Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $54,271
61%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 61%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Luther’s Errors on Justification

    05/29/2017 9:43:20 AM PDT · 191 of 195
    daniel1212 to ebb tide; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Refutation of errors of Roman Catholicism's Robert J. Siscoe , by the grace of God, though not comprehensive.

    Luther was a prolific writer, and the errors below are likely due to the author reading less of Luther than even i have, who was yet too Catholic to be any kind of pope for us, though we honor him for the right stands he took against the Roman church, whose distinctives are no manifest in the only inspired record of the NT church , and contrary to it.

    Error #1

    This act of faith in and of itself does not justify man, but rather disposes him for justification. The soul is brought into a state of justification (i.e., friendship with God) through an infusion of sanctifying grace and supernatural charity into the soul, which produces a true spiritual rebirth (a metaphysical change in the soul) and makes man a “partaker of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), an adopted child of God (Eph. 1:5), and an heir of heaven (Romans 8:17).

    What this Catholic conception teaches is not that "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness, " (Romans 4:5) that "to him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sin s," (Acts 10:43) "purifying their hearts by faith " (Acts 15:9)

    Instead what this Catholic contrivance teaches is that one is made actually good enough to be with God through the sprinkling of water, that of infused charity via the actual act of RC baptism, which means Abraham must have become born again when his faith was counted/imputed for righteousness.

    Moreover, since the process of Catholic salvation begins with actually becoming good enough to be with God, then since souls usually do not maintain or regain this condition by the time they die, then this false gospel requires the invention of RC (different in the EOs version of tradition) Purgatory, in which it is imagined that one is purified of character defects thru "purifying torments" (and atones for sins).

    In contrast, God justifies the ungodly by imputing his faith for righteousness, purifying their hearts by faith, (Romans 4:5; Acts 15:9) a faith that is expressed in baptism and obeying the Lord Jesus, but who are "accepted in the Beloved" and "made to sit together with Him" in Heaven, (Eph. 1:6;2:6) having immediate access into the holy of holies in Heaven by the blood of Christ. (Heb. 10:19)

    And thus wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:10f)

    And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the only suffering after this life, that of the loss of rewards due to the combustible nature of the material one built the church with, which one is saved despite of, not because of. (1Co. 3:8ff)< /p>

    Error # 2

    Luther’s errors concerning salvation are founded on an entirely different understanding of the words faith, justification, and grace. The act of faith, according to Luther, is not an intellectual assent to the truths revealed by God, but rather “trust in divine mercy,” combined with a firm conviction that one has received God’s favor and will be saved. This notion of faith is not rooted in the intellect (believing what God has revealed), but in the will (trusting in Christ),

    This seems desperate, for intellectual assent is certainly not salvific, as even devils believe, while Luther certainly knew that faith in the heart is the root that effects repentance, though they are inseparable, two sides of the same coin.

    ““For Christian righteousness consisteth in two things; that is to say, in faith of the heart, and in God's imputation..” ― ‎John Dillenberger - 2011, "Martin Luther: Selections From His Writing" p. 127

    Error #3

    Justification: Merely “Declared Righteousness” According to Luther, the justified soul is not made just, nor are his sins truly washed way. Luther taught that the act of justification consist of an extrinsic imputation of the justice of Christ, by which the “believer” is only declared just by God (i.e., “declared righteousness”), rather than an intrinsic infusion of grace into the human soul and a true washing away of sin, by which one is truly made just.

    This description in which there is no purifying of the soul under salvation by faith is the type of thing you read from Catholic Answers, and is not Biblical nor consistent with what Luther taught:

    "..He Himself dwell in us and through us on account on such faith, and daily purifies us through His own work..." "Hence it is clearly evident that purification for sins, is faith, and he that believes that Christ has purged his sins, is most assuredly purified through that faith, and in no other way." - Explanation of the epistle for Christmas, Concerning the divinity of Christ, in "Dr. Martin Luther's Church-postil: Sermons..."edited by Socrates Henkep. 93

    Later (apparently) Luther taught this faith is effectual via baptism (even for infants, which is false):

    "when any one is washed with water, after the command of Christ, he is washed with the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and cleansed from all sins." - Henkep, p. 18

    "This does not happen by a change of clothing, or by any laws or works; it happens by the rebirth and renewal that takes place in Baptism, as Paul says, 'As many of you as were baptized have put on Christ."' lectures on Galatians 1531

    For in those who have been baptized a new light and flame arise; new and devout emotions come into being, such as fear and trust in God and hope; and a new will emerges. This is what it means to put on Christ properly, truly, according to the Gospel."

    Of course we are well aware that baptism is natural water. But after the Holy Spirit is added to it, we have more than mere water. It becomes a veritable bath of regeneration, a living bath which washes and purges man of sin and death, which 'cleanses him of all sin." (Sermons On The Gospel Of St. John, Chapters 1 ‑4.1537.)

    It is of course true that nothing in us does it except faith, as we shall hear later. But these blind leaders of the blind refuse to see that faith must have something in which it believes, that is, something it clings to, something on which to plant its feet and into which to sink its roots. Thus faith clings to the water and believes Baptism to be something in which there is pure salvation and life, not through the water, as I have emphasized often enough, but because God’s name is joined to it … It follows from this that whoever rejects Baptism rejects God’s word, faith, and the Christ who directs us to Baptism and binds us to it (1978, pp. 101-102).” (Taken From Luther’s Large Catechism (XIII))

    Holy Baptism is the only means whereby infants, who, too, must be born again, can ordinarily be regenerated and brought to faith” (Luther’s Small Catechism, 16, 173).

    In addition, besides saving faith effecting works, Luther taught not only taught renewal of the inner man by the Spirit but progressive practical sanctification:

    “When we become Christians, the old creature daily decreases until finally destroyed. This is what it means truly to plunge into baptism and daily to come forth again." (see Small Catechism, 360:12; KK, 884:14–15)

    "...though the Holy Spirit renews our hearts but yet in such a manner, that he does not at once complete this work of our renewal and purification, but He operates and purges in us daily, until we become continually more and more pure...though the office of the word..." - Henkep, p. 95

    Error #4

    Luther’s Errors Concerning Grace Along with his erroneous understanding of faith and justification, Luther had an equally erroneous understanding of “grace.” Since he denied that the soul was interiorly transformed and regenerated by the Holy Ghost,...In short, Luther’s doctrine of justification and salvation goes like this: man makes an act of “faith” (places his trust in the merits of Christ); the justice of Christ is imputed to him and covers over his sinfulness, without actually changing him within;

    Which is lie #3, for Luther believed the soul was interiorly transformed and regenerated by the Holy Ghost, which happens in conversion and is not contrary to being justified by imputed righteousness, with that being the cause of acceptance with God, on Christ's account, and not by actually becoming good enough to be with God as per Rome. Yet regeneration is salvific in the sense of sanctification, saving one from the power of sin, versus only its penalty. (Titus 2:11-12; 3:5)

    I do not have the energy today (being up most of the night due to a mech. failure) to go thru the rest, save for the last lies:

    The false doctrine of “once saved always saved” is based on Luther’s error that Christ’s merits cover over the sinful soul (like snow covering a dunghill), and will remain even if they “commit a thousand murders and a thousand adulteries per day.”

    Actually Luther clearly taught (despite hyperbolic argumentation Caths abuse) that saving faith is an obedient faith, “ such as in saying,

    "...one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

    This is where we get the Protestant practice of “altar calls” and repeating the “sinner’s prayer” - neither of which are found in the Bible, or anywhere else for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

    An altar call is essentially calling convicted souls to make a definite decision for Christ, which Peter did in Acts 2, and a “sinner’s prayer” is essentially doing the same thing as the penitent publican (Lk. 18) and the contrite criminal did (Lk. 23) in calling upon the Lord to have mercy on them as damned destitute sinners in faith.

  • Luther’s Errors on Justification

    05/29/2017 9:38:28 AM PDT · 189 of 195
    daniel1212 to metmom; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; boatbums; ...
    Luther Derangement Syndrome strikes again.

    So what would happen if a conservative evangelical posted an article "Roman Catholic Errors on Justification?" while constantly promoting their church as uniquely being the one true one, denigrating all the rest?

  • When it Comes to Deportations, Trump Can’t Hold a Candle to Obama

    05/26/2017 9:46:38 AM PDT · 26 of 26
    daniel1212 to Lurkinanloomin
    The Obama regime counted border turnarounds as deportations, a departure from previous administrations.

    I see differences in the reporting on this issue.

    Snopes, with its liberal bias is protective of Obama, and quotes the LA times saying

    The number of people deported at or near the [U.S.-Mexico] border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s deportation statistics.

    The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

    Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called “voluntary returns,” but which critics derisively termed “catch and release.” Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation statistics.

    Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.

    In the Obama years, all of the increase in deportations has involved people picked up within 100 miles of the border, most of whom [had] just recently crossed over. In 2013, almost two-thirds of deportations were in that category.

    Snopes adds,

    The deportation trend abated towards the latter part of the Obama administration, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announcing efforts to “prioritize convicted criminals and threats to public safety, border security, and national security.” Although 2013 was a record-setting year with 435,498 deportations, 2015 saw the lowest numbers in a decade, according to ICE. - http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/

    Another source, ABC, reports,

    Donald Trump’s immigration plan is set to be announced later this week. And if previous comments are any indication, the Republican presidential contender said he plans to focus on deporting criminals, similar to the current strategy of the Obama administration.

    "On Day One, I am going to begin swiftly removing criminal illegal immigrants from this country," he said at Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst's Roast and Ride event Saturday in Des Moines, saying he would not focus on the 11 million undocumented residents who have lived in the U.S. for a long time without incident...

    President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief."

    Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

    How does he compare to other presidents?

    According to governmental data, the Obama administration has deported more people than any other president's administration in history.

    In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century.

    President George W. Bush's administration deported just over two million during his time in office; and Obama’s numbers don’t reflect his last year in office, for which data is not yet available.

    Who is being deported?

    President Obama directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to focus on criminals, not families, during his November 2014 executive action on immigration.

    According to their website, "ICE has continued to increase its focus on identifying, arresting, and removing convicted criminals in prisons and jails, and also at-large arrests in the interior."

    In fiscal year 2015, 91 percent of people removed from inside the U.S. were previously convicted of a crime.

    The administration made the first priority "threats to national security, border security, and public safety." That includes gang members, convicted felons or charged with "aggravated felony" and anyone apprehended at the border trying to enter the country illegally.

    In 2015, 81 percent, or 113,385, of the removals were the priority one removals.

    Priority two includes "misdemeanants and new immigration violators."

    That includes "aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic" violations, as well as those convicted of domestic violence, sexual abuse, burglary, DUIs or drug trafficking.

    Who is not being deported?

    With the focus on criminals and not families, the administration has moved away from those living and working in the U.S. without a criminal history.

    "Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day," Obama said in November 2014 when announcing his executive action on immigration. - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

  • Gianforte Taps Out Quist In Montana Special Election

    05/26/2017 6:31:10 AM PDT · 107 of 151
    daniel1212 to JLAGRAYFOX
    I would advise you to disregard any polling coming from the failed pollsters of the mainstream media, which, once again, were a mile off the real winning result!!!

    A Google poll actually had Quist ahead in 5-21

    RealClearPolitics points to three polls, all from Gravis, conducted in late April, early May and last week. Gianforte was leading in all of three, though the size of his edge varied. In April, Gianforte was polling with 52 percent support to Quist's 39 percent. By early May, his lead had dropped to eight points, but it recently rebounded to 14.

    Other surveys had varying results. For example, an Emerson College poll from April also showed voters preferred Gianforte by a margin 52 to 37 percent. But another poll conducted by the Democratic Senate Majority PAC showed the gap at just six percent, according to Roll Call. And at least one Google Survey poll had Quist ahead. - http://www.newsweek.com/montana-special-election-polls-gianforte-quist-615447

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/25/2017 6:45:30 PM PDT · 204 of 299
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    "Scripture" and "Tradition" are not two stand-alone sources of doctrine, potentially competing with or rivaling each other. The NT Scriptures are part of Sacred Tradition, a subset. Sacred Tradition comprises both the Oral Teachings and the Written Teachings (Scriptures), which have equal authority. The authority of the Church in all this is demonstrated in that it was men of the Church -- Apostles, Evangelists, Bishops, Synods, Councils --- who wrote the books of the NT, who preserved them, who passed them down to us, and who confirmed their official content: which is to say, they developed the canon. The canon was and is: the books authorized by the Church for liturgical use. Were it not for the inspired activities, especially liturgical activities, of the Church, we would not have Scriptures. So you can see how there is an interaction and an interdependence of tradition-in-writing, tradition-in-spoken-word, and tradition-in-practice. They necessarily have the same authority, though they have it in different ways.

    I understand the propaganda that imagines that the non-inspired declaration of the purportedly wholly inspired oral tale of the Assumption (despite its lack of testimony even in early tradition) which was made binding belief approx. 1700+ years after it allegedly occurred, is equal to the wholly inspired record of the virgin birth.

    However, beside writing being God's manifest means of preservation and all that, the fact remains that the assertion that when the bishops and the Pope speaks (infallibly) then what they say is inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit is not true as it is with Scripture.

    Were it not for the inspired activities, especially liturgical activities, of the Church, we would not have Scriptures.

    Which pertains to the issue raised in my other response you have yet to get to, namely, is your argument that being the instruments, discerners and stewards of holy Writ means such are the infallible interpreters of it, and thus the validity dissent is disallowed?

    Or in any case, are you arguing that if we accept that Rome settled the canon then that logically means we must accept all else that she likewise officially states? If that is not your argument, than of what weight does the basic oft-parroted polemical statement, "we gave you the Bible" have? Maybe you can ask whoever gave you this argument.

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/25/2017 12:57:19 PM PDT · 195 of 299
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o; kosciusko51; imardmd1; EagleOne; Elsie
    Who had the authority to set the table of contents (canon) of the New Testament? Who actually did it, and when?

    The issue is that of "authority" and what it means. Westminster affirms, "it belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith," and general obedience to such is enjoined and even to secular powers one finds themselves under. Rome could enjoin submission to her rule for those under her (the EOs, for one, did not recognize her rule), but the issue is whether her claim to authority over all the church is valid, which it is not, and that she possesses (conditional) ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is a unScriptural novelty.

    As for when, in reality the establishment of both men and writings of God was progressively realized, and essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation. And while Rome claims the power to infallibly settle the canon, yet she actually did not infallibly/indisputably settle her canon until approx. 1400+ years after the last book was penned, and after the death of Luther, and thus scholarly debate could and did continue right into Trent.

    But why not state your actual argument, which i presume is that being the instruments, discerners and stewards of holy Writ means such are the infallible interpreters of it, and thus the validity dissent is disallowed?

    Or in any case, are you arguing that if we accept that Rome settled the canon then that logically means we must accept all else that she likewise officially states? If that is not your argument, than of what weight does the basic oft-parroted polemical statement, "we gave you the Bible" have? Maybe you can ask whoever gave you this argument.

  • Jesus, Who Loves You, Warned Frequently About Hell

    05/25/2017 11:52:01 AM PDT · 9 of 165
    daniel1212 to Salvation; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    With respect to the teaching on Hell and judgment, the “heretic” cannot reconcile God’s love and mercy with the reality of Hell and eternal separation from Him.

    Which description is part of the problem, since while Hell and the Lake of Fire is separation from God, it is not simply the absence of God but the proactive wrath of God. For the Lord did not say,

    "And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into eternal separation from God in hell," but "into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:45-46)

    In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)

    No “heresy” of our day is more widespread or pernicious than the denial of hell, its existence, and its sad frequency.

    But true to form, he excludes Rome from being guilty of the denial of the its existence of Hell as described in Scripture and its frequency therein.

    At the General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July 1999, the Holy Father reflected on hell as the definitive rejection of God. In his catechesis, the Pope said that care should be taken to interpret correctly the images of hell in Sacred Scripture, and explained that "hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself... Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy ".

    By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will "weep and gnash their teeth" (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its "unquenchable fire" (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man...

    [Which is not a parable, in which real names are never used, and which employs known physical realities which correspond to spiritual realities, but her real names are used and it is a stretch to make the rich man in Hell correspond to some mere spiritual reality that is not that of the afterlife and Hell.

    [And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. (Luke 16:23-25) ]

    The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather* than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell'" (n. 1033). https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM, emp. mine

    [Once again, the Biblical description is of a location, and not self-exclusion from communion with God from God and absence of anything good, but of a place of varying degrees of proactive torment.

    As for frequency,

    At Pope Benedict XVI’s question and answer session with priests from his diocese last Thursday, one cleric told the Pope he was concerned that the catechism of the Italian bishops’ conference never mentions hell or purgatory, and speaks of heaven only once. “With these essential parts of the creed missing,” the priest asked, “doesn’t it seem to you that the redemption of Christ falls apart?”

    In reply, the Pope called heaven, hell, and purgatory “fundamental themes that unfortunately appear rarely in our preaching,” journalist and church expert Sandro Magister reports.

    Pope Benedict speculated that the condemned might not be numerous, describing how thoroughly they would have to have destroyed themselves:

    “Perhaps there are not so many who have destroyed themselves so completely, who are irreparable forever, who no longer have any element upon which the love of God can rest, who no longer have the slightest capacity to love within themselves. This would be hell.” ("What the Pope really said about Hell," Feb 11, 2008; http://www.catholicnewsagency.com)/news/what_the_pope_really_said_about_hell, emp. mine

    In contrast, it is "few there be" that enter into life via the narrow road, while those in Hell may have love and compassion as the rich man in Hell evidenced by pleading for Lazarus to warn his 5 brethren "lest they also come into this place of torment."

    Texts on Hell and Judgment

    While the priest may somewhat sound like a fundamentalist on Hell, he is out of his league, and misses one of the foremost test in Hell-fire:

    And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

    And (which goes with Mt. 25:41,46),

    And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)

    And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:13-15)

    And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (Revelation 14:9-11)

    The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 13:41-43)

  • How to Hit the Brakes on Ramadan Road Rage…

    05/25/2017 5:42:55 AM PDT · 12 of 17
    daniel1212 to Tennessee Nana
    yeah that eating early in the morning before sunup can interrupt yer sleep...

    Continually eating a big meal before sleeping and then having to rise up early to stuff yourself again is not good for your health, and which testifies against the Qur'an being inspired by God.

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/24/2017 7:50:07 PM PDT · 175 of 299
    daniel1212 to raygunfan; kosciusko51
    no one is saying you cant discuss, i merely pointed out that as soon as history is recounted, and straight forward history of the early church’s catholicity, itz only a matter of time before protestants chime in with the usual hermeneutical nonsense that makes a sham out of church history... reinterpret revisionist history etc etc lather, rinse, repeat. Rather, as manifested, it is as history is recounted, and the early church’s catholicity is made to support "Catholic ecclesiology" = "presided over by the Pope," "the Pope resolves the debate," "James (who it seems may have felt otherwise) rises to assent to the decision and asks that a letter be sent forth to all the Churches explaining the decision," decrees and doctrines that issue forth from councils of the bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself."

    Yet, without taking away from Peter's leadership, reiterating some of what was said before, rather than presenting this council as "presided over by the Pope," he did not call this council, nor does the Spirit says Paul etc. decide to go to see Peter, much less in Rome, but to "go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:2)

    Peter only comes into the picture after there had been much disputing and gives his testimony with its evangelical gospel, and exhortation to recognize this manifest grace of God and basic implications, which words from Peter were certainly fitting as the first one to preach to the Jews and Gentiles, as befit his God-given initial street-level leadership. And to which Paul, the reprover of Peter's declension on this, and Barnabas give their testimony, and which collectively enabled the matter to be settled by James, who, rather than simply giving assent, is the one who provides the conclusive basic judgment, confirmatory of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, with the necessary Scriptural basis, acting more like the pope in declaring, "Wherefore my sentence [krinō=judgment, conclusion] is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God..." (Acts 15:19) Only after his words is the matter shown to be truly resolved by the church then sending out their collective judgment, with no further mention of Peter but that "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..." (Acts 15:28)

    Had this been written by a Catholic then it would be Peter who declares, "Wherefore my sentence is..." and would have everyone looking to Peter to at least ratify the decree sent out, and would at least include Rome as one of the cities to which it was sent. Of course, that is only one of the many RC distinctives missing in the record of the NT church.

    Which includes any manifest preparation for a successor to Peter. For the issue is not the validity of "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith" as the Westminster Confession affirms, though subject to Scripture, nor is the issue the manifest type of leadership of Peter among the apostles and early church, but that of the Roman construance of it, which is not what we see in the only wholly inspired record of the NT church, and which even Catholic scholars provide evidence against. .

    Which means it is RC devotees who so often must engage in "hermeneutical nonsense that makes a sham out of church history, reinterpret revisionist history etc etc. " under the premise that in any conflict it Scripture, tradition and history can only mean what Rome says. As even Manning asserted,

    It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/24/2017 4:48:59 PM PDT · 168 of 299
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    Thank you for that quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Infallibility vs Divine Inspiration. Scripture is directly divinely inspired in a manner which is unique. Other statements, whatever their level of authority, are not.

    A substantial distinction and contrary Charles Pope. The word of God is more than simply being assuredly correct, as due to its full inspiration "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

    Which places it in a class by itself, above the mere words of men, thanks be to God.

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/24/2017 1:47:28 PM PDT · 161 of 299
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    “dissolving the P/B team” was my conjecture, and I should have said so. But the team really was dissolved, and Barnabas was not heard of thenceforth from the John Mark episode.

    A fight in the team dugout btwn two good and determined (Barnabas determined to take with them John), men, likely with different gifts besides commonly held ones. Perhaps the same kind of heart that led Barnabas seek out Paul and bring him to the wary disciples is what led him to see Paul as too demanding, but Paul the leader could not risk taking on a solider who went AWOL once, and i Scripture affirms his leadership.

    The paradox is that while Acts is mostly about reconciling corporate division (though it did not end, yet one side was now officially reproved), it also testifies to division btwn a team of of men whose mission and testimony helped rectify this corporate division.

    Yet as often with Prot divisions btwn those who love God and His truth, this cell division likely resulted in a greater increase of souls being reaped, though such should come out of core unity of heart and mind.

    But it was Peter who wrote,

    And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

    Thus the first "pope" foretold of so much RC (if not alone) abuse of Scripture.

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/24/2017 7:52:21 AM PDT · 151 of 299
    daniel1212 to aMorePerfectUnion
    Even the Orthodox Churches don’t believe that tale - never have and never will.

    Indeed, for though they hold to many of the same unscriptural traditions of men . Roman papal supremacy and infallibility is not one of them. See what http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx provides about the latter.

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/24/2017 7:47:15 AM PDT · 150 of 299
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    I'd appreciate your view of how Acts 15 came before Acts 14 and the letter to the Galatians.

    Obviously Acts 15 did not come before Acts 14, and likely the visit to Acts 14:26-28 includes the Gal. 2 so that Acts 15 came later, and what I was thinking of is a re Acts 10 coming before Gal. 2, wherein he had attested "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28)

    Thus Peter already knew he could and should have fellowshipped with the Gentiles, and that "Peter's declension was one of weakness, of fear (been there), but this was a rare exception, and inconsistent with his professed belief and support of Paul," versus trying to "dissolve the Paul/Barnabas evangelistic team," which was my actual contention.

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/23/2017 7:38:58 PM PDT · 135 of 299
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o; Elsie
    The Holy Spirit "guides" papal conclaves, yes: Our Lord the Holy Spirit guides everyone who asks for His guidance. "Controls," in the sense of overriding direction, no. Any given Pope cannot be regarded as a personal Holy Spirit "pick," --- except in the sense of the general superintendence of Providence, present also in the outcomes of U.S. presidential elections,

    You should state that this is an opinion.

    With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...37

    In context, two basic classes of teachings requiring assent are being dealt with:

    The first paragraph [of the Professio fidei] states: "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.

    These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law...

    The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals."

    The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed..

    Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda".14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

    The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. - Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, the Solemnity of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. + Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect; http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/23/2017 7:10:55 PM PDT · 124 of 299
    daniel1212 to FourtySeven
    I seem to recall someone posting on one of these Catholic vs Protestant threads a list of times where Paul spoke authoritatively. (?) I have been meaning to look into that as well, if you or anyone has such a list thanks in advance.

    You may be referring to this parody: Triablogue: 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy

    The Peter of Rome is not that of Scripture , that of the street-level leader among the apostles and initially that of the church. Paul was hardly RC in his writings, rarely mentioning the supposed supreme head of The Church, never enjoining obedience to him or prayers for him in particular, etc. or otherwise describing him as a RC pope, and listing him after James as one of 3 who appeared to be pillars, and then publicly rebuking him.

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/23/2017 7:10:44 PM PDT · 123 of 299
    daniel1212 to Salvation; imardmd1; Mrs. Don-o
    We trust that decrees and doctrines that issue forth from councils of the bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself.

    Wrong: unlike Catholic councils and popes, Scripture is wholly inspired of God and has Him as its Author, and even in RC theology we read:

    Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. ..not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching. (Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm. emp. mine.

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/23/2017 6:49:04 PM PDT · 119 of 299
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    g Peter, who even tried to dissolve the Paul/Barnabas evangelistic team authorized by the Holy Spirit through the doctrinally correct Antiochans to send them out as missionaries. "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (Act 13:2 AV). While they were away, and Peter came to Antioch: "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation" (Gal 2:13 AV). So, what do you make of that?

    Butting in here, it is note that it was not the Jerusalem leadership that sent out Paul and Barnabas, much less Rome, nor even any apostles, but certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (Acts 13:1)

    However, it is not indicated that Peter was trying to dissolve the Paul/Barnabas evangelistic team, but that in when "certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." (Galatians 2:12)

    Peter's declension was one of weakness, of fear (been there), but this was a rare exception, and inconsistent with his professed belief and support of Paul, for as he attested (I do not think Gal. 2 happened before Acts 15), "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28)

    Yet this does not support the RC papacy, which cannot even find Peter in the letter to the church at Rome, and which absence results in the absurd RC pleading that Paul did not mention him because of persecution, yet he has no problem mentioning over 30 other people!

  • It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

    05/23/2017 5:56:44 PM PDT · 115 of 299
    daniel1212 to ealgeone

    Thank God for what is good.

  • Why People Fight Online

    05/23/2017 5:55:58 PM PDT · 111 of 111
    daniel1212 to CaptainK
    There are other religions beside Christianity. Why leave them out?

    Because they make up such a small percentage (1-2%) as to be rather statistically insignificant? But the study did mention non-Christians as a whole being less likely to argue on social media than practicing Christians, but it should have included NONEs, and agnostics/atheists. A more comprehensive study would have, but this is not presented as one.

  • Gallup: Only 24% of Americans Believe Bible is Literal Word of God

    05/22/2017 7:14:49 PM PDT · 114 of 120
    daniel1212 to TalBlack
    So God failed to communicate what he wanted to comunicate? The only people who seem to have trouble with what God communicated are people who are doing something that God proscribed which they want to keep right on doing. Otherwise there is no need to “wonder” what God meant.

    The only trouble with what is communicated is on your end. Just how do you get God failing to communicate what he wanted to communicate out of the fact that He sometimes used non-literal language in the literal word of God?

    Where did i see there was a problem with what God communicated? Whatever you are fighting it should not be God sometimes using non-literal language in the literal word of God. Fight those who abuse that in order to justify doing something that God proscribed. I just reproved a lady who disagreed with me that Jesus was a fundamentalist, a literalist, which He was.