Posted on 08/25/2015 6:45:11 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
I recall when I got scorned for attacking homosexuality on my blog with a comment that said, “You are a homophobe, do you not know that God loves everyone including homosexuals,” in which I answered with, “do you not know that God loves everyone including the homophobe?”
Indeed, we say “God loves everyone,” including, but not limited to; heretics, pedophiles, hemophiliacs, sodomites, lesbians, murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug pushers and every mutant from the pit of hell, except, of course, the legalist and the Pharisee, that is, the good old Catholic Church.
y now, objectors who read so far what I wrote here will only pull out a Tommy machinegun and begin to spray all the high-caliber bullets at the comment section of my blog to write: “Catholics are legalists,” “the Pope kissed the Quran,” “they worship Mary,” “they pray to saints” …
May I say that a bigot is recognized when he avoids the question at hand by always changing the subject.
The God of love, does He not love the legalist, the Pharisee and even the bigot? Does He then not also love the Catholic?
The issue is not an issue of “Love”, but that “Love” is always used to obstruct correction and reproof. Such “Love” is nothing more than hate. I always keep my eyes out for a mind that reverses everything.
The issue is an issue of SLANDER.
Slandering Catholics is the ONLY accepted prejudice in America.
Exposing Sodomite behavior in America is prejudice, but slandering the Vatican is not?
The Vatican has been slandered for centuries without a shred of biblical evidence. They call it the Harlot of Babylon, the killers of the saints, the woman drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus Christ. And for historic evidence they say that the Catholic Church eliminated the Manichaeans, Arians, Cathars, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles and Albigensians. But can anyone quote a single historian who confirms or proves that these groups were Bible believing Christians? Yet thousands of books were written slandering Catholics for eliminating these while elevating such heretics as the true Bible believing Christians.(For more on this read my article Drinking the Blood of Saints)
But instead of answering such a simple question, I get machine-gunned every time by changing the subject; but what about all these pedophilia cases? It is true that there is a major mess to clean in any Christian circle, but may I say: let the denomination that has no such sin cast the first stone. Sexual sins and deviancies are equally spread in all denominations.
But does such issues entitle us to only focus on what is wrong with the Catholic while ignoring what is wrong with Protestants? Even Jesus, while he reprimanded the institution of His time for its corruption, He never eliminated its authority over the flock.
And what about the Pharisee? Did the New Testament hate Pharisees? And how could we say that Judaism is legalistic just because individual Pharisees were challenging Jesus by using the Law to trap, discredit and accuse Him of heresy? Can this be applied to all the Pharisees in general or the Jews collectively?
Why then do we use the term “Pharisee” as a dreaded label of scorn and insult?
In the Bible, we can find verses where God condemns Israel. But is that a blanket statement to condemn them for eternity? If so, what then do we do with verses in which God honors Israel? Condemning the Jews for eternity is a sign of bigotry and prejudice. I see many Catholics who hate Israel. Evangelicals by large have done a much better job than Catholics in recognizing and supporting Israel.
When it comes to the Pharisee, Jesus spoke of the “righteousness of the Pharisees”. Was Jesus degrading the righteousness of the Pharisees, or was He simply setting up the standard, that unless we are perfect, we couldn’t enter the Kingdom, for even if we kept the law as good as the Pharisee, these do not equip a man for the beatific vision of God’s essence? This of course, can never be attained until the end when God accomplishes in us His plan after we are purged from all sin.
Nicodemus was a righteous Pharisee and so was Gamaliel, Paul’s teacher, the grandson of Hillel and the founder of a dominant school of the Pharisees, a major branch of Judaism. It was Gamaliel (a Pharisee) whom God chose to save the apostles from death and opposed the apostles’ execution. Josephus and some Talmudic works also mention Gamaliel, the Pharisee, describing him as a benevolent and brilliant man. William Barclay states:
“He was a kindly man with a far wider tolerance than his fellows. He was, for instance, one of the very few Pharisees who did not regard Greek culture as sinful. He was one of the very few to whom the title ‘Rabban’ had been given. Men called him ‘The Beauty of the Law.’ When he died it was said, ‘Since Rabban Gamaliel died there has been no more reverence for the Law; and purity and abstinence died out at the same time.'” (The Daily Study Bible Commentary, Bible Explorer software.)
In fact, Christianity, and by extension, Catholicism was derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. In reality, when we compare Catholics and Protestants today in light of ancient times, it was the sola-scriptura Sadducees who rejected all authoritative oral teaching and were considered the theological liberals of that time. Even the New Testament records the first Christians were Pharisees (Acts 15:5, Philippians 3:5), but never once mentions Christian Sadducees.
Having few children by using birth control is the practice of liberals. Why would many Evangelicals support birth control is beyond me. Yet both religious Jews and Catholics see such practice as going against God’s plan. I agree 100%. God after all said to be, “fruitful and multiply”. My wife Maria put up with me for over two decades because she was brought up Catholic and to her marriage was a holy sacrament.
I have always believed that there are anti-Semites regardless of denomination. However, it is not true that Catholicism is anti-Semitic. Catholic Jim Blackburn from Catholic Answers in his article “Do You Know Jesus” explains that Christianity stems from Judaism, which is the official stand of the Catholic Church. Jim explains Paul:
“Paul said: “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee. And now I stand here on trial for hope in the promise made by God to our fathers. (Acts 26:4-6)”
Paul does not denounce the religion of Judaism here. He clearly recognizes that it is from this religion, which Christianity sprang. And he does not view Christianity as a new religion but, rather, as the fulfillment of the promise of Judaism. It is a continuation of—not a break from—Judaism. And in this continuation it does not throw off its religious aspect. (Ibid)
We always attribute to Catholics as the prime example of a legalist; they after all believe that they can earn or merit God’s approval by performing the requirements of the law, they neglect mercy, are ignorant of the grace of God and are so focused on the obedience to the law; the Catholic preeminent principle of redemption is not “by faith alone in God’s grace”.
Was the Catholic unsaved just because he believed in sola gratia (by grace alone) as Trent decreed, the justified “increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ” by means of “faith co-operating with good works,” which uses the phrase of the Council and that of Saint James?
Fact is, the Catholic Church condemns anyone who attempts to justify himself “by his own works”:
“Canon I. If any one says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ—let him be anathema.”
The Council of Trent even elaborates:
“We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.”
Is this teaching an anathema? For how long must we continue slandering? Even the Jewish faith, King David broke the law and was not saved by keeping it, yet he was nevertheless saved. David was a repentant servant of God. Calling Catholics legalists came from Martin Luther who drew this view from reading the correspondence between the Judaizers of Paul’s days and applied it to the Roman Catholics of his.
George Foote Moore and Claude Montefiore protested that Judaism was not legalistic, and that such a view of Judaism was a distortion of Jewish documentary sources.
Indeed, if biblical Judaism was legalistic, how could God then provide salvation to the Jews of the Old Testament? How could God be arbitrary selecting Israel as His plan for salvation if they were legalists? (See Claude G. Montefiore, “Judaism and St. Paul (London: Max Goschen, 1914).
And here comes my biggest dilemma: during my two-decade walk in many American churches, it was as if all the battles, struggles and martyrdoms, which the Catholic Church endured from the Muslims for over millennia was simply written off by my evangelical friends. These sold such wealth of Catholic history as Judas sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.
It’s heart breaking.
In two decades, I have never heard a mention of the contribution of Catholics fighting Islam in the battles of Poitiers, Lepanto and Vienna.
My struggle with so many anti-Catholics began when I pointed to the rich history of the Catholic struggles with Islam. To these, it didn’t matter that millions of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were martyred under Islam’s scimitar; Islam to them was simply the ‘cleansing agent’ of Catholic heretics. I could not understand how could such a movement that is pro-Jew, yet be so anti-Catholic?
I slowly began to realize that in America being anti-Catholic is America’s ONLY Acceptable Prejudice.
Even historians agree, slandering Catholics, as John Highham described it is:
“the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history,” (Jenkins, Philip (1 April 2003). The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Oxford University Press. p. 23)
Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called Anti-Catholicism “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people”. (“The Coming Catholic Church”. By David Gibson. HarperCollins: Published 2004.)
Indeed. America is a nation that isolates racism and addresses skin-color and gender as the only definition for racism, so much so, even though they exercise the least of this type of racism than any other nation on earth, yet they discuss racism more than any other nation on earth.
We even have come a long way in combating anti-Semitism to soon forget quickly the horrors of Nazism. We still openly denounce skinheads and neo-Nazis, yet when it comes to the slander of Catholicism and Catholics, America is not only silent, but also is still a major participant.
Bible believing Christians who are Anti-Catholics need to answer one question: why only Catholicism unites all haters? Why when it comes to Catholicism, they are all united; liberals, atheists, Mormons, feminists, Satanists, Scientologists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Advantists, Uniterians, Moslems and so many Bible believing Christians officially and doctrinally are all anti-Catholic? It is time that Evangelical Bible believing Christians be removed from this equation.
But perhaps I need to exercise an American tradition; I should have prequalified my statement and say that: I am not saying that protestants and evangelicals are all anti-Catholic, by God no, yet every time I praised Catholics, I found so many pin-pointing the leaven of the Pharisees without looking into the piles of heretical books written by so-called evangelicals who do much worse than the Pope kissing the Quran or that Nostra Aetate praised Islam. Yet even Pope Benedict criticized Nostra Aetate. I too hate some of what I see in Nostra Aetate and Second Vatican and find so many devils within the Catholic Church.
But is the Catholic rich history such an evil subject that warrants ignoring Catholic wars with Islam and that during Nazism, there were many more of these precious Catholics that chose to die in Hitler’s ovens than there were wonderful Protestants? It is a fact of history that Catholics lead any other religion in rescuing the highest numbers of Jews during Nazi Germany. Are all these Catholics damned to hell despite making a choice to enter Hitler’s furnace and save Jews? Which of the two is more pleasing to God, the evangelical health and wealth televangelist or the Jew loving Catholic who died in the infernos of Hitler’s crematoria?
From top preachers in America, we can see the terrible trend. John MacArthur, who is esteemed as a formidable and excellent Calvinist theologian, made a sermon in which he agreed with Charles Spurgeon when he declared that he would rather be called a devil than a priest, and that the Catholic Church is worse than Satan himself. MacArthur, in agreement with the statement, proclaimed the quote in his presentation:
“Call yourself a priest, sir! I wonder men are not ashamed to take the title: when I recollect what priests have done in all ages–what priests connected with the church of Rome have done, I repeat what I have often said: I would rather sooner a man pointed at me in the street and called me a devil, than called me a priest; for bad as the devil has been, he has hardly been able to match the crimes, cruelties, and villainies which have been transacted under the cover of a special priesthood.” (Macarthur on Youtube, http://youtu.be/7WbF-BZxu6s)
Christian author and conspiracy theorist Mark Dice stated:
“The Catholic Church, the popes, and bishops are basically the same as the Pharisees that Jesus denounced over 2000 years ago for their hypocrisy and their pride and arrogance due to their spiritual knowledge.” (The Vatican, Modern Day Pharisees, MarkDice.com)
Another evangelical author, S. Mason describes the Catholic Church as:
“The Pope declares the Catholic hierarchy to be the only ones allowed to interpret scriptures. Therefore, they elevate themselves as the Scribes and Pharisees of the Temple. Think on how Jesus described them HYPOCRITES! He described them as painted white sepulchers, looking god on the outside but smelling with the stench of death on the inside and filled with dead men’s bones.” (Mason S. Religion the Great Harlot in the Devil’s Playground, P.p. 81)
For more information refuting such accusations see [here] and [here]
Anti-Catholics simply transferred the term “Pharisee” from the Jew to the Catholic. Indeed, hating Catholics and Pharisees is America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice.
And the hairs on my arm just stood again REMEMBERING it!
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Very good Mama. Very true also. We really aren't discussing the theory of relativity are we?
Yes, Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse TO believers, but it was not an ekklesia building discourse, it was to answer the insistence as to what shall be the SIGNS of the arrival of the end of the age. The end of the Age of the ekklesia is the end of the building of the ekklesia, and the advent of Daniel's seventieth week where God brings to an end His dealing with the Jews as evangelizing the world and the end to sin. (see Daniel 9)
It is cogently speculated that believers who heard the Luke 21 Discourse regarding the fate of Jerusalem were able to escape the Roman razing of the city and killing more than a million because they took Jesus's teaching on the signs of the impending destruction of the Temple as warning to get out when the Roman armies encamped around Jerusalem for nine months while Vespasian returned to Rome to settle the emperor question upon the sudden death of Nero.
The Olivet Discourse was focused upon something many centuries after the destruction of the Temple. The Tribulation has events taking place in a restored Temple, spoken of by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. There are many many signs of the end of the age events and His return from Heaven with the armies of Heaven, after the events see in Heaven by John, involving The Church, the ekklesia.
Keeping the Olivet Discourse as a separate teaching from the Luke 21 Discourse which took place during the day in the Temple, prior to the Olivet Discourse, is a vital part of understanding the different periods to which Jesus referred in the two different discourses. The Olivet Discourse was most definitely not aimed at building the ekklesia since it primarily dealt with the end of the Age, the Church Age, and the Tribulation to follow.
:p
One needs to take the Law of Double Reference into account. As Antiochus Epiphanes foreshadowed the Anti-christ, so perhaps the occasion of 70 AD (Tisha b'Av) (as a judgment on the Jewish nation) has foreshadowed the 70th week of completion of God's judgment on the rest of the world's nations (Mt. 25:31-33) after the 7-year final Tribulation, when He pens up Satan and comes with His saints to institute His Earthly Kingdom.
Just a suggestion --
And a really good suggestion it is!
And that is precisely why Sola Scriptura is wrong. Once You eliminate the 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, all you have left is personal interpretation of the scripture in light of personal experience.
....” all you have left is personal interpretation of the scripture”.....
God says otherwise or are you saying He’s a liar?
....We have the prophetic word made ‘more sure’, to which you do well to ‘pay attention’ as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts....But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.....2 Peter 1:20
Note we are told what to know first of all....so if one fails to understand that truth then you are lost from knowing what truth is.....leaving oneself open to all manner of false teachings and traditions.....which catholicism teaches.
I am saying every protestant is his own Pope or Popess, Stop with the gotcha games.
If sacred tradition is right and supposedly passed down, why are there so many contradictions between the ecfs on those issues most dear to roman catholicism??
I am saying every FR Catholic is a JUDGE of POPES. They can't Stop with the desire to install a pope to their OWN liking.
Poorly catechized!
It explains EVERYTHING!
If Sola Scriptura is right and supposedly given by God why are there so many different interpretations?
Scripture will always surpass anything of tradition...in fact Jesus warned us about the traditions of men....heck I have traditions in my family...should I therefore begin a church and claim these traditions as equal to or surpassing that of scripture? Of course not.
Roman Catholicism has many errors in their belief system because it’s about promoting the church ‘system’ itself first and foremost...not Christianity. Further what might be “most dear” to it’s members is not significant to Romes leadership. The Vatican is a political entity and governs itself accordingly.....the people are simply the means of generating the revenues they utilize and invest for their own purposes....with just enough trickle down to keep the membership happy.
....”I am saying every protestant is his own Pope or Popess”....
Not at all because we don’t need, desire such when we have Jesus Christ who clearly sent His Spirit to teach us what we need to know.....
Jesus said....”The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall ‘teach you’ all things, and will bring to your remembrance all the things which I have said to you.”.....For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God...Therefore.....when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come....He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.... “All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
John 14:26..Romans 8:14..John 16:13-15
There is nothing wrong with relying upon the Word for final truth. The error lies in the following:
1) people like to practice eisegesis and read into the text things that are not there.
2) texts are taken out of context due to #1 to accommodate a particular point of view or substantiate a belief
3) lack of knowledge/use of the original languages
4) lack of knowledge of the background of the OT/NT era
You know....it certainly does give the appearance that members of the rcc place a greater emphasis on learning the ccc than the Word.
But there is the issue of simple unbelief. The sad reality is that many who claim to be Christians have never repented of sin and come to Christ for the salvation He alone offers. The pews are filled with unbelievers who have come into the church for their own reasons and who have never experienced a true change of heart. Many who teach the Bible do not believe it themselves. They claim to speak for God but do not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them and, without His illumination, .....they come to wrong conclusions and false interpretations of Scripture.
The Lord tells us...”The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” ....(1 Corinthians 2:14). Also Peter reminds us that the letters of the apostle Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament epistles, "have some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures"... 2 Peter 3:16.
So When the "ignorant and unstable" attempt to interpret Scripture without using accepted methods of exegesis, error often results. Paul told Timothy to "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" 2 Timothy 2:15.
Additionally...Taking verses and passages out of their context has resulted in more incorrect interpretations than any other single factor.....and a lack of understanding of the entire Word of God....which many people don't read let alone study.....Failure to adequately compare Scripture with Scripture and preach "the whole counsel of God" as Acts 20:27 instructs has led many groups to promote falsehood and error.
And yet further those who teach God's Word, whether from the pulpit, in Bible classes, or on blogs or websites, must be 'mature in the faith' and well-studied in the Scriptures. Sadly, this is often not the case, which results in a plethora of opinions and false interpretations of Scripture.
Finally, incorrect interpretations of Scripture occur because of an emphasis on tradition. Some churches claim to believe the Bible, but their interpretation is always filtered through the established traditions of the church or interpreted in light of the church's other publications or edicts. When equal weight is give to tradition and the teachings of the Bible, tradition is often given precedence. This directly contradicts the doctrines of the sufficiency and supremacy of the Word of God and leads to falsehood.
....No church tradition, papal edict, or writings of man can be placed on a par with the inspired Word of God which is declare to be all we need to be "complete, equipped for every good work".... 2 Timothy 3:17.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.