Follow
This is our fourth week in the series on the Bowls of Revelation. The First Bowl of judgment is a weeping sore that afflicts the men who worship the Image of the Beast. We understand this to be the Stigmata, a weeping, bleeding sore that is highly correlated to eucharistic adoration. Francis of Assisi was the first recipient in 1224 A.D., and many eucharistic worshipers suffer from it to this day. Roman Catholics have historically considered the Stigmata to be a sign of God’s blessing, but it is in fact a curse from Him.
The Second Bowl is a plague in which all those affected by it die at sea. We understand this to refer to the plague of scurvy, which killed millions of men on the long-haul sea journeys around Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope in search of Indian spices between 1453 and 1800 A.D.. The Spanish and the Portuguese considered the discovery of the eastern and western sea routes to India to be a great blessing from God, but those long haul voyages became a curse to them and their crews.
At the pouring of the Third Bowl, all the “rivers and fountains” are turned to blood. Because we understand “rivers and fountains” both here and in the Third Trumpet to refer to the Word of God, we understand that the “rivers and fountains” became bitter with Wormwood in the Third Trumpet when Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate, but they turned to blood in the Third Bowl when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed by Vatican Council I in 1870. By proclaiming the dogma, the Council had essentially subjugated the Word of God to the word of the Pope. Roman Catholics consider Papal Infallibility to be a great blessing from God through which the successors of Peter are alleged to guard infallibly the purity of the faith. In reality, by pouring out the dogma of papal infallibility on Roman Catholics, God “hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy” (Revelation 16:6).
The first three Bowls of Judgment are, thus far:
The First Bowl: The Stigmata (1224 A.D. – present)
The Second Bowl: The Plague of Scurvy (1453 – late 1700s A.D.)
The Third Bowl: The Dogma of Papal Infallibility (1870 A.D.)
We continue this week with the Fourth Bowl.
The Fourth Bowl: The “Miracle of the Sun” at Fátima, Portugal (1917)
At the Fourth Bowl, the angel pours out his vial upon the sun, “and men were scorched with great heat”:
“And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.” (Revelation 16:8-9)
We take this Bowl to refer to the events that took place on October 13, 1917 at Fátima, Portugal, the most famous occurrence of the apparition of Mary in history. Once again, what Roman Catholics believe to be a great blessing from God is in fact a judgment from Him. Devout Roman Catholics and curious skeptics all gathered at the beckoning of the apparition in Fátima to see a great miracle. Both the apparition and those gathered to witness the event, got much more than they had bargained for. Witnesses to the event testify that the sun came down upon them that day—which is actually quite common at apparition sites—but this time it was very different. This time, they experienced the terrifying sensation that they were about to be burned alive.
Solar phenomena—including the appearance of the sun whirling on its axis, emitting brilliant colors of the rainbow, and even appearing to come down to earth and go back up again—have occurred at many apparition sites: Tilly-sur-Seuilles (France, 1901), Onkerzeele (Belgium, 1933), Bonate (Italy, 1944), Espis (France, 1946), Acquaviva Platani (Italy, 1950), Heroldsbach (Germany, 1949), Fehrbach (Germany, 1950), Kerezinen (France, 1953), San Damiano (Italy, 1965), Tre Fontane (Italy, 1982), Kibeho (Rwanda, 1983), and Medjugorje in (1980s – present; see A. Meessen, Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun). This is what the apparition typically does to awe its devotees and convince its skeptics, and even Pope Pius XII claimed in his memoirs that he had personal experiences of the Miracle of the Sun on several occasions.
Fatima should have been no different, but just as the demonic apparition was performing “her” typical miracles “so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men” (Revelation 13:13), the fourth angel poured out his Bowl on the sun and scorched with great heat the crowd that had gathered there.
For readers not familiar with the event, on October 13, 1917, as many as 100,000 pilgrims had converged on Fátima to witness the promised miracle. The apparition of Mary had been appearing there for six months to three visionaries, Lúcia Santos and her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto. The first visit from “Mary” occurred on May 13 and the vision asked Lúcia and her cousins to return monthly to see “her”:
“I want you to return here on the thirteenth of each month for the next six months, and at the very same hour,” the Lady said. ‘Later I shall tell you who I am, and what it is that I most desire…’ “
Then at the July 13 appearance, the apparition promised that there would be a miracle at “her” sixth visit:
“You must come here every month, and in October I will tell you who I am and what I want. I will then perform a miracle so that all may believe.”
News of this promise traveled quickly, and each month the crowd grew larger. By October 13, after storms and heavy rain the night before, 100,000 people gathered to see the miracle. This event has been largely romanticized since it took place, and has been memorialized, for example, in stained glass windows as shown below, as if it was like the solar phenomena seen at other apparitions sites.
One gets the impression from romantic versions of the story that the solar phenomena were the typical sights as experienced at many apparitions, and that observers were simply enthralled with the beautiful rainbow colors and the light playing off the different layers of the atmosphere. At the beginning, they were. However, by the time it was over, the curiosity of the witnesses had turned to terror, and they thought they were about to be burned alive. One eye-witness, Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University, explains what he saw that day:
“The sun’s disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.” — Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.
John Haffert, founder of the Blue Army of Fatima, compiled multiple eye-witness testimonies for his books, Meet the Witnesses, and Meet the Witness of the Miracle of the Sun, in which he provides details from interviews of more than 200 of them. He explains the terror with which they recount the events of 1917:
“[They] experienced ten minutes of such terror that even forty years later, when they testified for this book, a look of fear came into their eyes when asked to describe what they saw.” (Haffert, John M., Meet the Witnesses (Asbury, NJ: The 101 Foundation, © 1961) p. 3).
“They swore that the sun turned around on itself as if it
were a wheel of fireworks and had fallen almost to the point of burning the earth with its rays.” (Haffert, John M., Meet the Witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun, (Spring Grove, PA: The American Society for the Defense of
Tradition, Family and Property, ©2006) p. 75)
When he interviewed Mrs. Erminia Caixeiro, who had been a young woman of 22 years at the time of the event, she pointed at the stained glass window and emphatically corrected its romanticized depiction:
“At the back of the chapel is a stained glass window depicting the Miracle of the Sun, and suddenly Mrs. Caixeiro interrupted her description, pointed out the window, and cried out,
‘It was not like that! The sun came down on top of us. We felt the heat. We thought it was the end of the world!’
Suddenly, the expression on her face turned to fear as she gestured with her arms, indicating the ball of fire coming down upon her.” (Haffert, John M., Meet the Witnesses (Haffert, MTW, p. 81)
As the Roman Catholic web page, Modern Miracles, accurately explains, “The descriptions most portrayed are pretty rainbow colors and the sun dancing in the sky. However, the actual witnesses’ accounts describe something very different, a frightful event of the fire from the sun falling to the Earth. They felt the intense heat, people ran for cover while parents threw themselves over their children.”
Eye-witness to the event, Dr. Domingos Coelho, describes the intense heat he felt when the sun came down upon him:
“The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat.”
One shepherd boy, about 10 miles from Fatima, saw the event, and left his sheep, running in fear for his life. To this day he experiences nightmares of “running from the fire”:
“I don’t remember to this day what happened to the sheep. All I can remember is that this fireball came down upon the Earth and I knew I was about to be burned alive. And I ran, and I ran, and I ran. All I can remember is my fear. I often woke up at night, running. Running from the fire. We thought it was the end of the world. The fire of the sun was on top of us.”
Another witness, 10 miles away from Fatima in the opposite direction, relates how people responded when sun began to move in the sky:
“The sun began to move in the sky. Everyone noticed the change in the atmosphere. There were colors, and the sun began to move in the sky. People were so frightened that they all began to run to the Church. And then suddenly, the sun seemed to plunge down upon them.”
These are not the testimonies of people who merely witnessed dancing rainbows and an atmospheric show of lights—which is what they probably thought they were coming to see. Rather, they are the testimonies of people who were terrified by the sensation of being scorched by the sun as the fourth angel poured out the Fourth Bowl upon the people of the earth, “and men were scorched with great heat” (Revelation 16:9).
This Fourth Bowl, of course, did not bring men to repent of their errors, but rather, they increased their devotion to the Beast, to the False Prophet and to the idol of Roman Catholicism—the Eucharist—the Image of the Beast.
Historically, apparitions of Mary are attended with miraculous cures. One woman who was a witness not only to the signs and wonders of the False Prophet, but was also scorched by the sun in the process, rather than repenting of her idolatry, instead renewed her devotion to Mary:
“In thanksgiving for such a great grace and my cure, I promised to recite the Rosary every day of my life.” (Haffert, p. 54).
Pictured below is Carlos de Azevedo Mendes, another witness to the events at Fátima. He, too, was scorched by the sun that day, and instead of repenting of his idolatry, he joined the “Servants of Fatima,” an organization devoted to assisting those on pilgrimage to the site. He is shown below participating in an idolatrous Eucharistic procession at Fátima in which the Image of the Beast is carried about for adoration.
Thus was it fulfilled at the Fourth Bowl that “men were scorched with great heat,” and being judged for their idolatry, they “blasphemed the name of God … and they repented not to give Him glory” (Revelation 16:9). Instead, they continued trusting in the Beast (the Papacy) and his False Prophet (the apparitions of Mary) and continued to worship the Image of the Beast (the Eucharist).
As we noted above, each Bowl of Judgment is interpreted by Roman Catholics as a great blessing, but each Bowl is instead a curse to them. Roman Catholicism boasts of its Stigmatists, its vast global reach during the Age of Discovery, its “infallible” pope and the solar miracles of its apparitions, but these are all judgments upon them, not blessings from God. Even though these Bowls appear outwardly to be performed by the will of Councils and Popes and Apparitions, nevertheless, it is God “which hath power over these plagues” (Revelation 16:9), not the Beast or his False Prophet.
We will continue next week with the Fifth Bowl, when the fifth angel “poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain” (Revelation 16:10). Once again, as we shall see, what the Beast thinks he does by his own volition, is actually a judgment from God for his arrogance and for the idolatry of those who follow him.
Tim,
I would be interested in what you think about the role of the Anabaptists and Baptists have in following the various traditions of Romish papacy religion. This book goes into their history. Do you see any connection between the Romish religion and the sects who call themselves Protestants to greater or lesser degrees?
ANABAPTISTS, BAPTISTS, AND THEIR STEPCHILDREN (Rev. Professor-Emeritus Dr. Francis Nigel Lee (formerly Chairman of the Departments of Church History and Systematic Theology, Queensland Presbyterian Theological College, Brisbane, Australia) 2006 improved edition
“On the one hand, I seek to show that the Anabaptists were not at all Protestants — but essentially a medley of heretical wildcat sects. On the other hand, I seek to demonstrate that they were the post-mediaeval descendants of both ancient sects and mediaeval Romanism, and also the ancestors not only of Socialism and Communism but even of many modern cults — and that they influenced especially the sacramentology also of Baptist Christians. To a lesser extent, I also seek to show that not Anti-Reformed Romanism but paedobaptistic Reformation Protestantism alone is the true daughter of both the Hebrew Older Testament and the Apostles’ Newer Testament as well as the patristic Church Universal. In particular, I would demonstrate that especially Calvinism is the true granddaughter of Biblical Christianity — of which contemporary churches need to be, and future churches yet shall become, the true great-granddaughters.”
http://www.francisnigellee.com/wp-content/…
Tim,
One more favor, as you have time, if you don’t mind. Please read this short article written by Archibald Johnston entitled “Regnum Lapidis, or, The Kingdom Of The Stone.”
http://www.covenanter.org/MediatorialReign/regnumlapidis.htm
I would like to know if you agree with his overall explanation of Daniel 2:44 as it is looking like you will perhaps be showing the fulfillment of all seven vial judgments in your series. I could be wrong, but if this is the case, I assume you will be still concluding (as some say) an eschatology of victory of Christ over the nations in the future. As the article says:
“Thus then, we see the origin and predicament of Messiah’s empire, both as to its absolute and universal character; & also as to its limited, qualified and more peculiar one. His church is his kingdom in this world, which shall “break in pieces and consume all the kingdoms of the world, and shall itself stand forever.”
The whole empire of created existence in his universal kingdom, subjected to his government by God the Father, that he might through his administration of it, and its instrumentality, protect and govern, and cause to prevail and flourish his more specific and peculiar kingdom, the church, for whose sake, and in whose behalf he was appointed “heir of all things.”—And this in the Second instance, leads to a more particular investigation of the character of this peculiar and specific kingdom, alluded to in the text.”
Walt,
Just by any chance, is Archibald Johnston Scottish?
Walt,
I’ll only be going through the 5th Bowl, on this series, as I believe we are between the 5th and 6th Bowls right now.
As regards Archibald Johnston, I agree with his analysis of the sequence of empires, but I would disagree with him on the question of whether the fourth empire still exists:
I do not believe the Roman Empire still exists, nor did it exist in Johnston’s day.
Particularly, I would disagree with his analysis on the 1,290 days and the 1,335 days. I’ll address this more in a later post, but here is why I believe those days are to be understood literally:
Daniel 12:11-12 is in reference to the end of sacrifice and the abomination of desolation:
That in turn is in reference to the period described in Daniel 8 in which the same events are to occur within a period of 2,300 days:
Clearly, the 1,290 days and the additional 45 days are to take place within the 2,300 days, but those 2,300 days are literal. The KJV says, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days,” but the original text of Daniel 8:14 says “Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings,” just like in Genesis 1:5: “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” Literal solar days.
For emphasis, the angel says to Daniel that the vision he saw about the 2,300 evenings and mornings is true: “And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true” (Daniel 8:26). But it is no more and no less true than the rest of scripture. His point is that it is to be taken literally, as a literal 2,300 days. And therefore a literal 1,290 and 1,335 days as well.
In other words, the vision about how the antagonist “magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down” takes place over 2,300 mornings and evenings (literal days) and within those 2,300 literal days, there are 1,290 and 1,335 that are significant. Thus the antagonist who tramples God’s people underfoot for 1,290 literal days cannot be the same antagonist who tramples God’s people underfoot for 1,260 days in Revelation.
I will address these in more detail in a future post—and particularly just how significant it is that he insists that these 2,300 days are to be understood literally—but I thought you’d at least be interested in my preliminary response. I suspect that raises more questions than answers, but I want to give such a weighty topic its due, and that’s not going to be in the comment section.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
This is interesting. I’m not sure how those dates integrate as proof texts for one another by comparing them to one another, but certainly will be open to seeing how you see this coming together.
I also don’t believe the “roman empire” is still in existence as we know from the decline and fall, but I see much of that empire being rebuilt to some degree from the Treaty of Rome.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_rome.htm
The Vatican itself largely is a remnant of the ancient roman empire in spirit and much of its legal code is based upon roman law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law
“Much of the legislative style was adapted from that of Roman Law especially the Justinianic Corpus Juris Civilis.[23] As a result, Roman ecclesiastical courts tend to follow the Roman Law style of continental Europe with some variation. The Catholic Church developed the inquisitorial system in the Middle Ages.[24] This judicial system features collegiate panels of judges and an investigative form of proceeding,[25] in contradistinction to the adversarial system found in the common law of England and many of her former colonies, which features such things as juries and single judges.”
You can also see this very clearly developed in a 3 volume set called Roman State and Christian Church. It is a very rare set, but is extremely detailed in showing the intimate connection between the roman empire, roman law and the roman catholic church. It is some of the best reading I’ve done on that legal structure being the foundation to rebuilt ancient rome to some degree in our generation.
Tim,
“many eucharistic worshipers suffer from it to this day. Roman Catholics have historically considered the Stigmata to …”
How many? What percentage? I have a Holy Hour tonight at 9. Do you think I could get it?
I have never known a stigmatist but I have been a member of Eucharistic Adoration societies since I was young.
Tim,
I think you should scroll around through your site and find a post I am sure I submitted on the REAL Miracle of the Sun.
Just like all of Moses’ plagues and the parting of the sea, there is a naturalistic explanation for the event.
C’mon, Tim, if the sun fell toward the earth, we would all be toast.
Do you think Josue really made the sun stand still?
Jim,
The explanation to which you refer was posted by you in an earlier comment several months ago:
Your allegation that “prophecy is from God” assumes that all prophecy is good prophecy, which is the fundamental problem with Roman mysticism. The False Prophet is able to deceive with signs and wonders (Revelation 13:13-14), which is why miracles and prophecies in themselves are not sufficient for proving divine origin. Moses warned of prophets and dreamers who are able to tell the future, and warns that we should not heed them:
Just because an apparition is able to foretell an event does not prove it is who it says it is.
Besides, the apparition of Mary constantly commands that we go after other gods and serve them. The Eucharist is just such a false god, of which the Scriptures warn,
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
“Besides, the apparition of Mary constantly commands that we go after other gods and serve them. The Eucharist is just such a false god, of which the Scriptures warn,”
Looks like a case of begging the question.
Simply an observation. If it is possible for a false prophet to predict the future and lead one astray to false gods (and it is possible, as Deuteronomy 13:1-3 plainly states), then the apparition’s ability to predict a future event does not prove that god “she” wants you to worship is not false.
Thanks,
Tim
“And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat,
scorch/skôrCH/verb: past tense: scorched; past participle: scorched
1. burn the surface of (something) with flame or heat.
synonyms: burn, sear, singe, char, blacken, discolor
Was there any physical evidence of this? 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree burns? Singed hair or eyebrows? Discoloration?
” and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.” (Revelation 16:8-9)”
Really? They blasphemed His name? Cursed Jehovah? Cursed Jesus? You mean they did not “Bless the Fruit of Thy Womb Jesus”? Doesn’t sound Catholic to me.
Thanks, Bob,
The English translation is “scorched.” The Greek original is “kaumatizo” which includes the meaning, “to be tortured with intense heat”. Intense heat is precisely what terrified the people that day.
“Kaumatizo” is used twice in Revelation 16. The other two times it is used in Scripture is in the parable of the sower:
Matthew 13:6 “And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.”
Mark 4:6 “But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.”
In both cases, the sense is heat from the sun, not being burned, seared, singed, charred, blackened, discolored, etc… It is important to look the classical definition of the Greek words rather than just the modern definitions of the English rendering (as you did with “noisome”).
You continued,
Yes, really.
Romans 2:24, “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written” is a reference to Ezekiel 36:20-23, in which the name of God is blasphemed among the heathen because of Jewish idolatry. Worship of the Eucharist—a common fruit of the apparitions—is idolatry, and therefore blasphemy.
Yes. The Image of the Beast is an abomination.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:27)
It is God’s revealed will that His people not bow to idols. (Deuteronomy 5:8-9)
Therefore, those who with the same lips say “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus” and also say “Hail, Holy Queen! Mother of mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, etc., etc…” and bow to images to worship them, doeth not the will of Jesus’ Father.
It sounds very Roman Catholic, indeed.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “It sounds very Roman Catholic, indeed.”
Actually it doesn’t. You aren’t describing any Catholics I know. It sounds like to me you are describing Catholics you have created.
TIM–
“In both cases, the sense is heat from the sun, not being burned, seared, singed, charred, blackened, discolored, etc… It is important to look the classical definition of the Greek words rather than just the modern definitions of the English rendering (as you did with “noisome”).”
…which is your interpretation. Let’s look at the WHOLE definition, shall we?
kaumatizō
kau-mä-tē’-zō /verb
(From the root καῦμα: heat; of painful and burning heat)
1. to burn with heat, to scorch
2.to be tortured with intense heat
You used definition #2 to prove your position. The English translation uses definition #1 “scorch” to BURN with HEAT.
Yes, it is torturous, because burning with heat does damage to the flesh which causes real and intense pain.
I’ll ask again, was there any physical evidence of this? 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree burns? Singed hair or eyebrows? Discoloration?
Let me take it one step further. The crowds at Fatima were not only Catholic, but non-Catholic and even athiest. Yet not all felt what you claim. The Bowl judgements are poured out on the NON-believing. The true believers are spared harm. Can you prove that the only ones who felt the torture were true Roman Catholic, or were they “fallen away” Catholics or just non-believers? You know, the ones who cry “Lord, Lord”.
Bob,
I used the second definition because that is how it is used elsewhere in Scripture. The seedlings in the parable were not charred or singed or discolored.
I have provided eye-witness accounts of those who “felt the heat.” This was different than other Miracles of the Sun. In others, there is not sensation of heat. Only light.
I cannot. Nor can I prove that the wives, sons and little children of Dathan and Abiram were rebellious at heart as Dathan and Abiram were. But since they were standing with them at the door of their tents, they, too, got swallowed up in judgment, and other non-rebellious Israelites were told not to stand too close to them lest they be swallowed up as well (Numbers 16:27).
Likewise, when God calls His people to come out of Roman Catholicism, he says, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4). In other words, He insists that they give Roman Catholicism a wide berth, because her day of judgment draws near. Best to keep a safe distance, and best not to visit apparition sites.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim–
So when you were Catholic, were you taught to worship Mary?
Bob, when I was Roman Catholic, I was taught to worship God, praise the saints, and hypervenerate Mary. As I demonstrate here and here, the distinction between latria and hyperdulia is a distinction without a difference. Hyperdula is latria.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
So, as per your demonstration, then you would conclude that you, Tim, did indeed worship Mary when you were a Catholic, yes?
As creator? as Savior? as Lord and Master of everything that exists? as Infinite in Mercy and Love? acknowledging her in respect and absolute submission? the ‘nothingness of the creature’ who would not exist but for her? Yes, you did! You have created for yourself an idol with Mary’s face upon it. And you worshipped it with latria due only to God.
Then I submit to you that you were never Roman Catholic to begin with. You never understood the difference between hyperdulia and latria. Even a Protestant like me can understand the difference. It’s like a Reformed Calvinist would say that “you have not fallen from grace, but you were never saved from the beginning”.
Is that a convenient enough excuse for you? Sounds good to me.
Bob,
This is an interesting observation:
Those attributes which are assigned to Mary—creator, Savior, Lord and Master of everything that exists, Infinite in Mercy and Love—are found in the words of Popes or the people Popes have canonized as “saints”—Leo XIII, Pius XII, John Paul II, de Montfort, Liguori, et. al.
I was as Roman Catholic as they were. Do you deny that they said what they said, or wrote what they wrote?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, the distinction is not one of emotion but one of understanding. One can have a warm fuzzy feeling about a saint yet have a more cerebral attitude about God. That is, in my opinion, why God wants us to come to Him via our favorite saints and devotions.
Tim,
“By their fruits you will know them”.
Your assertion that the fruits of Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima are worse than the evils they address is ridiculous.
By the way, over on Green Baggins your underling Kevin “exposed” me as being in my 70s. Another false witness. I just might be in my 80s.
( Tim=Kevin=Tim=Kevin)
TIM–
You said: “I used the second definition because that is how it is used elsewhere in Scripture. The seedlings in the parable were not charred or singed or discolored.”
Really? It damaged the seedlings enough to kill them. That’s what “withered away” means.
You also said: “I have provided eye-witness accounts of those who “felt the heat.” This was different than other Miracles of the Sun. In others, there is not sensation of heat. Only light.”
And to others it was a beautiful sight to behold. Kind of a wimpy judgement from the wrath of God, don’t ya think? Out of millions of Catholics world wide who are devoted to Mary, only a handful “felt the heat”. You say this is a Bowl Judgement of Revelation? Some how it just doesn’t invoke the fear of God like it should.
You also said: “Best to keep a safe distance, and best not to visit apparition sites.”
Y’know, I’ve read about people who have made pilgrimages to these sites and have been healed of their infirmities or have come away spiritually lifted. And not just Catholics. You might want to hear their stories and then tell them how God hates them.
Bob, people’s personal experiences at apparition site are not guarantees of divine origin. You said,
The Israelites also said,
Do you really believe that because people have had “positive experiences,” their sincerity can make evil good? The Israelites had positive experiences with the Queen of Heaven and “saw no evil,” yet there was plenty of evil that did not meet the eye.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
Regarding your comment,
That is a very interesting observation. Actually, the term “withered away” in the passage is from the Greek word, “xeraino” which literally means, 1) to make dry, dry up, whither—not to be scorched, charred or burnt.
Of all the Miracles of the Sun that have taken place, only one resulted in people who were soaking wet being made dry—Fátima. Since the term for “scorched” is “kaumatizo” which is to be tortured with intense heat, and the other passage where the term is used has things being dried up by the intense heat, and we have eyewitnesses that they “felt the heat” and were “dried up” by it, you have your evidence.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob,
Read the account of British Marine Jack Traynor who was cured at Lourdes.
TIM–
“The Israelites had positive experiences with the Queen of Heaven and “saw no evil,” yet there was plenty of evil that did not meet the eye.”
The queen of heaven here (mĕleketh) is Astarte from the worship of the planet Venus and the god Molech of the Ammonites–false gods.
I can play this little game too. I’ve got the same resources as you. You are giving your position a real workout in acrobatics.
Also, the damage that is caused by burning or intense heat is the removal of moisture from the living tissue, thus drying it. So, yes, scorching and drying out of tissue is damage from intense heat and is torturous. Where is the evidence of this at Fatima? A Bowl judgement from the wrath of God? Hardly.
“Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, …
Hi Tim!
Does this include photographs, statutes, paintings, etc… It’s pretty clear that we are not supposed to make ANY graven images.
Your website is full of graven images or is this like the “call no man your father” objection. It only applies to Catholics.
Hi, CK,
Thanks for dropping in.
In its context the proscription against “graven images” is against fashioning an idol for worship. The scriptures do not prohibit making things (like wagon wheels, aqueducts, rockets, etc…). What is forbidden is the use of graven images for worship:
If I was bowing down to this website to worship and serve it, you would be quite correct to admonish me for violating this commandment.
It is interesting to note that the early Church objected to the use of images in worship, as indicated in this comment from Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis:
Why would Epiphanius object to an image of Christ in a place of worship, if it was accepted practice from the apostles to use images in worship? Why would he appeal to the Scriptures as his authority instead of appealing to the church in Rome?
In any case, the Eucharist was never intended for worship, and it did not even enter the minds of men to worship it until the 11th century when suddenly, Rome finally found its evidence for the “ancient” and “apostolic” practice of Eucharistic adoration. It is Rome’s idol, its graven image, its Graven Bread, as it were.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
“If I was bowing down to this website to worship and serve it, you would be quite correct to admonish me for violating this commandment.”
And Kevin doesn’t bow down and burn incense before you?
Good, an interpretation we can agree on. Catholics don’t worship anything but God. So we are good.
I’ll have to look at Epiphanius and other Early Church Fathers regarding images “in context” if you don’t mind. I’ve found that you are good at quoting ECF but tend to miss context and all quotes that goes against your pre conceived ideas.
CK,
I think the only thing we agree on is that Catholics ought not worship anything but God. We are not in agreement that Roman Catholics do not worship anything except God. Only that they ought not. I contend that Roman Catholics worship Mary and bread.
By all means. If I had anything to hide, do you think I would provide the citations?
Enjoy.
Tim
“I think the only thing we agree on is that Catholics ought not worship anything but God. We are not in agreement that Roman Catholics do not worship anything except God. Only that they ought not. I contend that Roman Catholics worship Mary and bread.”
I know what you contend. You don’t have a leg to stand on Mary. We tell you we don’t worship her, but know our heart better than God it seems. As you know, we do worship the Eucharist and if you could prove that it’s not the body of Christ I would leave the Church today. Incidentally, my attitude towards you and how you approach the ECF came about when you tried to use one quote of Augustine to disprove the Eucharist and ignored the 15 or so other quotes that showed otherwise. Do I think you have something to hide? I don’t know.
Thanks.
CK,
What’s a nice guy like you dong on a crummy blog like this?
Ha! This is the dregs. Only kelvin baloney faloni believes Tim’s crazy hogwash..
Come on over to Green Baggins and join in on “Why imputation is not a fiction” if you get tired of Tim and Kevin. ( Actually, Kevin is there too but they don’t let him puke on everybody there like Tim lets him do here.
I hear CCC is coming out with a new article tomorrow too.
Thanks, CK. I appreciate your reply. Some thoughts regarding your comments:
I do not know your heart better than God does. I don’t know your heart at all. That is why, instead of claiming that I feel that Roman Catholics worship Mary, I used Rome’s own definition of latria and all of its constituent parts, and evaluated whether Roman Catholics offer to Mary the constituent parts of latria, the sum of which constitutes latria. The standard Roman arguments against my findings is that the constituent parts of latria, when offered to Mary, constitute hyperdulia, not latria. This is a tacit concession that hyperdulia is just another name for latria. The distinction between them is a distinction without a difference. Hyperdulia is latria that is offered to Mary.
One thing to consider is the fact that there is no evidence of Eucharistic adoration prior to the 11th century. All histories of Eucharistic adoration acknowledge this when they transition from reservation of the communion bread in the 34d & 4th centuries, to full blown Eucharistic adoration in the 11th—as if it took Catholics 700 years to figure out either a) that Christ was worthy of worship, or b) that the bread had become Christ. If they really thought the bread was Christ, why did it take 1000 years to decide to worship “Him”?
I will happily interact with all of Augustine’s quotes on Eucharistic Adoration and transubstantiation. Can you provide them? Or if you have already provided them, just let me know where they can be found.
Thank you,
Tim
TIM–
As I pick through your references on the Fatima occurrence, I notice you strategically leave out information. Kind of like what CK says about your quoting the ECF’s.
For instance, you say: “One eye-witness, Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University, explains what he saw that day:
“Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible.”
But you conveniently leave out what he says directly after that which states:
“All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them. Finally, I must declare that never, before or after October 13 [1917], have I observed similar atmospheric or solar phenomena.”
And another example–you said “John Haffert, founder of the Blue Army of Fatima, compiled multiple eye-witness testimonies for his books, Meet the Witnesses, and Meet the Witness of the Miracle of the Sun, in which he provides details from interviews of more than 200 of them. He explains the terror with which they recount the events of 1917:
“[They] experienced ten minutes of such terror that even forty years later, when they testified for this book, a look of fear came into their eyes when asked to describe what they saw.” (Haffert, John M., Meet the Witnesses (Asbury, NJ: The 101 Foundation, © 1961) p. 3).”
And you strategically left out the very next words following those that state:
“But their fear was replaced by a glorious hope… a hope
which has begun to stir the hearts of millions behind the Iron
Curtain where the message of Fatima is now penetrating.
Perhaps only those who have been afraid can really grasp
the hope… can really bridge that chasm between wondering
knowledge and active realization.”
Kind of takes the wrath of God right out of the “Bowl Judgement” of Fatima don’t ya think?
Y’know, Tim, as I read the sources of your citations, I come away with a much different opinion than you do. Real or not, the people who were there gave glory to God because of what they experienced. I think you have shot yourself in the foot on this one.
Bob,
I am aware that the people at Fátima misunderstood the meaning of the heat and the burning sensation that attended the standard Sun Miracle that the apparition occasionally performs. As I said at the beginning of the article, “Once again, what Roman Catholics believe to be a great blessing from God is in fact a judgment from Him.” The whole history of Fátima since October 13, 1917 has been a misunderstanding of the events, as if the apparition had caused both the optical and the tactile phenomena. The fact that Dr. Garrett observed the events “in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance,” does not obviate the fact that he heard “a cry of anguish breaking from all the people” and that “The sensation during those moments was truly terrible.” Also, the fact that “their fear was replaced by a glorious hope” does not overturn the fact that they were first terrified.
What is interesting is that when the same solar phenomena were repeated at Heroldsbach, Germany in 1949, the apparition added a “crackling sound” to the solar phenomenon, I suppose to suggest the sound of a burning fire, but there are no witnesses that testify of actual heat or burning. Just the falling sun (which the False Prophet is able to do—Revelation 13:13), and the crackling sound, but no heat (which only the Fourth Angel is able to do—Revelation 16:8-9: “and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat.”)
They gave glory to what they think to be Mary and to the Eucharist, which they think to be Jesus. They actually have no knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
Tim said: ” Also, the fact that “their fear was replaced by a glorious hope” does not overturn the fact that they were first terrified.”
Right. Such as that would not be biblical…
Exo 20:18
All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die.”
And what did Moses say after that?
You are digging yourself deeper, Tim.
CK wrote:
As you know, we do worship the Eucharist and if you could prove that it’s not the body of Christ I would leave the Church today.
We need to prove it’s not ? You don’t believe it is Christ’s body based on proof. You base it on authority. Transubstantiation is a doctrine designed to deceive the senses. Consequently, every proof that makes use of the senses will be dismissed.
The Eucharist is not the Body of Christ.
Proof #1: Look at it.
Ready to leave the church today ?
Bob,
You are gonna keel over laughing! Kevin just said good bye and thanked the blog owners on GreemnBaggins. He is giving up blogging.
I give him 12 hours to get back there. He will be blogging here in 6 hours.
As for the Fatima apparitions, the miracle could have a 100% natural explanation. The plagues of Egypt do. Whenever the Nile overflows it’s banks and some ferrous material makes the water turn red, driving the frogs out to die, the stench bringing flies. etc. etc. Remember, Pharaoh was not impressed until the final one, the death of his son, as he had seen the plagues before.
Same applies to Josue making the sun stand still. Or Jesus telling the Apostles to enter Jerusalem and find a guy carrying water.
The miracle is the prediction.
Another proof that Tim pooh poohs is the holiness of the seers themselves who died never retracting their stories. One of the proofs for the veracity of the Gospels is the fact that the writers died upholding their witness.
Tim thinks the Communism a lesser evil than the Mass and Marian devotion. He think the devil is cast out by the devil.
Isn’t that the sin against the Holy Spirit or getting close to it?
Jim,
As I have said many times, an accurate prediction is not a guarantee of divine origin:
The fact that the apparition predicted a miracle does not prove that it is Mary.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
“As I have said many times, an accurate prediction is not a guarantee of divine origin:”
Only God lives in an eternal now, outside of time and therefore knowing the future.
No Silly Eric W,
We believe Transubstantiation based on the trustworthiness of the Person who revealed it. Disprove Him.
Ask Tim to whistle you a few lines of Adoro Te Devote ( No, not the version by Francis! I mean the one written by Aquinas. )
What our senses fail to fathom let us grasp by faith’s consent.
Jim, you wrote:
No Silly Eric W,
We believe Transubstantiation based on the trustworthiness of the Person who revealed it. Disprove Him
Response:
Don’t you mean Yes Silly Eric W. I said it is based on authority and not proof.
——————–
You wrote:
What our senses fail to fathom let us grasp by faith’s consent.
Response:
There, there senses…Sleep…Sleep
Sorry Silly. I stand corrected.
CK,
I am so glad you are here. I have tried to sound the alarm on Kevin and Kauffman for months. People on CCC think I am making it all up, just how bad these two guys are.
Look at the sick stuff Kevin says. “Death wafer” for example. The guy tones down for other blogs but he runs amok here with Tim’s encouragement.
This is so evil. I can’t believe Kenneth W. defends both Kauffman and Kevin as just a couple of chaps with an alternative view. This is the devil’s blog.
Anyway, I am glad to have a witness. Ciao
Bob,
You said:
“TIM–
So, as per your demonstration, then you would conclude that you, Tim, did indeed worship Mary when you were a Catholic, yes?
As creator? as Savior? as Lord and Master of everything that exists? as Infinite in Mercy and Love? acknowledging her in respect and absolute submission? the ‘nothingness of the creature’ who would not exist but for her? Yes, you did! You have created for yourself an idol with Mary’s face upon it. And you worshipped it with latria due only to God.”
And you said:
“And to others it was a beautiful sight to behold. Kind of a wimpy judgement from the wrath of God, don’t ya think? Out of millions of Catholics world wide who are devoted to Mary, only a handful “felt the heat”.”
Bob, I’m a little bit confused. You and this CK guy seem to be unable to discern with reason what is worship. Did you not see the videos Jim and I posted, and the pictures I posted, where Roman Catholics are carrying an actual statue of the Virgin Mary down the street all following behind her?
This is insane behavior. I cannot believe that you, CK and Jim do not believe this is some form of worship, and claim it is rather just a devotion to Mary…which is innocent.
Do you know that Mary is actually, physically dead? Where do you get in Scripture the warrant to worship Mary, or where do you believe her soul or spirit is to be worshiped?
I spent my entire childhood saying Hail Mary prayers day after day, and it was not until I started reading Scripture 20 years ago that I realized there is nothing about praying to Mary, nor anything about the constant repetition over and over and over and over and over I had to invoke every time I came out of confession. I used to sit for hours in repetition sayings these prayers to be forgiven of my sins. When I went to confession I knew that I would ALWAYS have a certain # of Our Father’s and Hail Mary’s to say over and over.
I’ve read through the bible over 50 times cover to cover, and there is not even the remote sense by specific command, authorized example or by drawing a necessary inference we should be praying to dead people or their souls or spirit.
Your argument that us former Catholics never worshiped Mary, or current Catholics walking down a road with a physical statute carrying it with hundreds behind it are not in some sense worshiping Mary is simply foolishness. You are really deceiving yourself if you don’t see this as a form of worship, and that this alleged devotion to someone who is dead is somehow warranted in Scripture.
Walt,
“Do you know that Mary is actually, physically dead? ”
And Corpus delecti doesn’t apply?
Jim, you wrote:
“Walt,
“Do you know that Mary is actually, physically dead? ”
And Corpus delecti doesn’t apply?”
You asked this as a question. I’m afraid I don’t understand the question. Can you be more accurate?
WALT–
I understand the difference between hyperdulia and latria. Are you telling me that I am ignorant and your not?
Bob, I’m not about to get into a public verbal fight with you.
Bob,
I just saw something on EWTN on Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration. http://desertnuns.com/
If you don’t call this worship, what is this in your mind?
Do you think it is possible your mind is deceived and needs renewing?
“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Rom.12:2
WALT–
What is your belief of the bread and wine of Communion?
Do you believe in the real presence of Jesus, or is it just bread and wine/grape juice?
The bread and wine is absolutely not the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is insane thinking if you read Scripture. It goes against everything taught in Scripture.
Bob, here is one of the prayers at the above website. Now you are going to tell me that this is not in any sense worship of Mary?
If you tell me this is not worship, you are simply a deceiver and certainly are going to face serious judgment from the Lord.
http://desertnuns.com/prayer/pcpa-devotions/devotions-to-our-lady
An Act of Total Consecration to the Immaculate Virgin
By St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe
O Immaculate Queen of Heaven and earth, Refuge of sinners and Our most loving Mother, to whom God willed to entrust the entire order of Mercy, I, an unworthy sinner, cast myself at Your feet, humbly begging You to be so good as to accept me wholly and completely as Your possession and property, and to do with me and with all my powers of soul and body, with my whole life, death, and eternity, whatever pleases You.
If it pleases You, use my whole self without reserve to accomplish what has been said of You: “She will crush your head” (Genesis 3:15), and also: “You alone have destroyed all heresies in the whole world” (Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary), so that I may become a useful instrument in Your immaculate and most merciful hands for promoting and increasing Your glory to the maximum in so many strayed and indifferent souls, and thus extend as much as possible the blessed Kingdom of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
For, wherever You enter, You obtain the grace of conversion and sanctification, since it is through Your hands that all grace comes to us from the Most Sweet Heart of Jesus.
R. Allow me to praise You, O most Holy Virgin.
V. Give me strength against Your enemies.
Walt, Check out Phillippians 4:1
“Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved”
Didn’t Paul think Jesus was his joy,beloved , his crown and long for?
Jim wrote:
“Walt, Check out Phillippians 4:1
“Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved”
Didn’t Paul think Jesus was his joy,beloved , his crown and long for?”
I’m not sure what you are trying to mean in the text quoted.
” Philippians 4:11599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
1 Therefore, [a]my brethren, beloved and longed for, my joy and my [b]crown, so continue in the [c]Lord, ye beloved.
Footnotes:
Philippians 4:1[a] A rehearsal of the conclusion: That they manfully continue, until they have gotten the victory, trusting to the Lord’s strength.
Philippians 4:1[b] My honor.
Philippians 4:1[c] In that concord, whereof the Lord is the band.
WALT–
My own personal opinion of this order of the religious is that it’s not my cup of tea. I can’t begin to understand how deep this rabbit hole goes because I have not experienced the veneration of hyperdulia. Methodists simply do not practice it. What I do know is that without Christ, there could be no hyperdulia. If it weren’t for Jesus, there would be no Mary. After all, the prayer you cite says “and thus extend as much as possible the blessed Kingdom of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.” and “it is through Your hands that all grace comes to us from the Most Sweet Heart of Jesus.”
Walt, do you ever ponder on the Magnificat in Luke’s gospel?
Luk 1:41ff
“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”
Magnify the Lord
megalynō
me-gä-lü’-nō
1. to make great, magnify
metaph. to make conspicuous
2.to deem or declare great
to esteem highly, to extol, laud, celebrate
3.to get glory and praise
And she does to this day. That is why all generations call her blessed. Walt, do you not believe that Mary is alive with Christ as we speak? Do you think she is really dead?
Yknow, Catholics have this big thing about relics of the saints. They put them under the altars of their churches, and they venerate those saints by preserving and cherishing those relics. The remains of St. Peter and St. Paul are buried and preserved to venerate those greatest of Jesus’ apostles. After all, Catholics claim the Church was built on the rock of St. Peter, who has been given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. And they claim to know exactly where his bones are. The “capitol building” of the Roman Church is built right on top of them.
Now ask yourself these questions: Where are Mary’s remains?
Where are Mary’s relics? Isn’t Mary more important to the Catholic Church than St. Peter? Personally, I can honestly say that I do not have enough evidence to the contrary to say that Catholics are wrong.
Bob, you wrote:
“Now ask yourself these questions: Where are Mary’s remains?
Where are Mary’s relics? Isn’t Mary more important to the Catholic Church than St. Peter? Personally, I can honestly say that I do not have enough evidence to the contrary to say that Catholics are wrong.”
What does this have to do with Scripture? Nothing.
You are absolutely right! It has nothing to do with Scripture. It has everything to do with real history and tradition based on it. I’ll ask again, where’s Mary’s remains and/or her relics? Of all people in the life of Christ that is so important to the Roman Catholic Church, why haven’t they built a church over her tomb like they did with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?
Bob, you wrote:
“You are absolutely right! It has nothing to do with Scripture. It has everything to do with real history and tradition based on it. I’ll ask again, where’s Mary’s remains and/or her relics? Of all people in the life of Christ that is so important to the Roman Catholic Church, why haven’t they built a church over her tomb like they did with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?”
The answer is simple. Mary was a non issue in the NT and you just have to read the Scriptures. She was nothing and the early Church considered her nothing but the mother of Christ. She was not an Apostle, she was not a Prophet, nor was she anything outside the mother of Christ. It is the same with all the women who followed Christ, and same with Joseph the husband of Mary. What you do is focus on this crazy religion that makes everything into some Angel, Saint, blood dripping holy man, Holy Father (as they claim), etc. etc.
You need to get your head out of the sand, and into the Scriptures. This idea that Mary is somehow floating around in the heaven and in the earth, as a human body, talking with all sorts of people, weeping on pictures and in statues, and bleeding great drops of blood in the streets when people bow down and worship her is all heretical and Antichrist.
Wake up Bob, or face eternal torment in Hell.
Bob,
WOW! Awesome.
Tim,
Is it true? Kevin has been told to tone down his blogging zeal? Had he become an embarrassment?
Tim, you know you took advantage of him.
You know, over on Green Baggins they are letting his death wafer slur stand. What can you expect? They are bona fide Protestants with no sense of the sacred. They are ignorant of the gravity of their sin.
Tim, you do know. You aren’t ignorant.
Who will get more stripes?
Dumping Kevin doesn’t change things. You need to go further. You have major reparation to make.
HEY WALT–
Have you read all the prayers on that websight of desert nuns?
Those people pray about everything! Their degree of devotion must be staggering. I can’t even pretend to comprehend living a life like that.
Bob wrote:
“HEY WALT–
Have you read all the prayers on that websight of desert nuns?
Those people pray about everything! Their degree of devotion must be staggering. I can’t even pretend to comprehend living a life like that.”
Bob, the more I read what you write do you have any idea what Scripture teaches. You so far are an expert at quoting a few passages, but can you please at least articulate Scripture with Scripture on one or two subjects for me.
Oh. So you wanna play Bible Bingo, huh? Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place? I’m your huckleberry!
Bob wrote:
“Oh. So you wanna play Bible Bingo, huh? Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place? I’m your huckleberry!”
Huckleberry…come on Bob. I’ve read what you have wrote here for several weeks. Your highly foolish in your arguments. Look at the way your respond to Tim who is very detailed and response to your comments point by point, and you totally ignore the source quotes, and past other quotes that have nothing to do with what specifically Tim is saying.
For example, these eye witnesses actually testify they felt this incredible heat and were in fear. Those were the actual testimony from the witnesses.
You come along and quote something that tries to overturn this actual testimony by saying “the rest of the story” is they actually later became filled with joy.
What does that have to do with their first testimony quoted by Tim? You come up with this crazy theory that their testimony is meaningless because later they were filled with joy by their own testimony. Duh, what does that have to do with anything?
If you are going to make a counter argument, I suggest you learn a bit of logic or reason in your discussions as they may be taken more serious when you wave the flag of victory, and you are the only one who sees yourself the victor.
Everybody!
Kevin is coming back! His hiatus is over. He is on GB now so he is on his way here. Yippee!
Whenever he gives one of his emotional farewell addresses, telling us much he loves us and thanks us for the friendship, I am moved to tears.
Still, I take comfort in the fact he will be back in a matter of hours.
He just does his “Lee at Appomatix” imitation every now and then to look noble.
So, I am too am quitting blogging. I just want to bid farewell to all of my worthy opponents. Walt, Scotty, will you accept my sword?
Tim, I would shake your hand if I could. ( Could the band start softly playing “Battle Hymn of the Republic” here ? )
Bob, all the best.
God bless you all. I am gonna miss everyone of you!
Jim
Jim, without sounding too uncaring or unkind, I certainly am grateful to see you fly the coop….can you take Bob with you?
Please.
WALT–
What? ME leave? Not on your life. The discussion is just getting good. I think Jim will be back, too. He loves Kevin too much to leave him here un-heckled. I love the Jim and Kevin Show in the morning.
Tim,
Are you gonna work anything up for this weekend. You know, All saints/Souls and Deformation Sunday all rolled into one? Surely someone with a vivid imagination like you have should be able to concoct some wild theory for us.
Bob, you love church tradition so much…why don’t we then focus on the faithful and true church rather than focusing on Roman Catholic Antichrist?
“And next in particular, concerning festival days findeth that in the explication of the first head of the first book of discipline it was thought good that the feasts of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, with the feasts of the Apostles, Martyrs, and Virgin Mary be utterly abolished because they are neither commanded nor warranted by Scripture and that such as observe them be punished by Civil Magistrates. Here utter abolition is craved and not reformation of abuses only and that because the observation of such feasts have no warrant from the word of God.” – The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, December 10, Session 17, 1638, pp. 37-38
“The General Assembly taking to their consideration the manifold abuses, profanity, and superstitions committed on Yule-day and some other superstitious days following have unanimously concluded and hereby ordains; That whatsoever person or persons hereafter shall be found guilty in keeping of the foresaid superstitious days shall be proceeded against by Kirk censures and shall make their public repentance therefore in the face of the congregation where the offence is committed.” – The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, February 13, 1645., pp. 285-286.
“… by communicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we ourselves become guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz, 2 Kings 16:10, was an idolater, eo ipso, that he took the pattern of an altar from idolaters. Forasmuch, then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the sign of the cross, surplice, festival days (like Christmas, Easter, etc.-ed.), bishopping, bowing down to the altar, administration of the sacraments in private places, etc., are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of Popery, the ensigns of Christ’s enemies, and the very trophies of antichrist, — we cannot conform, communicate and symbolise with the idolatrous Papists in the use of the same, without making ourselves idolaters by participation. Shall the chaste spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the whore? Shall the Israel of God symbolise with her who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the Lord’s redeemed people wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be seen with the mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the antichristian, the holy like the profane, religion like superstition, the temple of God like the synagogue of Satan?” George Gillespie, A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies, volume one, p. 80.
WALT–
You said: “Look at the way your respond to Tim who is very detailed and response to your comments point by point, and you totally ignore the source quotes, and past other quotes that have nothing to do with what specifically Tim is saying.
For example, these eye witnesses actually testify they felt this incredible heat and were in fear. Those were the actual testimony from the witnesses.”
And I asked him for concrete evidence of the “incredible heat”. He could give none. There were no people rushed to the hospital with burns or scorching, no one even treated by a doctor, or even anyone with lasting effects of burns. There fear was unfounded.
You also said; “You come along and quote something that tries to overturn this actual testimony by saying “the rest of the story” is they actually later became filled with joy.”
That’s because he was choosing only those lines in the story that could bolster his case IF you didn’t read the whole story.
You also said: “What does that have to do with their first testimony quoted by Tim? You come up with this crazy theory that their testimony is meaningless because later they were filled with joy by their own testimony. Duh, what does that have to do with anything?”
It shows their fear was unfounded. I call Tim’s tactics “creative editing”. And I see you defend him for it.
And you also said: “If you are going to make a counter argument, I suggest you learn a bit of logic or reason in your discussions as they may be taken more serious when you wave the flag of victory, and you are the only one who sees yourself the victor.”
I guess I’ll just have to pat myself on the back since no one else will. (Except maybe Jim. He thought my rebuttal was “awesome”. Thanks, Jim)
Here’s the deal, Walt. Tim said himself that his words here are enough to discredit the blog. And I agree. He is equating the Bowl Judgments with relatively small happenings amongst a much larger array of things that could be recognized worldwide–things that could be more biblical in proportion–such as the Holocaust of WWII, the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even the events of 9-11-2001. Now that’s scorching with real evidence. If you ask the average non-Catholic about “Our Lady of Fatima” they respond “your lady of who?”
The way I see it, in how the Catholics treat the Blessed Sacrament, they worship Christ to a degree that seems excessive–kind of like doting.
dot·ing
Definition of DOTE/intransitive verb
2: to be lavish or excessive in one’s attention, fondness, or affection —usually used with on
Obviously, you disagree with that kind of worship. How do you worship Christ? Do you sing a few songs, read a few bible verses, talk about those verses and how they work in your life, bow your heads in prayer of intersession and thanksgiving, pass the plate for tithes and alms, eat crackers and drink grape juice together, and then bless each other until you meet again?
Well, so do the Catholics. It’s all a matter of degree.
Walt, how do YOU worship Christ?
Bob, an interesting analysis of our conversation. I have some thoughts on it:
Actually, you asked for concrete evidence of charring, singeing and 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns based on webster’s definition of the english rendering of scorching. To this I responded that you ought to be looking at the definition of the Greek words, as well as their usage in Scripture in order to determine their meaning.
There were no people rushed to the hospital because there was no charring, singeing and 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns. As I pointed out to you, “kaumatizo” includes the meaning, “to be tortured with intense heat,” which is the Fourth Angel in Revelation 16 is empowered to do: “and power was given unto him to scorch (kaumatizo) men with fire. And men were scorched (kaumatizo) with great heat….” (Revelation 16:8-9). There are eyewitness accounts that testify of fire and of great heat. As I pointed out to you, the only other time in Scripture that “kaumatizo” is used is to depict seedlings being “scorched by the sun” with no mention of charring, singeing or discoloration—only the effect of the sun on a seedling. Thus “kaumatizo” is not of necessity translated as you wish to translate it. It seems to me you are saying that because “kaumatizo” can refer to singeing, discoloration and various degrees of burning, that it therefore must be translated that way. The parables of the Sower militate strongly against such a narrow rendering.
In any case, at that point, you changed your approach, and instead of requiring evidence of singeing, you insisted that “kaumatizo” must require a withering away by the removal of moisture, and demanded physical evidence:
To this I responded that there is tremendous physical evidence for the removal of moisture because one of the most enduring recollections of the witnesses is that they were soaking wet before hand and dry afterward. It takes a great deal of thermal energy to remove moisture. So the eye-witness testimonies include:
1) great heat
2) fire
3) terror
4) removal of moisture
These are consistent with the intent of the Bowl of Judgment, that is of “kaumatizo” by the sun, which is all I am claiming, and which is what the eyewitnesses observed.
At this point, you changed your approach and said that because they rejoiced in God’s mercy and increased their devotion to Mary, they all realized that their fear was unfounded. To this I responded that just because they turned to Mary and increased devotion to the Eucharist does not eliminate, obviate or overturn the eyewitness testimonies which you have been requesting. You asked for evidence, I provided evidence, and you moved on and said the evidence doesn’t matter because they all turned to God and Mary and the Eucharist.
I understand that you believe they turned to God in spirit and in truth, and therefore, it does not appear to you that they were judged in any way, but rather restored to communion with God. That, of course, depends on your view of the object of Roman Catholic worship. I do not believe they worship God, but rather worship Mary and the Eucharist, and in the process they believe they are worshiping God. The fact that they continue to worship idols (the Eucharist) and demons (apparitions) even after the bowls of judgment is evidence that “and they repented not to give him glory.” Rather they increased their devotions to the Beast, the False Prophet and the Image of the Beast.
This is hardly creative editing. They were “kaumatizo”-ed with great heat and fire from the sun, and yet, thinking that the apparition of Mary was truly Mary and that the Eucharist is truly God, they continued in their idolatry and repented not of their errors. That is what the effect of Bowl is said to be, and that as it turns out is what happened at Fatima.
That is true. But you are taking this as an acknowledgment that I am intentionally misrepresenting the truth and purposefully reasoning illogically. I am not. My words are sufficient to discredit this blog in the sense that Copernicus’ theories were so novel and ran so counter to the received geocentric wisdom of the day that he was considered a heretic. My blog is sufficiently self-discrediting because I am proposing something that runs counter to the received wisdom of the day. I do not deny it. I am not ashamed of it either.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
As we beat around the bush about what kind of heat actually happened at Fatima, which is trivial, I am starting to realize that your main problem is how you think Catholics worship. To you it seems idolatrous. To them it is worshipping the ONE TRUE GOD.
Here is what I read from Catholic sources:
“An essential difference exists between idolatry and the veneration of images practised in the Catholic Church, viz., that while the idolater credits the image he reverences with Divinity or Divine powers, the Catholic knows “that in images there is no divinity or virtue on account of which they are to be worshipped, that no petitions can be addressed to them, and that no trust is to be placed in them. . . that the honour which is given to them is referred to the objects (prototypa) which they represent, so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose likenesses they are” (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXV, “de invocatione Sanctorum”).
And furthermore:
“The guilt of idolatry is not to be estimated by its abstract nature alone; the concrete form it assumes in the conscience of the sinner is the all-important element. No sin is mortal — i.e. debars man from attaining the end for which he was created — that is not committed with clear knowledge and free determination. But how many, or how few, of the countless millions of idolaters are, or have been, able to distinguish between the one Creator of all things and His creatures? and, having made the distinction, how many have been perverse enough to worship the creature in preference to the Creator?”
What it all boils down to is this: no matter what you or anyone else thinks they know about another’s worship, it is God and God alone who searches the heart. And I thank God for that because the world is full of bigotry. What I read from Catholic sources appeals to common sense. What I read from your blogs reeks of pure speculation. You are not the only one who has tried to decipher the apocalyptic writings of the bible. And you all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit when you do so. Either the Holy Spirit is confused or you all are. I’m bettin’ it’s not the Holy Spirit.
So, when I read your blogs, I look at them with scrutiny. And consequently I have to take them with a grain of salt.
It’s obvious you have an axe to grind with the Catholic Church. But bashing them on your blog isn’t going to “reform” the Catholic Church any more than the Reformation did 500 years ago.
Bob, the way Roman Catholicism attempts to differentiate its veneration of images from idolatry does not increase its distance from paganism, but rather reduces its distance from Zoroastrianism. Rome justifies its idolatry by saying, “the honour which is given to them [the images] is referred to the objects (prototypa) which they represent.” That is Zoroastrian latria in a nutshell:
Jerome’s Vulgate translation of Psalm 99:5, “And worship His footstool, for it is holy,” bears more in common with Zoroastrianism of the Persian Empire than it does with Christianity. The correct translation is “worship at his footstool; for he is holy,” as even the Roman Catholic New American Bible translation seems to acknowledge: “bow down before his footstool; holy is God!”
My point is that venerating objects is not evidence of a “sense of the sacred” or worshiping God in accordance with common sense. It is only evidence of venerating objects. More importantly, Rome’s form of worship is foreign to the Scriptures.
When Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, tore town an image of Christ in a church building because it was “contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures,” and then insisted that curtains with such images, “opposed as they are to our religion—shall not be hung up in any church of Christ” (Jerome, letter 51, “From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem,” chapter 9, 394 A.D.), was he being a bigot, imposing his personal opinion contrary to common sense? Or was he attempting to prevent the error of idolatry from tainting the purity of the worship of the one true God, and insisting that worship be in accordance with the Scriptures?
Just because someone claims to be channeling latria to the one true God through a footstool or a curtain does not overturn the fact that he is bowing to a footstool or a curtain to worship it. Such footstool-latria, curtain-latria, statue-latria, image-latria and yes, bread-latria and Mary-latria is forbidden (Exodus 20:4-5), yet Rome wallows in it and works tirelessly for its increase.
I have no axe to grind with Roman Catholicism any more than I have an axe to grind with Ted Bundy. Killing people is wrong (Exodus 20:13). Worshiping bread is wrong (Exodus 20:4-5).
I don’t bash Roman Catholics here any more than I bash Ted Bundy, and any more than Epiphanius was bashing people. Epiphanius was “bashing” a practice. So do I. Roman Catholics worship bread, and I say here that they ought not. Roman Catholics worship Mary, and I say here that they ought not. You are reducing a substantive difference of opinion to “bashing” and “bigotry” so that by complaining about the “bigotry” you can silence the opinion. It’s a game Rome has played ever since freedom of speech became the order of the day. It won’t work.
By the way, I have no hope, plan or ambition to “reform” Roman Catholicism. I cannot change the ultimate outcome of the course of history, and that ultimate outcome has the Beast, False Prophet and those who followed them and would not repent of it, cast into the lake of fire. There is no changing that, for it has already been written (Revelation 20:10-15). However, if there yet remain the Lord’s elect within the religion of Antichrist, His call to them is to come out of her, and that has been written, too:
Rome is “free” to proceed with her Zorosatrianism, in the sense that Rome is “free” to do what it has been ordained by God to do from eternity past, and thus to fulfill its infernal destiny by causing the world to wonder after her and worship the Image of the Beast, and bow to it, and receive its mark.
But there are former Eucharistic idolaters and Mariolaters who have heard the glorious gospel of grace by faith alone in Christ alone, and I am one of them. When Jesus sent the healed demoniac back to the Decapolis to “tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee” (Mark 5:19), do you think Jesus was telling him to go back to them to tell them that they should continue in their idolatrous practices, because, after all, “it is God and God alone who searches the heart”?
I think not.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim
,Why have I never heard you bash Ted Bundy?
Besides, by your wacky way of thinking, Bundy was no worse than the pagan, pro-abortion and Trinity denying State that executed him, right?
You know, the Aztec heart eating and sodomizing gods were not as bad as the bread and virgin cult that replaced them, right Tim?
Communism is not as bad as the JPII Totus Tuus Cult, eh Timmer?
Walt–
“Bob, you love church tradition so much…why don’t we then focus on the faithful and true church rather than focusing on Roman Catholic Antichrist?”
And then you go on to cite how the Church of Scotland loathes Roman Catholic Antichrist tradition. Sounds logical and reasonable to me. Now that’s what I call focused.
WALT–
You said: ” Mary was a non issue in the NT and you just have to read the Scriptures. She was nothing and the early Church considered her nothing but the mother of Christ. She was not an Apostle, she was not a Prophet, nor was she anything outside the mother of Christ. It is the same with all the women who followed Christ, and same with Joseph the husband of Mary. ”
Oh that’s right. My mistake. Your Scriptures don’t have the Gospels of Luke and John. You might want to get a bible that has those books in them. There are some really great verses in them about Mary. And Joseph. And Mary Magdeline. And Elizabeth. And another Mary, the wife of Cleopus. And Martha. And the woman at the well. And the woman with the issue of blood that was healed when she touched the hem of Jesus robe. And….well, I could go on for some more, but you get the picture.
You also said: “Wake up Bob, or face eternal torment in Hell.”
Thanks for your concern. I’ll take it under advisement. In the meantime, you might want to open the windows and doors of your Scottish Church and let it air out a bit. It seems quite stuffy in there.
Nighty-night, Walt. Sleep tight. And don’t let the bedbugs bite.
“Now I lay me down to sleep. I pray Thee, Lord, my soul to keep…………..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Walt,
” nor was she anything outside the mother of Christ.”
Mull that over in your simple mind for a while Walter.
Bob,
What is going on here? You are stealing my thunder. Aren’t you a Methodist? I am the token Catholic on this blog, thank you very much.
I am not used to a Protestant calling for fairness and accuracy. Please stop it as I have been comfortable in playing the victim on this blog.
Please go away and let me shine.
Tim,
Kevin says I made you chase him away. If that is so, then please throw Bob off the blog too.
I like to think of myself as the champion of Marian theology on this blog and I don’t appreciate being outdone by an unbeliever.
I don’t mind him, as a n Arminian, wreaking havoc on the TULIP but he is not supposed to outstrip me on the Marian stuff. It doesn’t look right to the lurkers.
I like to shame you for being a bad son and bad catholic. Bob uses common sense . ( I am still jealous of his refutation of Bread Worship by saying you first have to disprove Transubstantiation for the charge to stick. Now why didn’t I think of that logical argument? )
One more thing. I have learned to appreciate you Tim.
Over on Green Baggins, Lane and Reed are letting Kevin slur but are hamstringing me. He gets to slur his infamous “death wafer” yuck and I have to take it with a smile. No Luther talk allowed from me.
At least on your blog, the gloves are off for both sides. Catholics and Protestants can slur and heckle and abuse each other with gleeful abandon.
On GB, Kevin uses brass knuckles while I am forced to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules.
I tip my hat to you, sir for your chivalrous fair play on your blog.
Tim wrote about Bob:
“To this I responded that just because they turned to Mary and increased devotion to the Eucharist does not eliminate, obviate or overturn the eyewitness testimonies which you have been requesting. You asked for evidence, I provided evidence, and you moved on and said the evidence doesn’t matter because they all turned to God and Mary and the Eucharist.”
This is exactly correct.
Tim is presenting evidence and facts. Bob is presenting emotion and speculation. This makes a huge difference in the eyes of people who want to see evidence, not emotion.
Bob is popular with a few people on this blog because he likes to get emotional and ignore the facts and evidence. People buy into those who are hollywood types, movie actors, and those who are really emotional like Bob. They like to watch emotion…they don’t like evidence, truth and facts. Truth hurts and emotion is tolerable.
In fact, Bob thrives on toleration of all sin and wickedness in degrees of moderation. This is far different than dealing with truth of Scripture, as it is emotionally charged and fun to play in sin. We see that in the Old Testament to the extreme, but in time the hammer falls. It will fall again, and those who ignore the facts and evidence will be suffering in their emotion.
Walt,
WOW! You sure think you have Bob figured out. But the real question for you is, does he have any Scottish ancestry, right?
Bob wrote:
“that in images there is no divinity or virtue on account of which they are to be worshipped, that no petitions can be addressed to them, and that no trust is to be placed in them. . . that the honour which is given to them is referred to the objects (prototypa) which they represent, so that through the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads and kneel, we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose likenesses they are” (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXV, “de invocatione Sanctorum”).
Would this not be interesting if the average Catholic actually believed it?
Question:
Why is the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the visible Head of the Church?
Answer:
The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the visible Head of the Church because he is the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ made the chief of the Apostles and the visible Head of the Church (The Baltimore Catechism, Question 118).
Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the [Roman Catholic] Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 969).
The Confiteor
I ask Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God
(A New Catechism of the Catholic Faith Read p. 128).
Morning Prayers
O my God, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer you my prayers . . .
(A New Catechism of the Catholic Faith Read p. 129)
Evening Prayers
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I give you my heart and my soul.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, assist me in my last agony.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, may I breathe forth my soul in peace with you. . . .May the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints pray for me (A New Catechism of the Catholic Faith Read pp. 128,129).
The Hail Holy Queen
Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; To you do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears! Turn, then most gracious advocate, your eyes of mercy towards us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Pray for us, O Holy Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in your mercy hear and answer me. Amen (A New Catechism of the Catholic Faith
Read pp. 130).
And……?
How do YOU worship Christ, Walt?
Bob wrote:
“How do YOU worship Christ, Walt?”
In spirit AND in TRUTH. It is called the regulative principle of worship, and counter to your normative (antichrist) spirit and principle of worship.
The distinctions between the two principles (one biblical and the other pagan/romish) are like coming the colors of black and white.
Tim,
I was thinking about a tour I took through Italy many years ago with an art expert. He pointed out that Giotto, a follower of St. Francis, was the first to ever portray Christ and Mary with emotion. Before that the icon was the normal way Christ and Mary were pictured. Impassive and unemotional. Not really human or three dimensional. After Francis and Giotto, there was an explosion of devotion to Jesus and Mary and a desire to enter into their suffering.
Remember, Francis is also credited with giving us the Nativity scene.
Now, think of your theory on the stigmata and the Eucharist. Do you see what I am getting at?
I watched this morning the Meeting of Pope Francis with the Schoenstatt Movement on EWTN.
It was the most sad thing I have seen in many years. Thousands and thousands of people lined up weeping, shouting, screaming and begging to touch the Pope. He walked down the entrance to the center stage and people were literally beside themselves to touch him and give him pictures, idols, images and anything for him to just touch.
It was boarding on the insane.
Then, the introducer says, “We are happy to welcome the Holy Father who looks into the souls of men.”
This is so absolutely heretical. The next thing was to read the EXACT TEXT Luke 1:44ff as what Bob states above. After this glorification on the Virgin Mary (like Bob has done out of all Scriptures in the bible) they break out into song. No psalm from Scripture to worship the Lord Jesus Christ, but a song to seek to bless the Pope and Mary.
It is virtually insane. I’ve never seen anything like this in my like, and to call these people Christian is so far from reality. I’m sure there are some elect in the tens of thousands there, but it is really insane.
To base all your entire biblical worldview on Luke 1:4ff is just demonstrating how many have been overcome in the Romish and Methodist churches of Antichrist.
Walt,
“It was the most sad thing I have seen in many years. Thousands and thousands of people lined up weeping, shouting, screaming and begging to touch the Pope”
Yeah, almost like how they used to lay the sick people out so the shadow of peter could fall on them or how they wanted to touch handkerchiefs to Paul.
Jim wrote:
“Yeah, almost like how they used to lay the sick people out so the shadow of peter could fall on them or how they wanted to touch handkerchiefs to Paul.”
Yes, people sadly put their faith in man, and not in Christ.
Paul argued endlessly against this principle and wanted no part of this foolish thinking. What is worse is that now people in the Romish church actual put their faith in dead people. The “Holy Father” gets reverence, and I can see now how so many bow and worship this man. The same how they bow and worship to images of Mary, the saints, Peter and Paul, etc. It is so incredibly sad.
I’ve never seen such craziness outside of the groupies who fall over movie stars, rock stars and TV personalities.
The spirit of Satan has overcome the Romish church. I’ve never seen such things before now. Thank you for EWTN.
This program is really insane. People stand up and now ask the Pope to talk about his vision of Mary in the new Evangelism.
First sentence says what Bob says. She made Elizabeth jump in the womb as they heard earlier. INSANE.
Second he calls her the Queen, but more importantly a mother.
Third he explains how Catholics in Belgium told him how they have Jesus and they don’t need Mary. He was very sad, and he then goes on to explain everything about this Mary the Mother of the Church. He explains that the Christian has no right to be an orphan…that the church has a mother. The crowd goes crazy and he says a joke. “Anyone who does not have Mary as a mother will have her as a step mother.”
I cannot watch anymore. It is so heretical and wicked and evil demonstrating. It is almost like Satan incarnate who as the angle of light, and a great deceiver, is leading thousands away from Jesus Christ and to the “blessed” Mother.
None of this has any warrant in Scripture. To leverage your entire theological religious view on Luke 1:4ff is really insane.
Bob, you and the Romish church have lost all sense of reality.
He just said that Mary is the one who brings Jesus down to earth for us. There is NOTHING in scripture about this theory.
Crazy.
Tim,
It is so nice without Kevin. A person can actually get a word in edge-wise, huh?
Anyway, back to what I was talking about an hour or so ago before running off to Mass.
Speaking of Francis, remember it was St. Clare his friend who went and got the already reserved Host to chase away the Saracens.
Musing during Mass about what I had said, I remember on the same tour visiting various sites to see the works of Frangelico depicting the life of his leader and friend of St.Francis, St. Dominic.
Remember it is Dominic who is credited with spreading the rosary devotion? Why the rosary? What was happening in Europe at the time?
Give up? The Cathar heresy that attacked the humanity of Christ. to refute this evil denial of the goodness of created matter and humanity, the various mysteries focused on the Conception, Passion and final Glorification of the God-man.
The various mendicant orders sprang uo along with devotions to the Angelus, the Seven Dolors, the Passion, in short, every thing having to do with Christ’s Flesh.
Tim, the Church usually doesn’t define a dogma or promote a devotion until something is heretically denied. For example, Communion under both species was the norm until it was denied that all of Christ is contained in the Host alone.
Before that, reception of the chalice was demanded so a certain sect that abstained from wine would sacreligiously receive Communion. The genuflection as the words _Et Incarnatus Est” was required to weed out those who denied the divinity of Christ. Etc. Etc.
Remember, it wasn’t until after Berengarius and Ratramnus’ denial that many miracles took place.
Tim, I think your theory is off.
Tim,
Didn’t you tell me the prayer/hymn Sub Tuum dates from around 250? Yet the Edict of Milan was well into the future.
Had the Beast Church emerged yet with it’s goddess worship?
Christians who were being served to the lions rather than mingle the faith with paganism were praying to Mary.
Tim, back to the drawing board for you. Your theory has a few bugs in it still.
Jim,
Here is the history of Papyrus 470, the origin of the Sub Tuum:
Not exactly a slam dunk for ante-Nicean invocation of Mary.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Sorry,but my googling says 250 A.D.
Anyway, get a load of this;
1. 90, Sunday worship taught by Didache.
2. 180, God first declared a “Trinity” of three persons by Theophilus.
3. 381,Prayer to the Holy Spirit authorized by Council of Constantinople.
4. 397, Book of Revelation, until now considered dubious, declared to be “scripture”.
5. 400, Augustine invents original sin.
6. Salvation apart from Jesus declared to be heretical by Pope Zosimus.
7. 431, Ephesus Council declares Mary’s human son to be God himself.
8. 525 Calendar for Easter Sunday instituted.
9. 950 Invention of Bible in English.
10. 1215, Declaration that God “created the world out of nothing.”
11. 1455, Scheme for printing Bible invented by Gutenberg.
12. 1760, Singing of “Amazing Grace” instituted by John Newman.
13. 1776, Protestant founders of America downgrade Trinity to “Nature’s God”.
14. 1825, Altar calls instituted by Charles Finney.
15. U.S. Government enforces Thanksgiving to God as official state holiday.
16. 1864, Mammon worship instituted by U.S. Government by stamping ” In God We Trust” on currency.
17. 1900, Light bulbs used in worship services.
18. 1929, Wednesday night Bible studies invented.
19. 1951, Preachers begin to dress in polyester suits.
20. 1959, Televangelism invented by Pat Robertson.
21. 1965, ” Four Spiritual laws” promulgated by Bill Bright.
22. 1969, Unscriptural practice of ” inviting Jesus into your heart” popularized.
23. 1970, Overhead projectors first used in worship services.
24. 1978, Abortion declared to be a grave sin by Evangelicals.
25. 1991, Promise Keepers founded based on neo- pagan men’s groups.
26. 1998, Sale and commercialization of WWJD bracelets.
27. 2001, “Faith Based” government founded by George Bush.
Can you use any of this in your next article?
Jim,
The history on the protestant views of Mary are here:
“The designation Theotokos (in Greek, Θεοτόκος) or “Bearer of God” for Mary emerged in the Church of Alexandria and was later adopted by the patristic-era universal Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431. It is a statement of Christological orthodoxy (See: hypostasis) in opposition to Nestorianism and also a devotional title of Mary used extensively in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican liturgy. The second verse of a well known Protestant hymn, Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones, is directly addressed to Mary and is based on an Orthodox prayer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_Mary
MY POINT IS I DON’T CARE where the “Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican liturgy” took Mary to the level you worship her TODAY. It is clearly a cult being developed over Mary…and is really very sad.
The only thing I care about is WHERE DID THE SCRIPTURES go after the great falling away. Did they follow the “Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican” churches, or did the Scriptures leave this movement.
Once this path is clearly understood, there is nothing in the history of the Romish church worthy of my study except to demonstrate the true Antichist and whore of Revelation.
Once I am convinced when and how the Scriptures moved out of the Apostolic church, and out of the early Church fathers, into the hands of the faithful elect (in well-being) then I will know with certainty taken over by Satan many in the visible church have become.
Jim, you wrote to Tim:
Tim, the Church usually doesn’t define a dogma or promote a devotion until something is heretically denied.
Response:
Tell us how that works. Really, how does that work ? How can you deny something that wasn’t dogmatized ? You guys teach us that dogma settles any doubts, so how can someone heretically deny in a situation(s) that already included doubt(s) ? This is incoherent at best, and stupid without doubt.
Jim and Bob,
Isaiah the prophet spoke about Idolatry in chapter 44 and the Geneva 1599 gives us an interesting footnote for vs. 15.
Do you think there is any parallel between this prophecy and what you both are doing to promote this biblical example of idolatry?
Isaiah 44:15-171599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
15 And man burneth thereof; for he will take thereof, and [a]warm himself: he also kindleth it, and baketh bread, yet he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it an idol, and boweth unto it.
16 He burneth the half thereof even in the fire, and upon the half thereof he [b]eateth flesh; he roasteth the roast, and is satisfied; also he warmeth himself and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have been at the fire.
17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his idol; he boweth unto it, and worshippeth and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
Footnotes:
Isaiah 44:15 He setteth forth the obstinacy and malice of the idolaters, which though they see by daily experience that their idols are no better than the rest of the matter whereof they are made, yet they refuse the one part, and make a god of the other, as the Papists make their cake god, and the rest of their idols.
Isaiah 44:16 That is, he either maketh a table or trenchers.
Something incredible just came to me when I was reading Scripture this morning. I think I understand Bob, Jim, etc.
Bob goes out of his way to justify the Virgin Mary being alive and the mother of the whole church (perhaps even the world) by quoting from Luke 1:4ff as his proof text.
Then Jim jumps in and says something to the effect. Hey, that is my verse and you are taking away my thunder. Here is a second testimony that Luke 1:4ff is central to Romish doctrine.
This morning I wake early, switch on EWTN to see the Pope being introduced like an incredible rock star and hollywood red carpet gather with thousands literally falling over themselves, crying, weeping, screaming, begging to touch his hand or his garment, camera flashing every turn, commentary on his incredible “godly” walk down the isle with the “faithful” on every side seeking to kiss his hand, his feet, etc.
Then after all this pomp and smoke the introducer starts out by praising the “Pope who sees into men’s souls” in the opening line, and then ABSOLUTELY SECOND goes right into reading the verse from Luke 1:4ff word for word.
The Pope sits and one of the questions to him about Mary the Pope then explains how the verse in Luke 1:4ff is the basis for the Mother of all mothers, the Queen of all Queens, the Mother of the Church and the Stepmother of all who fail to call her their mother, etc. etc. etc.
If someone does not see this is a massive and growing worldwide cult, I can only see what Isaiah has said about you:
9 All they that make an image, are vanity, and [l]their delectable things shall nothing profit: and they are their own witnesses, [m]that they see not nor know: therefore they shall be confounded.
10 Who hath made a [n]god, or molten an image, that is [o]profitable for nothing?
11 Behold, all that are of the [p]fellowship thereof, shall be confounded: for the workmen themselves are men: let them all be gathered together, and [q]stand up, yet they shall fear, and be confounded together.
Isaiah 44:9 Whatsoever they bestow upon their idols, to make them to seem glorious.
Isaiah 44:9 That is, the idolaters seeing their idols blind, most needs be witnesses of their own blindness, and feeling that they are not able to help them, must confess that they have no power.
Isaiah 44:10 Meaning, that whatsoever is made by the hand of man, if he be esteemed as God, is most detestable.
Isaiah 44:10 Whereby appeareth their blasphemy, which call images the books of the laity, seeing that they are not only here called unprofitable, but Isa 41:24 abominable, and Jeremiah calleth them the work of errors, Jer. 10:15; Habakkuk, a lying teacher, Hab. 2:18.
Isaiah 44:11 That is, which by any way consent either to the making or worshipping.
Isaiah 44:11 Signifying, that the multitude shall not then save the idolaters, when God will take vengeance, although they excuse themselves thereby among men.
and:
21 [y]Remember these (O Jacob and Israel) for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel forget me not.
Isaiah 44:21 Showing that man’s heart is most inclined to idolatry, and therefore he warneth his people by these examples, that they should not cleave to any but to the living God, when they should be among the idolaters.
Tim wrote:
“When Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, tore town an image of Christ in a church building because it was “contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures,” and then insisted that curtains with such images, “opposed as they are to our religion—shall not be hung up in any church of Christ” (Jerome, letter 51, “From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem,” chapter 9, 394 A.D.), was he being a bigot, imposing his personal opinion contrary to common sense? Or was he attempting to prevent the error of idolatry from tainting the purity of the worship of the one true God, and insisting that worship be in accordance with the Scriptures?”
Now this is what I am talking about in the early church. Those who stood up against this insane practice that today has become as popular as Madonna the rock star idol of our culture. The Pope is clearly an incredible figure to bring the global masses of people to his footstool to worship him. I have never seen anything like what I saw this morning on TV.
I can only imagine what the Jesuits are cooking up now that they have one of their own in office, and now able to globally bring about the Antichristian religion in a massive way.
Let me guess…like in Croatia not long ago, the world will soon tell anyone to either bow or worship to Pope and Mary, or your head will be removed. When Croatia became Roman Catholic and started to demand conversions or die, it is similar to what we see with ISIS in Iraq and the Christians.
Convert or die…and yet so many will reject Rome’s demands as they are doing in Iraq as we speak.
Tim,
Why do you believe Jesus is God? Why do you believe the Bible? How do you know the Apostles weren’t lying? Or duped by a magician named Jesus? Isn’t the whole thing one of those myths that just grew up over time?
Tim,
Depending on how you answer the above, I want to ask you why you reject private revelation.
By the way, you make the stupid brad worship remark again.
Once again Tim, I have to instruct you as their is no such thing.
Bread worship is a mortal sin. A mortal sin reuqires full consent of the will. Nobody wills to worship bread.
By the way, I asked James Swan about the term “bread worship”. Being anti-Catholic as he is, his answer was guarded. But he said he had never heard it charged to Catholics and that it has no substance, only polemical significance.
As I have been arguing with the creeps on Green Baggins over your boy Kevin’s use of “death wafer” on their blog, I copy and pasted Swans comment. I think moderator Reed deleed it along with several other comments I made that were embarrassing to him.
And remember what Bob taught us. Before your Bread Worship charge can stick, you must disprove Transubstantiation. You can’t. And your view that is isn’t the teaching of the 1st century is merely an assertion.
Tim, there is no bread present in the Host. The Bible is on my side. Kevin and Jack Chick on yours.
The Mass is a sacrifice. The Presence is real. Your theory is hysteria.
Jim,
Jim, if that were the case, the Roman Catholic Church would not have waited until the 11th century to start worshiping the eucharist. Where is your firm evidence of eucharistic adoration prior to 1000? Frescoes of bread baskets on the walls of the catacombs? Exchanging sacramental bread between parishes and dioceses in the 3rd century as a sign of unity? You say there is no bread present in the host as if it was an established fact. Tell it to Augustine, Gelasius and Chrysostom:
If you believe that Eucharistic adoration is an ancient practice, then you acknowledge that these men worshiped bread. If you insist that these men did not worship bread, then you acknowledge that eucharistic adoration is not an ancient practice.
Don’t just pontificate. Substantiate.
Prove that Eucharistic adoration is an ancient practice that did not begin in the 11th century.
And of course, we know that something that James Swan has never heard before cannot possibly be true, right? Is that what you are saying?
Roman Catholics worship the Eucharist thinking it has been transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine denied by the early church and wholly unsubstantiated from Scripture. The fact that Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation does not make it true, and the fact that transubstantiation is false does not keep Roman Catholics from worshiping the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is false, the Eucharist remains bread, and Roman Catholics worship it.
Therefore, Roman Catholics worship bread, bow before it and believe Jesus is imprisoned in it.
Prove me wrong, Jim.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim wrote to Jim (and Bob in my view):
“Don’t just pontificate. Substantiate.
Prove that Eucharistic adoration is an ancient practice that did not begin in the 11th century.”
This is what we need to see. We need to see a lot more PROOF and not emotion and pure speculation. Please men show us some EVIDENCE.
Don’t just argue all your doctrine on Luke 1:4ff
Give us some facts, evidence and truth.
Walt,
No, the onus is on you to prove adoration to be an innovation. An innovation would have sparked an outcry, wouldn’t it?
Read my post above on the 27 innovations.
Tim,
“Roman Catholics worship the Eucharist thinking it has been transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.”
Remember what Bob taught us Tim, If Catholics THINK the bread has been changed…
“Don’t pontificate, Substantiate”.
Okay, then don’t regurgitate. You keep asserting a theory that nobody but you ( and Kevin ) buy.
Speaking of Kevin, who’s shining your shoes these days?
Since you reject Fatima, may I ask about your insights into Revelation?
Are they,
1. Private revelation?
2.locutions or apparitions?
3.inspired?
4. binding on bloggers?
5.have they been submitted to any authority for examination?
6.have you been committed by any authority for examination?
7. Prophecy?
8. Amusing
9. Mildly amusing?
10. ?
Tim,
The Eucharist had been reserved in churches long before the 11th century. Get a book by Francis Clark on tabernacle art from the middle ages.
Ambrose’s brother, Satyrus, carried a piece of the Host with him in a pouch around his neck.
A Pastaphorium was the receptacle to reserve the Sacred Species.
I remember also reading how the Romans burst into a church or someplace where the sacred species were being preserved and drank the Precious Blood. When they left their lips were purple with the Blood.
Please, I am waiting for you to try to disprove Transubstantiation. Don’t do it from Church history as that doesn’t prove or disprove the doctrine. Do it from the Bible. Or logic. No arguments from silence like, ” Jim, nobody in the 2nd century had ever heard of Aquinas’ Pangue Lingua therefore it’s all a hoax”.
Jim, you wrote,
And Aaron really thought that he was honoring Yahweh when he fashioned a golden calf. When the calf was complete, “Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD (Yahweh)” (Exodus 32:5).
When the people of Israel “rose up early on the morrow” they “offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play” before Yahweh, for it was His feast. As long as they thought they were honoring Yahweh by worshiping a calf, everything should have worked out ok. They were implementing the Roman dogma of transference—”the honour which is given to them [the images] is referred to the objects (prototypa) which they represent.” Since honor was given to a calf in order to celebrate a feast unto Yahweh, why do you suppose God said to Moses, “thy people … have corrupted themselves” (Exodus 32:7). Eucharistic adoration is no different than golden calf-worship. Your interior disposition does not overturn the fact that you are bowing before and worshiping what is not God.
In any case, I recall that Bob said, “There is nothing in the Methodist Church doctrine that allows for me to condemn Rome as idolaters, because in truth, we really don’t know that they are.”
This is just another way of saying that “There is nothing in the Methodist Church doctrine that prohibits for me from condemning Rome as idolaters, because in truth, we really don’t know that they aren’t.” If Bob really doesn’t know that you’re not an idolater, his decision not to call you one is hardly determinative, and he can hardly stand in judgment of me for calling you one—after all, by his own words, he simply doesn’t know that you’re not.
You continued,
Of course it was. The history of Eucharistic Adoration in the Roman Catholic Church is quite simple:
• Reservation was practiced toward the end of the 4th century, as William Most instructs us: “one of the first unmistakable references to reserving the Blessed Sacrament is found in a life of St. Basil (who died in 379).” [Reservation: setting aside the consecrated bread for later use]
• Then after that, there was some more reservation.
• And then, after that, there was some more reservation.
• Then after that, by the seventh century, there was more evidence of reservation.
• Then after that, there is even more evidence of reservation, for “Certainly by the 800’s, the Blessed Sacrament was kept within the monastic church itself, close to the altar.”
• Then after that, “Toward the end of the eleventh century we enter on a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration. Until then the Real Presence was taken for granted in Catholic belief and its reservation was the common practice in Catholic churches, including the chapels and oratories of religious communities. Suddenly a revolution hit the Church.”
Yes, that is the history in a nut-shell. Bread was set aside for later use for 1000 years, and the evidence of the Real Presence was so universal that nobody mentioned it. But suddenly, toward the end of the 11th century, everyone suddenly realized that the Church had always worshiped the Eucharist, and so Eucharistic Adoration took Europe by storm.
Just like before 1870, Keenan denied Papal Infallibility as a Protestant invention, and then suddenly after 1870 he realized that Roman Catholics had always believed in Papal Infallibility, and the lack of evidence for it before that date is actually evidence that it was universally accepted.
Jim, I am not arguing from silence. I am simply pointing out that Rome’s claims of antiquity rely so heavily on arguments from silence as to call the entire charade into question. And that’s all it is. Roman Catholicism is pagan idolatry masquerading as the Church of Jesus Christ, and the best argument William Most can muster for the antiquity of Eucharistic Adoration is that it took Europe by storm 1000 years after the apostles.
If you have evidence for Eucharistic Adoration prior to that, you’re going to have to do better than, “The Eucharist had been reserved in churches long before the 11th century.”
You continued,
As I recall, grapes are purple but blood is red. That sounds to me like their lips had wine on them, which is usually the effect of drinking wine. Have you noticed, Jim, that the official history of Eucharistic Miracles—bleeding, pulsating, speaking hosts, in which the Image of the Beast comes to life and has the ability to speak—begins after the 11th century, and no earlier? There is a reason for that.
Thanks,
Tim
Readers,
In the 1600s St. Margarite Mary had a vision of the Sacred Heart sparking devotion to Jesus’ heart.
Tim must think that before that time, Catholics did not know Jesus had a heart.
Tim must also thing that since Dominic started rosary meditation on the Incarnation.
Before that, Catholics did not know about the doctrine.
Tim,
When reading your theory, must a reader have a degree in Church or secular history?
Can they verify your theory from the Bible?
Walt,
Do you deny that Catholics worshiped the Real presence in the Species DURING MASS, right after the Consecration and until reception?
Was any of the Eucharist left over or reserved After Mass? You know, for the sick or to be taken to other Masses as Tim admits.
How was it treated?*
If you do deny the Real Presence being worshiped during Mass, then we must talk about when the Church started seeing the Mass as a sacrifice.
( I say I can show it from the BIBLE, Walt )
Tim, TurretinFan weighed in to “get me” on GB last week. He couldn’t give a satisfactory explanation of how the OT shew bread, reserved in the temnple, was a shadow fulfilled in the NT. But you can, yes?
Tim,
Please.
Get real. The link you offer is an example of devotion, loving hyperbole, poetry.
The Bible gives examples of such.
Tim,
How does the fact that the “fermentum” was sent by a bishop to his priests celebrating Mass afar prove your assertion? You mentioned it it, why? You must think it supports your theory rather than mine, right?
The fact is in the early days people took the Eucharist home with them. Christian women were discouraged from marrying pagan men because of the danger of him disrespecting the Sacrament and calling it a “death wafer” like you and the idiot do. An abuse had to be squashed that said a piece of Host was to be put in a dead person’s casket.
Monks took it into the desert with them to adore the Presence of God.
Speaking of the Presence of God, in the OT God dwelt with His people in the Shekinah cloud over the ark containing the golden vessel of manna and the table of shew bread.
That was a shadow and a type according to the book of Hebrews.
Where do we see that shadow fulfilled today, Tim?
Where do we see OT shadow fulfilled in your Presbyterian and Baptist churches today?
God dwells among us, in our midst, in the tabernacle. You know, over here, tabernacles are in the form of or decorated with pelicans. Why? Google it.
Tim,
Your whole theory is based on one argument from silence after another.
And you have the chutzpah to demand me to put up or shut up? Ha!
“W e don’t see Eucharistic processions in the 1st century. Ergo, Christians didn’t believe in the Real Presence”.
Tim, I keep asking you about the lack of outcry when Catholic “innovations” were foisted on the gullible sheep.
When the first Host was processed through the streets in a monstrance, why wasn’t the priest pelted with eggs and rotten apples?
When Thomas Aquinas submitted his Adoro Te Devote, why wasn’t it repudiated as heretical?
How did a poor mendicant named Francis dupe all of Europe? Why wasn’t he considered as crazy then as I consider you crazy now?
Tim,
1.Had Aaron been commissioned to make a golden calf? Had he been told to” do this in memory of me”?
2. Bob told you, did he not, that you must first either get inside a Catholic’s head to know his intention or disprove our doctrine. If my memory fails me, so what. Go by what I am telling you now.
3. Sorry Tim, but Fr. Most did not say Basil was the first reference. He says the first UNMISTAKABLE reference.
4. The Purple lips? Yes, Tim, one of the ACCIDENTS of wine is the purple color. SUBSTANCE is a different matter.
Tm,
“Have you noticed, Jim, that the official history of Eucharistic Miracles—bleeding, pulsating, speaking hosts, in which the Image of the Beast comes to life and has the ability to speak—begins after the 11th century, and no earlier? There is a reason for that.”
Actually Tim, I don’t know of any examples in which the Image of the Beast comes to life in a Host. That is your unproven assertion.
Tim,
“. And that’s all it is. Roman Catholicism is pagan idolatry masquerading as the Church of Jesus Christ, ”
The Church that Christ promised would not fall away morphed into pagan idolatry immediately, right Tim? You and Joseph Smith are buddies, huh?
Right away the sheep started calling Mary names like Isis or Astarte rather than the New Eve. Rather than appealing to OT types, the went to mythology. RIIIIIIGHT
By the way, how is it you passed over Lourdes and Guadalupe and fast forwarded to Fatima in you wacky scheme?
Jim,
You wrote:
”
Walt,
Do you deny that Catholics worshiped the Real presence in the Species DURING MASS, right after the Consecration and until reception?
Was any of the Eucharist left over or reserved After Mass? You know, for the sick or to be taken to other Masses as Tim admits.
How was it treated?*
If you do deny the Real Presence being worshiped during Mass, then we must talk about when the Church started seeing the Mass as a sacrifice.
( I say I can show it from the BIBLE, Walt )
Tim, TurretinFan weighed in to “get me” on GB last week. He couldn’t give a satisfactory explanation of how the OT shew bread, reserved in the temnple, was a shadow fulfilled in the NT. But you can, yes?”
Why should I answer these questions Jim? You totally ignore everything either Tim or I write in answer to these foolish questions. There was a time I thought you were actually a serious student of Scripture and church history. Today I know you have no interest in anything written on this blog. You are here specifically to disrupt the dialogue among those who are seriously learning and studying these eschatological issues.
You really are a seriously sad example of a Catholic in my personal judgment….but not atypical to many who are in leadership roles in the Romish church. After what I witnessed yesterday morning, by God’s grace to show me, I was more than surprised that the entire Romish church has so far drifted (even in the last 30-40 years when I was a member) from the true teaching of Scripture.
The reformers clearly faced much of what we are facing today, as the Romish church is again growing massive, global and appealing to more and more of the unfortunately ignorant masses of our global population. I saw people yesterday in the crowd’s from all over the world literally crying and weeping, screaming and cheering for this Pope. I could not believe my eyes that people have literally fallen to this level of deception.
You are no different Jim, in fact, much worse. While these poor souls are just ignorant of anything except what they know being the Romish mass and Papacy, you have been testified against here to repent and return to the Scriptures. You have no interest in the Scriptures. You are only interested in the flesh…your own fleshly lusts and that flesh you believe is alive in the wafer when you literally chew on Jesus Christ body in Communion. You drink his literal blood that taste’s like wine and even would make one drunk if they drank enough of this alleged blood of Jesus, and you thrive on it. It is who you are…the lust for the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ is what you demand from your church.
There is nothing that teaches this in Scripture, and in fact, what Tim is trying to demonstrate (which I am not one here to endorse his views as I don’t agree with some of his literal interpretations) is that the warrant we find in Scripture is that rather than being faithful (as you claim) these acts performed by your Romish church is ANTICHRIST and proven by SCRIPTURE.
Jim you wrote to Tim:
“Tim,
When reading your theory, must a reader have a degree in Church or secular history?
Can they verify your theory from the Bible?”
This just proves that what you are doing here is not reading anything Tim is writing. You are just wasting your time here, and all these other blogs you post on to intentionally disrupt.
Tim has been for weeks and months using Scripture to make his arguments. What planet are you on that you do not see this week after week? He is doing nicely in some cases to compare Scripture with Scripture, and then use history to try to prove his analysis. His commentary on Revelation is one of the best you will find in the history of eschatological opinion. It is nice to see someone in our generation build a new interpretive commentary on Historical post-millennialism. I’m exhausted listening to the Jesuit inspired counter views that are pre-millennial and preterist views. The a-millennial views out of the “reformed” Dutch and other modern offshoots are equally as disheartening.
To answer your questions Jim, I’m afraid, is a waste of time.
Tim wrote:
“This is just another way of saying that “There is nothing in the Methodist Church doctrine that prohibits for me from condemning Rome as idolaters, because in truth, we really don’t know that they aren’t.” If Bob really doesn’t know that you’re not an idolater, his decision not to call you one is hardly determinative, and he can hardly stand in judgment of me for calling you one—after all, by his own words, he simply doesn’t know that you’re not.”
Tim, this is called logical reasoning, and is perfectly normal for trying to correct those who are somewhat skilled in logic or reason.
Unfortunately, you are not arguing with Jim and Bob who have any skills in understanding logic or reason. They are purely emotionally driven. They are like the modern Pentecostals who make decisions and opinions with the wind blowing, and they have pure emotion to drive them. There are no absolutes or truth, according to these type people, revealed in Scripture. They believe everything is based upon experience, emotion and some sort of church inspired vision.
I remember being in a Pentecostal church (same as Methodist church) and the Pastor jumping up in the front of the room pointing to the back of the room saying that Satan had just entered the church. Everyone turned around and nothing was there, but he swore as he preached he was battling Satan in the back of the church to keep and protect us from him. It was the most crazy thing I’ve ever witnessed. This guy was, like Jim and Bob, operating on pure emotion and everything they see turns to blood, or living flesh, or signs in the heavens, signs in the sky, bleeding hands, bleeding eyes, the Virgin Mary talking to people, the Statues of her weeping and crying, all these miracles and manifestations. This is what you find in Romish churches, Methodist churches and Pentecostal churches.
I could not help but say “what?” when Jim asked you to use Scripture to justify your eschatological arguments. It is clear these guys don’t read what you write…but just go through a couple sentences and go into a tirade of emotion saying, “did you not know that this vision is proven or that blood is Christ real blood?”
Beware of these men…
Tim wrote to Jim,
“If you have evidence for Eucharistic Adoration prior to that, you’re going to have to do better than, “The Eucharist had been reserved in churches long before the 11th century.”
This is like asking a football player (front line guard…among the biggest men in the world) to stop a college or pro point guard from scoring in a one-on-one basketball game. It is never going to happen.
The only solution that Jim and the guard can use to respond to the question is to slam the opponent to the floor, try desperately to knock them out cold and claim victory.
Tim wrote to Jim, the following:
“Yes, that is the history in a nut-shell. Bread was set aside for later use for 1000 years, and the evidence of the Real Presence was so universal that nobody mentioned it. But suddenly, toward the end of the 11th century, everyone suddenly realized that the Church had always worshiped the Eucharist, and so Eucharistic Adoration took Europe by storm.
What I would like to someday see is what the true and faithful church did with the communion bread and wine…how did they view it and follow the Lord’s command to “do it in remembrance of me”?
What would be more compelling is to trace the history of the true and faithful church in history and see how they viewed the command in Luke 22:19 (1599 Geneva):
19 [a]And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you: do this in the remembrance of me.
Footnotes:
Luke 22:19 Christ establisheth his new Covenant, and his communicating with us with new signs.
———–
And in 1Cor.11:24-25 (1599 Geneva)
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is [a]broken for you: this do ye in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show the Lord’s death till he come.
27 [ab]Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink the cup of the Lord [ac]unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Footnotes:
[a] 1 Corinthians 11:24 This word (Broken) noteth out unto us Christ his manner of death, for although his legs were not broken, as the thieves legs were, yet was his body very sore tormented, and torn, and bruised.
[ab] 1 Corinthians 11:27 Whoever contemn the holy Sacrament: that is, use them not aright, are guilty not of the bread and wine, but of the thing itself, that is of Christ, and shall be grievously punished for it.
[ac] 1 Corinthians 11:27 Otherwise then meet is such mysteries should be handled.
———–
Tim, have you ever considered that from the MOMENT the Roman Catholic church started to shift to the “real presence” doctrine and away from true biblical meaning as stated above, that they “shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
———–
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he [a]discerneth not the Lord’s body.
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 11:29 He is said to discern the Lord’s body, that hath consideration of the worthiness of it, and therefore cometh to eat of this meat with great reverence.
———
Commentary below from Geneva notes, in context:
1 Corinthians 11:17 He passeth now to the next treatise concerning the right administration of the Lord’s Supper. And the Apostle useth this sharper preface that the Corinthians might understand, that whereas they observed generally the Apostle’s commandments, yet they foully neglected them in a matter of greatest importance.
1 Corinthians 11:18 To celebrate the Lord’s Supper aright, it is required that there be not only consent of doctrine, but also of affections, that it be not profaned.
1 Corinthians 11:19 Although that schisms and heresies proceed from the devil, are evil, and yet they come not by chance, nor without cause, and they turn to the profit of the elect.
1 Corinthians 11:19 Whom experience hath taught to be of sound Religion and godliness.
1 Corinthians 11:20 This is an usual kind of speech, whereby the Apostle denieth that flatly, which many did not well.
1 Corinthians 11:21 Eateth his meat and tarrieth not till other come.
1 Corinthians 11:22 The Apostle thinketh it good to take away the love feasts, for their abuse, although they had been a long time, and with commendation used in Churches, and were appointed and instituted by the Apostles.
1 Corinthians 11:23 We must take a true form of keeping the Lord’s Supper, out of the institution of it, the parts whereof are these, touching the Pastors, to show forth the Lord’s death, by preaching his word: to bless the bread and the wine by calling upon the name of God, and together with prayers to declare the institution thereof, and finally to deliver the bread broken to be eaten, and the cup received to be drunk with thanksgiving. And touching the flock, that every man examine himself, that is to say, to prove both his knowledge, and also faith and repentance: to show forth the Lord’s death, that is, in true faith to yield unto his word and institution: and last of all, to take the bread at the Minister’s hand, and to eat it and to drink the wine, and give God thanks: This was Paul’s and the Apostles’ manner of ministering.
1 Corinthians 11:24 This word (Broken) noteth out unto us Christ his manner of death, for although his legs were not broken, as the thieves legs were, yet was his body very sore tormented, and torn, and bruised.
1 Corinthians 11:27 Whoever contemn the holy Sacrament: that is, use them not aright, are guilty not of the bread and wine, but of the thing itself, that is of Christ, and shall be grievously punished for it.
1 Corinthians 11:27 Otherwise then meet is such mysteries should be handled.
1 Corinthians 11:28 The examination of a man’s self, is of necessity required in the Supper and therefore they ought not to be admitted unto it, which cannot examine themselves: as children, furious and mad men, also such as either have no knowledge of Christ, or not sufficient, although they profess Christian Religion: and others such like.
1 Corinthians 11:28 This place beateth down the faith of credit, or unwrapped faith, which the Papists maintain.
1 Corinthians 11:29 He is said to discern the Lord’s body, that hath consideration of the worthiness of it, and therefore cometh to eat of this meat with great reverence.
1 Corinthians 11:30 The profaning of the body and blood of the Lord in his mysteries is sharply punished of him, and therefore such a mischief ought diligently to be prevented by judging and correcting of a man’s self.
1 Corinthians 11:31 Try and examine ourselves, by faith and repentance, separating yourselves from the wicked.
1 Corinthians 11:33 The Supper of the Lord is a common action of the whole Church, and therefore there is no place, for private suppers.
1 Corinthians 11:34 The Supper of the Lord was instituted not to feed the belly but to feed the soul with the communion of Christ, and therefore it ought to be separate from common banquets.
1 Corinthians 11:34 Such things as pertain to order, as place, time, form of prayers, and other such like, the Apostle took order for in Congregations according to the consideration of times, places and persons.
Walt,
When did Christians actually start praying to Jesus as God?
“But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him.
You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer-for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind.
An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, “Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them.”
That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that.
Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, ‘I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?’ If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, ‘My dear sir, I quite believe it-and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.'”
– Charles Spurgeon, Free Will — A Slave
Walt,
I am trying to dialogue with Tim. You are being a Kevin and muddying up the blog. I can’t see Tim’s responses to my questions. Please go smoke a bagpipe or eat a lorna doone or do something keltic.
Tim,
I have been searching the internet for which Father ever used the term “Death Wafer”.
None of the heretics, Helvidius, Barengarius, or Zwinglius.
Did Fallonius Ballonius coin the term? Did he steal it from Jack Chick’s “death cookie” comic?
Also, could you please submit your thought provoking theories to some other Protestant divines? Maybe James Swan or TurretinFan? Maybe even Lane Keister ? They all hate the Mass as do you so they should give you a fair read.
I can go by just Kevin and Walt’s endorsement as they are nuts.
Jim wrote:
“Walt,
I am trying to dialogue with Tim. You are being a Kevin and muddying up the blog. I can’t see Tim’s responses to my questions. Please go smoke a bagpipe or eat a lorna doone or do something keltic.”
That was cute and I started laughing. Good one.
It would be nice for you to factually respond, at some point, to Tim however so we could actually see an interesting blog chat.
Walt,
Please don’t go to Creed Code Cult. Don’t read Nick’s spin on the parable you mention.
By the way, I saw the reference to a “brogue”. You never give it a rest do you?
Jim, I really started laughing (in a good way) to this one:
“I can go by just Kevin and Walt’s endorsement as they are nuts.”
I assume you meant “cannot” rather than “can’.
But another good one, it made me laugh harder than the first one.
I couldn’t fix it in time as I hit REPLY before proof reading.
Walt,
Do you think Ignatius of Antioch believed in the Real Presence?
Walt,
There is a shop in Portland called the “Tartan and Tweed”. You should shop there.
Do you listen to Fiona Ritchie’s “Shamrock and Thistle” show? Right after Prairie Home Companion on PBS.
Tim,
Did I tell you that when I wrote to Lane Keister about Bozo using the term “Death Wafer” on the GB blog and moderator Reed not deleting it, Lane wrote back and screamed “death wafer” at me too.
WOW! What a bastard, eh?
Enough small talk,
Tim,
Disprove Transubstantiation.
Prove I worship bread.
Catch smoke in your hand.
Jim wrote:
“Walt,
Do you think Ignatius of Antioch believed in the Real Presence?”
I think I wrote out in detail that it is an enormous waste of time to answer your questions.
You have a gift (likely from Mary or Satan…you choose) that is very rare indeed. You don’t know how to listen, nor hear when someone is talking to you.
It is one thing not to listen intently what someone says although and you hear them, but in your case to neither hear nor listen is very rare. I suspect it is a gift from your concept of Mary…I don’t expect Satan has taken away both those traits.
https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/cw-hear-listen.htm
Walt,
It was a simple “yes” or “no” question.
Walt,
The “B word” is a test to see if Tim really reads this blog. I think he reads a fraction of what is written to him. He used to have Kevin handle his maul for him but now he is overwhelmed.
Do you think a person can accidentally pray?
Ever see those statues of Buddha that were hollowed out with a crucifix hidden inside? Japanese Catholics had them in their homes to fake out the authorities who would demand they bow down to Buddha to prove they weren’t Christians.
Tim is so silly to accuse me of worshiping bread. I agree with James Swan. It is just polemical. Tim is just trying to get a rise out me. It just reveals he is not acting in good faith.
Tim,
Disprove Transubstantiation. Prove the substance of bread is notthere. Show me a substance.
Do you believe God can do it?
Why did Jesus say “This is my Body”?
Check out TurretsyndromeFan’s work up on King Davids words about the blood. What do you think?
Jim wrote to Tim:
Disprove Transubstantiation. Prove the substance of bread is notthere. Show me a substance.
Jim, please don’t respond because I don’t want to muddy up the blog. Prove the eucharistic miracles of real flesh and blood are Christ’s flesh and blood, and not someone else. Since transubstantiation leaves the accidents of bread and wine, then eucharistic miracles can’t be used as examples of transubstantiation.
Eric W,
Someone else’s ? Whose? Yours maybe?
You idiot. I never know what the hell you are even talking about.
Learn to ask a straight question. You seem always to be setting up for a “gotcha” or “have you stopped beating your wife” question.
Ever since your little ” Humanae Vitae” quote hoax, I just scroll past you 90% of the time. You are so weird.
Walt —
I was away all weekend, hence my lateness in response. I also notice the Walt-Jim-Tim exchange has grown exponentially since the last time I have visited, as well as a new post by Tim so I’ll not chime in on the idolatry stuff here. Maybe I’ll have a chance on the next post.
You wrote: “Bob wrote: ‘How do YOU worship Christ, Walt?’
In spirit AND in TRUTH. It is called the regulative principle of worship, and counter to your normative (antichrist) spirit and principle of worship.”
How do you go about doing that? What is your procedure? In an outline, can you walk me through it?
Bob wrote to my reply:
“You wrote: “Bob wrote: ‘How do YOU worship Christ, Walt?’
In spirit AND in TRUTH. It is called the regulative principle of worship, and counter to your normative (antichrist) spirit and principle of worship.”
How do you go about doing that? What is your procedure? In an outline, can you walk me through it?”
Let me say it is TOTALLY the opposite of what I used to do growing up as a Roman Catholic boy.
Here is what I DON’T do that I was trained to do in the Roman Catholic Church.
I was instructed in our church to sit on the left side where a large statute of the Virgin Mary was and to kneel before her in the pew, and to recant dozens of hail mary after confession, and to worship her, look at her, beg her for forgiveness, and beg her to pray for me to help me with Jesus. I would read the rosary over and over to her hoping she would cry, come alive, or do something as a carved image made of stone and painted to look like a real person with real flesh. She WAS MY IDOL.
Otherwise, I was to sit on the right side of the church where there was a statue of the Apostle Peter, and I was to kneel to him and bow to him and worship him and pray to Peter to help me with Jesus and have him guide me in my prayers. He was also a stone statute carved by mens hands, and I used to fall and weep before him that he would save me. All our school children did this with all the statutes in the church.
We would then go besides the alter and worship the Jesus Statutes and were taught to adorn him and bow to the statute and beg him for his love and hold back his wrath upon us.
Unfortunately, I read Scripture and it CHANGED ME.
“Ye shall not turn unto idols, nor make you molten gods: I am the Lord your God.” Lev.19:4
WALT–
Yeah, telling what you DON’T do doesn’t answer the question.
My question was how DO you worship Jesus? How do you go about doing that? What is your procedure? In an outline, can you walk me through it?
It’s obvious that you believe you practiced idolatry. But you don’t anymore. What do you do now?
Hi Bob, I think thats a good question. How do we worship. The scripture tells us. We are to worship the Lord God with all of our heart, soul and mind. That means He is our only focus of worship. We are told to worship Him in Spirit and truth and we are to give up praises of thanksgiving, ans spiritual sacrifices to Him. We are to thank Him, and praise Him, and all that we ask in His name He will answer our prayer. Christ is our only mediator with the Father, and the scripture says the Spirit prays on our behalf with groanings to deep for words. We have boldness and access to Him thru faith. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen. But IMHO this access with boldness must come from seeking our justification thru faith alone and not looking to our obedience or works. ” we worship Him thru prayer and thanksgiving , honor and praise in faith, hymn and song. Most of all in Spirit thru prayer, and truth thru our sanctification. To be sanctified means to be set apart from sin, and set apart to God in holiness. So for our justification we seek this solely in His imputed righteouness by faith alone. And we obey His law. But Worshiping God in any other way tha Spirit and truth thru a life of faith, committing our whole heart and soul to Christ alone, I believe is unacceptable to God. I believe Tim and Walt have done a good job of making that clear. I hope my thoughts help. God bless.
JIM–
To me it’s obvious that transubstantiation is spiritual. We Methodists believe consubstantiation, and if I am not mistaken, so does the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglicans. Even though there is a difference between the two, we believe that Christ is truly present. One cannot “prove” either one of these, as Walt and Tim would like, rather it can only be discerned with faith. There is no proving it empirically.
Christ’s real Presence is “provable” by revelation of Scripture from Jesus’ words and Paul’s. After all, how can we be eating and drinking judgement upon ourselves (by not discerning the Body and Blood of Christ) if He is not really there–if it is only bread and grape juice? And in this light, it is confirmed by the care taken of the host simply by looking at the history of the pyx. And that care is also mentioned numerous times by the Early Church Fathers.
I don’t think, though, that there is any usable criteria to determine if it is transubstantiation or consubstantiation. There again, it’s a matter of faith and not evidence. And as you can see, Tim and Walt have a “different” faith than ours.
Bob, one more thing. You said ” one cannot prove either one of these” Bob, I think we can thru scripture. The reason you cant eat on Christ’s body physically is because scripture tells us His body is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. His body is like ours. Augustine says about John 6 understand spiritually what I have told you, you are not to eat of this body which you see……. I really believe in coming to grips with this issue has exclusively to do with seeking one’ justification thru faith alone and not our works or obedience. If we have true saving faith, our view of the supper will take its place. Last post of the day. God bless everybody.
KEVIN–
Since you are speaking for Walt here, I’ll ask you.
You said : ” We are to give up praises of thanksgiving, ans spiritual sacrifices to Him.”
How do you give up spiritual sacrifices to Him? What is your procedure?
” We are to thank Him, and praise Him, and all that we ask in His name He will answer our prayer.”
Ok. Sure. Ask and ye shall receive. But have you ever asked for something “in Jesus’ name” and you didn’t receive it?
“Christ is our only mediator with the Father, and the scripture says the Spirit prays on our behalf with groanings too deep for words.”
Pentacostals call that “praying in the Spirit” or “praying in tongues”. So far, I have not been given that gift. Can you pray in tongues?
“we worship Him thru prayer and thanksgiving , honor and praise in faith, hymn and song… for our justification we seek this solely in His imputed righteouness by faith alone. And we obey His law.”
Are you talking about the Mosaic Law here or something else? Because the Mosaic Law is very works oriented–very sacrificial, ie Temple Worship. If that is not what you mean, then what is it?
The reason I am asking these questions is that all of you on this blog say you DON’T worship like the Catholics do. I want to know how you DO worship. What do you actually DO? What are your actions?
Bob, I think you need to read the current post on the Bowls part 5 that Tim has laid out and the jim and I are opining. Because I know whats behind your question and I think its a good one. When we understand that the ONLY sacrifices we offer up to God are praise and thanksgiving and NOT expiation for our sins or the sins of another. Read Tim’s post about Justin Martyr’s comments. They are crucial. Understanding worship we give in remembrance and thanksgiving for a past one time sacrifice that covers all of our sin for eternity, and NOT a continuing offering up of or ourselves in order to merit continuance in grace. All of our lives including our sanctification are an act of worship to God, but not in the sense Roman Catholicism has us burning off guilt or temporal punishment. It is simply our reasonable service of Worship. Christ has already payed for our sins. And where we fail His righteousness covers us. IOW He isn’t sitting up there going dad Bob just did the mass. cut him some more grace and justice. Bob, we stand in His grace by faith, not seeking our justification in our works or our obedience. I really believe this understanding allows us to go to the table in faith, KNOWING our sins have been forgiven, past, present and future, because nothing can separate us from the love of God. You misinterpret the scripture I gave you about the Spirit praying for us with groanings to deep for words. It isn’t talking about us praying in tongues but how the Spirit expresses our prayers to God. The Reformed have what is called the third use of the Law. We aren’t under law, but grace. But it is a guide to Holy living. God’s law is good, but it was death to us because of sin. We were under its condemnation. Paul said thru the law came the knowledge of sin. And He also says in Galatians Law isn’t faith. We have died to the law. All law. Meaning we don’t seek our acceptance before God by anything we do. So when Ratzinger says we can all say we are justified by faith as it is formed in love, he is wrong. That is contrary to Christ’s gospel. For Paul the antithesis in justification is between hearing by faith and works, all doing. Romans 11:6. But we are called to obey God’s law in our sanctification, not as a means of acceptance before God, but as our reasonable service of Worship. Hope this helps. K
Bob, You also ask me, what is I do. Before I answer that question, I once had a Catholic friend who always asked me this BECAUSE he believed in his heart his standing and acceptance before God was based in the end on “our obedience to love” IOW his final justification before god was based on ” his obedience to love.” RC theology. He told me he believed every word of it. There was nothing I could do for him. He was lost. I tried to get him to understand Romans 9:32 to 10:4. Paul said they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Wanting to establish their own righteousness ” Obedience to love” they missed the righteousness that came from God thru faith. He prayed for their salvation. ” Christ is the end of the law “for righteousness” to all who believe. As Jesus told the the rich young ruler when he brought his resume of works to get in, no, with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. Having said all that, I owe you an answer to your question. I do what God puts in front of me everyday. But I don’t talk about them, because God sees my work. Its all pleasing to him, even though I fail badly at times. He has blessed my wife and I in so many ways. We are closer that we have ever been. Bob, I am free in Christ to do all He sets before me, knowing that my doing has nothing to do with my acceptance before God. It makes me want to obey Him and become more holy everyday. Big difference DOING knowing there is nothing I can do to separate myself from my older brother who justified me by HIS blood and sacrifice and not mine. Hope this helps. God bless.
KEVIN–
You keep telling me you don’t worship the way Catholics do but instead “the reasonable service of worship”. You say it is “all of our lives including our sanctification are an act of worship to God”. So, nothing special, just living life? Driving to work, doing your job, coming home, watching TV, eating , sleeping–everyday activities are the acts of worshiping God.
Hmmmm…….?
Bob, thats right, the scripture says all we do, do to the glory of God. Even when I eat with my neighbor I do it to the glory of God. Because he speaks little English and I speak almost better than a native Italian now, when I call the cable company for him, I do it to the glory of God. I dont have to be special. Life is so everyday. I enjoy my life with Christ, he is not my judge, but my loving savior, God is no longer angry with me, but he is pleased with me. That doesnt mean I take it for granted. I must further His kingdom with the gifts He has given me. Ya when I watch TV Im praising God for the football game and the enjoyment that comes from relaxing. Augustine said of the supper. Eat life, drink life, for life is in the eating and life is in the drinking. We are eating and drinking our life in Christ. It is absolutely my favorite quote ever on the supper, and if I knew how I would print it here. Read Tim’s posts today on communion, they are excellent. Bob, when we say we dont worship like Catholics we mean we dont give praise to anyone but Christ and we dont believe sacraments are a work on our part to gain acceptance with Him. The Reformers were adamant that sacraments were free grace for the weak, not merit for the strong., like Rome had destroyed them. There are no barriers in our worship and praise of God, and giving the elements of the supper latria, or Mary is unacceptable to God. Tim has shown this clearly. Hope this helps. Bob.