Secret Service Agents Seize Ray Comfort Gospel Tracts ("1 million dollar bill")

WorldViewWeekend.com ^ | 06/02/2006 | Brannon Howse

[Old_Mil]

Laugh if you want, but the man comes well recommended:

Comfort's ministry has been commended by several evangelical leaders, including Franklin Graham, Josh McDowell, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Bill Gothard, David Wilkerson, Joni Eareckson Tada [1]. He has written for Billy Graham's Decision magazine and Bill Bright's Worldwide Challenge. His literature is used by the Moody Bible Institute, Leighton Ford Ministries, Campus Crusade for Christ, Institute in Basic Life Principles, and the Institute for Scientific & Biblical Research. He has also written roughly fifty books and is a regular platform speaker at Southern Baptist State Conferences. His videos were seen by over 30,000 pastors in 1992, and he has spoken in more than 700 churches from most denominations.[7]

[monkapotamus]

Sounds like the marketing ploy worked. Now is there a legitimate source reporting the Secret Service 'raid'?

Here is a link to a video of a news story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdyJBw5yjus

[AlaninSA]

Fair enough, but it will take long postings to make a complete point. Cheap shots are the zone of the misinformed - and the norm for attacks on any faith both on FR and in the media. I wish to avoid those cheap shots and make a complete case for my view that Baptist teachings on those topics are incorrect when viewed through the Scripture.

[P-Marlowe]

Cheap shots are the zone of the misinformed

This whole side discussion was started with this cheap shot.

and continued Here.

and Here

and Here.

Maybe you should have directed your comment to that poster.

[samiam1972]

"I think that's why we bring our Bibles to Church. We hold our pastors accountable. We don't blindly follow. We use the GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURES to verify what is being taught is not wrong. The HOLY SPIRIT that has sealed us guides us in the process of understanding SCRIPTURE.

Loyalty to an institution is not FAITH."

The ignorance of your statement absolutely floors me. It's obvious you've never been to Mass before. It's nothing but Scripture from beginning to end. I was waiting for the Sarcasm tag after your post. Please don't post about things you know nothing about.

How does your belief hold up to the church down the street? Is the Holy Spirit guiding them also? What about the one further down? Is the Holy Spirit guiding them, too? Because I'm guessing you all have different ideas about the Scripture you are preaching. How do you know which one is correct?

[Religion Moderator]

I suggest you begin a new thread - a clean slate - to discuss the differences between your confessions.

But either way I'll be monitoring the debate very closely to make sure the discussion stays on the issues and does not turn personal.

Also, to avoid igniting a flame war, I suggest both sides agree up front not to personally disparage popes, preachers, bishops, evangelists, priests, etc. from the other's confession.

[wmfights]

"How does your belief hold up to the church down the street? Is the Holy Spirit guiding them also? What about the one further down? Is the Holy Spirit guiding them, too? Because I'm guessing you all have different ideas about the Scripture you are preaching. How do you know which one is correct?"
______________________________

Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

We don't look to an institution of man (your church) and its parts, such as your magestrium, to tell us what and how to believe and think. We trust in our LORD and SAVIOR and the "GOD-BREATHED" SCRIPTURES. Why is it that prior to Vatican II Roman Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible?

[samiam1972]

We were not discouraged from reading our Bibles. We trust in the "GOD-BREATHED" SCRIPTURES also. If you'd like to give me an example of the church not letting people read the bible then I'm sure I could give you an explanation for it. Like maybe it was a faulty translation of the bible. Or maybe the people couldn't read and didn't have bibles. You should quit taking talking points from the Chick tracts and actually search for the truth.

Why do you have such a hard time with traditions and the servants God is using to guide us here on Earth? Read your Bible.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).


I trust that the Lord gave us the complete truth in Scripture and Tradition and there is nothing in our Catechism that conflicts with either one. I really think you have a lot of misconceptions about the Catholic faith. It's a pity that you would look to Chick and others to teach you about the Catholic Church. All you get from them is a bunch of conspiracy theories.

[samiam1972]

Thanks for the link! That's actually kind of funny.

[TheBattman]

I'm on my way to bed after a very long day... but I will address at least two of the issues you brought up:

#1 - Pope=Power. For centuries, the Pope had ultimate power - even Kings had to be approved by the Pope or they were not king. And it is some of those same church leaders who pushed the Roman Empire to expand throughout Europe - along the way "converting" the unwashed masses along the way. Unfortunately that same path included adopting much of the practices of those same-said heathen to make "Christianity" more palatable, but thus adulterating the supposedly sacred Church traditions.

#2 - The belief in Transubstantiation (as that seems to be the primary focus of the answer.com response you used) - one url of interest that sheds a bit of unpleasant light on the subject http://www.remnantofgod.org/transubstantiation.htm#girl

Where in the Bible is it listed that the "host" used in Holy Communion has to contain Gluten???? In fact, the only stipulation I can find in the Bible is a reference to "unleavened" bread. And the fact is - without taking Comunion that satisfies the Church, this girl is in spiritual danger.... Seems rather ironic that the "Host" used in the Catholic Comunion is in a form that would have been completely alien to Christ and his apostles. But that isn't a huge issue, other than where does the Church get such a specific "quality" to the Host used, yet won't recognize a rice wafer because it doens't have gleuten?
The same page that the URL above refers too has a great deal of comparison and direct quotes from official Catholic writings and doctrine. But I won't leave it there....

Here is another interesting page of info on the subject:

http://www.webtruth.org/articles/theological-issues-23/transubstantiation-49.html

And yet another bit of interesting Church history is that, even within the Church, there has been serious debate over Transusbstantiation including "Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi).", an issue that wasn't "settled" until the Lateran Council in 1215.

And yet one more (for now) url:
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/transub.htm

OK - found one more:

http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion.htm


#3 - The Church being against translation of the Bible into the common man's language.... Are you trying to say that the only authentic language for the Bible is Latin? How much of the Bible was originally penned in Latin? Oh - wait, none of it. The original languages were primarily HEbrew, Aramaic, and Greek. At the time the Church chose to use latin, it was still a language in use (not a "dead language" - the reason it is now used in the medical and legal fields). The stand the Church took against having the Bible in the tongue of the "common man" was primarily because of power - not to protect the text. Yes, there is an ongoing debate over translation - and I don't see an end to it, but now that the Bible is available in English (and more and more languages to reach more and more people with God's word), the debate SHOULD remain on being as accurate as is humanly possible, praying that God places faithful people in place to maintain the message He has for the world in a form that is reliable and true to God's Word.


#4 -"What unscriptural practices and traditions do we have? I'm guessing you have the wrong idea about Catholicism and believe what these silly tracts say."

How about this one - worship of Saints.

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=saints

http://www.carm.org/catholic/prayertosaints.htm

And please notice that I didn't use any Chick Gospel tracts....

I choose to walk TO God's Word, not away from it. I have found that the stronger my prayer life has grown, the more sincere and consistant my study of the bible has become, and More effort I have put into seeking Him, the more I feel I understand (but the counter to that is that the more I learn and think I understand, the more I find I don't know!).

What I do know - of the many Catholics I know - some I believe truly place thier faith and trust in Christ alone for the Salvatin of their soul, while others claime to place the same-said faith and trust in Christ, but worry that strict adherance to what truly amounts to a pattern of works to bring justification is what is most important - thus determining their ultimate fate.

That's all for now - it's WAY past my bed time! Have fun!

[monkapotamus]

Here is a news update from another source, with a Secret Service response:

Bogus $1 million bills handed out by ministry seized

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644166/posts

[PetroniusMaximus]

"I suggest you begin a new thread - a clean slate - to discuss the differences between your confessions."

If you're schedule permits, were you interested in starting this thread?

[PetroniusMaximus]

Update:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644471/posts

[GestehenSieUndGibtAuf]

I read the articles, thanks for the links. It is interesting that he not only talks about Catholics, but also Baptist, Methodist and a few others groups. I believe he is speaking about people who are religious like Nicodemus and not "born again". Thoughts.

[AlaninSA]

I have resigned from this thread. I cannot seem to stay out of getting personal with the strident anti-Catholics. I'm strident in my own right, so...best to just put it away.

[samiam1972]

I'm not going to be able to debate this with you. The stuff you have here has been argued ad nauseam on these threads. I know you can find an the article about the little girl on this forum.

I don't answer "where in the bible" questions. I strongly recommend this book to answer all those questions for you.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879736933/002-7455162-5061614?v=glance&n=283155

I also don't generally go to anti-Catholic websites looking for "official Catholic writings and doctrine". You want official? Read this.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574551094/qid=1149785487/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-7455162-5061614?s=books&v=glance&n=283155


There are so many things wrong in the links you sent me that I don't even know where to begin!!! Again, when you learn the faith of the Catholic Church from Catholic sources then you may correctly understand where we are coming from.

You must be kidding about the saint worship. I can't believe that is even an issue around here anymore. We don't worship saints. Try this for your answer to that one.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

It's kind of silly for us to go back and forth with our links. I'm using Catholic sources to promote the Catholic faith. You are using non-Catholic sources to attempt to rip apart the Catholic faith.

You have a long way to go in understanding the Catholic faith correctly. Quit looking at sites that bash the church because they are so full of lies and half-truths that it is sickening! You'll never learn anything but hatred there.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. May God continue to bless you!

[TheBattman]

You missed one simple fact in your reply (although you hit all around it near the end)...

I have read article after article from the catholic.com web site, I have visited with many Catholics personally, I have even spoken with more than one Catholic Priest over the last few years. I agree - when you want to know what a faith believes, then you go to the source.

And after you do that, and make a determination if you believe what you have read & heard or not, you then look for either supporting data, or refuting data.

If a person were to go to the Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) themselves for information on what they actually teach and believe - what do you think you will hear? 100% of information that supports their beliefs (even if it is in major error or even blasphemous).

If I were to pursue information on Jehovah's Witnesses and actually go to the people themselves - 100% of the info they give me is going to support their beliefs (even if flawed as above).

One thing I have found in my research on religion - you can find a web site with support and rejection of every religion and belief on earth (at least those with any significant following - and many that don't). It is the job of the person doing the looking to make the determination of what they believe and what they reject.

You assume that I have never looked into Catholic Sources - but in fact, every time I have heard of a teaching or theology of the Catholic Church that I had a problem with, guess where the FIRST place I look is ..... Catholic sources. I then find out if what I heard really is a teaching of the Catholic Church, and then find where the teaching or practice comes from. It is then up to me to figure out if I believe that it is a legitimate practice, or if I reject it and speak against it. I do this through my study of the Bible.

I am a firm believer that all practices of the Church must be supported by the Scriptures. Man's word alone is not enough. But I do search for other references to point me in the right direction for areas to look and study.

The saint-worship I referenced is a very real practice - although it is not called "worship". The Church calls it reverence, yet when you look at the very formal liturgical ceremony that accompanies this "reverence", it truly reflects something well beyond simple reverence.

I would be more than happy to read the books you suggest - just send them to me (PM me if you need an address).

And I will refrain from asking "where in the Bible" questions, since you don't answer such questions.

[samiam1972]

i'm glad to hear you look at Catholic sources. Because all you sent me was anti-Catholic. I also read Scripture as well as hear it every Sunday and during the week if I choose. You haven't sent me anything that "proves" Catholicism is not based on the bible. I've sent articles that refute the silliness of Saint worship and you choose to interpret it differently, relying on other sources to back up what you want to believe.

This debate is ending like every other debate I've had. Authority. I know that when I disagree with someone about faith, I can try to prove my point using Scriptures. If we start quoting the same passages but apply different meaning to it, well, then we have a problem, don't we? This is where I can turn to the Chuch God set up here on Earth to settle these differences. Just like it says in the Bible. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. You go ahead and choose men's opinions over God's authority. I'll stick with the Catholic Church.

[TheBattman]

Have you ever heard the doctrine of interpreting scripture that says that scripture interprets itself?

Basically, it says that man's interpretation is not needed, because the Bible interprets itself by the context and by other revelation within it's pages.

I too rely on the Church that God implemented through his Son Jesus Christ - our difference comes from what Church we believe He set up.

Not to open up a whole different can of worms - but where did the formal liturgical church service come from? What little we have of a description of gatherings of believers (what we now call the "local church") were far less "formal" and simple. They did not use "vain repetitions", but they did focus on the need for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Also focused on was the fact that Christ's own words as recorded in John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." No mention is made of needing a priest, intercessory prayer by the "Saints", or good works to come to the Father.

One massive disagreement I have - I believe what the Bible says - that the Blood of Christ is sufficient, and that he died ONCE for all (Hebrews 9:24-28), yet the Catechism specifically states (par. 1030): "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

Heck - Christ even told the thief on the cross adjacent to His own that even that day he would see him in the Kingdom... yet this thief had never been baptized, had never received communion, and if he was to see Christ in Heaven that very day - wasn't going to be undergoing much purification (and he certainly wasn't perfect).

This flies directly in the face of Hebrews 10:11-18....

10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. And what about this from the Catechism: Catholic Catechism, par. 1477 'This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.' [Indulgentiarum doctrina, 5.]

Now compare that to Romans 4:2-5 and 10:9, as well as Ephesians 2:8-9.

And one more before I go to sleep -

Baptism is REQUIRED for Salvation???

Catholic Catechism, par. 1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. [Cf. CIC, can. 861 # 1; CCEO, can. 677 # 1.] In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. [Cf. 1 Timothy 2:4]

Compare this to Luke 23:39-43 Luke 23:39-43 [39] One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" [40] But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? [41] We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." [42] Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. " [43] Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

I already made reference to this account earlier in this post....

Also Romans 10:9-

9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Where's the baptism in these two statements directly from the Lord's word regarding Salvation???

Off to bed now.... have a good evening/morning...

[samiam1972]

I hate leaving things unanswered! I'd like to pick this up again when I can but just don't have time right now. We're packing as fast as we can and this is about all the response I have time for. Don't be surprised if you get a response from me in a month or so! May God continue to bless you in the meantime! :o)