111 thoughts on “The Trumpets, Part 2”

1. Tim, fascinating. Two questions 1 Why were there no martyrs recognized by Rome? There had to be people who died that would qualify? Obviously the Prophecy of Rev. Can you explain some? I’m also trying to wrap around my mind a Pope having the power of giving heaven and hell by killing people? I’m gripped by your study and preparation. How long did it take you to learn all this? And is there a forerunner of you interpretations? I have completely have been brought to another and deeper understanding of the why Rome is AntiChrist. The very church that claims to be the church of Jesus Christ. The last few days I have gone back on Jason’s site under a sir name, although I posted under my name. I am the most tarred and feathered person ever on that site. And you know why. They hate the truth Tim. They hate it. I have been loving, and yet I get pasted and people threaten to leave the site if i come back. And all I have ever done is confronted them on their sacred cows in love, worshiping the Pope, the bread, and the mother of Jesus. They lose it Tim. Really I have never had anyone make that much of a fuss over me. I realize it isn’t about me. You can say whatever about Christ, but go after those three sacred cows and its venom. Tim, if you met me, i’m just a normal guy who loves Christ and stands against the Roman religion. And only Eric W of all the Reformed have stood behind me. The rest have left me out to dry. Its ok though. Thanks for letting me participate here and vent. Sometimes the fight for the truth is hard.

   Reply

   1. Kevin,

      In answer to your first question, “Why were there no martyrs recognized by Rome? There had to be people who died that would qualify? Obviously the Prophecy of Rev. Can you explain some? I’m also trying to wrap around my mind a Pope having the power of giving heaven and hell by killing people?,” I think the best answer comes from The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam, by Jonathan Riley-Smith. You can better understand the tension that existed between the desire on the one hand, to offer as an incentive the title of martyr to the crusaders, and the reluctance on the other hand, actually to give it to them. It is worthy of an extended quote:

      “As late as the twelfth century a spectrum of opinion ranged from doubts, expressed by what was now a small minority, as to whether sin could be avoided in acts of war to the conviction that participation in altruistic violence could be virtuous and that resulting death could even lead to martyrdom. The vision of warrior-martyrs in a holy war predated crusading, and was therefore not a defining characteristic, but from 1096 onward it featured prominently in crusade propaganda and popular belief. John of Joinville felt passionately that King Louis IX of France, whom he had accompanied to the East in 1248, should have been canonized not as a confessor but as a martyr, because of his death before Tunis in 1270. Louis himself and Charles of Anjou believed that their brother Robert of Artois had died a martyr’s death in the battle of Mansurah in 1250. It was, of course, one thing for the public to hold to the dubious proposition that warriors, whose internal dispositions in the heat of battle could not be gauged, should be ranked with those who died passively for the faith, and quite another for the church to include them in its calendars of saints. It never did so, but the need even senior churchmen felt to temporize when confronted by the convictions of the laity is illustrated by the two sermons commemorating the deaths of Robert of Artois and his companions, probably preached in Acre by Eudes of Chateauroux, the papal legate, on the first anniversary of the battle. In one, which appears to have been delivered to an audience of French lay nobles who had fought at Mansurah, including perhaps King Louis himself, Eudes did refer to the dead as martyrs, although he pointed out that ‘there are different kinds of martyrdom’ and allowed himself a way out of his predicament by asking God’s forgiveness for those ‘who, prevented by fear of suffering, did not perhaps accept death in the state of devotion in which they ought to have been.’ In the other sermon, probably delivered before the clergy, there is no reference to martyrdom at all.

      The church faced no such problems with the concept of penitential warfare. It was not called upon to declare that a fighter who died on crusade was in heaven because no one but God and perhaps the individual concerned could be sure that all the conditions for a satisfactory penance had been fulfilled. The idea of fighting ‘for the remission of sins’ was probably unprecedented in the early 1080s, when it had come to feature in the language of Pope Gregory VII and his supporters, who apparently believed that personal engagement in just warfare was so meritorious that the danger involved could be easily treated as penance. It would never have been easy to justify the inflicting of pain and loss of life on others, with the consequential distortion of the perpetrator’s internal dispositions, as a penance simply because the penitent was exposing himself to danger—however unpleasant the experience might have been for him—and Gregory’s opponents were predictably critical. When Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade ten years later, however, he gave the ida a context in which it could be presented more convincingly, because he associated the forthcoming military campaign with the most charismatic of all traditional penances, the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. As penitential events, pilgrimages were’ effectively satisfactory,’ according to the preacher Gilbert of Tournai, ‘because just as a man has used all parts of his body when he has sinned, so he gives satisfaction by making all him members work hard.’ With respect to the First Crusade, therefore, the dangers of war gave added value to the penitential merit gained by a pilgrim.”

      What is notable here is that the church felt entirely comfortable promising, as an incentive to crusade, a martyr’s crown and full remission of sins to those who died, but not very comfortable actually saying those who died on crusade were martyrs and had obtained full remission of sins. This vacillation between what was promised and what was actually given, appears to me to the fulfillment of Revelation 9:6. “and in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.” As Riley-Smith notes, the church promised to give a martyr’s crown to those who died on crusade, but “It never did so.”

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

      1. TIM–
         You said: “Here we find that “death” is a very specialized kind of death, the very kind of death men had been told they must seek. We contrast this Trumpet with the Fourth Seal in which the saints of God were faced with a martyrs’ death and gladly took the crown. In the Fifth Trumpet, that martyr’s crown was what men wanted most, and that crown was denied them. They wanted to die a martyr’s death. As we shall see, not a single crusader did.”

         Not a single one, huh?
         Here is an interesting note on the Second Crusade. It is from Jim’s current abode–Portugal:
         “In 1147 a fleet of English, Flemish and German crusaders en route to the Holy Land paused to assist Portuguese troops in an attack on Muslim-held Lisbon. During the subsequent siege a number of visiting crusaders were killed and special cemeteries were established outside the city to receive their remains. Many of their comrades flrmly believed that death in combat against the enemies of the faith was a form of martyrdom. This pious hope was bolstered when a number of miracles were reported to have occurred in connection with these supposed martyrs. Over time a cult of crusader ‘saints’ developed, centred on the monastery of São Vicente de Fora. The varied reactions of locals and visitors to the fallen crusaders provides a unique window into what the crusade actually meant to participants and at the same time reveals much about the impact of crusading ideas in Portugal.” Modern Humanities Research Association Portuguese Studies Vol. 24, No. 1, 2008

         One monument of note is that of “Henry the crusader” (not to be confused with Henry II). In a chapel off the central nave of Sao Vicente de Fora, is a stone block marking the tomb of Henry. He was one of the Jerusalem-bound knights killed in the summer of 1147 in the battle wresting Lisbon from the Muslims. Subsequently, a religious cult grew up around Henry and his fallen comrades. Since death in battle in the crusades was considered a highly meritorious act, many believed that a series of miraculous events at Henry’s grave confirmed his status as a true martyr.
         I feel confident that there are many, many, more martyrs of the crusades. Just because they haven’t been formally canoned by the RCC, doesn’t mean they aren’t recognized as such by Catholics. This is but one example which is good enough evidence to question your take on the Fifth Trumpet and the Fourth Seal.

         Reply

         1. Thanks, Bob. You wrote,

            Not a single one, huh?

            Yes, not a single one. You provided circumstantial but passing support for martyrs, but only the Roman Church can make such determinations. Your evidence for martyrs from crusades to the Holy Land is as credible as those who believe such and such person is really a saint—it may comfort the bereaved, but it does not constitute canonization. You continued,

            “Many of their comrades flrmly believed that death in combat against the enemies of the faith was a form of martyrdom. This pious hope was bolstered … Since death in battle in the crusades was considered a highly meritorious act, many believed that a series of miraculous events at Henry’s grave confirmed his status as a true martyr. I feel confident that there are many, many, more martyrs of the crusades …”

            These citations are the fleeting hopes of the admirers of the deceased, nothing more. In Rome, fleeting hope no more makes a martyr than a saint. I look forward to seeing your list of “many, many more martyrs” who died on crusade to the Holy Land, as promised by Urban II. There are none. As Jonathan Simon Christopher Riley-Smith wrote in The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam,

            “It was, of course, one thing for the public to hold to the dubious proposition that warriors, whose internal dispositions in the heat of battle could not be gauged, should be ranked with those who died passively for the faith, and quite another for the church to include them in its calendars of saints. It never did so…”

            The fact that many people believed that “atruistic violence” might be able to guarantee the martyr’s crown was the “dubious proposition,” and was the very crux of the issue, which is precisely why none have ever been named by Rome. Riley-Smith explains,

            “As late as the twelfth century a spectrum of opinion ranged from doubts, expressed by what was now a small minority, as to whether sin could be avoided in acts of war to the conviction that participation in altruistic violence could be virtuous and that resulting death could even lead to martyrdom. … John of Joinville felt passionately that King Louis IX of France, whom he had accompanied to the East in 1248, should have been canonized not as a confessor but as a martyr, because of his death before Tunis in 1270. Louis himself and Charles of Anjou believed that their brother Robert of Artois had died a martyr’s death in the battle of Mansurah in 1250.”

            I do look forward to hearing back from you if you can find any crusading martyrs. Many have tried, and failed.

            Thanks,

            Tim

            Reply

            1. TIM–
               You said: “You provided circumstantial but passing support for martyrs, but only the Roman Church can make such determinations.”

               Really? You believe that only the Roman Church can make such determinations? Are you saying that you,Tim Kauffman, cannot determine whether a person is a martyr or even a saint?

               You also said: “Your evidence for martyrs from crusades to the Holy Land is as credible as those who believe such and such person is really a saint—it may comfort the bereaved, but it does not constitute canonization. ”

               Sounds like you are ceding an awful lot of authority to the Roman Catholic Church. Why is it that the Reformed do not also claim that authority? If the early church canoned Peter and Paul and Stephen as saints, and the Reformed are basing their faith on the early church, then why do you all not claim that authority?

               I, too, would like to see your list of martyrs and how you determined them to be martyrs. Will your list pass the “credible as those who believe such and such person is really a saint—it may comfort the bereaved, but it does not constitute canonization” test?

            2. Bob, you asked,

               “Really? You believe that only the Roman Church can make such determinations?”

               No. You may note, however that the initial proposition to which you objected was my claim that

               “… for all of these promises [of a martyr’s crown], there is not a single Martyr-saint recognized by the Roman Catholic religion for his death on crusades to the Holy Land.”

               To my position that “there is not a single Martyr-saint recognized by the Roman Catholic religion,” you objected, saying, “Not a single one, huh?” Then you provided martyr candidates, and people’s opinions as if being a martyr candidate was the equivalent of being recognized as a martyr by the religion itself. I maintain my position that people were promised a martyr’s crown for going on crusade, and not a single person who died on crusades to the Holy Land has received what was promised.

               On another comment under this entry you asked,

               “So, what I gather from your stated beliefs about the Roman Church being a false church, you believe that all of what you stated above about the canonization process is a bunch of bull, right?”

               What I cited is the official Roman Catholic position on how a martyr is recognized. What you provided was your personal opinion about how a martyr ought to be recognized, which is essentially a mischaracterization of Roman Catholicism. Considering the offense you take when Rome is allegedly “mischaracterized” by others, I thought you might be interested in correcting your own mischaracterization.

               In any case, unable to refute my claim that not a single martyr has been recognized by Rome for dying on crusade to the Holy Land from 1095 – 1245, you have changed the argument to whether or not I can provide any list of martyrs at all, or if Reformed christians have the authority to bestow the martyr’s crown, which is hardly relevant to the fact that for five prophetic months, Roman Catholics were promised a martyr’s crown, and for five prophetic months they sought a martyr’s “death” and did not find it, desired a martyr’s “death” and a martyr’s “death” fled from them.

               If you have countervailing evidence to support your theory that there are “many, many, more martyrs of the crusades,” please feel free to post that information here, as well as at many online Roman Catholic Q&A forums where they, too, are searching in vain for such evidence.

               Thanks,

               Tim

         2. ” since death in battle in the crusades was considered a meritorious act” Not with God. Romans 9:11 ” not because of works but because of Him who calls” These men met 2 fatal misfortunes, physical death trying to merit and burn off the punishment owed to God’s justice, and hell. Sad.

            Reply

            1. TIM–
               You said: “If you have countervailing evidence to support your theory that there are “many, many, more martyrs of the crusades,” please feel free to post that information here, as well as at many online Roman Catholic Q&A forums where they, too, are searching in vain for such evidence.”

               Fascinating. You are asking me to provide evidence for the Roman Catholic Magisterium of martyrs that they have not canoned. That is like asking what evidence does the Church have of the “many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” (Jhn 21:25)

               Just because the Roman Catholic Magisterium did not officially canon a martyr doesn’t mean there aren’t any that have not been listed. The canon doesn’t make martyrs, it only officially recognizes them for Church-wide public veneration. There are countless saints in heaven. Only a few in number have been canoned.

               The Reformed themselves believe that God’s elect are saints in heaven. Can you name them? Can the Reformed “magisterium” name them?

               Let me clarify myself in a fuller sense.
               If you will go back to my statement which I will cut and paste for you: “Just because they haven’t been formally canoned by the RCC, doesn’t mean they aren’t recognized as such by Catholics.”
               RCC = Roman Catholic Magisterium.
               Catholics = faithful members in general.

               I provided you with historical evidence of my claim. There may be others, but this is the one that came up when I searched the internet.

               You said: “These citations are the fleeting hopes of the admirers of the deceased, nothing more. In Rome, fleeting hope no more makes a martyr than a saint.
               I look forward to seeing your list of “many, many more martyrs” who died on crusade to the Holy Land, as promised by Urban II. ”

               You are absolutely right. Fleeting hope nor the Roman Catholic Church no more makes a martyr than a saint. They can only recognize them in some way–publicly or privately. There are also many things a Pope (or any priest for that matter) can do without formal documentation–such as absolving sins for specific persons. Where is your evidence that Urban II did not privately absolve the sins of the martyrs? Where is your evidence that some martyrs on the battlefield did not receive Extreme Unction from a priest before they died?

               For that matter, where is your evidence that your interpretation of the book of Revelation is actually correct? Coincidence? Inuendo? Gut feeling? Conjecture? Or did you put your face into your hat and an angel told you these things?
               If you say the Holy Spirit guided you, well join the club. So does everybody else.

            2. Thanks, Bob,

               I gather from your response that you concede the point that Rome promised the crown to those who died on crusade, and then never fulfilled that promise.

               You asked,

               “Where is your evidence that Urban II did not privately absolve the sins of the martyrs? Where is your evidence that some martyrs on the battlefield did not receive Extreme Unction from a priest before they died?”

               Your question indicates that you do not understand the Roman Catholic teaching on martyrdom. I know for a fact that Urban II did not “absolve the sins of the martyrs” because to do so is logically impossible by Rome’s own standards. A martyr, by Rome’s definition, needs no absolution, and one who needs absolution is therefore not a martyr. A “martyr” has been baptized in blood, so to speak, and needs neither prayers nor absolution. Since martyrdom “confers the grace of justification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and temporal punishments,” there is no need for extreme unction for absolution of sins. There is no need for absolution at all—private or public—for martyrs. But one does need a “proper disposition.” Unable to determine whether people who died while killing people on crusade had “proper dispositions,” Rome opted not to grant the crown at all.

               Thanks,

               Tim

            3. ” where is your evidence that Urban didnt absolve the sins of the martyrs” The evidence is in scripture where sins are forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ. Listen to Peter in Acts 10:43 ” Of Him all the Prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives the forgiveness of sins.” These sad unfortunate men believed that a Pope could grant them remission of sins dying a martyrs death in la crusade. The Reformed response to the stupidity of scripture among Catholics led to bibles in pepoles hands and perspicuity thru the spirit by and with thd Word. Allowing men like Tim to provide truth. Thank you Jesus for freeing us from the utter idolatry, ignorance and mystycism of Popes and theit religion, and thank you for your infailble Word thru which comes savi b g faith.

         3. Bob,

            You may want to look into the canonization process for martyrdom:

            This approval was required even for veneration of a reputed martyr. In his history of the Donatist heresy, Saint Optatus recounts that at Carthage a Catholic matron, named Lucilla, incurred the censures of the Church for having kissed the relics of a reputed martyr whose claims to martyrdom had not been juridically proved.

            Saint Augustine of Hippo (died 430) tells of the procedure which obtained in his day for the recognition of a martyr. The bishop of the diocese in which the martyrdom took place set up a canonical process for conducting the inquiry with the utmost severity.

            For a martyr, the Pope has only to make a declaration of martyrdom, a certification that the venerable gave his or her life voluntarily as a witness for the faith and/or in an act of heroic charity for others.

            According to the rules laid down by Pope Benedict XIV, there are three conditions for such a canonization: an ancient cultus, a general constant attestation by trustworthy historians to the virtues or martyrdom of the person, and an uninterrupted fame as a worker of miracles.

            Being recognized as a martyr is not nearly as trivial as you suggest by your comments that “Just because they haven’t been formally canoned by the RCC, doesn’t mean they aren’t recognized as such by Catholics.” Rome’s position is that if they have not been canonized as martyrs, then they most certainly must not be “recognized as such by Catholics.” Thus, what you have dismissed as a mere formality is the very issue that makes the martyr’s crown so much more than just a trivial exercise in piety.

            Thanks,

            Tim

            Reply

            1. TIM–
               So, what I gather from your stated beliefs about the Roman Church being a false church, you believe that all of what you stated above about the canonization process is a bunch of bull, right?
               How does the Reformed Church make the irrefutable determination that a departed Christian is in Heaven?

               You also said: “Rome’s position is that if they have not been canonized as martyrs, then they most certainly must not be “recognized as such by Catholics.”

               Being “recognized as such by Catholics” is what starts the process of canonization–formal inquiries into the sanctity of the person’s life and the miracles attributed to that person’s intercession. If people didn’t think “so and so” was a martyr, then why would anyone seek that person’s intercession in the first place?

            2. TIM–
               “Unable to determine whether people who died while killing people on crusade had “proper dispositions,” Rome opted not to grant the crown at all.”

               That is my whole point. Just because Rome could not determine it, did not mean there weren’t any. Did Joan of Arc kill any one? Is Joan of Arc canoned a Saint?

            3. Bob,

               You wrote,

               That is my whole point. Just because Rome could not determine it, did not mean there weren’t any.

               Well, you may pursue that line of reasoning as far as you like. I stated that Rome promised to confer the martyr’s crown on those who died on crusade, and then never granted a single martyr’s crown. You have sought to disprove that, and you have been unable to do so. What I said was true. A lot of people died on crusade, but since Rome claims that only she can grant the crown, and she never granted one, then my allegations stands: “for all of these promises, there is not a single Martyr-saint recognized by the Roman Catholic religion for his death on crusades to the Holy Land.” They sought a martyr’s death, and it fled from them. They desired a martyr’s death and did not find one. If you have evidence of Rome conferring a martyr’s crown on someone who died on crusade, you are welcome to provide it here. You continued,

               Did Joan of Arc kill any one?

               No. She claimed that she had only carried her banner into battle, but never a sword. She denied at her trial that she ever killed anyone. (see the Wiki Article on Joan of Arc, Military Campaigns)

               Is Joan of Arc canoned a Saint?

               Joan of Arc was given the martyr’s crown by Pope Callixtus III in 1456. She was canonized as a saint in 1920. Your question simply reinforces my position. Since people who died on crusade were dying in the act of killing people, Rome refused to grant a martyr’s crown—the very crown people were promised if they would go on crusade to kill people. Joan of Arc, on the other hand, died by execution for practicing her personal form of Roman Catholic mysticism, and that after an apparently unjust trial. That is why she was eventually determined to be a martyr. She wasn’t killed while killing people and therefore her interior disposition at her death could be assumed, by Rome, to be pious.

               That determination was considerably more difficult to find in the case of a crusader. So Rome simply has not identified any.

               One way you could prove me wrong—and I strongly encourage you to try—would be to campaign for Rome to canonize a crusading martyr. My whole theory would fall apart, wouldn’t it? Let me know how far you get with that. As you have noted, there are a lot of people unlawfully venerating as martyrs crusaders to whom the “Holy See” has not granted the crown. According to Rome, such veneration is unlawful and immoral. You could prove me wrong, and at the same time save a lot of people from a lot of sins, by having a crusading martyr officially crowned.

               Thanks,

               Tim

      2. TIM–
         You said: “What is notable here is that the church felt entirely comfortable promising, as an incentive to crusade, a martyr’s crown and full remission of sins to those who died, but not very comfortable actually saying those who died on crusade were martyrs and had obtained full remission of sins. This vacillation between what was promised and what was actually given, appears to me to the fulfillment of Revelation 9:6. “and in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.” As Riley-Smith notes, the church promised to give a martyr’s crown to those who died on crusade, but “It never did so.”

         And my point was: “Just because Rome could not determine it, did not mean there weren’t any.”

         And you said: “Well, you may pursue that line of reasoning as far as you like. I stated that Rome promised to confer the martyr’s crown on those who died on crusade, and then never granted a single martyr’s crown. You have sought to disprove that, and you have been unable to do so.”

         My point IS what disproves it. What makes you think it means a hill of beans to the crusaders who died on the battlefield whether the Church “crowned” them or not?

         Revelation 9:6. “and in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.”
         Tell that to those who actually did die on the battlefield or on the way to battle. They sought death and found it. They desired to die and death did not flee from them. Death and dying is what happens when one is killed on the battlefield.
         Your interpretation of Revelation 9:6 simply does not work here. Your logic is flawed.

         You also said: “One way you could prove me wrong—and I strongly encourage you to try—would be to campaign for Rome to canonize a crusading martyr. My whole theory would fall apart, wouldn’t it?”

         I don’t have to do that at all. You already did it to yourself.

         Reply

      3. TIM–
         You said: “What is notable here is that the church felt entirely comfortable promising, as an incentive to crusade, a martyr’s crown and full remission of sins to those who died, but not very comfortable actually saying those who died on crusade were martyrs and had obtained full remission of sins. This vacillation between what was promised and what was actually given, appears to me to the fulfillment of Revelation 9:6. “and in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.” As Riley-Smith notes, the church promised to give a martyr’s crown to those who died on crusade, but “It never did so.”

         And my point was: “Just because Rome could not determine it, did not mean there weren’t any.”

         And you said: “Well, you may pursue that line of reasoning as far as you like. I stated that Rome promised to confer the martyr’s crown on those who died on crusade, and then never granted a single martyr’s crown. You have sought to disprove that, and you have been unable to do so.”

         My point IS what disproves it. What makes you think it means a hill of beans to the crusaders who died on the battlefield whether the Church “crowned” them or not?

         Revelation 9:6. “and in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.”
         Tell that to those who actually did die on the battlefield or on the way to battle. They sought death and found it. They desired to die and death did not flee from them. Death and dying is what happens when one is killed on the battlefield.
         Your interpretation of Revelation 9:6 simply does not work here. Your logic is flawed.

         You also said: “One way you could prove me wrong—and I strongly encourage you to try—would be to campaign for Rome to canonize a crusading martyr. My whole theory would fall apart, wouldn’t it?”

         I don’t have to do that at all. You already did it to yourself.

         Reply

         1. How this posted twice is beyond me.

            Reply

            1. Last time I checked anyone who pursued death finds it, its called suicide. If someone who tries to die and doesnt find it it supports well Tim’s theory of going to thd crusade with the promise of being a martyr and not being recognized as such. Bob’s point is weak, very weak. All men who try to die do die. So this portion of scripture must be refer to something that seems to be well filled with Tim’s position.

            2. TIM–
               Let’s see how you use your logic.
               Revelation 9:6. “and in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.”
               In the Fifth Trumpet, you apply it to those who die in the crusades but not “crowned” by the Church.
               And then you apply it to St. Francis who does not die in the crusades, but who lives a full life and is “crowned” by the Church.
               There is no mention in Revelation about a “specialized” death–nothing about the promise of martyrdom or even being “crowned” at all. It’s like a piece to your jizsaw puzzle that looks similar to the right piece but doesn’t fit.

            3. Bob,

               Since both the Crusaders and Francis sought a martyr’s crown, but neither the crusaders nor Francis received a martyr’s crown, your attempt at finding inconsistency is missing an important factor: inconsistency.

               Tim

   2. Kevin,

      As regards your second question, “How long did it take you to learn all this? And is there a forerunner of you interpretations?”, I’ve been studying this for about 24 years. I spent many years on rabbit trails based on faulty assumptions. For many years, for example, I assumed that the sound of the locusts’ wings signified the crusaders rushing into battle, and thus would have seen the five months begin in 1096 A.D., which was when the first crusade began. But as Walt has very importantly highlighted elsewhere on this site, that method is faulty because it relies on the historical records rather than on scripture to find a fulfillment. When I realized that the sound of the locusts wings was the same sound that stirred the Syrians into a wild frenzy, it made me realize the significance of the response to Urban II’s speech in 1095 A.D.—the crowd had been stirred into a frenzy, just as the Syrians had in 2 Kings 7:6, “For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host…”. It also helps show that the locusts were demons, not human, even though the result of their torment was to get men to invade the holy land like locusts (Joel 1:6).

      I do not know of any forerunners to this interpretation, but I have gained a lot by studying the interpretations of others. Much of my analysis on the seals and trumpets is because every jot and tittle must be fulfilled, so the fractions must mean something (i.e., 1/4 of the earth, all the grass, 1/3 of the trees, 1/3 of the ships, 1/3 of the souls in the sea, 1/3 of the rivers and fountains, 1/3 of the sunlight, etc…). And because the scripture is perspicuous, those fractions and numbers must be understandable even to the ploughboy. I wanted to figure out what those fractions were referring to.

      One significant breakthrough was when I noticed that uniquely Roman Catholic doctrines simply cannot be traced any earlier than the latter part of the fourth century. It opened up a period of interpretation that was obviously later than the preterists suggest, but earlier than my historicist brethren typically assign to the beginning of the fulfillments. Another breakthrough was when I realized that Daniel 11 could be understood in a single frame of reference, but that is for a later post.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim, thank you for that explanation. Certainly the Scriptures are perspicuous. Tim, I think the real thing that is coming from your exegesis in revelation and prophecy is the clarity and delineation of the Roman error from the true church. And I think the others on this site, specifically those who came out of Rome, are brought to a heightened awareness. It has emboldened me in my arguments against the Catholic church. And the reason it has given confidence is because with each passing article the clearness of the delineation between the true church and Rome becomes pronounced. If you remember when I came on this site I was convinced that Roman catholic doctrine was the antithesis of scripture. Yet I knew we received truth from the Early councils. But your ability to show where the antichrist came from within the church and then separated itself doctrinally has been the confirmation. and how God has preserved His church thru it. We are Temples of the Holy Spirit and God no longer dwells in a physical Temple. when you said that the unity of the church is spiritual and not organizational, this is exactly it. The true church has always separated itself from Rome and suffered mightily for it. I can’t tell you how effective I think a book would be of all these articles in a direct appeal to Catholics with the truth. Your probably on your way to that. K

         Reply

      2. TIM–
         You said: “Since both the Crusaders and Francis sought a martyr’s crown, but neither the crusaders nor Francis received a martyr’s crown, your attempt at finding inconsistency is missing an important factor: inconsistency.”

         I notice you don’t refer to Francis as Saint Francis. Tell me, Tim, is a martyr’s crown better than the one Saint Francis has? Would you say Saint Stephen’s crown is better than Saint Paul’s–the one who stood by and watched Stephen get stoned to death? Are the New Testament Saint’s crowns any better than the Old Testament Saint’s crowns? Is Saint John the Baptist’s crown better than Saint John the Apostle’s? And what about Saint Mary’s crown? Is her’s not near as good as Saint Joan of Arc’s?
         You see, Tim, the inconsistency is your own. Revelation 9:6 tells of men desiring and seeking death and not getting it. It may sort of fit Saint Francis, but it doesn’t for those who died in the crusades. The men who did acquire death may not have gotten their public recognition, but Saint Francis lived and he got his crown anyway.

         You say every jot and tittle was fulfilled?
         I don’t think so, Tim.

         Reply

         1. Bob, you are missing the overall point, that seeking forgiveness thru one’s works is rejected by God. What these men sought would never bring salvation in biblical Christianity. Romans 11:6 ” if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace is no longer grace.” Seeking justification thru one’s works or obedience is rejected by God. These men were seeking remission of sins believing the Papal lie. Thats the whole point, they sought a martyr’s death and didn’t find it, they also sought eternal life and didn’t find it. They were deceived by a Pope and ultimately by Satan. K

            Reply

         2. Bob, You wrote,

            “Tell me, Tim, is a martyr’s crown better than the one Saint Francis has?”

            Is a martyr’s crown different than the one Francis has? If not, why not. Was Francis a martyr?

            Thanks,

            Tim

            Reply

            1. TIM–
               You asked: “Is a martyr’s crown different than the one Francis has? If not, why not. Was Francis a martyr?”

               I asked you first. If you think there is a difference, then demonstrate it. Was Saint John the Apostle, who wrote Revelation 9:6, a martyr? Saint John does not say anything about being crowned a martyr in Revelation 9:6. You use that verse as if it did.
               You’re making up jots and tittles that don’t exist.

            2. What that should say is “Saint John does not say anything about crowning martyrs in Revelation 9:6.”

            3. TIM–
               And you still didn’t answer my questions:
               “The Reformed themselves believe that God’s elect are saints in heaven. Can you name them? Can the Reformed “magisterium” name them?”

               And now a new question that follows this line:
               What is the Reformed criteria for recognizing whether someone is in heaven or not?

   3. “worshiping the Pope, the bread, and the mother of Jesus……You can say whatever about Christ, but go after those three sacred cows and its venom”.

      This is very insightful Kevin. I find the same amongst many professing (protestant) Christians. Try and correct their false ideas and “what would you know”, “why are you attacking me”, “go away”, “crawl back in your hole” etc. comes out in a torrent. We have been inundated by the 11th commandment in the West, “Thou shalt be nice.”
      Keep up the good fight Kevin.
      “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

      Reply

      1. Thanks John, you seem like a fellow warrior for the truth of the gospel.

         Reply

2. Out of His Mouth has become my favorite blog site. This is so eye opening and is exactly what I have been looking for. My wife and I are studying your posts together and have made it a part of our regular Bible study. We have also shared it with people in our church and they are eating it up. I am very grateful for all your hard work and believe that this will produce much fruit.

   Tim

   Reply

   1. Tim S,
      You really do need to get to a priest and make a good Confession. Then you have to spend your life doing penance and making reparation.

      Oh, and avoid the near occasion of sin. Avoid folks like Kauffman and Falloni like the plague. You have proven yourself to be gullible and easily deceived.
      Make an act of Faith and an act of contrition now. Then, stay of this demonic blog.

      Reply

      1. Hey Jim,

         LOL, WOW! “You have proven yourself to be gullible and easily deceived.” Really?!? You presume too much. I was Reformed long before I ever came to this site. I grew up Catholic and my family held to the traditions that preceded the last ecumenical council. Two of my uncles studied to be in the priesthood. My dad also studied to be in the priesthood but decided he wanted to have a family instead so he didn’t pursue it. There are still over 300 people in my extended family that is Catholic. I know the Catholic faith well and about 15 years ago I began to read the Bible for myself. Kauffman is a good friend of mine and has helped me work through things in the past. I have been reading this blog since he began to write it but have avoided commenting because I have seen how long the comments thread can get. Its a shame that you reject the gospel of justification by faith alone, in Christ alone and by grace alone. I really have no intention of going back and forth with you and you shouldn’t presume to know so much about me. I also rejecting your advise.

         Reply

         1. Tim, Its interesting to me that Walt on here said the same thing, that he started to read the bible and came out of Roman Catholicism. I was an unchurched heathen professional musician into every sin imaginable and started to read the bible and hear the word of God, John MacArthur in L.A, and came to faith. I guess the Scripture is right that “faith come thru hearing, and hearing the word of God. Without question that God regenerates believers thru the Spirit using the word of God, bringing us to faith. You were then able to see the errors of Romanism. How has it gone over with your family Tim? God Bless.

            Reply

            1. Hey Kevin,

               Thanks for the encouragement. Amen to what you said! My dad is still Catholic but my sister and I along with my mom are now Protestant Reformed. My parents are still together an love each other very much and we are trying to reach him with the gospel. When my grandma was sick and passing away our family would read the account of the miracle of the sun at Fatima, pray the Rosary and ask Mother Mary to intercede for her. I protested and knew it was demonic but Kauffmans blog has helped me to see it for what it truly is. I recently had a conversation with my dad and preached the true gospel to him. He told me that Mother Mary would save him and that he was trusting in her. I gently and lovingly told him that he would die in his sins and go to hell for believing that demonic lie. So many in my family have already died in their sins believing that Mary was a co-mediator and co-redeemer. I pray that he believes before he dies. The problem is that they don’t regard the word of God and they really don’t know the word of God. When they do make an attempt to stand on the word of God they merely prooftext by trying to throw something like James 2:24 out as though that settles the matter. Yet they twist the scriptures. It is no surprise then because even Satan quoted scripture to Jesus in the temptation of the wilderness. When my dad says that stuff about Mary being his mediator I just recite verse like 1 Tim 2:25 and Acts 4:12 to him. They really are held “captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col 2:8) We have to just keep preaching the gospel “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom 1:16). Keep doing what you are doing brother. God bless.

         2. Tim S,

            You Irish name, the pedigree of priests and nuns means zero.
            I did not say Kauffman brought you out of the Church. Someone else you gave your soul over to brought you out and into Calvinism. You are gullible. Sinfully so.

            Reply

            1. Hey Jim,
               I was pointing out that I’m not ignorant. Do you label everyone who disagrees with you as gullible? It’s unfortunate that you think that is the reason I stand where I do. I hope you turn away from the Catholic church and trust in Jesus alone for your salvation.

            2. Tim S, You want me to leave the Church? No, I am not the gullible one.

            3. Tim, Jim is our model example of the Catholic who goes and stares at the bread for an hour, passes out plastic rosaries, wears a scapular, is big into the apparitions. He is exhibit A. I pray for him to trust Christ alone too.

3. Tim, welcome to this site. I am a believer who has lost every Roman Catholic friend sharing the truth of the gospel with them . I too have all my friends coming to this site. Read every article that Tim has done, and get his books. He simply is one of the most informed people there is on the false Christianity of Roman catholicism, he himself being a dedicated Roman Catholic at one time who was saved out of that church. His book Graven Bread is amazing and a must read. His insights and commitment to fight this giant error are unbending. God Bless

   Reply

4. Tim, as I reread my first question might be evident. Rev. 9:6 says men will seek death and not find it. This was the martyr’s death that none of them found. And ironically the Popes offered remissions of sins and heaven. Almost like God saying you have no power Antichrist (Pope) to make that promise.

   Reply

5. Faith/ Veil,

   “Tim, welcome to this site. I am a believer who has lost every Roman Catholic friend sharing the truth of the gospel with them .”

   No sir. You have lost all your Catholic friends for being obnoxious.
   Don’t blame it on the Gospel.

   “I too have all my friends coming to this site.”

   All your friends are coming to this site? I am the only one dumb enough to come to this site. Nobody else. Does this mean we are friends?

   “Read every article that Tim has done, and get his books.”

   Kevin, quit acting like Grave Bread is divinely inspired. Grow up and get a life of your own.

   Reply

   1. Jim,

      Thanks for your participation. You’re always welcome here. Graven Bread is certainly not divinely inspired. I don’t know any Christian author who would put their own work in the same category as the Scriptures. Nor do Christian readers place the writings and opinions of men in the category of Scriptures. Nevertheless, men can and do point to the Scriptures to edify the flock, and it is my pleasure and privilege to do so here. I stand by the identification of the eucharist as the living, speaking idol that was to be worshiped on pain of death during the inquisitions, and the apparitions of Mary as that false prophet that arises to erect the image for worship. I am glad that this information is of some benefit to those who drop in for a read. As always, everything I say must be tested against the Scriptures. I am grateful that there are participants who do exactly that.

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim,

         You said:

         “I stand by the identification of the eucharist as the living, speaking idol that was to be worshiped on pain of death during the inquisitions, and the apparitions of Mary as that false prophet that arises to erect the image for worship.”

         The more I think about this position, the more I don’t necessarily believe it would be considered a historicist post-mill position. By eliminating the 1260, 1290 and 1335 year periods, I am not sure that any reformed historicist has done this before when writing on eschatology.

         I also think the reformers had mostly equal access to the same resources on the early church that you have been quoting…generally speaking. While certainly the Romish church has improved upon these false doctrines in our generation, and more modern documented miracles have been produced by the Vatican, I suspect the same could be said about the miracles being promoted by the Mormons, Adventists, Evangelicals, TV ministries, etc. in our generation. It is a most interesting historical study for sure.

         Reply

         1. Thanks, Walt. I will expound on the 1260, 1290 and 1335 presently. I hope I have not given you the impression that I do not believe they are relevant. I think they are quite relevant. Tied to Daniel as Revelation is, an understanding of these numbers must be based on Daniel’s understanding, and his understanding was based on what Gabriel explained to him (Daniel 9:21). That is where we must start. My focus to this point has been on the Seals and Trumpets, but I’ll visit Daniel in short order.

            Thanks so much for your participation. I appreciate your comments and insights.

            Tim

            Reply

6. Tim, as you can see Jim is the resident Roman Catholic that comes on the site to cause trouble. He is 2 bricks shy of a load! lol

   Reply

7. Tim said ” I dot know any Christian author who would put their writings in the same category with the Scriptures” And the effective word here is Christian author. The Magisterium puts there infallible writings up there with Scripture. Tim, hope you are doing well. My wife and I are always praying for you and the family. K

   Reply

8. Jim, I figured it out, you are Mikel. Great job hiding it!

   Reply

   1. No Kevin, I am not Mikel. He is much more insightful than I am and much more articulate. He is your worst nightmare.

      Reply

9. Jim, you finally got busted for slandering my name on Jason’s site. Your sin found you out. Maybe its time for you to behave properly like a good Catholic boy. You posted my comments from this site over there. Thank you. You did more for the gospel today than I did. lol

   Reply

   1. Kevin,
      If I posted YOUR comments, how can that be slander?
      Are they your comments or not?

      Reply

      1. Jim, because you did it with a intention to harm me.

         Reply

         1. Kelvin, Get a dictionary. I exposed you, I tattled on you, I ratted you out, I squealed on you I informed on you. I did not slander you.

            Reply

10. Tim, it sounds like you have a good understanding of everything. I will pray for your dad and all your extended family. The one thing I have realized about Roman Catholicism is that they have hooked their people by telling them that there is no salvation outside their church and the sacraments of the New Law. The church substitutes itself for Christ by collapsing the head into the body and substitutes itself for the Spirit by his working at the behest of a Priest ( alter Christus) a secondary cause. I have had success in explaining that the true church is the recipient of God’s grace and not the provider. It is the Sprit that brings the Word to the heart and fiducia to the heart and all of God’s blessings and not the church. God has control of the conscience not the church. Show your dad 1 John 2:27. The Roman church with their ecclesiastical machinery has replaced the atonement with sacramental efficacy , and a life of faith with earning increases of grace thru the sacraments. One of the things the Reformers objected to so much is that a sacrament was a gift and seal and confirmation of God’s grace, and not a work on the part of man to propitiate his own sins and earn increases of salvation. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. Trent cannon 6 as you probably know says To the one who works well to the end and Paul says in Romans 4:5 to the one who does not work. I try to get Catholics to see the antithesis that Paul gives between hearing by faith and works. Ephesians 2;8 says ” not of yourselves” not of works” If they can see how Catholic doctrine violates anything coming from ourselves as meritorious. Our obeying the Law is our spiritual service of worship, but not God helping us to achieve His favor with his help. Anyway I will be in prayer. God bless.

    Reply

11. Kevin,

    Jason and Kenneth are crazy aren’t they? They both appease you, thinking you won’t push further as you smell their weakness.
    I would ban you PERIOD.
    They are both converts. They didn’t grow up knowing your brand of bigotry. They have to learn the hard way. Nick and C2C moderate you out but these two Neville Chamberlain appeasers need to get burnt by you in order to wake up.
    You did notice how some of the other folks wanted you gone too.
    Oh well, you will ratchet up. ( You must have been dying to unleash last night when I was posting to you as Ms Faith ). Then they both will finally dump you. They deserve your punishment for their weak sense of the Faith. I have no mercy for them.
    You are going to get bored ranting about the “gospel”. You want to spit on them. Tim wants you to too.
    You eventually will. They will probably even let you for a while.
    I am just going to sit back and wait for you to get tired of asking Nick or Mateo why they smuggle their works into the act. They just shine you on and you will test them to see if they have the guts to slap you down. They won’t. Then you will get bolder.
    Kevin, you are like Babylonians punishing Israel.

    Reply

12. Jim, I really intend to follow everything Nick has asked me, as I have always have done. There is only one guy squeaking all the time, and it ain’t me. But i think you finally got put in your place and you will be better. I really am going to try to get along with you Jim.

    Reply

13. Tim, don’t let Jim bait you. He is what my dad called a sh-t stirrer. He will try to wear on you mentally.

    Reply

    1. Your dad was a baptized Catholic who failed to raise his son as a Catholic ( or without any religion at all ). So much for your dad’s judgement.

       Reply

14. To all those who have read Graven bread I would encourage you to go on amazon and leave feedback so more people will read this book. I have just done as much. K

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Kevin. I appreciate the feedback.

       Tim

       Reply
15. Pingback: The Trumpets, Part 3 | Out of His Mouth
16. Pingback: Leaving San Francisco (The Bowls, part 1) | Out of His Mouth

17. Tim, As I read this again Im trying to get my mind around the Roman Catholic church promissing remission of sins for attacking the Holy Land. Tim, do you ever sit back and think about the way Rome has used thd promise of forgiveness, something only Christ can give, to accomplish evil means, self interest. How can anyone think this is Christ’s church. You would have to be in complete denial? Wow. K

    Reply

18. Tim wrote:

    “A martyr, by Rome’s definition, needs no absolution, and one who needs absolution is therefore not a martyr. A “martyr” has been baptized in blood, so to speak, and needs neither prayers nor absolution. Since martyrdom “confers the grace of justification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and temporal punishments,” there is no need for extreme unction for absolution of sins. There is no need for absolution at all—private or public—for martyrs.”

    This is what I understand as well. When you were in the debate with that other blogger (forget his name) he also explained that Rome’s position is that martyrs are saved by justification and the spilling of their blood.

    Your link to the EWTN site was not working.

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Walt. The EWTN link is now working. I provide it here as well:

       https://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/BAPTISM.TXT

       Tim

       Reply

19. ” what is the criteria for the Reformed to know if someone is in heaven or not? ” The bible gives clear assurance for those trusting in Christ alone for their salvation. It also clearly teaches us those trusting in works of any kind to find the favor of God, will not find salvation. These men believing the Pope and looking for remission of sins through their deeds, the scripturecsays didnt find it.

    Reply

20. KEVIN–
    You said: ” what is the criteria for the Reformed to know if someone is in heaven or not? ” The bible gives clear assurance for those trusting in Christ alone for their salvation.”

    So, all of the Reformed believe that this gets them into heaven.
    Where is the list of saints(like St. Stephen, St. Paul, St. John, St Kevin) that the Reformed formally recognize as positively in heaven?

    Reply

    1. Yes, 1 John 5:13 Theee things have been written to you who believe in Jesus Christ, that you may know thatyou have eternal life. Also Romans 5:1, 8:1, and 4:16 give those trusting in Christ alone the assurance of salvation. The WCF also tells us we can have this humble asurance. Thats why the gospel is called good news. John Bunyon said my righteousness is in heaven. Romans 3:26, He is just and justifier of those who have faith in Jesus. And yes read the introduction of Corinthians and Paul calls that rag tag group saints, sanctified past tense. We are no more righteous positionally today than when we die. We pursue holiness that our practice meets our position. Jremiah 23 says ” the Lord is our righteouness. K

       Reply

21. ” So all the Reformed believe that this gets them into heaven” I don’t think I answered your question exactly. Our assurance doesn’t get us into heaven, but Christ our righteousness that comes by faith gets us into heaven( Romans 3:24-26, Romans 4:25) gives us the assurance that we are saved. Romans 8 says nothing can separated us from the love of God. Thats why Romans 5:1 tells us that we have been justified past tense and have shalom, peace present tense. Its called the promise. So even though there is a future element in the already/ not yet, we possess the promise and the adoption, and the justification, and the inheritance now. Final judgment will be in terms of our works being rewarded, but not in the sense of eternal life, that has been procured by the righteousness of Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:19, Romans 4:5 says God justifies the ungodly, by believing in Him, He credits the righteousness of Christ t us apart form all works. To believe otherwise is to believe a false gospel.

    Reply

22. Kevin–
    You said: ” I don’t think I answered your question exactly. ”

    You’ re right. You didn’t. So let me rephrase: Where is the list of saints (such as St. Stephen, St. Paul, St. John, St Kevin) that the Reformed formally recognize as positively in heaven?

    Reply

23. Bob, your a chameleon there. Lets review. I said ” those trusting in Christ alone have assrance of salvation from scrptures. You said ” so all the reformed believe thisvgets them to heaven ” and I said that Christ’righteouness gets us to heaven and this is our assurance. I believe this gift of assurance comes from the Spirit assuring us we are children of God. Scripture says His Spirit bears witness with our Spirit we are children of God. If you dont have that then get out of your religion. Why do you need a list of saints, assurance is personal given by the Spirit. Think of how many Popes who got sainted will be lining the gates of hell.

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You have a persistent way of dodging the question. You could have said “We don’t have a list.” or “Sure, here’s the reference to our list of saints.” But instead you have to preach.

       I take it that Reformed adhere to the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed, yes? Both of them say something about the communion of saints, right? How do you go about communing with the saints?

       Reply

       1. Bob, now you want to know how I comunicate with saints. The ones that are alive I talk with, the ones that are dead I cant communicate with. You dont see the Apostles praying or communicating with dead saints. Its hard to keep Catholics in theit swimming lane. What part of one mediator dont you get, orvhaving been made complete in Christ. I see prying to anyone other than God thru Christ as a denial that Christ is sufficient for evrything. Notvsure what your getting at. First you ask me about assurance. I think the question should bd put back on you, why arent you guaranteed salvation? Im guessing the answer is your becoming more righteous everyday thru your obedience and you cant have that assurance since it depends on you in some part. And this fatal lack of understanding of the distinction between law and gospel. Paul says law isnt faith. The sermon on the mount Jesus re set the standard of the law, perfection, and no one will be justified by any law. ” if you even lust in your mind you have commited adultry. How you doing with that one. Run to the gospel Bob.

          Reply

          1. KEVIN–
             Back up, Dude. I said commune, not communicate. Communion, not communication. There is a difference.
             Now, answer the questions.

             Reply

             1. Bob, you have had english courses right. Whats the root of comunicate. One defenition of commune involves communication. Look it up. If your asking me how I commune with brothers and sisters in Christ ill tell you. We are individual members of the body of Christ, the church, carrying on the mission of Christ to share the gospel and love neighbor. If younmean commune with God, I do it thru faith alone in Christ alone through the Spirit, offering Him thanksgiving, confession, spiritual sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart, and praise. We are th temple of the Holy Spirit, God doesnt dwell in buildings or tabernacles.

24. TIM–
    Obviously, Kevin is having a hard time with this question.
    What is the Reformed view on the communion of saints?

    Reply

    1. Why do you ask?

       Reply

       1. Does the Reformed formally recognize people who have passed into the eternal and are in heaven? If so, how?
          Why is this such a hard question to answer?

          Reply

          1. Why do you ask?

             Reply

             1. “Inquiring minds want to know.”
                Seriously, do you have something like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, or do you observe All Saints Day?
                Communion of Saints is a phrase that you would be familiar with if you are used to reciting the Apostle’s Creed. Along with a list of other things, we proclaim that we believe in the “communion of saints,” but the concept is never explained.
                How do you, Tim, explain the Communion of Saints?
                It makes a difference to me because you indicate a disbelief in “formalized Sainthood” even though some Presbyterian Churches are named St. Luke, St. Andrews, St. Mark, etc. just like the Methodist Churches do.

             2. Because I want you to answer.

       2. TIM–
          Obviously you don’t want to answer the question. So I am left to believe that you can’t answer because you don’t believe in the communion of saints. You believe that once a person is dead and gone, the living cannot commune with them. You also believe that Christ, being raised Body with Spirit, cannot be in two places at the same time. That means He does not share the attribute of omnipresence with the Father which says He is less than 100% God. If that is the case, then you make out Jesus as being a liar when He said, “Whenever two or more of you are gathered in My Name, there I am in your midst.” Or He didn’t really mean it when He said to the apostles, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
          Tim, that’s not what you want people to believe about you, is it?

          Reply

          1. Bob,

             Did Joan of Arc ever kill anyone? Do Martyrs receive extreme unction before they die? Do Martyr’s receive absolution posthumously? Was St. Francis canonized a martyr by being canonized a saint? Any thoughts on those questions?

             In your comment, you concede the fact that you arrive at “truth” by induction and invalid inference, which is impossible. You wrote,

             “So I am left to believe…”

             That you are left at the mercy of your own illogical devices, I do not deny.

             “You believe that once a person is dead and gone, the living cannot commune with them.”

             Do I? Is that what your invalid inferences are telling you?

             “You also believe that Christ, being raised Body with Spirit, cannot be in two places at the same time.”

             Do I? Is that what your invalid inferences are telling you?

             “That means He does not share the attribute of omnipresence with the Father which says He is less than 100% God.”

             You stated this as if it was a personal conviction of yours. Did you mean instead to impute it to me? You continued,

             “If that is the case, then you make out Jesus as being a liar when He said, “Whenever two or more of you are gathered in My Name, there I am in your midst.” Or He didn’t really mean it when He said to the apostles, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.””

             Tell me, Bob. When the Pharisees demanded an answer from Jesus, and then He refused to comply (Luke 20:8), were they “left believing” that Jesus could not answer because He did not know? If so, had they reasoned infallibly in their conclusion that Jesus did not know the answer because He refused to answer them?

             You have a propensity for asking questions that verge on the comical edge of ignorance, i.e., “Where is your evidence that Urban II did not privately absolve the sins of the martyrs?”, and then move on to another topic without acknowledging the cavernous ignorance that led to such a question. And yet you represent yourself as a defender of Roman Catholicism, and criticize those who “mischaracterize” Rome.

             Well, you may impute to me whatever attributes you wish. I’ll answer your questions as I please, and when I please.

             Thanks,

             Tim

             Reply

             1. TIM–
                Ok. So now I know it is accusations that garner a response instead of asking direct questions.

                You said: “Did Joan of Arc ever kill anyone? Do Martyrs receive extreme unction before they die? Do Martyr’s receive absolution posthumously? Was St. Francis canonized a martyr by being canonized a saint? Any thoughts on those questions?”

                My thoughts are that anyone who is recognized by the universal (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.) Church as a Saint is in heaven no matter how they got there. You seem to think otherwise. i.e. St. Francis.

                You also said: “’You believe that once a person is dead and gone, the living cannot commune with them.’
                Do I? Is that what your invalid inferences are telling you?
                ‘You also believe that Christ, being raised Body with Spirit, cannot be in two places at the same time.’
                Do I? Is that what your invalid inferences are telling you?

                My apologies, Tim. I went back to find where you said it and I was wrong. It was Kevin that said that, not you.

                You also said: “‘That means He does not share the attribute of omnipresence with the Father which says He is less than 100% God.’ You stated this as if it was a personal conviction of yours. Did you mean instead to impute it to me? ”

                If the shoe fits. I’m the one who believes in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. You deny it.
                The doctrine of hypostatic union states that Christ is 100% God and 100% man including His Flesh and Blood. The doctrine of concomitance states that Christ’s Flesh and Blood remain together after the Resurrection and are never to be separated again.
                Do you deny this as well?

                You also said: “Tell me, Bob. When the Pharisees demanded an answer from Jesus, and then He refused to comply (Luke 20:8), were they “left believing” that Jesus could not answer because He did not know? If so, had they reasoned infallibly in their conclusion that Jesus did not know the answer because He refused to answer them?”

                Luke 20 talks about the chief priests and the scribes, not the Pharasees. And Jesus doesn’t answer them directly but tells a parable and they got the message anyway. They were “left believing” that they wanted him dead.

                You also said: “You have a propensity for asking questions that verge on the comical edge of ignorance, i.e., “Where is your evidence that Urban II did not privately absolve the sins of the martyrs?”, and then move on to another topic without acknowledging the cavernous ignorance that led to such a question.”

                What lead to that ignorant question was your assumption that there were no martyrs in the crusades when you couldn’t possibly know that. I gave you one instance where at least one was recognized in Portugal and you pooh-poohed it because he was not “officially cannoned” by Rome.
                I believe there is a myriad of saints in heaven that are not officially cannoned by Rome. How do you know none of them are from the crusades? The truth is you don’t know for sure.

                You think that nobody who dies in battle killing others can go to heaven? I dare you to say that in front of anyone who lost friends and family members fighting your so called “sixth trumpet judgement” in World War II against Nazi Germany. I dare you to say that in front of any Jew whose family member was liberated by men who fought and died for them by killing the enemy.

                And then you finally said: “I’ll answer your questions as I please, and when I please.”

                Your smugness does not impress me. How does it feel to be “mischaracterized”, huh?

             2. Bob,

                You asked,

                “You think that nobody who dies in battle killing others can go to heaven?”

                Where did I ever say that? That is the problem with attempting a conversation with you. You simply invent statements that you disagree with and impute them to your opponent. I have never said that “nobody who dies in battle killing others can go to heaven.”

                Thanks,

                Tim

25. Bob, what are you asking us, do we have a medal ceremony for those who have died in Christ? Their reward is in heaven. What do you mean by recognize. If we see them we recognize them and say Hi. You mean like a hierarchal ladder where Mary and the Pope are at the top, then all the Catholic saints, then trinity hating muslims, people who are doing there best, Charismatics, and at the bottom Reformed. We don’t have a saint ladder that i know of. In a positional sense Tim or Walt is are no more righteousness than me or any other believer. From a practical sense knowing myself I’m guessing they are more Holy. lol. We don’t believe in Saint recognition ceremonies. Our saints are throwing their crowns back at Jesus feet.

    Reply

    1. TIM–
       You said: “Where did I ever say that? That is the problem with attempting a conversation with you. You simply invent statements that you disagree with and impute them to your opponent. I have never said that “nobody who dies in battle killing others can go to heaven.”

       Then what did you mean when you said this:
       “These citations are the fleeting hopes of the admirers of the deceased, nothing more. In Rome, fleeting hope no more makes a martyr than a saint. ”
       What did you mean by “fleeting hopes”?

       Reply

       1. Bob,

          You asked,

          Then what did you mean when you said this:

          “These citations are the fleeting hopes of the admirers of the deceased, nothing more. In Rome, fleeting hope no more makes a martyr than a saint. ”

          What did you mean by “fleeting hopes”?

          Some context: My statement was as follows:

          “In the Fifth Trumpet, that martyr’s crown was what men wanted most, and that crown was denied them. They wanted to die a martyr’s death. As we shall see, not a single crusader did. At the Council of Clermont Pope Urban II promised the crown of martyrdom and remission of sins for those who died on the Crusades. … And yet for all of these promises, there is not a single Martyr-saint recognized by the Roman Catholic religion for his death on crusades to the Holy Land.”

          I must emphasize that the original claim was “there is not a single Martyr-saint recognized by the Roman Catholic religion for his death on crusades to the Holy Land.”

          To this, you replied,

          “Not a single one, huh?”

          Then you provided an example of someone who died on crusade: “Many of their comrades firmly believed that death in combat against the enemies of the faith was a form of martyrdom. … death in battle in the crusades was considered a highly meritorious act, many believed that a series of miraculous events at Henry’s grave confirmed his status as a true martyr.”

          Since my original quote claimed, as noted above, was not that “There is not a single person who died on crusade,” but rather, that “There is not a single Martyr-saint recognized by the Roman Catholic religion for his death on crusades to the Holy Land,” I provided evidence from the Roman Catholic religion that the martyr candidate you provided did not prove anything since the “firm belief” of some does not a martyr make, and therefore your attempt to provide martyr candidates did not disprove my original statement. Having provided that data, you denigrated the evidence as follows:

          “I gave you one instance where at least one was recognized in Portugal and you pooh-poohed it because he was not “officially cannoned” by Rome.”

          I hardly “pooh-poohed” it. I disproved it. There are no “recognized” martyrs from the crusades to the Holy Land, and I stand by that statement. There are candidates, I suppose, but no recognized martyrs. In your own words,

          “Many of their comrades firmly believed that death in combat against the enemies of the faith was a form of martyrdom. This pious hope was bolstered when a number of miracles were reported to have occurred in connection with these supposed martyrs. … Since death in battle in the crusades was considered a highly meritorious act, many believed that a series of miraculous events at Henry’s grave confirmed his status as a true martyr.”

          You provided evidence that some people believe that the dead were martyrs, but you provided no evidence that these people were recognized by the Roman Catholic religion as martyr. Yet for some reason you believe you had disproved my allegation.

          Now, having provided the background, you concluded from all of this that “[I] think that nobody who dies in battle killing others can go to heaven,” something I never said or implied. What I did say, as you correctly quoted me, was that your “citations are the fleeting hopes of the admirers of the deceased, nothing more. In Rome, fleeting hope no more makes a martyr than a saint.”

          You are now asking me to explain why that statement does not mean that “[I] think that nobody who dies in battle killing others can go to heaven.” In other words, you are asking me to explain to you why your invalid inference is wrong.

          Instead, why don’t you explain to me how you got “nobody who dies in battle killing others can go to heaven,” out of “These citations are the fleeting hopes of the admirers of the deceased, nothing more. In Rome, fleeting hope no more makes a martyr than a saint.”

          In any case, the citations you provided are “the fleeting hopes of the admirers of the deceased” because the deceased will never be recognized by Rome as martyrs.

          Thanks,

          Tim

          Reply

          1. TIM–
             All right. Here is what I have gleaned from your words IF I have understood them correctly.
             You do believe that someone killed in battle while killing others can go to heaven.
             You do believe that anyone who goes to heaven is a confirmed saint but that the Roman Catholic Church is not the authority or only authority to make that determination.
             As far as the World Wars are concerned, you indicate it is possible that there were those killed in battle that have gone to heaven–crowned as saints.
             As far as the Crusades are concerned, you indicate that none of those killed in battle went to heaven–crowned as saints.
             Am I correct so far?

             Reply

             1. Bob,

                You wrote,

                You do believe that someone killed in battle while killing others can go to heaven.

                Yes, I do.

                You do believe that anyone who goes to heaven is a confirmed saint…

                Yes, only saints go to heaven, so anyone who goes to heaven is therefore a saint.

                …but that the Roman Catholic Church is not the authority or only authority to make that determination.

                Here’s where I think we’re talking past each other. Roman Catholicism is not capable of determining sainthood or “martyrhood,” but that is a separate issue from the Fifth Trumpet of Revelation. The only issue at hand with the Fifth Trumpet is that people went on crusade because they were promised a martyr’s crown—Rome claiming, and the crusaders believing, that Rome would grant one. Rome never did. In this sense, the crusader’s sought death and death fled from them. “Death” here is the “martyr’s death,” and not one “martyr’s death” was ever recognized by Rome. Part of the torment is that they underwent these torments for a reward that they would never obtain.

                Part of the confusion you are causing is that you continually equate being a martyr with being a saint. Every martyr is a saint, but not every saint is a martyr. The two terms cannot be used univocally. Everyone eventually dies, but death is related to being a martyr in a way that it is not related to being a saint. The confusion manifests when you say:

                As far as the World Wars are concerned, you indicate it is possible that there were those killed in battle that have gone to heaven–crowned as saints.
                As far as the Crusades are concerned, you indicate that none of those killed in battle went to heaven–crowned as saints.

                That’s not the issue. The issue is whether anyone killed on crusade was recognized by Rome as a martyr after Rome promised such recognition as the reward if they died on Crusade. None were so rewarded or recognized. There are some recognized “saints” who went on crusade, but not one recognized “martyr.” For some reason, you insist on equating saint with martyr, but since the difference between the two has to do with death, using the two terms univocally is an obstacle to communication when the key point of dispute is whether the Crusaders obtained the death they sought after. None did.

                On a related note, none of those who went on Crusade were saints, and therefore none who died on Crusade were martyrs. As the Scripture says, the locusts only tormented those who were not saints:

                “And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.” (Revelation 9:4-6)

                Since I believe the Fifth Trumpet was fulfilled in demonic “locusts” tormenting men by instilling in them an insatiable desire to crusade to the Holy Land from 1095-1245 A.D., and the only people so tormented were “those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads,” then I don’t believe that anyone who went on Crusade was a believer, and therefore none could be “martyrs” anyway. But that’s a separate discussion.

                The issue at hand is whether anyone who went on Crusade was recognized as a martyr by Rome after Rome promised them that as the reward if they went on Crusade. None were.

                Thanks,

                Tim

26. Bob, brotherhood of believers, assembly, group, church. Incidentally Calvin rightly points out the creed does notvsay I believe IN holy catholic church, it says I believe holy catholic church. The scripture is clear in the New Covenant we dont observe feasts or days. There is a difference in interpretation between the RC and Reformed on what was meant by comunion of the saints. Of course we see no crowning of saints in the bible. Paul called himself a bond servant of the Lord. But Paul calls the the Corinthians saints as in all who have been justified by faith alone. Another term for believer. But not a heirarchy like in Rome, where Mary had so much extra righteousness it can be traded and swaped from the treasury.

    Reply

27. KEVIN–
    You said: “Incidentally Calvin rightly points out the creed does notvsay I believe IN holy catholic church, it says I believe holy catholic church. ”

    Huh? How does that sentence make any sense at all?

    Apostles Creed : “I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.”

    Nicene Creed: “And I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
    I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
    And I look for the Resurrection of the Dead:
    And the Life of the world to come. Amen.”

    Reply

28. Bob, that isnt the correctvreading in the original language, I believe holy catholic church. We believe in God, we believe holy catholic church. Incidentally if you notice tgats not the Roman Catholic church, Roman being specific, catholic being universal. Thx

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       “I believe holy catholic church.”

       In any language, what does that mean? It’s an incomplete sentence. If read like it is stated, it would mean your belief is holy catholic church. That makes no sense.

       Reply

29. It means I believe what the true church teaches, the universal catholic church made up of all true believers fromm all nations and all times, superintended by the Spirit. Not to be confused with Roman Catholicism the apostate church under the anathema of Galatians 1:9.

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       So you do believe IN the holy universal church.

       What you said was “Incidentally Calvin rightly points out the creed does notvsay I believe IN holy catholic church, it says I believe holy catholic church. ”

       That is plain and simple deception on your part by twisting the meaning of the words. You are the one who said these words.

       Reply

30. No Bob, that is the understanding in the early church including Augustine, to add the preposition in in relationship to church in the creed is to change its meaning. This can be found in De Symboli Expositsione. You again are deceptive. Do the hardwork and research It. An easy assignment. Calvin believed that the church was devine I appointment or orgin, but not in essence, except for the fact in so much as the supernatural participation of believers in the divine nature. Councils do error and have errored.

    Reply

    1. My search – De Symboli Expositsione – did not match any documents.

       Reply

31. Put in Calvin’s conception of the church bu kuyper.

    Reply

32. Bob, that should be Calvins conception of the church by Kuiper. It will also answer you question Reformed concept of communion of the saints. Hope you will read it.

    Reply

33. Bob asked so do you believe in the holy catholic church. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe I am a member of the universal church made up of all true believers. I believe there are many visible churches who are faithful to scripture and the sacraments rightly administered. I dont believe in an infalible visible universal church with a home office in Rome. I dont believe Rome can place itself between Jesus and the Spirit as a divine distributor of salvation thru sacraments. God has control of the conscience, not the church. The church is only the recepient of God’s grace, not the provider. The church can lead us to Christ, but the Spiritbbrings salvation to the heart thru the Word,when and how He wills.

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You said: “No Bob, that is the understanding in the early church including Augustine, to add the preposition in in relationship to church in the creed is to change its meaning. This can be found in De Symboli Expositsione. You again are deceptive. Do the hardwork and research It. ”

       Ok. You asked for it:

       In Calvins conception of the church by Kuiper under the heading:
       I. The Church, Although Of Divine Appointment, Is Not Divine

       It says:
       “All those claims Calvin rejected emphatically and contented himself with stressing, as does the Apostles’ Creed, that the church is “the communion of saints”; that is to say, the communion of God’s elect, of sinners saved by grace through faith. In other words, the church consists of human beings who even in glory will continue human. Thus Calvin resolutely rejected the basic Romish error of obliterating the distinction between God and man.
       Highly significant is Calvin’s discussion of the fact that in the Apostles’ Creed the believer professes faith in God the Father, in God the Son, and in God the Holy Spirit, but not in the church. The Christian simply says: “I believe a holy, catholic church.”

       Wait a minute! What was that? What you said was “Incidentally Calvin rightly points out the creed does not say I believe IN holy catholic church, it says I believe holy catholic church. ” But that’s not what it says. It says “I believe a holy, catholic church.” Having the “a” in there makes sense. Your misquote is deceptive.

       The article goes on to say:
       “Said Calvin:The particle in is often interpolated, but without any probable ground . . . We may perceive from early writers, that the expression received without controversy in ancient times was to believe ‘the Church,’ and not ‘in the Church.’ This is not only the expression used by Augustine, and that ancient writer, whoever he may have been, whose treatise, De Symboli Expositione, is extant under the name of Cyprian, but they distinctly remark that the addition of the preposition would make the expression improper, and they give good grounds for so thinking. We declare that we believe in God, both because our mind reclines upon him as true, and our confidence is fully satisfied in him. This cannot be said of the Church (Institutes, IV, I, 2).
       It may not be inferred that Calvin held a low view of the church. Contrariwise, his view of the church was decidedly high. Although he denied that the church is divine in its essence, he taught that it is of divine origin. Did not the Son of God declare: “Upon this rock I will build my church”? Although he denied that the church is divine in its essence, he insisted that it is supernatural in its essence, for its living members are such as have been born of the Spirit and are “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1: 4) in the sense that the image of God is restored in them.”

       Which is EXACTLY what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

       Reply

34. First of all how would you know what the Roman Catholic church teaches about the church, you are a Methodist from Texas mm remenber. Incidentally, I’ve never seen a Methodist or Protestant defend the Roman synagog this vociferously in my life, Second, I said the preposition in didnt aply in the creed to thd church. I was right. And third, you are wrong, Calvin didnt hold to the RC view of church. You convienently left that part out. He didnt believe it was divine in essence, and he certainly didnt believe it was infalible. In fact he believed it was a false church, although with some semblance of Christianity surviveed in some local churches. My original point is correct, the word in doesnt apply to the church.

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You said: “First of all how would you know what the Roman Catholic church teaches about the church, you are a Methodist from Texas mm remenber. Incidentally, I’ve never seen a Methodist or Protestant defend the Roman synagog this vociferously in my life,”

       Well, there’s a first time for everything. I told you already how I know and why I defend it. It doesn’t make me a Catholic. The official teaching of the Catholic Church is the Catechism. That doesn’t mean that Catholics heed that teaching. Most Catholics don’t even bother learning what is in it. And their Sunday school classes are pathetic in teaching it. The ones I am familiar with don’t even offer adult Sunday school. Once the high schoolers have graduated, it’s good bye see ya later.

       The nice thing about being Methodist is the open communion.
       We let anyone who is baptized and professes Christ as their Lord and Saviour commune with us. We’re not all puffed up and stuffy about things. Christ died for ALL sinners, even Catholics and Reformed.
       Luk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them .

       Reply

35. KEVIN–
    Do you as a Christian represent Christ here on earth in your words and your actions? You should because you are a member of the Body of Christ. If you have received the Holy Spirit, then you have divine authority.
    Jhn 20:21ff
    So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
    If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

    In essence, you do divine work with your divine authority. You have been commissioned by Christ Himself to represent Him here on earth. Christ told his followers “whoever listens to you also listens to Me and the one who sent Me.”

    The commission does not make you divine in the sense of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence; rather, it makes you a “partaker of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1: 4) in the sense that the image of God is restored in them.”–John Calvin

    The Catholic Church teaches this and so do the ECF’s. I’ll stick with the pre-Nicene Fathers so as to not indicate it as a Roman invention:
    Irenaeus (c. 130-200)
    “[T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”
    “‘For we cast blame upon [God], because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness he declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.”
    “For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God.”
    Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
    “[T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.”
    “For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God”
    “[H]is is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, “Men are gods, and gods are men.” For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God”
    “[H]e who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher—made a god going about in flesh.”
    “And to be incorruptible is to participate in divinity…”
    Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
    “[Men] were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest.”
    Theophilus of Antioch (c. 120-190)
    “For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God…”
    Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235)
    “And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become God: for whatever sufferings you underwent while being a man, these He gave to you, because you were of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon you, because you have been deified, and begotten unto immortality.”
    “If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead.”
    Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373)
    “Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us”[Primary 11]
    “for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh.”
    “For He was made man that we might be made God.”
    Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395)
    “For just as He in Himself assimilated His own human nature to the power of the Godhead, being a part of the common nature, but not being subject to the inclination to sin which is in that nature (for it says: “He did no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth), so, also, will He lead each person to union with the Godhead if they do nothing unworthy of union with the Divine.”
    Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430)
    “‘For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.'[John 1:12] If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

    Reply

    1. Bob, your a Pantheist. When the Fathers talk about He became mamn that we might become gods, they are taliking about we become all He became to us in righteouness and holiness, we dont become what He is. Pick up the book Roman Catholic theology and practice by Gregg Allision. He explains the faulty axiom of the nature grace interconnection in Catholicism. Grace redeems nature and renews it. It is demerited favor. In Rome it is the currency of exchange on the church merit system. It is a soul substance ( they say accident) that elevates nature outside of itself. So from baptism the special juju is injected and the participant cooperates with God in merits and demerits accumulating more inherent righteouness on a tredmill of works and merits earning enough grace for salvation. The gospel is opposite and rejects Rome’s system of infusedchabits, since what we receive is a person that is offered, the incarnate Christ and his righteouness thru the Spirit. Our righteouness isnt derived from His, it is His righteousness that cmesvfrom outside of us thru union with Christ by faith. We are always righteouss before God because thru faith we are united with Christ and He is our justification. We are fitted for righteouss living thru the Spirit as we are relocated from the court room tothe living room. But our inherent righteousness is never the basis for our salvation. The righteounesus of Christ is our justification. He lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness. Incidentally, participation in the divine nature is the greek word koininia, which means felowship, like a husband and wife, not fused essence. Hope this helps, k

       Reply

    2. Bob, yes I represent Christ on earth and the church carries on his mission, not his incarnation or atonement. But here is the point the human articulation of forgiveness uttered by a minister or a friend, is a pronouncement of what is true, but its not the declaration that makes it true. When Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to the Apostles, the apostolic declaration that someone is still bound in her sins reflects a divine declaration that she is bound in her sins, same with loosed. The human pronouncement echos a state of affairs that is already true, and it does not make it true. Get it. Same with confession the human pronouncement doesnt make it true, it only pronounces what is already true. Thats why we reject auricular confession which has no foundation in thecearly church. K

       Reply

36. TIM–
    You said: “On a related note, none of those who went on Crusade were saints, and therefore none who died on Crusade were martyrs….Since I believe the Fifth Trumpet was fulfilled in demonic “locusts” tormenting men by instilling in them an insatiable desire to crusade to the Holy Land from 1045-1245 A.D., and the only people so tormented were “those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads,” then I don’t believe that anyone who went on Crusade was a believer, and therefore none could be “martyrs” anyway.

    Finally, it is clear what you say. You believe that because the soldiers on Crusade were Roman Catholic, and only Roman Catholic, none of them were Christian. Ergo, it doesn’t matter if they thought they died for the Name of Christ, because they were Catholic, hell was their only reward. Even if Rome had actually crowned some soldiers martyrs in the Crusades, you would say Rome was wrong in doing so because it is impossible for a confirmed Catholic to even be a saint, much less a martyr.

    So from 1045-1245 AD, who were the non-Catholic Christians? Are they recorded in history as being separate from Rome? I would love to study their history.

    Reply

    1. Sorry, Bob. I meant 1095 to 1245. Not 1045. Thanks.

       Tim

       Reply

37. Well then let me rephrase–
    So from 1095-1245 AD, who were the non-Catholic Christians? Are they recorded in history as being separate from Rome? I would love to study their history.

    Reply

38. Good day

    I have an urgent question
    it is about the locusts in revelation 9. if the locusts are NOT the people. So, they are not the Roman Catholic Church. How can it be that in verse 8, the locusts have long hair?
    In the fulfillment it says that the Roman Catholic Church are those who fullfilled it with their oath’s. But the locusts are not the Catholics. I can’t quite figure it out.

    Thanks for your help Brother!

    Reply