Follow
We mentioned last year in our article, “French Colonial Florida (1564-1565 A.D.)” that we were pleased to hear of the release of a trailer from Aperio Productions for their new film, The Massacre at Matanzas. The story is related in our article, and the excellent documentary is now completed and was released on the web last month.
The film is about the 1565 massacre of the French Huguenots at Ft. Caroline (modern day Jacksonville, Florida), recounting the history of Captain Jean Ribault‘s voyage to the New World in 1562, the establishment of a colony by French Huguenots in 1564, and the massacre of the settlers at the hands of the Admiral Pedro Menéndez in 1565. We had the privilege of being part of the effort to document the history of this first American Colony.
Here is the introduction from Aperio Productions:
“Our schools teach us that the landing of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock in 1620 represents the founding of America’s first colony, but is this history correct? The story of the French Huguenots landing in La Florida in 1562 has been forgotten, ignored or rewritten by the American history books. Our heritage is much different than we’ve been told and there is a reason that this history has been not only forgotten, but altered to hide the truth. This story of America’s true first colony and the background that led to the Massacre at Matanzas is essential for those who want the truth about our history, but more important, what it means for the future. Not only our American heritage is at stake, but understanding our Protestant Christian heritage that is vividly told in this story of brave Protestant Huguenots in search for a place to worship freely. This story has vital implications for us today and should be taught to everyone, young and old.”
The documentary can be viewed at the Aperio Productions web page, aperio.tv.
Thank you, Tim!
Thanks Tim. Important truth.
TIM–
Here is an interesting excerpt from the webpage of the National Park Service on Matanzas:
“Was this a cruel, cold-hearted act by the Spanish? Was Pedro Menéndez blindly following orders to rid Florida of the interlopers? Was it a religious conflict? What would the French have done to the Spanish if the hurricane had not wrecked their ships? Maybe there is even more involved. With food already low and no chance for resupply until spring, would there have been food and shelter for all if the French had been brought back to the new village of St. Augustine? Perhaps, as leader of his people, Menéndez knew that survival of the French in October might have meant the starvation of everyone by May.” http://www.nps.gov/foma/learn/historyculture/the_massacre.htm
That is interesting. What do you make of it?
I can’t make much of “what ifs”. They are like “woulda-shoulda-couldas” in my mind. The truth could be on either side of that line.
I have read that the Huguenots were a militant bunch. And that the French government wanted them gone. I have also read that they were trespassing on Spanish territory in Florida. Of course, Spain forgot to post Florida “No Trespassing” so the Huguenots figgered they had the right to squat. But the Spaniards were not really that friendly with the French anyway. And since the Religious Wars in France were keeping the Huguenots from returning home, they figgered they had better launch a preemptive strike on the Spaniards before things got out of hand. But that hurricane threw a wrench in the works to put the Huguenots at a disadvantage.
Here’s another “what if”. What if the Huguenots had not launched a military sea mission in the first place, let the Spaniards have dumb ol’ Florida, and instead moved north to Virginia or New Jersey and averted disaster?
Oh, if they only coulda-woulda-shoulda, then the massacre may not have taken place and we all might be speaking French instead of English.
Que pensez-vous de cela, monsieur Tim?
M. Bob , votre traitement d’un sujet aussi grave est beaucoup trop léger .
(I do read French but was helped to write this with Google translate.)
Bob, these events were real and shouldn’t be the subject for a kind of values clarification question.
What a shame! Of course, the Lord sees – you do realize that?
Pardonnez moi mais votre comments sont tres tristes!
Maria, I speak Italian, and I know what you said, and I agree. Pardon me, but your comments are very sad. We should never forget, in the long war on the truth, the most formidable, deceptive, and relentless enemy has been Roman Catholicism. It is an apostate, false christianity, a front for the kingdom of Satan. The true church has always known that and separated itself from that system, even thru the dark ages, as Tim has shown. They hunted down blessed William Tyndale for the crime of translating the bible into English. All for the sake of the pope and his religion. God bless k
MARIA–
You said: “Mr. Bob , your treatment of a serious subject is much too light .
(I do read French but was helped to write this with Google translate.)
Bob, these events were real and shouldn’t be the subject for a kind of values clarification question.
What a shame! Of course, the Lord sees – you do realize that?
Forgive me, but your comments are very sad !”
Vous me jugez trop vite . Cela est encore plus triste.
These thoughts were based upon the National Parks websight;
http://www.nps.gov/foma/learn/historyculture/the_massacre.htm
Vous pouvez être un peu naïf et crédule . Il est bon que Dieu lit dans le cœur et pas vous.
And of course Kevin is the cheerleader for all those anti-Catholic.
Go team!
Tim, I think this is going to be an interesting book to read for any protestant or roman catholic who is even considering your blog posts as having some warrant in Scripture.
—————–
The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (1916), Alexander Hislop, 352 Pages.
Contrasts the distinctive characteristics of the truth with the lies and idolatry of the Roman antichrist.
Chapters cover the “Objects of Worship,” “Festivals,” “Doctrine and Discipline,” “Rites and Ceremonies,” “Religious Orders,” and the development of the two systems considered “Historically and Prophetically.”
The prophetic section is especially interesting and shows how far Protestants have moved into Rome’s camp concerning eschatology. The whole book, in fact, shows in a most explicit manner how much Romanism has infected the modern Protestant churches and their thinking.
And as Hislop notes, “it has been known all along that Popery was baptised Paganism; but God is now making it manifest, that the Paganism which Rome has baptised is, in all its essential elements, the very Paganism which prevailed in the ancient literal Babylon, when Jehovah opened before Cyrus the two-leaved gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron.”
A welcome rebuke to those who would offer the right hand of fellowship to the “beast from the sea.”
352 pages.
Tim,
Walt is a fan of HiSLOP. This blog is like fly paper for those on the fringe,eh?
This is the other one. It would really give us a roadmap of what past eschatological writers have said that were errors. It is nice to see honesty within the historicist camp to identify incorrect interpretation.
—————-
An Inquiry Into the Times That Shall Be Fulfilled at Antichrist’s Fall; The Church’s Blessedness in Her Millennial Rest; The Signs that this Happy Season is at Hand; The Prophetic Number Contained in the 1335 Days; and the Christian’s Duty, at this Interesting Crisis: in Five Discourses (1818)
An Inquiry Into the Times That Shall Be Fulfilled at Antichrist’s Fall, by Archibald Mason, deals with the author’s view of the overthrow of Antichrist, when the millennium will begin and what will transpire leading up to that time.
Though this book illustrates how some historicists have erred in the specifics of their interpretation (especially regarding their “guesses” at exact dates), works like this can be very instructive for drawing out the larger Scriptural context of historicist thought — as the system does not stand or fall on any individual chronological expectations, but on its fidelity to Scripture concerning the larger prophetic issues (dating eccentricities notwithstanding). The practical exhortations to Godliness found herein are also of continued value and unaffected by the work’s few shortcomings.
https://books.google.com/books?id=-14XAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA1&ots=6ha1ID_NX-&dq=Observations%2C%20Doctrinal%20and%20Practical&pg=PA109#v=onepage&q&f=true
Here is the complete book:
https://archive.org/stream/spiritualillumin00maso#page/n233/mode/2up
Tim,
I just finished the videos. Your interview was great, and they did a great job on the videos. However, I would ask them to slow down the video in some of the reading of the text. They speed through it which is different when the editor reads the text as you can tell he pauses like normal reading. When he just shows the text he goes to fast from frame to frame not allowing the reading to read it carefully verbally like he does, but that is my only suggestion.
Tim, my wife and I just watched and listened to this. Excellent Job.
Did the wife think blond, blue eyed Tim looked a little bit like an Aryan SS ubermensch?
While Tim cuts a good figure and appears to be sane, just replace all the references to Catholicism and replace them with Judische and you will see him as he really is. Notice with what cold, methodical, Germanic precision he lays out his “facts”.
If anyone doubts me, just scroll up to the top of this blog and read Tim’s boast of his 4 little blond “Lebensborn kinder”.
(Pssst! speaking of the SS, Goebbels patterned them after the Jesuits! YIPES! )
That is just a laughable suggestion. Pathetic and lame. Guess you can’t counter what he says with any true authority, Satanic pawn that you are.
Everyone please watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un2gATAuB9E&feature=youtu.be
Published on Nov 15, 2015
Not only does the Roman system conceal its own wickedness, it exalts the glory that the world gives to Pope Francis. That man that claims to be the Holy Father and Head of the Lord’s Church mocks our Lord and our Heavenly Father. Richard of http://www.bereanbeacon.org exposes current documented facts about the Roman Church and its Pope, making this video valuable to protect people across the world for its perilous influence. Please make this video known to your friends and church members. And kindly let us know if you are speaking or writing to reveal the subtle guile of the system called the Roman Catholic Church. And as we pray for a display of the Lord God’s truth and grace, as this video is viewed, we praise Him. We also thank you for helping us make known this information to others.
Wow, I just watched a 1.5 hour video entitled:
“The Biggest Vatican Secret Revealed! Ugly crime of the Popes!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pmDwl91ttk&feature=youtu.be
It was based upon “The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (1916), Alexander Hislop, 352 Pages.”
It is one of the most incredible video’s I’ve ever watched about Roman Catholics. The footage was amazing. I have no idea where they got all the footage from Roman Catholic churches around the world, nor the quotes about Hitler and the Roman Catholic churches. There were parts in the video that not only took me back to an alter boy doing exactly what they show in the video, but even more incredible was how they were able to link all the rituals to ancient Babylon…rather than like I was taught in Catholic school they were from the old testament.
There were parts of the video that actually sent shivers down my spine and made me filled with fear to the reality of what I have never heard before. I have never considered to the degree that Romanism is based upon Babylonian tradition. While Hislop’s book was only a reference I thought was interesting, when I saw this 1.5 hour video things came so alive to me about Romanism it almost terrified me in some parts. Again, I have no idea where they got all the footage for this movie, but this must be one of the most significant documentaries on Romish/Babylonian religion ever produced.
For those who have 1.5 hours to do further study into this concept of the two Babylon’s, I encourage you to sit down with a bucket of popcorn and be prepared for the freakiest movie about Roman history ever told! Wow, I’m still freaked out if even half of this is truly documented accurate.
Tim,
Read this short appendix as it goes into the chronology of various interpreters of the beginning of Daniel’s 1260, 1290 and 1335 year periods…not considering that those periods are days.
http://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QaeHRWUD8nUjIHVXFj4CU2_zAKXSKZiFFH8qxyFcXxiEW0zWmpt1K9wbEvuaLphupHmRKLDOPe4m1RPTWGzJC6BNcDo1y30VKBpqj3Q6raqbPumwolCY3WXp016DICtLmKoh719mHPR_crJ6fRsktcd0HGxSCyYJzINa7jsaafjyg_uBNI1lfFOH0kePAF2GHFHCxqCPb4MW566GEyo8qfmiNSaWO7NTRacfPEmRrKTu-Y2SsRPNwor6aTfhzz-By86nHZkXrQN3ZknUTxgoIlq9rYg2s53GvPjbUJofB5euMPPyfrI
See page 34 of 45 pages where the author believes (contrary to others who attest to a later date of 606 and 756) that the Romish Antichrist starts at 533 AD (closer to your number) vs. our modern historicists who suggest it is 800 AD.
It is very interesting how they calculate these dates to reach the start date, then apply Daniel’s 1260, 1290 and 1335 periods to reach future dates by comparing it to Rev. 1260 period, etc. I’m starting to see where the historicists have taken this in history to arrive at these future dates using Daniel similar to the dates used by Futurists and Preterists.
Tim, use this link, as the other link does not work since it I accessed it to download the PDF version. This one works.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zz9VAAAAcAAJ&dq=archibald%20mason&pg=PP5#v=onepage&q&f=true
Walt,
Do you suppose Pope Francis I named himself after the wicked king mentioned in the video, Francis I, of France who persecuted Protestants?
Tim,
In the video you mention the Gospel as including faith ALONE. ( You know what I am hinting at ).
At 17:30 the video says , “the Jesuits were founded at referred to as ‘the secret bloodthirsty military’ by Roman Catholics”. Having gone to a grade school called “St. Ignatius” in Portland, Oregon, I swear I never once heard the priests referred to under that title by the nuns nor by the other kiddies.
Tim,
Thanks for bringing out how the scriptures lay hidden for centuries in both the OT era and the middle ages until uncovered by Josiah and the Deformers respectively. It proves God never intended Sola Scriptura to be the rule of faith.
HAPPY FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION!!!
Walt, I watched the video you provided on the RC, and it was very good. Much of it I knew, however, the detail by which He goes through the torture of the inquisition and Nazi Germany is very good. Also, just the utter fact that Catholicism is baptized paganism. After reading Bob’s response to Tim today on the massacre of the hugenots, siting an excerpt from an historical record down there and trying to justify Mendez actions, I realize how much people’s views are skewed by there affections. Continually I ask myself who could ever justify the selling of forgiveness which just seems like such a hoax, yet many in Europe were impovershed by RC trying to get their and their relative souls out of purgatory. Has there ever been a greater hoax of money making scam than that, selling forgiveness and taking that selling for the dead friends and relatives. Yet when confronted with these things like this masacre, Catholics want to soften it and rationalize this. Amazing. Even though i am forever thankful for our beloved reformers, all of whom fought the beast with all they had, even some of the attitudes they couldnt shake, like how they treated the Jews at times. In the end, sin is sin, killing, hating, denigating, de humanizing, selling what Christ gave his life to give man freely by faith, all are indefensible, yet Catholics just look past the record of their church and defend it with everything they have. Anyway thanks for providing such a good video. K
Walt,
And when are you going to reveal the true story of Squanto ( no, not Tanto ) the Catholic Injun who was so abused by the Protestants? If not for him we would not have Turkey Day every year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
Read it and weep Walt.
How about this little jewel I dug up?
“One of motives behind Benedict Arnold’s betrayal of the American army in our War of Independence was his hatred for the Catholic religion espoused by our French allies. He stated that the American Congress had betrayed the “cause” of the “Reformation” by attending a Mass offered for the souls of the deceased French soldiers who were killed in battle. He lamented that, to use his own words, “he had seen their mean and profligate Congress at Mass for the soul of a Roman Catholic in purgatory, and participating in the rites of a Church against whose anti-Christian corruptions their pious ancestors would have witnessed in their blood.”
Get a load o’ this!
http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/01/cartoonist_thomas_nasts_cathol.html
Or this’n,
http://www.hprweb.com/2014/08/sticks-stones-and-broken-bones-the-history-of-anti-catholic-violence-in-the-u-s/
And let us not forget the King of Bigotry hisself,
KELVIN BALONEY PHALONI
That’s interesting, Jim.
I, too, have of course been accused of anti-Catholic bigotry, and all sorts of alleged vices, and yet all I have done is identify Papal Roman Catholicism as the antiChrist. That’s no more bigoted than identifying Alexander the Great as the notable horn between the eyes of the He-goat of Daniel 8, or identifying the four successor kingdoms as the four successor kingdoms. If it is bigoted to say that the Medes were the lesser horn of the Ram, and the Persians the greater, or that Nebuchadnezzar was the Lion and the Head of Gold, well then, color me a bigot, along with Daniel and Gabriel. They, too, were bigots for having the temerity to identify the fulfillment of the vision.
You probably think I hate Roman Catholics, but I don’t. I just love Scripture and history. I can’t help the fact that Roman Catholicism was predestined to rise from the remnants of the Roman Empire, but I’d be a fool to ignore it out of deference to your tender sensitivities. You need take no more offense at my Historicism than you take at Fr. William Most’s identification of Antiochus IV as the Little Horn of Daniel 8. It might well have hurt Antiochus’ feelings to be so identified, but the feelings of historical characters are hardly of concern to the historian or the historicist.
Was Nebuchadnezzar the Lion of Daniel 7 and the head of gold in Daniel 2? Yes. (If it is bigoted to affirm a historical fact, then color me bigoted with Daniel).
Was the Medo-Persian empire the silver of Daniel 2, the Bear of Daniel 7 and the Ram of Daniel 8? Yes. (If it is bigoted to affirm a historical fact, then color me bigoted with Gabriel).
Was Alexander the Great the notable horn of Daniel 8? Were Demetrius, Seleucus, Lysimachus and Ptolemy the four leopard heads of Daniel 7 or the four horns of Daniel 8? Yes, and yes-yes-yes-yes. (If it is bigoted to affirm a historical fact, then color me bigoted).
Was Antiochus IV the Little Horn of Daniel 8? Most Roman Catholics would say yes, but for some reason, you do not consider them bigots. I agree that Antiochus IV was the Little Horn. (It’s not bigotry, Jim. It’s history).
Now we come to the Little Horn of Daniel 7. It is Papal Rome. That’s just history, too.
That statement is no more bigoted than any that preceded it, and yet for me to identify the Little Horn of Daniel 7 as Papal Rome is considered “bigoted.” Ok, I’m every bit the bigot that Daniel and Gabriel are.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
You have demonstrated your rank bigotry by hosting and endorsing Kevin Falloni’s “Death Wafer” and other slurs.
Think of the Islamic terrorists for a moment. Consider how they avoid targets of strategic importance like bridges, dams, military bases, etc. and go instead for soft targets. They intentionally target schools children, planes of Russian kids, unarmed tourists, etc. They glory in shocking, offending, outraging and defiling. They are willing to blow themselves up if in the process they can kill women and children in a market place. They bomb churches, statues of Buddha, archaeological sites just to thumb their noses at the world. They burn, crucify, and behead. They make videos of mass executions of migrant works. They want the families of their victims to see their loved ones having their throats cut.
Now, think serious apologetics for a moment. You know, the arguments based on scripture, reason and the fathers for the intention of advancing truth and winning converts.
Are you and your neanderthal friend about doing real apologetics? What is the purpose of belching out terms like “Dough god”, or “Death Wafer”? Saying Catholics receive the Eucharist from a “trough” is really going to win hearts and minds, huh?
Tucked away safely behind your keyboards, you two “apologists” can insult and slur to your hearts’ content. Catholic sensitivities are soft targets. Like posting a video of atrocities on the internet.
I got your number Tim.
Jim,
I have identified your precious transubstantiated Eucharist as the very image of the beast, and you’re trifling over the term “death wafer”? If that is offending your tender sensitivities, make sure you don’t watch part three of the Matanzas video.
Don’t take it personally, Jim. It’s just history.
Tim
Walt,
Here’s a Scottish role model for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82_XPCdXuHk
Here’s one of you and Kelvin marching past a Catholic Church.
It is really interesting to listen to a defender of the greatest killing machine in histoy, the Roman Catholic church, whose religion has ushered more men into hell than any other, compare statements of truth about their church to being a victim of ISIS. A better comparison would be the killing of the papal inquisitions with ISIS. Both were evil. K
Tim, something you said in one of your posts has really stuck with me. Catholics dont believe scripture is internally consistent. It has never become more evident to me having recently read Dave Anders article striking at sola scriptura, that this is true. He basically says that Protestants dont ask the foundational question ” Did Jesus provide for a continuous transmission of the christian faith.” My answer is, we ask these questions, but come up with a different answer. What seems more logical, depending on an infallible Spirit by and with a God breathed word, or an institution who claims to be the only infallible interpreter. Is it any wonder why Rome has a non existent doctrine of the Spirit ( basically) and a view that the word isnt internally consistent. But they commit logical fallicy. The Word is master, and the church us minister. But Rome confuses this, just like they do sanctification with justification, amongst so many other things. The thrust of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9, 14, is you judge for yourselves. But Rome would remove from us the ability for the believer to judge them. ” If someone comes to YOU and says ” I am the Christ” DONT believe him. ” How could the believer ever judge truth from error, and hold ourselves back from idols and error, if we cant judge the messenger. Scripture continually says dont go beyond what is written, and it alone is profitable for every good work, wben the good work for understanding doctrine. K
Kevin–
I can never get a straight answer from any one on this question. Maybe you can answer it truthfully.
Who told you the Bible was the inspired word of God?
Thanks,
Kirk
An interesting question, Kirk. Maybe on this thread somebody can also answer the question, “Who told Roman Catholics that Munificentissimus Deus was infallible?”
Kirk, scripture is self attesting and self authenticating 2 Timothy 3:15-17, John 20:31, 1 John 2:27. The witness of the Spirit by and with the word of God. If you mean some audible voice saying ” Hi infallible God here” no. The 1st century Jew didnt have an infallible interpreter and Jesus expected them to know the scriptures, right? Or else Jesus was sinning expecting them to understand the scriptures. The book of Genesis doesnt say inspired scripture here, but Jesus expected the 1st century Jew to understand. I consider myself a biblicist, but true biblicist dont undetstand scriptures apart from tradition. History, proper hermenutics and exegesis, but taking all this into consideration.. Scripture is tradition for the Apostles. 1 John 2:27, John tells his congregation that, yes we listen to our teachers , but in the end we have no need of a teacher but His annointing teaches us all things, and it isnt a lie but the truth. Not all things in scripture are clear, however, I can sit down with a 5 year old and he can understand John 3:16, its clear. Scripture says we have all things pertaining to life and Godliness. So to sum up, Protestants dont need to know a canon list, or need an infalible second authority, scripture is sufficient and final infallible authority. That doesnt mean that we dont obey our creeds or listen to our teachers, but in the end it is the word of God that is more active than a 2 edged sword, able to cut to the heart and marrow of man. Faith comes thru hearing the word of God. The Word is the master and the church the minister. For me, it isnt even that the Roman magisterium cant provide a list of infalible papal statements, although this is a good point, but the issue is a second infallible authority is unecessary. The words used by Jesus and the Apostles 90 times is ” it is written”. Continually the scriptures reinforce not going beyond what was written. Protestants ascribe infalibility to the word and the Spirit, we dont confuse it with the man. The pope has actually convinced himself he is an infalible interpreter, he just cant tell you when he is speaking infalibly. Incidentally, the in 1856 on the vote on papal infallibility, it was a split vote, true story. Lol God bless you Kirk.
Kirk, I apologize. You asked me a simple question and I gave you a long answer. ” How do you know the bible is the inspired word of God.” I know by the inner witness of the Spirit by and with the word of God. Calvin said the witness of the Spirit is far greater than reason. I would suggest Kirk if you need a second infalible authority to tell you the bible is inspired, maybe you need to test yourself to see if you are in the faith. Because to those who are being saved it is the bread of life. All the best. K
Tim, If I may point to a sermon that many of my Reformed friends have told me is the best 14:33 second sermon ever heard on election. Youtube, At an R.C. Sproul conference John MacArthur ” Amazing sermon on Election”. Every believer should hear this 15 minute sermon and be blessed. Thanks Tim.
Timothy F. Kauffman and Kevin–
Like I said, I can never get a straight answer from any one on this question. Let me state it again: Who told you the Bible was the inspired word of God?
Timothy F. Kauffman answered:
An interesting question, Kirk. Maybe on this thread somebody can also answer the question, “Who told Roman Catholics that Munificentissimus Deus was infallible?”
No straight answer here.
Kevin says:
Kirk, scripture is self attesting and self authenticating 2 Timothy 3:15-17, John 20:31, 1 John 2:27………….. Lol God bless you Kirk.
and then again:
Kirk, I apologize. You asked me a simple question and I gave you a long answer. ” How do you know the bible is the inspired word of God.” I know by…………. All the best. K
Again, there is no straight answer here, either.
Why is this question so hard to answer? Because nobody thinks about what I asked them!
Tim seems to have assumed I am alluding to some secret ulterior motive.
Kevin didn’t even repeat the question correctly, so he answered a question I didn’t ask.
This happens to me time and time again. And I am absolutely positive that people can remember who told them, and it wasn’t the Bible, nor was it God, nor was it the Holy Spirit.
I can remember. Can you?
Thanks,
Kirk
Of course you have a secret, ulterior motive, Bob. Why else would you post under the name “Kirk” using the same e-mail address from the same IP address that you have been using to post under the name of “Bob” for years?
You may recall a certain “Kirk” who only a few days ago wrote,
That’s pretty rich—posting under a false identity and complaining that nobody will be truthful with you.
So how about a straight answer from you: Assuming your name is really “Kirk,” why suddenly post under your real name after posting under a false name for years, and in the process protest that you are only in a quest for “truth” but nobody will give it to you? Or, assuming your name is really “Bob,” why suddenly post under a false name, protesting that nobody ever gives you a truthful answer?
Surely the O and B on your keyboard still work. Why the name change? Why the deception? Or did one of your Roman Catholic friends take over your computer again, like last time?
Looking forward to a straight answer.
Tim
Again, no straight answer. Are you too wrapped up with your apologetics that it clouds your memory?
TIM–
You said: “Surely the O and B on your keyboard still work. Why the name change? Why the deception? Or did one of your Roman Catholic friends take over your computer again, like last time?”
Hey! He asked the question. So I told him to jump in and get his feet wet. He has a point. Why can’t people give him a straight answer? He was pleasantly surprised at my answer. Your response just confirmed his suspicion.
Tim, are you afraid to answer? Do you think there is a “gotcha” here somewhere?
Bob,
The question was addressed to Kevin, not to me. I simply noted that it was an interesting question and suggested that perhaps on this thread somebody could also answer the question, “Who told Roman Catholics that Munificentissimus Deus was infallible?” Also a very straightforward question, and I have yet to hear a straightforward answer that makes any sense.
If Kirk wants to know, all he has to do is ask. But I don’t understand why you and Kirk both have exactly the same email address.
Thanks,
Tim
Because the email address comes up automatically when I boot up your sight. It depends on which computer is being used as to which email address comes up. Kirk is using one computer while I am using another.
And as you have suspected, Kirk is kinfolk. Hence, the same name in the email address.
Why do you care if Munificentissimus Deus was infallible or not? Can the person(s) who told you the Bible was the infallible word of God be trusted?
Bob, you asked,
Can the person who told you Munificentissimus Deus was infallible be trusted?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim–
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, me and Bob are ganging up on you.
You said if Kirk wants to know, all he has to do is ask.
Ok. I’m asking. Who told you the Bible was the inspired word of God?
Some guy last week mentioned it in a sermon.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy F. Kauffman
DECEMBER 13, 2015 AT 4:50 AM
Some guy last week mentioned it in a sermon.
Thanks,
Tim
And, once again, no straight answer.
You’ve lost me, Kirk. You asked me who told me the Bible was inspired, and last week some guy preaching in a sermon told me the Bible was inspired. What was not “straight” about that answer? Unless, perhaps, you were asking a different question?
If you were asking a different question, please let me know what it is. Until then, what I said is true: some guy last week told me in a sermon that the Bible was inspired. Does he not count as “who”? What did you mean by “who”?
Perhaps it is not the answer, but the question, that is not straight.
Just let me know what your question is, and I’ll answer it.
Thanks,
Tim
Kirk, I apologize again. Had i known you were Methodist too I would have given a starighter answer. Lol hope you are well.
Kirk, one last thing. . It seems to me Roman Catholics have a hard time with tenses and order. For instance, Ephessians 1:7 says we HAVE redemption, not will have. Its impossible for a Priest to forgive my sins when they already have been forgiven, past, present, and future. Iow, we arent in a savable state, but a saved state. And then to answer your question ” who told me.” The first time I read scripture it told me that it was God breathed. I mean, if I gave you a letter and said, here, God just breathed this to you, would you care that I was the one who handed it to you. This is the order problem Catholics have. The Word is Master and the church is minister. Thats the correct order. The church just passes on the message, it doesnt determine the message. You put way to much time in thinking about the church. The church wont stand before God in your place someday, Christ will, if you denounce your goodness and trust in Him alone. God has given all of us such a great resource here at Whitehorse blog, i try to take advantage of it. K
Kevin–
“And then to answer your question ” who told me.” The first time I read scripture it told me that it was God breathed. I mean, if I gave you a letter and said, here, God just breathed this to you, would you care that I was the one who handed it to you.”
Are you saying you don’t remember who first told you the Bible was the inspired word of God?
Thanks–
Kirk
Kirk/Bob asked ” are you saying you dont remember who first told you that the bible was inspired by the word of God.” I thought I just said I read in scripture that scripture is God breathed.” I dont understand what point your trying to make. I mean, is there any more certain person telling me than the infalibility and perfect holiness God the God. You sound like I needed somebody else to tell me for it to be valid in my life. I dindnt. Im good. But while we are at it ” Kirk” , was Bob the first to tell you that the Romish church was the inspired Word of God. Who first told you? I think I deserve a straight answer too. Thanks God bless.
Should read, and perfect holiness Word of God, not God the God. Thanks
Kevin said
” are you saying you dont remember who first told you that the bible was inspired by the word of God.” I thought I just said I read in scripture that scripture is God breathed.” I dont understand what point your trying to make”
If you read in the Koran that it is God-breathed would you believe it? How about the book of Mormon? Muslims and Mormons believe their particular scriptures to be inspired, too.
Kevin said “Who first told you? I think I deserve a straight answer too. Thanks God bless.”
My grandmother. She was a devout Cambellite Church of Christ.
Kirk said ” if you read in the Koran itvis God breathed would you believe it” No, the Spirit hasnt identified the Koran as inspired to me. How about you Kirk, as a Methodist , if some pope tokd you he spoke infalibility on faith and morals, would you believe him? P.S Trusting granny over the bible Kirk sounds like trusting a wafer to turn into Jesus, or a woman who calls Jesus her savior to be sinless, you know what Im saying. God bless. K
Kevin
DECEMBER 13, 2015 AT 8:27 AM
How about you Kirk, as a Methodist , if some pope tokd you he spoke infalibility on faith and morals, would you believe him? P.S Trusting granny over the bible Kirk sounds like trusting a wafer to turn into Jesus, or a woman who calls Jesus her savior to be sinless, you know what Im saying.
I had no reason to distrust my grandmother when she taught me. But then again, she lead me to believe that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy were real.So, why should I trust you, or anybody else for that matter, to tell me the truth?
The thing is, more and more people confirmed the teaching as well. Come to find out, it is a tradition that has passed on from generation to generation. And I still attend the Church of Christ, thank you.
Well it’s been fun conversing with you guys. And I thank Bob for introducing me to you. I must catch a plane back to Dallas.
TaTa,
Kirk
Kirk wrote:
“This happens to me time and time again. And I am absolutely positive that people can remember who told them, and it wasn’t the Bible, nor was it God, nor was it the Holy Spirit.
I can remember. Can you?”
I’m reading this thread this morning, and see we have one of Bob’s family who is asking questions to try to “gang up” on Tim and Kevin hoping that his really profound and unorthodox question can be directly answered because in his Methodist life time of questing people he never has got a direct answer.
Gentlemen, why are you playing typing games with this guy? He is a skeptic, and Scripture teaches us to avoid them. Like Bob, these guys are not Christians they are skeptics in the authority of the word of God.
He is attempting to lead you down the path demonstrating that your presupposition and epistemological self-conscientiousness is the author of your belief that God wrote the Holy Scriptures. He wants you to say that when you were 5 years old, for example, your aunt Ruth told you God wrote the Bible. Case closed. There you have it. Nobody told you except aunt Ruth and he can skip off into the sunlight waving his hand in the air he finally, after many many years of scouring the planet asking people to tell him who told them that God was the author of Scriptures he finally found someone in his long search. But only one, the rest all gave non-answers to his brilliant and profound question only one person ever answered correctly.
It is all a game. Avoid it. Dealing with guys like this who cannot really think effectively or logically is often a game of circular reasoning, and you both will be worn out before you start. Just read what happens when Bob (Kirk’s relative) gets going with Tim. It is painful to read so often because Bob cannot read anything, even hard substantiated evidence from the actual source, without going to Wikipedia to see how he can undermine the source documents. Again, painful to watch, but the sign of a try anti-Christian skeptic rooted in Romish tradition with a mandate to promote anti-Christ at all cost until they wait for their own anti-Christ of tradition to surface in the EU any day or minute now.
While Kirk works on your presupposition hoping to trip you guys up, and race around the web claiming another victory, I suggest you firmly understand their epistemology as well rooted in Romish theology and tradition. Don’t forget, avoid them.
You’re right, Walt. The game goes like this:
The intellectually weak (like Scott Hahn, Jason Stellman, etc…) suddenly realize that they needed someone to tell them this, and that someone must have authority to tell them, and therefore that someone must be an infallible guide established by Jesus Christ as a chief earthly shepherd ruling from a chief earthly metropolis, and suddenly it hits them: The Roman Catholic Church is infallible, and it has an infallible Pope ruling it. Now we know with certainty that the Bible is inspired! Those silly Protestants have to rely on their own judgment, but we have an infallible magisterium and an infallible pope! That is how we know with certainty which books are in the Bible, and which books are inspired.
But it is a house of cards.
The magisterium is alleged to be infallible when it speaks ecumenically, and the first time the Roman Catholic religion listed the canon of the bible “ecumenically” was at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Thus, for 1,400 years, the church was bereft of a canon, and it had not even occurred to the Magisterium to provide one.
So ask a Roman Catholic how people before Trent knew the canon of Scripture, and they dither in their response. Um, there was a council at Rome that listed the canon and, I think one at Carthage. But were those ecumenical, and therefore “infallible” councils? No, they were not. So how did people know before Trent what was in the Bible if they had no infallible source telling them? For the Roman apologist, a non-infallible source and canonical uncertainty suits them just fine for 1,400 years, and people could trust their gut instinct and the internal testimony of the Scriptures to know what was Scripture.
Which leads to the problem of Pope Gregory the Great who in his Moralia in Job denied that the books of the Maccabees were canonical. To this comes the predictable response: But Pope Gregory was not speaking ex cathedra when he said that!
Ok, we ask, then when has the pope spoken ex cathedra? And here Rome shines in the resplendent glory of her utter epistemological confusion. One guy says he has only spoken ex cathedra once. Another, twice. Another, thrice. Others 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12,13,14,15 and maybe 40 or even hundreds of times, etc… and they don’t agree and they have no way of knowing. They don’t even agree on the criteria that should be used to determine which ones are infallible. Ask Jim, and he defers to Denziger. Another man says not to trust Denziger because he may have left some things out on purpose. Who will tell us? Nobody can.
So for 1400 years, nobody—not even Pope Gregory—knew the canon of Scripture, and today nobody, not even Pope Francis, knows which papal statements are ex cathedra. Roman Catholics must instead resort to an inner confidence in the professed infallibility of the Roman Catholic religion, even if they cannot know with certainty what it has taught them. A sort of intellectual nihilism results: “I do not and cannot know what Rome teaches, but what ever it is, I believe it with all my heart!”
Such faith cannot save a man. It is faith in a religion, not faith in the Word of God.
In short, “Who told you the Bible was inspired” is an epistemological trap carefully tailored to lead to the epistemological uncertainty you described above.
Which makes me wonder: who told Gregory that 1 Maccabees wasn’t canonical?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim said ” I do not know and cannot know what Rome teaches, but whatever it is, I believe it with all my heart” This is a great line. Tim, can I use it, I promise to quote you. This is exactly it. Bingo! They have the security in knowing their church is an infalible authority, yet you ask fifty of them to tell us what that infallible authority taught them infalibly, and they give 50 different answers. On the other hand we Protestants would all agree their infalible authority has taught infalibly on being fallible. The hoax of the Roman Catholic religion that has bewitched the gullible world. K
Walt, I agree, good wisdom there. Always searching and never coming to the truth. Thanks for your post. K
Tim, thanks for the excellent commentary on how these guys love to raise the issue of who said the bible was infallible. For the Roman Catholic, and the Methodist, it is a big giant circle.
As I said above:
“Case closed. There you have it. Nobody told you except aunt Ruth and he can skip off into the sunlight waving his hand in the air he finally, after many many years of scouring the planet asking people to tell him who told them that God was the author of Scriptures he finally found someone in his long search.”
As Kirk just said:
“Well it’s been fun conversing with you guys. And I thank Bob for introducing me to you. I must catch a plane back to Dallas.”
Well, I was close, not exact! Bob will have to save him now.
Kirk said ” why should I trust you or anyone else for that matter” Thats the point Kirk, you shouldnt. You should trust the Word of God as your ultimate infalible authority. He ( it, the written word) is holy, perfect infalible. He is the bread of life that has come down from heaven , and He asks us to believe his words. The bible has all the words of His that lead to life and godliness. At some point, skeptics must plant their flag, or they remain in limbo their whole life. I hope you plant your flag on the Word, trust in Christ alone and not in your goodness. And pursue holiness. But you cannot do this and follow the teachings of that meritocracy and idolator. Ill pray for you. All the best. K
Tim said ” the intelectually weak like Scott Hahn and Jason Stellman suddenly realized they needed someone to tell them this.” I was reading Dave Anders article on why studying Calvin made him a Catholic. Through the whole article he reiterated how the deepest longing of his heart was to find the real historical church. I thought to myself, another wishy washy evangelical wanting for someone to do the hard work that we do in Protestanism to find the truth. He wanted someone to tell him what he wanted to hear. I ll stick with the scripture and the disagreements in Protestanism. Its hard work to get to the truth. How else does one become someone not tossed around by every wind of doctrine. K
Looks like Kirk created quite a stir. A simple question looking for a straight answer and he got the same result from you guys, too.
He’s not too impressed with the condescension he received, but oh well, I told him so. That ‘s what happens when you talk religion or politics. Get used to it.
What was condescending, Bob? What was not straightforward? When he finally asked me who told me the bible was inspired, I answered him. A guy told me last week in a sermon that it was inspired. Do you believe my answer is untrue? Do you believe it is not straightforward? What is false or unstraightforward about it?
Thanks,
Tim
Some guy last week mentioned it in a sermon.
That’s what you said.
Yes, it is what I said. Your point is lost on me, though. I don’t know what you are saying.
Thanks,
Tim
“Yes, it is what I said. Your point is lost on me, though. I don’t know what you are saying.”
I guess he figured you were making light of his question, you being an experienced Christian who should have been told a long time ago instead of just last week.
Bob, I read Kirk’s indignant reply, as well as his complaint that the question should not be so hard to answer. Kirk wrote,
It is not so hard to answer. I answered it. A guy told me last week that the Bible was inspired. That’s actually true. He continued,
Since Kirk made such a big deal about “what I asked them!”, and criticized someone else for answering “a question I didn’t ask,” I went back and read what he “asked them!”. He did not ask who the first person was to tell me the Bible was inspired, so I did not answer that question. If that was his question, he should have asked it.
He’s awfully touchy for a guy who is just out there “looking” for a truthful answer, and awfully quick on the draw against people who are not thinking “about what I asked them!”, when he was apparently not even thinking who he had asked. In fact, in my first comment to him, I did not answer his question because he did not ask me. I simply made an observation about his question, offering no answer. Instead of thinking “about what I observed!” he jumped to a conclusion, saying,
If course there was no straight answer. There was not even an answer. He had not asked me.
Then I asked why you posted under the name KIRK, but the address and IP were BOB’s, and again, even though I was not even answering, KIRK again responded,
Apparently, KIRK was not even thinking about “what I was saying!”
Then after not thinking about “what I observed!” he came back and criticized people for not answering a question he didn’t even ask. He wrote,
But he did not ask if anyone remembered who first told them the Bible was inspired.
In short, Kirk apparently storms off in indignation if:
• someone makes an observation about a question that he asked (as I did)
• someone answers the exact question he asked (which I did)
• someone answers a question he didn’t ask, and
• someone does not answer a question he did not ask.
Yes, awfully touchy.
I am happy to answer any question Kirk asks. But his indignation was so vastly disproportionate to the “offense,” that I have a hard time taking his indignation seriously, especially when he himself is so grossly noncompliant with the “rules” he is trying to impose on everyone else.
A better question is, “Why is this question so hard to ask?” The answer is because even Kirk does not know what he is asking.
If he wants to know who first told me the Bible was inspired, then he should ask me who first told me the Bible was inspired.
In any case, Kirk allegedly “can never get a straight answer from any one on this question,” but he is pleasantly surprised at the answer given by Bob? You mean after all these years he never bothered to ask you, and when he finally does ask you, it’s at whitehorseblog? Sure it is, BOB. 😉
And just as quickly, KIRK is gone, never to return because his feelings are hurt because he never gets a straight answer to his question except from BOB.
Well, if KIRK, whoever he is, wants to know who first told me the Bible was inspired, all he has to do is ask. But I strongly suggest he think about “what he asked!” and “what I answer!” before he wonders why it is so hard to answer a question that he has such a hard time asking.
I hope he has arrived safely back in Dallas.
Best,
Tim
As far as condescending, for particulars you would have to ask him. He just mentioned to me that was the feeling he got. My guess would be assuming he had an ulterior motive such as “In short, ‘Who told you the Bible was inspired’ is an epistemological trap carefully tailored to lead to the epistemological uncertainty you described above.”
Kirk hasn’t read your websight, nor has he read all the “leave-a-replys” to get the mindset of the authors. He’s just a novice when it comes to blogging. I really don’t think he’ll be back.
Oh and Walt’s comments didn’t help a bit.
Oh well. C’est la guerre.
C’est la what???
Would you ladies stop dancing and start fighting.
Jim,
Can you tell me which papal statements are the infallible ones?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Is this a gotcha question? Why?
Okay, I’ll bite; all ex cathedra statements and all those exercises of the ordinary magisterium ( when he reiterates the traditional understanding of something.
Haven’t we already discussed this?
Anyway, since your life’s work is to attack Marian apparitions and the Eucharist, I though you might like to see this video Bryan Cross posted a few days ago right after banning Kevin and his brayings.
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/12/06/the-massacre-at-matanzas/#comment-19065
For me, it undoes all the long hours of work you have dedicated to denying the truth over these past several months of your book o’ Daniel hysteria.
Thanks, Jim. Which ones are ex cathedra?
Thanks,
Tim
Jim,
Three minutes into the video and the apparition betrays its true origins. “Mary” commands Juan Diego to return to the bishop and tell him, “I want my temple.” Of course “she” does. What handmaiden of the Lord wouldn’t?
Tim
Kirk is just a novice who is unfamiliar with the site? Its to bad he doesn’t stick around, he can see how “epistemologically certain” it is to believe something breathed out of God’s mouth. It leaves us questionless as to ” Who told you the bible is inspired” My answer to his question, is who cares who told me, God’s word is sufficient for every good work, even establishing doctrine. k
TIM–
You said: “In any case, Kirk allegedly “can never get a straight answer from any one on this question,” but he is pleasantly surprised at the answer given by Bob? You mean after all these years he never bothered to ask you, and when he finally does ask you, it’s at whitehorseblog? Sure it is, BOB. 😉”
Kirk was prompted to ask the question after what Kevin said,
“I wonder who told him the Bible was inspired?”
And I said “My grandmother told me.” (which would be his great grandmother)
And he was pleasantly surprised because HIS grandmother told him, too. (which would be my aunt)
But it seems the simplest answer is hard to come by. Most people want to go into the “presupposition and epistemological self-conscientiousness is the author of your belief that God wrote the Holy Scriptures” tripe when it all comes down to a tradition that is passed on from generation to generation to generation all the way back to the Hebrews.
Most everybody, including you, thinks it’s a trick question.
You assumed such when you answered:
Timothy F. Kauffman
December 10, 2015 at 3:22 pm
An interesting question, Kirk. Maybe on this thread somebody can also answer the question, “Who told Roman Catholics that Munificentissimus Deus was infallible?”
which meant nothing to Kirk because he is Church of Christ and not Catholic. Hence the response “No straight answer here.”
And now you come along trying to save face by placing the blame on him by saying he did not ask the question correctly.
Fair enough. All’s fair in love and war.
So, Tim. What did you mean by ” Sure it is, BOB. 😉”
Bob, if you read my comment, I did not blame him for not asking the question correctly. I said he was seeking the answer to a question he did not ask, and still has not asked. Note that he never asked me if I remember who first told me the Bible was inspired. If that is his question, let him ask it of me. Neither you nor Kirk have asked me that. After Kirk waxed indignant that nobody thinks about “what I asked them!”, and criticized someone else for answering “a question I didn’t ask,” why should I go answering questions he did not ask?
By the way, when I say “Sure it is, BOB,” it means I don’t believe that Kirk “can never get a straight answer from any one on this question,” and I don’t think your answer is the first “correct” answer he has ever gotten in his life.
Thanks for your comments, Bob,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “By the way, when I say “Sure it is, BOB,” it means I don’t believe that Kirk “can never get a straight answer from any one on this question,” and I don’t think your answer is the first “correct” answer he has ever gotten in his life.”
Funny. I thought you meant something else since “Sure it is, BOB,” followed immediately after “You mean after all these years he never bothered to ask you, and when he finally does ask you, it’s at whitehorseblog?”
I can say it’s a coincidence, but somehow I get the feeling you won’t believe that since you already commented “Sure it is, BOB,”(wink wink).
Kirk said ” and I thank Bob for introducing me to you guys, well I must catch a plane back to Dallas.” But Bob lives in Dallas. Bob said ” well I hope he arrived safely in Dallas.” That flight from Dallas to Dallas is a long one. Lol God bless Kirk. K
Not anymore. I’m in West Texas.
Kevin said “Bob said ‘ well I hope he arrived safely in Dallas.'”
Actually, Tim said that.
I want my Temple? She found it. Rome. She is one happy apparition.
Hebrews 10:10-12 ” By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God” The writer of Hebrews is so convinced by God that the one sacrifice of Christ in all of time is so finished that he can speak even of a believer’s sanctification in the aorist past tense. He compares this to repeated sacrifices that can never take away sins. I hope our RC friends, who are in a false church whose priests continue to offer sacrifices daily, a re breaking of Christ which cant save them. I encourage RC’s to leave the a continual sacrifice done by your priests daily that cant save you, and trust in the one finished one which has even sanctified believers past tense. God bless
KEVIN–
Catholics teach from the bible, too.
From the Catechism:
1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. (Heb 7:25ff Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.) “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”(1 Cor 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us)
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.”(Lk 22:19ff And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.) In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”(Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.)
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.(1 Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread…. Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood…27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.)
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.” (Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? … 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.)
So there!
Simple question , according to Trent is the mass a true and real sacrifice efficacious for sins? Just so there is no misunderstanding, Trent anathematizes anyone who says the sacrifice of the mass isnt a true and proper sacrifice. Ask your priest about the word sacrificium, and he will quit with the nonsense about a re presentation. It is a re breaking of the Lord’s body, although unbloody which is efficacious for sins. It is historically called by Rome ” The work of the people” to offer not only themselves, but Christ again for sins. It is a work done by the participant to increase ( earn) in sanctifying grace and justice. Understand the Reformed or Protestant view is the antithesis to this sacrilege. We believe it is a commemoration and a memorial of a redemption we already possess Ephessians 1 :7. The Reformers were clear Rome had perverted the sacraments by making them merit for the strong instead of free grace for weak by faith alone thru Christ alone. Catholics are failing kidney patients who need injections of medicine to survive, by scripture says the righteouness shall live by faith. Our life comes from faith, and He calls us righteous. We arent in a savable state but a saved state. You can admit there is a world of difference going to the supper as a memorial and thanksgiving for a salvation we already posess, and a work where one earns increases of one’s salvation. Not even close. God bless. K
KEVIN–
You said: “We believe it is a commemoration and a memorial of a redemption we already possess Ephessians 1 :7…You can admit there is a world of difference going to the supper as a memorial and thanksgiving for a salvation we already posess, and a work where one earns increases of one’s salvation. Not even close.”
The Catechism says:
678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus announced the judgment of the Last Day in his preaching.Dan 7:10; Joel 3-4; Mal 3:19; Mt 3:7-12 Then will the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to light.Mk 12:38-40; Lk 12:1-3; Jn 3:20-21; Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 4:5 Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of God’s grace as nothing be condemned.Mt 11:20-24; 12:41-42
Our attitude to our neighbor will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love.Mt 5:22; 7:1-5
On the Last Day Jesus will say: “Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”–Mt 25:40
679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He “acquired” this right by his cross. The Father has given “all judgment to the Son”.Jn 5:22; cf. 5:27; Mt 25:31; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Tim 4:1. Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself.Lk 21:12; Jn 15:19-20
By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.Jn 3:18; 12:48; Mt 12:32; 1 Cor 3:12-15; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31
” Ask your priest about the word sacrificium, …”
Why not just ask him about the word, “sacrifice”?
” It is a re breaking of the Lord’s body, although unbloody…”
MY! How you do go on!
I have never heard this in all my years of Mass attending.
I have heard that it is an unbloody sacrifice may times. But never an unbloody re breaking. Where did you learn this?
According to the Gospel of Kevin, does sacrifice=break? Does it =re break?
Our attitude to our neighbor will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love” Sorry, you cant smuggle your character into God’s work of grace. Lets review Ephessians 1:7 says believers have redemption, not will have. John 5:24 says those who believe have passed out of death and judgment into life. Not of yourselves, and not of works, a gift, leaves Rome’s theology in the false gospel category. Works van only be his works, our resonsble service of worship. My suggestion is you leave that meritocracy asap. It was Aquinas who poisened God’s well saying that a man is predestined to glory according to his merit in some way instead of just the goodness and mercy of God. The very thing that Rome tells its participants is the summit of their religion’s salvation, is in reality idolatry and sacriledge, an utter violation of the gospel. K
KEVIN–
You said: ” Sorry, you cant smuggle your character into God’s work of grace… My suggestion is you leave that meritocracy asap. The very thing that Rome tells its participants is the summit of their religion’s salvation, is in reality idolatry and sacriledge, an utter violation of the gospel.
That is hardly the case.
The Catechism teaches:
2025 We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.
That means it is a gift and not of ourselves.
2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God’s gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God.
Adoptive filiation = we are co-heirs with Christ
Gratuitous = free gift
Charity = grace of God
And did I mention grace = free gift?
CCC2006 merit= recompense owed. Here’ s how it works in Rome , you do your level best and God gives you grace, the more you do your level best the more he gives you grace = law. In Reformed theology, God gives us grace and then we do. Grace is demerited favor, not a soul substance that increases and decreases according to merit. True believers are justified by Christ’s blood and righteouness that comes by faith, not by anything the Holy Spirit does in us in sanctification. Christians are finally justified before we are sanctified, Catholics are sanctified before the are finally justified.
Kelvin said,
“Grace is ‘demerited’ favor”. ( Perhaps he means “unmerited” ).
Really? Since when? While that is partly true, does it cover the whole definition?
The Bible says God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. ( IOW humility merits grace ).
It also says that Mary found favor/grace with God ( IOW she must have been looking in order to find it, eh? )
Try doing a google search of all the ways grace/favor are used in the Bible before blatting.
Final note on the subject. It really boils down to this. Are the merits of Christ applied thru faith alone, or do we merit the merit of Christ. The bible clearly teaches Christ’s merits are applied to us thru faith alone, and Rome fatally teaches that a person merits the merit of Christ. Thats a false gospel. Iow there isnt a virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance of God. Rome actually teaches Christ’s merits arent sufficient to save. I would replace that Catechism with the WCF. God bless
KEVIN–
You said: “Rome actually teaches Christ’s merits aren’t sufficient to save.”
I just showed you in the catechism where Rome teaches Christ’s merits are sufficient to save in 1367 above. That’s what the word “propitiatory” means.
You also said: “Here’ s how it works in Rome , you do your level best and God gives you grace, the more you do your level best the more he gives you grace = law. ”
I just showed you Rome’s teaching on merit and you insist on saying otherwise. I guess I shouldn’t confuse you with the facts.
And you also said; ” God gives us grace and then we do.”
Really? What happened to faith alone?
And you also said: “True believers are justified by Christ’s blood and righteouness that comes by faith, not by anything the Holy Spirit does in us in sanctification. Christians are finally justified before we are sanctified, Catholics are sanctified before the are finally justified.”
Excuse me? What’s the purpose of sanctification? And why is it required for glorification?
Kelvin said,
“The Bible clearly teaches that merits are applied through faith alone…”.
And of course you have chapter and verse to back up your bold assertion, yes?
( tsk tsk. didn’t actually think so. Ha )
Bob said ” I just showed you in the Catechism where Christ’s merits are sufficient to save” not without your cooperation. Listen to Trent ” to the one who works well to the end and hopes in God, salvation is to be offered, not only as a gift, but as a reward to THEIR merits and good works. As I said Catholics must merit the merit of Christ. But Paul says differently, God justifies an ungodly man apart from anything they do, simply be believing in Him, God counts him as righteous. Surely you must know at no time in this life are we ever inherently righteous, yet God counts believers righteous because Christ lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness. Abraham simply believed the promise and he was righteous. The same with the tax collector who went home righteous, Jesus said. You continued ” whats the purpose of sanctification” Im not sure what you mean by this. I assume you mean the purpose of sanctification is to merit the grace and justice necessary for final justification. But Rome’s position is impossible because God doesnt justify a righteous man, He justifies an ungodly man simply by believing. Romans 4:5, 3:24, 5:1, 5:9,10. If you put all these verses together you find out that God justifies an ungodly man as a gift by His grace, apart from works, by His blood and righteouness. And verse 10 is often overlooked, it says we will be saved by his life, not ours. Amazing. We are predestined to glory solely by the goodness and favor of God, not according to our merit in anyway. Certainly true faith produces our sanctification. But we arent saved by our sanctification. ” for by grace you have been saved by faith, it is that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not a result of works.” Ephessians 2:8. Can it be any clearer, true believers are saved by grace thru faith ad a free gift, with nothing coming from themselves or their works. Yet you defend a religion that says you merit the merit of Christ. Maybe God will grant you eyes to see these great gospel truths. And maybe one day you will deny a false religion that has convinced you they are the true church. But what Tim has shown with great clarity, and has confirmed with our great Reformers, is the biggest lie ever perpetuated on Catholics, that the early church was Roman Catholic. It was anything but. Im glad you are here. Because God has brought you hear to hear the truth. Ill give you the last word on this. K
KEVIN–
You said: ” As I said Catholics must merit the merit of Christ. ”
Does faith merit the merit of Christ? Whose faith?
You also said: “Listen to Trent “to the one who works well to the end and hopes in God, salvation is to be offered, not only as a gift, but as a reward to THEIR merits and good works.”
It also teaches that THEIR merits come from God. And it also teaches that their FAITH comes from God. Faith and merit originate with God. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? God created us all in His image. Why? So that we could respond to His love in faith and love to become adopted co-heirs with Christ–through Him, with Him, and in Him.
And you also said: “You continued ‘ whats the purpose of sanctification’ Im not sure what you mean by this. I assume you mean the purpose of sanctification is to merit the grace and justice necessary for final justification.
Don’t assume. Research and find out the purpose of sanctification and why it is needed for glorification. If justification is all that is needed, then why be sanctified?
You also said: “Romans 4:5, 3:24, 5:1, 5:9,10. If you put all these verses together you find out that God justifies an ungodly man as a gift by His grace, apart from works, by His blood and righteouness. And verse 10 is often overlooked, ”
And what you overlook is these verses:
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.
Paul explicitly defines which works he is talking about–works of the law. Those are the works of circumcision and of killing and cutting up and shedding the blood of animals in atonement for our sins. What was the ultimate act that Abraham’s faith was counted to him as righteousness? He was in the act of sacrificing Isaac! The book of James says:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Kevin, maybe God will grant you eyes to see these great gospel truths. And maybe one day you will deny a false religion that has convinced you they are the true church. God has brought you “hear” to hear the truth.
And finally you said: “Ill give you the last word on this. K”
How nice of you, Kevin. Your such a sweetie!
Thank you. Thank you very much.
May Almighty God bless you,
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
–BOB
“By your words you will be JUSTIFIED.”
Bob,
I am weary of explaining to Kevin the difference between “merit” and “earn”. ( Or since he fancied himself a Latin scholar,”meritum”. )
The Tridentine Council fathers intentionally opted for the term “merit” as it does not mean “earn” in a strict sense.
Tim,
Does Kevin speak for you? Does he represent your understanding of the Mass?
If his inaccuracies embarrass you, why not step up and take over as head Protestant on your own blog?
Hi Tim, there is a 12 minute video by R Scott Clark on justification on youtube that is the best comparison between the mistake of the medieval church and the biblical position that I have ever heard. . I wonder if you have time you could provide it. Thanks Kevin