Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $75,573
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 85%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Poll: 38% born-again Christians believe prayer boosts wealth, 24% think wealth sign of God’s favor

    08/28/2015 7:39:43 PM PDT · 13 of 53
    daniel1212 to 2banana
    Yet there is nothing in the New Testament to support this. In fact - just the opposite.

    Not actually. Certainly prayer can boost wealth, for the Lord said "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew 6:33)

    I dare say that if you are a true holy living born again believer and ask God in faith for funds to help others, or for a valid need, and seek to make all things work for the salvation of souls to God's glory, and are a good steward of what God gives, then you will see God "boost wealth" to that end, and which is a sign of His favor.

    But that is not what 5 star hotel prosperity teachers are about, unless they are on the receiving end.

    Nor is prosperity necessarily a sign of God's favor, yet neither is poverty. But prosperity (even in talent) is usually a curse in effect, in that it usually blinds the person to his dire spiritual need for redemption in Christ.

    State ranking according to survey response as to religion being an important part of peoples daily lives. (highest to lowest): * Mississippi: 85% * Alabama: 82% * South Carolina: 80% * Tennessee: 79% * Louisiana: 78% * Arkansas: 78% * Georgia: 76% * North Carolina: 76% * Oklahoma: 75% * Kentucky: 74% * Texas: 74% * West Virginia: 71% * Kansas: 70% * Utah: 69% * Missouri: 68% * Virginia: 68% * South Dakota: 68% * North Dakota: 68% * Indiana: 68% * Nebraska: 67% * New Mexico: 66% * Pennsylvania: 65% * Florida: 65% * Maryland: 65% * Ohio: 65% * Iowa: 64% * Minnesota: 64% * Illinois: 64% * Michigan: 64% * Delaware: 61% * Wisconsin: 61% * District of Columbia: 61% * Idaho: 61% * Arizona: 61% * New Jersey: 60% * Wyoming: 58% * Colorado: 57% * Hawaii: 57% * California: 57% * Montana: 56% * New York: 56% * Connecticut: 55% * Nevada: 54% * Rhode Island: 53% * Oregon: 53% * Washington: 52% * Alaska: 51% * Massachusetts: 48% * Maine: 48% * New Hampshire: 46% * Vermont: 42%. Overall nationwide mean of 65%

    • Regionally, the South still qualifies as the most Bible-minded. The top ranking cities are all Southern cities. This includes the media markets for Knoxville, TN (52% of the population are Bible-minded), Shreveport, LA (52%), Chattanooga, TN (52%), Birmingham, AL (50%), and Jackson, MS (50%). Other markets in the top 10 include Springfield, MO (49%), Charlotte, NC (48%), Lynchburg, VA (48%), Huntsville-Decatur, AL (48%), and Charleston, WV (47%).

    • The least Bible-oriented markets include a mix of regions, but tend to be from the New England area. Easily the lowest Bible-minded scores came from Providence, RI (9%) and Albany, NY (10%). The most Bible-minded markets are five times more likely to have residents who qualify as Bible-minded than is true in these two Northeastern cities. ^

    • None of the cities in the bottom 10 break 20%, where even one in five people could be considered Bible-minded. The New England area is home to most of the markets in the bottom 10 Bible-minded cities, including Burlington, VT (16%), Portland, ME (16%), Hartford, CT (16%), Boston, MA (16%), Buffalo, NY (18%) and New York, NY (18%).

    • The remaining markets in the bottom 10 are primarily in the West and include San Francisco, CA (16%), Phoenix, AZ (17%), and Las Vegas, NV (18%). Cedar Rapids, IA (18%) being something of an outlier. ^

    • The Eastern United States is the only region of the country where Protestants account for less than half (44.1%) of the population. Catholics are the best represented religious tradition in this region; claiming 35.1% of the population. 5.5Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion - American Piety in the 21 Century – September 2006 . Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion - American Piety in the 21 Century – September 2006 .

  • Poll: 38% born-again Christians believe prayer boosts wealth, 24% think wealth sign of God’s favor

    08/28/2015 7:22:45 PM PDT · 4 of 53
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    • Globally 98% of evangelical leaders agree that the Bible is the word of God.

    • 33% describe themselves as Pentecostals, versus 14% of leaders from the Global North. 76% say they have experienced or witnessed a divine healing, and 70% of those from the Global South say they have witnessed the devil or evil spirits being driven out. ^

    • 90% reject the so-called prosperity gospel, the notion that God will grant wealth and good health to those who have enough faith. 52% (75% in the “Global South”) believe drinking alcohol is incompatible with being a good evangelical, 97% likewise reject astrology, 96% reject reincarnation, 95% reject denying Jesus is the only way to salvation, 92% reject yoga. ^

      73% of evangelical leaders worldwide affirm that God’s covenant with the Jewish people continues today, and 60% hold mostly favorable views of Jews, though 33% think that Jews are unfriendly toward evangelicals. 48% say the state of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy about the Second Coming of Jesus, while 42% say it is not, and 49% say they sympathize with both Israel and the Palestinians equally. ^


  • It seems to me: Bible clear on gay marriage

    08/28/2015 5:35:30 PM PDT · 11 of 16
    daniel1212 to DiogenesLamp; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...

    Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 7)

  • It seems to me: Bible clear on gay marriage

    08/28/2015 5:18:36 PM PDT · 10 of 16
    daniel1212 to NetAddicted
    She now seeks to support her choice claiming the Bible does not condemn homosexuality or gay “marriage.”

    She is 100% wrong .

    Table of contents


    Genesis 19

    Postulations or assertions of approved homosexual relations:

    Sexual morality in the Bible

    Judges 19

    Interpretive Foundations

    Jude 1:7

    Ruth and Naomi

    Principal Sources

    Ezekiel 16:49 and Inhospitality Texts

    David and Jonathan

    Genesis: the Unique Union of Man and Women

    Extra Biblical historical sources

    Daniel and Ashpenaz

    1 Corinthians 11

    Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

    1 and 2 Kings

    Celibacy, Polygamy, and Procreation

    Leviticus Summation

    Jesus, the centurion and his servant

    Eunuchs and Exegesis

    Sex Laws versus Slavery

    Jesus and John

    Proclivity and Permission Polemic (Social Justice)

    Silence of Jesus Argument and Love Hermeneutic

    Was Paul gay?



    Romans 1

    Only Jesus save sinners

    1Corinthians 6:9 + 1 Timothy 1:10

    God created man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, and they alone are joined by God in marriage, with opposite genders being specified by both Genesis and personally by Jesus Christ. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4)

    The Bible only condemns homosexual relations - by design and decree, in principle and by precept - and never sanctions them wherever they are manifestly dealt with, and the injunctions against them are part of the transcendent and immutable moral law. (Lv. 18:22; Rm. 1:26,27)

    However, some of the first Christians were likely former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:9-11) and there is room at the cross for all who want the Lord Jesus over sin, and believe upon Him to save them who died for them, and rose again. And who thus are baptized and follow Him, to the glory of God.

  • Bigotry in numbers: Why so many academics look down on evangelicals

    08/28/2015 4:25:57 PM PDT · 30 of 38
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    One ancharist complained the thread was losing order with Christians commenting on it. Of course I pointed out he was an anarchist so should understand:)

    For behind such is the quest for the anarchist to reign supreme.

  • Bigotry in numbers: Why so many academics look down on evangelicals

    08/28/2015 1:35:13 PM PDT · 24 of 38
    daniel1212 to Buckeye McFrog
    Because the typical Academic thinks that he or she is the smartest creature to ever inhabit the universe and long ago evolved beyond the need to believe in God.

    As befits the liberal elite, who "despise dominion," (Jude 1:8) and seek to "climb up some other way" (Jn. 10:1) to power other than actually meriting it, like the devil sought in the first "occupy movement," saying

    I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (Isaiah 14:14)

    Inspired by him, radicals would take over the admin building in the 60's, but later fools would elect such.

    Because cast down due to him prideful presumption, in his "share the wealth" speech, the devil sought to persuade Eve to believe God was unjustly keeping power from her, as if the almighty was fearful of her being as god in knowledge, and thus she cast her vote for the demonic victim-entitlement policy.

    Under which there is no mercy or grace, as instead having benefits that normally must be earned or a gift are instead a right to be demanded by even the indolent and destructive, being taken from those who engaged in lawful work to obtain them, who are made to be the oppressors of those who lust after their benefits.

    The end result is the the liberal elites who gained power by inculcating this mentality are the only one's having superior benefits, while all others are made dependent on them for sustenance, who must do homage to them as gods in order to obtain such or even live.

    Call it Communism, liberalism, or black liberation, or Juche (N. Korea), it is demonism, working by deceiving souls into convincing them they are victims, and becoming bitter over being that and to lust after what others have, then believing in false Messiahs who promise them "deliverance" - benefits at the expense of others who earned them - and which saviors selfishly lust to reign over them, and finally to oppress them whatever their merit or misery.

    In contrary, the call to worship and obedience by God, who needs nothing, (Acts 17:25) is to the benefit and blessing of man, whom God provides salvation for at His own expense, as it cannot be earned, and blesses obedience, even to sit with Christ as overcomers (though not being as God, but joyfully serving Him as do angels: Rv. 3:21: 22:3). Praise the Lord.

  • Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

    08/28/2015 11:10:18 AM PDT · 301 of 355
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN
    Catholics confuse the effect of faith, that being holiness, with being its cause. Thus one begins his journey in the Catholic salvation system with becoming good enough to be with God (even though due to a remaining sinful nature which cannot be made subject to God, baptism does not remove all character defects, with attachment to sin, making one perfect in character, which purgatory is said to be needed for) via sprinkling=-regeneration=infused charity=sanctification= justification (as if Abraham became born again when God counted his faith for righteousness in Gn. 15:6, or the penitent publican in Lk. 18 or the contrite criminal in Lk. 23).

    And with practical sanctification as the cause for justification and perfection of character (nothing unclean) necessary to be with God, thus the baptized who dies in grace must suffer "purifying torments" in order to 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

    ones who will go directly to heaven are the ones who have already shed every last trace of self-love left in their hearts...Their hearts are left with nothing but pure love for Christ. -

    We also see that those who are “born again” not only receive the state of grace, but also a complete remission of the temporal punishment due to their sins. That’s what the Sacrament of Baptism gives. That’s why those who are “born again” go straight to Heaven if they die immediately after baptism. -

    If one were to die immediately after Baptism, he would go straight to Heaven (assuming one presents no obstacles). -;

    Of course, in Scripture it is on Christ's account, not because he is practically good enough, that one is justified by faith and has direct access now to God in prayer, and will be with the Lord at death or His return.

    More on that here where i said,

    Man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)

    Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) man can not claim he actually deserves anything, and God does not owe him anything but damnation, except that under grace — which denotes unmerited favor — God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.

    Which means that God justifies man without the merit of any works, which is what Romans 4:1-7ff teaches, with “works of the law” including all systems of justification by merit of works, “for, if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Galatians 3:21)

    Thus the penitent publican and the contrite criminal, both of whom abased themselves as damned and destitute sinner and cast all their faith upon the mercy of God (which ultimately is Christ), were justified, and as such could go directly to be with the Lord at death, even before they did any manifest works of faith. But works justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace for such, (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) though only because God has decided to reward man for what God Himself is actually to be credited for.

  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 9:07:45 AM PDT · 33 of 38
    daniel1212 to upcountryhorseman
    Didn’t The Supreme Court make a finding completely opposite to The First Amendment?

    Its all in how one interprets it, which is by those appointed by those who are elected by the electorate. Gov. by the people. Too much post-Christian in this case.

  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 9:05:59 AM PDT · 32 of 38
    daniel1212 to Diamond

    Thanks for the input.

  • Bigotry in numbers: Why so many academics look down on evangelicals

    08/28/2015 9:04:18 AM PDT · 19 of 38
    daniel1212 to huldah1776
    Anyway, I am a post-tribulationist and know that there will people of every nation, tribe and tongue in the Kingdom. His name is Savior.

    Similar journey here, fasten seat belt.

  • Bigotry in numbers: Why so many academics look down on evangelicals

    08/28/2015 9:01:46 AM PDT · 18 of 38
    daniel1212 to Gamecock
    I guess hating Evangelicals is America’s only accepted prejudice.

    Oh no, as that is the coveted fantasy of certain RCs!

  • Bigotry in numbers: Why so many academics look down on evangelicals

    08/28/2015 7:34:13 AM PDT · 13 of 38
    daniel1212 to Texas Fossil
    “academics look down on evangelicals” And God looks down on “academics”. Stupid is as stupid does.

    On such as these anyway.

    For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. (2 Corinthians 11:19)

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:22)

    See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, (Ephesians 5:15)

  • German Bishops’ Conference website promotes homosexual unions as sacrament

    08/28/2015 7:00:58 AM PDT · 23 of 26
    daniel1212 to ebb tide; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    February 9, 2015 ( – One of Pope Francis’ closest advisors, and the leader of one of the most “liberal” Catholic hierarchies in the world, has denounced “traditional” young people for wanting “to be clear in their positions,” warning that it is a path to “terrorism.” In a related interview with the Jesuit magazine America, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the head of the German Bishops’ conference, applauded people in homosexual partnerships who want a “lifelong” relationship

    “I am astonished that most of our young people, and also Catholic homosexuals who are practicing, want a relationship that lasts forever,” Marx told America. “We must begin with the main points of the doctrine, to see the dream: the dream is to have a person say, a man and woman say, ‘You and you, forever. You and you, forever.’ And we as church say, ‘Yes, that’s absolutely OK. Your vision is right!

    ...Black and white populism is growing in Europe. And that is the beginning, perhaps, of populism, of terrorism, that’s clear.”

    ....“The centre of the message is, ‘Heaven is open. Look, heaven is open. You have free entrance. Come. That is the first sermon of Jesus…Convert yourself and be confident to the Gospel. To the good news. And from this, we are celebrating. That’s the main topic. We are celebrating this in our Eucharists, and in our gatherings.” -

    To the contrary .

  • Bigotry in numbers: Why so many academics look down on evangelicals

    08/28/2015 6:53:21 AM PDT · 3 of 38
    daniel1212 to daniel1212; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...


  • Bigotry in numbers: Why so many academics look down on evangelicals

    08/28/2015 6:48:58 AM PDT · 1 of 38
    Yet higher education began in America with the Puritans. Who could even pass under Harvard Laws of 1642 ?

    This, and the liberal bias of the media, also relates to the treatment of Cruz, whom i see as the best candidate.

    A poll of conservative and progressive religious activists showed 48 percent of conservatives activists believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, versus only 3 percent of “progressives”, otherwise known as liberals. This contrast was also seen in other issues, with 95 percent of conservatives opposing legalization of abortion, and 82 percent opposing both same-sex marriage and civil unions, while 80 percent of liberals support some form of legal abortions (54 percent in most cases), with 59 percent support same-sex marriage. The study also found that Evangelical Protestants composed 54 percent of conservatives, Roman Catholics 35 percent, and mainline Protestants 9 percent, while liberal activists were made up of 44 percent mainline Protestants, 17 percent Roman Catholics, 10 percent Evangelical Protestants, and interfaith bodies and groups (12 percent). 2009 Religious Activist Surveys conducted by the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in partnership with Public Religion Research.

    • A (disputed) study showed that 50% of American college faculty identified themselves as Democrats and only 11% as Republicans (with 33% being Independent, and 5% identifying themselves with another party). 72% described themselves as “to the left of center,” including 18% who were strongly left. Only 15% described themselves as right of center, including only 3% who were “strongly right.” North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) of students, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities in the United States and Canada 1999. The Berkeley Electronic Press

    • Extensive surveys by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, conducted in 2006 and 2007 of 14,000 college freshmen and seniors at fifty colleges nationwide, indicated that college education results in little advance in knowledge of American history and institutions, which is already poor among non-college graduates, but an often significant increase in favoring liberal ideology was seen over those who were not college graduates. In addition, those with the highest degrees were the most liberal. Intercollegiate Studies Institute, ‘’The Shaping of the American Mind.’

    • Analysis of Federal Election Commission data regarding the 2010 midterm elections showed that college professors and administrators donated heavily and overwhelmingly is support of Democrats over Republicans. This included 77 percent of total donations from employees of Harvard university and 86 percent of all donations from employees of University of California’s network of colleges going to Democrats, with pro abortion Sen. Barbara Boxer being the top recipient of academic donations, while no donations from Princeton went to a Republican. Analysis of Federal Election Commission conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics, reported by Capitol News Company, 9/22/10

    • Of 100 colleges and universities graded on their general education requirements by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), 42 institutions received a D or F for requiring two or fewer core subjects, while 25 of them received an F for requiring one or no subjects. Only 5 institutions received an A for requiring six general education subjects. Average tuition and fees at the 11 schools that require no subjects was $37,700; average tuition at the five schools that require six subjects is $5,400. Walter E. Williams , professor of economics at George Mason University.

    • In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans. The respondents also identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. American Society of Newspaper editors 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers of all sizes nationwide.

    • In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans, with the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives being 4.2 to 1. Kaiser Family Foundation 1996 poll of 301media professionals,” 300 “policymakers,” and 1,206 members of the general public.

    • In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative. Pew Research Center’s 2007 survey of 222 journalists and news executives at national outlets.

    • All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans. U.S. News & World Report writer Kenneth Walsh’s 1995 study of 28 White House correspondents. 1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents.

    • On the subject of welfare and related issues, liberal experts were quoted in the news 75 percent of the time, conservatives 22 percent. On consumer issues, the liberal-conservative ratio was 63 percent to 22 percent. On environmental issues, the ratio was 79 percent to 18 percent. And regarding nuclear energy, the ratio was 77 percent to 20 percent. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter, The Media Elite: America’s New Power Brokers (New York: Hastings House, 1990).

    • In 2011, 38% of voters believed that when most reporters write or talk about Pres. Obama, they are trying to help him pass his agenda (down from 48% a year ago). 26% feel that most reporters are politically biased, 46% think the average reporter is more liberal than they are, while 26% say they are merely interested in reporting the news in an unbiased manner.

  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 6:26:48 AM PDT · 20 of 38
    daniel1212 to BinaryBoy
    The left has the advantage that they don’t care about laws, ethics, truth or any other obstacle to reach their goal while the right plays by the rules.

    And the "umpires" rule 5 to 4 that using a toilet for a basketball hoop should be called a basketball game.

  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 6:22:16 AM PDT · 19 of 38
    daniel1212 to wastoute
    No need for rational thought. A Living Constitution just grows new appendages as needed and those old “vestigial” organs like the 2A just whither and fall off. Easey Peasey.

    Kind of like certain religions do with the Bible, adding things totally unseen in it, under the premise of ensured magisterial veracity.

  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 6:20:08 AM PDT · 18 of 38
    daniel1212 to bonehead4freedom
    The Federal Courts and especially the Supreme Court believe themselves to be the SUPREME branch of government rather than a co equal branch of government.

    That is really up to the people via whom they elect. With the latest poll showing Biden solidly beating Trump (much rather have Cruz) then it is continually shown how post-Christian and deceived the majority is.

  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 6:16:54 AM PDT · 17 of 38
    daniel1212 to Pietro; SeekAndFind
    It's clear at this point that we live in a lawless country, and that the "law", such as it is, depends upon the whims of a ruling elite often working against the clear will of the people. So at this stage wouldn't it be proper to consider sedition and treason to be patriotic acts?

    That is just what refusal to salute the flag of Sodom will be seen as, with economic sanctions, or worse. The latest:

    Chick-fil-A Blocked From Opening At Denver Airport Due To Christian Views

  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 6:14:11 AM PDT · 16 of 38
    daniel1212 to exnavy
    The power in the United States of America, by virtue of the constitution, lies in the people through the house of Representatives. Which has the power to remove justices from the USC. Better to require the gov. to decide whether such should be enforced, but it really comes down to the people, as to what they really believe, as this is shown by who they elect, and thus the manner of judges they appoint.

    For while the Constitution is sppsd to be interpreted in accordance with the mind of the Founders, the devil is in the details of how that is interpreted.

  • Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

    08/28/2015 6:07:03 AM PDT · 245 of 355
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    Now let's listen to the crickets.

    Rather than attempt that, which risks further exposure, by God's grace, of the specious nature of such attempts, then censure is sought, and or another propaganda piece is posted such as Shoebat's.

  • Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

    08/28/2015 6:02:11 AM PDT · 156 of 158
    daniel1212 to Greetings_Puny_Humans
    Sure, there are cults that are cessationists. But in your average Charismatic gathering/church, I would doubt that most of them are even saved. Your first warning sign is the existance of Charismatic Catholics who go around side by side the "Protestants."

    49% of evangelical adults fit the charismatic definition, with 7% of Southern Baptist churches and 6% of mainline churches being charismatic, according to their Senior Pastors, 9% of whom are female (same as non-charismatic). 36% of all U.S. Catholics, and 22% of all charismatics in the U.S. identify as Catholic. Barna research, 2008

    • 51% of all born again Christians are charismatic, with 46% of all adults who attend a Protestant church identifying with that. 16% of the country's white Protestant congregations are Pentecostal, compared to 65% of the Protestant churches dominated by African-Americans. (Barna research, 2008)

      54% of Hispanic Catholics describe themselves as charismatic Christians.

      I concur with your grief on the superficial and ecumenical nature of the movement, while semantically Charismatic refers to a modern movement that transcends denoms, even those which are not Pentecostal, while Pentecostal is used for an entire denom.

      And while you have the worse type of "Christian" aberrations (outside cults and Rome) among charismatics, yet:

    • The highest percentage of those who strongly agree they have a personal responsibility to share their faith was found among believers in Pentecostal/Foursquare churches (73%)

    • 81% of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches , followed by 77% of Assemblies of God believers, and ending with 26% of Catholics and 22% of Episcopalians. ^

    • The percentage of Catholics who believed the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches declined from 34% in 1991 to 26% in 2011

    • 73% (highest) of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth, with Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists being tied at 33%, and the lowest being among Episcopalians with just 28%

    • Bible Reading: the highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23% -

    • By denomination, 61% of the those associated with an Assemblies of God church said they had shared their faith at least once during the past year, as did 61% of those who attend a Pentecostal/Foursquare church, and ending 14% among Episcopalians and just 10% among Roman Catholics.

      But as for the Biblical case, are there any "Apostles" walking around?

      A worthy objection. I know of none who fulfills the qualifications and credentials of Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) Barnabas was called an apostle in Acts 14:4,14 but it can be presumed that he was a disciple of the Lord, as Paul was via special revelation.

      Perhaps the title could also refer to a man in the sense of a special ordination as a "sent one." But which is a gift of an office with special powers, which is the first among leadership, "secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" (1 Corinthians 12:28-30)

      Perhaps it is possible to differentiate btwn a service office of gifted men from gifts available to any person in any office.

  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 4:47:23 AM PDT · 3 of 38
    daniel1212 to daniel1212
    Also see HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS and the BIBLE (extensive examination and refutation of prohomosex polemics, by God's grace.)
  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 4:45:06 AM PDT · 2 of 38
    daniel1212 to daniel1212; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...


  • How the Supreme Court Abolished Article V of the Constitution

    08/28/2015 4:44:27 AM PDT · 1 of 38
    Read the rest here .

    Gagnon (Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary is the foremost Christian apologist (though not a fundamentalist) opposing the homosexual activism.

    As a commenter stated,

    They actually have no real power because they rely on the other two branches to fall in line.

    So we could just start laughing at them. Once that starts then getting a new law passed clarifying the courts power can be made easy.

  • Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

    08/27/2015 7:30:17 PM PDT · 139 of 158
    daniel1212 to Greetings_Puny_Humans
    MacArthur is unfortunately quite correct. On Charismatic forums I have found proponents of Open Theism, deniers of the Trinity,..

    Yet there are cults that are cessationism, but aberrations do not invalidate something, and the issue is the Biblical case.

    .It’s one thing to argue that the NT supports a continuation of spiritual gifts. It’s apparently quite another thing, and an extremely difficult thing, to then demonstrate you have any of them!

    Indeed the last statement is true, and i have yet to find a foretelling prophesies of any detail that can be verified as made before the event (even Michael Brown's 2004 warning of New Orleans is a warning of what could happen, and is not a certain prophecy but i see such as a holy warning written by a spiritual man sensing impending judgment).

    Healings however, I know do take place as are abundantly testified to, i myself having been healed of a hernia i had for years after a humble couple prayed for me.

    And rather than God taking a sabbatical, and putting the book of Acts much in a museum, we need to see God do as He ever did, as the devil does not take a rest, and Scripture for multitudes is just as foreign to them as it was to pagans in the 1st c., while the arguments against it are ever more pervasive. Christianity began due to the supernatural, and if the church is of the living God it will manifest His gifts which testify to a risen Savior.

    There is always overreaction to demonic counterfeits and , MacArthur is quite incorrect in his broadbrush denial of "sign gifts," and in all that he attributes to them, and that is sad.

  • Catholics Support Gay Marriage as Much as General Population, Believe Pope Francis Has Backed It

    08/27/2015 5:39:17 PM PDT · 16 of 35
    daniel1212 to Deo volente
    I’m a Catholic and I don’t find this topic to be bashing the Church. The results speak for themselves and are sad and alarming.

    He is referring to a knee-jerk reaction often seen by certain RCs regularly on the RF in response to most anything by Prots that impugns Roman Catholicism, even the use of the abbreviation "RC." Some have blamed such consistent poll results on bias. Of course, a poll by the church itself was also confirmatory of overall liberal fruit.

  • Catholics Support Gay Marriage as Much as General Population, Believe Pope Francis Has Backed It

    08/27/2015 5:34:22 PM PDT · 15 of 35
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    A study by the Public Religion Research Institute released in August on the beliefs of American Catholics has found that despite the Church's teachings, they support same-sex marriage and abortion just as much as the general population.

    Similarly, 51 percent of Catholics said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases — with 53 percent of the general population saying the same.

    Similar to results of other researchers, but many RCs blame such in bias.

  • Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

    08/27/2015 2:18:34 PM PDT · 122 of 158
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    I've got Martin's book, too; and also have in hand my summary of Dr. Martin's discussion with Dr. Julius Mantey, Greek grammarian, in which Mantey excoriates the Watchtower Society for their gross misquote of his work in order to claim that he supports their New World (mis)Translation. I put it in my door to give to JWs who pass by.

    Who are unlikely to accept it.

  • Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

    08/27/2015 2:15:54 PM PDT · 201 of 355
    daniel1212 to caww; Salvation
    When I first came to FR I thought it was a Catholic Site because so much ‘copy and past information’ was constantly posted by it's rather comical any catholic would comment about somebody posting ‘they're own’ hard work rather then copying and pasting somebody's works rather than their own.

    Perhaps they believe because they support FR they can claim it as their own. Meanwhile, zero was copied from my blog or web site, though there are some links to substantiating material. But that is irrelevant, as the RM has already said one did not need to give attribution to one's own work, the lack of the party has been attempting to find a violation of since being called on herself.

  • Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

    08/27/2015 10:49:28 AM PDT · 94 of 158
    daniel1212 to caww
    Well the catholic church is one of the biggest anti-protestant groups around...and that history goes back hundreds of years to present.

    That cannot be denied though it may be ignored. Nor the mutual from Prots, for to stand for anything is to oppose something else. If RCs would accept that rather than demanding or expecting freedom from challenges while promoting their provocative pronouncements then it would be encouraging, but that means the errors of Rome can be exposed, and thus they seek to censor all such.

  • Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

    08/27/2015 10:44:25 AM PDT · 93 of 158
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    Excellent summary. On the above quote from Piper, I think he is accurate. His opinion is similar to his fellow pastor J.P. Moreland. Who also addresses the various continuationist-cessationist views and his observations. He quotes his opinions in "Kingdom Triangle." Excellent book IMO if you have the time to read it.


  • Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

    08/27/2015 10:32:44 AM PDT · 180 of 355
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    How much is from your blog?

    What would that matter? Want more frustration trying to play RM?

  • Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

    08/27/2015 10:29:26 AM PDT · 91 of 158
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    My favorite, however, was Dr Walter Martin, the writer of "The Kingdom of the Cults" Maybe you know that he was with the Christian Research Institute, out of San Juan Capistrano, CA. I spoke to him on the phone, several times, on the Bible answer man program. Those were the days my friend.

    Exception, with good balance. Hear him now here .


  • Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

    08/27/2015 10:23:43 AM PDT · 90 of 158
    daniel1212 to JudyinCanada
    I listened to Pastor McArthur recently - it was an EXCELLENT sermond regarding homosexuality. He’s a brave man.

    Poster here:

  • Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

    08/27/2015 9:53:18 AM PDT · 173 of 355
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    I need your library!

    Praise God.

  • Did God Send A Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

    08/27/2015 9:49:46 AM PDT · 89 of 158
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    But I do believe in principles of order and honor, and Paul did instruct Timothy never to rebuke an older man (or, elder) but rather to appeal to him (see 1 Timothy 5:1). So, however you view this incident, it did make Charismatics look bad.

    Which is taken out of context if meaning an older man as an pastor cannot be rebuked for what he publicly preached.

    MacArthur is a very dedicated and mostly sound Bible teacher of holy motive and means who has much challenged and edified me and multitudes, and one i wish i did not warrant any reproof. However, he is wrong on cessationism, plus in his reaction against excess and desire for order, he has mixed truth with false conclusions, and his treatment of it manifests a false balance.

    He has written three books in support of his position: The Charismatics (1978), Charismatic Chaos (1993), and Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (2013). In October 2013, MacArthur hosted a conference called "Strange Fire" at his church, to mark the launch of his book of the same name. The event featured a number of speakers who argued for a cessationist theology and strongly critiqued the Charismatic Movement.[22]

    In his opening remarks, MacArthur stated, Watching the behavior of some Hindus who belong to the Kundalini cult. Their body movements are almost identical to that of people in the charismatic movement, the extreme behavior of pagans. This is the work of Satan, it is the work of darkness, and not to be attributed to the Holy Spirit." And that, "The Charismatic movement as such has made no contribution to biblical clarity, interpretation, or sound doctrine..It detracts and confuses." "It has only produced distortion, confusion, and error." "Have people truly been saved in Charismatic churches? Yes. But nothing coming from that movement has been the reason they were saved." "Evangelicalism has thrown its arms open and has welcomed the Trojan horse of the charismatic movement into the city of God. Its troops have taken over and placed an idol in the city of God."[23]

    He broadly calls modern "visions, revelations, voices from heaven...dreams, speaking in tongues, prophecies, out-of-body experiences, trip to heaven, anointings, miracles – all false, all lies, all deceptions – attributed falsely to the Holy Spirit." And that "The Charismatic movement has stolen the Holy Spirit and created a golden calf, and they’re dancing around the golden calf as if it were the Holy Spirit."[24][25] He has made a list of Gifts of the Spirit, mostly from 1 Cor. 12-14, but holds that "once the New Testament was finished, those sign gifts ceased to have a function", and ended with the conclusion of the Apostolic Age, around 100 AD.[26]

    In a subsequent teaching, "What has happened after the 'Strange Fire' Conference" (2013), MacArthur allowed that within the Charismatic movement there were those who believed in the authority of Scripture, honored the Lord, and pursued Godly living, and that the movement retained enough gospel truth so that souls could be saved within it. However, he saw its interdenominational presence as being "a testimony to the absence of any theology." He further criticized the modern Charismatic movement, stating that in 1967 "a bunch of Jesus freak people.. go to Calvary Chapel...and for the first time...that I know of in history, the church lets the very defined subculture dictate what it will be," citing "the hippie culture, communal coming out of drugs and free sex, and all that" as displacing "all the normal and formal things," and typifying the charismatic church, with the movement becoming Calvary Chapel.[27]

    In the past (1991) however, MacArthur commended Chuck Smith (1927 – 2013), founder of the Calvary Chapel movement, for writing "a straight forward critique of charismatic extremism," and stated that "there are many like him who have taken their stand and I thank God for their courage and their desire to be Biblical."[28] In response to MacArthur's “Strange Fire” conference, Calvary Chapel expresses a fundamental disagreement with MacArthur's understanding of spiritual gifts among God's people today, but affirms "charisma, not charismania," and commends Chuck Smith’s book "Charisma versus Charismania" as being one of the best short, popular works on the subject.[29]

    Two books were written in response to the Strange Fire conference, arguing for the continuationist position: Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire by Michael Brown and Holy Fire: A Balanced, Biblical Look at the Holy Spirit's Work in Our Lives by R.T. Kendall. Addressing the “Strange Fire” conference, continuationist Calvinist Baptist John Piper concurs that there are many abuses in the charismatic church, however he adds that "we really need to keep in mind that every charismatic abuse has its mirror image in non-charismatic abuses...In some of these cases, the non-charismatic church is more guilty than the charismatic," such as, "the absence of emotion, which is probably more deadly than the excesses."[30] -

  • Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

    08/27/2015 9:19:56 AM PDT · 169 of 355
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...

    Shoebat's sophistry.

    Shoebat, which is not even his real name, is of dubious credibility even when it comes to his own personal claims, while he is the RC equivalent to how RCs see Jack Chick, with his railings against Protestants.

    Shoebat has provided much flame bait that has demanded response ,and while here he attempts to sound reason-able, yet he engages in one or misleading false statement after another.

    His article is rather rambling, and so my response deals mostly with it according to subject.

    • The Vatican has been slandered for centuries without a shred of biblical evidence.

    WRONG , but for blind devotees only what Rome says must be correct in any valid. After all, 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.

    That itself, her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unecessary in Scripture, is is not Scriptural but it is Scriptural and not not slander to say so.

    Meanwhile, in the past Rome has made much use of forgeries to supply support what Scripture, the weight of substantiation from which is not her basis for her veracity, does not.

    • But can anyone quote a single historian who confirms or proves that these groups were Bible believing Christians? Yet thousands of books were written slandering Catholics for eliminating these

    I dare say he would be hard pressed to name a dozen that call all such Bible believing Christians, while what he avoids is the fact that Rome did indeed slaughter multitudes for theological dissent, even if not as many as some Prots alleged. And early Prots had to unlearn such means of warfare.

    • but may I say: let the denomination that has no such sin cast the first stone

    Which presumes the argument that denominations are being debated, versus Biblical warrant for the claims of Rome to be the one true church, which thus makes her institutional iniquity an issue.

    • And how could we say that Judaism is legalistic just because individual Pharisees were challenging Jesus by using the Law...Why then do we use the term “Pharisee” as a dreaded label of scorn and insult?

    Why? Because despite Shoebats attempt to redeem them, they were overall legalistic, hypocritical and warranted the rebuke that Lord gave them. (Mt. 23) Or does Shoebat want to reproof the Lord and His disciples?

    But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matthew 3:7)

    Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. (Matthew 15:12-14)

    Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matthew 16:6)

    Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matthew 16:12)

    But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! (repeated 7 times: Matthew 23)

    • Condemning the Jews for eternity is a sign of bigotry and prejudice. I see many Catholics who hate Israel. Evangelicals by large have done a much better job than Catholics in recognizing and supporting Israel.

    That was a refreshing bit of honesty!

    • However, it is not true that Catholicism is anti-Semitic. Catholic Jim Blackburn from Catholic Answers

    What kind of support is that? Catholic Answers propaganda? Rome has a record of such, while in modern times has been reluctant to meaningfuly correct that.

    • When it comes to the Pharisee, Jesus spoke of the “righteousness of the Pharisees”. Was Jesus degrading the righteousness of the Pharisees, or was He simply setting up the standard,

    Considering that the Pharisees overall were never set forth as much of any example true righteousness, it would most likely mean believers must have more than the mere external righteousness of them.

    • Nicodemus was a righteous Pharisee

    Nicodemus was a blind Pharisee and one of the few who seems to have seen the light to some degree. And even then, it was a "certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed" that caused problems due to their bondage with the ceremonial law.

    • It was Gamaliel (a Pharisee) whom God chose to save the apostles from death

    A few righteous Pharisees do not redeem them as a group, and it is as a group that they were condemned.

    • In fact, Christianity, and by extension, Catholicism was derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism.

    Wrong and right. Catholicism was derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism, presuming a level of veracity above that which is written, and Catholicism goes even further, presuming the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. And that this is essential in order to know what is God.

    ..the Pharisees introduced rites in the Temple which originated in popular custom and were without foundation in the Law... they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error... they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times... and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death...By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine..They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows. -

    But the NT church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    • when we compare Catholics and Protestants today in light of ancient times, it was the sola-scriptura Sadducees...

    More sophistry, as the aberrant conclusions of one group's interpretation of Scripture (they only went by the Torah) neither invalidates their source nor the position that source was held by them. The most serious errors under the "Christian" umbrella are from those who basically hold to the Roman model for assurance of Truth, that being sola ecclesia. A Watchtower or LDS disciple is sure there are right because their org is the supreme ensured mouthpiece for God.

    Likewise a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council l

    • . Even the New Testament records the first Christians were Pharisees

    In a negative light as a group.

    • but never once mentions Christian Sadducees

    Irrelevant, while it never mentions RCs either with their distinctives. .

    • that unless we are perfect, we couldn’t enter the Kingdom, for even if we kept the law as good as the Pharisee, these do not equip a man for the beatific vision of God’s essence? This of course, can never be attained until the end when God accomplishes in us His plan after we are purged from all sin.

    Which is more deception, as nowhere (despite RC extrapolative attempts from texts which do not teach it) at all are believers said to endure postmortem purification commencing at death. The only suffering is that of the judgment seat of Christ due to the loss of rewards and the Lord's disapproval, which one is saved despite of, and which does not occur until the Lord's return!

    Meanwhile, being practically perfect in character as God is cannot be a condition to be with Him as believers even now have direct access into the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of Christ, with faith being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:1-7) and appropriating the purifying of the heart in the washing of regeneration , (Acts 15:7-9; Eph. 1:7,13)

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

    • Why would many Evangelicals support birth control is beyond me.

    Lack of maturity on an issue of derived teaching. They should not and it is contrary to historical basic Protestant faith they most strongly contended for, and less seem to be supportive of it today.

    • Yet both religious Jews and Catholics see such practice as going against God’s plan.

    Meaning a minority, while both overall subscribe to BC and also overall raise what kids they have as liberal.

    • We always attribute to Catholics as the prime example of a legalist; they after all believe that they can earn or merit God’s approval by performing the requirements of the law,

    No, "the law" aspect is his addition, but as for "they can earn or merit eternal life by good works," they can easily see Trent supporting this.

    Canon 32 states,

    "If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32)

    Shortened, this teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema."

    Man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)

    Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) man can not claim he actually deserves anything, and God does not owe him anything but damnation, except that under grace — which denotes unmerited favor — God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.

    Which means that God justifies man without the merit of any works, which is what Romans 4:1-7ff teaches, with “works of the law” including all systems of justification by merit of works, “for, if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Galatians 3:21)

    Thus the penitent publican and the contrite criminal, both of whom abased themselves as damned and destitute sinner and cast all their faith upon the mercy of God (which ultimately is Christ), were justified, and as such could go directly to be with the Lord at death, even before they did any manifest works of faith. But works justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace for such, (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) though only because God has decided to reward man for what God Himself is actually to be credited for.

    • the Catholic preeminent principle of redemption is not “by faith alone in God’s grace”.

    Indeed it is, as she fosters faith/dependence on and confidence in one's goodness and the merits and power of Rome.

    • Canon I. If any one says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ—let him be anathema.”

    Shoebat is wrong and his words misleading as well, for it is only justification without grace that is condemned, while in Scripture good works justify one as having true faith and salvation and fit to be rewarded under grace, though they really warrant Hell apart from grace. (Rm. 6:23; Heb. 6:9; Rv. 3:4)

    • We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification.

    But this is misleading as it fails to not the difference in Cath teaching btwn justification and salvation. They admit an infant cannot merit justification, but which is by sprinkling of water which renders such forgiven and holy enough for Heaven due to his actual holiness via "infused charity." Thus being justified due to the holiness he actually posses via regeneration (while in Gn. 15:6 Abraham was counted as righteous by faith, not because he was regenerated) such a soul must usual ends his salvation process by once again becoming good enough for Heaven via "purgatory."

    James teaches an inert faith is not salvific, and faith can be equated with works as it is faith in action, and it justifies one as a being a believer, but Catholicism equates the effect of justifying faith with being the actual cause, which it cannot be.

    Moreover, while the newly baptized are said to be fit to enter glory by RCs, yet such a soul still possesses inherent character defects which purgatory is said to be needed to purge.

    Note also that the EOs, among other things, tend to reject the purgatory of Rome, though they both claim tradition is one their side.

    • George Foote Moore and Claude Montefiore protested that Judaism was not legalistic,

    George Foote Moore, Presbyterian minister, 33rd Degree Mason of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite founding president of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, and an influential anti-Zionist leader in the communal body, and who formed a commentary on the Bible with moral reflections from the standpoint of the [notoriously liberal] "higher criticism", (WP)

    Such credentials do not impugn their conclusions, but what saith Scripture?

    For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. (Romans 10:3)

    • Indeed, if biblical Judaism was legalistic, how could God then provide salvation to the Jews of the Old Testament?

    This is the first time he specifies "biblical Judaism" but what is meant by the term? That the biblical Judaism of the Jews Paul just describes was not salvific is clear, and it is clear that under the Law one was not saved, but it was designed to bring souls to realize they could not do what Rome fosters, that of confidence in merit, but must cast themselves upon the mercy of God to save them, as the penitent publican did in Lk. 18. That is how some Jews of the Old Testament were saved.

    In order to justify Rome, Shoebat seems to be trying to rehabilitate the Judaism which Scripture reproves.

    And here comes my biggest dilemma: during my two-decade walk in many American churches, it was as if all the battles, struggles and martyrdoms, which the Catholic Church endured from the Muslims for over millennia was simply written off by my evangelical friends. These sold such wealth of Catholic history as Judas sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.

    Rather, why credit a church when it acted as Islam toward the likes of Huss, Tyndale, Luther etc. with its equivalent of Fatwahs? Shoebat has traded one religion of the flesh for another that is much the same.

    • In two decades, I have never heard a mention of the contribution of Catholics fighting Islam in the battles of Poitiers, Lepanto and Vienna.

    Through its unScriptural theocracies that is, which also fought Prots (who also fought them). Islam was a judgment upon the Christian church for becoming institutionalized/Romanized while its use of civil power for itsw ends (the fourth century pope Damasus himself employed a murderous mob in seeking to secure his seat), and to torture and slay merely theological dissidents is not heard of from Shoebat.

    Islam to them was simply the ‘cleansing agent’ of Catholic heretics.

    Rome earned the antipathy, while does Shoebat imagine Rome would come to the aid of Lutherans being attacked by Islam?

    I slowly began to realize that in America being anti-Catholic is America’s ONLY Acceptable Prejudice.

    Actually, Catholics are seen a overall source of support by liberals, and are shown more favorably by the media than evangelicals, whom are treated as the greatest opposition by both liberals and RCs, as they indeed have been in contrast to evangelicals, who are the most conservative , and anti-Islamic. Yet whom Shoebat, due to being a RC, must war against. .

    • Even historians agree, slandering Catholics, as John Highham

    Meaning an seemingly victim-mentality historian, whom George M. Fredrickson, writing in The New York Review of Books in 2002, applauded, citing Dr. Higham's unwillingness to dismiss the culture created by ''elite white males.'' John Highham urged historians to relax their impersonal stance for one of moral engagement. " (

    • Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called Anti-Catholicism “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people”

    A Progressive Era intellectual (1888-1965). In Boston in 1929, city officials under the leadership of James Curley threatened to arrest Margaret Sanger if she spoke on birth control. In response she stood on stage, silent with a gag over her mouth, while her speech was read by Arthur Schlesinger. -,_Sr.

    Regardless, their conclusions are to be judged by the warrant for them, and the anti-Catholicism which these write of was real, yet substantially warranted, despite some of being based upon false history. When you have papal decrees requiring RC rulers to exterminate all the heretics in the land, and absolving Caths from obedience to those who do not, and denying separation of church and state, (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors) and the use of torture etc in church discipline, then how could one not see this as anti-American? RCs must become somewhat Protestant to become otherwise. Thus traditional RCs here have promoted Cath monarchism here, under which evangelicals would be silenced.

    he Pope acquired the temporal power in a just manner by the consent of those who had a right to bestow it. He was deprived of it in an unjust manner by political changes. - : Q. 549. How is the Church One?

    "....Constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that the political proscription [ban] of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they have against a Catholic state? What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation. [But] the danger of religious intolerance toward non-Catholics in the United States is so improbable and so far in the future that it should not occupy their time or attention." — The State and the Church (1922), pp.38,39, by Monsignor (and professor) John Augustine Ryan (1869–1945), imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes (

    Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church. - - Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215: . (

    "The Church has the right, admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction." - Catholic encyclopedia, Jurisdiction (

    And which Shoebat ignores.

    • We even have come a long way in combating anti-Semitism to soon forget quickly the horrors of Nazism.

    So now Caths are in danger of being persecuted as Jews under Nazism? Shoebat is rapidly loosing what little credibility he attempted to gain in this area. What will occur is that of persecution of any conservative Christians (true evangelicals) by the state, under those which a near majority of Caths elected.

    • Bible believing Christians who are Anti-Catholics need to answer one question: why only Catholicism unites all haters?

    The answer is that actually the main reason for much of the little anti-Catholicism that is substantially expressed by Bible believing Christians is due to a common consent to basic truths which Rome is against, likewise is evang. opposition to cults as well. What if Mormons claimed Bible believing Christians who are only united by irrational anti-Mormonism? Should such an accusation be seen as credible.

    Meanwhile, Globally 98% of evangelical leaders agree that the Bible is the word of God. Only 3% believe that human life has evolved with no involvement from a supreme being, and 47% reject theistic evolution, while 41% believe God has used evolution for the purpose of creating humans and other life.

    51% do not see influence of Catholicism as a threat, while 35% see it as a minor threat, and 10% see it as a major one. 92% express favorable opinions of Pentecostals, and 76% express favorable opinions of Catholics. 7% say they consider non-religious people to be friendly toward evangelicals, and 35% say they have a very unfavorable opinion of atheists, with 35%saying mostly unfavorable. ^-

    • Why when it comes to Catholicism, they are all united; liberals, atheists, Mormons, feminists, Satanists, Scientologists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Advantists, Uniterians, Moslems and so many Bible believing Christians officially and doctrinally are all anti-Catholic? It is time that Evangelical Bible believing Christians be removed from this equation.

    And when it comes to fund evangelicals, they are all united in opposition, Catholics, liberals, atheists, Mormons, feminists, Satanists, Scientologists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Advantists, Uniterians, Moslems.

    • yet every time I praised Catholics, I found so many pin-pointing the leaven of the Pharisees without looking into the piles of heretical books written by so-called evangelicals

    Names please?

    • From top preachers in America, we can see the terrible trend. John MacArthur, who is esteemed as a formidable and excellent Calvinist theologian, made a sermon in which he agreed with Charles Spurgeon..the quote in his presentation: “Call yourself a priest, sir! I wonder men are not ashamed to take the title: when I recollect what priests have done in all ages–what priests connected with the church of Rome have done, I repeat what I have often said: I would rather sooner a man pointed at me in the street and called me a devil, than called me a priest; for bad as the devil has been, he has hardly been able to match the crimes, cruelties, and villainies which have been transacted under the cover of a special priesthood.” (Macarthur on Youtube,

    And can Shoebat even find one instance of out the many places in which NT pastors are mentioned that ever calls them "priests," which is an exclusive word in Greek that is only ever used for Jewish or pagan priests, or that of the priesthood of all believers? No, he cannot as instead Catholicism has presumed to correct the Holy Spirit by distinctively giving NT presbuteros/episkopos (one office: Titus 1:5,7) that title, based upon imposed functional equivalence, with error begetting error.

    In addition, is Shoebat blind to the crimes, cruelties, and villainies which have been transacted under the cover of a special priesthood, as manifested by the Inquisitions and treatment of Jews?

    See here in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .

    • who do much worse than the Pope kissing the Quran or that Nostra Aetate praised Islam. Yet even Pope Benedict criticized Nostra Aetate.

    Benedict as seen by a translated (into English) transcript of one of the pope's radio addresses, criticized Nostra Aetate as speaking too positively of other religions and not looking at them critically, as the Church had from the outset," but which does not invalidate the requirement of religious assent to encyclicals, which forbids public dissent.

    Thus Shoebat indicates he is traditional cafeteria Catholic, who does not simply follow the pastors as he is enjoined to do, since " the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906) but who determines what valid church teaching is according to his own judgment.

    Of course, due to the plethora of papal conciliar pronouncements, RCs from both sides can support their positions by invoking the magisterium which they both claim is the solution to divisions.

    • Christian author and conspiracy theorist Mark Dice stated: “The Catholic Church, the popes, and bishops are basically the same as the Pharisees that Jesus denounced over 2000 years ago for their hypocrisy and their pride and arrogance due to their spiritual knowledge.” (The Vatican, Modern Day Pharisees,

    Thus Shoebat worked to redeem the reputation Scripture leaves of the Pharisees! But the fact is that Shoebat even affirmed Catholicism was "derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism." And despite Shoebat's attempt to rehab them, Scripture does impugn them as a group as being the above. And by doing such things as that and introducing rites in the Temple which originated in popular custom and were without foundation in the Law. akin to praying to created beings in Heaven, Rome has been much like them historically (not that i need no repentance). And RCs here even express an arrogance akin to the following:

    The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)

    And it is no wonder he cited "Mark Dice," (Illuminati type stuff) who seems to be soft with Islam. (

    • Another evangelical author, S. Mason describes the Catholic Church as:

    Another? Meaning the first was while this minor author of a 2012 book is so popular that it has zero reviews on Amazon. ( And yet we can understand how a RC would be opposed to the those who oppose a one world authority/religion.

    ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE 67. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority,... Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties.... Invoking "subsidiarity" does not rectify the problems of such a proposal before the Lord returns.

    Couple this with the RC monarchy with "coercive" powers which traditional RCs yearn for, and you can see why Shoebat has left one theocracy which has historically relied on the sword of men to achieve its goals for another one which has done the same. And he is aligned with those who long for the good old days of the Inquisitions.

    For that kind of anti-Protestant prejudice is one she has experience in, and would deal with anti-Catholic prejudice, which victim mentality, like liberals whom her multitude elect, they make merchandise of to demand special treatment. Which so many FC RCs expect here while incessantly posting provocative pro-RC articles.

    Thus Shoebat ignores Rome's historical anti-everything not of Rome and the warrant for anti-Catholicism, while using falsehoods or misleading statements in his appeal to special victim status. But he does seem sincere, if mistaken. May the Lord grant him repentance unto life. (2Tim. 2:25)

  • Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

    08/26/2015 12:16:37 PM PDT · 69 of 355
    daniel1212 to metmom; Salvation; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    It’s hypocritical for Catholics to use the term Roman Catholic themselves and for themselves, and then whine about others using it as well.

    They object that the Roman in RC leaves out Catholic churches in union with the pope but are not part of the Latin rite.

    Yet it does not, but refers to Rome as being the seat of their supreme governance, and while certain RCs censure us for broadly using the Roman aspect, it seems leadership to which they are to look, as well as some sanctioned teaching, did not get the memo:

    the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing -- Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis [a lie]

    [Pope] Pius...each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the Holy Roman Church uses.

    “By heart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.” - Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208

    the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, - Exsurge Domine1 promulgated by Pope Leo X against Martin Luther

    Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559: the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us

    QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE, 4 July 1570... establishing the Traditional Roman Rite of Mass in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church,

    Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208: ...the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.”

    Papal Bull Cantate Domino, by Pope Eugene IV, 1441: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church,

    Q. Are there any other reasons to show that heretics, or Protestants who die out of the Roman Catholic Church, are not saved? A. There are several. They cannot be saved.... - Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine For the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools (1875); with imprimatur) ;

    The Protestant goes directly to the Word of God for instruction, and to the throne of grace in his devotions; whilst the pious Roman Catholic consults the teaching of his church, and prefers to offer his prayers through the medium of the Virgin Mary and the saints. -

    we are fairly certain today that, while the Fathers were not Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century world would have understood the term, they were, nonetheless, ‘Catholic,’ (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology)

  • Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice

    08/26/2015 9:27:31 AM PDT · 47 of 355
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    You talk about the nicknames for non-Catholics, there are equally offensive nicknames for Catholics that I have seen here. One is RC — there are many rites in the Catholic Church, but only one church. The rite referred to with those letters is the Latin Rite.

    Nonsense, and which further makes your faith look like it produces peevish (i complain to much myself) spokespersons, like as liberal are noted for being.

    This is a Internet forum, and abbreviations are to be expected, including "Prots," which i use myself. They save my arthritic fingers from typing more typos for one, and for another distinguishes btwn RCs and EO Catholics.

    As for the Roman aspect, that is used by popes and councils themselves, and represents where the head of all Cath churches in communion with the pope, like as Washington represents America's leadership.

  • Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

    08/26/2015 9:16:03 AM PDT · 1,219 of 1,346
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene , Hail, full of grace ( Luke 1:28 ) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary

    That is indeed part of the propaganda. Rather than only, that language applies to all believers. The word for “full” is not even in Lk. 1:28, as kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6. In contrast, the only one (though in some manuscripts Stephen in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT. If Mary was uniquely perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was, as Christ was, (plērēs charis) and RCs would not have to engage in such egregious extrapolations in seeking to left this invention.

    Your own official RC Bible for America does not say “full of grace,” and Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" ( Yet the DRB correctly translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."

    For as CARM finds,In Greek: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. Repeated: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek. More technical data from source here

    Mary is said to be “full” of grace, or uniquely so, nor from what i find does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, as per RC argumentation, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)

    See more on this issue here as White gets into detail with the Greek. (And notes that the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

    Even Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin said of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene:

    "This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense" like Mary's grandmother). He went on to say, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." Meaning the text does not teach the IM, nor is that necessary, but tradition becomes binding doctrine under the ultimate presumed authority of Rome.

    Nor is “blessed art thou among women” a unique type of appellation, as Scripture also says, “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.” (Judges 5:24)

    It remains that while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess!

  • Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

    08/26/2015 9:09:55 AM PDT · 1,218 of 1,346
    daniel1212 to metmom
    Nobody is required to answer to you, nor is anyone seeking for your approval when they do.

    Nor engage in further attempts to reason with those who want to start again with an argument that has already been refuted, and they have already demonstrated they simply refuse to see or cannot see what has been made abundantly manifest.

  • Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

    08/26/2015 6:03:49 AM PDT · 1,207 of 1,346
    daniel1212 to Tao Yin; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    What poppycock! The title of Theotokos is important because of what it says about Jesus, not because of what it says about Mary. "Mother of God" is a horrible translation because it flips the important point. The point of "Theotokos" is that it states that Jesus was God incarnate from the moment on conception. "Mother of God" is a horrible translation because it becomes an honorific for Mary, rather than a statement of belief about Jesus.

    Indeed, as Greek Orthodox have stated,

    “The term Theotokos — Θεοτοκος — does not mean the same as “Mother of God” in English or the common Latin translation. In English one must translate Theotokos as “Bearer of God.” The correct Latin would be deipara or dei genetrix, not Mater Dei. (“The Significance of the Term Theotokos” from The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Fr. Georges Florovsky) June, 1987).

    The most literal and correct translation of Theotokos [though lacking an exact English equivalent] is “Birth-giver to God” or “God bearer”. -

    The title Theotokos (in Greek, Θεοτοκος) is a Greek word that means "God-bearer" or "Birth-giver to God." "The most literally correct one is Birth-giver to God, though God-bearer comes close."

    "The Church acknowledges the mystery in the words of this ancient hymn: "He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos." "The most popular translation, Mother of God, is accurate to a point, but the difficulty with that one is that Mother of God is the literal translation of another Greek phrase which is found on nearly all icons of the Theotokos: Μητηρ Θεου (Meter Theou)..," -

    Yet the article blatantly misrepresents what it cites, saying,

    Theotokos, God-bearer in Greek, is what the council of Ephesus declared in 431. It specifically says this “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.”

    Instead, it said,

    If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is, in truth, God, and therefore that the holy virgin is Theotokos (for she bore in a fleshly manner the Word from God become flesh), he is estranged from God and therefore let him be anathema”. (Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius). -

    Thus the article both leaves out the qualifying caveat, and turns Theotokos into saying Mother of God!

    It further argues,

    Now many times we will hear non-Catholics tell us that this title is nowhere found in Scripture, explicitly at least. However, they cannot themselves find a Scripture verse that says that all doctrine and dogma must be explicitly proven in Scripture.

    Which is basically another RC straw man, as the argument is not simply that the title is missing from Scripture, but that MOG is a technical theological title which use is unwarranted, at least without qualifications, and as a common adorational title.

    Here is the cold hard truth of it though, all Christians rely on some Church Tradition, as well as Scripture, to validate their doctrines, whether they admit it or not.

    True to some degree, but not as amorphous oral tradition being equal with Scripture in authority when the church decrees it is, resting on the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unecessary in Scripture.

    Under which even an even an extraScriptural event which is lacking even in early evidence , and was opposed by the Rome's own scholars, but decreed as fact under the premise that Rome cannot err on such and can remember what no one else seems to have for centuries.

    Scripture and Tradition can never contradict one another.

    Yet which assertion is made under the premise that Rome is the supreme autocratic judge of that, in which Scripture,. tradition and history only mean what she says in any conflict.

    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.

    Let us begin with Luke 1:43, where Mary visited Elizabeth. There Elizabeth exclaimed “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Because Mary was the Mother of the Lord, who is the Second part of the Holy Trinity, Mary is truly and rightfully called the Mother of God.

    Which is more adding to Scripture, compelling it as a servant to say what it does not by placing word in the mouth of Elizabeth. For the word here is not God, theos, which denotes deity when rendered in the singular, but lord, kurios, which basically denotes authority. As such it is often used for God and Christ, but its use itself does not denote deity, otherwise certain men would be God in nature.

    And having accomplished His mission and all power beng handed over to Him, as Acts 2:36 states that "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ," (Acts 2:36) then under Cath reasoning it would mean that is when Christ became God.

    That Christ is God, the Divine Son of God, is manifest by other titles and statements, attributes, titles and glory, but to think all the early disciples recognized Christ as Lord and were attributing that to Him is contrary to the evidence. Thus they asked themselves, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! (Matthew 8:27)

    And thus Christ's words, Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. (John 14:1)

    Thus true to form, the RC must read a theological statement into the words of a disciple who recognized the status of the Messiah, as did the apostles, but which did not at that time translate into a recognition of Him as God.

    We also see in Isaiah 7:14 “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.”

    Which was known but not understood at first by Jews as meaning God would be incarnated in human flesh, thus Jews could believe Christ was the Messiah but not as being God, for Scripture speaks of God dwelling among the people of Israel, (Ex. 29:4) and of being with the people of Israel, and of souls saying to men, "We will go with you: for we have heard God is with you." (Zechariah 8:23) or even that God was in them. (Isa 45:14; 1Co. 14:25)

    That Christ was the Divine Son of God was something the disciples came to realize.

    First let us look at 1 Cor. 8:5, which states “Indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ

    Which, consistent with the forced exclusivity of the Cath, means there is no other God "to us," but the Father, who is distinguished from Christ, and which thus would exclude Christ from being God, since there is only one God, the Father. But that the one Lord Jesus Christ is God by nature is manifestly revealed elsewhere, thus the Son, the Lord Jesus, is God as is God the Father and the Spirit. But that early disciples believed this is being presumed, contrary to the evidence.

    Then let us look at 2 Sam. 6:9 where the King, who was David says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me (being the ark of the covenant)”

    • The Ark, once made, was moved via poles, so as not to be directly touched by sinful man (Ex. 25:12-16; II Sam. 6:1-9), yet which men Mary was surely touched by. And the former was ritually defiled by giving birth, and thus observed the required days of purification, (Lk. 2:22-24; cf. Lv. 12:2,6-8) and then brought the required living creatures to the priest “for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.” (Leviticus 12:6,7)

    But the sanctity of the Ark corresponds to the spiritual purity of Christ, who being the Lamb of God is alone said to be “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” (Hebrews 7:26) “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” (1 Peter 2:22)For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

    Which is never said of Mary. Yet Catholics have the audacity to make Mary was sinless, even as binding doctrine, when Scripture nowhere teaches it, and we can be confident that it would say so if that was true, and especially if was a binding doctrine, just as it clearly records the sinlessness of Christ and other extraordinary or otherwise notable aspects of its subjects, even far lesser ones.

    • And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold....And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end:...And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims (Exodus 25:17,19,22) On top of the ark was the mercy seat on which rested the cloud signifying the presence of God, between two cherubs of gold. The Greek word (Hebrews 9:5) for “mercy seat” is hilasterion, meaning “that which makes atonement.”

    This easily corresponds to Matthew 17:4,5, in which Moses and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, can be seen to answer to the two cherubims, and who talk with Christ under a bright cloud, and in which context all are called to commune with Christ, the atonement: “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” thus directly communing with God. (cf. Heb. 10:19) And which is said to Peter, James and John, whom Paul later states (Gal. 2:9) appeared to be pillars of the church (if not in that order), thus this call to directly commune with God via the mercy seat under the cloud is to the church.

    • “And in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” (Exodus 25:21)The Ark contained the 2 tables of the Law, which testimony in the NT becomes grace and Truth, and the Scriptures uniquely state Christ was “full of grace and Truth.” (Jn. 1:14) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:17)

    And they commanded the people, saying, When ye see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, then ye shall remove from your place, and go after it. (Joshua 3:3) And it was Christ, not Mary, who said “Follow me,” (Mt. 4:19) and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,” (John 10:27) as Christ alone was God manifest in the flesh. (Jn. 1:1-3,14; 20:28; 1Tim. 3:16)

    • “And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey, to search out a resting place for them.” (Numbers 10:33) And Christ, not Mary said,”I go to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2)

    Therefore it is Christ, not Mary who is clothed with gold, and declared to be undefiled, sinless, and the atonement/mercy seat, with two cherubs of glory on each side, by whom believers commune with God under the cloud of glory, and whom constrains the testimony of grace and Truth, and goes before believers.

    If someone says Mary only gave birth to the person of Christ one of two errors,

    Which is not what is meant by denying Mary is the mother of God, as instead it means Mary is not ontologically the mother of God, but is one thru whom God provided the body He took on, but contributed nothing to His Divinity.

    "Mother of God" is as misleading as saying that the Jews (thru the Romans) killed God, since Christ is God.

    One can no more kill God than give birth to them, though both statements could be technically allowed with clarification, which is not the case with MOG, as instead it is part of hyper-hyper exaltation which is nowhere close to what is given to any created being in Scripture, and goes so far as to attributed uniquely Divine attributes to her.

    So then, some say that Mary is the mother of the Trinity if we take it that far,

    Which is actually what MOG conveys, and what is being reproved by the censure of it.

    the Church does not say Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

    But which MOG most naturally conveys, regardless of the fine print that rarely accompanies its use,

  • Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

    08/25/2015 7:06:34 PM PDT · 1,116 of 1,346
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    a simple, straightforward reply is warranted.

    When you find Christ giving into every demand to explicitly say what was He made manifest to them then so will I. Until then you must do as He expected them to so, which is to look at what was said and done and realize that I told you that I believe the Jesus is God the Son, thus sending you to a link to my web page (which site is plainly listed on my home page) which i explicitly said was "affirming Jesus Christ is God the Son."

    Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. (John 10:24-25)

    Christ requires seeking, which evidences one is worthy to receive Truth, and prepares the heart to appreciate it, and would not be made a puppet to submit to man's un-reasonable demands.

    your question pointing to your own blog was inconclusive.

    Then if you think "Did you not see the link i provided affirming Jesus Christ is God the Son?" is inconclusive that it is a case of blindness, or laziness or just insolence. Pick you poison, i am done with trying to make you see the obvious.

  • Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

    08/25/2015 6:50:10 PM PDT · 1,104 of 1,346
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan; metmom
    Tell me which of the following syllogism are valid, and which are invalid. If you are capable of doing so, that will demonstrate that you can recognize the fallacy of the undistributed middle. If you can’t, you can’t.

    To begin with D is invalid, as one person being God does not make him the Trinity. Nor does being the mother of a member of Congress make her the mother of Congress. God is a Trinity, and while Jesus is rightly called God as He is indeed God by nature, yet could not be God alone.

    And which illustrates the problem with the uncritical use of the phrase, "Mother of God," which too easily conveys ontologically begetting Divinity. As much as you may want to avoid Mary being inferred to be the mother of the Trinity, the popular abundant use of MOG easily infers Mary as at least being some sort of Divine goddess, and the protest against MOG cannot be separated from the hyper hyperdulia ascribed to her.

    As i have said, what Ratzinger said about the use of the term " Co-redemptrix" that it "departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings,” applies to MOG as regards the language of Scripture.

    Instead of saying anyone is the mother of God, Scripture even adds "as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (Romans 9:5) when stating that Christ came out of Israel.

    And as concerns the logic of the polemic "if Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God," one could say that since the Jews (standing for us) killed Christ, and Christ is God, then... Technically allowed with equivocation, but you see the problem. Also, CARM states ,

    There is a sense in which the syllogism is true but also another in which it is not. Let's take a look.

    A syllogism is a set of premises with a conclusion. Here is their syllogism about Mary . . . 

    1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
    2. Jesus is God.
    3. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

    Within this syllogism is the fallacy of equivocation. This fallacy occurs when a word or words change meaning in the usage of an argument.

    1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
      1. Response: This is definitely true as is verified in Scripture. The term "mother" must refer to the biological sense of Jesus because Mary did not precede the Word that became flesh, (John 1:1, 14), nor is she the author of His divine essence.
    2. Jesus is God.
      1. Response: When we say that Jesus is God, we our affirming that Jesus has a divine nature as well as a human nature (see Hypostatic Union). Therefore, the word, "God," here must refer to the divine nature, the divine essence. 
    3. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
      1. Response: In what sense is the term, "God," used here? Does it mean God in the divine essence? Or does it mean God as a Trinity? Also, in what sense is the word, "mother," used here? Does it mean that she is the mother of the divine nature? If so, it cannot mean that she's the mother in the sense of being before the divine nature the same way that all mothers are before their offspring. It cannot mean that she is in a superior position than the divine Word since she is a creature. So, how is it meant? The lack of clarity is the problem.
  • Luther Will Have a Square in the Middle of Rome

    08/25/2015 12:55:22 PM PDT · 97 of 133
    daniel1212 to redleghunter

    Consider the source. Desperation is manifest in many forms.

  • Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

    08/25/2015 12:54:01 PM PDT · 1,044 of 1,346
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Bullheaded and stubborn are a bit closer...

    There are a lot of synonyms for such.

  • Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

    08/25/2015 12:50:49 PM PDT · 1,042 of 1,346
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Rather than making it personal yet again, meditate on these two truths. Do not allow antiCatholicism to be a stumbling block.

    Which, true to course, is making it personal by inferring i my conclusions are due to bias and not objective reasoning.

    Any Christian should be able to freely confess these two truths. Mary is the mother of God (with us).

    Your own use of the qualifier (with us) thus clarifying that what is meant is that Mary is the mother of God "manifest in the flesh" (akin to Rm. 9:5), itself testifies to the problem of the unqualified use of "Mother of God.

    Jesus is God the Son.

    Yet which I do and manifestly did confess, even by providing you with abundant evidence as "affirming Jesus Christ is God the Son in response to the question!" But instead of acknowledging that you basically played inquisitor and required i submit to your demand for a certain statement affirming what i never denied and abundantly evidenced!

    Then, in refuting the premise that despite abundant testimony that Jesus is God the Son, yet a specific explicit statement is required, I pointed out to you that even the Holy Spirit

    does not provide "the phrase Jesus is God the Son or "God the Son" or even Jesus is God. Thus according to your demand for this explicit statement it must be questionable that the Holy Spirit believes Jesus is God the Son, or even that Jesus is God,"

    Yet to which you responded with the snide spitwad conclusion, Thank you for expressing what you believe.

    And now you presume your insolence still warrants a reply?! By this and many other past response you have only further relegated yourself to the class of certain other unreason-able RC double-standard devotees who rarely warrant replies except to expose them to the unlearned.

    Take a hike.

  • Luther Will Have a Square in the Middle of Rome

    08/25/2015 6:06:39 AM PDT · 59 of 133
    daniel1212 to Popman

    Then there RCs here who reject modern popes as being so, and relegate others to Hell whom Rome, via treating them as funerals lauding them, basically infers will be in glory. And then there is a

    Cardinal Dulles who even states that, “According to Vatican II, the communion of the church of Christ extends far beyond the visible borders of the Roman Catholic Church. The Council’s teaching on this point was not a new departure, but an assertion of a very traditional position, held by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. All who have the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, even though they be not Catholics or even Christians, are in some sense members of Christ’s body, and therefore of the church.” (p. 59) — Cardinal Avery Dulles, A Church to Believe; In </font>

  • Luther Will Have a Square in the Middle of Rome

    08/25/2015 5:48:39 AM PDT · 57 of 133
    daniel1212 to golux; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Couldn’t happen to a nicer semi-illiterate genocidal maniac.

    An objective analysis no doubt, though many RC scholars see otherwise.

    ...Luther is an intellectual giant, or, to use a word from Paul Althaus, an "ocean. " The danger of drowning in him, of not being able to come to grips with him satisfactorily, arises from his tremendous output, but no less from his own original style, which we are going to take up. It sounds banal, but cannot be left unsaid: Luther belongs in the first rank of men with extraordinary intellectual creativity. He is in the full sense a genius, a man of massive power in things religious and a giant as well in theological interpretation. Because of this, he has in many respects shaped the history of the world--even of our world today.”- Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther(Jared Wicks, S.J, Editor. 1970, Loyola University Press) p. 4.

    Technically this worthy examination argues that Luther was not against being Jewish, as if the race was inferior (nor are blacks inferior to whites, but there are cultural generalities) but he was actually anti-Judaic.

    Nor was Luther contrary to many Catholics in his attitude toward the Jews, for while there are some unbalanced RCs who have the strange idea that if they can discredit the character of Luther (whom evangelicals disagree with on many things) than they can somehow seriously impugn what we believe, yet real popes and his prelates are also indicted for harshness toward Jews, and providing fodder for the Holocaust.

    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).

    In 1466,

    in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

    But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

    In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

    It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

    “When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.”

    See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .

    Also see second half of this post . Thank God for His light.