Follow
Before we proceed into a discussion on the Seven Bowls of Revelation, we will need to spend a few moments with Francis of Assisi. Aside from Mother Teresa, there is hardly a more sympathetic figure in Roman Catholicism. Modern Protestants and evangelicals often hail him as “one of ours” and for this reason prayers and quotes—rightly or wrongly attributed to him—find their way into Protestant sermons, into church bulletins and onto church marquises. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family wrote favorably of “our man” Francis, and Mark Galli of Christianity Today compiled a biography of him, entitled Francis of Assisi and His World. In the book he explains that Francis was
“a complex and contentious man who combined an irradiated mysticism with a very practical Christian commitment and, above all, sought to glorify God as Creator.”
We grant that Francis of Assisi was “an irradiated mystic,” but nothing more, as he invested much of his life seeking a martyr’s death for his own glory, and sought not to glorify God, but to glorify a crust of bread as if it had created the universe. Bread-worship is idolatry, and Francis of Assisi was among the worst of Rome’s practitioners of it. We therefore flatly deny that Francis of Assisi was a Christian. Our reasons for this are manifold, some of which we will explain here, and not the least of which is his participation in the Crusades.
As we noted in The Trumpets, Part 2, the Crusades to the Holy Land were the fulfillment of the Fifth Trumpet, in which the demonic locusts tormented men for five prophetic months (150 years), inciting them by “the sound of their wings” (Revelation 9:9) to invade the Holy Land “for the cause of Christ.” These demonic locusts were the cause of the remarkable response to Pope Urban II’s famous speech at Clermont in 1095 A.D., a speech which was unprecedented and unrivaled in history for its effect on the crowd. The reward that Urban promised to Crusaders, but was never given, was the glory of a martyr’s crown.
As we described in our analysis of the Fifth Trumpet, the purpose of the “locusts” was to torment men, and they were allowed to torment “only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads” (Revelation 9:4). One of the most important forms of torment during the Crusades was that “in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them” (Revelation 9:6). As we explained in our analysis of the Trumpets, Crusaders were promised a martyr’s death, yet not one Crusading martyr during those five prophetic months was ever identified or acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Crusaders sought a martyr’s death and did not find it. They desired to die a martyr’s death, and a martyr’s death fled from them. In what would be a remarkable irony of history were it not for Jesus’ explicit warning, Pope Urban II’s promise should have yielded thousands of martyrs, and yet not one was ever named for dying on Crusade to the Holy Land. St. Leopold III supported the first crusade, but died of natural causes after returning home. St. Adjutor was a knight in the First Crusade, but after being captured, he escaped and went back to France to enter an Abbey. St. Louis IX died not of martyrdom but of dysentery on crusade in Tunisia, and that after the 150 year reign of the locusts was over. There are many identified martyrs in Rome, and there are “saints” who went on Crusade, but none were honored with the martyr’s crown for dying on Crusade from 1095 – 1245 A.D.
Francis of Assisi, whose whole lifetime (1181 – 1226 A.D.) was contained within those 150 years, was himself tormented by those locusts and by the promise of the crown of martyrdom. Francis tried repeatedly, but in vain, to obtain the martyr’s crown on Crusade (John V. Tolan, Francis and the Sultan, Oxford University Press, 2009). His life story was woven into the fabric of the Fifth Trumpet of Revelation, and thus was Francis numbered among “those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.” But Francis also has the remarkable distinction of inaugurating the era of the Bowls of Revelation.
Before we begin our discussion on the Bowls, we will simply note that the Seven Seals of Revelation—which we explained in Do Not Weep for Nicomedia—were intricately tied to the Seven Trumpets—which we explained in The Trumpets, part 1, part 2 and part 3. The Seals and Trumpets are necessarily sequential to each other in that the Seven Trumpets were issued to the Seven Angels at the breaking of the Seventh Seal (Revelation 8:1-2), and begin to sound immediately. But the Seven Bowls of Judgment are separate from the Seals and Trumpets, introduced separately, beginning in Revelation 16. They are not related to the Seals and Trumpets at all and appear to be on a completely separate, but parallel, timeline. They cannot follow the Trumpets because the angel swears “that there should be time no longer” and “in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished” (Revelation 10:6-7). The Bowls must therefore begin sooner than the Seventh Trumpet. But when?
The description of the First Bowl provides the time frame. Although the Seven Seals and Seven Trumpets all unfolded without one mention of the Image of the Beast, we note that the First Bowl affects “the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image” (Revelation 16:2). Therefore, the Bowls can begin no sooner than when the Image of the Beast is introduced to be worshiped.
As we noted in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, A See of One, What the Fathers Feared Most, and One Kingdom Too Late, Roman Catholicism is the Antichrist—the quintessential antagonist of which we were warned by the Apostles and the Prophets, complete with the Number of the Beast. Antichrist was prophesied to arise at the division of the Roman Empire, and he came right on schedule. As we noted in In Vain Do They Worship Me, worship of the bread of the Lord’s Supper is central to the Roman Catholic liturgy, and as we explained in If This Bread Could Talk, the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the Image of the Beast. Through the many documented Eucharistic miracles, the Eucharist comes to life and is able to speak, as described in Revelation 13:15. As we explained in Mother Mary Speaks to Me, part 1 and part 2, the Apparition of Mary is the False Prophet of Revelation 13, and is responsible for the propagation of Eucharistic idolatry, for the false prophet says “to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast” (Revelation 13:14). The Roman Papacy is the Beast, the Apparition of Mary is the False Prophet, and the Roman Eucharist is the Image of the Beast.
But Roman Catholicism has not always adored the Eucharist. No, as we explained in When “Mary” Got Busy, try as they might, Roman Catholic apologists cannot trace Eucharistic adoration to the first century, or even to the fourth. They are forced by the facts of history to acknowledge that Eucharistic Adoration took Europe by storm in the 11th century, no sooner. It is no coincidence that the phenomenon of the Apparitions of Mary increased in frequency in the same century. It was in the 1000s that the False Prophet insisted that men “should make an image to the beast” (Revelation 13:14), and Roman Catholicism complied. Because the First Bowl is poured out upon the men who worship the Image of the Beast, the Bowls of Revelation can therefore begin no earlier than the 11th century.
Francis of Assisi, in addition to being tormented with a desire to crusade to the Holy Land, was also one of the most vocal proponents of Eucharistic Adoration in Roman Catholic history. He originally preferred to live with the French “because they have a greater reverence than other people for the Holy Eucharist” (Omer Englebert, St. Francis of Assisi: A Biography, (Cincinnati: Servant Books, 2013, p 181). He was wholly committed to the doctrine of the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and exhorted all men to worship it:
“Let every man tremble, let the whole world shake and the heavens rejoice when upon the altar the Son of the living God is in the hands of the priest!” (Englebert, 304).
According to Fr. John Hardon’s The History of Eucharistic Adoration, Francis “had a great personal devotion to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.” As noted at the Wikipedia entry on Eucharistic Adoration, he is credited with introducing Eucharistic Adoration to Italy and was often “swept in ecstasy after receiving Communion.” In his final Testament, Francis instructed his fellow monks that “in this world I physically see the most high Son of God only in his most holy body and blood, which they [the priests] receive and they alone administer to others. And I want this holy mystery to be honored above all things, venerated, and kept in costly containers.”
We here remind our readers that the object of Francis’ devotion was a crust of bread, for that was what Francis worshiped and that is what Roman Catholics have been worshiping for centuries. It is before a mere wafer that the whole world is invited by Francis to tremble, and it is to ground wheat that Francis insisted that we bend our knee. The Eucharistic bread is Rome’s idol, a powerless god that must be carried about by its unfortunate devotees. It is the Image of the Beast, and Francis poured out his life as an offering to the bread-god that was unable to save him. With that, we will now proceed with the Seven Bowls of Revelation, and Francis of Assisi, their herald.
First Bowl: The Stigmata (starting in 1224 A.D.)
“And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth. And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.” (Revelation 16:1-2)
If, as we have until now maintained, the Eucharist is the Image of the Beast, then a painful, seeping, weeping wound must of necessity follow the introduction of the Image of the Beast, as surely as the Image of the Beast must follow the False Prophet (the Apparitions of Mary), and as surely as the False Prophet must follow the Beast (the Papacy). The “noisome and grievous sore” in Revelation 16:2 is a “weeping sore” or “a wound, esp. a wound producing a discharge pus” like that of Lazarus the beggar, whose sores were licked by dogs in Luke 16:21. The Stigmata is precisely such a “sore.”
The Stigmata, literally, “the wounds,” is allegedly a manifestation of the five that Christ sustained in His Passion, and those who receive the Stigmata experience tremendous pain from their seeping wounds. As Catholic Online informs us, “All the recipients of this mystical wounding suffered dreadfully.” That pain is ostensibly offered back to Christ in reparation for sins, and stigmatists who so suffer are offered to Catholics as models for taking up the cross of Christ and following Him daily.
Those who experience the Stigmata are esteemed in Roman Catholicism to be profoundly religious, but we note rather that they all have a profound devotion to the Eucharist. Michael P. Carroll, in his work, Catholic Cults and Devotions: A Psychological Inquiry, helpfully makes this connection for us:
“Of course, if this is all correct, and both stigmatization and the reception of Holy Communion do gratify the same unconscious desire to incorporate the father, we would expect the two to be associated, and they are: we have already noted that stigmatics are known to have an especially strong desire to receive Holy Communion. … It was this conclusion that allowed us to explain the intense attachment to the Eucharist that characterizes so many stigmatists.”” (Carroll, Catholic Cults and Devotions, (Quebec: Mcgill-Queens University Press (1989) pp. 90, 104).
As we explained above, Eucharistic Adoration was introduced in the 11th century, and it is notable that the Stigmata manifested only after the “Eucharistic Revolution,” and occurs in those most fervently devoted to worshiping the Image of the Beast. A quick visit to the Roman Catholic catalogue of stigmatized saints and blesseds will show that the Stigmata is a phenomenon originating in the 13th century. The phenomenon continues today as many Roman Catholics continue to receive the sore. The online ministry, Mystics of the Church, provides detailed information on historical and modern day stigmatists who suffer to this day from the noisome and grievous sore of the First Bowl of Revelation. Another ministry has catalogued for us the top ten female stigmatists of the 20th century. Taking first place among them is Mary Ellen Lukas (1954 -present) whose noisome and grievous sore bleeds on her “forehead, palms, feet, and side during Mass … and whenever she mentions the Eucharist.” Other modern day stigmatists include Iriving Houle (d. 2009) and Teresa Musco (d. 1976), pictured below.
One of the most notable stigmatists is Padre Pio, who received the Stigmata in 1918 and suffered from it for fifty years. Notably, Pio was deeply devoted to the Eucharist, and is now called “a Patron Saint of Eucharistic Adorers.” We provide his photos, complete with Stigmata, below.
Of course, Padre Pio is only the second most famous Stigmatist in history. Francis of Assisi is the first, as artist Michael O’Brien* demonstrates for us in the picture at the head of this article. In 1224 A.D., two years before his death, Francis became the first Roman Catholic to receive the Stigmata, and O’Brien has depicted the noisome and grievous sore for us in his illustration.
Francis of Assisi was no Christian, but rather “wondered after the beast” with the rest of the world (Revelation 13:3). He fell under the spell of the demonic locusts that tormented men for “five months,” sought in vain for a martyr’s death that continually fled from him, worshiped the Image of the Beast, and bears forever the infamy of being the harbinger of the Seven Bowls of Revelation. He was among the most devoted worshipers of the Image of the Beast, and was the first to receive what many have since received after him—the “noisome and grievous sore” of Revelation 16:2.
To that end, we conclude this first installment on the Bowls of Revelation with two separate admonitions—the first to Roman Catholics and the second to Evangelical Protestants.
To Roman Catholics: We have heard your conversion stories and life stories often enough to recognize how deeply you long for the Eucharist. This is the same longing as that experienced by the Stigmatists. It draws you to its presence and compels you to kneel before it. Some of you have even related that you were, as if by an external force, physically prevented from turning your back to it as you exited the adoration room. Taylor Marshall, Jason Stellman, Rick Howick, Scott Hahn, David Anders, and many others—you have all expressed the longing you experienced for the Eucharist, even when you were still out of communion with Rome. That “eucharistic urge” you feel, and the “eucharisty feeling” it conveys when you worship it is a siren song of death to you. Resist it and repent if the Lord is pleased to grant repentance to you, and flee from Eucharistic Adoration as a young man must flee from his youthful lusts (2 Timothy 2:22). The apparitions throughout history that have implored you to worship “her son” in the Eucharist mean this for your harm, and not for your good. The Eucharist that “Mary” implores you to worship is the Image of the Beast, and the Stigmata is the noisome and grievous sore that is poured out upon them who worship it. Any one of you could be next to receive it, but it is no blessing. It is a judgment upon your idolatry.
To Evangelical Protestants: For fleshly reasons, we have engaged in a tug-of-war with Roman Catholics for the right to claim “St. Francis” as our man, so enamored are we with the cartoonish caricature we have made of him. That caricature is false. Francis was deeply and woefully misled, and stumbled right into the trap that was laid for him by the Serpent from whom the Beast receives “his power, and his seat, and great authority” (Revelations 13:2).
We need not try to “out-Francis” Roman Catholics as if “St. Francis” was a proto-evangelical who just preached the gospel “without words” and loved animals. He was an idolater, an “irradiated mystic” who thought his own blood could atone for sins in a martyr’s death, and worshiped a piece of bread as if it had the power to create the universe from nothing and save sinners from hell. For this reason “there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon” him (Revelation 16:2), a sore that has continued to inflict worshipers of the Image of the Beast to this day. His are footsteps in which we must not follow. He is not to be venerated, imitated or lionized by Christ’s Church, but rather should be pitied for his lamentable cry for the world to join him in worshiping what was destined for the latrine. We invite all who love the truth and follow Christ to leave St. Francis behind. “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60).
This concludes our first installment on the Bowls of Revelation 16. We will continue next week with the Second Bowl of Revelation, in which the second angel poured out his bowl of judgment on the sea, and “it became as the blood of a dead man” (Revelation 16:3).
___________________________________
* Images of Francis of Assisi are used under the “fair use” clause of section 107 of US copyright law.
God have mercy.
Tim, the scripture says for the worship the creature rather than the creator who is blessed foreve. Mans problem has always been idolatry. Satan knows this and leads them to the trough of death. ” And they exchanged the glory of the incorrupible God for an image” Yes indeed that portion of Romans 1 is labeled in my bible unbelief and its consequences. Truly idoatry is unbelief without which no one can please God. Satan attacks man at his weakest point idolatry, and the result is no faith, the one thing Hebrews says without if one cannot please God.
Tim,
“Francis also penned the famous prayer, Adoro Te Devote, a hymn to the bread and wine of the Eucharist, in which hymn he worships the bread of the Lord’s supper, saying,…”
OOPS! Tim, you spoke with forked tongue Kimosabe.
Where does the hymn say it is directed towards bread and wine? I though you understood that by Transubstantiation, ( according to what Catholic believe anyway )the bread is changed and no longer exists. Didn’t your mom ever explain this to you? I myself am a Catholic. I just had a salami sandwich ten minutes ago. I assure you, I did not worship it before chomping into it. The crumb that were flying I just let fall as they may. Seriously Tim. I wouldn’t fib to you. I just hauled off and devoured that sucker in two gulps without a single genuflection or other act of adoration. I ate it with a little bag of Fritos and a swig of milk right out of the carton ( my wife wasn’t looking. )
Jim,
A couple things. One, if you read the prayer, it is directed to the elements. The English rendering says “I devoutly adore you, O hidden Deity, Truly hidden beneath these appearances. … Sight, touch, taste are all deceived in their judgment of you But I confess that you are my God. … Jesus, whom now I see hidden.
Second, I am glad you asked. I was wrong to attribute this to Francis. (I think I first saw it in a St. Francis Hymnal.) It is actually attributed to Thomas Aquinas. My mistake. Nonetheless, Francis is credited with introducing Eucharistic Adoration to Italy, and the article is now updated to reflect that and omit the misattribution.
Noisome, by the way is King James English and has the same origins as the word we use of cacophony.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
I figured you really knew it was Aquinas who wrote the words.
Anyway, you wrote,
“The English rendering says “I devoutly adore you, O hidden Deity, Truly hidden beneath these appearances. … Sight, touch, taste are all deceived in their judgment of you But I confess that you are my God. … Jesus, whom now I see hidden.”
Thanks for conceding that we Catholics believe,( correctly or incorrectly ), that Jesus is the Deity hidden beneath the mere appearances of bread. That should end this silly game.
The appearances of bread do not equal bread, do they Tim? The redness and roundness of an apple are not the apple are they Tim? I mean, the apple can be green before it is red, right? And if you slice it into quarters, it is no longer round but it is indeed, the same apple, yes?
The hymn says the senses are deceived by the mere appearances of bread but the light of Faith says it is Jesus.
Like I said Tim, I am a simple man. But as simple as I am, I think I know Jesus from a loaf of pumpernickel.
Tim, even Lutherans, who hold the bread is present along with Jesus, don’t worship the bread. They worship Jesus.
Why don’t we ask a Lutheran if you have any doubt?
Jim, my Christ isnt hidden anywhere. And certainly not in a piece of bread tricking my senses.My savior is risen high above the heavens, risen for my justification. Let Him off the altar and the cross Jim. Romans 1:3 says He was declared son of God with power. He is risen and so are we in the already/not yet. The Catholic should read 1 Cor. 15 if He isnt risen our faith is useless and we are still in our sins. Jim, in Rome He isnt risen, your faith is useless, and your still in your sins. Let Him off Jim, please, He is no longer an eternal victim, but a risen King, a savior who ACCOMPLISHED redemption.
Tim,
Twice in the article you used the word “noisome”. Does that mean the stigmata made some noise? How much noise?
I’m a simple man Tim. Don’t use words I don’t understand.
As for leaving San Francisco, is this article about Tony Bennett leaving his heart in Frisco? I couldn’t fallow it although I actually read it.
Oh C’mon Tim! All horseplay aside, you guys are just jealous because you ain’t got no miracles.
Jim, anoia also means boresome in Italian.
Jim, you said you sleep like a baby. But if I were you return home from staring at the bread god in the monstrance for a few hours and then going to bed, you better check your hands and feet, These people receiving stigmatas from the burningto adore the Roman idol and receiving the judgment of God isnt something id be laughing at Jim. You are foolish to dismiss all this Jim. Someday you will have wished you had listened. God bless
Jim, great so we have established Aquinas worshiped the Eucharist like Franciss of Assisi. You ard worried about the minutia. Have you understood the point of the article. You are fixated on the word noisome when you ought to repent of idolatry.
Tim wrote:
“We here remind our readers that the object of Francis’ devotion was a crust of bread, for that was what Francis worshiped and that is what Roman Catholics have been worshiping for centuries. It is before a mere wafer that the whole world is invited by Francis to tremble, and it is to ground wheat that Francis insisted that we bend our knee. The Eucharistic bread is Rome’s idol, a powerless god that must be carried about by its unfortunate devotees. It is the Image of the Beast, and Francis poured out his life as an offering to the bread-god that was unable to save him.”
While I don’t hold to all of this historical post millennial eschatology, I do like the way you summarized it nicely.
Tim said” and glorified a crust of bread as if it had created the universe.” Yes indeed Tim. Their position on justification might be the least of their worries. They honor Him not as God but as a piece of bread.
TIM–
You said: “A couple things. One, if you read the prayer, it is directed to the elements. The English rendering says “I devoutly adore you, O hidden Deity, Truly hidden beneath these appearances. … Sight, touch, taste are all deceived in their judgment of you But I confess that you are my God. … Jesus, whom now I see hidden.”
How in the world do you get bread worship from this??? The prayer is most certainly addressed to Jesus in the Eucharist, not the bread itself. It’s quite a stretch. Even I can see the difference, and I’m a Methodist.
You also said: “Noisome, by the way is King James English and has the same origins as the word we use of cacophony.”
noi·some adjective \ˈnȯi-səm\
: very unpleasant or disgusting
1
: noxious, harmful
2
a : offensive to the senses and especially to the sense of smell
Such a sore would be very repulsive and odorous, such as if gangrene had set in to rot the flesh. A noisome sore is also described as running or oozing puss. Really, really nasty.
ooooOOOOOOOOOooooooo….!
ca·coph·o·ny noun \ka-ˈkä-fə-nē, -ˈkȯ- also -ˈka-\
: unpleasant loud sounds
: harsh or discordant sound : dissonance 2; specifically : harshness in the sound of words or phrases
I don’t think cacaphony is a good word to help describe noisome but both are annoying.
Thanks, Bob. The Greek word to which I refer in Revelation 16:2 is “kakos”. If you look up cacophony in Webster’s, it says, “from kakophōnos ‘ill-sounding'”. Therefore, the word translated as “noisome” has the same origins as the word we use of cacophony—kakos.
That said, it is true that ‘noisome’ may mean “offensive to the sense of smell.” Elsewhere in Scripture, “kakos” usually means evil (40 times), evil things (3 times), harm, that which is evil, etc…, so the general sense is “evil”. The other word used to describe the sore of Revelation 16:2 is “grievous,” which in Greek is “poneros.” Elsewhere in Scripture, “poneros” is rendered as evil (51 times), wicked (10 times), wicked one (6 times), evil things (2 times).
At its core, the “sore” is an evil, evil, wicked bad thing—whether it is unsightly or malodorous or not. I believe the stigmata satisfy the strict Scriptural requirements for “evil, evil, wicked and bad.” They are themselves, abominable, and a suitable punishment for those who worship the Image of the Beast.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, you wrote,
Since Aquinas believed there was no bread there at all, your statement is incorrect when you say that his worship was “addressed to Jesus in the Eucharist, not the bread itself.” In Aquinas’ mind, there was no bread on the altar at all—only Jesus in the form of bread. He was not worshiping “Jesus in the Eucharist.” In His mind, Jesus was the Eucharist. He was worshiping what he believed to be Jesus incarnated before him in wheaten form. But his faith in Transubstantiation cannot change the bread into Jesus, or change the fact that he is kneeling before, and adoring it. His conviction of the “truth” of Transubstantiation does not unbend his knee, or remove the idol from before him as he bows down. He was worshiping the elements of the Lord’s supper, thinking they were Jesus. They were not Jesus. They were what they were, and he was adoring them. Therefore, he was adoring bread.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, something doesnt jive. Methodist dont hold to the RC view of the bread. If you are a Methodist you should be against the RC view also. You lean Roman bro, are you going thru RCIA?
Kevin,
Even more basic than our respective views of the Sacraments, whether Catholic, Methodist or Calvinist, is our view of God.
And our view of man.
You my friend, are the odd one here.
Jesus died for all men,even those who reject his sacrifice for them. He gives all men the grace to come to Him. He doesn’t command all men to repent but give the grace to do so only to a select few chosen beforehand. He doesn’t play games with us.
I worship Jesus in the Eucharist. In 45 minutes, my weekly Holy Hour begins so I have to hurry with this posting and get to church. I assure you Kevin, I know what goes on in my own head. I am not worshiping bread. You may accuse me of such, but you must admit I do so unwittingly believing Jesus is under the appearances only. Call me dumb but dumb does not equal idolatry.
Let’s talk about your Jesus for a quick minute. Why did He come? He really wasn’t necessary. The elect are elect from all eternity, right? Jesus is just an afterthought to make it official. ( That’s why Calvinist historically prefer the O.T. to the New. Ever wonder why Calvinists always had O.T. names like Jedediah and Ezekial rather than N.T. names like Tom, Dick or Harry in the 19th century ? )
Kevin, what is your view of man? We are robots, right? God ordains everything, even our sin. He could stop it but chooses not to. He stops only his elect robots from sinning. And sinning is all we robots are programmed to do by a” holy and awesome decree”, huh?
Hey, I have an idea. Tim ought to send his kids’ Catholic grandmother away and have you come and baby sit. You can read the kiddies, ” Sinners in the hand of an Angry God” at bedtime. Hoooooooo-haw!
KEVIN–
You said–“Bob, something doesnt jive. Methodist dont hold to the RC view of the bread. If you are a Methodist you should be against the RC view also. You lean Roman bro, are you going thru RCIA?”
Nope. Tim is talking about Catholic belief here. I just happen to know what Catholics believe about the Eucharist. And Tim just confirmed above that Thomas Aquinas was worshipping Jesus and not bread because Aquinas believed the bread did not even exist in the Eucharist. It was all 100% Jesus Christ that he was worshipping. Tim says it was just bread. Thomas Aquinas said it was Jesus. Tim doesn’t believe in transubstantiation. Thomas Aquinas believed in transustantiation. That’s a huge difference in belief, don’t ya think?
And here’s the kicker, it’s not about what I believe. And it’s not about what Tim believes. It’s all about what Thomas Aquinas believed at that time. He believed he was worshipping the Christ, the Son of the Living God, not a piece of bread. And I am willing to bet you The Father searched Aquinas’ heart and was just in His judgement of Aquinas. And I hope His judgement of you is as just, don’t you?
Bob, the point is Catholics are worshiping bread that they think is Jesus. Thats idolatry. I cant worship my trumpet thinking its Jesus. We have to worship God on His terms, in Spirit and in truth. The Catholics march the Jesus wafer around in the street and worship it. You think they are off the hook because they think its Jesus. So when they pray to the mother of Jesus, they’ll get a free pass because hey whats a little Mary worship, its all copasetic. They worship the elements of the Mass, and on top of that they say that bread is a sacrifice for there sins. Iow they worship God in an unacceptable way, sorta like you who is trusting his do gooding to get him in some way.
What if Jesus held up a trumpet and said…
Amen!
Bob, you happen to know what Catholics believe, but Tim who spent his formative years in Roman Catholicism doesnt. Right. What you have shown me is you have no clue about justification and the errors of Roman Catholicism because you are unwilling to see the great distinctions. You have that attitude cmon we are all saying the same thing. You called Tim a rigorist. Well I think you are a universalist. Understanding these scriptural issues mean the difference between heaven and hell. You minimize them, and I think you shouldnt. God bless
Bob,
I don’t think either or Kevin or Tim are normal Calvinists. Just look at Tim’s conspiracy theory on the book of Revelation. Other Calvinist don’t buy Tim’s views on the Fathers. They make Dave Hunt look like a Rhodes Scholar.
Kevin rants and raves yet endorses Calvinism with it’s god who creates men for hell. Why would Tim and Kevin find this religion attractive? It sure isn’t biblical.
Tim has four kids. Are they elect? Does Tim pray to God and ask Him to elect them? Has Tim chosen any of his kids for destruction to show the others his justice and mercy? Does Tim order his kids to do things beyond their physical or mental capacity just so he can “justly” spank them for non-compliance when they fail?
Calvinism is an erroneous religion. In the hands of Kevin, it is worse than erroneous. It is dangerous as it gives him a religious justification for cruelty much like the creeps chopping off heads feel smug and self righteous after committing acts no god would approve of.
Jim, so you are telling Bob to believe in the magic of Romanism, a church who rents Christ incarnation from His divinity. Got it!
Bob said ” and here is the kicker, its not about what I believe, and its not about what Tim believes, but its about what Aquinas believed at the time” No Kidding. You have an uncanny ability to state the obvious. The whole point of the article is to condemn what he believed, and what Catholics believe about the Eucharist. They believe the BREAD is their God, that Christ is going to come back as a piece of bread. Watch closely Bob, God calls man to worship Him in Spirit and in truth through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ body ( substance) is in heaven, and not in a piece of bread. They got no problem worshiping the mother of Jesus in Spirit and untruth, yet they worship Christ as if He is a piece of bread. Jesus said He was the Shepard, that doesn’t mean he is going to show up at your door and sheer little Suzzie. He is the door. Does that make Him a piece of wood. He is the vine. You got Jesus growing outside your door. If you are a Methodist. you go against your church doctrine not to condemn Rome’s idol.
Bob,
Scouts honor. Catholics don’t think bread is God or God is bread.
This inflammatory crap is only meant to offend. Kauffman knows his charge is bogus. Search the net to see how many other non-Catholics make this absurd claim?
This entire blog is one man’s ( Tim ) acting out some anger issue with his mother. Maybe she spanked him. Or wouldn’t let him play with matches. Or made him pick up his toys before going out to play. Who knows what set the man off,
Most atheists are men who had bad relationships with their cruel, distant or weak fathers. The Catholic Church is feminine, maternal, Marian. Look at Tim’s articles. It doesn’t take a headshrinker to see what is going on here. Tim has said, right here on his blog, that he tells his four children that their grandmother worships bread. I rest my case.
PS And the most amateur psychiatrist can see Kevin is dangerous.
JIM–
There is a lengthy explanation below. I would like your feelings on it as well.
Thanks, Jim. You wrote,
In order to help you out in your search, I will offer you this delightful web page, Galileo, The Roman Inquisition And Ecclesia De Eucharistia . Don’t miss what Anne Askew said before she was murdered:
You’d be surprised at how many other non-Catholics make this “absurd” claim. There are many others like me who know that Rome worships a piece of bread, and who will not bow to Rome’s wafer of death. You continued,
Their grandmother does worship bread Jim. As do you. As did Francis of Assisi. And since the Lutherans can’t possibly know whether you do or not, I’m sure I’ll receive no criticism from them when I point out the idolatry of Rome’s bread image.
But you may be right—perhaps I am psychologically imbalanced and can’t rub two books together form an idea. Then you have nothing to fear from me, do you?
Tim
Jim, said: Tim I know the difference between Jesus and a loaf of pumpernickel.” Thats the point you really dont. Your kneeling and adoring a piece of bread. Listen to Peter the fellow elder ” who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven.” Your own Pope says He is in heaven, and will return someday. We nowvhave The Spirit. Horton says Rome has a bizzare view of the Trinity. He is right.
Kevin,
Do you read minds? No?
Then how do you know what I am adoring? Troll.
Jim, you are c adoring the bread in the monstrance as if it was your savior. Either justification is a declaration based on the imputed righteousness of Christ thru faith alone Romans 10:1-11, or its a process of baptism, penances, and masses. They aint thecsame.
KEVIN–
You said:
” If you are a Methodist. you go against your church doctrine not to condemn Rome’s idol.”
Ok, this is a long explanation, so here goes…..
Here’s the Methodist official teaching on the Eucharist in part;
Concerning the elements :
Principle:
The consecrated elements are to be treated with reverent respect and appreciation as gifts of God’s creation that have, in the words of the Great Thanksgiving, become “for us the body and blood of Christ” (UMH; page 10).
Background:
We do not worship the consecrated elements nor reserve them for adoration. We respect the elements because God is using them for holy purposes—reconstituting the assembly as the body of Christ, conveying grace, forgiving sin, foreshadowing heaven, and strengthening the faithful for the
journey of salvation. Although they have undergone no substantive (physical) change, the elements have been consecrated—set apart for sacred use.
While, in the history of the church, reverence for the consecrated elements has sometimes led to superstition, proper respect for the elements helps Christians grow in authentic sacramental piety.
As Article XVIII of The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church makes clear, United Methodism rejects any suggestion that the bread and wine used in Communion are transformed or transubstantiated into other substances:
Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath
given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. (BOD;
page 64)
HOWEVER:
(The United Methodist Church notes that the anti-Roman Catholic tone of Article XVIII reflects the “bitterly polemical” relationships of past centuries and “rejoice[s] in the positive contemporary relationships that are being developed . . . at levels both official and unofficial” [BOR; pages 237-238].)
This means that we are currently in dialog with Rome and do not harbour bitterness. I also might add that we do hold open communion and that anyone seeking Christ’s mercy is welcome to the table. Unfortunately Rome does not.
The Book of Worship directs, “What is done with the remaining bread and wine should express our stewardship of God’s gifts and our respect for the holy purpose they have served” (page 30).
Practice:
The practice of consecrating elements ahead of time for the convenience of the pastor not having to go to small or remote congregations, weekend camps, or other such occasions is inappropriate and contrary to our historic doctrine and
understanding of how God’s grace is made available in the sacrament (Article XVIII, The Articles of Religion, BOD; page 64). If authorized leadership is not available for celebrating the Lord’s Supper, other worship services such as love
feasts, agape meals, or baptismal reaffirmations are valid alternatives that avoid the misuse of Communion elements.
The consecrated elements of bread and wine are used for distribution to the sick and others who wish to commune but are unable to attend congregational worship. If any bread and wine remain, they should always be disposed of by (1)
the pastor and/or others at the pastor’s direction consuming them in a reverent manner following the service; (2) returning them to the earth by pouring (2 Samuel 23:16), burying, scattering, or burning.
But wait! There’s more…..
The Presence of Christ
Principle:
Jesus Christ, who “is the light of God’s glory and the imprint of God’s being” (Hebrews 1:3), is truly present in Holy Communion. Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to the church, acts in and through Holy Communion. Christ is present through the community gathered in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20), through the Word proclaimed and enacted, AND THROUGH THE ELEMENTS OF BREAD AND WINE SHARED(1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The divine presence is a LIVING REALITY and can be experienced by participants; it is NOT a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only.
Background:
Christ’s presence in the sacrament is a promise to the church and is not dependent upon recognition of this presence by individual members of the congregation. Holy Communion always offers grace. We are reminded of what God has done for us in the past, experience what God is doing now as we partake, and anticipate what God will do in the future work of salvation. “We await the final moment of grace, when Christ comes in victory at the end of the age to bring all who are in Christ into the glory of that victory” (By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism, in BOR; page 875), and we join in feasting at the heavenly banquet table (Luke 22:14-18; Revelation 19:9).
AND WHAT’S MORE– here is the real kicker:
The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although IT DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT FULLY.
IN SHORT:
There is nothing in the Methodist Church doctrine that allows for me to condemn Rome as idolaters, because in truth, we really don’t know that they are. Furthermore, if we proclaim that Jesus Christ’s real living presence is in the Eucharist, who are we to point fingers?
Kevin, this is the stated and taught doctrine of the United Methodist Church. Read it and weep.
And now you know the rest of the story.
Thank you, Bob. This is very helpful. A couple things jumped out at me. First,
This is one of the problems that have occurred in the last 500 years. The further we get from the reformation, the less we remember what it was about. It was the idolatry of Rome that was rejected, well as its false gospel. The Westminster Confession was been modified, like the Lutheran Articles, to eliminate some of that “bitterly polemical” language that identified Rome as Antichrist. I can imagine a time within out lifetimes that other “offensive language” from the Westminster Confession is played down and eventually eliminated—words like “papist,” “abominable sacrifice,” etc…
I am committed to making sure that “bitterly polemical” language lives on for at least one more generation. One man’s bitter polemic, after all, is another man’s cherished truth. In fact, there are some who might say (myself among them) that the term “bitterly polemical” is itself “bitterly polemical.”
Do you think the Luthern church might be willing to drop language like “bitterly polemical” in order to avoid giving me offense? Could they not also say, “There is nothing in the Methodist Church doctrine that allows for me to condemn White Horse Blog as bigots, because in truth, we really don’t know that Rome ISN’T worshiping bread.” I mean, if they really don’t know, then maybe Rome is worshiping bread.
Thanks for this insightful comment. Nonetheless, Rome still worships bread, and ought not (Exodus 20:4-5).
Tim
Tim,
I see you and Kevin doing the “good cop/bad cop” technique on Bob to get him in your camp.
Arminianism is Molinism, It is as far from Calvinism as any Jesuit could be.
Bob and I stand shoulder to shoulder in facing down the nasty TULIP.
Denouncing the real Presence is secondary. You and Bob don’t even believe the same Gospel. Bob’s God loves all men. Yours doesn’t.
Bob’s Jesus, (whether in the Eucharist or not ) died for all. Yours didn’t.
Start at step one with Bob. Start with your concepts of God. Not the papacy, or saints or purgatory, etc. Start at the beginning. Start with God, freewill, total depravity, God’s will to save, etc. etc.
If you can make common ground with him there, then move on to the next step. ( But you ain’t never going to make common ground with him. You are as different as night and day. )
Jim, said scouts honor Catholics don’t think bread is God. Who are you trying to %^&^ ? You sit in front of a wafer that you say isn’t a wafer but Christ substantially, body, blood, divinity, soul. Even Aristotle who invented the theory substance and accidents wouldn’t buy transsubmaigiation, Hocus Pocus!You can’t have a big, white without the dog!
Kevin you dimwit!
Aristotle was long dead before Transubstantiation was “invented” so he was not even addressing it when he wrote.
Bob, said ” because in truth we really don’t know they are” Are you serious man? Go to youtube and watch them march the idol around in the streets. i billion idolators following bread around in the streets. Listen, the Reformers saw themselves as rescuing the catholic church and apostles from the magic craft that was Romanism that broke off from the true church. They blurred the gospel and sacraments so bad they were unrecognizable. Rome is under the anathema of Galatians 1:8,9.
Jim, you said this whole site is Tim working out his issues with his mother. What about you Mother Jim, who passed on to you the magic, idolatry, and mysticism of the Catholic church. You said you gave your mother grief your whole life, so maybe your trying to make up for it by being a good little idolator. Quit bringing up Tim’s mom. Quit being a jerk. Enough of the your mama stuff. You are an adult, but you don’t act it. Cmon Jim!
Yo’ mamma wears combat boots.
KEVIN–
If you feel confident that what you see is truly idolatry, then go for it Dude. You don’t believe, like I do, in the Real Presence. You are just eating crackers and drinking juice with your friends.
I personally do not feel I am confident enough to deny Jesus before men, because the consequences of that is that He will deny me before the Father.
Sorry, you’re on your own on this one.
Bob just remember if you believe the real presence to cover your butt, the scripture says this is a lack of faith. ” Blessed who do not see yet believe” Without faith it is impossible to please Him” I got you figured out dude. Your hangin on to those works and the seat wafer just in case. And Christ asks you to abandon your works and idols and trust in Him and his righteousness alone. If you aint willing to plant the flag man ( faith alone in Christ alone), you ain’t getting in. Read, Romans 9:32 – 10: 4 very slowly. Paul’s dearest brethren had a zeal but not in accordance with knowledge. Rejecting the righteousness of God thru faith, they sought to establish their own righteousness. And Paul said they weren’t saved. Trusting your works in any way and worshiping the Roman idol is establishing your own righteousness. But as you said to me, go for it dude. K
Kevin,
You nut. None of the verses you appeal to come close to proving your point. You just throw out scripture verses without thinking.
Bob, the doctrine of transubstantiation, even the word is a 12th century invention. Do you think God will reject Clement, Augustine, and the many others Tim has documented who did not worship the bread as the substantial Jesus. Denying the real presence isn’t denying isn’t denying Christ before men. But this thinking shows me you have no faith and must bow to the Roman idol. Eating and drinking Christ in John 6 is clearly coming and believing. Jesus tells us as much. ” the things I speak to you are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing.” John 6 is about believing. And John 6 isn’t about the Lord’s supper. Wrong place, wrong time. 2 Years before the Last supper. Hebrews 11 says without FAITH it is impossible to please Him. And no we aren’t eating crackers and drinking juice. God nourishes us Spiritually at the communion table. Without the Spirit, faith, and the Word it is just crackers and juice. We do this in remembrance of Him and what He did. It is a meal at a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. Christ nourishes us spiritually. But we don’t worship the elements as the substantial Jesus. The scripture is clear, Jesus sat down in His body at the right hand of God. Cosmic Jesus everywhere is Jesus of Nazareth nowhere. He can’t be on every altar. He has a body like ours, and is in heaven.
Yeah, Kevin, whatever.
Tim,
“. I was wrong to attribute this to Francis. (I think I first saw it in a St. Francis Hymnal.) It is actually attributed to Thomas Aquinas. My mistake. Nonetheless, Francis is credited with …”
Maybe in part 2 you can get it right, eh Tim?
Tim, I gotta fess up. I didn’t catch this faux pas when I read your article because I never actually read your articles. I know in advance they are hog wash. I just skim them really fast at best.
This is why I don’t even bother to dig deep into your historical research. I know it’s all bogus,
Even Methodist Bob, no crypto-papist, called you on your faulty logic by stressing that the doctrine of Transubstantiation ( which he personally doesn’t subscribe to ) saves Catholics from your stupid slur of being bread worshipers.
Tim, what did your mom do that you can’t forgive her for? Was she a drinker? Unfaithful to your dad? Overly strict? Did she abandon you?
Grow up Tim. Your mom is a human being, a sinner. Forgive her.
Tim, your blog should be shut down.
Jim, you wrote,
Actually, Bob acknowledged that he has no way of knowing if you are worshiping bread or not, and therefore is in no place to judge whether my accusation of “bread worship” is “stupid”.
On what grounds must my blog be shut down? That I expressed an opinion at variance with Rome?
Thanks, and you are always welcome here.
Tim
Tim,
Bob said that he can’t read minds. Perhaps that are weirdos somewhere in another solar system who worship bread. Catholic doctrine categorically denies any bread is left after the substance changes leaving only what seems to be bread. i.e. its whiteness, doughiness, taste. etc. Bob has no absolute way to determine if someone is a Catholic or a bread worshiper from another planet. He can only go by external behavior ( bowing, prostrating, etc. ) You and your Svengali like mind-reading pal Kevin claim to have the power to read minds.
Why should your “Christian” blog be shut down? Do you want the long answer or the short answer? The short answer takes only two words; Kevin Falloni.
Jim,
Believing that the bread is Jesus does not exonerate you from the charge of bread-worship. I invite your attention to Isaiah 44:14-20—even though the idolater there believes he is worshiping his “god,” he is nonetheless worshiping a tree.
What Rome does in the Mass is the same thing Isaiah is criticizing here. Upon regeneration, a Roman Catholic priest will certainly ask himself, “Is there not a lie in my right hand?” But until he is regenerated, he cannot arrive at such a conclusion, for God “hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, … [After eating mere bread], shall I make the residue thereof an abomination?” And an abomination it certainly is.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, what did your mom do? Drop you when you were a baby? lol
Jim, I love Roman Catholics. We don’t worship Mary. We don’t worship bread. We believe in grace. Right. Adoration chapels for the bread worshipers, pilgrimages for the Mary worshipers, and sacraments ex opere operato for the “grace” earning. For they knew God but they honor Him not as God.
Jim and Bob, Colosians 3:1-4 ” Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above ( notice where the things we are to seek are, above, not the earthly death wafer), where Christ is( notice where Christ is, not in the death wafer, but above), seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above ( again where should your mind be, on the earthly Jesus wafer or above) NOT on things on the earth.for you have died and your life is hidden in Christ with God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.” If we had to keep going to the trough and knaw on Christ and drink His blood to earn increases of our salvation, then how can Paul tell us we WILL be revealed with Him in glory. Jim and Bob, its time to let Him off the altar and the cross. A savior who is tied to the cross still cant save you. Its time to stop working for your salvation eating at the trough of the Mass. Quit smuggling your character into God’s work of grace. Fall on your knees and believe by faith alone in Christ alone, and God will impute to you the righteouness of Christ, and your works will take its proper place, as resonable service of worship. And you will have the peace of Romans 5:1. No one will be justified by observing the law. Today is the day of salvation. The time is near.
Kevin,
When you hit your automatic response button something malfunctioned. It didn’t say, ” magic water”. It ranted as usual a bunch of slurs and texts that have nothing to do with the discussion but it left out one of your favorite phrases.
Jim how does one get from Paul answering the Philippians jailer believe on the name of Jesus and you will be saved to a sacramental system ex opere operato of two different kinds of merit, and numerous different graces, Priestcraft, Mary exhalation, scapulars, indulgences, selling Christ merits, magic waters of baptism, assumption of Mary, sinlessness of all the family, genuflecting to the wafer that is sacrificed in the Mass, adoring chapels. They piled the you know what high, huh Jimbo. I’ll stick with 1 John 2:27, I have an anointing that teaches me all things, and have no need of anyone to teach me, for the Spirit’s teaching is true, and is not a lie. Test the Spirits John tells us. I submit to my church and its teachings, but in the end I’m following Paul and John. I’m trusting christ alone for my salvation, and I’m listening to the Holy Spirit as I search his Word. I’ll never trust, my Pastor, Covenanters,Tim, MacArthur, Spurgeon, or anyone more that the inner witness of the Spirit woking thru the word of God. The Spirit tells me Tim is teaching truth because he confirms it to me thru scripture. And the Spirit tells me thru Scripture that Roman catholicism is a false religion. I will warn all I have the chance to.
Kevin,
“Jim how does one get from Paul answering the Philippians jailer believe on the name of Jesus and you will be saved to a sacram…”
The Bible never says Paul visited the Philippines nor does it say a word about any Filipino jailer. You aren’t referring to the Gorilla in Manila are you? Please stay on topic.
JIM–
I think I am starting to agree with you about Kevin.
There is a saying in the computer programming world–garbage in, garbage out. GIGO for short. What it means is if you are programming the wrong things into the computer, all you are going to get out of the computer is error.
But, there is always hope…
Bob,
I could forgive Kevin for his stupidity but he is more than ignorant. He is mean.
Slurs are not arguments. Over on CCC ( which he may have tried crashing last night ) he used to pretend to do apologetics to some degree. On this blog, he just tries giving offense. I say tries because he doesn’t offend me as I understand he is just “trolling”.
Think of the creeps who cut off heads. Why do they put the atrocity on the internet? Why do they taunt the victim’s family before the murder? Because they want to shock, offend and inflame. What is the purpose of Kevin’s use of slurs like
bread worship and death wafer? There are a myriad of blogs where Protestants and Catholics dialogue and debate the Real Presence. Only on this blog does one find “death wafer”.
After insulting and puking on people, Kevin likes to sign off with a “God bless you” or ” I love you”. He exhorts people to repent and turn to Christ. He talks religion to cover his sick hate. He is just like the creeps who talk about God while slicing a throat. I have said before and I mean it, Kevin could be dangerous. Only fear of the secular authorities restrains him from disrupting a Mass or beating up a nun.
I am dead serious when I say this entire blog is dedicated to Tim’s personal issues. Kevin is just a mean troll who has found a welcome home here.
Ever notice how polite Tim is, how he always says, “thanks for posting, you are always welcome here”? Of course people are welcome here. Tim hungers to have people see what he and Kevin write. He says his blog is to protect the saints from the encroachment of Rome. Really? How many of the Protestants who lurk here understand the Catholic in-house devotional stuff Tim addresses? Very few, Bob. This blog is directed at Catholics like his mom.
This blog is based on Tim and Kevin’s hate, pure and simple.
Jim, said” Tim says his blog is to protect people from the encroahcment of Roman Catholicism.” Jimbo, have you read Tim’s stated purpose on the head page of his blog. He states that it is to expose the errors of Rome. And Jim, do you want some cheese with that whine. Quit whining. Your mother would be ashamed of the way you speak of Tim and his mother. You know your problem Jimbo, you can give it but you cant take it. You say the most hateful things about me Jim, and yet I want you to know Jim I really love Catholics and I love you. 2 Corinthians 11:3 as eve was deceived by the snake, dont be deceived from the simple devotion of the faith in Christ. You cant fault us for unpiling all the you know what piled on the cross keeping people from being saved. God bless you Jim.
Kevin, You clown!
“Your mother would be ashamed of the way you speak of Tim and his mother”
After all of this time and you still don’t get it. Tim’s mother wants her son back in the Catholic Church she raised him in. And she doesn’t want her son keeping bad company ( YOU! ).
Kevin, you are person she used to warn Tim about when he was little. You are Tim’s mom’s worst nightmare.
You call Tim’s mother insulting names. You mock what she loves most. If she saw the blasphemous things you say on this blog she would be sick, heartbroken that her son associates with a hate-monger like you.
Tim’s smother raised him to have a devotion to Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe according to that cover page you mention. So we can assume she has a devotion to these things, yes? You spit in her face Kevin, and Tim eggs you on , every time you post here.
Everyone who has ever worked in mental health, even at the lowest levels, ( as I have ) can never get over play headshrinker and psychoanalyzing people. Sigmund Freud I am not. But I ain’t a dense as you are either. The guy who owns this blog has issues. And it is easy to see what they are.
Kevin, you don’t get it. Are you dyslexic? Can’t you read? Tim’s mother and I are on the same side. Haven’t you figured that out yet?
You are her enemy, not me.
Jim, and you don’t get it, Tim wants his mom in heaven and as much as you have impugned him he wants you there too. You won’t get there thru the ” work of the people” the Mass eating the and meriting more of your justification. He calls people to FAITH. Romans 10:9-10 is eschatologically decisive, confess and believe. So get off your knees and quit worshiping a piece of bread as Christ, quit believing that bread being broken is the sacrifice for your sins. He already died and paid for your sins. It is finished! You can’t rent His humanity from His divinity. He offers himself thru the Spirit. God is looking for worshipers to worship Him in Spirit and truth, and He will give you all things pertaining to life and godliness, because you will be a part of His body, by the Spirit, and not by the flesh. Quit worshiping a savior, as piece of bread, who can’t get off the cross. Quit worshiping Jesus mother, take off our scapular, repent of your church selling Christ’s merits, quit working your way to heaven. Paul says God justifies the wicked man who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly. That sacerdotal system is in direct contrast to Christ’s gospel, and you will pay a dear price for worshiping a false God. We come to God on his terms, not on ours. Quit blaming Tim for your miserable existence. You can have the peace Christ offers, but it won’t come in Rome!
Jim, you wrote,
Well, you may impute to me whatever motives you like. You’re still welcome here.
Thanks,
Tim
Do you deny it Tim?
Jim, regarding your question, “Do you deny it Tim?”, I am not angry at my mother. But I am so far beyond worrying about what people think of me that I can assure you that your analysis carries little weight.
If I cared what people thought, I would not propose that we have been wrong, deeply and eschatologically wrong, for centuries and in some cases, for millennia on our understanding of Daniel and Revelation. There was a time when I stopped saying that Rome is the beast, the apparitions are the false prophet, the eucharist is the image, etc… because it branded me as a nut, and I didn’t want to be branded as one. But there is an idolatry of esteem that causes people to withhold the truth in exchange for the approval of men, and Rome is a clearinghouse for that kind of idolatry as well as its many others commodities.
That is why Rome frequently attempts to portray its adversaries as “angry,” “imbalanced,” “unstable,” and “deeply wounded in some way.” A typical response to such portrayals is to line up at the approval booth at Rome’s circus of idolatries and buy Rome’s approval with pledges of level-headed stability and acknowledgement of a Christian brotherhood separated by semantics more than doctrine. Too many Protestant apologists play into the trap, and that is how Rome maintains its legitimacy in the eyes of Protestants—by making them acknowledge Rome as a legitimate religion as a prerequisite to expressing “credible” disagreement. Any criticism that does not first acknowledge Rome’s legitimacy is considered the work of a mad man, and dismissed. In exchange for that capitulation by Protestants, Rome grants approval to its critics with terms of “mutual respect,” “constructive dialogue,” and “scholarly but cordial expressions of disagreement that lead us ever onward to the unity for which Christ prayed,” etc… I confess that I was some time ago caught up in the idolatry of esteem and kept my mouth shut in order to maintain the respect of my peers and colleagues, lest I be branded a nut by the very religion I was criticizing. But like worship of the Eucharist, I gave up that idolatry, too. Truth is what suffered the most when I sacrificed it to the idol of esteem on the altar of “mutual respect” and “ecumenical dialogue.” No more.
I once discussed my interpretation of Daniel with a seminary professor, and he wrote back to me:
Yes, of course—because of the thousands of hopelessly contradictory interpretations Daniel thus far, we must fence off the Book from any further analysis, and choose an interpretation that has already been written. By that standard, there would be no “reputable” interpretations of Daniel because each new interpretation is necessarily an original one, and originality is the enemy of tradition.
Well, you can guess what I did with his suggestion. I do the same with your analysis of my mental health.
Thanks, and you are (very truly) always welcome here, Jim.
Tim
Tim wrote “because of the thousands of hopelessly contradictory interpretations Daniel thus far”.
Could not agree more. Tradition is alive and well even amongst professing reformed churches. Not one of the existing commentaries have been convincing on Daniel. This blog is the first interpretation to make sense of Daniel to me and my wife.
Thx again Tim.
Bob, one man’s error is another man’s gospel. And garbage in garbage out didnt come frm the computer world. But you and Jim would be experts. It takes one to know one. Ditto Rush?
KEVIN–
You said: “Bob, one man’s error is another man’s gospel. And garbage in garbage out didnt come frm the computer world. But you and Jim would be experts. It takes one to know one. ”
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Kevin!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) in the field of computer science or information and communications technology refers to the fact that computers, since they operate by logical processes, will unquestioningly process unintended, even nonsensical, input data (“garbage in”) and produce undesired, often nonsensical, output (“garbage out”).
And you say you are so interested in the truth. I’ll bet you are one of those who believes Al Gore invented the internet, too.
I may only have a BA in business administration, but I minored in computer programming.
Gotcha!
Bob, your right. So you got the computer term right and the gospel wrong, your batting 0. Bob, you are like Jim or Debbie, you dont respect anyone here, so what are you doing here. Its America, your free to worship the Jesus wafer and get on the Catholic sacramental treadmill and cooperate your way to justification.
Bob, oh ya and everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh invented the internet with half his brain behind his back. Being a Dittohead, you should know that. In all seriousness wecshould move on. God bless you Bob. I hope you find the true gospel for Romans 3:26″ so that He might be just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Tim, your post to Jim is on the mark. I can remember when I knw God was calling me to this battle and to report for duty. Whdn you are abeliever many years God has used you in the capcity He gifts you. My twin brither and I have the gift of evangelism and we have tried to be faithful to that during our walk over these years. God has given us the oppurtunity to see many of His elect come to Him thru the gospel. 2 years ago after 10 years of lunches with a wealthy Catholic friend who I shared scripture with constanly in great dicussions, this friend, confessed to me and his wife that he was involved in years of prostitution and thru our conversations God saved him. He poured it all out. He started to do bible studies. But his Priest got a hold of him and he turned back to the Catholic church, doing penances and satisfactions for his sins. When my wifes friend Debbie came to town Mark invited us to the Catholic church for a service. We went, and during the service Debbie put on her scapular, my wife was shocked. After we all went to lunch. Debbie was explaining all these magical things in her life like God had bent her ring when her prayer was so intense. She was talking about Scott Hahn, and then wispered something in my friend’s ear. Im certain she told him to keep praying that we would come to Rome. I realized then I had been sleeping on the Job. As much of a theologian I thought I was, I fell asleep with Catholicism. So I wrote a paper to give to Catholic friends called ” A biblical repudiation of the doctrine of justification in the Roman Catholic church. I decided to give it to Debbie and her husband when they drove down to my mothers 90th bday. When I asked them to read it everything changed with these friends. The husband got incensed with me. The next day we went to the Lincoln museum and in the car as a statement of unison. But I could barely get thru the prayer because it was then I realized the spiritual battle my wife and I were in for. Tim you are exactly right ” the idolatry os esteem is what Catholics expect from us. You know the Mass isnt really that different, and you really dont understand our doctrine, merit and cooperation iscreally all of grace, we just honor Mary, etc. If I would have known this reaction would have happened with our friends before, I would have done it much sooner. Tim, the abuse I have gotten is God confirming to me there is a spiritual battle going on of major purportion. I m like you I dont carecwhat people call me for denouncing Catholicism. I do care if I am insensitive and need to repent of not being loving. But the grief we get tells me people dont want to be confronted with their idols. But Tim, we have to shake them, to see if God will have mercy and open their eyes. “Snatching them out of the fire” Jude says. Who cares what Catholics say about what we say about their doctrine. It means souls.
Jim, God is amazing. Go read the two members of Jason’s old church, Krista, and Don and what they say about what Jason did to them when he walked away from grace. Amazing stuff. Our sin finds us out. All those who are worshiping at Jason’s throne on that site are up in a hissy. Im so glad I am not there anymore.
KEVIN-
You said: “Bob, your right.”
Oh how sweet it is coming from you!
You also said: “Bob, you are like Jim or Debbie, you dont respect anyone here, so what are you doing here.”
I already told you, it was getting lame over on CCC. I missed you, Pumpkin. You always spice things up by your unthinking blurts and derogatory language. And besides, I’m welcome on Tim’s sight any time. He doesn’t kick any one off. And most people who come to this sight(or any other blog for that matter) only read the blog and the first few responses and that’s all. It’s hard core guys like you and me that love this little game.
You also said: “Its America, your free to worship the Jesus wafer and get on the Catholic sacramental treadmill and cooperate your way to justification.”
Yes, we are free. It’s good to be an American. And it’s better to be a TEXAN! And you can feel free to relax and presume you are saved and on your way to heaven even though you may commit adultery with your wife’s best friend. Eat, drink, and be merry. What a wonderful life!
You also said: “In all seriousness wecshould move on.”
Not on your life. I like it here. I haven’t had this much fun since I was debating a friend who is a Messianic Jew. Talk about trample the Blood of Christ–these guys want to rebuild the Temple and start Temple worship again to hasten the Parousia. But, you Calvinists are so…..stiff. You need to loosen up a bit.
Bob, said”and you can relax and presume your saved and on youf way to heaven. Its not presumption. Romans 5:1 is pasr tense and tells me I have been justified and posses present peace, shalom. You cant have that certainty because you believe a false Gospel. God is helping you achieve His favor with His help. God saved me. For you He helps you save youself. Your on salvation on the installment plan Pumpkin. Answer one question for yourself Dittohead, if your justification depends on you, yourcworks, then how can Paul and John give assurance in these passages Romans 4:16, 5:1, 1 John 5:13? Think about it Pumpkin!
Bob, I am a professional musician who made allot of money in my life. Trust me Im not stiff. Im not your cookie cutter Calvinist, but I am calvinist hard core. The most brilliant theologian who ever lived imho.
Bob, in 1 corinthians 5 paul says there is a man who is worse then all the gentiles whobhad his father’s wife. And Paul said that he was to be delivered over to Satan fo tohe destruction of his flesh that his soul would be saved in the day of Christ. The WCF says tha men can fall into serious sin for a time and still be saved. Now if somebody stayed in that sin, or was unrepentant then one woukd question if they were truly a believer. But mortal sin cannot separate a bel I ever from Christ. Romans 8:38, 39, nothing created can separate a believer from the love of God. Pumpkin, you really have a small view of God, sorta Roman Catholic like. Lol
KEVIN–
I was just thinking how appropriate Pumkin is since this is October 1st. Autumn is my favorite time of year. I can smell October before it gets here.
You said: “Answer one question for yourself Dittohead, if your justification depends on you, yourcworks, then how can Paul and John give assurance in these passages Romans 4:16, 5:1, 1 John 5:13? ”
Oooo.. I like Rom 5:1 “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,”
because it leads to the next verses:
“through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in HOPE of the glory of God. And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about PERSEVERENCE; and PERSEVERENCE, proven character; and proven character, HOPE; and HOPE does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”
Hope and perseverence–these are action words in our ongoing journey–boldness that has been given to us through the Holy Spirit. These are hardly words of assurance of salvation. If one has assurance of salvation, there is no need of hoping in anything, no need of persevering in anything. Why bother? Your already saved! Heck you don’t even need faith anymore. Knowledge trumps mere belief every time.
And here is one for you to contemplate…
1Co 9″I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I MAY become a fellow partaker of it.”
MAY become? What happened to assurance?
But wait! There’s more:
“Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.”
DISQUALIFIED? Paul disciplines his body so that will not be disqualified. Paul doesn’t sound so assured of salvation here, does he? In fact he teaches the Corinthians to exercise self control–PERSEVERE–in all things in HOPE that they MAY win the race.
1 John5:13 “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you MAY know that you have eternal life.”
Remove the word “may” from that passage and you definitely have assurance.
But then again I say “to-MAY-to” and you say “to-mah-to”.
Nighty-night, Pumpkin.
Meriter on CCC?
You’re FUNNY!
Thanks man, i knew you would dig it. You must feel comfortable over there with all the idolators, huh. K
Bob, your a Roman Catholic, as I said. You didn’t answer any of the verses 5:1, 4:16, 8:1 and you went to the word may to argue against 1 John 5:13 that is definitely telling believers they can have assurance. Whose the rigorist. Thats all for me. I won’t be responding anymore. This is just sport for you, which is ok. Good luck with you and those works your trusting for justification. Galatians 3:10. Good night lone star cowboy. lol
Awww, your no fun. MAY God bless and keep you, MAY God’s face shine on you, MAY God be kind to you and give you peace.
–Num 6
I’ll still be lurking about. Don’t be surprized if I interject every once in a while to keep you in check. You’re in good company, Sweetie. Even Paul had a demon sent to torment him.
Bob, and MAY you KNOW that you have eternal life.
I thought you said you would not be responding anymore.
Well. I certainly can’t trust your word, huh. Why should I trust anything else you say?
Bob, you are being disingenuous. You haven’t trusted anyone here including the author of this site. You said you were here for kix and a good argument. Only God can convince anyone of the Gospel of grace. And I have learned this the hard way. God bless you. My wife is a big Dittohead. I think the guy is genius. Get a Radio station criticize, laugh all the way to the bank. And with half of his brain tied behind his back. lol
Tim, you wrote:
Francis of Assisi was no Christian, but rather “wondered after the beast” with the rest of the world (Revelation 13:3). He fell under the spell of the demonic locusts that tormented men for “five months,” sought in vain for a martyr’s death that continually fled from him, worshiped the Image of the Beast, and bears forever the infamy of being the harbinger of the Seven Bowls of Revelation.
Please give an example(s) of “the spell of the demonic locusts.”
Thanks
Hi, Eric. You asked that I give an example of the “spell of the demonic locusts.” You can read a fuller description at The Trumpets, Part 2, but the best example is the response of the people at Clermont in 1095 when Pope Urban II gave his famous speech calling for people to take the vow and “the cross” and head for the Holy Land and earn the martyr’s crown. The reason this is significant is two-fold:
1) there had been many calls for crusades for years leading up to this, and the responses were all anemic. None of them got anywhere, and certainly none of them made any advances on the Holy Land. But Clermont was different—one of the most dramatic displays of mob hysteria in history.
2) the “locusts” of the 5th Trumpet are described making a sound with their wings, and “the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle” (Revelation 9:9). This is usually interpreted to mean that the locusts are many chariots and horses running to battle,” but that is not what the verse says. It merely says that was the sound that they made. The significance is that the sound of chariots and horses is what God made the Syrians to hear in 2 Kings 7:6 in order to stir them into a frenzy:
John uses metaphorical language in his description of the events in Revelation, but we are not left guessing as to their meaning, as his metaphors are Scriptural metaphors. The “sound of chariots and many horses running to battle” is a metaphor for stirring people into a frenzy. The frenzy of the crowd is usually attributed to Urban’s persuasive abilities, but this was not the first speech he gave on the crusades. The response of the crowd was due to something else—the locusts had been released.
I say that Francis “fell under the spell of the locusts,” because like the people at Clermont he responded to the call for crusades and earnestly sought a martyr’s death by participating in them. One of the points I make in the article on the Crusades is that the locusts are not the Crusaders, and the Crusaders are not the locusts. But the locusts have attributes of men (each attribute a reference to a form of torment) and the Crusaders have attributes of locusts (in that they invade the Holy Land like locusts). You can read the rest at the link.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Thanks for the links and info.
Tim,
I was musing about your attempt at damage control after erring so egregiously by attributing the hymn “Adoro Te Devote”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dpy0SUh0H4
to Saint Francis of Assisi rather than Thomas Aquinas. You said that you had taken the hymn out of the St. Francis Hymnal as if that excuses this major gaff.
Tim, many churches have the Saint Joseph’s Hymnal in their pews. By your reasoning, all of the hymns printed within, even those to St. Joseph himself, were written by St. Joseph!
Ordinarily I wouldn’t rub this in but you do claim not only to know Catholic doctrine but that, having been raised with all the standard devotions, you are qualified to mock those same devotions.
Tim, you should hide your face in shame. This really is your undoing. Your work on the Fathers and Baptism is based on the same absurd reasoning as, ” Well, I took the hymn out of the St Francis hymnal. What am I supposed to think?”
Did you have a hymnal when you were a kid? Did you go to church? Were you taught by or know any nuns? Did your mom have a statue of Francis around the house? Did you have a crucifix on your wall, even a kitschy plastic glow-in-the-dark one? Say grace? Have a St. Christopher badge in the car? Have a nativity scene at Christmas?
Tim, you are not only a poor scholar, I am wondering if you were even exposed to the standard Catholic devotions ( “superstitions” to Kevin ) that even nominally Catholic kids are.
I heard your interview on Larry Wessels’ show so I know you are familiar with fellow “scholar” Robert Morey. Twenty five or so years ago Morey made a similar faux pas and I caught him on it on his radio show. While he, like you tried to pooh-pooh the gaff away publicly, Wessels confided to me in a private letter I almost took down Morey’s entire organization over this one bit of shoddy scholarship that he was using against Catholics.
Give a listen. ( yeah, it’s me, Jim talking! )
Tim,
I forgot to give the Morey/Me link
Thanks, Jim,
I appreciate your understanding.
Tim
Tim, About as much as I appreciate having the Blessed Sacrament called a death wafer?
Jim, whats your point? Tim made a mistake. No sensible person is going to throw out all his exegesis because of that. No one cares if you appreciate the Roman Eucharist being called thecbreadcGod. You sit in an adoring chapel and stare at a piece of bread as if that is Jesus . You put a scapular on to get out of Purgatory. Idol worship and superstition. Youbdont worship God in an acceptale way. There are people who worship a false god. There are people who worship God in a self styled way. Then therecare people who worshipbGod in an acceptable way.we must come to God on His terms, not ours. Catholicism is a faulty view of the Trinity as Horton says. You cant rent His humanity from His divinity. Without merit and inherent grace Romaine says all the superstitions fall. It is a human institution that becomes more human everyday. One giant system of man worship, church worship. So your fixation on a hymn is weak. The point is Aquinas and Assisi, worshiped the wafer.
Kevin,
waferworship? I give you 12 hours before you try to crash CCC again. Do you think anybody found your tears and kisses to be sincere?
“Bye everybody. I am sorry for cwashing your bwog. I telled Jason I would be a good boy but I am so lonely with nobody to slur that I thought I would barge in.
Okay. I will go away now. I will go back to Kauffman’s rat hole where I can slur you better.I just wanted to say that I miss you and I wuv you all. Your fwend Kebbin.”
Kevin! You jackass.
Sure, Jim. I offer no respect to the wafer. Nor do I expect or request any from you. Paying respect to me is not a condition of participation on this blog. Nor, on the other hand, ought respect to the wafer be a condition of discussing it as the idol that it is.
The title “Wafer of Death” is the least of your concerns. You are following the Beast, heeding his False Prophet, and worshiping his Image.
God speaks of idols as unable to save from death, and the wafer god of Rome is no different:
An idol cannot deliver you from death. The Eucharistic wafer you worship is an idol. It is a wafer of death to you. I make no apologies for making that connection for your benefit.
You are always welcome here.
Tim
Kevin,
waferworship? I give you 12 hours before you try to crash CCC again. Do you think anybody found your tears and kisses to be sincere?
“Bye everybody. I am sorry for cwashing your bwog. I telled Jason I would be a good boy but I am so lonely with nobody to slur that I thought I would barge in.
Okay. I will go away now. I will go back to Kauffman’s rat hole where I can slur you better.I just wanted to say that I miss you and I wuv you all. Your fwend Kebbin.”
Kevin! You jackass.
Tim,
WOW! You can slur! You don’t need Kevin to do your dirty work after all.
( So dump him. You don’t need him. )
Jim, why are you running Tim down on Jason’s site. You cant leave the man alone. You and your friendcDebbie is doing exactly what Tim talkedcabout yesterday. Running down the Reformers for not towing company line. Trying to disqualify criticism by accusing crazy and deranged etc. Is Roman methodology. But that will never stop the Reformation. Rome is dying its apostate death. Luther dealt a fatal blow, and there will be men who arecfaithful to preach the true gospel. We have God on our side, who can be against us. Jim, you have no integrity.
Jim, I posted on CCC yesterday and they silenced me again. Will you give all my friends over there a message. Unless they repent of worshiping the elements of the Lord’s supper their soul will be lost. And tell them don’t buy the sign on the front of the church. The dear Apostle Peter would want nothing to do with the Roman catholic church. Of course if Jesus were here today as well as Paul and Peter, you and your church would be crucifying them. Repent of your wicked superstitions and idolatry and come in repentance and faith to Jesus, as Eric w says believe in Him as your head because only He can save you. All your scapulars and relics and Masses and pilgrimages, and your works won’t save you, only faith. If you trust in Christ alone then your works will be sweet to God because he gets the glory. Denounce the Pope as head, he cannot be head thereof, a mere sinner like ourselves put up as vicar on earth, and head of Christ;’s church. He didn’t come from heaven to earth, he didn’t pour out his life for his people. Christ didn’t come to earth to pour out His blood, to have the Pope come in and steal the glory. Tim is right, the gullible Protestant world, especially the chorally world has bought the lie, not wanting to offend. Here is what MacArthur says ” If the truth offends let it, they have offend the truth enough for lifetimes.” If what we say to Catholics is not offending them, then we fail the Reformers, and most of all we are not worthy of Christ’s kingdom. Call me Paul Revere Jimbo. I’m not smart, and I can’t spell, but I can ride the whitehorse and scream the antichrist is coming. The lady who was burned at the stake was right the your abominable Mass is the worst offense to God. It is an idol and a sacrifice. It relegates our Savior powerless. I will tell everyone I know to quit worshiping at the Roman trough of death!
Tim, I wanted to tell you there aren’t many in scholarship who would be willing to post what you did today to Debbie on Jason’s site. I respect you for it, and I thank God to call you my brother fighting for the true religion. Most Protestant “scholars” on that site want so much the acceptance of those Catholic Apologists, more than they want to speak the truth. That you have put it on the line for the sake of the gospel in boldness, you are blessed. And I stand with you for the sake of the gospel of free grace and the right teaching of the Law.
Tim,
Thomas Aquinas is not Francis of Assisi. In the St. Francis Hymnal, in the table of contents, it nowhere says Francis wrote the hymns.
No Catholic child above the age of 8 would think that he did.
How could you be so wrong?
Now, I will say every Dominican church is supposed to have a statue or some memorial to Francis and every Franciscan church is supposed to honor St. Dominic. The two men were friends and their orders respect that.
But Aquinas? Okay, so he was a Dominican. He was not even the same generation as Francis.
Tim, you went on and on about “Adoro Te Devote” directing worship to bread rather than Christ. You were insistent. To think, you don’t even know enough about Catholicism to know a hymnal named after St. Francis, St. Joseph, or even Mary does not mean they authored the hymns in the hymnal.
How can someone who advertises himself as Mr. Know-it-all on Catholic doctrine and devotion be so dumb?!?!
Jim,
Yes, and you may note that I self-disclosed the error before anyone pointed it out.
Yes, you are quite right.
You are welcome to continue berating me here on this site. I won’t stop you. You are always welcome here.
Tim
Tim,
I am not berating someone who honestly doesn’t know the difference between two medieval Catholic saints through no fault of their own.
I am berating someone who traffics in hatred for the Catholic religion, who promotes himself as an expert not only in Catholic doctrine ( Aquinas ) but someone who, as a child, was steeped in all the standard Catholic devotions ( St. Francis).
You were brutal Tim, in berating me as an idol worshiper for my worship Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. You repeatedly told me I didn’t know my own mind despite my insistence that I knew the difference between bread and Jesus Christ. And the bludgeon you used were the words of “Adoro Te Devote” that nowhere says we Catholics worship bread. Even a fellow Protestant ( Bob ), in order to keep his integrity, had to cross party lines and call you on your unfair caricaturing of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine and practice.
Tim, you pretend to know the fathers. You don’t even know what old ladies with statues of St. Francis standing in their garden birdbaths know.
And you certainly have no experience with Eucharistic piety if you are unfamiliar with Tantum Ergo, O Salutaris, Adoro Te Devote, Benediction, etc. although you mock the Eucharist with your ” If this bread could talk” cartoon.
I have been asking you to correct your stooge Kevin Falloni’s faulty understanding of Catholicism. I now see that maybe he should be tutoring you!
Well, in any case, you are always welcome here, Jim.
Thanks for your note.
Tim
Jim, it is you who don’t understand Roman Catholicism, Tim is just putting flesh on what it really is, idolatry. He has been consistent to say the Papacy is the Beast, the apparition of Mary is the False Prophet, and the Roman Eucharist is the image of the Beast. He has documented this well. It is clear that those serious Eucharist worshipers were inflicted with stigmata’s and were even more drawn to their idol worship. Assisi and Aquinas worshiped the bread as God. And so do you Jimbo. Mark 10:52 ” Jesus said ” Go, your faith has made you well” As you can see Jim it is faith alone that makes us well and not the worship of the bread god. God bless you.
Kevin Failoni says:
“Bob, you are being disingenuous.”
{disənˈjenyo͞oəs/ adjective : not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does}
So you think I’m sandbagging? How so? So what is your evidence of me being not candid or sincere?
And then you said:
“You haven’t trusted anyone here including the author of this site. You said you were here for kix and a good argument. ”
But before you said:
“This is just sport for you, which is ok. ”
So you said it is ok , but then you sound like it is not. Hmmm….
I wonder who is really being dis·in·gen·u·ous…? And this is the second time you have responded after you said you wouldn’t.
What’s up with that? Truth is where the word and the deed are the same. “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” Hmmm…
I wonder who said that?
Bob, I dont think your sandbaging, I think you are looking for fight. You have stated you came because you missed the fireworks on Jason’s site. I responded because you misinterpit 1 John 5:13. I believe the scripture clearly teaches a Christian is justified by faith alone and that justification provides peace and assurance os salvation. I believe Jesus when He says He loses none that the Father gives Him. Romans 9 clearly teaches God elects His own before having done anything bad or good. It does not depend on the man who runs but on the will of God. I understand for you God helps you to achieve His favor with His help. But for a Reformed Christian Christ lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness and did for us what we could not do for ourselves. Ephesians 2:15. Romans 8:4. 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:9, 12-19. I say this to you in all love Bob, if you are trusting anything but Christ and his righteousness alone the scripture is clear you wont be justified before God. Trusting any works, even grace enabled in justification God will repudiate. The hersies in Christian church history and the corruption of faith has always been conflating law and gospel. Law is natural and can only lead us to Christ, gospel is supernatural from heaven, and can only be apprehended by faith. Galatians 3:6. Are you a cowboy fan or Texans ? K
Bob,
Kevin wrote to you, “Romans 9 clearly teaches God elects His own before having done anything bad or good. ”
I hope I don’t have to tell you this passage is about service, not salvation.
Bob,
Come over to CCC for some kix and a good fight. As a Methodist, you will have clear running field. You can fight Catholics on the Papacy and then make common cause with them against the Reformed on the issue of grace. You will be busier than a one legged man is a snake stomping contest.
or maybe an arse kicking contest.
kevin said:
“Trusting any works, even grace enabled in justification God will repudiate. The hersies in Christian church history and the corruption of faith has always been conflating law and gospel. Law is natural and can only lead us to Christ, gospel is supernatural from heaven, and can only be apprehended by faith.”
Why are you so confused about the difference in works of the Law in ordinances(the Law given to Moses) and works of Mercy(ordained by the Spirit)? Have you never read Galatians 5?
“If you are led by the Spirit, YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; AGAINST SUCH THINGS THERE IS NO LAW.”
You see, Kevin, Paul is talking about works of the Law that do not justify. Works of Mercy are works that against such things, THERE IS NO LAW. Do you know which of these spiritual works is the greatest? LOVE! Here’s what Paul says about love in the verses just previous to these in Galatians 5 : “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
What else does he say about love? Paul said to the Corinthians this: “Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”
These are the works that complete faith. These are the works that keep faith from being dead. It’s completed faith that Paul says justifies, not works in ordinances of the Mosaic Law.
If you believe that faith alone is simple intellectual assent, you have missed the mark.
I’m not much into football any more. I’m a Rangers fan.
Sweet dreams, Sugarpie.
Bob, you are confused. The antithesis in Paul in justification is not between works of law and grace enabled works, the antithesis is between works and hearing by faith. Paul eliminates all works in justification. Romans 4:5, 11:6, Ephesians 2:8, Romans 4:16 says if you want to be saved by grace alone it will have to be by faith alone. Take a seminary class man. God bless
Bob, faith in scripture pistis, fiducia encompasses more than Rome’s token mental assent. The Reformers clarified this. It means trust, resting in. Its full orbed trust. This was a big problem in Rome. Luther said they cannot rob from faith and give to love what God intended for faith. Nowhere in scripture does it say we are justified by love or any works, but solely trusting and resting in .the righteousness of Christ. Not faith formed in love, but faith alone in Christ alone justifies.
Bob,
The only thing I would want to add to your response to Kevin is about the nature of saving Faith. Even if Faith is more than intellectual assent,even if it includes trust, it doesn’t save if it lacks Charity and, if possible, works of Charity.
The demons have trust, perfect confidence of what God is going to do to them. But they don’t love God.
Look at James 2:8. He is talking about the Royal Law of Love.
The demons also assent, believe that God is One. But that is only part of the Shema. They don’t love God and neighbor.
Yeah about the Mosaic Law. Calvinists take what Paul said to Judaizers and apply it across the board to all human effort. They don’t even see Paul had nothing against Torah Law keeping. He was merely opposed to it being foisted upon gentile converts. He himself circumcised Timothy ( who did qualify as a Jew as he had a Jewish mother ). But he didn’t do this for Timothy’s salvation. Elsewhere Paul encourages Jewish Christians to stay in the Law as a cultural condition but not to lord their Jewishness over Greek converts. Both Greeks and Torah observing Jewish Christians are saved by Faith.
You didn’t bring it up but we could address just what Calvinists think about the Law’s impossibility to be kept. Despite numerous examples of righteous Law keepers, Calvinists say the Law couldn’t be kept and then say we today can’t obey the commandments of Christ either and need an alien imputation of Christ’s Law keeping applied to our accounts.
Over on Creed Code Cult and called to Communion we talk about these issues with Calvinists. Here, 95% of all energy is spent on Kevin’s slurs and Tim’s cockemamy theories of the Church going into apostasy just as the Mormons say .
Jim said “Calvinist takr works of the law and apply it across the board to mean all human effort.” Paul Ephesians 2:8 ” not that of yourselves” not of works” That eliminates all human effort being MERITORIOUS in salvation, and there is no qulification of works, ALL works. This verse itselfvsinks Rome’s semi pelagian gospel. Not anything coming from ourselves. So faith as it is activated in being, doing does not justify before God.
Kevin,
works done in a state of grace are “not of ourselves”. Don’t you know that?
Jim, if Paul warns to look for the man of perdition within the church, and the Fathers as Tim documented feared it would happen around them and they might not know, what makes you think Roman Catholicism’Papacy isnt that man. He fits all the prophecy.
You are off topic.
Bob, you wrote,
But Galatians 5 is an appeal to “the Law given to Moses”:
And works of Mercy ordained by the Spirit are what “the Law given to Moses” requires:
How can you you maintain that justification is by works of Mercy, not by the works of the Law given to Moses, when the works of the Law given to Moses are the very works of Mercy by which you claim to be justified? There are no works of mercy that are not works of the Law.
You continued, by saying, “It’s completed faith that Paul says justifies, not works in ordinances of the Mosaic Law.” But if, as you say, “completed faith” is kept alive by “love” and “love” is what the Law demands (i.e., love God, love your neighbor, for “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:40)) then all you have done is make works of the Law necessary for justification. You continued,
Rather, these are works that proceed from a regenerated heart and the indwelling of the Spirit:
When James says, “I will shew thee my faith by my works” (James 2:18), it was in the context of works being as much a fruit of regeneration as faith is: “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth” (James 1:18). Likewise with Paul. When he exhorts us to good works, it is on the basis of rebirth:
Rebirth and indwelling of the Spirit cause us to believe, and also cause us to obey. Works of the Law of Moses don’t keep faith alive. They emanate from a regenerated heart that believes the Word of God to be true. You continued,
I’m going to quibble with your wording a little. I don’t believe that “faith alone” is “simple intellectual assent.” I believe “faith” is “simple intellectual assent”, and I believe we are justified by “faith alone“. “Simple intellectual assent” is belief, and justification is by belief alone.
Part of the confusion, I think, lies in the characterization of “intellectual assent” as a mere recitation of a fact rather than actual assent to that statement of fact. A man who says “Jesus was raised from the dead” but does not believe it to be true, has not given his intellectual assent to the fact. He has just recited it.
For some reason Evangelicals have differentiated between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge” as if “head knowledge is simple intellectual assent” and “heart knowledge” is belief. In Scripture, “head” and “heart” are the same thing. To have “head knowledge” that Jesus was raised from the dead is “heart knowledge.”
Thanks,
Tim
Boys,
There are so may errors here I don’t know if I can get to them all by scrolling up and seeing what Tim wrote.
Tim, Your quote from Ezekial 36 is one of the passages that prove justification requires Love. Juxtapose this to Roman’s 5:5 and Jeremiah’s heart of Flesh with the Law written on it.
Tim, how does intellectual assent save? Because it is an act of the intellect MOVED BY THE WILL. The will is the seat of Charity. That’s why it saves. Initially anyway. But charity can indeed be lost leaving only a dead faith that doesn’t save.
Bob, because the Deformed believe in OSAS, they seldom distinguish between the various kinds of justification scripture speaks of.
James is speaking to the already initially”saved”. He calls them “brothers” and says not to mix their “Faith” with partiality.
However, since works do not necessarily and automatically come bursting out of a saved/regenerate/justified person and because one can lose their salvation by not doing works of love, James writes this very chapter.
Paul usually speaks of initial justification. James is speaking of progressive justification ( the offering of Isaac by already justified Abraham ) and final justification.
Tim wrote to Bob,
“…Works… don’t keep faith alive. They emanate from a regenerated heart that believes the Word of God to be true…”
( I deleted “of the Law of Moses” ).
Why did James write this epistle? Because works can indeed be withheld by believers. Read it!
And a Faith that refuses good works is still faith. Nowhere does it say dead faith is not faith. James compares the soul and body to works and faith. A (dead ) body without a soul is still a real body. It is just dead though.
By the way, Tim, Faith is not just “kept” alive by love. It is made alive by love from the very start.
The question should be, where do we get this love? We can’t dredge it up out of ourselves. Romans 5:5 says it is a gift. Baptism gives this gift.
In closing, where does Jesus say on judgement day our faith saves us? In answer to the question about salvation, Jesus gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan. Then He said, “Go and do likewise.”
Jim, ok lets approach it this way. Justification is ALWAYS Aorist Past tense. 5:1 HAVING BEEN justified by faith 5:9 HAVING BEEN justified by his blood. Your apologists have a tense problem. Incidentally, Paul says it provides present tense peace 5:1. Maybe that why the Roman religion thinks they can rent His humanity from His divinity. Maybe thats why you still have Him on the cross and render Him of no effect. ” Having obtained eternal redemption He SAT DOWN at the right hand of God. Christ isn’t in your death wafer, He sits high above all heaven and earth. K
Jim, maybe you can explain something for me. Whay do Roman Catholics never talk about passages such as Romans 5:1, 4:16, 8:1, 3:26, 4:5, 11:6, Ephesians 2:8, Titus 3:5, but instead run to one passage in James, who incidentally their hero Augustine said does not contradict Paul ” Good works follow justification”, and use it for their semi pelagian gosel? Please explain why you don’t seek the assurance and the peace offered in the scripture to people who simply receive Him. Romans 10:9-10 Jim simply says if you confess and believe the result is righteousness and salvation. There are no works here required for our status before God. In Rome if you participate in the sacraments your in and if you don’t your out. But Romans 10:9-10 doesn’t say that. One time DeMaria told me Ephesians 2:8 were about the sacraments. Jim, think about that. K
JIM–
“Tim, Your quote from Ezekial 36 is one of the passages that prove justification requires Love. ”
He also conveniently left out of that quote the verse right before it which alludes to the “Roman Font”:
Eze 36:25
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
–I had to. I couldn’t resist. 😉
We Methodists sprinkle, too.
Yes, of course, Bob, as well as the Roman sacrament of surgically extracting a literal stone out of the chest of new converts, because it is impossible that Ezekiel 36 can be taken any way but literally. Right? To which sacrament does Ezekiel 36:26 refer?
Thanks,
Tim
Since the word “Moreover” begins verse 26, it connects directly to verse 25. Hmmmm…sprinkling of water, receiving the Holy Spirit, sounds a lot like “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
You tell me.
Tim,
Faith is believing God exists and rewards those who earnestly seek Him. The demons have the first part down. Where do you stand?
Jim, ya He rewards those who seek Him, but justification is a past tense an it is a free gift. Romans 5:17, 6:23, Ephesians 2:8. You guys besides having a tense problem, don’t know what a gift is. If god gave grace as a response to a action or a ability it wouldn’t be a GIFT.
TIM–
You said: “I’m going to quibble with your wording a little. I don’t believe that “faith alone” is “simple intellectual assent.” I believe “faith” is “simple intellectual assent”, and I believe we are justified by “faith alone“. “Simple intellectual assent” is belief, and justification is by belief alone.”
Ok. If you are defining the kind of living faith, faith completed by works, that James talks about in chapter 2 and naming it “Faith Alone” as a proper name, then I have no problem with that. It is a title you have given it. If this is the case, then no one else should have a problem with it either.
A while back, there was an agreement with the Lutherans and the Catholics called The Joint Resolution on the Doctrine of Justification. Both parties agreed that by defining “faith” as the kind of faith mentioned above(formed faith), then “justification by faith alone” is a non issue.
Works for me! …so to speak.
Bob, imho those attempts like the Lutheran Catholic agreement are failures. Because we are talkjnv about 2 differnt systems. Synergists like you and RC’s use slight of hand. Grace becomes the means of exchange on the church’s merit system. If God gave grace grace as a response to an action or ability it wouldnt beca gift. Scripture isnt ambiguous, salvation is a free gift. Bob, you do and God gives you grace, thats Law. Christianity is God gives us grace and we do, gift. Romans 5:17 is clear ” the free gift of righteounes” and 6:23 says ” the free gift of eternal life. Law is doing. It is in complete antithesis to hearing by faith, Galatians 3:1-6. Works of any kind are in direct opposition in justification. So Luther interpreted Paul correctly. Faith alone in Christ alone justifies. Not faith as it is activated by your doing, loving or being. These are only consequential of faith. Again scripture is clear we are saved as nothing coming from ourselves or works Ephesians 2:8. You or Romanists cant smuggle your character into the work of God’s grace. Its simple, a man died and we are righteous. Augustine said it best ” how was Abraham justified. What does the Apostle say. Abraham was justified by faith. Paul and James dont contradict each other, good works follow justification. There is no harmony between Rome and Reformed systems. They are diametrically opposed. So ECT type statements are compromise. And we are never, ever, compromising on 5 solas, or the idolatry of the death wafer. Sacerdotal process of meriting one’s increases of salvation, destroys the atonement and corrupts faith at its core. ” The righteous shall live by faith.” K
Y’know guys, I read the Bible. And what I read over and over and over again is that if you do not do God’s will, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In fact, there are places where it implies you can lose your salvation if you continue in unrepentance. Being taught this from when I was a child, if you do wrong, you go to hell. If you do right you go to heaven. Am I being childish here? So many places in the New Testament, Jesus basically says to ACT on his words or you are not fit for the Kingdom. Not only must you have faith, but you must obey.
Now, that being said, there is always forgiveness. If one fails in one way or another, but later on repents (changes ones behaviour from bad to good) and asks for forgiveness, then one can be reconciled again with God– EXCEPT if one commits apostasy. Then Christ’s blood is not reapplied. Now if I am not mistaken, one must have been justified first before he can become apostate. I have two questions:
1) What is the criteria that defines apostasy?
2) Was St. Francis ever justified?
Bob, I dont think any Reformed here said we arent supp I sed to obey God, obey his law. But we arent justified by obeying his law, or works, or anything coming from ourselves. We are justified by the righteouness of Christ which comes thru faith alone. Believe gospel, obey law. But its fatalto conflate them. We cannot attempt to be justified by anything we do, or we will find the plight of the Jews in Romans 10:1.
Bob, I’ll try to answer:
Who then can be saved? (Mt 19:25, Mr 10:26, Lu 18:26)
Or perhaps unrepentance is evidence of an unregenerate heart? (1 Sam 2:25). There are, after all, other places that say that unrepentance is because they were never “of us” in the first place: “if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19)
Another way to look at it is: if you’re going to heaven, you do right (Ephesians 2:10), and if you’re going to hell, you do bad works (Titus 1:15-16)
Yes. Acting on His words is evidence that you believe what He says. “I will shew thee my faith by my works.” (James 2:18) Pulling the rip cord on the parachute is what you do if you believe your jumping instructor. Jumping off the building is what you do if you believe the firemen holding the trampoline. If you say to the fireman “I believe you, but I’m afraid to jump,” or to your instructor, “I believe you, but I’m afraid to pull the cord,” it is evidence that you do not believe his words. The fact that faith and works both proceed from a regenerated heart, does not make the works the cause of justification.
Yes, that is true.
This really does depend on a definition of apostasy, so your next questions are good.
I define apostasy as switching from professing the faith to rejecting the faith. I do not define it as going from a state of justification to a state of nonjustification, or as going from saved to lost. Since it is possible for someone to claim falsely to believe (i.e., “though a man say he hath faith” (James 2:14)), but it is impossible for a saved person to be plucked out of Jesus’ hands (i.e., “and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:28)), then it is impossible for apostasy to mean “losing one’s salvation.” I define an apostate as someone who professed to believe, but did not believe, and ended up rejecting the faith. Such a one, “if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19))
No.
Thanks,
Tim
Bob, I belive it is impossiblr for ond of God’elect to lose his salvation, the scriptures are clear. I believe the man who had his father’s wife in 1 Corinthians 5, who Paul said was worse than all the gentiles, whom he delivered over to Satan for the desruction of his flesh that his soul would be saved in the day of Christ. I think the issue is whether someone was ever saved, they went out from us ……. I also think visible morality isnt an indicator. Only God knows the heart. Three things will amaze me someday, there will be people there who we thought would never be there, there will be who we thought would be there that wont be there, and that I’ll be there.
Bob,
You mentioned what Jesus said about entering the Kingdom of heaven. You won’t impress the Calvinists with Jesus. The words of Jesus found in the Gospels play second fiddle to what ( they think ) Paul said in Romans.
Perfect example; The Rich Young Ruler asked Jesus about salvation. Jesus said to keep the commandments. The kid said he had. Jesus said that if he wanted to go further, he should sell all and become one of the disciples. The kid demurred.
Nowhere does it say, as the Calvinists allege, that the kid only thought he had kept the “impossible to keep” commandments.
Calvinists think Paul taught total depravity, that men couldn’t obey the Law. They foist error this onto the words of Jesus.
Jim, what you told Bob is completely false. Where do you thinknPaul got his gospel, from Jesus. He got smacked down on the Damascus road. Tim does a great job of pointing out that each time Jesus commends people on theit love or works He tells them your faith has healed you. The book of John ( 3:16) is all about faith.
Jim, your Roman glasses prove my point, read Roman Catholic doctrine, believe the opposite, arrive at biblical truth. I explained the rich young ruler to Debbie becausecshe had it backwards too. Jesus didnt tell him to obey the comandments. He asked him if he had. This guy was blameless before the law and hethought he lacked one thing. But Jesus wouldnt let him bring any of law resume with him. He told him to give up everything and follow him. He wouldnt. And when the Apostles asked him who then can enter, Jesus said with man it is IMPOSSIBLE, but with God all things are possible. Nowif
Now if the example of the rich young ruler doesnt make you and your sidekick Bob run as far from the Roman gospel as possible, nothing will. God bless.
Tim,
Thanks for being pretty forthcoming on CCC. Now I can refer to it later if needed. You tipped your hand as being a fanatic. I appreciate it.
Sure, Jim. I was happy to do it. I know you got in trouble from Jason once when you kept pasting comments from my blog to his, and I didn’t want you to get in any more trouble. You’ll find that I have no ambitions to have you removed from any blogs—this one included.
Thanks,
Tim
KEVIN–
I just figured out what IMHO means–in my humble opinion.
Well, if I had known that, I would have taken your words as just that–your opinion.
Well good. Now I can see what you say in a different light. It doesn’t necessarily reflect the views of any denomination or the views of Tim Kauffman or his staff or the owners of this blog sight.
Bob, what do you mean my views arent compatible with Tim’s. I am a 5 point Calvinist, and I believe Tim is too. I belive that faith and repentance are gifts of God and fruits of a regenerated heart. I believe all of salvation is monergistic, all of God. We are regenerated by the washing of the Word by the work of the Spirit. All the fruits of salvation come through the Spirit of God. We disagree on church government probably. But I think Tim would hold to the 5 solas. I have actually adopted his eschalogical view. Where do you think we differ?
KEVIN–
Wow! It is so obvious you read into things with some sort of bent perspective. I never said your views are not compatible with Tim’s. Look right above your response at mine and see if I said that. Man, no wonder your views of what the bible says are so skewed. Do you even know what the phrase “doesn’t necessarily” means? Your ability to create a strawman at will is staggering.
Bob, but dont you think if you arevgoing to make that statement you would be specific.
Is that a question?
Tim, have you read the article by Horton called “The abscence of Christ” This is an amazing article, simply a must read. I was wandering if you or someone might provide this link on Jason’s site post 2 years Catholic. It is pertinent and a must read. It adresses the preposterous things churches are teaching, This to me is the major error of Rcism. I hope you readl it, and your lurkers do the same. K
Tim, indulge me if you will brother one more important article by Horton that is connected to the one Imentioned. I know you are busy but I hope you read it, and pray every Catholic would. Horton ” Jesus in His ascension does not abandon History but redefines all that has preceeded it” 2 short articles. Thanks Tim.
TIM–
You said: “I define apostasy as switching from professing the faith to rejecting the faith. I do not define it as going from a state of justification to a state of nonjustification, or as going from saved to lost…I define an apostate as someone who professed to believe, but did not believe, and ended up rejecting the faith. Such a one, “if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:19))”
Ok. I can believe that there are those that just profess but did not believe from the beginning. There are those who do what it takes to fit in with the crowd.
However; I’ll see your definition and I’ll raise it with my definition. An apostate is one who has come to a saving faith and then fallen away as to lose his salvation. I’ll give two examples:
“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, AND THEN HAVE FALLEN AWAY, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.” (Heb 6:4ff)
That hardly describes someone who just professes faith and didn’t believe from the beginning.
and
“To the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: ‘I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. ‘Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. ‘So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you. ‘But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. ‘He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; AND I WILL NOT ERASE HIS NAME FROM THE BOOK OF LIFE and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.” (Rev 3:1ff)
You see, I base my definition on the fact that one must be in the book of life first (a state of salvation) before he can be erased out of it. And I don’t have to twist Scripture around and look at it backwards to come to my conclusion.
Bob,
Would you please expound on this statement: “And I don’t have to twist Scripture around and look at it backwards to come to my conclusion.”
All you have done is provide an alternate proposal. You may feel that I did not satisfactorily address Hebrews and Revelation, but you did not address Jesus’ promise that no one an pluck a saved sinner out of his hands, and John’s teaching that those who apostasize were never really of us to begin with, or “they would no doubt have continued with us.” Now you may disagree with my opinion, and you may even think I have not fully investigated the Scriptures exhaustively on this topic, but I think “scripture twisting” and “looking at it backwards” is an accusation that ought to be substantiated.
In what way have I “twisted” John 10:28, and in what way did I look at 1 John 2:19 “backwards”?
As far as I can tell, “scripture twisting” and “looking at it backwards” appears to mean arriving at a different conclusion than you did.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “in what way did I look at 1 John 2:19 “backwards”?
Wow! You and Kevin are two peas in a pod. Read my response again above yours and you will see I said, and I quote: “Ok. I can believe that there are those that just profess but did not believe from the beginning. There are those who do what it takes to fit in with the crowd.”
What’s up with you two?
Yes, Jesus said “and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”
Where in His words does it say that one cannot reject Him and jump out of His hand? Now THAT would be apostate.
Maybe instead of saying “I don’t have to twist Scripture around and look at it backwards to come to my conclusion” like Kevin says the Catholics do, I should have said “And I got that from reading the plain text without having to add the word ‘alone’.”
Again, I couldn’t resist. 🙂
Can’t someone’s name be stricken from the book of life?
Didn’t the unforgiving servent have his own forgiven status revoked?
Bob, I was thinking since you said to Tim, ” You see, I base my decision on the fact…… , and your good at facts can you give me your interpretaion of this ” He who began a good work in you WILL perfect it until the day of Christ” and while your at it fact man, since you think Hebrews 6 is taliking about losing your salvation, how may times in that passage can you lose it? Hmmm! Once. “It is impossible to renew him to repentance. ” Its not talking about believers, and thats a Fact.K
KEVIN–
So if you don’t believe “those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” is talking about believers? Having been made(past tense) partakers of the HOLY SPIRIT? These are unbelievers? What did you say “He who began a good work in you WILL perfect it until the day of Christ” ?
Sheesh! You need to get some rest, Pumpkin. And that’s a fact.
Sweet dreams.
Bob, how come you avoid my verses Pumpkin? While your there Mr fact man tell me what Romans 4:16 means.” For this reason it is by faith, in order that it might be in accordance with grace, so tha the promise will be GUARANTEED to all the descendants……., Pumpkin if you want to be justified by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. And incidentally Pumpkin the promise is guaranteed. Time to repent of your pride Bob in all those special works you think you have. As Augustine and Calvin said none of them can survive God’s justice. The only way Pumpkin in is the righteouness that comes by faith, and ir cant be yours. Nighty night. K
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….
Bob, maybe you need to look at the golden chain of salvation in Romans 8:28. Its all past tense, accomplished.Those he predestined He called, those He called He justified, those He justified He glorified. Who can bring a charge against God’elect? Its GOD who justifies. Anything registering yet? Its God who justifies. We were chosen before the foundation world, long before any infused love bro!, to be Holy and blameless before Him. We are just living the miracle. You have such a jaded view of scripture, works of Law, justification. Other than that I think your doing great. Lol
Tim,
I left you a message on CCC.
Tim, you ( and Bob ) should get off this silly blog and come over to CCC. Leave this one to Kevin.
You know, Tim, I was wondering about something. Over on Beggars All, James Swan ( no friend to popery ) has tons of material on the Eucharist from a Lutheran and Calvinist perspective, most of it against the Mass. Some is junk and some is interesting.
What I don’t see anywhere, either in Swan’s writings, the Protestant sources he posts, or the readers’ comments is the term “death wafer”. Why do you think that is? Swan hates Catholicism. Yet he never stoops to such rhetoric.
This low class blog allows the use of intentionally offensive slurs just to upset Catholics but with zero apologetic content. It’s stupid. Get off this dumb blog and come over to CCC.
666 Jim, did you really ask Tim why he uses the term death wafer? He has written scores of articles on how scripture shows ThexPapacy is the beast, apparitiion of Mary thecfalse prophrt, and The Roman Eucharist the image of the beast. If he believes that the Roman bread is an idol that can send people to hell, does it not stand to reason that death wafer is appropriate. Taking it is taking the mark. I cant believe you asked that question. Maybe we should call it a bread god, poison pill, taste of death.
Jim,
James Swan is approaching the matter from an ecclesiological and historical perspective, while I am approaching it from an eschatalogical perspective. That is the difference. One does not entitle a book “Graven Bread” and then shilly shally on the implications of worshiping the Image of the Beast. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12). Adoration of the wafer seemeth right to you, but it is the way of death.
“For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing. … And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight.” (2 Kings 17:12,20)
The eucharist is death to you, Jim.
Tim
Jim, next time you are in the adoration chapel staring at the bread thinking it is Jesus body, blood, divinity and soul, I ask you to think about this verse my friend. “Walk by faith and not by sight” Roman Catholicism is a faulty view of the Trinty Jim, the visible church cannot replace the mediation of Christ and the Spirit. God comes to man thru His gospel thru the workk of the Spirit. The church cant ration out Christ to people. Jim, please listen to 1 John 4:13 ” By this we know we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us His Spirit” The Eucharist cant replace the Spirit and the church cannot be a substiute for Christ Jim. I have been praying for you Jim, that you’ll walk away from the idol of the death wafer and you would come to God on His terms, thru faith alone in Christ alone. May God have mercy on you. K
Bob, I was reading in Colossians today and when I read these verses I thought how faulty was the synergistic system of replacing the finished work and unique accomplishment of Christ with a church and its people that think they are the extension of His incarnation and atonement by their work. Listen closely Colossians 1:12 ” giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified usto share in the inheritanceof thecsaints in the light. For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transfered us to the Kingdom of His beloved son. In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body thru death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.” As you can see Bob He accomplished these thing you didnt. He did them without your works. So your works can only be resonable service of worship, the outcome of faith and not the condition of your our salvation. K
Tim, I have decided to stop blogging. Thanks for the oppurtunity to share mt thoughts here. I think your ministry here is pioneer and God is using it mightily. God bless you. And if Jim and Bob read this I will pray fornothing but God’ truth and blessings in their life. Kevin
Kevin,
Thanks for the heads up. You’re always welcome here if you decided to pick it up again.
Thanks,
Tim
Happy trails, Kev.
Tim,
What Kevin really means is he is going incognito. He will step up his blogging and crashing blogs only under an assumed name. So if “Suzie” or “karen” or the “purple pimpernel” starts posting poorly spelled and stupid messages, its just Christian Kevin Falloni preaching the Gospel as only he can.
Tim, if you were banned from CCC for a while, it was probably because you have come to be synonamous with Baloney falloni.
Jim you wrote:
“Boys,
There are so may errors here I don’t know if I can get to them all by scrolling up and seeing what Tim wrote.
Tim, Your quote from Ezekial 36 is one of the passages that prove justification requires Love. Juxtapose this to Roman’s 5:5 and Jeremiah’s heart of Flesh with the Law written on it.
Tim, how does intellectual assent save? Because it is an act of the intellect MOVED BY THE WILL. The will is the seat of Charity. That’s why it saves. Initially anyway. But charity can indeed be lost leaving only a dead faith that doesn’t save.
Bob, because the Deformed believe in OSAS, they seldom distinguish between the various kinds of justification scripture speaks of.
James is speaking to the already initially”saved”. He calls them “brothers” and says not to mix their “Faith” with partiality.
However, since works do not necessarily and automatically come bursting out of a saved/regenerate/justified person and because one can lose their salvation by not doing works of love, James writes this very chapter. Paul usually speaks of initial justification. James is speaking of progressive justification ( the offering of Isaac by already justified Abraham ) and final justification.”
Jim, why do you try to explain what Scripture means when I posted for you at least 200 verses some weeks ago showing what Scripture actually says?
Do you not know there is a giant gap between what you say the Scripture means, and what the Scriptures actually say?
I noticed you did not say one thing after I posted all those verses which clearly demonstrate God’s sovereign will over salvation, and yet you continue on in your folly trying to teach people what the Scriptures mean.
Please let the interpretation of Scripture be done with Scripture itself, and avoid what you believe it to mean. You are not the author of Scripture, but God is, and if you want to know what God means by what God says then go to the Scriptures to interpret the Scriptures themselves and learn.
Tim,
I watched the link Jim gave you and learned about how these unfaithful authors make public errors, and do not correct them in their books or tapes in order to continue to make sales.
——–
Tim,
I forgot to give the Morey/Me link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfWyhwMZgrM
———
After listening to this link, I had a link pop up after listening to it that I thought I share with you. It is a published discussion by the White Horse Inn called “For/Against Calvinism” by two professors. I’ve listened and read and debated (online) many dozens if not hundreds on this topic. This is one of the best discussions, if not the best discussion, I have ever heard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D2SWKbZSIU
You might take about 90 minutes to listen to this discussion, as it really is well done by both sides which do consider what is true classic Calvinism vs. true classic Arminianism.
I would highly encourage you to hear it as the finer points are well done making clear this history of the discussion.
JIM–
You said: “Bob, because the Deformed believe in OSAS, they seldom distinguish between the various kinds of justification scripture speaks of.
James is speaking to the already initially ”saved”. He calls them “brothers” and says not to mix their “Faith” with partiality.
However, since works do not necessarily and automatically come bursting out of a saved/regenerate/justified person and because one can lose their salvation by not doing works of love, James writes this very chapter. Paul usually speaks of initial justification. James is speaking of progressive justification (the offering of Isaac by already justified Abraham) and final justification.”
Ok, I get the distinction of initial and progressive justification.
What simply makes no sense is the “justification by faith alone” part. Faith can never be alone without it “working” in the direction of that initial intellectual assent.
For instance, when Abram believed God that he would be the father of many nations, he acted in faith towards that end. Abram could have said to God, “Y’know, I could be the father of many nations like you say, God. But I understand what I am going to have to do to achieve that. You know that Sarai is barren, right.? And you’re sending me into a foreign land that who knows what unseen obstacles and dangers may be there. Yes, I know you are God and omnipotent and all, and you could shield me from all of these things. I believe what you say will happen, but I am getting too old for this. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks.” And he would have stayed in Ur, childless, still being called Abram and completely lost to history, no one knowing that he even existed.
Instead, Abram left the only home he had ever known and set out to fulfill the promise of God. And God renamed him Abraham, the Father of many Nations! He not only had the intellectual assent that God was the one and only All Mighty who had a plan for him, he ACTED in FAITH. And God reckoned it to him as righteousness.
Faith can never be without action or it will never justify. Do you believe that if you take your car key and put it in the ignition switch of your car and turn it that your car will start?
Wonderful! That is faith. But what good is that faith if you don’t go out and start your car? You see how you were justified in your faith when the engine of your car started up because you acted on that faith.
This is how I see it. My faith in God is seen in my actions of Mercy and Charity. And my Hope is in my completed salvation:
–justified because of my faith in Jesus’ perfect Sacrifice by repenting and being baptized into the Church
–sanctified because of my faith in Jesus’ ministry by my works of Mercy and Charity directed by the Holy Spirit
–glorified because I persevered in faith to the end.
Imputed versus infused? Either way, the completed work is salvation. That is my Blessed Hope.
As John Wayne would say it–Shalome, ya’ll.
Tim, I reread this. Its very good. I am praying the Catholic lurkers will read this, and consider the warnings here. They will be at a loss, not to read this. The scary thing is Francis of Assisi was just one of the many millions who will suffer eternal punishment for worshiping the crust of bread as Jesus. It is unacceptable worship in the eyes of God. It is one of the many idolatries in Rome. Great job.