Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $81,206
92%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $6.8k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/28/2015 9:56:09 AM PST · 55 of 55
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    ...(infants and slaves had no choice)...the only examples we have of the morally cognizant condition of the baptized is that they were able to choose Christ..

    Sorry, my friend, but you may have to rethink your "choice" filter you run everything thru...'Cause it just "ain't" there in the basic Gospels/Scriptures: The Son's Witness to this: 16 You did NOT choose me, but I chose you..."44 “NO ONE can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them. NO ONE one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” EXCEPT by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:3)

    None of those are contrary to what i said, as all these texts refer to souls which could and would make choices, even though it was God who drew them, convicted them, opened their heart, and granted them repentant faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) so that they chose what they otherwise could not and would not do.

    But they all made choices, as God requires them to do in order to be saved.

    And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)

    Meanwhile those who will not make that response, choosing to reject the even light they had and thus their foolish heart was darkened, (Rm. 1:21) will be lost.

    You need to go back to basics re... ...the need to give GOD in Christ & God the Holy Spirit 100% credit & glory for New Life... ...instead of tipping the glory in favor of men & women having (finally) made the "right choice" based upon their acumen & "moral cognizance"...

    Indeed God gets all the credit, as i just substantiated, and which an RC recently attacked me for, but it remains that man is not saved as a comatose soul, but as one who by the grace of God makes a response that otherwise he could not and would not make, versus having merited it by his response.

    And it remains that repentance and faith are requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) which was the point.

    Cocoris wrote in one of his books that he regretted preaching in effect "decision theology"

    That is not at all what i said or was arguing or contrary to what i was, and coaxing sinner's prayers out of souls is unBiblical and a problem in this superficial society. The work of the evangelist is to be a preaching instrument of conviction so that sinners ask, "What shall we do," and yet a command to do something was given, God enabling and motivating. (Acts 2:37,38)

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/28/2015 9:56:02 AM PST · 54 of 55
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    Infant baptism is no special "false confidence" issue -- anymore than what some phrase somebody has mouthed at some point in the past. It goes both ways...and to somehow pretend it doesn't isn't very forthcoming on this subject.

    True indeed, and there was not pretending that the latter was not a problem, while the point is that both are wrong. Glad you agree.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/28/2015 9:55:58 AM PST · 53 of 55
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    Do you know how many times on FR I've had to constantly tell Lds we are primarily baptized into Christ Jesus HIMSELF...and not simply into a church, a sect, a church body, a denomination, or an organization?

    Once again you are overreacting in looking at what i did not say in a certain context and leaping to a conclusion because i did not say what needs to be said in a formal teaching on the subject. The Lord Jesus did not say everything that could be said on the subject of salvation when He told the rich young man to sell all and follow Him to be perfect.

    Of course I know that being "baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13) means being baptized into a person, Christ, who places us into His body.

    Because man is 100% passive when it comes to baptism (yes, I know these baptism verses in the Bible militate versus your apparent unBiblical "choice" theology).

    Only by making "passive" refer to an act of man not being an act because he did it by God's grace. But which is the wrong way to deal with salvation being by faith without works, for as explained before, this does not mean man is comatose in conversion, though not merit of works was the cause.

    Works done due to God's moving and enablement does not means that are not works, as all works that God will reward are a result of that, and yet they are called works, and under grace faith is recompensed in recognition of them. (Heb. 10:35; 1Cor. 3:8ff) .

    12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, HE GAVE THE RIGHT to become children of God— 13 children born NOT of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13) Did you catch that? Did YOU decide to be born? NO? Oh, but you decided to be REBORN?

    This is a superficial analysis, as analogies seldom have complete correspondence in every aspect, but only in the aspect they are invoked for, which in this case is who one is born of and by. That being of God and by God does not negate the FACT that human decision is involved, even if this choice is due to God's moving and enablement.

    That you keep using an extra word "signifies" that isn't to be found in all of these baptism verses (just like too many Evangelicals likewise attach the word "ordinance" to baptism -- even though that word isn't found attached to any of the baptism verses, either!)

    So now we cannot use any words which are descriptive of what Scripture teaches? So much for metaphorical. The clear fact is that Rm. 6 clearly signifies baptism as representing death and rebirth, but since you say it is wrong to use it then it must be dropped.

    [The forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism

    And where is the word "designated" found in all of these baptism verses? What Acts 3:28 says is if one repents and is baptized, which is a human decision, then he will be forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, though it is actually the faith behind the act which appropriates it. (Acts 10:43) And thus by telling them to so something that required that faith then they would assured have what it appropriated. God purifying their hearts by faith.(Acts 15:7-9)

    We've become a 100% grace-based full-beneficiary recipient & hence receive full benefits of all Christ did for us as a free gift (Col. 2:12-15; Titus 3:4-7; 1 Peter 3:21). And don't go stealing glory of powerful divine things that neither you, nor I, can do...

    There is no stealing in teaching a act which is motivated and enabled by God is indeed an act, and a work, though not meriting justification.

    ALL: If you want to know perhaps the #1 untold distinction of how various Christians treat baptism, it lies in this very question: Do you see to be baptized into Christ Jesus as an act of God, or as an act of man.

    Baptism by the Spirit into the body, which is by the kind of faith which is expressed in water baptism but can happen before that act, is an act of God. The act of water baptism by a believer is an act done by man who is moved and enabled by God to do so in obedience to God, which confesses the faith which appropriates forgiveness and justification, just as Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. But who manifested that by offering Issac, which act "justified," validated, him as being a believer. .

    If water baptism effects regeneration then it would be an operation of God via an act by man who does so bcz he is moved and enabled by God to do so. Thus even under your doctrine man is not passive in conversion, while in both cases the act of water baptism does not merit justification, though God blesses obedience.

    Moreover, if you are going to exclude baptism as being a work under the premise that God moves and enables him to do so, the we must exclude all works which God does thru believers from being works, though God recognizes them as works and rewards them.

    If baptism is merely some self-generated "inward act" done by mere men, what? Can we "justify" ourselves?

    That is a strawman, as i never said or inferred that water baptism was any inward act, nor that man effects any, but that God moves and enables man to believe on the Lord Jesus, and which faith is confessed in baptism, but which act does not merit justification.

    Even if "the forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism," meaning baptism is the instrumental means by which one obtains forgiveness, yet this God-enabled act is still one which infants are not shown as being able to make, or need to.

    The Acts' pattern is clear, whether its Pentecost, Paul's conversion, the Ethiopian eunuch, or the Samritans, or the Ephesian dozen in acts 10, or Cornelius, or the Philippian jailer and his family...the pattern is all uniform: baptism is part & parcel of the Gospel and people are power-deniers if they want to de-link baptism to the Holy Spirit as its direct Agent, or de-link baptism to New Life/Salvation, or de-link baptism to empowering of God's Word-in-action, or de-link baptism to forgiveness, or de-link baptism to justification, or de-link baptism from direct adoption into His family.

    Then you have a contradiction which is remedied by understanding that it is the faith that baptism requires and expresses that appropriates justification, not an act.

    For as Peter preached,

    To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

    And as these souls manifested,

    While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (Acts 10:44-46)

    And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

    Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:47-48)

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/28/2015 9:55:51 AM PST · 52 of 55
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    How can an infant believe?

    Let me ask you: How can an adult form Christ in himself? "19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..." (apostle Paul, Gal. 4:19) Adults can't do Biblical requisites for salvation, either!

    Again this is a false dilemma, as you are imagining that an action done by God excludes any God-wrought response by man preceding it from being an act requiring moral cognizance, as well as making that work the instrumental cause of a subsequent work of God.

    You hold that "the forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism," and is directly linked to justification and adoption into His family New Life/Salvation, yet want to deny this act of being baptized as being a responsive work which infants cannot make, such the act of being baptized is one which God moves and enables one to do.

    However, while God certain does move and enable one to do what he otherwise could not and would not do, yet choosing to believe and to be baptized is a stipulated required response by man. (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36,37)

    God certainly could move and enable an infant to believe, but there is no Scriptural teaching that He does this as a norm, but instead He calls all to repentance and faith as a prerequisite for baptism.

    Infants can't believe (but ya know, I've seen a LOT of infants relationally TRUST their mommy's milk supply...and last I knew jesus said eternal life was relational...knowing...trusting...John 17:3)

    That analogy fails, as infants can choose food but are not manifest as culpable for sin, and able to realize their need for a savior, and choose Christ, by God's grace. Conversions in Scripture were preceded conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment, and thus of seeking salvation.

    Also, I'm not sure we should always be discussing baptizing of infants academically...especially given that the Bible that I know talks of at least six people who lived with God from infancy:

    *David: "On you I have leaned from birth" (Ps. 71:6);

    Misappropriation: It says, "By thee have I been holden up from the womb," not choosing to rely in God.

    *From my mother's womb you have been my God" (Ps. 22:10)

    Besides actually saying, "Cast upon womb thou God mother's belly," (Psalms 22:10) the whose Psalm with its poetic language ("I am a worm" "many bulls have compassed me" "as a ravening and a roaring lion") speaks most directly of Christ, and need not literally say that David himself choose God at birth, but can infer that God was his God in caring for him, enabling him to have life and a future from birth, while for Christ as God then God was His God from everlasting, and at birth.

    If David did choose God, then that would be an exception to the norm, and thus it is mentioned as is the case with multitude other exceptions

    *Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-15; 1:5)

    And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)

    So you think Timothy could read scripture as an infant, or is this another example of overreach?

    *John the Baptist... You mean "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb," (Lk. 1:15) Which quite obviously is not the norm, which norm is what you must show.

    * Samuel

    For whom we are told, Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him. (1 Samuel 3:7)

    Which somehow means he choose God as an infant? More carelessness or desperation.

    Joseph

    I cannot even guess what text you are referring to that shows Joseph choosing to believe in God as an infant. Because he had a dream after he could talk?

    Isaac

    Likewise an argument without a text.

    Finally all those people -- like Daniel1212 on this thread -- who said no scriptures are found that specifically say to baptize infants...ignore several Biblical & historical realities:

    1. Every supposed NON "infant baptist" verse of children in the bible also by extension applies to no verses in the Bible that says any aged child -- even teens -- to be baptized!

    Wrong: For the vast majority of descriptions of baptisms are those of souls who repented and believed, manifesting moral cognizance, and thus exclude infants but can include teens, and even souls young enough to "morally "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:16)

    ..."age of accountability" -- also conspicuously absent from the Scriptures

    Wrong: see below, which denotes a time of realization which was not present before. Nor is this age of accountability originally a Mormonic doctrine, but recognized long before that.


    Deuteronomy 1:39 - Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

    James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

    Matthew 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

    Isaiah 7:16 - For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

    With the exception of Tertullian, early church fathers (pre-the 'Rome' of roman catholicism) didn't write against the practice of infant baptism. Origen ...referenced it as "apostolic tradition"...

    Which, along with other traditions of men such held to, testifies to the problem of perpetuation of erroneous traditions due to making tradition equal with Scripture, even if some were unaware of it. Christmas today has centuries of tradition, and is effectively held as required observance, which any minister will realize if he attempt to walk in Scriptural leading in worship.

    Cyprian

    Who was a principle instrument in the Romanizing of the church:

    Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian, finds,

    The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it. The twin process began to operate in the early and middle decades of the third century, with Origen epitomizing the first element and Cyprian the second.

    The effect of Origen’s work was to create a new science, biblical theology, whereby every sentence in the scriptures was systematically explored for hidden [much prone to metaphorical] meanings, different layers of meanings, allegory and so forth...

    Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church.

    With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...

    [Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone...

    ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

    Polycarp (69-155), a disciple alongside John, said at his martyrdom at age 86: "86 years have I searved him."

    That is a doubtful assertion as both your birth and death dates are disputed , and thus 86 years could refer to being from his conversion (and how one serves God is an infant leads to legends).

    Irenaus said that Jesus came to save all through him are bborn again to God...infants, children, boys, ouths, and old men...all stages covered.

    Along with perpetuating other extraScriptural traditions, which here presumes that the Holy Spirit did not think it important to include even one manifest example/description of an infant being baptized, while providing numerous others of believers being baptized, and requiring repentance and faith as conditions of it, unlike circumcision, which is required for infants.

    God knows what He is doing, with in providing what we need and in His silence, which is to be respected, versus adding to His words.

    Furthermore, the overall fruit of those who most preach paedobaptists is that of liberalism, in contrast to those who most preach it follows repentance and faith.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/27/2015 12:17:40 PM PST · 241 of 254
    daniel1212 to don-o
    Perhaps you could ask one question at a time.

    And perhaps you would address mine in post 59.

    Both have been done already.

    Why must "church" refer to an invisible body, versus Godly people of God which are within the visible body progressively showing general consensus as to what and who is of God. Which the powers that be are to affirm, though it remains that what and who is of God are so regardless of magisterial rejection, as it can be wrong.

    Or does being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ mean they are the infallible judges of what and who is of God, and thus that they must be followed?

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/27/2015 8:41:33 AM PST · 50 of 55
    daniel1212 to Colofornian
    Dear Colofornian. I just spent 6 hours typing a 5700+ word response by God's grace to a 2700+ word post (takes me hours to type with my stiff fingers and slow mind) which is the latest in a series, and so it will take me a while before i begin to response to your 23,000 word (total) posts which you posted in the space of 3 hours.

    You must wear out keyboards! Good thing we are rewarded according to the quality and effort of labor.

    I will see what i can do latter after a church meeting with God's help. Now going out to move some old snow.

  • Sungenis Claims: "the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory"

    02/27/2015 8:27:00 AM PST · 86 of 87
    daniel1212 to CpnHook
    This was Adam's initial state. The CC adheres to that. At baptism, justification and sanctification are coterminous. They are not necessarily so beyond throughout the believer's lifetime. When I speak of conflating justification and sanctification, the point is that -- regardless whether you agree or disagree on the Catholic view on the formal cause of justification -- purgatory still has nothing to do with justification (souls undergoing purgatory are already justified, by definition).

    You are avoiding the problem. You rejected my statement that "this myth is based upon a false premise of justification" (based on one's own level of holiness), by stating purgatory pertains to sanctification, yet In baptism one is justified due to his holy sanctified state, and thus is fit to enter Heaven. However, having lost that level of sanctification then he ends up in purgatory until he once again attains to the level of sanctification by which he was justified - though actually he must surpass his baptismal condition and finally attain a perfection of character - to be perfect as God is - which even Adam did not have, else he would not have sinned.

    Thus it remains that purgatory is based upon the false premise of justification being originally attained by one's own holiness making him acceptable to God. For even if this sanctifying holiness was originally infused, the principle at work in both in Cath justification and purgatory is that one must actually become perfectly holy to be accepted by God and thus be with Him. In effect is it salvation by grace thru works, that by God';s grace i practically become perfect in character as God is.

    Which is in stark contrast with than God regenerating and "purifying their hearts by faith," (Acts 15:9) which faith justifies the unGodly by being counted for righteousness (since Christ was accounted guilty, being made sin for us), so that they are always accepted in the Beloved, on Christ's account. (Rm. 3:25-5-1; Eph. 1:6) And thus, if they die in faith, will go to be with God at death or the Lord's return, which is what Scripture most plainly teaches. (LK. 23:39-43; Acts 7:59; Phil. 1:21-23; 2Cor. 5:8; 1Thes. 4:17)

    And with holiness being an essential consequential fruit of faith, and the basis for one being judged to be a believer and fit for rewards, but not the means or basis by which he obtains justification and entrance into Heaven.

    Oh, the twisting. The text doesn't say "follow holiness in general." It speaks of holiness to be pursued and (contrary to your mental rewrite) designates a standard "without which no one will see the Lord." So you see a phrase that is inconvenient to your position and you simply read it to be saying something else. How Protestant of you.

    Oh, the twisting indeed! It does NOT point to a certain level of holiness, as it does NOT say "the" holiness as if this was a certain supreme level (perfect as God) you read into Scripture, but instead it simply says to "follow peace with all, and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord," (Heb. 12:14) Thus the holiness is a general term, not a specific level of holiness.

    Nor does it infer hope of a future purification for those who do not seek holiness. Either one has this fruit of faith or he is not of faith, such as fornicators and Essau whom it goes on to warn again being like.

    Scripture here (as with 2 Cor. 7:1) speaks of a holiness to be pursued. Under your view, it seems, sanctification has already fully and finally been accomplished on account of "faith." I see a disconnect between how you picture sanctification and how the Bible does.

    Regardless of what you see, i never said or inferred sanctification has already fully and finally been accomplished on account of "faith," as instead i affirmed "Scripture warns against ongoing sin, which is a denial of faith, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:26-39; Gal. 5:1-4) and exhorts to seek perfection which pursuit is consistent with saving faith," not something one practically attains at conversion.

    And whether this [2 Corinthians 12:4] signifies a bodily ascension into Heaven or more akin to the vision of Isaiah (Is. 6) can be debated.

    Debated?! Caught up to the third Heaven, to Paradise? So now not only must "absent" from the Lord mean encounter, but paradise means purgatory?

    Though, interestingly, Isaiah experienced a bit of purgation:...Purifying fire? There you have it.

    Certainly it can mean that, yet besides being only a vision, it occurred to Isaiah in this life, and was over in a moment. But while you must now describe being with the Lord as being in purgatory for potentially thousands of years in purifying torment , the only "with the Lord" fire the saints will face in Scripture is that of the judgement seat of Christ, which awaits His return.

    The falsity is that it one gain entrance into Heaven by moral perfection, versus faith which is imputed for righteousness

    How tiring it gets beating back the Protestant "either/or" mentality.

    Once again resorting to sarcasm for want of refutation. Wherever the Bible clearly speaks of the next place for believers after this life then it is with the Lord, while Rome has almost all believers going to purgatory, for which she must attempt to extrapolate it out of a few interpretive texts which do not state this, and has even a criminal attaining perfection of character thru a few hours on the cross.

    And come clean here (pun intended). Is sanctification in your view personal and intrinsic? Or imputed?

    Imputed to those whose hearts are purified by faith. Was Christ actually a sinner, or were our sins placed upon Him in imputed guilt? Therefore the repeated call to believers is to live out what they are in Christ, with the resurrection doing away with this vile body with its affections.

    For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:20-21)

    Which motivates one to seek to be as much like Christ as they can be now (i do want what purgatory promises), but . But not as attaining this in order that they may be with Christ.

    (And the linked article contains a great Scriptural example of the personal/intrinsic view of sanctification: "Psa 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.")

    Which is what we uphold takes place in conversion, yet this does not constitute perfection of character, which takes testings and temptations, and which the Scripture only clearly shows taking place in this life. And the ambiguous Scriptures must conform to to and be understood by the clear ones.

    Protestants are adamant there is no Purgatory (no need for any further sanctification), but pinning them down on what sanctification is, how it's attained (or lost), is a bit the proverbial "like nailing jello to a wall."

    Rather, here the problem is that RCs cannot only see what their Roman mind meld allows them. I have said before that it is that "chastisement [and experience] in this world, with its temptations and trials, is where moral growth in character takes place," like as with Job. And evangelicals have much much teaching on practical growth in holiness, with many groups named for their devotion to this.

    I don't have to assume they were all yet perfectly sanctified, since Paul indicates otherwise (2 Cor. 7:1).

    You do indeed, as the apostle teaches that all believers are going to be with the Lord at His return, and which they expected in their own imperfect lifetimes. And adding i adding error to error, you take a call to perfection of holiness and read into that a requirement for being in Heaven, in order to negate all believers going to be in Heaven.

    Nor do I have to assume that "being with the lord" somehow precludes an element of final purification. So your second objection is means you have to come up with a texts which shows a element of final purification in the presence of the Lord, which is what i provided, (1Co. 3:8ff) and which disallows it from being purgatory!

    Here, you're still stuck on the same "absent from the body" fallacy you suffered from earlier.

    "Fallacy?" Rather it was your example that was manifest to be in error, with your false analogy! It being better to be "absent from the body and be present with the Lord" denote one event meaning another, and does not infer choosing to suffer purifying torments for perhaps thousands of years. It is incongruous in the light of Scripture that such a events like this would even be left out of such a statements.

    So, in your view, it's "let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement in body and spirit and make holiness perfect, [(2 Cor. 7:1] but if we don't, there's really no consequence at all".

    Wrong, as you are reading into my response what i did not say, and not what i did say, which for one is that one will suffer "loss of rewards, (1Cor. 3:15) and thus also (implicitly) the grievous disapproval of the Lord." For realizing the Lord's "Well done" is to be the motivation of a believer, versus being ashamed. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. (1 John 2:28,29)

    Thus Paul, after expressing "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," (2 Corinthians 5:8) does not presenting hope of a future purification, but speaks of the next event, that of the judgment seat of Christ, and finding the Lord's complete approval then.

    Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him, and fearing His displeasure with their fruit. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:9,10)

    The word for accepted, "euarestos" means "fully agreeable," "wellpleasing" in Phi_4:18, Heb_13:21 and "acceptable in Rom_12:1-2 (2), Rom_14:18, Eph_5:10. " And the apostles next adds, "Knowing therefore the terror [phobos=fear] of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." (2 Corinthians 5:11)

    Thus the only postmortem suffering is that of the judgment seat of Christ at His return, and which should be the focus. And which is only for the saved, and which suffering is the loss of rewards by corrupt fruit being burned up and thus the Lord's grievous displeasure, but which consumption is not a means of their sanctification in iorder to see God, but they are saved despite this loss.

    Of course, having (twice) hauled out the fallacious "absent from the body" bit, it was inevitable you'd try the even more fallacious appeal to the Good Thief.

    Of course, the invisible major event interval who place btwn "absent" and "present" is what is fallacious.

    The thief died under the Old Covenant. He was not "born of water and the spirit" (John 3:5) either(whether you view that as a reference to baptism or simply the conversion experience),

    Regardless, the principle is the same. If one needs to "be perfect even as your Heavenly Father is perfect" to see/be with God in paradise, then then OT believers as the contrite criminal here must have a postmortem purification, or else such perfection of character can be achieved by just suffering on a cross, which is a means of atonement, not moral perfection.

    And we know that Jesus did not immediately ascend to heaven, but descended to "preach to the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 3:19). Even casting this into a NT framework, the thief could most certainly have undergone such purification as necessary when the moment came for Jesus to enter Heaven with the OT righteous.

    "Most certainly" means "most certainly' RCs must read that into the text as a reality to convince themselves as the text most certainly does not state or infer that, and the only revelation we have of the postmortem condition of OT believers is that of rest and being comforted. not tormented - now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." (Luke 16:25)

    Moreover, the souls the Lord preached to are said to be those who were "disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah," (1Pt. 3:20) which would be that of preaching judgment to them, that by rejecting Noah then they rejected Him. Likewise does every unbeliever who rejects the light given them, which if obeyed would lead them to Christ.

    It being"not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4) then "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing," (Hebrews 9:8) and thus believers when to paradise, Abraham's Bosom. (Lk. 16:23) But at the moment of the Lord's death when Christ made complete atonement for sin, crying "It is finished," (Jn. 19:30) then that veil which stood before the holiest of all "was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent," (Matthew 27:51) and thus many OT believers "even came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:53) For while the Lord preached judgment to the lost, He set those in Abraham's bosom free, and poured out the Spirit (Jn. 7:39; 15:26; 16:7) and gave gifts to men from the Father, from whom every good and perfect gift comes. (Ja. 1:17)

    Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (Ephesians 4:8-9)

    Abraham's Bosom being emptied, paradise is now the third Heaven, (2Cor. 12:4) not purgatory, and thus the contrite criminal, the "good thief" (Scripture does not actually say he was a thief) went with the Lord to Abraham's Bosom, which is not even inferred to be a place of fiery purgation, and then to Heaven.

    Well, at last we get to your ultimate fall-back assumption -- that a thing would have been clearly stated in writing....Given that Jesus instructs the Apostles "go and teach," rather than "first go write it down" makes your assumption a dubious proposition at the outset. That both Catholic and the E.O., which have consciously sought to "hold fast to the teachings" handed down from the Apostles, accept a notion of a postmortem temporary state for atonement for sin is strong indication that the concept has Apostolic origins.

    That is your fundamental error, as first of all you are attempting to support this tradition from Scripture, which provides clear revelation of Heaven and Hell, and of souls going to one or the other, while a place and experience most every believer must endure is must be argued as "deducible from Scriptural principles," yet even this fails to establish it and contradicts what is clearly stated about the next event for believers after this life.

    And in reality, the claim to "hold fast to the teachings" handed down from the Apostles via amorphous oral tradition, includes the novel premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, which means Rome can make a binding doctrine out of something that is not in Scripture, and leads to what is contrary to what is (saints are only crowned at the Lord's return), and is lacking in evidential early historical support . But under her premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, Rome can potentially claim to "remember" whatever she wants. And which is the rest basis for the veracity of RC doctrine.

    For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    Thus,

    “the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

    Purgatory is implicit, or deducible, from Scriptural principles, much as the Trinity

    But the latter rests upon clear statements of the deity of each person ("the Word was God," "my Lord and my God" "the Spirit of the Lord hath made me," "the Lord is that Spirit" etc.) and of them possessing attributes of personality and uniquely Divine attributes, titles and glory (which i have shown - by God's grace - for Christ in particular). And of God referring to Himself in the plural, all which define "one" and in complimentary totality of necessity reveal God as a trinity of 3 persons of one being and nature.

    The challenge of the Trinity doctrine is really not that is lacks explicit statements of Deity and of uniquely Divine attributes for more than one person, but of reconciling this to "one God," but it is shown that one can mean a composite unity.

    In contrast to Heaven and Hell, as well as the Trinity, purgatory has no clear statements such that another place exists which the majority (lets be realistic) of believers go to, but is first based upon the premise that perfection of character is essential to be with God in Heaven. But which is contrary to clear statements that the next stop for all NT believers after this life in to be with the Lord, and which is set forth as the permanent state. While the only revelation we have for the postmortem status of OT believers before the resurrection was that id that of rest and comfort.

    And it is contrary to the fact that all believers now are washed, sanctified and justified, and accepted in the Beloved, and made to sit together with Christ in heaven, from where they await full conformity with Christ at His coming, and with the only suffering being that of bad fruit being consumed and thus the Lord's displeasure and loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ at His return. (1Cor. 3:8ff) Secondarily purgatory is based upon statements of chastisement which are ambiguous as to where this takes place, and do not speak of attaining perfection of character but of punishment, while in Scripture the only manifest realization of these descriptions is in this life, or the judgment seat of Christ or in Hell. Thus none demand Cath purgatory.

    There is most certainly an "and," unless you think that Adam did not enjoy an original justified state with God. But he did. He enjoyed an original state of holiness AND justice.

    There is no contradiction, for Adam was holy as in undefiled, as innocent, and without a sin nature, and thus was justified by his holiness. Yet while being a perfect creation, meaning undefiled and able to make moral chooses, he did not have perfection of character s God does. And angels which choose not to follow Lucifer did better than him.

    [re: 2 Cor. 7:1]Of course true faith means pursuit of holiness, which is an evidence of true faith, but it is not that of requiring moral perfection to be saved, or saved in the full sense . . .

    You're just winging it here. Again, as with Heb. 12:14 (where you take "holiness without which no one will see the Lord" and water it down to signify a vague "holiness in general") here you take "make holiness perfect" and argue that it isn't talking about any type of perfection.

    Rather, consistent with your inability to see what refutes Rome while seeing what is not there in order to justify your source of security, Heb. 12:14 does not say "the holiness" as if referring to a certain supreme level of holiness, while here i did not argue 2Cor. 7:1 was not talking about any type of perfection, but of perfecting holiness as a requirement to be be saved, or saved in the full sense. Which this does not say, but which RCs insist upon reading into most every exhortation to holiness.

    Instead, imperfect Paul has already told these believers (if they were believers) of their going to be with the Lord at His coming, at the last trump, even if it happened in their lifetime, (1Co. 15:51,52; cf. 1Ths. 4:17) and of his willingness "to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord," with the only event after being absent being that of the judgment seat of Christ. You must insist upon making this mean being with the Lord in purgatory, and which major event Paul forgot to include of thought was superflous to mention!

    which basically places one back under the Law, with justification being attained by practical purity and performance,

    Boy, you really can't stop yourself from bootlegging justification into the discussion.

    There is no bootlegging, for in reality since Cath justification is based upon having a certain level of actual perfect holiness, then so in the end they must again attain it. While in Scripture to be justified is to be accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ, and looking for His return and being glorified and made as totally like Him as we can be, (1Jn,. 3:2) while the only other camp is in the lake of fire, in Catholicism one can be justified but not fit for Heaven or Hell, as one is not good enough for the former and not bad enough (mortal sin) for the latter and thus a third state must be invented.

    I've already addressed your "absent from the body" verse. I guess it makes you feel good to restate the same point.

    Since your address is a dead end then it remains a refutation.

    And why you think 1 Cor. 15 and the future resurrection of the body has applicability to discussion of a present question of sanctification is indeed a "mystery."

    It is not mystery was a RC may not see this due to their blinders, but it is clearly stated that when the Lord returns then believers shall "ever be with the Lord," (1Thes. 4:17) but which your must read as some being be with the Lord in purgatory, even though this is an eternal position, and it is incongruous the apostle would leave out potentially eons of years in suffering for the majority. But RCs can see what they need to for Rome.

    I hadn't brought up 1 Cor. 3:15

    Yet that is a fairly standard "proof text" and supposedly yet absurdly a clincher in the dispute with the Orthodox (another example of the poor light of such).

    So can v. 15 "saved as through fire" be applied in a secondary sense to the individual believer?

    Indeed, Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.." (1 Corinthians 3:8,14)

    St. Augustine (among many others) says "yes" and very directly applies this in the sense of a 'purifying fire.' You say "no." The difficult in making the argument that v. 15 CANNOT be read in Augustine's sense is that the metaphor of the purifying fire is SO consistent throughout the Scriptures:

    What? I nowhere say it was not a purifying fire as in burning up corrupt combustibles, but actually affirmed this. And which is indeed a consistent metaphor throughout the Scriptures. But what you somehow do not see is that the undesirable combustibles burned up her are the works one used in trying to build the church with (directly or indirectly i would surmise).

    And which is not a means of attaining perfection of character, but of testing fruit with the consequential loss or gaining of rewards (i think all will realize at least some rewards).

    Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (1 Corinthians 3:12-13)

    The overall context of chapters 3-5 is what manner of men the Corinthians were following and building His church with, and the Corinthians were, like as Rome promotes, thinking of instruments of God “above what it written” (1Cor. 4:6, and “written” almost always refers to Scripture), and also counting manifestly gross sinners as members, which Paul proceeds to chasten them for. (1Cor. 5) Seeing as the fire of 1 Cor. 3 would exclude such, so were they to exclude such now. (1Cor. 5:11-13)

    The fire burns up the fake stones, which like the tares of Mt. 13:40 at the end, are represented here as wood, hay or stubble, while the precious stones with fire-tried faith (1Pt. 1:7) endure, and gain rewards for the instruments of their faithfulness. Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)

    And which texts and others also reveal that the judgment of believers which 1 Cor. 3 describes only takes place at His return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which has souls suffering upon death. This fact alone disallows 1 Cor. 3 from referring to purgatory.

    Those who lack characteristic practical holiness in the obedience of faith, which (like David) includes repentance when convicted of sin, (1Jn. 1:7-9) but who assent to a different gospel (such as based upon morally earning it: Gal. 5:1-4) or who deny the faith (1Tim. 5:8) by knowingly continuing impenitently in sin, departing from the living God, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:25-39) evidence they have rejected true faith (or never had it) and will be lost if they die in that state, and not go to purgatory.

    "Meriting one's way into Heaven" is Pelagianism, which the Catholic Church has expressly condemned.

    Then if you think teaches being one being saved by faith, not on the basis of the merit of works, (Eph. 2:8,9) but judged to be a true believer (Heb. 6:9) and fit to be rewarded for works, (Mt. 25:31-40; Rv. 3:4) versus having "truly merited eternal life" as Trent states, and that the good works that one performs by the grace of God merits the attainment of eternal life itself, with "merit” meaning recompense which is owed, then whatever distinction is missed by the masses.

    So you take the bad paraphrase you make of the Scripture and paraphrase my example accordingly. Brilliant.

    Rather, that is more recourse to sarcasm faced with a losing argument on your part, as the second was not a paraphrase (saying the same thing with different words), but a rendition that showed what consistency with the text would warrant, while the first was an accurate summation, that Paul "yet expressed that he would be with the Lord, not purgatory, if he left and became absent from the body," as he provides two contrasting either/or mutually exclusive possibilities, not even inferring a major event which most all will experience according to your doctrine.

    And which follows from the mutually exclusive scenario of 2Co 5:6: "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord."

    While you would also read into this a third alternative by analogy if needed to defend Rome, instead the more you defend your denial of what Scripture most clearly says then the more your sophistry is revealed. Brilliant.

    I'm saying Purgatory (the final application of God's sanctifying grace) can be understood as a very intense "being present" with the Lord once we are absent from the body. So you're frequent appeal to 2 Cor. 5:8 is misplaced

    No, it i not misplaced, as instead purgatory is mis-placed if it did exist, as the only place of suffering after this life is with the Lord at the judgment seat of Christ, as heretofore described, at His return, not an ongoing perfection of character commencing at death.

    Paul explicitly states that God will render (reward) eternal life in accordance with works (Rom. 2:6-7)

    Which i have affirmed, and which does not all militate against what i said. 'By their fruit ye shall know them," as God does.

    . It's one of those verses as a Catholic I can read more straightforwardly (correctly understanding the "works" in view) than can Protestants (who have to do more textual manipulation).

    No more than a Mormon can read more straightforwardly read Scripture as showing God having many human body appendages as an exalted man. Until they get to the feathers by which logic He would be a bird).

    Which incredibly is the best you have,

    Only when trying to hold this discussion under your restricted frame of authority. The better support I have is a church Jesus constituted with a true teaching authority

    Which incredibly is the best you have, an autocratic church under which tradition, Scripture and history only means what she says in any dispute, and which cannot be allowed to contradict her. Brilliant.

    (this can be Scripturally demonstrated),

    No, it cannot be, as the claim is not simply historical continuity, at whatever cost, and which can be debated, but that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (EPMI), under which the evidence means what she says. For which the argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16, etc.)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

    I find that to be a good authority. If I can trust (as I do, and you do implicitly) they correctly recognixed the Scriptural books, I can for the same reasons accept they preserved correctly the basics of this afterlife notion.

    Do you really understand want to know where this logic leads to?

    And the more fanciful examples from the Talmud you gave were not such that were carried forward, if ever they had acceptance in the Apostolic years. It's a wheat and chaff sort of thing which the Spirit guides.

    But which is determined by a self-proclaimed autocratic entity which can presume to call things that were not of God as if they were. As thru "spirit guides" indeed.

    Besides others , the Holy Spirit provides over 200 hundred prayers by believers in Scripture, but absolutely zero are addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, with the only offerings and supplications being any else is by pagans such as to the only Queen of Heaven" in Scripture.

    Nor are any created beings shown able to hear and respond to so many prayers addressed to them (elders and angels offering prayers as a memorial at the end do not constitute that) , or of any conversation btwn created beings that did not require them to both be in the same realm.

    Yet this is a most basic practice we are to believe was part of the common life of believers, and all else failing as it does, support is extrapolated out of human relationship, but which ignores the separation of realms in which only God is shown being addressed in prayer to Heaven and and able to hear multitudinous prayers to Heaven.

    There is a difference in view on the primacy of the Roman see,

    Typical understatement. Rejecting ensured papal infallibility is no small difference, and in Rome the authority of the bishops themselves flows from that.

    You raise the Papacy as significant, but that goes to church polity.

    The papacy is significant as purporting that the NT church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme in Rome as their exalted head, which is invisible in the NT. You Joseph Smith's googles to see it.

    Also presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denote the same office, (Titus 1:5-7) though one may have oversight over more than one church. You can disagree on the exact model of church government, which should actually work toward a central magisterium of manifest male presbuteros of God and spiritual power, as in Scripture it was not by institutionalized forms but the manifest moving of and empowerment by God the leadership was established by. And not as in the Romanized system, whose pseudoPetrine successors lack both the requirements and credentials of apostles. (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)

    What exact model befita this should be another thread as it warrants extended definitions and examination.

    Or, that is to say, how do you purport to measure departure from "NT historic Christianity" when you don't know what that is?

    That is absurd, as this refers to a number of manifest main and plain things which Rome in particular stands in stark contrast to, while it is RCs who evidence they do not know or do not care what Scripture says to the contrary, as what Rome says is the supreme law, as it must be for you. This the primary issue is the premise of her ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

    Enough said.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/26/2015 2:18:17 PM PST · 207 of 254
    daniel1212 to don-o
    I am an Orthodox Christian.

    Ok. I thought you were the husband of Mrs. don-o, and thus i assumed you were both RC. But while EO theology tends to be less technical and precise, and it would seem you are at odds with the premise than a perpetually infallible papal magisterium is essential, would you care to explain why none of my questions apply to you?

  • Faith Alone v. Forgiving Trespasses: How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    02/26/2015 7:24:11 AM PST · 197 of 420
    daniel1212 to metmom; tjd1454
    And just where on FR have you ever seen anyone advocate that now that we're saved we can commit any sin with impunity? That charge is laid at the feet of Christians ONLY BY the RC's, who accuse us of believing that. I have yet to see ONE poster advocate that. Perhaps you could point us to the post where someone has said that.

    I think you need to take into account that this is from a poster whom i have never seen posting on the RF till i quickly searched just now, yet he states has "a Ph.D. in Theology from a Jesuit University, and my B.A. and M.A. from well-known Evangelical colleges" who believes in salvation by faith, but who also sees believe that “faith without works is dead.”

    Which is what Reformers preached , and evangelicals far more testify to than the fruit of Rome , yet in reflection of society ever our faith has become more superficial than in Scripture.

    Moreover, sadly tjd1454 apparently does not see Rome as an adversary of real salvific faith, unlike reformers and so many founders of American, and imagines we can have a united from with elitist coreligionists as we supposedly have a "shared faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior," which itself is a form of declension. And i need to be stronger in faith and love for God, souls and the Truth.

  • Faith Alone v. Forgiving Trespasses: How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    02/26/2015 6:56:35 AM PST · 192 of 420
    daniel1212 to pgyanke; Mark17
    Says who? You?

    A good question. Certainly the magisterial office is Scriptural, as Westminster affirms, and has authority, but the question (asked of another also) is whether being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means they are the infallible judges as to what is of God and what it means?

    How about the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth... The Church.

    And just what do you extrapolate out of this text, based upon what it says in Greek? And has this verse been infallible defined as meaning what you say, or are you validating personal interpretation of Scripture as long as you say it supports Rome?

    Sure, there was the suggestion that we might choose that course of action as a solution to our sinfulness... but it wasn't a direct command.

    So "if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (Matthew 5:29) is not a direct command but further on "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48) is?

    You define the term too narrowly: Door is also defined "any means of approach, admittance, or access:" Seems to fit to me.

    Nor is everything literal, and the point is that only the metaphorical view is consistent with both John and the rest of Scripture.

    First, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc

    And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

    To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths must also insist this was literal. After all, David clearly said it was blood and refused to drink it, consistent with the Law, and this poured it out as an offering unto the Lord.

    As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

    And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

    And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

    And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

    And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

    And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

    Moreover, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

    • In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

    • In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

    • In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

    • In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

    • In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

    • In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

    • In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

    • In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

    • In John 6, Jesus is the bread of life — but who does not give His physically flesh to eaten tio gain life, any more than He lives by the Father by eating His, (Jn. 6:57) but reveals that like as the Son lived by every word which proceeded from the mouth of God, (Mt. 4:4) and thus doing the Father's will was His "meant," (Jn. 4:24) so the flesh itself profits nothing, but the words He spoke are spirit and are life. (Jn. 6:63)

    And nowhere in Scripture was physically eating anything literal the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, but which by believing the word of God, the gospel. By which one is born again. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

    And which is consistent with the rest of John, in which not only is faith in Christ, not eating, the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, but like as in Jn. 6, John often reveals the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning.

    In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.

    Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

    And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)

    Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

    And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.

    And again, in so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)

    And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

    And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)

    And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:

    What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

    And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..

    And which is made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation For as shown, the fact is that the allegorical understanding of Jn. 6:27-69 is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, and again, which nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which manner of eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative according to the literalistic interpretation. Which RCs do not take fully literally as they render it an unbloody blood and transubstantiated presence, nor do they exclude all who do not believe the Cath. theory from having eternal life.

    Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.

    Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission

    he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

    The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

    ...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

    And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

    ...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

    The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

    ...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

    There may be some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/26/2015 5:53:45 AM PST · 184 of 254
    daniel1212 to xone; Elsie
    Special badges or dress for Jews Special taxes for Jews Forcing Jews to remit debt of Christians Banning, confiscating or burning Jewish law books and other writings. Encouraging or forcing conversion of Jews Expelling Jews from Papal territories or forcing Jews to live in ghettos. Inquisition for backsliding converted Jews

    Where is the "see no evil" pic? 🙈 🙉 🙊

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/26/2015 5:48:04 AM PST · 182 of 254
    daniel1212 to don-o; redleghunter; CynicalBear; Greetings_Puny_Humans; dartuser; metmom
    Because I have no interest in the magisterium. I asked a simple question in post 59. It is based on a snip from the OP. Of course, it is the acme of foolishness to try to discuss the content of the article that was posted.

    What? An RC who has no interest in the magisterium? And you ask questions that challenge an argument without having an alternative to how one is to know what is Scripture? So your argument is not that if the consensus of the church is invoked then it must be an affirmation of the church of Rome via its magisterium, and that this means it is to be followed in all things?

    Instead, it seems obvious to me that you are avoiding my questions because they challenge that alternative. If you have none, say so, if you do, tell me what it is.

    Why must "church" refer to an invisible body, versus Godly people of God which are within the visible body progressively showing general consensus as to what and who is of God. Which the powers that be are to affirm, though it remains that what and who is of God is so regardless of magisterial rejection, as it can be wrong. Or does being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ mean they are the infallible judges of what and who is of God, and thus they must be followed?

    Unless you answer my questions then you are simply a protester that has no real argument, like liberals.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/25/2015 7:09:03 PM PST · 155 of 254
    daniel1212 to don-o
    Where exactly do you see that? Where, beyond a sola apologetic? How do you know that your scenario is what happened?

    Easy, it is implicit in Scripture, in which men discerned what is of God versus what is not, without an infallible magisterium. Do you deny that? Tell me how the Scriptures, by which substantiation the NT church established Truth claims upon, came to be established as authoritative Scripture.

    And how come you did not answer my questions?

  • Sungenis Claims: "the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory"

    02/25/2015 7:02:50 PM PST · 84 of 87
    daniel1212 to CpnHook
    Again, you're conflating sanctification and justification and erecting much the same strawman for which I chided you earlier.

    Again, you are ignoring that Rome has justified due to sanctification (state of holiness) in the beginning and thus have souls seeking to obtain that sanctification in the end. Except in reality this is not merely being forgiven, by attaining a level of perfection of character.

    This is spoken to a group of believers, those who had come to Jesus Christ. Yet, sanctification is stated as something ongoing, something yet to be perfectly attained. And "the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord" indicates a standard - a level of perfection -- that is necessary.

    Wrong. It says nothing about a level of perfection, nor to seek "the sanctification" without which no one will see the Lord - as there is not "the" as if to denote a certain level - but simply to follow after holiness in general, which is indeed a necessary fruit salvific faith.

    Paul himself testified that he was not already perfect, (Phil. 3:12) yet was cught up to the 3rd Heaven, "into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:4) And expressed that he, along with other believers, would be with Lord once absent from the body. (2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-23).

    Intrinsic righteousness isn't a "false premise." You plucked out one line from the Catholic Encyclopedia; following that it lays out the Scriptural bases for that view.

    It is indeed a false premise, nor did i misrepresent what the CE said, as i stated this was initially via infused holiness via baptism, while in purgatory it is thru fiery torments. The falsity is that it one gain entrance into Heaven by moral perfection, versus faith which is imputed for righteousness, through they are washed but not morally perfect in character, just as sin was imputed to Christ, though He was perfect in character.

    For one, you must assume that all the Thessalonians (and believers) had attained perfection in character in the 1st c. since if the Lord returned then they would ever be with the Lord. (1Thes. 4:17)

    And in speaking to the problematic Corinthians he basically states the same thing, with no mention at all of their next stop being purgatory, though if any believers of these letters needed it, then it was them.

    And it can hardly be presumed that the contrite criminal attained this same perfection of character in just a few hours on the cross. More penitence and suffering does not make one perfect in character, as only Christ was, as it requires testing of faith under various kinds of temptation, which Scripture incontrovertibly only presents this world as providing. Thus the Lord Himself was made "perfect" here, in the sense of being tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15)

    If a such postmortem purification was necessary for most all, then we would certainly see it clearly taught, saving Catholics from "it could be," arguments and extrapolations

    Adam was created in an original state of holiness and justice with God.

    There is no "and." Adam was holy as one who was undefiled.

    Baptism, which effects an infusion of grace, restores us to that state of original justice and holiness first enjoyed by Adam. So in that sense, baptism both justifies and sanctifies the recipient. But the inclination toward sin resulting from Adam persists, and ongoing sin is defiling. Hence, the lifelong struggle for sanctification.

    But in reality, the baptized is justified by this holiness/sanctification. Which means he must usually regain it in the end of his salvation system.

    Of course, there is inconsistency here.

    That inconsistency is simply a function of your misunderstanding the Catholic point of view.

    A mere assertion, but in fact there is inconsistency, as you have the newly baptized fit for Heaven with no further refinement at baptism, though he may have a multitude of character flaws that will show up. And then you demand not simply atonement and the washing of sins, but a level of perfection of character to see the Lord/enter Heaven.

    "...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224 )

    But that souls must attain moral perfection is what RCs teach.

    Yes, as that is what Scripture indicates: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt. 5:48. The heavenly Father (like Jesus) is not merely 'covered' in righteousness; he is morally perfect, entirely free of any element of sin.

    Which is a classic proof-text proffered by purgatory polemicists, which examples isolationist superficial exegesis of Scripture. For in context the Lord was giving an exhortation to be like God, perfect, as in treating enemies as He does, referring to a kind of excellence, working toward a degree of excellence.

    And likewise the apostles states, "Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children," (Ephesians 5:1) but which is not a command to be perfect in order to become a child of God (v. 45) and or see Heaven, which being born again is, (not "Verily verily, "I say unto you, unless you become perfect as your Heaven Father, you shall in no wise see the kingdom of God"), which neither this nor the rest of Scripture where it plainly speaks of the postmortem or postterrestrial place or experience of believers will support. From the contrite criminal to the Corinthians to the Thessalonians etc. the next stop is always with the Lord.

    Instead, RCs must rely on texts which refer either to this life or the lost, or the judgment seat of Christ, or to holiness being a necessary fruit of saving faith, but not earning it or requiring one to be as perfect as God in order to see Heaven.

    Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God." 2 Cor. 7:1 This is another instance where Scripture indicates that there is an ongoing need for sanctification, an ongoing pursuit to "make holiness perfect."

    Of course true faith means pursuit of holiness, which is an evidence of true faith, but it is not that of requiring moral perfection to be saved, or saved in the full sense, which basically places one back under the Law, with justification being attained by practical purity and performance, just will more help given. Salvation by grace thru works.

    Paul has already told these Corinthians that We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8) and that when the Lord returns then that is when they would experience their bodily change,

    Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

    And that they would then face the judgment seat of Christ, (1Cor. 3:8ff), which not about making postmortem expiation for sin and or being purified, but about receiving or losing rewards, with fire consuming any false building material one used for building the church (tares vs. wheat), directly or indirectly i assume. But with the only suffering being the consequential suffering of loss of rewards, (1Cor. 3:15) and thus also (implicitly) the grievous disapproval of the Lord.

    Yet one is not saved because of this consumption of dead fruit, but despite of it. And which only takes place after His return. (2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev. 11:18)

    However, what Caths do, since they hope to merit their way into Heaven, is presume every call to holiness is a call to moral perfection of character, which is contrary to what Scripture clearly reveals.

    Paul himself testified that was not yet perfect, yet expressed thatr he would be with the Lord, not purgatory, if he left and became absent from the body.

    You should be ashamed to trot out that standard poor paraphrase: We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5:8 Nothing in that text precludes a notion of a "final sanctification."

    What? It is you who should be ashamed of taking away and adding to the word of God! He distinctively states that out of two options, to stay or leave, his next stop if choosing the latter is to be with the Lord,

    . It's like me saying "I'd rather be away from the office and at home with my wife." Does that mean the instant I step out of the office I'll be at home?"

    No, it is like you saying, To be absent from the office is to be at home with my wife," and in this case your office is essentially next store as it is possible for you to be there instantly. You need to take that polemic back to Catholic Answers for a refund. At best what you are doing is reading into the text a possibility based upon what you want the grammar to allow for, but the plain import is that to be absent from my body, is to be with the Lord.

    And which the context supports, as thus Paul labored that he would receive "Well done" at the judgment seat of Christ (2Cor. 5:9,10) i referred to above, which was the next event on Paul's calendar, versus laboring in order to escape purgatory.

    In any case, since Purgatory is the final application of Jesus's sanctifying grace, I see no reason to view it as an "absence" from the Lord. To the contrary, it could be seen as a rather intense encounter with Him, as a Father disciplines a child (see Heb. 12).

    Now that is by necessity creative. To be absent is to have an encounter? Rather, to be absent from the Lord means not to be with Him, while to be with the Lord means to be with the Lord, which Scripture promises believers after this leaving life.

    Only intense encounter with the Lord after this life is that of the judgment seat of Christ described above, but they are indeed with the Lord.

    RCs can imagine that one can be justified yet not fit to enter Heaven, but that is simply not the plain teaching of Scripture.

    To the contrary, Scripture contains repeated warnings against ongoing sin and the converse exhortations to make holiness perfect. And Scripture indicates a standard ("Be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect;" "nothing unclean shall enter")

    Which conclusion simply does not follow from the premise, for of course Scripture warns against ongoing sin, which is a denial of faith, (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:26-39; Gal. 5:1-4) and exhorts to seek perfection which pursuit is consistent with saving faith, but not the latter as a condition for salvation, for which Scripture clearly states is appropriated by effectual faith, and immediately makes one accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ in heavenly places, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and who will be with the Lord at death or at His return, whichever comes first.

    Such faith is characterized by "things which accompany salvation," Godly character, esp. love of the brethren, (Heb. 6:9,10) and pursuit of practical holiness, and repentance when convicted of sin. Thus one who impenitently sins will-fully after receiving "the knowledge of the truth" (a synonym for believing the gospel: Ti. 2:4) is one who is drawing back to perdition.

    Conversely, since saving faith is characterized by works of faith, those who manifest such are judged to be saved, and fit to be rewarded under grace, (Heb. 10:35; Rv 3:4) which faith God rewards souls for in recognition if its effects even though they owe all to Him, and their wages for sin really means Hell. (Rm. 6:23)

    But it remains that what made them counted as righteous and accepted in the Beloved in the first place was not their holiness, and Abraham was a good man before Gn. 15:6, but faith as imputed as righteousness, at the same time they are enabled to live thusly.

    Abraham was counted as righteous for believing that God could so what he utterly could not, and likewise one can never become good enough to be with an infinitely holy God.

    However, Caths see grace as a means of becoming holy enough in actual character to be with God, as if Christ only provided an atonement, yet which does deliver them from postmortem atonement torment, and explain away the examples of believers going to be with the Lord at death or the Lord's return as pertaining a class of believers non-Scripturally distinctively titled "saints."

    Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven, but believers are not the unclean, but washed, sanctified and justified, and made to sit with Christ, and are told they will be with the Lord at death or His return .

    You (like many) see one verse you like and stop there.

    Nice trry but it is you who are relying upon interpretive texts in isolation and not on what the NT collectively teaches wherever it clearly refers to the believers next stop after this life. And i expect more of the same.

    LOL. Given the Protestant objection to Purgatory is the absence of what they see as a clear positive Scriptural confirmation of such, their posture is mostly "an argument from silence." You're funny.

    Your recourse to sarcasm only examples your sophistry, as it is clear that the Protestant objection to Purgatory is not simply the absence of what they see as a clear positive Scriptural confirmation of such, but it is primarily the fact that wherever the Scriptures manifestly speak of the believers place in the next life, they only teach of believers being with the Lord. You can only wish you had the same for your mythical place.

    OK. How about this? 25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. Matt. 5:25-26 The verses come in the context of many that speak to judgment and eternity. So the context is eschatological. The 'judge' is clearly God. Our 'accuser' is Divine Justice. If we have not satisfied our accuser before being judged (through atonement while on earth), then we are not 'released' from that obligation in the afterlife until atonement is complete ('paying the last penny'). Which incredibly is the best you have, yet even this fails to provide what you desperately need to counteract the clear texts to the contrary of your extrapolated conclusion, and instead you must declare as fact that this pertains to suffering in purgatory in the afterlife. However, first note immediate context is that of settling accounts with your brother who has a valid charge against you, "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift," (Matthew 5:24) which otherwise is the adversary. It reasonably follows that this serves as a warning to settle accounts lest you face Divine justice. but not with the adversary being Divine justice, but the one who has something against you, be it individual or body, else the Lord Jesus, who shall judge living and dead, shall send His officer/servant to deal with thee. Not that this describes an impenitent man, not some forgetful saint or one merely with some character flaws, and the punishment here is retributive, not for refinement of character such as Job endured. Looking for application of this, we this manner of judgment in this life, as in the case of the incestuous man in 1Cor. 5, whom the Lord, thru Paul and the church, pressing charges and delivering an impenitent man over to the devil for the destruction of his flesh, until he is brought to repentance. Apart from chastisement in this life, the only other application is that of the judgment of the impenitent lost, 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. (Matthew 13:41-42) In this case the "till [heōs an] thou hast paid the uttermost farthing" - to the utmost extremity - refer to as if it were possible, but which really denotes hopelessness, as for the impenitent, "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Hebrews 10:26-27) RCs themselves contend heōs (at least by itself) can denote ongoing. The Ethiopic version reads it, "till thou hast exactly paid all"; which seems to express the inexorableness of the creditor, and the impossibility of the debtor's release. (Gill) Thus while you attempt to build your building upon this interpretive verse, it fails to manifestly teach purgatory, both by failing to establish this as pertaining to the afterlife and by being contrary to the manner of persons it is for.

    In my prior post, I showed where Tertullian (writing in 203 C.E.) utilizes this same passage in much the same sense. No medieval invention here. Which does not help, as neither Rome nor myself esp. hold the fathers as determinative in doctrine, nor do they universally all agree with themselves or Rome.

    n contrast is being justified by faith, a faith which effects obedience which justifies one a being a true saved believe, and fit to be rewarded under grace, though in justice what he actually deserves is Hell.

    That is the contrast Protestants set up, though I find much Scriptural warrant for the Catholic view of intrinsic righteousness. By contrast, the notion that "faith effects obedience" isn't as clearly borne out. Protestants very often seem to exhibit this view that once one pushes the "faith" button, that obedience and good works will automatically roll off the assembly line. Scripture doesn't state that obedience automatically follows faith.

    What Bible are you misunderstanding? Scripture does indeed teach that true faith always effects obedience, given opportunity, and thus it calls them saved who do obey. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12) We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13) What you do always manifests what you really believe, even if at that moment, while failure to act according to what you profess shows you do not really believe it. Thus James says,

    Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)

    Hence, the frequent warnings in Scripture to the faithful not to be overconfident, not to relax into sin, to urge the faithful to obey the commandment to love. In fact, Paul has a whole segment on "if I have faith, but have not _____" Believers exhibit obedience to widely varying degrees.

    Which are exhortations to continue in the faith, and warnings against unbelief. If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:23)

    Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12) Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35)

    Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:38-39)

    aspects of purgatorial belief and practice find precedent in pre-Christian Jewish thought and practice. OK, that was the point I was making.

    As do all sorts of nonsense and other myths. That was the point I was making

    C'mon, be serious. How on earth do you think appealing to the E.O. helps you here? All you're doing is showing again how Protestantism is a departure from historic Christianity.

    Oh, rather quotes as "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional," (Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135) example how 2 tradition-based competitors for the title "one true church" can significantly (even if their purgatory is close), while the deformity of both from NT historic Christianity is clearly evident , more so in Rome.

    And at some point, perhaps, we'll have occasion to consider the response of Patriarch Jeremiah II to the Lutheran Theologians. (Short answer: "stop misreading the Church Fathers; get out of here with your noveau theology.")

    Oh i am sure there are some here that could get into that with you, but even with their variety they tend to more serve as an example of how errors of tradition can be perpetuated, and even Rome judges them more than they judge her.

    And finally, purgatory remains wanting to be proved, while what is clear is that they next stop for believers - if they are true holiness seeking believers - is with the Lord in spirit. With the only future change besides that being at Lord's return ,

    Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:21) Which is not in purgatory.

  • Faith Alone v. Forgiving Trespasses: How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    02/25/2015 1:26:05 PM PST · 26 of 420
    daniel1212 to NYer
    How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    Just refuted, but what the Lord's Prayer does Contradict is praying to anyone but the Lord, as the Lord instructs "Our Father who art in Heaven," not "Our Mother." The Holy Spirit provides over 200 prayers in Scripture, but not one single one addressed to anyone else in Heaven by the Lord.

    That the Lord Jesus can be prayed to is a testimony to His deity.

    Only pagans are show making supplications to someone else, that being the only Queen of Heaven in Scripture. (Jer. 44)

    Nor is there any other heavenly intercessor but Christ, (1Pt. 2:5) whom the Holy Spirit sends us to as uniquely qualified and able and who alone is said to ever do so. (Heb. 2m4; 7:25)

    Nor is any created being shown having the Divine ability to hear virtually infinite amounts of prayer from earth.

    Angels and elders offering prayers as a memorial at the last days does not do it, and and attempting to extrapolate PTDS from earthly relations ignores the manifest division God set up btwn the two realms, which requires both to be in the same realm for any two way communication.

  • Faith Alone v. Forgiving Trespasses: How the Lord's Prayer Contradicts the Reformation

    02/25/2015 12:50:44 PM PST · 17 of 420
    daniel1212 to NYer; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. So to be forgiven, you must forgive. If you do, you'll be forgiven. If you don't, you won't be. It's as simple as that.

    Another objection due to superficial consideration. Sola fide refers to the means of appropriating forgiveness, God "purifying their hearts by faith" as Peter said, (Acts 15:7-9) referring to souls being washed and born again before baptism, and thus confessing the Lord thereby, but which is not contrary to repentance and what that may require.

    For to believe on the Lord Jesus is to assent to obey Him, according to light realized. And asking forgiveness means we must be forgiving, and this prayer is dealing with believers. Who by faith, have God as their Father, but who will work to chasten them unto repentance if they do not repent, or repent fully.

    But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:32)

    That is where even torment in this life may come in, in working to preserve souls by faith from the torment that would result from "an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." (Heb. 3:12)

  • Repentance

    02/25/2015 12:34:42 PM PST · 96 of 178
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:1-2)

    But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:26)

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/25/2015 12:30:45 PM PST · 125 of 254
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    Luther nor did Popes write Scriptures

    And while both are invoked for support, both have things which impugn their character, but which for RCs is more critical, as they are far more leadership-intensive, as seen by the daily posts on the pope for months.

    And if Luther has letters were invoked by Nazis, Rome has actions and provided much for antisemitism. But cultic defenders of Rome only see what is in someone else's eye.

    In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

    “the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9). More in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 . And see here .

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/25/2015 12:22:01 PM PST · 120 of 254
    daniel1212 to don-o; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Is there supposed to be an answer in the block of Scripture to my question: How is consensus derived from an invisible entity"?

    Where is he making that assertion? I see the people of God within the visible churches overall progressively establishing certain writings as being "Divine classics" by them being on their "best sellers list" (essentially due to their excelling qualities and attestation) without an infallible magisterium?

    If I were a Christian living in that time and place, how would I know how to find the invisible church so I could participate in building the consensus?

    Does this presuppose the people of God can correctly discern both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium.

    Or is Cardinal Avery Dulles right in saying, "People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received it from on high.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72;

    ...It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

    And is your argument that being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ means they are the infallible interpreters of it, and thus we must submit to them, or is it possible these instruments and stewards (via the magisterial authority) can sometimes be wrong?

    And how critical is an infallible canon?

    Hope your wife is doing better, and resting in Christ as Savior.

  • How We Got the Bible

    02/25/2015 11:46:58 AM PST · 115 of 254
    daniel1212 to redleghunter; CynicalBear; daniel1212; metmom; Mark17; NKP_Vet; editor-surveyor; roamer_1
    What they don’t realize is that the position “the Catholic Church gave us the Bible” nukes them. For in this supposed man-made approval process is a collection of books which clearly condemn their church.

    Not only, but the logic behind this polemical assertion is that the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation are the infallible interpreters of it, which are to be submitted to. And you know what this leads to.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 8:28:17 AM PST · 173 of 177
    daniel1212 to Elsie; Alex Murphy; RnMomof7
    It was so bad one-sided a few years ago; that I thought JimRob must be a Catholic!

    One RC even asserted that he was (despite such inferences otherwise as this ).

    Another interesting posts from the past: Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone?

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/25/2015 8:24:59 AM PST · 42 of 55
    daniel1212 to LeoMcNeil
    Like I said, you don’t have a proper understanding of the connection between the Old and New Testament covenants.

    Like I showed, you don’t have a proper understanding of the differences between the Old and New Testament covenant, even incredibly asserting "The old covenant isn’t different from the new covenant, it is only extended beyond Israel"!

    Circumcision is forward looking, it looks to Christ. Baptism looks to the work of Christ which has already been done.

    Indeed, that is not in contention, but shadows do not have complete correspondence to their fulfillment, and you continue to insist on ignoring them. Again, under the Old circumcision is stipulated for infants, which placed then within an physical nation of lost and saved, and which waged war by physical means, but circumcision was not contingent upon repentance and faith (infants and slaves had no choice), though obedience was required.

    Baptism signifies being made by faith part of a spiritual nation only made up of believers, having passed from death to life, being crucified with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life. (Rm. 6) and is never stipulated for infants, but repentance and faith are, with the only baptisms in which the state of the believers are mentioned being those who were morally cognizant and able to fulfill those conditions.

    That is the plain teaching of Scripture, in contrast to the eisegesis of paedobaptists, leaving them to extrapolate infant baptisms out of a few simple statements of whole household baptisms, as if the Holy Spirit would not provide a manifest example for infant baptism while providing many examples of believers baptism. Yet which you incredibly must deny is not the plain teaching of scripture, in order to support your tradition.

    Your problem is that you view baptism as a meaningless ritual which is why you discount the several occasions when scripture says the entire household or family was baptized.

    I do not view baptism as a meaningless ritual any more than the Lord's supper or putting on a ring in a marriage, but as repentance and faith is the stated required condition, and the only examples we have of the morally cognizant condition of the baptized is that they were able to choose Christ, then baptizing infants leaves them wet, and does not signify that they have passed from death to life, being crucified with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life. And instead it can give them a false confidence that they are already children of God.

    You get so close when you cite 1 Cor. 7:14 because that passage teaches us that even the children of one believer are blessed. Paul is clearly teaching that even in families where only one parent is a believer, those children are entitled to admission into the covenant via baptism. You’re denying children Christ by denying them admission into God’s covenant.

    That is absurd, and is another example of how carelessly or willingly you compel Scripture to support your tradition! For this text neither says or infers baptism, and what it actually shows is that the family is sanctified by God even though they are not believers and baptized! For the unbelieving husband is under that umbrella of sanctification as are the children! Baptism is not here or in their closet.

    And are infants are guiltless, which are not be condemned, then they do not need salvation, while as soon as "the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," (Isaiah 7:16) then he can believe on Christ and be baptized. This needs to be emphasized, while it is those who give souls the false idea that they became part of the family of God via paedobaptism who are fostering their absence from God’s covenant.

    Time to move on, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God. (Hebrews 6:1) (Hebrews 6:1-2)

  • Repentance

    02/25/2015 6:43:46 AM PST · 55 of 178
    daniel1212 to metmom
    I guess the rule of the day for RC's is..... *The less evidence there is to support it, the more true it has to be.*

    And the more it must be promoted. Consider the Assumption, and the claim to remember, using a misappropriated text.

    Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

    But,

    subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 6:39:55 AM PST · 169 of 177
    daniel1212 to MamaB

    Glory to God. Thanks

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 6:38:19 AM PST · 168 of 177
    daniel1212 to stanne
    It is an anti catholic site. I’m on record as having stated so

    I never said I didn’t want this to be an anti Catholic site.

    Fine; you can argue with the many RCs who whine about it. But i rarely have never even seen you on the RF.

    It’s an observation. Catholics don’t fade at criticism and anti Catholicism

    They do indeed, as i can show you post after post in which RCs whine or cannot defend Roman traditions from the Scriptures, but must resort to manifest egregious extrapolation in seeking to support such.

    For indeed, the weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching (else they would be as evangelicals), and thus RCs are not to engage in searching them in order to ascertain the truthfulness of RC teaching.

    Care to differ or defend that?

    For the basic RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God

    Care to differ or defend that? Put the gloves on boaster.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 6:30:08 AM PST · 165 of 177
    daniel1212 to stanne
    The what you call the presumptions of the Church, the Church itself, is never challenged here.... Not curious enough to consult the theologians, the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications.

    Yet here is one i sent to you just a few day ago which is based upon Catholic teaching.

    A challenge like facing a champion boxer in the ring wearing no gloves, wearing street clothes.

    Really, then what did i not received any reply from you on that in my posts to you except things like "Blah blah blah Take it up with the theologians in the Church"? Or Ask Cardinal Dolan. He’ll be at the NYC Parade.

    Which means you are unwilling to put the gloves on, which retreat admits defeat.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/25/2015 6:10:25 AM PST · 160 of 177
    daniel1212 to stanne; Elsie; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; BlueDragon
    Note that catholic is almost always the 3rd or 4th most popular keyword, and it is not because of articles as these, but the incessant posting by RC devotees. If they want to do that, then do not complain when her elitists presumptions are challenged.

    There are no presumptions in the Catholic Church. The what you call the presumptions of the Church, the Church itself, is never challenged here.

    Then you are either one who does not frequent the RF, or you define "challenged" contrary to any dictionary. As i have never seen you here then the former may be the case. Hopefully.

    Not one poster hateful of the Church have I ever spoken with here has ever been curious, except the afore mentioned. Not curious enough to consult the theologians, the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications.

    As others can attest, multitudes of my heavily referenced posts refuting RCs have been abundantly based upon what theologians, and or the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications etc. say, as here , here , here , here , etc.

    A challenge like facing a champion boxer in the ring wearing no gloves, wearing street clothes.

    Rather, your blindness is like a thief who cannot find a police station.

    It’s just a lot of bigotry

    Which dismissive is often the recourse of RCs when faced with refutation, while they can assert they have never seen any anti-Prot bigotry here!

    You can not find one serious challenge to the Church o FR to cut and paste and post (Now there’s a challenge for you) I have never seen one.

    The latter ignorance or blindness the cause of the former. Put your gloves on and respond to some these i posted recently , which are based upon Catholic teaching or apologetic, which i can show.

    it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) that is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,

    1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.

    3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

    4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

    5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

    6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

    7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

    8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

    9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

    10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

    11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

    12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

    13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

    14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

    15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

    16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

    17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

    an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

    whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

    who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

    and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

    and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

    for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

    "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

    so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

    and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

    for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

    Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

    and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

    including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

    whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

    and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

    and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/24/2015 7:55:25 PM PST · 73 of 177
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan; RnMomof7
    Besides being not commanded by Jesus Christ (John 20:23), confession to a priest is self-deception.

    Fixed, as there simply was and is no separate class of believers distinctively titled “hiereus” (priests) .

    And James 5:16 distinctly says presbuteros (elders) NOT hiereus (priests) which distinctive title the Holy Spirit never gives to NT clergy (except as part of the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers. (1Pt. 2:9) A separate sacerdotal class of NT clergy titled hiereus/priests was a later unScriptural development due to imposed functional equivalence.

    In addition, while God can forgive sin thru the intercession of others, in the sense of removing judgment/chastisement due to unknown or perhaps not fully repentant sin, (Mt. 9:1-6) and in which the elders are to be the primary righteous confessors, yet this power is not restricted to them.

    For as in Mt. 18, the spiritual (if not judicial, the binding/loosing power of which the OT magisterium also had: Dt. 17:8-13) power of binding or loosing also pertains to every believer who is a righteous man of fervent prayer, and is not restricted to the elders, let alone the non-existent Cath. priesthood.

    Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)

    Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:19)

    And which, in the context of the general exhortation, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) James says Elijah exampled, binding and loosing the heavens. (Ja. 5:17,18; cf. 1Ki. 17:1; 1Ki 18:18,42-45) Blessed be God. I am no Elijah sadly. Nor are RC priests.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/24/2015 7:45:23 PM PST · 71 of 177
    daniel1212 to stanne
    And, yes, AMg is correct. It is an anti catholic site. I’m on record as having stated so

    Note that catholic is almost always the 3rd or 4th most popular keyword, and it is not because of articles as these, but the incessant posting by RC devotees. If they want to do that, then do not complain when her elitists presumptions are challenged.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/24/2015 7:41:34 PM PST · 69 of 177
    daniel1212 to goodwithagun
    Nearly 100 Christians have recently been abducted by ISIS. They will probably meet a terrible death. But hey, my brand of Christianity is better than yours and I can prove it with my HTML skills of righteousness! That's FR these days. Sad.

    What is sad is that Islam fed off the largely lifeless body of institutionalized Christianity, as the strongest weapon against it is a living evangelical faith.

    Rome''s teaching actually sanction torture and death of merely theological nonconformists, something early Prots had to unlearn, and required RC rulers to exterminate all the heretics (us) from the land, or else they were to be overthrown.

    And there are RC here who commended that, and who i have little doubt with sanction our death as heretics.

    Both Catholicism and Islam are populated with souls only born of the flesh, the latter entirely so, and thus its weapons of warfare have been after that means.

    But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (Galatians 4:29)

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/24/2015 7:32:21 PM PST · 66 of 177
    daniel1212 to Lorianne
    Should Christians stop picking fights with other Christians?

    RCs have done so far more often by posting provocative articles and promos for their elitist agency, them whine when they are challenged.

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/24/2015 7:29:35 PM PST · 65 of 177
    daniel1212 to HossB86; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    one spam post at a time.

    I find this extremely humorous, considering the tidal wave of Roman Catholic Cult posts... so I take it that the only posts that aren't spam are those that glorify Roman Catholicism?

    Just like we were told there never has been any antiProt bigotry on FR, or any provocative posts by RCs .

  • Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

    02/24/2015 7:24:04 PM PST · 64 of 177
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan; RnMomof7
    Turning FR into an anti-Catholic kook site, one spam post at a time.

    If that was true it was due to years of RCs turning FR into a Catholic news and apologetics organ. When I voiced objections, I was told by more than one RC that we should post more ourselves. So finally it comes. Thanks RnMomof7 for what is good.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/24/2015 7:18:12 PM PST · 38 of 55
    daniel1212 to LeoMcNeil
    If we went back 150 years the believers of this nation would be horrified by the southern churches. The bent towards legalism in the form of prohibition, the outrageous music that is declared fit for worship and the inane sermons coupled with showmanship would disgust believers of the past.

    Yes, we understand that there is far more alarm over the pot that boils over than the one that is barely simmering, which overall best fits the paedobaptism churches.

    And despite the deflection from them by invoking aberrations, the conservative evangelicalism that has predominated mostly in the "Bible belt," and the reason that is a Bible belt, is because God was at work in these evangelical areas which you relegate to being "progressives," while it remains that those who hold to paedobaptism are the more liberal.

    Just because people come to church on Sunday for the show doesn’t mean they’re believers.

    Cmon Leo, you tried that already and it applies to your tribes as well as others, while that is still only one aspect that testifiers to greater commitment than liberal churches, and it remains that the evangelical baptist and holiness churches do dis as forsaking historical truth are far more conservative and manifestly alive overall than the paedobaptist/lenten liturgical churches your side with.

    The divorce rates of the south, which tend high, suggest that there’s limited practical application taking place.

    That corresponds to income more than anything else by far, which is why even secular divorce rates are better among those well-educated and affluent.

    Ultimately I suspect believers of the past would be saddened to see the state of the church in a once strong Christian nation.

    Not THAT is something we can both agree on!

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/24/2015 2:27:03 PM PST · 36 of 55
    daniel1212 to LeoMcNeil; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    I’m not CRC nor have I ever been nor will I ever be due to significant doctrinal difference

    You are a form of reformed.

    The problem here is that you seem to believe the Old Testament and New Testament are entirely different when in fact the New only confirms what the Old told us would happen. The old covenant isn’t different from the new covenant, it is only extended beyond Israel.

    What an outlandish or careless statement! Then you need to read the Romans, Galatians and Hebrews, among other books. Among other things under the Mosaic covenant,

    law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:12-13)

    And

    verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. (Hebrews 9:1) Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:9-10)

    Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

    For the New Cov. is distinctly said to be,

    Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:9)

    In addition are 32 differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant listed here (http://www.christiantruthcenter.com/difference-between-the-old-covenant-and-the-new-covenant)

    1. The old covenant came by Moses while the new covenant came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17)

    2. The old covenant leads to death (kills) while the new covenant gives life (2 Cor 3:6)

    3. The old covenant was ended by Jesus Christ (Roman 10:4) while the new covenant was established by Jesus Christ (Heb 8:6)

    4. The old covenant enslaves (Gal 5:1)while the new covenant makes man free (gives freedom) (John 8:32. 36)

    5. The old covenant leaves man imperfect while the new covenant leaves man perfect (Heb 7:19)

    6. The old covenant exposes sin (Gal 3:19) while the new covenant covers sin (Rom. 4:1-8)

    7. The old covenant cannot give life (2 cor 3.7) while the new covenant gives life (Gal. 3:11, 6:8)...

    cts 2:38-39 confirms this position when Peter commands new believers to be baptized. He stated clearly that the promises made by God via baptism were not only for believers but for their children also. This is no different than the old covenant,

    This is more wresting to Scripture, as the promise is to their children not by baptizing infants, , which Peter does not tell them to do, but by receiving it the same way they did, by repentant faith, which is confessed in baptism!

    This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:2)

    And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. (Acts 5:32)

    That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:14)

    Under SS you are supposed to compare Scripture with Scripture, and in so doing we only see the promise of the Spirit received by faith, and nover any infants being either baptized or born again under the New covenant.

    Instead you have to force circumcision into having a correspondence to baptism beyond what it written, so that instead of both signifying being under the covenant of God, who ignore the distinction under what condition each requires to be under that covenant.

    Again, under the OC circumcision is distinctly commanded for infants , and is recorded, while under the New repentance and faith is distinctly commanded for baptism, and no where is infant baptism recorded, despite many instances of baptism, and with believing preceding it wherever more than a just a statament of baptism is provided.

    they would have instantly recognized the connection between baptism and circumcision.

    As do i, and being told they the requirements they would have instantly recognized the distinction in application.

    And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

    In Acts 16:15 Lydia and her household were baptized. In Acts 16:33 the Philippian jailer and all his family were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul tells us that the household of Stephanas was baptized.

    Which is all you have, and in which nowhere is there any mention of infants being baptized, despite this being such a cardinal practice, and despite the Holy Spirit providing many records of believing coming first, and which He gives as a prerequisite. The absence is conspicuous, and inconsistent with how the Spirit provides for other basic practices, while He stipulates repentant faith for baptism.

    This mirrors Genesis 17 which taught that Abraham’s household was circumcised.

    Only by reading that into the text, as in Genesis 17 it is distinctly stated "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (Genesis 17:12) Nor faith is required, in contrast to Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..(Acts 2:38)

    In addition, Christ admonishes those that would keep children from him in Mark 10:15-16. Those who deny the children of believers a place in the covenant are specifically violating Christ’s command.

    Now you are really resorting to Cath. type methods. No one is keeping infant from the kingdom of God by not baptizing them, and as with Caths, baptizing them gives them a false confidence that they are already Christians, children of God

    . An uncircumcised infant did not go to Hell or miss Heaven if he died any more than a circumcised one did, and both needed to believe if they would be spiritual saved, though circumcision made him a sanctified member of the physical theocratic covenanted community in which he was given more grace towards salvation.

    Baptism signifies being in the spiritual community which is by faith, not via a ritual! Baptizing your guiltless infant does not make him born again any more than not baptizing him will send him to Hell if he dies, but as with Lot's family, the presence of one believing spouse sanctifies the whole family, including an unbaptized spouse.

    For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14)

    But as at least in old times (before kids at 5 had ipads and TV for baby sitters) the wive and kids followed the decisions and faith of their father, so it could be said that if the father believed, so would the household. That is what needs to be the focus, not getting infants wet and giving them false confidence that they are already children of God.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/24/2015 9:09:32 AM PST · 33 of 55
    daniel1212 to LeoMcNeil
    Since when does church attendance equal faith?

    Since when does or will LeoMcNeil open his eyes to see more than one aspect? Do you really want to contend that the South does not have the most conservative Christians, and that the churches that hold to infant baptism do not overall tend to be the most liberal/"progressive." And the most dead overall?

  • Is The Roman Catholic View of the Eucharist Supported by the Historical Evidence?

    02/24/2015 8:56:35 AM PST · 526 of 592
    daniel1212 to Ge0ffrey
    That’s why Catholic Christians venerate her.

    You mean they think of her far above what is written (cf. 1Co. 4:6) even to basically making her a demigoddess. RCs teach that "She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity...the holy City of God, the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived, " that "...when she acts, it is also He who acts; and that if her intervention be not accepted, neither is His...." so that even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin," in that her power is "so great that she seems to have the same power as God," "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven," for indeed ."the power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited," and "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose" and "through her alone does He dispense His favours and His gifts," and that "God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, "Hail, Mary", while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...,' The whole world is filled with her glory,. "

    But "she had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin," "that Jesus and Mary suffered for our sins," that "We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman." Sources .

    in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

    • as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

    • as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

    • as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

    • as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

    • as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

    • as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

    • as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

    • as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

    • as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

    • as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

    • as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

    • as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;

    • as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

    • as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

    • as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

    • as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

    • and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

    • And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

    Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.

    In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/24/2015 8:51:20 AM PST · 32 of 55
    daniel1212 to LeoMcNeil
    Do you even know what reformed means?

    Do you even know the difference between claiming to be reformed due to being part of a Reformed churches, versus being reformed in putting off Roman traditions of men? Thus i said you are not reformed enough.

    Many congregations in the Christian Reformed Church today observe Ash Wednesday and Lent - which in times past they repressed - and other days of Rome's liturgical "days, months, times and years," as are many Baptists, moving closer to Rome.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/24/2015 8:34:12 AM PST · 30 of 55
    daniel1212 to LeoMcNeil; Elsie
    The south rejected the church and shifted to the social gospel via the baptist movement.

    What biased broadbrush. It is those churches which are more like Rome with her infant baptism that are most liberal, and while the South is the strongest manifest area of conservative committed Christianity. If only the whole country was more like the area that you say shifted to the social gospel via the baptist movement.

    10% of Evangelical Protestants reside in the NE, 23% in the Midwest, 50% in the South, and 17% in the West. Catholics: 29% NE, 24% Midwest, 24% in the South, 23% in the West. “Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream,” Pew Research Center, 2007. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

    he states with the most frequent churchgoers were Mississippi, Alabama, S. Carolina, Louisiana, Utah Tennessee, Arkansas, N. Carolina, Georgia, then Texas. The states with the most infrequent churchgoers were Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Hawaii, Oregon, Alaska, then Washington. http://www.gallup.com/poll/125999/mississippians-go-church-most-vermonters-least.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/22579/church-attendance-lowest-new-england-highest-south.aspx

    • The highest percentages of residents who describe themselves as Christian are typically in the South, including: Shreveport, LA (98%), Birmingham (96%), Charlotte (96%), Nashville (95%), Greenville, SC / Asheville, NC (94%), New Orleans (94%), Indianapolis (93%), Lexington (93%), Roanoke-Lynchburg (93%), Little Rock (92%), and Memphis (92%). http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/435-diversity-of-faith-in-various-us-cities
    • 73% of the populations of Charlotte and Shreveport held scripture in high regard, versus only 27% of the residents of Providence, Rhode Island [the most Catholic state] and San Francisco [the most homosexual large city]. ^

    • The lowest percentages of self-identified Christians inhabited the following markets: San Francisco (68%), Portland, Oregon (71%), Portland, Maine (72%), Seattle (73%), Sacramento (73%), New York (73%), San Diego (75%), Los Angeles (75%), Boston (76%), Phoenix (78%), Miami (78%), Las Vegas (78%), and Denver (78%). Even in these cities, however, roughly three out of every four residents align with Christianity. ^

    • The highest percentage of souls who tended toward being atheist or agnostic were in Portland, Maine (19%), Seattle (19%), Portland, Oregon (16%), Sacramento (16%), and Spokane (16%)

    • Commitment to evangelism (agree strongly that a person has a responsibility to share their beliefs with others) saw the greatest percentage of endorsement by residents of Birmingham (64%) and Charlotte (54%), in contrast to residents of Providence (14%) and Boston (17%).

    • (See HERE for a table on Religious-Political relations. And HERE for correlations between faith, ideology, politics, environment, money.) And HERE for supplementary compilation of stats on moral positions related to numerical impact, and Whites, Latinos and African Americans.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/24/2015 8:20:15 AM PST · 28 of 55
    daniel1212 to LeoMcNeil
    I’m not a Roman Catholic, I’m reformed

    You are not reformed in doctrine enough, as like her you perpetuate a tradition of men for which you try to extrapolate support from Scripture for. Which attempts are more incongruous for a reformed, as you hold to SS, yet while the Holy Spirit very clearly presents repentance and faith as preceding baptism, and provides many examples of baptism, yet He never describes infants being baptized (and thus must presume whole household baptisms must include children under about 4).

    Doctrine may be established upon principals flowing from what is implicit in precepts and precedents, but the conspicuously absence of any infant baptism when so much is said about baptism is consistent for doctrine of a basic practice.

    In addition the correspondence of circumcision to baptism is very limited, as while the former answers to the latter as regards being a sign of being in covenant, the former - besides only being for males - was distinctly required for infants, even to the very day it was to be done, and thus did not require faith (though one could be a believer), while repentance and faith is distinctly required for baptism.

    Believer baptism is not the plain teaching of scripture.

    What?! Now you really sound Catholic, denying what is plainly exampled in Scripture in order to keep your tradition which is plainly unseen in the NT.

    Then Peter said unto them, Repent [which is a decision of faith], and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

    Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

    But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

    And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

    Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received [by faith] the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:47; cf. 15:7-9)

    And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed , and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)

    Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:4,5)

    It’s hardly a surprise that we see adults who were already part of the old covenant via circumcision getting baptized into the new covenant as believers.

    And it is hardly a surprise that we see adults who were Gentiles and outside the old covenant getting baptized after they believed and were born again and were part of the body of Christ, God "purifying their heart by faith." (Acts 10:34-47; 15:9)

    Abraham was a believer when he was circumcised.

    But children were not, yet were commanded, not to repent, believe and be circumcised as is the case under the New Cov, but to be circumcised the 8th day.

    it would be absurd to include children in the old covenant but reject them in the new.

    Indeed, yet while circumcision placed souls into a physical theocractic community whether they believed or not, and which consisted of lost and saved souls, in contrast, baptism requires and signifies faith which places one in a spiritual body which only consists of true believers. The act of baptism apart from personal faith gets the individual wet, not washed from sin, which is by faith.

    To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)

    And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

    Meanwhile, infants do not need to believe on Christ as they are not accountable for sin, and what one did himself is the basis for damnation, (Rv. 20:11-14) not what one's father did. (Dt. 24:16; 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)

  • Lenten Series 2015: CONFESSION (Penance/Reconciliation

    02/24/2015 7:08:48 AM PST · 53 of 54
    daniel1212 to FatherofFive; Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
    Then answer these simple questions:

    They have been, and or similar editions of your poorly worded strawman polemic in refutation, even myself , for which i am still waiting for a reply, as well as by such as aMorePerfectUnion, who also has been waiting for a reply for months. But you just blithely go on parroting the same ignorant superficially reasoned specious polemic!

    Nevertheless, lets takes this from the top again.

    1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

    You mean to the exclusion of any place for reason, the leading and illumination of the Spirit, the magisterial office, oral preaching, knowledge of history, the light of nature, etc.? which is not what SS validly means. Thus this is strawman #1.

    Westminster states

    “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means [in which the church is a part], may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

    ...we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

    , “It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions...”- http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm and general obedience to such is enjoined, as it is to the civil powers that be, (Rm. 13:1-7)

    And if you mean where did Jesus give instructions that what only is written in a book/body of sacred wholly inspired writings is the ultimate transcendent standard for faith, He did so from the beginning to the end, from defeating the devil by quoting "it is written," (Mt. 4:1-11) not oral tradition, to repeatedly invoking what it written as being the word of God which must be obeyed, and in giving its full meaning, and in validation of His Truth claims, such as that He came to fulfill the Law, and that whoever breaks the lest of these commandments (not traditions) shall be least in the kingdom of God, and calling souls to accountability for not obeying or knowing the Scriptures, not tradition, (5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56) to expounding "unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" after His resurrection, "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me," (Luke 24:44) not tradition, and then "opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," (Luke 24:45) - not tradition.

    Note that none of this was in exclusion to preaching of Scriptural Truths, or of additional revelation given by the Lord - which is provided for in Scripture - but the veracity of which was subject to what was written, as are any Truth claims today.

    Nor does SS mean that the written word of God was always the supreme standard, nor that it had the degree of formal sufficiency a complete canon would, which is what SS pertains to based upon manifest Scriptural principal, in which as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

    For before Moses penned any Scripture then God directly spoke in a quite limited degree to a quite limited amount of people, who were established as being of God in the light of their virtuous qualities and supernatural attestation.

    Moreover, souls can even do by nature the things contained in the Law without Scripture or the church, as the essence of the Law is known innately. (Rm. 2:14)

    But God gives more light as souls obey the light they have, (Lk. 8:18; Jn. 12:35) - and darkness to those who will not (Jn. 12:36-41) and to whomsoever much grace is given in blessing then of them much is required. (Lk. 12:48) And God having given the Law thru Moses, as the word of God/the Lord was normally written (even if sometimes first being spoken), then as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced

    And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

    Note that a SS preacher could preach to souls even without Him or any of them having a Bible, but the veracity of what was preached must rest upon Scriptural substantiation, which is how the church began, versus the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (EPMI) as per Rome.

    Thus the primacy aspect of Scripture is incontrovertible, while its related sufficiency aspect pertain to its formal and material aspects, of which more should be said as we go on.

    2) Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

    The is strawman #2, for the question now becomes, where did Jesus tell His apostles to that only what He personally said to them is the basis for doctrine? Where does Scripture say this? Or where does SS hold to this basis or that only what is explicitly stated can be the basis for doctrine?

    You tried this red-letter hermeneutic before and were refuted into silence, and it is no more valid now then it is then. Operating out of this hermeneutic we must hold that since Christ never personally explicitly told His apostles that extortion, wife beating, cannibalism etc. was ever wrong then it has no basis as doctrine.

    However, the Lord did tell His apostles to write things down, (Rv. 1:11) and the whole NT is a result of His telling the Holy Spirit what to inspired the writers of Holy Writ to write. (Jn. 16:13,14)

    Moreover, the Lord invoked the Scripture as a tripartite body, (Lk. 24:44) and thus upheld the formation of a canon, and which is the only comprehensive objective (in form) transcendent body of Truth which the Lord states is wholly inspired and thus assured word of God. Which word is uniquely alive and powerful. (Heb. 4:12)

    And that is instrumentally able to make one wise unto salvation, and to make man perfect, thoroughly furnished unto ever good work.

    All of which is never said of tradition nor the church, which is the alternative to SS, in which the church of Rome alone (sola ecclesia, sola Roma) is the supreme sufficient standard on Truth.

    In addition to Scripture providing for assured recognition of both men and writings of God, and thus for a canon, it also provides for the Lord "speaking" to believers too (which many SS preachers hope for during the offering!), and I also believe in the possibility of the Lord doing so thru spiritual gifts. But which the veracity of which is subject to Scripture, and which does add to its canon or militate against it alone being the supreme and sufficient wholly inspired word of God. For is anything is, it is Scripture, not the magisterium of Rome.

    Thus the question is, Where did Jesus tell His apostles or anyone personally or via His Spirit that whatever the church would speak universally on faith and morals would be without error, and the wholly inspired word of God???

    The silence is deafening.

    3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

    Similar to the strawman above, this is based upon the false premise that only what apostles wrote is the basis for doctrine, and that compiled writings as the basis for doctrine is to the exclusion of any use of reason, the leading and illumination of the Spirit, the light of nature, the magisterium and the church, which is not what SS validly means. And which has been dealt with above. But the question for RCs is, Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based upon what a infallible church says being doctrinally supreme over what Scripture says? For which Rome may claim she does not contradict Scripture, in reality Scripture (and tradition and history) only assuredly authoritatively consist of and mean what Rome autocratically says, and what she says is that it cannot contradict her.

    Nothing new here:

    Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:48-49)

    4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?

    This esp. pertains to the sufficiency of Scripture, and which is based upon the strawman that only what is explicitly taught in Scripture can be the basis for doctrine, to the exclusion of what is bsed upon precept, precedent and principal.

    Left to the only what is explicit hermeneutic, we cannot exclude such a thing as cannibalism (such as they agree to eat whoever naturally dies), for eating human flesh is nowhere explicitly forbidden. However, as "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things" (Genesis 9:3) is manifest to refer to animals and plant food, and cannibalism is only shown in a negative light, then based upon what is manifest in precept then in principal we see that the practice of cannibalism is wrong.

    However, as the overall purpose of the Law is to save life, not destroy it, (cf. Mk. 3:4) then based upon that principal then it may be allowed that in dire situations (as that of the Andes survivors), then it may be allowed.

    Support for a list of books is easier, as it testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to a body of writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture.

    Support for this list is based upon the inspired infallible word of God, and its veracity has the same basis as for both writings and men of God being recognized as such, even Christ and thus the church. Which was not that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility (EPMI) as per Rome, but in light of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Assurance of Truth in Scripture was never on the basis of EPMI, but was based upon heavenly qualities and attestation.

    Thus if a number of books are established as Scripture then so is a list. But this list need not be inspired and ensuredly infallible anymore than any church teaching is. Even Rome's so-called "infallible teachings are not inspired of God as Scripture is, while RC assurance of her claim to be infallible is itself based upon the premise that she is infallible.

    For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    But which EPMI premise is a novel invention, unseen and unnecessary and never promised in Scripture, but which is RC doctrine is erroneously based upon the false premise that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

    But which, taken to its logical conclusion, effectively nukes the NT church, as those who defend this have been shown (and can be).

    But since RCs demand we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible, the question is Where in the Bible or decrees of Rome do we find an inspired and infallible list of all infallible teachings, and on what magisterial level out of 3 or 4) others belong to (and thus what level of assent is required)?

    If a a table of contents is necessary for a SS adherent, then this inspired and infallible list of the magisterial level all RC teachings belong to should be necessary for a RC seeing as what Rome say is his supreme authority, though implicit assent is generally what is exhorted to all Rome officially teaches.

    Thus your polemic is really one against both a SS strawman, and argument against Rome when one considers the alternative.

  • Lenten Series 2015: CONFESSION (Penance/Reconciliation

    02/23/2015 4:43:34 PM PST · 41 of 54
    daniel1212 to FatherofFive; Trapped Behind Enemy Lines; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; ...
    And so faced with a RC who quotes the Bible, what is the RC (FatherofFive) response?

    "The Church Christ established created the Bible."

    However, this polemical assertion has been refuted numerous times, yet it is still the recourse of so many RCs. According to this, there was no body of Scriptures for the NT to establish its oral and written Truth claims upon, as it abundantly did.

    And as it did, thus the NT did begin upon Scripture, while the Lord also commanded Scripture to be written, unless your canon only consists of the gospels, as it seems many RCs wish.

    And according to the logic of "the Church wrote the Bible" polemical assertion, the instruments and stewards of Scripture are to be submitted to. Would you defend that?

    In addition, the Scriptures do not owe their authority to the Roman magisterium, which they were not a project of, nor was or is such essential in order for souls to know what was of God or not, though the Biblical magisterium has its valid place.

    Yet among many other things , nor do the Scriptures anywhere teach perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, and your assurance of Truth.

    In addition, Trapped Behind Enemy Lines is criticized for disagreement in 5-10% of what it says, and which is condemned referring to things like abortion, which was not the manner of issues mentioned.

    Then FatherofFive asks "Do you believe in the Magisterium? Do you know what it is? What needs to be asked is what percentage of all that RCs believe or practice disallows any disagreement. Does he know?

    And note the caucus label was removed.

  • Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

    02/23/2015 4:10:46 PM PST · 25 of 55
    daniel1212 to LeoMcNeil
    After the Civil War the progressive movement began and rejected anything historic. This extended into the church, in fact in many ways the progressive movement was a product of the church.

    What you are doing in your lengthy theory is using the rejection of some true historical Biblical truths to justify a perpetuated tradition (you likely also support NT ministers distinctively titled priests) that was reject by churches which held to historical Biblical truths.

    The SBC affirms the latter but rejects infant baptism, as paedobaptism is not what Scripture most plainly teaches but was a tradition which developed at time went on. Again, unlike circumcision, the Biblical requirements for baptism require repentance and faith, and which infant are incapable of.

    Nor does the act of baptism make one a believer unless one can believe. God has no grandchildren as no one is saved by proxy. Period.

  • Sungenis Claims: "the Church did not receive any divine revelation on the nature of Purgatory"

    02/23/2015 4:00:44 PM PST · 81 of 87
    daniel1212 to CpnHook
    Since Purgatory pertains to sanctification -- not justification -- I'll grant there's a false premise being interjected into the discussion.

    Rather, the idea that one gains Heaven by attaining to a certain level of sanctification flows from the false premise of justification being based upon ones own holiness, as the newly baptized would be able to enter Heaven because he is justified by his sanctified state. In other words, holiness both justifies and gains one entrance into Heaven..

    Of course, there is inconsistency here. For if being merely washed and rendered innocent is enough to gain one entrance into the presence of God, then purgatory would only be to atone for sins in order to be fully forgiven, but while instead they are also there to attain moral perfection, yet which being baptized does attain. Christ was not only innocent from sin, but was was perfect in character so that He never sinned despite being tempted in all points like as we are as men. Thanks be to God!

    But that souls must attain moral perfection is what RCs teach.

    Being such [called a saint] means of course they are called to moral perfection. But of course, not all have reached it in this world. - Fr. William G. Most, http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura1.htm

    If we're not perfect saints by the time we die, Purgatory is how we become fully ready for Heaven. - http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/stevehemler/lifeslittlelearnings/28.asp

    Again this is based upon the erroneous belief that it is holiness which justifies and gains one entrance into Heaven, rather than holiness being a necessary fruit of faith, but it is faith that justifies the unGodly, which also works to make him Godly.

    But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:5-6)

    Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: (Hebrews 12:14)

    Paul himself testified that was not yet perfect, yet expressed thatr he would be with the Lord, not purgatory, if he left and became absent from the body.

    RCs can imagine that one can be justified yet not fit to enter Heaven, but that is simply not the plain teaching of Scripture. All the believers in the NT would go to be with the Lord at death or at His return, as wherever the NT clearly refers to a post-earth existence then it is with the Lord.

    Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)

    For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. (Philippians 1:23-24)

    And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:42-43)

    For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

    Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)

    "Nothing unclean shall enter." (Rev. 21:27). In our view, "snow covered dungheaps" don't enter heaven. Only souls which are inherently righteous and clean enter. If the necessary cleansing isn't effected while the soul remains attached to the body, then God is merciful and provides that "final sanctification" (Purgatory) so that the justified soul can enter.

    Which pertains to your fundamental error, as indeed nothing unclean shall enter the Heavenly City, and under sola fide souls are washed, sanctified and justified (1Co. 6:11) in conversion, God "purifying their hearts by faith," (Acts 15:9) not leaving them "snow covered dungheaps" as per the parroted papist polemic (even attributing the quote to Luther).

    However, conversion does not leave them morally perfect as purgatory requires, nor is it the was washing of sins that justified, or one's holiness, as Abraham had done good works before Gn. 15:6, but God counted his faith for righteousness, and it was not because he just became born again and was washed.

    Other texts either refer to present chastisement . .

    While this certainly encompasses earthly discipline, I see nothing in the text (or others like it) that indicate such is necessarily limited to our earthly sojourn.

    Which is an argument silence, when what you need is a clear teaching of postmortem suffering outside of Hell, and your argument presumes the Holy Spirit cares not to provide any while clearly teaching that chastisement in this world, with its temptations and trials, is where moral growth in character takes place. Which is where even Christ was made perfect in overcoming all points of temptations.

    and as justification is based one one's own holiness,

    No, no, no, NO, NO!!! Strawman alert!! Justification is wrought by God's grace; we are justified by what God by his grace does through us.

    No, no, no, NO, NO!!! There is not strawman at all unless you ignore what i wrote.

    one is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace) Which is normally initially "infused" via regeneration effected by the act itself of sprinkling of water (ex opere operato),.. then..the RC (the EOs reject the purgatory of Rome) typically must endure postmortem "purifying torments" for an indeterminate time in purgatory until they atone for sins and once again become good enough to enter Heaven.

    And regarding those who cooperated with this system, Trent concludes that, "nothing further is wanting to the justified [baptized and faithful], to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life." (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)

    And every soul has nothing he has not originally received by grace, and unde under Roman soteriology "saved by grace" means that by the grace of God i atone for my sins and merit Heaven by becoming good enough. Which is akin to salvation under the law, requiring practical perfection to gain the reward, but with more grace to do so.

    In contrast is being justified by faith, a faith which effects obedience which justifies one a being a true saved believe, and fit to be rewarded under grace, though in justice what he actually deserves is Hell.

    I'll grant those verses are consonant with the idea of Purgatory, though not alone proving it.

    Rather, they are more contrary to than consonant with the idea of Purgatory as this is a place for those of venial sins,and for which prayers are offered to gain them early release, while 2 Maccabees 12:43ff is about those slain as idolators (special pleading aside), so that they may realize the resurrection unto life.

    But, that said, the idea of an after-life purification is Jewish in origin. For example:

    Resorting to which is actually an argument against purgatory, as fables, tales, nonsense and false beliefs abound extraBiblical Jewish literature, esp. after the close of the Hebrew OT.

    French historian Jacques Le Goff states,

    “It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus - around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period - prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, p. 45, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Thus it was for good reason that Paul warned,

    Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. (Titus 1:14)

    Consider some of the many superstitions recorded in the Talmud:

    If you do happen to drink an even number of cups of wine and so leave yourself a target for demons, there is a way to protect yourself: “He should take his right thumb in his left hand, and his left thumb in his right hand, and say as follows: ‘You, my thumbs, and I are three, which is not a pair.’ ” If a demon should overhear this and try to turn the tables by adding, “You and I are four”—which is an even number—then you can do him one better by saying, “You and I are five.” If the demon says six, you say seven, and so on indefinitely: On one occasion, the Gemara relates, “there was an incident in which someone kept counting after the demon until he reached a hundred and one, and the demon burst in anger.”

    And there are other ways to defeat a demon. One man was tricked by his vengeful ex-wife into drinking an even number of cups of wine—after he drank 16 cups, he lost count, understandably enough—and so he was bewitched. He solved the problem by hugging a palm tree, whereupon the demon was transferred to the tree, which dried up and burst. (According to an alternative interpretation, however, it was the man himself who burst.) -http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/148936/daf-yomi-54 [Talmud - Mas. Pesachim 110a; http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Pesachim.pdf]

    the EOs reject the purgatory of Rome

    There are some differences of viewpoint, but the E.O. are in agreement with the essential notion of a temporary punishment for sin which is imposed in the afterlife.

    In which narrative the Latin's "especial defence was founded on the words of the Apostle S. Paul (I Cor. iii. 11, 15)," which does not occur until the Lord's return! Either desperate or ignorant, i know not which.

    Meanwhile, though the difference then infers a unified EO concept, they are less unified and precise in doctrine than Latins, which they criticize as being too technical in matters, and presently can make clear their denial of Rome's purgatory.

    The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

    Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

    The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God.

    Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

  • Scott Walker Says He Doesn't Know Whether Obama Is a Christian in Response to 'Gotcha' Question

    02/23/2015 8:26:07 AM PST · 26 of 40
    daniel1212 to SoConPubbie
    Let me help you Scott, he ain’t a Christian.

    Indeed, as how can one be a Biblical Christian when you not only support abortion and sodomy, and deny Christ is the only means of salvation, but subscribe to the victim-entitlement ethos of the devil?

    After all, the original "share the wealth" scheme was that the devil's occupy movement in asserting "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God...I will be like the most High," (Is. 14:13,14) as the original liberal elite who judged himself fit to reign, selfishly seeking climbing up an unlawful way to power, .

    , And then basically told Eve that she was victimized by an oppressive God who would not share His deity with her due to His one rule, and thus she was just in her rebellion. (Gn. 3)

    And being frustrated in his lust for power, the devil seeks worship thru proxy servants, establishing an alternative world thru servants who gain power by fostering the victim-entitlement mentality, that those who earned a higher standard of living are their enemies, and thus the liberal elites present themselves as saviors of the oppressed.

    But having gained the power they selfishly seek, they reign as kings, and slowly bring all into dependance upon them so that all serve them, so that the end is worse than any oppression the people originally realized.

  • Is There A Purgatory?

    02/23/2015 6:09:14 AM PST · 69 of 76
    daniel1212 to Ken H
    No, just the rich. He said a rich man cannot enter the kingdom. The words could not be any plainer. He did not say a rich man cannot enter the kingdom, but Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:23-24)

    It is indeed hard, not because riches are evil (Abraham and Job were rich), or poverty merits Heaven, but because they provide a false sense of security and easily become what you live for. For whatever is your ultimate object of affection, or allegiance or source of security is your god, at least at that moment.

    He did not say anything like that in Matt 19. Indeed, he generalized the requirement to all rich men without qualification.

    But which is just the problem with your isolation hermeneutic, which is manifestly not a sound means of exegesis. Here you have a contradiction, as while you require all to literally forsake all, the Lord proclaims one man who only gave half his goods to the poor, and repaid fraud fourfold, as being a saved true child of Abraham, (Lk,. 19:8,9)

    And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. (Luke 19:9)

    The words could not be any plainer.

    In addition, what determines what "rich" is? If eternal life depends upon not being so then we should know what it is. Even poor people, as i would be considered being and has lived by faith by God's grace, are rich as compared with 3rd world countries, who would be rich a compared with N. Koreans.

    Even the apostles did not leave leave all permanently, as the they had clothes, and most had wives, and Paul earned money, and they all received money. (1Co. 9:5,6) And they did not understand the Lord's words as requiring everyone to literally forsake all, except in heart, as when you offer your body unto the Lord (Rm. 12:1) then the wallet goes with it.

    But comparing Scripture with Scripture what do we see? That believers had houses, (Acts 10:6; Rm. 16:5; 1Co. 11:22) and Philemon even had slaves. And believers are told to give out of their surplus.

    But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality: (2 Corinthians 8:14)

    The words could not be any plainer.

    And rich Christians were not required to literally leave all, but consistent with the principle behind the difficultly of the rich being saved, they were to be told,

    Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19)

    The words could not be any plainer.

    The life of salvific faith in the Lord Jesus is one that lives for Christ, and thus in service to Him and others, laying all on the altar for Him to use as He leads, contrary to living selfish luxurious lives of ease as lost rich men.

    Also damnable however, is the victim entitlement mentality, that abhors the system of meriting benefits by work, and which punishes indolence by the lack of such, with voluntary mercy and grace being just that, and which fosters incentive to betterment, and helping the truly victimized. But which instead demands the same standard of living for all, under the liberal elite whose estimation of themselves as mankind's saviors places them there, who alone sit in first class while the rest support them.]

    Thus while some Christians can be rich, they are not to live as rich, but all are to live sacrificial lives in service to God, with all we have being a means to that end, to the glory of God whom we live by and for. And in such dependance upon Him that if He does not show Himself alive and faithful then you will be in trouble and in need. For the just shall live by faith, being saved by faith in the Lord Jesus and His sinless shed blood, and thus living by faith in Him who has promised never to leave not forsake those who do believe. Thanks be to God.

  • DAVID BARTON WINS MILLION-DOLLAR DEFAMATION SUIT (against atheist)

    02/23/2015 5:01:11 AM PST · 22 of 24
    daniel1212 to editor-surveyor
    A rather poor choice of words on your part! Should have been qualified as your opinion.

    "It seems" is accurate as i have not researched as to whether the allegations are true and how much so as to state it as fact, and the lawsuit settlement seems to weight toward his overall credibility. At this point I would surmise most likely many of the charges have some merit but that this does not characterize most of his work.

    Some will charge as fraud an quote which cannot be verified as to the attributed author, but it may indeed may have been said by them. I myself have a compilation of quotes from Founders which i endevoured to find reliable sources for, but which can be hard, while often i have seen quotes her on FR for which the source of the attribution cannot be found (and or sometimes in the case of Luther it is lifted out of context to support something he argued against).

    Who has not see attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville,

    In the end, the state of the Union comes down to the character of the people. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there. In the fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there. In her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits, aflame with righteousness, did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

    This has often been attributed to de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, but erroneously, according to "The Tocqueville Fraud" in The Weekly Standard (13 November 1995). This quote dates back to at least 1922 (Herald and Presbyter, September 6, 1922, p. 8)

    There's an earlier variant, without the memorable ending, that dates back to at least 1886:

    I went at your bidding, and passed along their thoroughfares of trade. I ascended their mountains and went down their valleys. I visited their manufactories, their commercial markets, and emporiums of trade. I entered their judicial courts and legislative halls. But I sought everywhere in vain for the secret of their success, until I entered the church. It was there, as I listened to the soul-equalizing and soul-elevating principles of the Gospel of Christ, as they fell from Sabbath to Sabbath upon the masses of the people, that I learned why America was great and free, and why France was a slave. - Empty Pews & Selections from Other Sermons on Timely Topics, Madison Clinton Peters; Zeising, 1886, p. 35

    And,

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

    Which is often attributed to Tocqueville or Alexander Fraser Tytler, but the earliest known occurrence is as an unsourced attribution to Tytler in "This is the Hard Core of Freedom" by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951):

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville#Misattributed

    All the above are true statements and worthy to be published, as is the next prophetic quote but for which i could not find early attribution, as the earliest source I have found is from a compilation of quotes first published in 1908, and without details of when and where it was said (such details I suspect were not a priority in that era):

    If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be;

    If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy; If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will;

    If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end." (Tryon Edwards, “A Dictionary of Thoughts: Being a Cyclopedia of Laconic Quotations from the Best Authors of the World, Both Ancient and Modern ,“1908. p. 49)

  • DAVID BARTON WINS MILLION-DOLLAR DEFAMATION SUIT (against atheist)

    02/22/2015 6:25:22 PM PST · 10 of 24
    daniel1212 to Jack Hydrazine
    Rather well known in evangelical and militant atheist circles due to his extensive work in finding and publishing quotes from Founders supporting America's Christian historicity.

    The wikipedia page on him is almost all negative, unsurprisingly. But it seems amidst all his works there was overreach and problems.

  • How the AIDS epidemic really began

    02/22/2015 5:56:24 PM PST · 54 of 61
    daniel1212 to Jim Noble

    Thanks

  • Is There A Purgatory?

    02/22/2015 5:54:14 PM PST · 57 of 76
    daniel1212 to Ken H
    Remember, this is not a parable, it is a real-time eyewitness account. Do you lack what the rich man lacked?

    To be sure, leaving all will not gain me moral perfection or eternal life, nor did it for the the rich man.

    But it seems that according to your isolation hermeneutic, everyone must literally leave all. Instead, this was not a literal requirement for all, (1Tim. 6:17,18) and Zacchæus only gave half, but the Lord saw that what kept this man from faith in Him, and thus from following Him, was his love for riches.

    But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. (Matthew 19:22)

    Some others will never truly believe in Christ unless they throw away all their drugs, or split from their fornicating partner, or whatever God convicts them of as being inconsistent with faith in Him.

    God does not require one to "stop sinning" to become born again, but one who believes on the Lord Jesus is implicitly choosing in his heart to reject others gods, according to the light and grace they have, which can vary much. And while one may not have the power to turn from sin, the convert who wants the Lord Jesus to save him also implicitly wants a new life with Him. (Jn. 3:19-21)

    But it is not the fruit of faith that appropriates justification of the unGodly in conversion, but true faith, which purifies the heart, (Rm. 4:5; Acts 15:9) while the works of faith that follow justify one as being a saved child of God. Without which kind of faith one is dead.

    Just what is your argument?