Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $31,858
Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/30/2015 7:16:01 PM PDT · 222 of 228
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    The church of Rome is neither one, except in an organizational sense and with a paper unity, and it certainly has not existed in that sense since the first century, as both Scripture and historical research attest.

    Your choice of words ("except") admits that the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic.

    What? It does exactly the opposite! Having an unscriptural organizational org with a unity of belief that is largely on paper, and in reality is an unholy amalgam of disparate beliefs, including unscriptural ones, hardly constitutes saying the Church of Rome has historically existed since the First Century and admits it was apostolic! Must RCs read their own beliefs even into Prot responses!

    Do you believe its candlestick was removed ? If so, which year or century do you believe that occurred and when do you believe Christianity was restored and re established ?

    Christianity was never re established as it always existed because true believers did, even as believers in the household of Herod could, but not without much difficulty in the visible church in which such expressed essentiual saving faith, along with tares. In addition, the candlestick of Rv. 2+3 never refers to a universal church, but to individual churches ceasing to be valid churches in God's eyes, though like apostate believers, a form of such can remain.

    To be a valid church, one at least needs to preach the gospel which convicts souls of sin, righteousnesses and judgment, bring then to realize their damned and destitute condition as souls desperately in need of salvation, being unable to save themselves, and thus cast all their faith in the mercy of God in Christ, in the risen Lord Jesus, the Divine Son of God, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood.

    For it is by believing this gospel that one is baptized by the Spirit into the one body of Christ. (1Cor. 12:13) This requires moral cognizance, as the requirement of baptism itself attests, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) and is contrary to teaching that baptism itself effects regeneration, and that one is formally justified one by his own actual holiness, which he must usually attain to again thru postmortem torments (and atone for sin).

    One can however, be in error on some things and yet be saved. Before Trent Catholic beliefs were far less uniform, and souls less indoctrinated, and thus it was far more likely that true believers existed within the visible churches, and that some preachers effectually conveyed the gospel of grace.

    As Pelikan found ,

    "Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity.. ."

    “The reformers were catholic because they were spokesmen for an evangelical tradition in medieval catholicism, what Luther called "the succession of the faithful." ...”

    “...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.

    Additional support for this insistence comes from the attitude of the reformers toward the creeds and dogmas of the ancient catholic church. The reformers retained and cherished the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the two natures in Christ which had developed in the first five centuries of the church….”

    “If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. — Jaroslav Pelikan [Lutheran, later Orthodox] , The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 46),the Reformers looks to history is that Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, pp. 46,47)

    Yet in centuries leading up to the Reformation then the corruptions of Rome increased, as did her recalcitrance in response to reproof, and thus the Reformation was a judgment upon it, and for the salvation of souls. If you insist there must be a one manifest visible universal church as the candlestick, rather than like scattered Israel, then you must tell me where that was manifest when,

    "Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy [according to the heretic Rome], according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

    Ratzinger: "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

    "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196); s-of-church-infallibility/).

    Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy at the time of the Reformation: 

    “Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)

    One of your comments indicated this has not yet occurred and that church is still reforming and emerging.

    That was in regard to the church becoming what Paul set forth as a goal in the 1st century.

    Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Ephesians 4:13)

    Thus the only way that the church is perfect now is the same way a believer is, that being by imputed righteousness.

    Too tired for more tonight.

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/30/2015 4:50:38 PM PDT · 221 of 228
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    The seven churches of Asia were bona fide churches of the one holy catholic apostolic church.

    Wrong again. Why do you insist in making question-begging assertions which are shown to be false. The letters to the 7 churches are critiques of them, both positive and negative, and yet in absolutely zero of them is any exhortation of the pope or Rome, or clergy distinctively titled "priests," or the Eucharist, or praying to Mary, or other "saints" or angels, or any distinctive Cath teachings.

    Despite their problems or qualities, none of the things considered to be primary teachings or practices are exhorted as a solution (as Rome surely would in such a case) or commended as a quality.

    Instead, the Lord commands His word to be written, and examining and judging men as false apostles is commended, and which Rome's purported successors surely are, lacking both the requirements and credentials of Biblical apostolic successors. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)

    Nor is their any intimation of a postmortem process that would provide the holiness that is exhorted, as instead the only growth in grace is set forth as in this life, and one is either walking in true faith or not, with being with the Lord being the next stop for those who are of true faith, which is manifest by works, as reformers preached .

    Biblical repentance in response to what is written is what is required, while there simply is no evidence that these were RC churches, even though submission to the pope and partaking of the Eucharist and pray to saints etc. is what Rome exhorts in such cases, when she is not treating Teddy K Caths as members in life and in death.

    He both commended and criticized them, warning them repeatedly to do the works. I don't see him writing letters to tares, but rather to those in danger of losing their salvation. He threatened to remove those churches' candlesticks if they did not repent and do the works.

    The candlesticks are the churches, (Rv. 1:20) which testifies to churches ceasing to be such, which will not happen to the body of Christ. The Lord via His angel to John does warn churches and souls to repent, or else the Lord will remove the church (though a form of it could remain) or fight against souls in a church that held to false doctrine such as that of the Nicolaitans.

    There are no letters to the Reformation, Chuck Smith, Aimee Semple McPherson, or any other Protestant denomination, sect, branch, or faith community.

    You have popes and at least one nun who outdid Aimee, but these letter easily could be written to evangelical churches and be perfectly applicable, while such is not the manner of written of Rome in exhorting repentance and growth in grace.,

    I see a 1500 year gap with disparate streams of denominations,

    You can see what you want, which shows blindness as regards the evidence against Rome, as well as the basis for being both a true Jew and true church.

    Again, is your argument is that if one cannot show formal descent from the historical magisterium but dissents from it, then such necessarily cannot have validity? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/30/2015 3:51:13 PM PDT · 219 of 228
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    You ignored or could not comprehend post 212

    It remains that what you failed to answer is your premise"that unless one cannot show formal descent from the historical magisterium but dissents from it, then such necessarily cannot have validity? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God."

    Since that must be your argument, you might as well make that clear.

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/30/2015 4:15:49 AM PDT · 212 of 228
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Do you have a recognized historical name for the historical manifestation you claim ? Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.? Catholic works well.

    Note that my "historical manifestation" refers first to the visible NT church, that being where those in the one true church (as it alone only consists 100% of true believers) expressed their faith, along with a number ot tares.

    Secondly, historical manifestation refers to later visible churches which basically preached the gospel of the NT church which Peter (Acts 10:36-43) and Paul (Rm. 3:10-51) preached, with baptism confessing that faith, it being a living faith which characteristically follows its Object

    And is not seen praying to created beings, or "priests" offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins, and that event being the source and summit and center of church life around which all revolved, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes in Rome, etc .

    As the post-apostolic church suffered its progressive deformation, the body of Christ continued as a remnant of believers, per usual, within the visible organizational institution, whose deformation and corruption finally necessitated the incomplete Reformation. In which remnant type believers, along with the inevitable tares, were able to once again express their faith in organized organic bodies, even though the visible church is yet imperfect.

    Glory of God.

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/30/2015 3:04:47 AM PDT · 211 of 228
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Do you have a recognized historical name for the historical manifestation you claim ? Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.? Catholic works well.

    It includes any who basically do as i described, from Calvary chapels to most SBC and Reformed to many holiness Pentecostals. But Catholic does not work well.

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/30/2015 3:01:21 AM PDT · 210 of 228
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    There is one holy catholic apostolic church. The church of Rome has existed since the first Century.

    Are you serious? The church of Rome is neither one, except in an organizational sense and with a paper unity, and it certainly has not existed in that sense since the first century, as both Scripture and historical research attest. Or do I need to post documentation?

    Thus the recourse to claiming that both sources only mean what Rome says they do 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

    The church of Rome in its distinctives stands in such contrast to the NT church that it is basically invisible in Scripture. .

    There is an unbroken chain of succession by the laying on of hands from that time until now.

    That also is absurd. Or do I need to post documentation? But like the stipulatedunanimous consent of the fathers, "unbroken" means whatever Rome means.

    You could try arguing that you belong to one of the other original churches rather than an offshoot sect that devolved from, but may not even acknowledge its origin in, the Sixteenth Century. Any movement forming so late has to account for a lack of apostolic authority, a lack of divine origin...,

    Nonsense. So your argument is that unless one cannot show formal descent from the historical magisterium but dissents from it, then such necessarily cannot have validity? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

    On the other hand we see one holy catholic apostolic church that has a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession.

    That is mere whistling in the dark. For the fact is that the church of Rome simply does not a visible historical witness in every century since the Messiah, with scriptural evidence of both its formation, as well as its apostolic succession. Or do i need to post the abundant documentation that testifies against that propaganda, even from Catholics?

  • ...Japan fires world's most powerful laser to produce... 1,000 times the planet's power consumption

    07/29/2015 7:35:51 PM PDT · 40 of 48
    daniel1212 to JimSEA
    Check back in a couple of years, you might be surprised. This has the looks of a breakthrough.

    To say China (and N. Korea) is interested would be an understatement.

  • Alien swarm? 10 UFO-like objects filmed flying over Japan (VIDEO)

    07/29/2015 7:11:37 PM PDT · 10 of 49
    daniel1212 to MeshugeMikey
    low resolution and horribly out of focus.

    From Japan? Hardly credible on that basis alone.

  • I’m Confused about God (Protestant/Evangelical Caucus)

    07/29/2015 7:41:20 AM PDT · 30 of 41
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Not according to the religion forum rules you cannot. But unlike some in the other caucus I’m not going to run to the RM or Jim and cry about it.

    Actually, i think the reason for the caucus mode is because otherwise posting articles on distinctive Prot beliefs can see charges of "bashing" a certain protected religion.

    However, i think posting numerous Prot/evang. caucus threads a day is unwise, and that maybe one or two a day would be better, so as to not seem to abuse the caucus allowance. Regardless of how often another religion may do so.

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/29/2015 7:15:38 AM PDT · 181 of 228
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    Why are you comparing a protestant sect stated in the 19th Century to the 2,000 year old Catholic Church?

    Because the church began as a sect, in dissent from the historical magisterium, which the later church of Rome stands in critical contrast to. See 177 above.

    Mormans are not Christian to start with.

    Then why do RCs include them in their list of Prot denoms? And why cannot they define was history, tradition and and Scripture consist of and mean? Or do you support the evangelical means of ascertaining the veracity of Truth claims by examination of the evidence, versus trusting an infallible magisterium to do so?

    You look look desparate with the outlandish comparisions. The Morman Bible is based on the KJV of the Bible.

    That argumentation is what is desperate! The devil quoted the Bible also, as does the Qur'an, and thus according to your reasoning the source must be blamed.

    Of course, arguing (as you have inferred in the past) that Rome gave us the Bible and thus we need to submit to her is equally fallacious. Keep it up.

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/29/2015 7:03:58 AM PDT · 177 of 228
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Relentlessly attacking one holy catholic apostolic church without a visible, historical alternative, and without bona fide authority, seems to miss the mark, so to speak.

    Relentlessly promoting one holy catholic apostolic church without a visible, historical manifestation of that as being Rome (its distinctively not in Scripture ) , and without bona fide Scriptural authority, seems to miss the mark, so to speak.

    The church of Rome is far from being one, while the Scriptural and historical evidence abundantly testifies against her being the NT church. My visible, historical manifestation is that of a church which began contrary to that of Rome, with believers who recognized men and writings of God as being so, without an infallible magisterium of men, which Rome insists is essential for that. And thus churches of such believers have ordained presbuteros/episkopos as pastors, not a clergy distinctively titled 'priests" as per Catholicism, who are normally married, contrary to Catholicism, and are not required and presumed to have the gift of celibacy.

    And whose primary duty was prayer and preaching the word, feeding the flock thereby, whereby souls obtained spiritual life and were "nourished," (Acts 20:28,32; 1Tim. 4:6) not by eating something physically, which priests have offered as a sacrifice for sins as per the error of Catholicism.

    And which baptized believers who confessed the Lord Jesus thereby, their hearts being purified by the faith behind confession, as Peter and Paul preached, and which faith is counted for righteousnesses, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-10; Rm. 4:1-7) thus their next postmortem (or post 2nd coming) experience would be that of being henceforth with the Lord, versus sprinkling of water rendering them good enough to be with God, thus (usually) culminating in once again becoming good enough to be with God thru postmortem purgatorial suffering of purifying torments.

    And which had spiritual authority based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, though rejected by those who were the historical stewards of Scripture, and whom they reproved by Scripture, as God can raise up true children from stones. (Mt.3:9)

    In contrast assurance of Truth for a RC rests upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. And thus 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 which require assent of faith, while such magisterial teaching as encyclicals, including social teaching, requires religious assent, which excludes public dissent.

    And the list goes on.

    Thus the visible, historical alternative to Rome begins with the NT church (which was an alternative to following the historical magisterium in all things), and which stands in foundational (principal) and extensive contrast with the Cath church. And this historical alternative has always existed, even if as a remnant with the visible church (which, best an unholy admixture of tares and wheat cannot be the one true church, which the body of Christ alone is). This historical alternative is visible today, even with some differences (the 7 churches of Asia were all churches, despite and and bad differences), ordaining men in keeping with the principal of apostolic leadership taken place by presbuteros/episkopos, not priests, and preaching the gospel of grace, not that of Rome, and baptizing souls, praying for the sick, etc.

    These are the most unified in conservative beliefs, in contrast to the fruit of Rome, which includes Ted Kennedy RCs whom you must own, as Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death. Which unholy amalgam RCs insist we must join, contrary to the words of Scripture,

    Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/28/2015 4:52:18 PM PDT · 131 of 228
    daniel1212 to Salvation

    Providing a link to the propagandist "Catholic Answers" works to example the specious nature of her apologists attempts to defend Rome. They invoke Scriptures which testify and instruct ministering to the sick who were made well, or would be, yet in the hands of Rome this sacrament is usually a precursor of death, not healing. Thus most of the tract deals with why God does not heal. Thus most of the tract deals with why God does not heal.

    Nor does the NT anywhere teach of church pastors distinctively titled "priests" does any ministry, only those of the one office who are called presbuteros (senior/elder)/episkopos (superintendent/overseer).

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/28/2015 4:38:31 PM PDT · 130 of 228
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    Pt. 3

    Finally, the various Epistles in the New Testament (the letters of Paul, Peter, etc.) likewise give many examples of the Apostles exercising their teaching and governing offices. I

    Which makes Paul more of a pope than Peter , and refute Cath. distinctives.

    . In fact, those letters only exist because the Apostles knew that it was their role to teach and lead the various local churches!

    And which, among multiple other things , never show or teach any churches to submit to Peter as their supreme head, or to pastors distinctively titled "priests," or pray to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord.

    Catholics see the Church as continuing in Christ’s role of teaching the truth: “He who hears you hears me.”) Why do Protestants reject this claim?

    Because that is mere presumption, which Mormons and other elitist cults likewise engage in, who also misappropriate the words of Christ. The fact is that while RCs deny that those without her can preach in the name of the Lord, it is Catholicism which takes His name in vain as it invoked Him to sanction false teachings not seen in in the NT church, while the Lord affirm ministry done in His name even though the apostles censured him as not being part of their company. (Mk. 9:38-41)

    Non-Catholics usually base their rejection of Church authority on the common misconception of “misplaced worship”: it is claimed that Catholics worship the Church instead of God.

    Since that is what so many RCs mainly preach and manifest cultic devotion to, with Christ being a means to the end of glorifying Rome, the conclusion is warranted.

    Opponents of this authority sometimes also accuse the Catholic Church of claiming power that is only proper to God.

    From what manner of men would they get that idea from?

    With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon..The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it. .” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2 (whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVL (1839) in the bull of his canonization).

    “The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.” - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974

    The best argument for the Catholic doctrine of Church authority comes from the New Testament itself:

    Wrong, as shown and can be shown further, the best argument against the Catholic doctrine of Church authority comes from the New Testament itself:

    Additionally, this same Church authority is the only thing that guarantees the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible itself. It was the Church that selected the books of New Testament and defined the canon of the Bible.

    It took over 1400 years after the last book was penned for Rome to provide what she calls an infallible (indisputable) canon. Meanwhile, the Bible was not a project of the magisterium,, nor did the church of Rome write it, nor does being a discerner and preserver of Divine revelation require of mean that such is the infallible authority on what it is and means. If it does then it invalidates the NT church. For in reality, the 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.)

    The End.

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/28/2015 4:38:12 PM PDT · 129 of 228
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    Pt. 2.

    (Remember that Catholics view the Bible as one of two definitive witnesses to divine Revelation. Christ taught many other things to the Apostles that are not recorded in Scripture; we call this Catholic Tradition,

    Likewise the Mormons, for whom history etc. is also what they say it is. And in reality, this effectively makes the magisterium the supreme authority, under which fables can be deemed binding doctrine, 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.

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


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

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

    The famous Protestant historian Philip Schaff also writes,

    "It [the Assumption of Mary] rests, however, on a purely apocryphal foundation. The entire silence of the apostles and the primitive church teachers respecting the departure of Mary stirred idle curiosity to all sorts of inventions, until a translation like Enoch's and Elijah's was attributed to her. In the time of Origen some were inferring from Luke ii. 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius will not decide whether she died and was buried, or not. Two apocryphal Greek writings de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Tours († 595), for the first time contain the legend that the soul of the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following morning her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there united with the soul. Subsequently the legend was still further embellished, and, besides the apostles, the angels and patriarchs also, even Adam and Eve, were made witnesses of the wonderful spectacle" (section 83).

    Here are some of the more important Scriptural references that address Church authority... (Mt 28:18-20)..(Jn 20:21)

    Which commission does not require what Rome uniquely presumes of herself. Evangelicals have been preaching the gospel Peter preached, (Acts 10:36-43,47) and teaching the only comprehensive wholly inspired body of Truth that the Lord provided.

    “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19)

    If Peter was called the Rock upon whom the church was continually built and was thus looked as that, rather than “this rock” in Mt. 16:18 referring to the truth of Peters confession and by extension Christ, then we most certainly would see this affirmed in the rest of the NT. However, in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.

    This power to “bind and loose”, repeated also in Mt 18:18 to the Apostles as a whole, is understood as applying first to Peter and his successors (the Pope), and then to the rest of the Apostles and their successors (the other Bishops) in union with Peter. The Acts of the Apostles (a New Testament book) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age (during the lives of the Apostles themselves, after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ). Indeed the latter does ) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age, and which never examples or teaches that souls were to come to the apostles or leadership to obtain forgiveness, which is the primary use Rome claims for its presumed binding and loosing power.

    Nor is coming regularly to clergy to obtain forgiveness seen or taught in the rest of the NT, while the only application of that aspect is in Ja. 5, in which, while teaching that God has regard to the intercession of others, primarily elders (not Cath "priests ") confession is only exhorted to each other in general, and for which spiritual binding and loosing is provided, as in Mt. 18:19-20. Only judicial binding/loosing requires the magisterium, yet that is to be in union with the church in general. (Mt. 18:15-18; 1Cor. 5)

    Moreover, rather than as in Ja. 5, the Cath sacrament of anointing of the sick is usually a precursor of death.

    In Acts, we see repeated examples of the Apostles teaching, governing, and sanctifying (baptizing and confirming, as well as “breaking the bread”).

    Never is NT church leadership shown officiating over giving bread to be eaten as one of their unique ordained duties, let alone in order that souls may obtain a sacrifice for sins and obtain spiritual life, nor is the NT ever shown doing so in the entire recorded life of the church, nor that the Lord's Supper is "the source and summit of the Christian life," around which all revolves. The only epistle to a church that even describes the Lord's Supper, 1Cor. 10+11 does not teach that, nor does Scripture in its totality .

    One of the most striking passages in Acts tells how the Apostles describe their decision about whether pagan converts should submit to the Jewish laws of circumcision. They say, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” that those laws of the Old Covenant should not apply (Acts 15:28).

    And in which James provided the Scripturally substantiated judgment on what should be done, confirmatory of the exhortation and testimony of Peter, and that of Paul and Barnabas. But the validity of the magisterial office (which Westminster affirms) is not the issue, but the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and the specious claim of Rome to validity of unique magisterial Roman claims. are.

  • What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    07/28/2015 4:37:42 PM PDT · 128 of 228
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; metmom; kosciusko51; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    What is the source of the Church’s authority?

    You must know that the supplied answers are elitist, and provocative. Since this is allowed, it infers responses also are that challenge it, all of it, and which is a purose pof a forum, and which type of exchange forum rules provide for and regulate.

    The source & nature of Church authority is one of the major issues that beginning Catholics have to examine and come to terms with.

    One her autocratically defined terms.

    It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”

    The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.

    There is a large amount of evidence in Scripture to support the Catholic Church’s claim to authority, as well as from early Church history. Rather, there is a large amount of lack of evidence, and contrary in Scripture to support the Catholic Church’s claim to authority , as well as from early Church history.

    Christ himself is the source of the Church’s authority.

    So say the Mormons who likewise operate under sola ecclesia and hold to additional books of fantasy, and autocratically defines what is truth.

    Rejection of this claim is usually based on the common misconception of “misplaced worship” — the accusation that Catholics worship the something else (the Church, the Pope, Mary, the Saints, etc.) instead of God.

    The New Testament shows that Christ deliberately created his Church to be the vehicle of his continuing mission in the world. He promised to remain present in his Church for all time, and he lovingly guides it through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

    Indeed. Despite the attempts and corruptions of men, and of Rome in particular , the body of Christ has endured, and it is Scripture, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, that the Spirit abundantly manifests is the transcendent supreme standard for Truth and obedience.

    To ensure the success of this mission, Christ gave his Church the ability to teach, govern and sanctify with Christ’s own authority. The Apostles appointed successors to ensure that the Gospel would continue to be handed on faithfully as “the lasting source of all life for the Church” (Vatican II, “Lumen Gentium” 20; also Catechism #860).

    In reality, there were no apostolic successors after Judas, which was (in order to maintain foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) The only continuously perpetuated pastoral office (unless deacons are included) by way of formal ordination was that of presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), both of which refer to those in the same office. (Titus 1:5-7)

    The purpose of this authority is to give the Church the ability to teach without error about the essentials of salvation: “On this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). The scope of this authority concerns the official teachings of the Church on matters of faith, morals, and worship (liturgy & sacraments). We believe that, because of Christ’s continued presence and guarantee, his Church cannot lead people astray with its official teachings (which are distinct from the individual failings and opinions of its members, priests, bishops, and Popes).

    More erroneous extrapolation. God's promises of His presence and preservation, as well as providing teaching authority, NEVER required or inferred ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, leaving it unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. The NT magisterium flows from the OT magisterium, to which general obedience was enjoined, and disobedience to which could mean death. (Dt. 17:8-13; cf. Mt. 23:2) But which did not require or promise ensured formulaic infallibility as per Rome,

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/27/2015 6:06:29 PM PDT · 377 of 708
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    These are the only places that I can find that antichrist is mentioned.

    True, but if it says "you have heard that the antichrist is coming," then it must meant he must be coming, even though there were and are many antichrists, like as there will be The day of the Lord, though there have been many day of the Lord precursors already.

    In any case, call the man of lawlessness what you want, but he certainly is anti-Christ.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 6:48:10 PM PDT · 186 of 708
    daniel1212 to caww
    I vaguely remember a movie that reached all the movie theaters about this......not sure it was LaHaye’s work or not. But it certainly brought in crowds of people to watch. I think it went by another title.....”Late Great Planet Earth” Maybe?

    While i do not subscribe to the Rapture theory (seeing it as the resurrection at the end of the Great Trib.), it did spawn a lot of movies. The best i though was "Days of the Beast," hard to find, and it has much that corresponds to how things are moving today. Substitute the rapture for the res. at the end of the trib.

    Maybe you were thinking of Megiddo omega code



  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 6:34:23 PM PDT · 184 of 708
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    I am a staunch pre/mid/post tribber. There are enough bible verses to cover ALL of these bases! Thus the arguing over it!

    Correctly understanding prophecy usually awaits its fulfillment, as it did with souls believing on the Christ in the light of what He did. When the anti-Christ sits in the temple and declares he is God then a lot of believers will change their end-time beliefs.

  • What to do if you missed the Rapture

    07/26/2015 5:53:35 PM PDT · 176 of 708
    daniel1212 to Salvation; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Notice: The daily sport of posting Catholic bashing threads on FR stops today. Thanks.

    So now simply posting a prevalent Prot belief (though I believe the rapture is the resurrection) is bashing Catholics? Or is this paranoia that it might result in something being said against Cath. teaching, which alone may be allowed? What if we said Prot bashing threads on FR are to stop in response to a thread on a Cath. belief? Please explain the how and why of your response if you are better informed than we.

  • Your take on Donald Trump? (vanity)

    07/26/2015 5:33:18 PM PDT · 59 of 62
    daniel1212 to Arlis; aquila48

    Both of you example some sound warranted analysis. Thank God for wise men.

  • Your take on Donald Trump? (vanity)

    07/26/2015 2:45:18 PM PDT · 39 of 62
    daniel1212 to Leaning Right
    None of the above. He is not a typical politician and he simply speaks his mind, and which is overall conservative and refreshing, saying certain things which need to be said.

    However, he does not seem to be one who likes to debate, and having to prove the validity of his positions thereby. Donald would be far more comfortable as a general or a dictator, which he can be in business. Efficient, but there was a reason the Founders worked against that.

    He does not seem very strong on moral issues. He is eons better than the radical we now have, but "Cruz control" is what I am for. b

  • Moral decline

    07/26/2015 12:02:58 PM PDT · 7 of 10
    daniel1212 to metmom
    Decline? We’ve fallen off the cliff, and it’s just a matter of time before we hit bottom. And it won’t be pretty.

    Indeed. "Decline" deals with the process.

  • Moral decline

    07/26/2015 12:01:56 PM PDT · 6 of 10
    daniel1212 to wintertime
    I am especially interested in the section on education.

    You might find Education in the United States interesting

  • Moral decline

    07/26/2015 7:26:30 AM PDT · 2 of 10
    daniel1212 to daniel1212; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...

    Note that Wiki links will not work.

    America’s moral decline is not without precedent nor will it be without consequences.

    Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. (Hosea 8:3-4)

    I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing. (Hosea 8:12)

    For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples; and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the palaces thereof. (Hosea 8:14)

  • Moral decline

    07/26/2015 7:19:53 AM PDT · 1 of 10
    A fitting subject for today, examined at length. Written originally in 2010 (I was the main author) before America further declined to requiring all of the US to become the United States of Sodom in regards to affirming sodomic marriage.

    Yet the Lord's main focus is on His church. Certainly I fall short of what I should be in practical holiness, but may we who are of the body of Christ obey Heb. 12:1,2ff, as judgment must begin with the house of God, and the Lord who bought us is worthy to be glorified.

  • Seattle Residents Rise Up Against Trash Police

    07/25/2015 8:10:56 PM PDT · 57 of 68
    daniel1212 to Jack Hydrazine; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...

    In this city, they began requiring every apt. building unit to be inspected each year at a cost (to the LL) of $50.00 per unit. What recourse one has to prevent this intrusion I do not known, but once the camel gets his nose in the tent...

    When food gets scarce, i can see this expanding from checking to make sure there are monoxide detectors, and vents, and special outlets in the bathroom, etc to noting how much food is stored. (And what kind of books you read..)

  • Rescued POW Jessica Lynch: 'I feel very blessed'

    07/25/2015 7:26:56 PM PDT · 21 of 21
    daniel1212 to M1911A1; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Lots to dislike about the way the whole thing was handled, but Lynch has has been consistent and forthright about her role. Blame the Washington Post and the Pentagon PR machine.

    Lynch also was in Johnstown to promote her appearance in the new faith-based film "Virtuous."

    Lynch also was in Johnstown to promote her appearance in The film is a multi-plot, feature-length motion picture that highlights 10 unique women of different ages, backgrounds and life experiences. It focuses on empowering women to live righteously while remaining unapologetic in their actions or beliefs.

    Lynch also was in Johnstown to promote her appearance in The film stars Erik Estrada, an actor best known for his leading role in the TV series "CHIPS," and Brandy Allison, a Christian recording artist. -

    Eric in The Cross and the Switchblade;

  • We Will Not Bow

    07/25/2015 6:49:28 PM PDT · 32 of 32
    daniel1212 to The Ghost of FReepers Past

    Thanks be to God. 5 out of 9 SOTUS judges were not.

  • We Will Not Bow

    07/25/2015 2:21:28 PM PDT · 28 of 32
    daniel1212 to Mariner
    The state will do as the state sees fit. They will not compel you to marry a homo.

    They can and have and will punish those who will not marry them, or provide what they demand in order to do so.

    The devil works to created an alternative society, with his perversion of what God ordained, and in which the devil receives homage via his proxy servants.

  • We Will Not Bow

    07/25/2015 1:59:22 PM PDT · 26 of 32
    daniel1212 to Mariner
    I agree with the contention on abortion. Terrorism. But to equate homo marriage with terrorism is simply absurd. In fact I don't care who a homo "marries", nor a good Christian. I simply cannot understand the fevered opposition.

    If you do not see how SOTUS penalizing any state that will not sanction as marriage the union of sodomites then you have a very superficial understanding of what this represents. But perhaps you see no value in the Bible being the tested transcendent moral standard for moral laws, even if according to principles.

    It would seem that you disagree that Godliness and morality is a country's greatest strength (not simply in terms of power), and that the overall character of a country, and that the Hollywoods and the purveyors and purchasers of perversion within a country, and a far greater threat then enemies without, and that moral decline accompanied every nation that itself eventually went South.

    Sexually joining together what God has placed asunder is the capstone of the demonic liberal overthrowing of traditional Biblical morality, which has already cost American greatly in souls, lives and money , and dignifying it by affording it the title of marriage, and requiring the entire nation to do so, is indeed an act of terrorism against both Constitutional freedom (with its basis and necessary limits) and Biblical morality which only blesses a country, and requiring all states to basically salute the flag of Sodom will have effects which are far more detrimental to American society than any physical act of terrorism has.

    Men having sex with men (MSM) has itself already been primarily responsible for the death of over 600,000 Americans, and despite attempts to tame it somewhat this unholy union is still responsible for 79% of new HIV cases. Moreover, the lifetime ( 24.2 years avg.) HIV care cost per person in optimal HIV care is now $618,900 per person. The discounted (accounting for the time-specific value of costs and benefits) lifetime cost of comprehensive treatment per HIV-infected person was $385,000. The total discounted cost, including lost productivity, of the estimated 40,000 new HIV infections expected to occur in the United States every year, was estimated to be approximately $53 billion. - Read more:

    Sodomy also typically results in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death, and lesbians have a much greater rate of attempted suicide.

    One would think that marriage then would be favored in the interest of public health, but the homosexual reality is that marriage is not only redefined as regard what is joined together, but it is also typically not monogamous either. For one, the Gay Couples Study, followed 556 male couples for three years and found about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. -

    However, even if these detrimental physical effects were not seen then homosexual relationships would still be evil as that are contrary to what God has ordained. And made 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. Joining

  • Do You Disapprove of Theological Controversy in the Christian Church? (Protestant Caucus)

    07/25/2015 8:03:27 AM PDT · 8 of 75
    daniel1212 to Gamecock; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    The prevailing idea today in many circles is not to bother about these things. As long as we are all Christians, anyhow, somehow, all is well. Do not let us argue about doctrine, let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God. That is really the whole basis of ecumenicity. Unfortunately, that same attitude is creeping into evangelical circles also and many say that we must not be too precise about these...

    Indeed. While we can join others in fighting a house fire or plugging a damn, ultimately there is a basis for our goals in so doing which go beyond the immediate concerns. And we must face the differing reasons as regards foundational ethos.

    Division because of foundational error and unity of a remnant is superior to unity at the expense of foundational Truth. The early Christians were allowed to worship as they would as long as they worshiped Caesar, and local ministerial associations do not allow debate about differences.

    But what to do when you are a guest at someone's dinner table and discussion of politics and religion are disallowed? Either you speak if and what God wants, if and as He leads and suffer the consequences, or you compromise.

    Let us be clear about what we mean. This is not argument for the sake of argument; this is not a manifestation of an argumentative spirit; this is not just indulging one’s prejudices. The Scriptures do not approve of that, and furthermore the Scriptures are very concerned about the spirit in which one engages in discussion. No man should like argument for the sake of argument. We should always regret the necessity; but though we regret and bemoan it, when we feel that a vital matter is at stake we must engage in argument. We must “earnestly contend for the truth,” and we are called upon to do that by the New Testament.

    But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

    Which i have not always done.

  • We Will Not Bow

    07/25/2015 7:41:59 AM PDT · 2 of 32
    daniel1212 to daniel1212; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    The two greatest attacks of terror on America were perpetrated by the Supreme Court. Not by any Muslim, but by the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • We Will Not Bow

    07/25/2015 7:40:29 AM PDT · 1 of 32
    Like lost souls of the OT, "Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits," (Isaiah 30:10) the media and even many using the name of Christ today censor those who oppose those who speak out against the Sodomization of the United States, with SOTUS itself effectively penalizing those who refuse to sanction this unity in error.

    In contrast, this type of clear message is what needs to be preached by the leaders of every church which dares claim to be that of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth.

    This is a long (approx. 45 min) sermon, and I tried to excerpt (and did somewhat) portions, but there was little I dared leave out. The whole message can be read at the link , and free audio or video downloads can be downloaded from here .

    Finally, note that providing this does not mean I concur with all that MacArthur teaches, but this in particular examples a courageous stand for incontrovertible Truth.

  • All dogs, and cats, and pigs, and goats, and cockroaches go to heaven: So says Pope Francis

    07/24/2015 7:36:53 PM PDT · 108 of 219
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    ot that I'm a big fan of Laudato Si. Far from it. I just don't like it being flipped off by people who haven't even read it.

    At about 34,000 words as i recall, that is a bit of a challenge.

  • All dogs, and cats, and pigs, and goats, and cockroaches go to heaven: So says Pope Francis

    07/24/2015 7:35:12 PM PDT · 107 of 219
    daniel1212 to ImaGraftedBranch
    I have no doubt my golden had a soul; when I returned from a business trip she would moan - deeply, continuously, from the depths....of her mortal soul.

    If any one breed typically would be a "Christian" dog, I would say that is likely it!

  • All dogs, and cats, and pigs, and goats, and cockroaches go to heaven: So says Pope Francis

    07/24/2015 7:27:03 PM PDT · 105 of 219
    daniel1212 to Georgia Girl 2
    I draw the line at cockroaches. :-)

    Indeed, and such. Hell is the place where their "worm dieth not." Whatever that represents .

  • All dogs, and cats, and pigs, and goats, and cockroaches go to heaven: So says Pope Francis

    07/24/2015 7:22:04 PM PDT · 103 of 219
    daniel1212 to Patriot Babe
    Heaven is NOT just for Humans. Heaven is filled with animals too. There is a verse in the New Testament that states that the Animals and Plants are awaiting for his return too.

    You mean:

    For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (Romans 8:19-22)

    No doubt ALL animals will be in Heaven. ALL GOD’S CREATION will be Heaven

    I would disagree, as some must be part of the curse. Instead, only animals which would be a blessing to the elect would be there.

  • All dogs, and cats, and pigs, and goats, and cockroaches go to heaven: So says Pope Francis

    07/24/2015 7:18:17 PM PDT · 102 of 219
    daniel1212 to chesley
    Animals are not moral agents, however. I don't know, but I can always hope..

    God-consciousness effects worship, which is an activity peculiar to man. But while animals do not have the responsibility of knowing and obeying God, and thus cannot be culpable for sins toward God, such as idolatry, I do believe that dogs at least can experience guilt due to being made that they have disobeyed their master. Which testifies to some degree of conscience and moral culpability toward their masters/law givers.

    But lacking the blessing of knowing their eternal creator and His moral will on earth means that whatever punishment they incur for disobeying their earthly master is restricted to this life.

  • All dogs, and cats, and pigs, and goats, and cockroaches go to heaven: So says Pope Francis

    07/24/2015 7:00:18 PM PDT · 99 of 219
    daniel1212 to P-Marlowe
    Cats? In Heaven? Has he ever owned a cat? Cats are natural born blasphemers. They all think they are God.

    Too often too close to the truth! The cat came not to minister, but be ministered to. Meow.

  • All dogs, and cats, and pigs, and goats, and cockroaches go to heaven: So says Pope Francis

    07/24/2015 6:56:46 PM PDT · 98 of 219
    daniel1212 to WorkingClassFilth; oldsicilian; defconw; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; ...
    I thought the Papal Encyclical was just opinion on church and spiritual matters - more or less. Acting as the Vicar of Christ, the statements would be made from St. Peter’s Throne and known as Ex Cathedra and, therefore, binding truth for all Catholics as doctrine. Isn’t this so, Catholic brothers and sister

    Though i am not a Catholic, and if i may post information without it being seen as being contentious flame baiting (which is disallowed), according to much church teaching I would have to say no, no, encyclicals and other papal public teaching, including social teaching, also normally requires assent.

    Of course one must recognize not only the different levels of church teaching but the different levels of assent. If you want actual statements by popes and Catholics and can engage in civil exchange, then it would be best if you asked.

  • All dogs, and cats, and pigs, and goats, and cockroaches go to heaven: So says Pope Francis

    07/24/2015 6:38:34 PM PDT · 96 of 219
    daniel1212 to kinsman redeemer
    Maybe they’re in FUR-gatory! Who knows ?

    kinsman, that was bad!😀

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/23/2015 4:43:16 PM PDT · 701 of 713
    daniel1212 to Prince of Space
    What propaganda are you referring to? The beliefs of a 2000-year-old Church with about 1 billion members? If so, that’s an extremely prideful comment, which God considers a sin.

    Where oh where have you been all these years o Prince of Space? Name just one distinctive and i will show it being propaganda. Nor is mine the prideful comment (that is considered personal "mindreading" BTW, forbidden by the mods here), as instead it is Rome that is being proud as insisting she alone is the One True Church®.

    Here you are merely engaging in argument by assertion, begging the question, presuming as fact the very thing that needs to be proved. For if in contrast to the NT is the deformation called Roman Catholicism. Which does not even include distinctives of Cath sects due to the redefining conflicts so many faithful RCs see V2 Catholicism having engaged in.

    Which NT church, as manifested in Scripture,

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

    2. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

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

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

    and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/23/2015 2:45:26 PM PDT · 676 of 713
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    Coherency being a goal, I could say that "bashing" has been defined as including articles which substantiated Reformation doctrine and refuted that of Rome (such as sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia). Thus the like by Caths must also be considered as such. However, it remains to be seen they will see such "bashing" and this anti--bashing rule (of the first thread) as applying to them.

    However, as it was the daily bashing that was censured, then an occasional apologetic may be considered as allowed, except that in another thread attacking fellow conservatives was broadly condemned, which could be understood as forbidding any sectarian disputes. Which i think would be a loss.

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/23/2015 2:26:51 PM PDT · 675 of 713
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    Instead of being able to defend your beliefs you run to the owner and RMs to lock down the thread. And it's not the first time you've run crying to the RM either. I know you've tried to have some of my threads pulled in the past.

    And even complaining to the owner, which resulted in ignoring the years of constant Catholic threads and multiplicity of posts engaging in Prot "bashing" (as would be defined as such if said about Catholicism), and instead only threads by Evangelicals were clearly censured.

    As after years of constant Catholic threads and multiplicity of posts engaging in Prot "bashing" were implicitly sanctioned, if not their content, and only threads by Evangelicals were clearly censured, then a message of pro-Catholic moderation has been sent, intentional or not.

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/23/2015 2:26:32 PM PDT · 674 of 713
    daniel1212 to Not gonna take it anymore
    There is a huge difference in expressing an opinion and bashing. It helps if we know the difference.

    It certain would help. Therefore please provide a list of anti-Catholic bashing which has been seen the like by Catholics against Protestants.

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/23/2015 12:35:21 PM PDT · 641 of 713
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    I do the same thing in the other forums as that is what this website is all about....expressing your opinion. You should look to Paul as an example of an apologist. He was always willing to engage in a defense of the Gospel with anyone, anyplace, anytime.

    Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. (Acts 17:16-17)

  • What? Evangelicals Come Against Franklin Graham's Views on Islam

    07/23/2015 5:30:02 AM PDT · 43 of 59
    daniel1212 to markomalley; metmom; boatbums; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    I don't have any knowledge as to the orthodoxy of these evangelical sources she mentions in the article. Mostly liberal, though concern by Arab evangelicals against preventing immigration from Muslim countries, since it would keep Christian brethren out, is understandable.

    And it is clear that Islam, vs the NT, advocates religious bloodshed.

    But many seem to concur with the pope in his "APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION" EVANGELII GAUDIUM, who states "authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence." - 253; .

    Which i am confident you do not concur with. Then there is the large collection of statements by the USCCB -


    We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an...

    “Our pilgrimage to these holy places is not for purposes of prestige or power. It is a humble and ardent prayer for peace, through the intercession of the glorious protectors of Africa, who gave up their lives for love and for their belief. In recall the Catholic and Anglican Martyrs, We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” - Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969 [emp. mine.]

    “I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...

    “As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985

    We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985


    Evangelical leaders in the Middle East and North Africa are most likely to say religious conflict is a moderately big (37%) or very big (35%) problem. 55% of those in the Asia-Pacific region and 49% in sub-Saharan Africa also see inter- religious conflict as a moderately or very big problem. 90% who live in Muslim-majority countries say the influence of Islam is a major threat, compared with 41% of elsewhere.

  • How to Go to Heaven

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/23/2015 4:13:40 AM PDT · 550 of 713
    daniel1212 to Mad Dawg
    To me, daniel1212’s learned posts demonstrate the limitations of this medium. I've hinted in this and other threads that the differences between Catholics and some Protestants are VERY deep and extensive. To me this means, functionally, that I cannot give daniel1212’s expositions the respect they deserve. What they require, IMHO, is for us to schedule TWO (at least) three day conferences, a year apart. Papers by the presenters would be sent out a month in advance, so that the presentations would be about clarifications and questions. THEN, The Protestants and the Catholics would caucus — maybe the evening of the second day, and try to identify that disagreement — you know the kind — which leads members of each side to say to one another, “Did you catch that? There they go again!” The last day would be winnowing these “objections” down to maybe two or three per side.

    Well, it sounds appealing if challenging. But didn't Catholics try that among themselves in V2? As one poster wryly

    The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan,

    I think I would benefit from listening to and praying with Xtians who disagreed with me so much that many thought I wasn't fit to be called Xtian.

    Which humility is very refreshing. However, as noble as your thought is, my experience (as one who was manifestly born again while still a RC and remained active therein for 6 years after) is that there are very very few that we find fellowship in Christ with. (And one prayer to Mary or some saint is going to nuke that.) For while we often enjoy spontaneous rejoicing on meeting a fellow evangelical type, die to a shared life giving conversion with its profound changes in heart and life, and relationship with the Lord, and Scripture-based walked, with Catholics there is no such fellowship. Instead if they say anything then it is about their One True Church®, and exalting the Eucharist and Mary or indifference or antagonism in inquiring about salvation. But there are exceptions, usually among those of simple faith.

    Fellowship with mainline Prots is also seldom realized, as they also know nothing experientially of the transformative New Birth. But regards what Prots can realize re Christ-centered ecumenism, I will let the famous "prince of preachers" speak:

    Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. (C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 173, in “A Defence Of Calvinism,” The Banner Of Truth Trust edition)

    Now I hate High Churchism as my soul hates Satan; but I love George Herbert, although George Herbert is a desperately High Churchman. I hate his high Churchism, but I love George Herbert from my very soul, and I have a warm corner in my heart for every man who is like him. Let me find a man who loves my Lord Jesus Christ as George Herbert did, and I do not ask myself whether I shall love him or not; there is no room for question, for I cannot help myself; unless I can leave off loving Jesus Christ, I cannot cease loving those who love him. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12, p. 6;

  • How to Go to Heaven

    07/22/2015 8:21:11 PM PDT · 533 of 713
    daniel1212 to HarleyD

    Ops, correction: I have said and hold that man can choose evil without Divine aid. I do not even think he necessarily needs the devil.