Posted on 09/29/2010 5:03:01 PM PDT by pissant
After four lawsuits alleging he coerced young males into sexual relationships were filed, Georgia pastor Eddie Long took to the pulpit Sunday to carefully nuance his side of the story.
Long, the charismatic who leads his mega-church of 26,000 members, told reporters after Sunday’s service that he would challenge the allegations. Joined by members of his legal team, he carefully read from prepared remarks — always a sign of innocence.
By now we know how the redemptive process works for a televangelist accused of sexual relations with young males. First there is the allegation. Then there is the carefully worded, non-denial denial in which he says he will “fight the charges.” Then the preacher puts his jet and all the money he has yet to get into the bankruptcy-proof corporate shell he controls. Then his lawyers handle the settlements while the preacher gives lots of ensuing sermons on forgiveness.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/28/another-televangelist-flames-out/#ixzz10xwJzaox
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
It seems as though some of that water from the Tiber has gotten in your ears
It's a little warmer than in the waterpark we just visited.
Calling me a nutjob (not altogether incorrect) seems to be exactly what Jesus was referring to in that RCC favorite, the Sermon on the Mount.
I went back through all of Matthew and didn't discover that the NAB listed repercussions for transgressions against Dutchboy88.
Didn't that just qualify you for the "hell of fire"? (Matt. 5:22) And here I thought you actually believed this stuff.
Matthew 5:22 17 But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
But you mistake me, my friend. I am not angry with you. I never said Raqa since I am afraid of the Reformed Sanhedrin and I never called you a fool. I have ever held open the hand of eternal friendship with you and only ask that you permit me to chum with you.
And here I thought you actually believed this stuff.
From the point of view of the Reformed, sadly, I do.
So did Faggard
Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
1Ti 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I’ll let you be careful. I’d just assume see any butt pirates be booted as leaders of any Christian denomination.
You know, I checked that also and sure enough, you are correct. There are no direct remarks about me there. It is odd, however, I couldn't find any direct remarks about a "Roman Catholic Church", MarkBsnr, or any kind of pope, seven sacraments, or a priest granting absolution, or most of what we hear coming from Rome. But, I digress.
What I see in the text Paul gave us is, "...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." Wow, that sounds a lot different than the Mosaic Law explained in the Gospels. More like good news.
But, what I did find in the Sermon on the Mount is that evidently whoever it is you think Jesus is speaking to (anyone who wants to be a Roman Catholic?) must, "...be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." I stand in awe that you and the other RC guys/gals have achieved this state. Good on you!! The rest of us need grace and faith granted as a gift.
But, can you help me with the language used by the RCs around here? It gives me pause when I hold that up against perfection.
You know, I checked that also and sure enough, you are correct. There are no direct remarks about me there.
Are you sure that you have the correct version? :) It is odd, however, I couldn't find any direct remarks about a "Roman Catholic Church", MarkBsnr, or any kind of pope, seven sacraments, or a priest granting absolution, or most of what we hear coming from Rome.
The church in Rome is mentioned a time or two in the NT. The term Catholic was first used by St. Ignatius in a letter to the church at Smyrna in context that it was well known and in common use at the point of writings (ca. 106 AD). The term Roman is a common (not liturgical or legal) reference to the see of the bishop of Rome. The Russian Orthodox Church, for instance is the see of the bishop of Russia (or Moscow).
I believe that you have seen the bulk of the evidence for leader of the apostles - a lead bishop is called whatever that language develops - Pope, or Patriarch or Metropolitan. Each language has a different word for wine, for instance. Why do you object to the naming of other things, concepts or offices?
The seven sacraments:
Baptism - that should not need to be explained to a practicing Christian, correct? Sacrament 1.
Confirmation - that is the confirming of the Holy Spirit descending on the individual. The Apostles when with Jesus were not explicitly recorded as having been baptised, but in John 4: it says that they performed baptisms themselves. Yet the Holy Spirit came down at Pentecost. So it is the tradition of some Catholics to have Confirmation separate from baptism at the age of knowledge, others have the tradition of combining the two in one ceremony.
The Eucharist: we have certainly had enough threads with Scriptural proofs to be able to accept this with certainty.
Confession: There are several verses where Peter and the Apostles are given the power to forgive sins - John 20 is good. Also remember 2 Corinthians 5 in which Paul touches on the evangelizers also being the ministers of reconciliation to all.
The Anointing of the Sick comes right out of Mark 6 and James 5.
Holy Orders comes in three levels - that of Bishop, Priest and Deacon. Hebrews 8 touches on the priesthood being a copy and shadow of the Heavenly Sanctuary. But verses such as in Acts 20 and 1 Timothy 4 address the laying on of hands.
Marriage: do you really need proofs for this?
What I see in the text Paul gave us is, "...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." Wow, that sounds a lot different than the Mosaic Law explained in the Gospels. More like good news.
Ah, ah, ah. You're leaving out the majority of mankind under Calvinist beliefs. I agree with you that this does sound different than the understanding that the OT gives us. It truly is a message of love - for all mankind. You must never forget that even Paul repeatedly exhorts people to act properly and tells us that Jesus will judge us on our deeds.
But, what I did find in the Sermon on the Mount is that evidently whoever it is you think Jesus is speaking to (anyone who wants to be a Roman Catholic?) must, "...be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Everyone is instructed to be perfect. You, me, everyone. No exceptions.
I stand in awe that you and the other RC guys/gals have achieved this state. Good on you!! The rest of us need grace and faith granted as a gift.
Don't be silly. Without the Grace of God, we cannot even reach out to Him; but with that Grace, we are instructed and taught and repeatedly told what we must do as Christians. We fail - all of us fall short of the mark of God, but we are expected to persevere. Every time we fall, we are to get up and keeping walking the Via of Christ.
But, can you help me with the language used by the RCs around here? It gives me pause when I hold that up against perfection.
Sure; most of us here use English dialects; some are fluent in Greek and other languages.
Yes, of course that is what I asked. No wonder Rome has fooled itself into believing its own propaganda.
"Everyone is instructed to be perfect. You, me, everyone. No exceptions."
Here is where (among other places) we depart...radically. You evidently must be concluding you comply or you would not have said it is for "You, me, everyone." But, Paul points out that this turned out not to be possible. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." The vicarious atoning death of Jesus? Your best as filthy rags? Hmmm. Sorry, but the perfection you seek from your life is not available. That is the message of the Gospel.
And, your previous remarks claimed there was no reference to DB88 and I noted there were no references to the Roman Catholic Church. You come back with remarks about a "catholic" church (meaning universal, not CatholicTR). This substantiates a new country run by a pope? Then look in Mark 9:26, that is REALLY about me (it says, "boy"). The self-proving fog that Rome lives in is evident.
I think many here hate Catholics more than Moslems, satanists or crooked politicians.
Yes, of course that is what I asked. No wonder Rome has fooled itself into believing its own propaganda.
Actually, it IS what you asked - you wanted help with the language of Catholics.
Here is where (among other places) we depart...radically. You evidently must be concluding you comply or you would not have said it is for "You, me, everyone."
Are you paying attention to anything I have said? I have repeatedly said that we are instructed by the Lord to persevere. No one is perfect who is not God. Yet we must, when we fall short of the mark in sin, get up again and keep walking the Via of Christ. Perseverence of the saints is not a bestowed static state that drops on one from above - it is with the Grace of God that does come from above, that we can, not have to persevere.
Sorry, but the perfection you seek from your life is not available. That is the message of the Gospel.
The message of the Gospel is this: Matthew 22:36 "Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, 22 "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
And, your previous remarks claimed there was no reference to DB88 and I noted there were no references to the Roman Catholic Church. You come back with remarks about a "catholic" church (meaning universal, not CatholicTR).
St. Ignatius is clear - the Church is Catholic - capital C, with the Apostolic succession in full force.
This substantiates a new country run by a pope?
Don't like Vatican City? Do you prefer the despotic tyranny of Calvin's Geneva? How about the iron hand of the state Calvinist religions in the American colonies?
Then look in Mark 9:26, that is REALLY about me (it says, "boy"). The self-proving fog that Rome lives in is evident.
Okay, I believe you that you are a convulsing boy. How does that show that Rome has a self proving fog?
Well, I am trying to keep up with you as you randomly dodge the issues. You are fairly good at it and chasing you is a little like chasing the cat around the house. Please re read the posts. We were not talking about persevering at all. We were talking about the applicability of the Law as Jesus taught it in the Gospels. We were talking about how the Gospel records fit into the total message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
You have errantly equated the demand by Jesus to be, "...perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect." as an encouragement to "persevere." This is a sample of Rome's theology wherein the lines are smeared until the message of Christ is "Be a good Catholic boy and we'll take care of the rest."
"The message of the Gospel is this: Matthew 22:36 "Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, 22 "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mark, if only you would have kept reading to the very next verse. 40, "On these two commandments depend the whole Law (of Moses) and the Prophets (of the old covenant)." And should you have bothered to continue reading you would have noticed that Jesus further instructed them to, do all that the Pharisees had commanded, which just happened to be ALL of the Law of Moses.
Paul clearly sets out that while the Law itself was holy, no man ever did it. Not them, not you. "Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them.'" Gal. 3. The whole world changed at the cross. That is what makes it such a One-Time event. But, if you want be obedient unto salvation, you better do it perfectly...or face judgment.
The believers in Christ (sometimes called anti-Catholics) state unequivocally that Rome has it wrong. Good hermeneutics (beginning with reading the whole story through) yield a much different take on how a man becomes saved. The Roman mixture of works/faith/obedience/membership/ceremony/ritual is straight from hell. It is the modern Judaizers amalgam of every religious gimmick cooked up and foisted on the public by unprincipled men. I believe that last phrase is Peter's.
"Apostolic succession in full force?" That sounds like a vacuum cleaner salesman. There is nothing about such an idea in the Book, but you conveniently ignore that when something requires only headquarters to say it is so. There is plenty about this around 300+AD when Rome gets its bathrobes fluffed up.
Despotic tyranny of Geneva versus getting one's legs and arms dislocated on the rack of the inquisitor's "kind efforts to extract the truth"? Let's see...Geneva. Any day.
Well, I am trying to keep up with you as you randomly dodge the issues. You are fairly good at it and chasing you is a little like chasing the cat around the house. Please re read the posts. We were not talking about persevering at all. We were talking about the applicability of the Law as Jesus taught it in the Gospels. We were talking about how the Gospel records fit into the total message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What message of satan's squatpot are you presenting here? The total message of the Gospel IS the Gospel records of Christ. Else you are telling us that the words of men are more important than those of Christ; in which case I will call that nonChristian whatsoever.
You have errantly equated the demand by Jesus to be, "...perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect." as an encouragement to "persevere." This is a sample of Rome's theology wherein the lines are smeared until the message of Christ is "Be a good Catholic boy and we'll take care of the rest."
Instructions of Jesus to the crowds and to all the world do not apply to the Reformed?
Mark, if only you would have kept reading to the very next verse. 40, "On these two commandments depend the whole Law (of Moses) and the Prophets (of the old covenant)." And should you have bothered to continue reading you would have noticed that Jesus further instructed them to, do all that the Pharisees had commanded, which just happened to be ALL of the Law of Moses.
Astonishing, isn't it? We are commanded to deeds, unlike the creations of men such as Calvin.
Paul clearly sets out that while the Law itself was holy, no man ever did it. Not them, not you. "Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for 'The righteous man shall live by faith.' However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them.'" Gal. 3. The whole world changed at the cross. That is what makes it such a One-Time event. But, if you want be obedient unto salvation, you better do it perfectly...or face judgment.
No, you just had better do it. Matthew 5: 13 11 12 "You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. 14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. 16 Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father. 17 13 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 14
Matthew 5:33 26 "Hear another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, 27 put a hedge around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a tower. Then he leased it to tenants and went on a journey. 34 When vintage time drew near, he sent his servants 28 to the tenants to obtain his produce. 35 But the tenants seized the servants and one they beat, another they killed, and a third they stoned. 36 Again he sent other servants, more numerous than the first ones, but they treated them in the same way. 37 Finally, he sent his son to them, thinking, 'They will respect my son.' 38 29 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and acquire his inheritance.' 39 30 They seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?" 41 They answered 31 him, "He will put those wretched men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times." 42 32 Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the scriptures: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes'? 43 33 Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit. 44 ( 34 The one who falls on this stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.)"
From any man that does not bear the fruit that God had decreed for him. That includes the Reformed.
The believers in Christ (sometimes called anti-Catholics) state unequivocally that Rome has it wrong. Good hermeneutics (beginning with reading the whole story through) yield a much different take on how a man becomes saved. The Roman mixture of works/faith/obedience/membership/ceremony/ritual is straight from hell. It is the modern Judaizers amalgam of every religious gimmick cooked up and foisted on the public by unprincipled men. I believe that last phrase is Peter's.
Believe? Google did not find it for me. Do you have the source?
The Roman mixture of works/faith/obedience/membership/ceremony/ritual is straight from hell.
Snort. The Catholic Faith is straight from Jesus. There will be those who call the holy evil and the evil holy. They are prevalent everywhere in society and post on FR too. You guys sneer at the Eucharist and call it false. Why then do the satanists try to steal Eucharists for their black mass (and why call it a black mass - why not a black 'service'?) in order to demonstrate the most evil intent towards God? Hell attacks the Catholic Church incessantly. Hell doesn't care a whit about any of the myriad Reformed entities wandering the theological landscape like little lost lambs. Ever wonder why?
"Apostolic succession in full force?" That sounds like a vacuum cleaner salesman. There is nothing about such an idea in the Book, but you conveniently ignore that when something requires only headquarters to say it is so. There is plenty about this around 300+AD when Rome gets its bathrobes fluffed up.
Read what Paul says about himself. He was a vacuum cleaner salesman. Don't worry about the bathrobes. I'd worry about how far away from Christ you guys really are. Do you really consider yourself Christians?
Despotic tyranny of Geneva versus getting one's legs and arms dislocated on the rack of the inquisitor's "kind efforts to extract the truth"? Let's see...Geneva. Any day.
Yeah, but that's because you guys think that you'd always wind up on the right side of Calvin...
LOL. Okay, that is pretty good imagery for, "You guys teach bad stuff." There is such a smorgasbord of items to cover here, let me tackle just one. This idea of where exactly the Gospel message is described in the Bible.
And, so that we don't argue needlessly, I will try to set out my understanding of what your side is saying. If all of this proves too aggravating to you, I accept that you don't wish to participate. It will not affect our FRiendship. But, it seems as though we cannot settle on this matter and it is important. The reason it is important is that, if we are going to disagree, it seems valuable that we at least agree on what it is we are disagreeing on.
So, off I wander through the "theological landscape" trying to first describe your position. If I am not mistaken, the RCC believes (and with which you concur) that everything Jesus taught is the "Gospel message" addressed to all men in all times. Now, I will modify this slightly...some of the rituals of the Mosaic Law, however, are done away with. For example, animal sacrifice is gone because Messiah's sacrifice is the new focus. But, parts of it still remain. That is, we still have priests to mediate between men and God, to absolve sin, and to administer the sacraments.
These are not trick questions (okay, I know there are no questions in the statements, but you get the idea) and I have no trap laid. I am simply trying to insure that when we disagree at the end of the day, we both understand what it is we are disagreeing about. So, would you agree that my description of the use of Jesus' words is correct RCC theology? There is my non-trick question.
People with mental illnesses can’t really help themselves ... compulsive behaviour isn’t (by definition) totally voluntary.
Technically, it was a question... :)
And, so that we don't argue needlessly, I will try to set out my understanding of what your side is saying. If all of this proves too aggravating to you, I accept that you don't wish to participate. It will not affect our FRiendship. But, it seems as though we cannot settle on this matter and it is important. The reason it is important is that, if we are going to disagree, it seems valuable that we at least agree on what it is we are disagreeing on.
Fair enough.
So, off I wander through the "theological landscape" trying to first describe your position. If I am not mistaken, the RCC believes (and with which you concur) that everything Jesus taught is the "Gospel message" addressed to all men in all times. Now, I will modify this slightly...some of the rituals of the Mosaic Law, however, are done away with. For example, animal sacrifice is gone because Messiah's sacrifice is the new focus. But, parts of it still remain. That is, we still have priests to mediate between men and God, to absolve sin, and to administer the sacraments.
I agree with some of the Mosaic Law being superseded, specifically called out in the NT. However, not all of the instructions of Jesus are to all men. For example, the Great Commission. Another example, the forgiveness of sins granted first to Peter, then all the Apostles.
These are not trick questions (okay, I know there are no questions in the statements, but you get the idea) and I have no trap laid. I am simply trying to insure that when we disagree at the end of the day, we both understand what it is we are disagreeing about. So, would you agree that my description of the use of Jesus' words is correct RCC theology? There is my non-trick question.
My friend, since we arrived at an understanding of each other, you have not been tricky with me. Please go ahead with your line of questioning and discovery.
"I agree with some of the Mosaic Law being superseded, specifically called out in the NT. However, not all of the instructions of Jesus are to all men. For example, the Great Commission. Another example, the forgiveness of sins granted first to Peter, then all the Apostles."
Why is it that you are comfortable saying the so-called Great Commission is not to all men?
What part of the Mosaic Law is "specifically called out in the NT."?
Is there any place in the Gospel records that a summary statement of the Gospel message is made by Jesus?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.