians to spend all their time trying to Christianize a fallen culture instead of sharing the gospel and saving men. God never calls us to fight 3 big sins thru the political system. He called us to go into the world and preach the gospel. One time my wife and I were in the car with one of our Catholic couple friends. They were telling us their daughter boyfriend was some brilliant young Catholic who was debating Homosexual groups about homosexuality. And I thought to myself, how stupid is this, how futile. Trying to convince an unregenerate person of a Christian view on morality is a waste of time. But then I thought their midst is affected by their view of Baptismal regeneration. If all people are going to heaven and all baptized Catholics are saved, then their isn’t a need to share the gospel but to reform society, which is a noble cause, but futile, since the natural man know not the things of God. They just didn’t have the proper view of unregenerate man, lost, depraved mind, utterly sinful. Here was an educated up and comer in the RC and he was trying to convince unregenerate homosexuals how they should accept his position. Instead of giving them the gospel. Romans 5:17. So Jim quit wasting your time trying to Christianize a unregenerate culture and do what Jesus commands us to do. The great commission. K
So Jim quit wasting your time trying to Christianize a unregenerate culture and do what Jesus commands us to do. The great commission.
For starters Kevin, the great Commission includes Baptism which you and MacArthur pay lip service to at best.
Sorry, but I disagree. Jesus Christ is King. Our laws, books, customs, culture, everything, should reflect that. I don’t believe in handing the world over to the Devil.
The culture should be regenerate Kevin. Unless you are one of the secularized dupes that says C.E. or common era instead of B.C. or before Christ and A.D. Anno Domini, of course.
What, are you a monk in a monastery? Are you on an island? Are you Amish?
You are supposed to be professing Jesus before men, in the market place and shouting Him from the house tops.
Sorry Kevin, but I don’t believe Jesus set up His Kingdom in my heart 2,000 years ago. I believe He took flesh of the Virgin Mary, walked this earth, preached and set up a Church, a visible Church on Peter and the central event of history is the crucifixion. This isn’t pious opinion, myth or legend.
There is a reason why we say in the Creed, “…under Pontius Pilate…”. Pilate was a Roman governor. Romans kept records of facts. Hard historical facts Kevin. Regenerate or unregenerate, people have brains and can know facts. Like who is the president or who won the war.
No Kevin. It’s God’s world. God’s culture. Regenerate or unregenerate people can know that. Whether they bend their knee is a matter of regeneration maybe. But facts are facts for everyone. Separation of Church and State can be a good thing as it keeps the State out of the Church. But the State still has to acknowledge all authority and rights come from God.
You and I are poles apart on this one.
Kevin,
Pope JPII spent his whole pontificate promoting the Theology of the Body. It is the Gospel. It is not just for the big amorphous culture but for you, me and the guy next door as individuals.
The Devil hates humanity Kevin. He hate’s our flesh. He hates gender. He hates the interaction between man and woman. And he loathes the fact that we can procreate ( cooperate with the Creator ) in bringing forth new spiritual beings.
I suppose your comment about all people or all Baptized Catholics are going to heaven is just gratuitous ranting so I will just say that Baptism is necessary for salvation ( or Perfect Love ).
The Bible speaks of Satan’s jealousy. Who is the Devil jealous of? God? No, us!
Angels are higher than us in the order of creation. But God chose to assume our nature and not an angelic one. The Serpent hates bending his knee to Jesus the God man. And he hates honoring Mary. That is why his humbling, to be complete, needs both Jesus and Mary to crush his head.
You need to get with the program Kevin. MacArthur is doing the work of the Devil when he says,
“Nothing in Scripture prohibits married couples from practicing birth control, either for a limited time to delay childbearing, or permanently when they have borne children and determine that their family is complete … In our viewpoint, birth control is biblically permissible. At the same time, couples should not practice birth control if it violates their consciences (Romans 14:23)—not because birth control is inherently sinful, but because it is always wrong to violate the conscience. The answer to a wrongly informed conscience is not to violate it, but rather to correct and rightly inform one’s conscience with biblical truth.[15]”
MacArthur says, “In our viewpoint”. Who is this infallible “Our” he is talking about? He is going against the Three sources of Revelation;the Bible, the constant Tradition of the Church, and infallible statements by Popes. This man is dangerous. And he has the bully pulpit. He pours the gasoline of contraception onto the fires of the serpent’s war on humanity. He says birth control is not inherently sinful. Okay. Heart transplants aren’t either. But there are licit and illicit means to go about it. You can’t murder someone to get their heart, Contraception is always an illicit means of birth control. Only periodic abstinence is licit.
Everything takes place on a global scale now Kevin. The whole world is under the influence of the most diabolical and financially funded organization on earth, Planned Parenthood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW-8PV36xv0
For the last couple of years my wife and I have been involved in some of the stuff you may or may not have seen on FOX or Lars Larson or other conservative media, namely, the case of a math teacher’s fight to keep sex ed out of his school and the “wedding cake wars”. You are dead wrong if you think you can let the Devil indoctrinate and pervert kids, redefine marriage, marginalize God’s laws, and take over the means of communication to spread his lies globally.
Do not think you are pleasing to God if you sit on the side lines of this war purring and preening about you have accepted JBFA and the world can just go to hell in a hand basket.
Rev 12 Kevin, Jn 19 Kevin, You need to get your mind right on where you stand and who the enemy is and what his weapons and lies are. And you need to get your mind right on the Woman’s weapon, the Rosary!
The Devil almost took over Europe in the middle ages with the flesh hating, baby hating, homosexual endorsing, aborting and contracepting euthanasia cult of the Albigensians in France. Mary appeared ( Are you listening Tim? ) and gave us the Rosary to meditate on Christ being a fetus, of taking flesh, of suffering in the flesh and of that flesh being glorified.
The Devil is now trying on a global level what he tried to do in southern France a thousand years ago. In 1917 when he took over Russia the first law the Bolsheviks passed were to legalize abortion and do away with marriage. Study the Fatima message.
Kevin, MacArthur has you duped.
Kevin,
This contraception stuff is a perfect example of why Bible Alone fails.
Or sure, Gen 38:10 condemns rendering the conjugal act infertile, but it only speaks of one method so odious to God that He strikes the guy dead. And of course, the pagans always used barrier and abortion causing methods and potions in their brothels ( never their marriages). But the Bible doesn’t address the pill which appears not to tamper with the act itself. No does the Bible speak of in vitro, especially when done by married couples in order to have a baby. It sounds so good, helping to have a baby, huh? As does surrogacy or egg donation to an infertile wife
The Bible condemns every form of sex except that which is done in marriage. Although the Bible says when we can’t have sex ( not married, same gender, incest ), it never positively commands married couples to have sex on a specific day. We can always abstain licitly. That is what we teach.
Even the Orthodox err on this. Some Bishops permit contraception, some not. They don’t have a Pope. ( But then they also permit one or two divorces too ).
The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith and practice. God didn’t leave us to figure it out on own own. He left us a guide that He expects people to follow. And you are attacking that Authority.
Jim, as regards your comment,
But this raises the question: what does it matter that you have a pope if you don’t know when he has spoken infallibly? The infallible papacy is always offered as the solution to Sola Scriptura, but if you cannot know with certainty when the pope is speaking infallibly, in what way is the Latin primate superior to the Orthodox primate? It seems to me that both Orthodox and Roman Catholics are left to their own devices to determine when their “bishop” has taught them something that they are obligated to believe and obey.
That doesn’t solve the “problem” of Sola Scriptura—it simply moves it to a new location. Do you believe Humanae Vitae was spoken ex cathedra? If so, by what method did you determine that it was? The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2370) teaches that contraception is wrong, but does so based on Humanae Vitae, which was not an infallible teaching. You may say that you choose to submit to the teaching of the pope out of humble subjection, whether you know his teaching is ex cathedra, or not, but that places you on the same level of an Orthodox who submits to his primate, who teaches the opposite. All that remains—since you are unable to determine with certainty that Humanae Vitae was infallible—is to rely on your own personal judgment that Roman Catholicism is the one true church founded by Christ, which again, puts you in the same boat as the Protestant and the Orthodox, who, as you say, “don’t have a pope.” I fail to see why your position is superior.
Besides, the explicit words of the Catechism are that it is forbidden to use methods that “render procreation impossible,” and there is no method of contraception except castration that can render procreation impossible. Even vasectomies have been known to fail. Are they therefore legitimate means of birth control? Rome says they are not, because the intent of such means it to prevent procreation.
And yet, the prescribed method used by Roman Catholics to prevent conception is—in the words of the Catechism, “the use of infertile periods”—and since it is by definition impossible to conceive when a woman is infertile, the logical implication of the Roman teaching on contraception is that married couples ought to find out when the wife is fertile, and only have sex at that time. To have sex only when the woman is infertile is, in the words of the catechism, an “action which … proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible,” and therefore “is intrinsically evil.”
Since the purpose of the conjugal act is to conceive, sayeth Rome, then Roman Catholics should be directed to avoid sex during infertile periods, rather than to avoid sex during fertile periods. And all that actually depends on whether Paul VI was speaking ex cathedra when he issued Humanae Vitae in the first place, something that you, personally, cannot possibly know.
Just pointing out the irony of your insistence that we’d all know better if we just had a pope. Yet you have one, and still don’t know better, do you?
Tim
Timothy,
Did I read you correctly? Did you actually confuse the Orthodox with the Catholics? You know, we have a Pope and they don’t. They are confused. We aren’t.
Humanae Vitae was infallible. The conditions are met for an infallible statement. Just as JPII’s statement on women’s ordination. To reiterate the constant teaching of the Church, to invoke the papal authority, to teach all men or appeal to natural law. The formula, ” I define…” need not be used.
Your final point fails too as no one is ever required to have sex. No one MUST engage in relations because is is the fertile time.
Some Protestants have tried to say Onan was struck dead for not having sex with Tamar. Not so. The penalty for not being kinsman redeemer was to have your face spat on. Refusal to take his brother’s wife was not Onan’s crime. Onan went ahead and feigned the act but rendered it infertile. That is why he was killed. For his mortally sinful lie.
Tim, you are trying to bamboozle the readers. God, again, God, made the woman fertile only 3 days out of the month. God, Tim. He could have made her fertile everyday. But He opted not to.
NFP says the spouses learn when those fertile/infertile days are and act accordingly. Some people who want to conceive take advantage of knowing which days are fertile and which aren’t. People who have a god reason for regulating more children, have “Christian Liberty” to use God’s infertile days. Still. as they are not rendering, actively, the act infertile, it remains open to life.
Moving on, people do not have to desire a child every time they engage in sex. They can even hope not to conceive. What is forbidden is to render the act infertile by artificial means or onanism.
Did Humanae Vitae say the ONLY purpose of the act was to conceive Tim? No. Unitive and procreative. Think about it Tim. In Vitro might be procreative. But it’s not unitive.
Contraception, by destroying the procreative aspect also destroys the unitive. How so? By turning it into a lie. Lying is not communication Tim.
When your kiddies fib about something minor, it’s not a mortal sin Tim ( despite Calvin’s twisted views on sin ).
But here is such a thing as a BIG lie Tim. Contraception is a big lie.
I am going to finish this post at the bottom. I don’t want you to miss a word of what I am going to say next. I don’t want this post to be too long.
Jim, to your point,
But that’s the problem, isn’t it? What are “the conditions for an infallible [papal] statement” to be met. Can you provide the list of conditions that have to be met, or did you sort this one out on your own? Gagnebet says Humanae Vitae was infallible, but Gagnebet is just a member of the clergy and cannot make a determination on behalf of the magisterium.
You say “The formula, ‘I define…’ need not be used,” but the the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia insists that just such a formula must be used:
What it comes down to is that you, Jim, personally have decided, and based on your own judgment apart from the magisterium of the Church, have determined independently that Humanae Vitae is infallible as a papal statement. And yet, you stand in judgment of the Orthodox who err because “they don’t have a pope,” and must do precisely what you have done—figure it out on their own.
But you do have a pope, Jim. His name is Jim, and he serves in the place of the Magisterium and is the sole arbiter of what is, and what is not, an infallible statement.
If you don’t think this matters, just read Russell Shaw’s article available at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Contraception, Infallibility and the Ordinary Magisterium.
That pretty much sums up the problem. The best Shaw can do by the end of the article is state that “there is an extremely strong case for the view that the teaching on contraception has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary magisterium.” Extremely strong? That doesn’t sound very convincing. We encourage our readers to read the entire article by Shaw because it is so emblematic of the problem all Roman Catholics face when trying to determine what their church is teaching them. To make his “extremely strong” case that Humanae Vitae is infallible, Shaw has to dive into the four documents cited in footnote 40 of Lumen Gentium, in which the criteria for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium are enumerated. One document cited was from chapter 3 of Dei Filius, on Divine Revelation, from Vatican Council I. The next document cited is from De Ecclesia from Vatican I, and Shaw says much more here than he realizes:
That’s right. Part of the basis for determining whether Humanae Vitae was infallible was to examine a rough draft or an outline of a document that Vatican II cited from a never completed document from Vatican I to authenticate its own teaching about the criteria necessary for determining whether a teaching of the ordinary magisterium meets the criteria for infallibility. In that never completed document, Bellarmine makes the case that the church cannot err in anything, whether it is teaching on things necessary for salvation or not. But it gets worse. The next note cited is even less determinative, as it cites another draft of another document and a commentary by someone who was commenting on the version not officially adopted by Vatican II:
We add for clarity that “very close to the formulation finally adopted by Vatican II” is another way of saying “not the formulation finally adopted by Vatican II.” But regarding Joseph Kleutgen’s commentary, Shaw makes a fatal concession: he says that no matter which version is used—the formulation of Vatican I or the formulation of Vatican II—”both support the view that the ordinary magisterium can infallibly teach things which are not divinely revealed …the Church can infallibly teach truths of the moral order which are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in divine revelation.”
But wasn’t the whole point of an infallible magisterium to guard and defend the original deposit of faith? And yet Shaw has to draw on rough drafts of never completed documents and commentaries by Bellarmine and by Kleutgen to make his “extremely strong” case that Humanae Vitae, was teaching something infallibly.
This debacle is particularly ironic because Shaw concluded, on the basis of his intellect alone, that Humanae Vitae was infallible, but was not an exercise of papal infallibility. Gagnebet, on the other hand, also on the basis of his intellect alone, concluded that Humanae Vitae was an exercise of papal infallibility, not an exercise of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. What is missing from all of this is an argument on why I should believe Jim, Gagnebet or Shaw at all? None of them are popes and none of them speak for the ordinary magisterium. And there is no reason for me to believe either of them more than the theology professor of the poor Roman Catholic at the Catholic Answers forum who was advised that Humanae Vitae “is not infallible, that it is just a ‘suggested’ guideline, but one should do what is in their moral conscience concerning birth control.”
So just as Jim, Shaw and Gagnebet have done, I am left trying to sort out on my own which of these three I am to believe. The magisterium will not help me here. Indeed, it cannot. It can claim to teach me infallibly. But it cannot teach me infallibly, for the magisterium itself does not know when it is teaching infallibly.
Tim
Jim, My point is Romans 5:17 ” faith comes thru hearing, hearing thru the word of god.” Apart from sharing the gospel thru which God regenerates people, all other attempts to christianize the culture are futile. The natural man know not the things of god. They are dead and ignorant in unbelief morally. Roman Catholicism tries to make the message palpable to the natural man. BAD idea. Ephesians says they are DEAD in sins unless regenerated by the spirit. This is the truth Jimboy. I’ve been doing this a long time. K
Jim, Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but thru me” Mary can’t play. She was a model Christian but only Christ can change someone’s life according to Him. He claims to be the only way. By faith alone in christ alone. It won’t go well for all you Mary worshiping, Rosary praying, saint venerating, scapular wearing, justice earning, eucharist worshiping, Pope’s ring kissing Catholics.
Kevin,
You haven’t a clue about what I am talking about do you?? I sent you three long posts about the battle between the Woman and her children and the Dragon and his. You don’t think that it anything to do with salvation, do you? People are going to hell because of what you write off as the “culture” Kevin. And all you can babble about is your silly Calvinist cant.
You can have all your” Faith Alone by Christ Alone” you want but if you are wrong on the stuff I laid on you, you just might be a cookin’ baby.
As for John MacArthur’s salvation, there is what we call invincible ignorance that can mitigate guilt. Mitigate. Only mitigate. He is counselling people to commit the sin of Gen 38:10 though. And he is doing it in God’s name.
This stuff on contraception is binding, not just on Catholics, nor even Christians. It’s binding on all men as it’s part of what is written even on the hearts of pagans
If you are using or promoting or even just not opposed to this evil, then according to yourown OSAS, Calvinist view, you probably aren’t or ever were regenerate in the first place.
God gave all men the light of reason. They will be held accountable.
As for your Eucharist worshiping blather, you will be held accountable for every idle word.
And since you aren’t chewing on Christ’s Flesh, you have no life in you. You are like Judas who stopped believing Jesus when He said this.
Back to the culture war, wasn’t George Tiller shot while at church? Sounds like he was a good Protestant who liked to murder babies. But culture issues aren’t salvation issues are they Kev?
Your homeboy Robert is getting ready to be one of your ministers. I started hammering him with this contraception stuff. He has been missing in action since. Maybe he has been looking into it and can see I just might be on to something.
Kevin Dude!
I know you like the Book of Hebrews ( You think it goes against the Mass).
Are you good with Chapter 13 verse 4?
You don’t know that verse off the top do you?
I’ll refresh your memory. That’s the verse that say to KEEP THE MARRIAGE BED UNDEFILED.
Couple it with the Bible verse that says, “STRIVE for holiness without which no one will see God”.
I am older than your 56 years son. Things in the military have probably gotten a lot more politically correct since the Clinton and Obama presidencies. But I am from before those days.
Many, many moons ago, I was a recruit down in San Diego’s Marine recruit depot. They taught us a lot of things. How to march and say Aye Aye Sir! They showed how to take a rifle apart and put it back together blind folded. They taught us first aid and how to polish our shoes til they shined like glass. They taught us a lot of stuff we would need to know. And they taught us how to use condoms. Lots of hours being drilled on putting on and taking off condoms. Why? For use in the whore houses of Tiajuana and the Orient of course silly.
Later, after boot camp and deployed to the Orient, upon arrival all personnel were required to attend more condom classes as the V.D. rate was so horrendous. ( Psssst. The condoms didn’t stop v.d. ).
Let me just cut to the chase. Kevin boy, those condom classes were to equip us for duty with WHORES. That is the nicest of the words the sergeant used, Tim wouldn’t want me to say the other, more colorful terms used. Not once, never, nunca, was the word “wife” ever used in those condom classes. Even the raunchy Marine sergeants knew condoms were for whores and not wives. Condoms were made strictly for whore house. You didn’t need to be a college boy to know that.
Kevin, tell me son, how does a man, a husband, honor his covenant that reflects Christ’s covenant with the Church,..,how does that Christian husband, keep his marriage bed undefiled when he brings home to his bridal chamber a device made for use in a brothel?
semper fi
Jim said ” People are going to hell because of what you write off as a culture.” Jim, are you understanding my point. The answer for the cultural depravity is the Gospel. Only God can change someone’s heart and the culture one person at a time and that happens only thru the gospel. The scripture never tells us to change the political systems, or christianize planned parenthood, or the government, or the boy scouts, or Europe, or the US, but to share the gospel, thats it. So its not about abortion, or homosexuality, or contraceptives, those are just the external issues. Its about Christ changing someone’s heart. This is the long lasting effect on those issues. The scripture says do not love the world, nor the things in the world. Sinful world is passing away. In the scripture it says we are to pull some out of the fire, by the gospel.
Jim, I am not disagreeing on your points about the culture. Its how a Christian is to spend his time.
Kevin,
Strive ( that means to work really hard )for holiness without which no one will see God.
Regenerate, Justified by Faith Alone Calvinists like you are not going to see God if you ain’t holy.
Not just monks, priests and nuns are called to be holy. Married people are too. Marriage is a sacrament for the Baptized. Yes, it is made for procreation and for the spouses to help each other get through life. But ultimately, marriage is to help us get to heaven, Kevin.
Contraception, and I don’t just mean the types that cause abortion, goes counter to that holiness we are to strive for.
You’ve got a computer. Check out what the Church Father’s had to say on it. They didn’t sneeze it off as the “unregenerate culture” like you do. They were a little more robust in their opposition to evil than you and John MacArthur are.
But then, the Fathers didn’t smugly sit back and say they were Justified by an alien righteousness applied to their accounts. They were too busy striving for that holiness without which no one will see God.
Jimboy said ” Justified by faith alone Calvinists like you are not going to see god if you are not Holy.” Ephesians 1:4″ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons thru Jesus Christ” Its a promise Jim for all the chosen that we would be holy and blameless before him. You on the other hand cooperator and chief for your salvation will find the same plight of those in Romans 9:30-10:4. Read that carefully Jim and understand it. He is talking to his Jewish brethren and prayed for their salvation. He is talking to you Jim, a modern day judaizer.
Kevin, If you aren’t taking up your cross every day, Christ’s cross is of no avail to you.
If you aren’t striving for holiness, His isn’t going to be imputed to you.
If Mary isn’t your Mother, God isn’t your Father.
If you aren’t forgiving other, you won’t be forgiven either.
If you would enter into life, keep the commandment.
If you would be perfect, sell all you have…
Once again Kevin, on judgment day, you aren’t going to be asked if you took Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.
You gotta read E P Sanders, and J T Wright if you think I am a Judaizer.
Jim, As a Christian I try to obey God’s law, but I am not saved by the Law, but thru the gospel, which is trusting in Christ alone for my salvation.
You are not saved by the law but you had better keep the commandments or you are going to hell.
Jim, nobody has posted on Jason’s site for 3 days. He chased all the Protestants away, and you guys got tired of kissing each other’s you know what?
No Kevin, I, Jim, chased all the Prots away. I hit ’em with so much Marian stuff they knew that had to swim the Tiber or get out of Dodge.
Robert got both barrels of why a minister should not be pushing any form of contraception. By the way, do you know how many women have died of breast and cervical cancer and suffered strokes ( as teenagers ) from the pill John MacArthur tells them the Bible is good with?
Jim, on judgment day i’m going to be standing in Christ’s righteousness, thats the only way. And as Calvin says for the person who will trust works in any way to be justified, it puts them in a insurmountable debt, because those who are seeking to be justified by the Law must keep it all. Galatians 3:10. ” cursed is anyone who does not abide in ALL things of the Law.Thats why works and faith are opposed in justification. So Jimboy you go to your final justification in your righteousness partly and I’ll go in Christ’s, lets see how it goes. Your infallible church won’t do you any good then? The biggest lie in Roman Catholicism is God’s not so mad and man’s not so bad. I was reading old comments on Jason’s blog by Catholics towards Protestants. and its always the same thing, you don’t understand Catholic doctrine, etc. We understand your doctrine just fine, and at least we have the guts to tell you if you believe it, it will send you to hell. Love Kevin
Thanks for the sermon Kevin. But I am still waiting for that Bible verse that shows someone on judgment day pleading anything but their works of charity.
You can save the quotes from Calvin because I like him almost as much as I like “Condom on his nose” John MacArthur and Spurgeon the Sturgeon.
Jim said, ” Your not saved by the law but you better keep those commandments or you are going to hell. Jim, at any moment in this life we stand condemned based on our righteousness. None of us keep all of the commandments. For we Christians trusting and resting in Christ alone, where we lack in our works Christ makes up in his perfect righteousness. So we pass thru the final judgement because God see’s us as “in Christ.” Those beautiful words in Romans 5:1, and 8:1 . Every night when I go to bed Jim I pray and confess my sins to God and thank him for all things, and I sleep like a baby. Because I play this verse in my mind, Romans ” For while we were yet enemies we were reconciled to God thru the death of His Son, MUCH MORE, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” So while your working like a busy bee going to mass to earn your justification, and keeping the commandments to earn increase, I am resting in Jesus by faith, and loving my neighbor as my reasonable service of worship. Jump on the mercy train Jim its going to Zion. K
Kev,
I am not earning my salvation. I am meriting it.
Hey Jim, can you pass a message on for me to Jonathan, Jason, Kenneth, Wosbald, Mateo etc. Tell them I’ll save them a lot of time with their philosophical diatribes. John 1:12 ” But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name.” Tell them dispense of all the Thomism and hop on the mercy train with us, we are going to Zion. Put all the masses, scapulars, Rosaries, prayers to Mary, cooperating with grace, and hop on the the midnight train to Zion! Can you please pass this on Jim. Thx Jude 24″ now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory BLAMELESS with great joy.” Its my parting gift to them.
Zion? You do know the significance of Zephania and Zacharia’s use of Daughter of Zion, don’t you?
Of course you don’t. I forgot. You read scripture like I read my shopping list. You are a protestant so you can’t see Mary in the O.T.
Sorry. I forgot.
Walt said ” there is so much is Romish theology that is anti scripture” And dear brother this is exactly the point. The affect of the philosophers on the RC basically said that God wasn’t able to communicate to his people clearly and directly thru his word. When 1 John 1:27 tells us exactly the opposite. That all understanding comes thru the word of God. Yes the church perches the gospel and the law but in the end it is the Spirit that teaches us, not the men who bring us the words. It was the church replacing the Word that caused false doctrine.
Kevin,
John MacArthur is a puppet being worked by Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry. Useful idiots like him are needed to tell women that “Christian liberty” says it’s okay to pump themselves full of carcinogens.
Over here, a silly Catholic girl started living with some Protestants who work with my wife. They got here on the pill. The girl of 20 had a stroke. My wife tried to tell the hard core anti Catholic English Protestants about the conspiracy to cover up what the pill has been doing to women for decade. They now shun my wife.
MacArthur is killing women, destroying marriages and prepping women to get abortions should the contraception fail.
But he is justified, washed in the blood, regenerated, right?
Ha!
Kevin,
Strive for the holiness without which no one will see God.
Kevin,
I heard just yesterday the Chinese government is giving their One Child Policy a second thought.
Contraception (and it’s logical spin off of abortion for when it fails ) has given evil governments the means to control population. (Pope Paul VI predicted governments would do this in his prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae ).
One problem though. Breast cancer is an epidemic there. The government can’t foot the bill for all that cancer treatment. What can Obama, Bill Gates and John MacArthur suggest? The pill is the best thing since sliced bread, right? The Bible is good with it. right? Christian liberty and all that.
I think we should just keep this hushed up. Since the pill has become an accepted part of modern life world wide, we don’t want to open that can of worms. Certain politically correct “men of God” have been endorsing it to married couples for half a century now. Mac could have some egg on his face if he had to admit he has been in collusion with killing so many women for so long. Besides, it’s not a “salvation issue” for Protestants, is it?
Better have Tim delete this post. Let’s get back to preaching the gospel. Shhhhhhhhhhh!
Kevin,
About earning and meriting. You have promised me a dish of pasta with tuna if I show up at your place in Arizona. What if I say to bring it to me in Portugal as I don’t want to earn it by going to Arizona? You said it was free, right?
What is several lurkers on this blog show up on your door step demanding their dish of pasta? Can they have one? Did you promise them one? Or just me?
Kevin,
Speaking of Jason’s blog, just for a lark, I clicked on his Sept. 2012 archives. That is when he converted. I wanted to see what it was like for him after his site went from Protestant to Catholic.
You know what he was being attacked for by his former co-religionists? CONTRACEPTION! See for yourself.
“Oh, but Jason, now you have to be against contraception. Now you must actually live a holy life. As a Protestant, you didn’t have to earn your salvation by works righteousness with your own filthy rags. You could kick back and be humble and say you were pleading the righteousness of another. Now you have put up or shut up”.
Several years back Tony Blair poped for his wife Sherri. It was all over the British news. Seriously, the news was saying he should have thought about it first as being a Catholic is not like being an Anglican. They said it was a real lifestyle change and that he didn’t know what he was getting into. ( They may have been right as he is still such a liberal ). Kevin, it’s crazy but true. They as much as said Protestantism is all about social convention and Catholicism about holiness. On TV.
I love it!
Kevin,
St. Paul told the Romans that women had exchanged “the natural use of their bodies for unnatural” so God gave them over to lesbianism. What is the natural use of a female body Kevin? Is it to take a potion or pill that poisons their fertility, rendering them barren? Is it to put an IUD in themselves that turns their wombs from being a cradle of life to a chamber of death for their baby?
Men, stop defiling your wives by doing them as harlots. Leave the condoms in the brothels.
Tim thinks the Mass cause homosexuality. Paul says otherwise. It is women exchanging their natural life giving capacity to barrenness. Making the baby irrelevant and the orgasm supreme. Now look at the monster frankenstein medicine allowed by Presbyterians that allows one woman to supply an egg, another woman her womb, and a third to buy the baby and call herself the mother. Ministers like MacArthur, Dobson and Huckabee say its Christian Liberty for women to exchange the natural use of their bodies for a lie.
Since the time of the demon infested Helvidius, the children of the Serpent have hated Mary remaining a Virgin. Of all the Marian prerogatives, this is the one the wicked hate the most. They hate humans abstaining from carnal use only of their bodies for a consecrated one. They don’t really believe our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.
Come out of the darkness and into the light Kevin. Renounce MacArthur’s false gospel. Embrace the Truth.
Jim,
There is an invalid assumption in your statement that “They hate humans abstaining from carnal use only of their bodies for a consecrated one.” This assumes that pleasurable sex is a carnal use of the body and is not a consecrated use, but in 1 Corinthians 7:2-4, Paul states that one consecrated use of a man’s body is to please his wife; likewise, one consecrated use of a woman’s body is to please her husband. After all, Paul did not say, “and come together again so that you do not miss the two week period of maximum fertility.” It says “and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” One consecrated use of a woman’s body is to protect her husband from falling into temptation, and one consecrated use of a husband’s body is to protect the wife from the same.
Roman Catholics love to quote 1 Corinthians 7:6-7a, “But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself,” but they miss what Paul says in 7b: “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”
In other words, the desire to have sex with one’s wife, and the wife’s ability to satisfy that desire, is a gift from God. Gifts from God are not carnal. They are spiritual. They are consecrated. And since one of God’s gifts to married couples is pleasurable sex so that neither partner falls into temptation, pleasurable sex is a consecrated use of the woman’s body, and of the man’s body.
I do not believe that Mary withheld this gift from Joseph after Jesus’ birth. Nor do I believe Joseph withheld this gift from Mary. To withhold such a holy gift from one’s spouse would be carnality.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim;
“n other words, the desire to have sex with one’s wife, and the wife’s ability to satisfy that desire, is a gift from God. Gifts from God are not carnal. They are spiritual. They are consecrated. And since one of God’s gifts to married couples is pleasurable sex so that neither partner falls into temptation, pleasurable sex is a consecrated use of the woman’s body, and of the man’s body.”
WOW! Tim, you sound almost Catholic.
Just one thing though; If you have such a noble view of the conjugal act, why do you endorse men defiling it with something from the brothel? They had contraception in the brothels of Roman Empire. Christians had nothing to do with it. Why do you say Christians of today don’t have to keep the marriage bed pure?
Tim,
Paul countenances those married people to abstain periodically to pray.
Where does Paul or anyone say that married couple MUST come together at the most fertile times? I don’t follow your logic.
Indeed, it’s better to marry than to burn. You are ignoring something though Tim. I don’t recall saying the sexual pleasure was sinful. ( Did I? ) What I, parroting the Church, said is the SEPARATION of the pleasure with the fertility. Tearing asunder what God has joined together is a sin.
I like to eat.God has joined together the pleasure of eating with its nutritional value. I have to whittle down, according to the doctor. I have two options. Push myself away from the table or, chow down to my hearts delight. After glutting myself, repair to the vomitorium. Which is debasing to a man, and therefore sinful? Which requires what is natural, only to man? An animal cannot diet. It cannot choose not to eat if hungry.
Bulemia is contraception,onanism, with food. Contraception is bulemia with sex.
What is so bizarre about the Protestant fear of periodic abstinence is that it requires only for 3 days out of the month. That’s all. Humans are least fertile of all mammals. But the spirit of Asmodeus, ( the Biblical demon of lust ) has people so ensnared that one would think they were being asked to take a vow of celibacy for life.
Contraception makes it possible for the woman to be available to the man’s desires whenever. Periodic abstinence requires that the man learn to respect the woman’s God given cycles and abstain for 3 days. One system is Catholic. The other Satanic.
One system has led to a 50% divorce rate. The other way has an almost 0% of divorce among its practitioners.
I know you don’t believe Joseph and Mary led consecrated lives.
You keep trying to make Joseph out as being as “normal” as you and me. The problem lies in your failure to realize that unlike our respective spouses, Mary conceived and mothered God almighty. Perhaps if you let that kind of sink in a bit, you may be able to make some headway in understanding this.
We see marriage, sex and life differently.
By the way Tim, Catholics don’t give up sex because it is bad. That would be as corny as saying for Lent you are going to give up a favorite sin. Ha!
That’s because you see sex as a way of human reproduction and we Catholics see it as a way of procreation. You way is materialistic. Our is Godly.
Sex for you is “normal”. Like burping, farting, or sneezing. No big deal. It’s a healthy animal thing to do.
For Catholics, it’s holy. It’s how we cooperate with the Creator in building up His kingdom.
That’s also why your ministry is made of of divorced and remarried men ( and women now ). If you can tear apart what God has joined together in the conjugal act with contraception, why can’t you tear apart the conjugal union itself? Logic has a way of catching up with us.
So, I really think you should take a nice drive in the country, put on some nice music, and think about Who Mary’s Child was. She wasn’t just an incubator to the flesh of Jesus. She was the Mother of God. And Joseph knew it.
Have a great day Tim!
Tim, Kevin,
I started this post as a comment to your post above but am going to finish it here as I don’t want you miss a single word.
Above I talked about Onan’s lie. There are degrees of lies from fibs to whoppers.
In marriage, the spouses give a total commitment. They enter not only into a contract but a Covenant. They don’t exchange goods and services as in a contract. They exchange persons, themselves. They give all of themselves to one another. They give each other their abilities to be mothers and fathers.
The conjugal act is a renewal of the marriage vows. The body language says, ” I give you all of me”. We can lie with words. We can lie with body language. Contraception takes the body language of marriage and makes it into a diabolical lie. It says,” I don’t want all of you”. It says, ” I don’t give all of me to you”.
In the Garden, Judas betrayed Judas. But he didn’t just betray Jesus. Remember, Jesus’ words, ” YOU BETRAY ME WITH A KISS”.
A kiss Tim, is the language of love. Cynical Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss. In contraception, the couple betrays one another with a kiss.
I’ve posted a lot more over on Jason’s blog on this recently. Give yourself a treat and check it out.
Jim, I found your comment quite interesting. You said,
Would you agree, then, that by requiring married bishops to abstain from sex after ordination that they have fallen for a diabolical lie? If the conjugal act is the renewal of the marriage vows, why would Jerome insist that bishops no longer renew their marriage vows after becoming ordained? If the marriage covenant says “I give you all of me,” why would Jerome insist that bishops and their wives no longer give each other “all of me”? Isn’t priestly celibacy a diabolical lie? Jerome wasn’t just talking about only ordaining unmarried men. He was talking about married men saying “I don’t want all of you” once they had been ordained. That is the diabolical lie, and Rome swallowed it hook, line and sinker:
So enraptured was Rome of this view—that even married bishops should consider sex with their own wives to be adultery—that priestly celibacy became the order of the new empire. What you now criticize as a diabolical lie—that is, saying “I don’t want all of you” and “I don’t give all of me to you”—is the policy that led to a celibate priesthood you now defend. And instead of condemning Jerome for his superstitious nonsense, he was made a saint.
Diabolical lie, indeed.
Tim
Tim,
Sorry but I don’t follow your diabolical lie stuff. Are you saying they were using contraception?
As for abstaining after ordination, that has been the Tradition since the beginning. The Apostles that had wives lived as brother and sister.
In order for a married man to enter religious life, he had to have the wife’s consent. She in turn would live as a nun.
Remember, OT priests had to be celibate while serving in the Temple. NT priest always serve.
Remember Uriah? He wouldn’t go home to Bathsheba because Israel’s wars were holy wars and required celibacy.
What’s the problem? celibacy is biblical.
Is this what Kevin is so impressed with? Why? Prove from the Bible that NT presbyters and bishops were free to get married if they weren’t already. Give me an example from the Bible of anyone having a presbyter or Bishop as a father, or or anyone being born to them AFTER ordination.
No one was required to be ordained were they? They freely opted then, as now, to enter Holy Orders. With wife’s permission. She couldn’t be coerced but had to want to live as a nun. Maximilian Kolbe’s parents are an example of this sort of thing in the last century. It is not all that uncommon. This predates Jerome, you know.
Is that it Kevin?
No, Jim, I’m saying that after ordination, Jerome has the bishops saying “I don’t want all of you” and “I don’t give all of me to you” after ordination. Your premise for contraception being a diabolical lie is that the underlying message between copulating spouses is that they are really saying, without words, “I don’t want all of you” and “I don’t give all of me to you.” But Jerome actually has married bishops saying that to their spouses. I don’t understand why it is diabolical for a Protestant to “say” that without words, but it is a gift from heaven above when a Roman Catholic says it out loud.
Sure. Paul wrote, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5). Rome’s typical argument is that Paul was here referring to virgin sisters in the faith, but this claim from Paul came after he had given a discourse on sex and marriage (1 Corinthians 7) and eating and drinking (1 Corinthians 8). Then he concludes and summarizes,
In 1 Corinthians 7, there are four kinds of women discussed: virgins (“parthenos”), widows (“chera”), sisters (“adelphe”), and wives (“gune”). Among them, widows and virgins do not have sexual intercourse, but sisters (7:15) and wives (7:3) do—for he is referring to the wife an unbeliever as a “sister” of other believers. And when Paul says he has the power to lead about a female, he does not use “parthenos” and “chera,” he uses “adelphe, “gune”—the only two types of females in 1 Corinthians 7 who are presumed to be legitimately sexually active. What he does not do is claim that he has the right to lead about a virgin or a widow. He claims that he has the right to lead about a sexually active female. He then shows that he is talking about a wife and not a cohabiting virgin by using Peter as the example: “as well as the other apostles … and Cephas.” This is a sure indication that there was more than one married apostle, and to your point above, that bishops were free to get married if they weren’t already. Paul himself was claiming that he had that very right.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
You did not address what I said.
Show me where a man in Holy Orders courts and marries a woman.
Show me a married clergyman’s wife giving birth in the Bible.
“Sure. Paul wrote, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5).”
He does not write, “…take a wife…”.
Protestant ministers, single or widowed, might go a courtin’, but Christian clergy don’t and never have.
Jim,
Your words were: “Prove from the Bible that NT presbyters and bishops were free to get married if they weren’t already.” That’s all I was addressing, and yes, I did address what you said. Paul’s words are explicit: he had the same freedom to lead about a wife or sister, “as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” So there you have it, from the New Testament that presbyters and bishops were free to get married if they weren’t already. As to your next comment,
Perhaps it has not occurred to you that the reason there is no evidence of bishops “goin’ a-courtin'” in the New Testament is because it was marriage, not singleness, that was considered a qualifier: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (1 Timothy 3:5). Why would a married bishop “go a-courtin'”?
The way Paul indicated that we could discern that a man could rule his house well, and was therefore qualified to care for the church of God, was to see how he ruled his wife and children (1 Timothy 3:2-4). It is interesting that Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:7 that he wishes all men could be like he is, “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” There is a “proper gift” that leads one to a life of celibacy, and there is a “proper gift” that leads a man to marry lest he burn (1 Corinthians 7:9).
Of these two categories of men, the apostle Paul, instructed by Christ Himself, establishes the latter category as the group from which we should elect our bishops.
Roman Catholicism, which institution receives its authority not from Christ but from the Serpent (Revelation 13:4), establishes the former category as the group from which you should select your bishops.
Don’t you mind that even mildly ironic?
Thanks,
Tim
OOPS! Judas betrayed Jesus above.
The Catholic Church against the world! Only the One True Church stands head and shoulders against all governments, religions and organizations on this. You guys and your ministers have made your peace with the prince of this world on this.
Couples who use NFP are striving for that holiness without which no one will see God.
Jim, said ” Only one true church has stood against all governments” Well that wouldn’t be true since Constantine made it a state religion and the Pope claims all civil power in the world and you must believe it to be saved Kimosabi.
Did Constantine do that? I thought he merely made Christianity legal.
I seem to recall it was Theodosius who made Christianity the state religion.
I think that Constantine myth is just an old Protestant canard isn’t it?.
Jim,
I’ll see you Tom Woods and raise you John Robbins’s Christ and Civilization.
IOW protestants distinguish between Christianity and Romanism/Popery.
While there is no question that the Christianity was tremendously influential in Western history, secular history is not the same as the sacred, infallible, sufficient and perspicuous Scriptures. That means if you want to prove that Rome is the only true Christian church, your argument is erroneous, if not second tier in that you don’t to start with Scripture first.
I appreciated Woods’s Meltdown on the 2008 crash, but he’s out of his expertise/drinking the Roman kool aid. Neither did Lew Rockwell want to run Robbins’s article after promoting Woods’s when I asked him why not. (Rockwell is also a Romanist as well as he and Robbins know each other from working with Ron Paul. Same goes for Gary North. He worked for Paul, but stays away from anything having to do with Prot/Rome differences in his articles for Lew Rockwell.com.)
Same goes for Jeffrey Tucker. I read his convert to Romanism testimony over at Contra Munda (I think) and wasn’t impressed. They’re economists, not theologians, even amateur ones and blind to their own Roman epistemology/presuppositions.
But hey, what else would you expect from a communion in which for all practical purposes, ignorance is the mother of devotion and implicit faith is a fundamental and infallible rule?
Yeah, I’m an ex, but it has been extremely interesting applying what I was taught about primary and secondary historical sources at a Jesuit high school when it comes to the Reformation. While the Bible is the fundamental primary source par excellent for Christianity, there’s no question that if you want to know what Calvin really said, you go read what he said/wrote (duh). And then compare it to what you were taught as a Romanist. So far the P&R do a way better job telling you what Rome teaches, versus what Rome tells you the P&R teach.
cheers
Bob,
” protestants distinguish between Christianity and Romanism/Popery.”
Really Bob? I distinguish between Christianity and the Protestant cult.
” That means if you want to prove that Rome is the only true Christian church, your argument is erroneous, if not second tier in that you don’t to start with Scripture first.”
Catholicism is the Church. I will start with scripture if that’s what you want. How does Matt 16 grab you?
Thanks for all the name dropping Bob but I don’t care to address your next 2 paragraph on Ron Paul stuff.
Who says” the Bible is fundamental source par excellence”? Prove your assertion. Does the Bible say it? Show me where. ( 2 Tm 3:16 maybe?)
“And then compare it to what you were taught as a Romanist.”
I’m not a Romanist. That’s an Anglican term out of the Deformation.
Jim,
Matthew 16:23? Where our first pope is called Satan?
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
Name dropping?
Whatever. You were the one that brought up Tom Woods. Now you’re bailing out.
Because the bottom line is again, implicit (ignorant) faith. Whatever you can’t answer you ignore.
2 Timothy 3:15 -17
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.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
“From a child” – perspicuity/clarity
” perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” – sufficiency.
Even the good work of determining whether Rome is a true church or not.
cheers
Bob,
“Matthew 16:23? Where our first pope is called Satan?”
Is that the only reference to Peter, out of the almost 200 in the NT, you can think of Bob?
“Name dropping?
Whatever. You were the one that brought up Tom Woods. Now you’re bailing out.”
Tom Woods addresses the topic. All the gobbldygook on Ron Paul you sent isn’t worth unraveling.
2 Timothy 3:15 -17
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.
BOB. TIM ONLY HAD THE OT.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
GOOD WORKS, BOB. NOT DOCTRINE.
Bob, think it through. None of Paul’s writings, including the letter you quotes, were written when Timothy was a child. But the Church existed before either Timothy or Paul joined it. The scriptures can’t be over the Church if they come out of the Church.
Besides Bob, you can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible. That’s circular reasoning. Didn’t the Jebbies teach you that?
Jim,
It’s real simple. Peter is never called the pope, but he is called Satan.
He was also married, fallible and the apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Paul makes no mention of him in his epistle to the Romans. Neither does he make any mention of his popery in his epistles. Hmmm. What gives?
And last time I checked, 2 Timothy is part of the NT.
More to the point, in the Old and the New, the appeal by the prophets, Christ and the apostles when augmenting the written revelation the church had at the time, is always to what “is written”. Paul is diligent to show that his gospel was not only foreshadowed in the Old, it is also the fulfillment. Likewise Christ in his ministry.
That not to mention, the Word of God is what calls his people to faith in the Word become flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostolic preaching called out a people and then as they faded from the scene in death, that same apostolic preaching and teaching, i.e. the “traditions”, were inscripturated/written down. Voila, we have the NT and not that long afterwards.
IOW there would be no church without previously there being a revelation or Word from God. Neither Adam nor Abraham had a written OT, but they did have prophecies, dreams or an immediate revelation from God. Yet as the West. Confession says, these former ways of God revealing himself have ceased, which make the written Word most necessary.
Ron Paul? Nice try/evasion. The whole point was Robbins’s Christ and Civilization.
But hey, if you just want to heckle, have at it.
cheers
Whooops, missed this.
Jim said:
“GOOD WORKS, BOB. NOT DOCTRINE.”
Well, yeah, here’s what 2 Timothy 3:15 -17 says again:
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.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Doctrine is inescapable, even a doctrine of good works. But note bene, the real question is not whether we can avoid doctrines, but rather is one’s doctrine of good works biblical?
The Reformers on the basis of Scripture alone, reprobated Rome’s doctrine of justification on the basis in part of good works.
On the same basis I concur with that call.
cheers
Jim, I can’t wait for your answer to Tim about Jerome forbidding marriage and sex of Bishops. The bible is very clear about those who come forbidding marriage, can you say false teacher. I’m going to guess Jim you will say the three proudest moments of Roman catholicism is Jerome forbidding sex and Marriage, selling indulgences ( forgiveness) the very thing christ shed his blood for to offer us free thru faith, and the inquisition. Would you say three qualifications of an elder?
Kevin,
I’ll scroll up and address Tim’s stuff in a minute. First let’s go back to that Judgment Day business.
Again, no one pleads imputed righteousness on the Day.
Think of Jesus’ parable about the wicked servant who, because of the master tarrying, proceeds to beat the other servants and get drunk. When the master comes, he is punished for his actions. Not for not having an alien righteousness.
2 Cor 5:10 says we must be judged by our WORKS.
Rev 20 says, ” And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead that were in them; and every man was judged according to his works.”
The Son of Man will come with His angels and judge every man according to his deeds.
Every man will be judged or condemned by his words.
He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking[a] and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
And the Protestants with imputed righteousness will say, ” Lord, when were you naked? Lord when were you hungry?
“Lord.., what must I do to be saved?” (Keep the Commandments.
Idolaters,, fornicators, scumbags, drunkards and pukes will not inherit eternal life.
For the life of me, I can’t find people getting into heaven by pleading Jesus righteousness. I keep seeing stuff like “Strive for holiness…”
Please, don’t tell me how people come to initial justification. That doesn’t matter if one doesn’t pass Judgment Day.
And don’t feed me the line about all those who get regenerated WILL do good works. I don’t buy any of that. Just show me a guy standing before God and pleading Jesus on Judgment Day.
Now, let’s see what Tim has for me.
indulgences? Oh Kevin, you missed my magnum opus I did on indulgences for Jason Loh on the other blog.
I demonstrated how Biblical the concept is. As a Lutheran, he needed to know.
Kevin, Contraception is a mortal sin.
Jim said ” Contraception is a mortal sin.” What a bout Jerome telling bishops to deprive their wife’s, where would that fit on the sliding sin scale?
Kevin,,
Help me out. Show me where Jerome was addressing people rendering the conjugal act infertile.
Jerome said,
“But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).”
Jim, John 5:24 ” Truly , Truly , I say to you, he who hears my word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does NOT come into JUDGMENT, but gassed passed out of death into life.” What were you saying about passing judgment day? If you spent your time knowing scripture like you do contraceptive theology you would get saved. And you are correct to conclude that if you hold to roman theology, you will face a final judgment. Love Kevin
Kevin,
Almost but no cigar. Paul says,
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s works…
Justified people do have to give an accounting after death. The sheep will go on one side, the goats the other.
They will pass the judgment, all right, but they just may have some purging to do. Get it? ( purgatory )
Jim said ” Every man will be judged or condemned by his words.” Romans 10:9-10 says If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him form the dead, you will be saved. for with the heart a person believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth confesses resulting in salvation.” It seems definitive that one’s words result in salvation and belief results in righteousness. How do you people read this verse and still defend synergism. Its amazing! And then all of you say “but you don’t understand Catholic doctrine” Here Paul says confess and believe you will be saved. So when you are going to that mass and penance and you are putting the scapular on and working you’re way to that final justification, remember this verse. Your theology can’t survive the clear teaching that one is saved by faith alone. Not as it is activated by love, your being, your doing, being righteous in yourself, but by faith. True faith produces good works, but works do not justify us before God.
Scapular? I wouldn’t be caught dead without mine.
Kelvin,
You know, we Catholics have an assurance of salvation too.
I bet Tim just may have made his 5 First Saturdays with his mom when he was still a Christian. Although he has left Christianity for protestantism, he still can be saved as Jesus always keeps His promises. Maybe he will have an 11th hour conversion back to Christianity.
The scapular is also a sure way to be saved.
By the way, did you know that according to the saints, a sign of predestination is devotion to Mary. There never has been a canonized saint who did not have a devotion to her. From what Tim writes about his mom, that could mean she has her ticket. It was crummy of him to deprive her of the little wooden peasant rosary from Fatima. Maybe she will be Tim’s Monica. You do remember what Ambrose said? ( by the way Tim, I am sure he was single ).
The Scapular only has value while you wear it. As for the Five First Saturdays and Nine First Fridays devotions, we can certainly hope that he made these in good faith, but they are only completed if they are completed in a state of grace. If the devotee is presumptuous, then he eats and drinks damnation instead of salvation. Likewise with the Brown Scapular: those who fear the Lord and wear it will not die in their sins, but those who are impenitent or presumptuous will not die in their Scapulars.
“How do you people read this verse and still defend synergism. ”
PRO Creation Kevin. Why did God opt to have men partner with Him in bring new spiritual beings into the world?
He could have chosen another economy but He didn’t. He likes to have us work with Him.
Tim,
Since you have launched such an impassioned defense for contraception, I must assume you are good with men treating their wives as prostitutes with condoms, women poisoning their “natural use of their bodies” with chemicals that is giving them breast cancer, giving governments like China the means to impose population control programs on their people.
And since contraception ALWAYS leads to abortion, you have no problem with that.
I sent Kevin a video on how contraception allows immoral sex ed course to be taught in schools that hook kids on promiscuity. Maybe he will share it with you.
So much for. “Strive for holiness…
As for the Jerome business, think about Ananias and Saphira. They freely chose to make a vow and then violated it. Jerome never forced any married couple to accept the bishopric and its conditions. They did so freely. Okay?
Kevin, Bob, Tim, did I cover all your points? If not, let me know.
Oh, Bob, you need to get to Confession.
Tim, Do you agree with Kelvin when he says that the justified will not have to give an account to the Lord on “That Day”?
I was wondering about Dorcas/Tabitha. She died. Yet she didn’t go to be with the Lord. Why? Wasn’t she really dead? If she was with the Lord, to call her back to life would ahve been terrible. If she were in hell, there would have been no calling her back..
So, good and holy Dorcas died but did not go to be with the Lord. I say she hadn’t been judged yet. What do you say?
And, since the Bible is so perspicuous, why were some folks Baptizing for the dead? If they were in hell, it would have been pointless. Heaven too.
I disagree with Kelvin. I say the good have to undergo a scrutiny. And it might be painful.
A penny for your thoughts ( hey, that reminds me of the people who won’t get out of prison til they pay the last penny ).
Jim, answer john 5:24 please?
Kelvin,
You haven’t answered mine yet.
Kelvin,
I’ll go first. “Crossed from death to life” doesn’t mean the life can’t be lost. Then the guy won’t pass judgment.
Your turn.
Kelvin, Please. Quit giving me initial justification stuff. I want final justification.
It initial justification is in Baptism. That is where we becomes sons of God. But we can lose that initial grace and then are disinherited. Even when restored to grace, we usually have some punishment still coming ( a debt to pay ). If we die before working off the debt, but are in grace, we have a judgment in store for us. No pleading Christ.
If we don’t restore to grace, we have a horrendous judgment in store.
Kelvin, if a justified person dies without sufficient repentance and making amends for serious or even not so serious acts of uncharity, lust, greed, whatever, do they go immediately in to God’s presence?
Does the Blood of Christ cover all? The Bible says there is a judgment. A fiery judgment.
Kelvin,
Since jaywalking is a mortal sin for you guys, people sin mortally to the moment they die. The are unclean. Nothing unclean can come before God.
Jaywalking,tearing a tag off a mattress, running a yellow light, taking a double take at a woman other than your wife, over eating/drinking, being lazy on the job, being grumpy, etc. are as bad as idolatry, fornication, sodomy, theft, drunkenness and murder.
You don’t see purgatory in the Bible so explain.
Tim,
Perhaps I am not reading you right. Are you saying a candidate for bishop was required to be married? Or only, and is the custom that has existed for centuries that the guy only have had one wife. He can be a widower but only once over. He need not have ever been married.
Paul being free to take a wife may or may not have been hypebole. Maybe it had not been officially codified.
If a Bishop was required to have a wife, Paul would be disqualified. Or Bishop whose wife died would be out also. Or if a Bishop had to manage his kids well, what if the kids started acting up a year after the guy became a Bishop. What if the kids died?
Paul did say it was better to marry than to burn. But a guy who was burning because he was so volatile sexually is not who should be ordained, right?
Earlier today I just so happened to see the Orthodox priest of this area today as I was on my rounds. An Englishman with a Portuguese wife. They are both musicians and work with my wife. Pleasant enough but… As they didn’t see me, I slipped past them without the amenities.
Q> Tim, you know what the best argument for a celibate clergy is?
A>Yeah. You got it.
Jim said ” people sin mortally till the moment they die” Bingo! give him the prize. Paul agrees with you. Read Romans 7. Augustines and I believe this is one of the most mature believers in Scripture. And Augustine agreed with Calvin that even our best works are tainted with sin and could not stand the scrutiny of Gods’ judgment. Thank God for imputation in the forgiveness of sins and the clothing with His righteousness. And your agreement fails about initial justification, because Romans 10:9-10 says this REULTS in righteousness and salvation. . Confessing RESULTING in righteousness, believing RESULTING in salvation. And John 5:24 is past tense out of judgment. So try again. So you and your friends have the time problem with verb tenses Jimboy.
That should read your argument fails about initial justification.
Kelvin,
We have had the argument about initial justification on Jason’s blog. I pounded you with Baptism. Your memory is slipping.
Kelvin,
My “agreement” was sarcasm. I am getting awfully bored waiting for that scripture passage I asked you for. ( The Great Assize )
Bob,
“t’s real simple. Peter is never called the pope, but he is called Satan.
He was also married, fallible and the apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Paul makes no mention of him in his epistle to the Romans. Neither does he make any mention of his popery in his epistles. Hmmm. What gives?”
What gives Bob? Paul doesn’t mention Peter ( in Romans ) but Peter mentions Paul. He says the ignorant twist his words to their destruction.
He says the ignorant twist his words to their destruction.
Res ipsum loquitur.
I rest my case.
Kelvin,
We have had the argument about initial justification on Jason’s blog. I pounded you with Baptism. Your memory is slipping.
Bob,
Roma locuta causa finita.
Bob,
1 Peter is always listed first in every list of the 12 Apostles
2 Simon bar Jonah has his name changed to Kephas ( like Kaiphas, the infallible high priest )
3 Only Peter has the revelation of who Christ is.
4 Simon becomes the Rock on which Christ will build the Church
5 He is given the keys and is told WHATSOEVER he binds…
6 Jesus preaches from Peter’s barb
7 Jesus speaks of Himself in the plural only once; when he tells Peter to catch the fish with the coin so He and Peter could pay the temple tax.
8 Peter walks on water with Jesus
9 Jesus tells Peter that He has prayed for him so he can take care of the other 11
10 Peter is told to feed Jesus lambs and sheep
11 Magdalene is told to report to Peter the Resurrection
12 John steps aside so Peter can enter witness the empty tomb
13 Peter physically defends Jesus with a sword.
14 Peter decides Judas shall be replaced
15 Peter speaks for the others on Pentecost and announces Baptism as the sacrament into the Church
16 Peter is the one to haul in the great catch
17 Peter is the one who asked Jesus to wash him
18 Peter separates the Church from the sandedrin
19 Peter opens the Church to Samaria
20 Peter raises the dead
21 Peter heals with his shadow
22 Peter opens the Church to gentiles
23 Peter presides ( not James or Paul ) at the council that annuls circumcision
24 Peter decides Paul’s writings are scripture and warns of their possibility of being misread
25 Peter’s words strike Annanias and Saphira dead
26 Peter rebukes Simon the magician
27 when Peter is in prison, all the Church is troubled ( little mention of James’ beheading )
28 Paul seeks Cephas out as an oracle ( istorei )
29 In Revelation each Apostle is a stone, Peter and God are jasper
30 Paul says in 1 cor 1, “are you of Apollos, Cephas, Paul or Christ?” Later, in 1 Cor 3:5, Paul discounts himself and Apollos. But not Cephas and Christ.
31 etc. etc.
Okay, I gotta go. What was that you were saying Bob about how unimportant Peter was to the Church?
Jim,
Your list seems very close to the list supplied in the following book. Is this the book you obtained your list referenced above?
“Just a few days ago, I acquired my own copy of a book I remember from childhood (not, alas, from Catholic school): the silver jubilee edition of My Catholic Faith, by Bishop Louis Laravoire Morrow, S.T.D. (My Mission House, Kenosha, Wisconsin, 1961). Bishop Morrow served as the Bishop of the Diocese of Krishnagar, India, from 1939 to 1969; his book originally came out in 1936. My Catholic Faith is a concise summary of the Faith and is divided into three parts: What to Believe; What to Do; and Means of Grace. This worthy book unfortunately appears no longer to be in print, and was one of the many treasures swept out into the sea of oblivion by the flood of modernism that followed Vatican II. Sadly, many of the devotions, ceremonies and liturgical accoutrements that it describes were also swept away and are now foreign to most Latin Rite Catholics; but, thanks to our current Holy Father, they are beginning to come back. If you can find a copy on Amazon or from a used book seller, My Catholic Faith is a good place to learn about and rekindle a love for these once-common features of Catholic life.
One striking lesson in My Catholic Faith is Lesson No. 50: The Primacy of Peter. One of the defining characteristics of Protestantism is the rejection of this doctrine; and unfortunately, it is now all but rejected by many Catholics. Many in the pews have been raised to view the Pope as a semi-comical figure in a white dress and fancy headgear who leads a sheltered life, ignorant of the concerns of everyday people, and just wants to ruin everybody’s fun. Even many priests and bishops do not seem to see the need of obeying the Pope in the exercise of his rightful authority, as the response in some quarters to Summorum Pontificum clearly demonstrates. But here Bishop Morrow brings us up short. “The true test of loyalty to Christ,” he says, “is not only to believe in Him and worship Him, but to honor and obey the representatives He has chosen. Our Lord chose St. Peter as His Vicar. It is rebellion against Christ to say to Him: ‘I will worship You, but I will not recognize Your representative.’ This is what Christians do, who deny the authority of the successor of Peter.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2914655/posts
Tim,
Merry Christmas! This is for you.
http://timstaples.com/?p=blog&id=278
By the way, do you really not celebrate Xmas at your house? Scrooge?
Tim,
Happy Holidays. Seasons Greetings ( since you hate Christmas ).
http://timstaples.com/?p=blog&id=161
Bob,
http://timstaples.com/?p=blog&id=217
Merry Xmas to you.
Kelvin gets nothing because he has misbehaved all year.
Tim, I just finished Geese in their Hoods. We need to pray for God would bring along men like Spurgeon who look Roman Catholicism in the face and call it what it is, apostate, a front for the kingdom of Satan. The Papists have made there goddess out of Mary and 1000 other gods of their images and saints. They have sold their “works” to the “masses” and have bowed down to the bread god. I am reminded of the words of scripture, that God is Spirit and must be worshiped in Spirit and in truth. My prayer this day on memorial day Tim is your quotation of Revelation 18: 4 ” my people, come out of her”
Kevin,
I’m glad you enjoyed it. If I can find the time, I plan to get it published electronically.
I was reading in Creighton’s History of the Papacy from the Schism to the Sack of Rome, and it highlighted in very simple terms the problem with papal rule: the gospel is withheld, and the people were told to worship an idol:
Bread god, indeed.
Tim
Tim, thats sums it up Tim exactly. They withhold the gospel which is the only thing that can save, and they worship the idol and forfeit their souls at the altar of the mass.
Tim, have you read Murray’s book Redemption Accomplished and Applied?
Jim, Titus 3:5 ” He saved us, not on the basis of deeds we have done in righteousness, but according to great mercy.” He does come to make salvation possible Jim, but He saved us and forgave us all our sins. 1 Corinthians 1:30 says ” by His doing we are in Christ Jesus who BECAME to us wisdom, RIGHTEOUSNESS, sanctification and REDEMPTION. He redeemed us Jim, and reconciled us to God. He did not come to put us in a redeemable state but He redeemed us. Romans 5:10 says we HAVE BEEN reconciled thru His blood. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jim. John 5:24 says we PASSED out of judgment, out of death into life. If we had to wait until the final judgment to be judged on our works, how could any of us stand. And frankly Rome had to come up with fictitious Purgatory ( which can be found nowhere in scripture), because without it Roman Catholicism is a hard sell. You can never know your saved, a mortal sin throwing you out again. You have to save yourself, and if you don’t get there, oh well, you don’t get there. Where is the peace in that. But Paul says we HAVE BEEN justified by His blood, and we HAVE BEEN justified by faith, and Paul says this brings true peace, true shalom. The Psalmist says we should lay down and sleep in peace, knowing our salvation rests totally in the “righteousness of Christ” which has been given us thru faith alone in christ alone. The imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of His righteousness to us. “Oh sweet exchange” that the sins of the many should be hid in one righteous one, and the righteousness of the one should be counted to the many. There is no church like Rome in scripture where a person earns salvation thru his works, and the working of the works in sacraments. ” For by grace we HAVE BEEN saved thru FAITH, and it is not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not a result of works.” Jim, how can you possibly read that verse and still believe your final justification will depend on the amount of fruit you produce? It is beyond me. Take off the veil, and may God give sight to your blind eyes. Repent from your mass and your rituals and your Mary worship and earning your way to heaven and believe the gospel. There is nothing else I can do for you. The gentiles who weren’t looking for salvation found it because the pursued it by faith, but the Jews who were seeking it did not find it because they tried to attain it by their works. Romans 9:30- 10-4. Paul prayed for their salvation. Repent and believe Jim and find eternal life.
That should say He does not come to make salvation possible.
Kevin, If the cross did not redeem all of humanity, making individual salvation possible contingent upon acceptance through faith ( a.k.a. obedience ), then you have some serious problems. If the cross applies itself, you better have the doctrine of limited atonement or you can’t explain why some people still end up in hell.
But then for you, the saved were never really lost were they? They were really always elect. The Fall and Redemption are really just for show, or as you say, so the saved can give God glory. ( Why would he want glory from robots programmed to give glory?)
It’s all an illusion, the struggle to obey, the coming to faith, all of it. Nothing is real. We are no more real than characters on the pages of a book. A dream.
The problem for you is, on the last page of the novel, you may read that you have been tricked. You one of the damned. The joke is on you! And how can you complain? Tim asked me if the potter was free to do with his clay( or slaves ) as he whimsically chose to do. After all, we are no more able to complain about our fate than a villain in a story can complain he wasn’t given the hero’s role.
You hate God, I hate God, the little children hate God. He made us that way ( oh, thank goodness for Adam’s sin. He saved God from getting the blame huh?)
You ended your post by saying Paul prayed for the Jews. He prayed against God’s decree that those wicked Jews were to be passed over rather than regenerated. God wanted those Jews in hell to show us His justice and power. He wants Kevin to say, ” WOW! What justice and power. Our God is an awesome God!”
Kelvin, calvinism is such crap.
Jim,
You wrote:
“You hate God, I hate God, the little children hate God. He made us that way ( oh, thank goodness for Adam’s sin. He saved God from getting the blame huh?)
You ended your post by saying Paul prayed for the Jews. He prayed against God’s decree that those wicked Jews were to be passed over rather than regenerated. God wanted those Jews in hell to show us His justice and power. He wants Kevin to say, ” WOW! What justice and power. Our God is an awesome God!”
Kelvin, calvinism is such crap.”
Listen, if you are not going to honestly try to represent Calvin, why don’t you go to another blog. On this blog, Tim for example makes a case for his views and position, and then uses support primary source documents to justify his position.
I try to (rather than link primary sources) but copy them into the post so those can read them fully. I really have been so deceived so often by people who cut out a sentence or two for a quote, and they totally take the author out of context.
Your comments are really non-productive. You have really no earthly idea about the gospel, what it means, what the Scriptures teach. I don’t mean this in a bad way, but since I have been reading your posts I am so happy I left the Catholic church. In many ways, when I was younger and ignorant I would do the same things you are doing. I was so blinded about the reformers and Calvin that I would spew out a lot of “Calvin hates this and Calvin hates that” language. I was Arminian through and through. Now, after years of study, I can honestly attest how thankful I am the Lord brought me out of the RCC and got me away from your style of teaching others about Calvin.
Source him directly, not a bunch of Arminians who are totally blinded to what he actually teaches.
Walt,
You are deranged, demon possessed or high on dope. Or all three. Maybe just two.
Calvin was evil. Listen to Dave Anders’ program. I trust him as a source and don’t give a tinker’s damn for your opinion of the “Pope of Geneva”. I carry some pictures in my phone. Two are of evil men’s memorials. One is of Calvin’s seat in the Geneva Cathedral and one of the casket of the Jesuit hating freemason who ruled Portugal, the Marquis de Pombal. I look at those pictures and another one of Maximilian Kolbe’s image carried in a Corpus Christie Procession. I ruminate on where these men’s souls are now. One, who was devoted to Mary, is in heaven. The other two villains, well, who knows for sure.
As for Tim’s writings Walt, give me a break!
Tim writes evil articles right from hell denying God’s love.
Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbaL1-4sD70
This is what it was like before God’s mother visited the peoples of North America. They ate each other Walt.
Archaeologists say that the Indians didn’t have any domesticated animals like pigs or sheep. The did have dogs though and they ate them. Another source of protein was bugs. But the main meat source was people. Not ritualized cannibalism for worship. No. As a staple. Human flesh was sold in the market place.
The Spanish soldiers found statues of gods sodomizing other gods. The smashed the idols. They killed the Aztec priests who dressed in the skins of flayed women and roasted little boys on grid irons to make them cry. ( Their tears were pleasing to the rain god ).
The kind Franciscan friars preached the love of Jesus to the Indians. Still, the Indians hankered for their demon gods and worshiped devils in secret.
Finally God sent His Mother. She appeared as both the Woman of Rev 12 so the Spanish would recognize her and in the colors and symbols the Indians were familiar with. She toppled the worship of demons over night.
Tim says the Virgin Mary who appeared to the Aztec was just another demon, Beelzebub casting out Beelzebub. And you lap it up.
Walt, get to a priest. Make a good Confession. Spend the rest of your life doing penance and making reparation.
Walt,
In the mid 19th century, the Church worked against the bizarre new ideas floating about. Ideas like evolution and socialism. Lies that said men were just brutes without immortal souls, made for a utopia in this world only and then the common grave.
The Pope declared the Dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception to remind us of Original sin and our dignity as men with a holy mother already in heaven.
But to spread the Dogma God sent His mother to Lourdes to speak to an ignorant child and to heal cripples and blind men. God wanted to show His love to a secularized France that was forgetting Jesus.
Then, during the worst war the world had ever seen, at the same moment the Czar’s family was being murdered, God sent His mother again. This time to Communistic and Freemasonic Portugal to tell men not to believe the satanic lies. If Portugal had fallen, all of Europe would have been between two Communist states, Russia and Portugal.
Tim writes evil articles about God’s mother and like a fly on vomit, you gobble it up and then have the chutzpah to upbraid me.
Oh Walt, you are in major spiritual trouble. Your lot is probably worse than Kevin”s as you reject the Faith you were given as a child. Repent! Repent! Do penance in sackcloth and ashes for your apostasy.
Jim, faith is not obedience. We are justified by faith and Paul says the righteous shall “live by faith.” Faith is what saves a man. Again no Catholic will touch these verses; Romans 10:9-10 confess and believe, Ephesians 2:8, faith, not of yourselves, not of works, Titus 3:5 by His mercy, not deeds even done in righteous. Paul said he was to bring about the obedience OF faith, but faith alone in Christ alone secures heaven.
Jim said ” or you can’t explain why people end up in hell” People end up in hell because of their sin and unrepentant heart.” It would have been fair for God to throw us all into hell, but He chose to save some. Who am I the Pot to say to the Potter why? The fact that he has mercy on some, who all deserve hell because of their utter depravity, I am very thankful for. God is not slow about his promise waiting for all who come to repentance, but only so many are chosen Jim and I’m thankful they are.
Jim, I want you to listen to me. Tim, Walt and I have tried to share the gospel with you and all Catholics lurking on this site. You make your choice to trust your works in some way for your salvation and justification. Proceed at your own risk. Paul is very clear about those who would try to be justified by the works in any way. God does not allow it!
Jim, i notice you never quote scripture. You can tell us what Mary was wearing at her last apparition, but you never deal with one verse of scripture. Have you ever read the bible Jim. For instance I quoted Romans 9:30-10:4 to you 10 times and you just ignore it. Your just like Debbie, you will believe everything the Roman church teaches blindly, but you refuse to deal with scripture. Walt is a great example as he has told us that as he learned scripture the gospel became clear to him. I’ll tell you the same thing I told Debbie, read the scriptures on justification and God will change your heart and give you eternal life thru simple faith. Jesus said unless we accept the kingdom of God like a child we shall not enter it. With humble trusting dependence and the recognition of having achieved nothing of value or virtue.
Tim wrote:
These counter-reformational mystics have found new, and unlikely, fans in modern evangelicals who love the very mystics who hated Luther and Calvin, and who persecuted the saints of God.
Response:
This is serious stuff. My path to Rome was opened by Francis De Sales, Intro. to the Devote Life. I even adopted his name at Confirmation. A good and faithful brother in Christ privately laid hands on my stone statue of Mary, saying, “You have no power here” I kept the grass low for everyone to see her immaculate feet. Trust me, I asked if her feet hurt when the hammer broke them. She had a mouth, but didn’t speak a word.
wow. That is so deep. Really makes a guy stink, er, I mean, think.
Jim,
No time to think…I told my son to harden his heart like the hammer…that son will not share in the iniquity of his father. A pretty rosary came in the mail one day. My daughter wanted it. I broke it and said told her to harden her heart. Daughter, adorn yourself with good works. Even their cartoon characters have more life compared to these idols.
Wow! Praise the Lord, for it was freedom that He set you free dear brother. Isaiah 48 ” I share my glory with no other”
Thank you, Tim Kaufman, for your witness. There are multitudes of “professing” Protestants who reject the Reformation…I hear it in my Thursday night Bible study, and everywhere in between. There is a one world order on the horizon that will demand a one world faith- the heretical Catholic Church will spear head this effort because the TRUTH is not in them. The time is drawing nearer for the truth to clash with the great lie and I shudder as I think of the fate of so many who are convinced that they have the truth; and when it is SO CLEAR in scripture that they do not- how can this be? Irrefutable Biblical ignorance, of course, but even more than that:
2 Thessalonians 2: 7-14 King James Version (KJV)
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
May God have mercy on the deceived Catholic.
tonib,
Thank you for your comment. I am glad you could drop in.
Tim
Tim,
Are you really in a position to be objective?
I mean, don’t your a priori assumptions about Penal Substitution and election determine everything thing for you? Because of your unbiblical theories of sacrificeand the atonement you are compelled to oppose the Mass as sacrifice and Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Tim,
Pompously sitting in judgement on Theresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola and other Catholic mystics you wrote,
“Let it suffice to say that these counter-reformational mystics have nothing to offer us but mysticism, idolatry and a false gospel. They had visions of “Jesus,” “Mary,” ” ‘Saint’ Francis”, “the blessed Trinity in the form of a harp,” and some sort of glowing serpent with a lot of eyes; they heard voices speaking to them from the Eucharist, and worshiped it as if it were God Himself in the flesh. But they did not know the truth. ***Not only were these people not Christian,*** …”.
Not Christian? Because of their visions?
What about Martin Luther’s visions? He saw the devil almost nightly. One night he chased him away by throwing a bottle of ink at him. On other occasions the devil pestered Luther by throwing acorns at him. My favorite apparition of Old Scratch to Luther is the one where he bared his backside at Luther ( shot him a moon ).
Was he a Christian? Or a certifiable wacko with delusions? Or was his demonic infestation real?
Give me Theresa’s visions of Mary and Jesus over Luther’s delusions any day.