Posted on 08/25/2015 6:45:11 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
I recall when I got scorned for attacking homosexuality on my blog with a comment that said, You are a homophobe, do you not know that God loves everyone including homosexuals, in which I answered with, do you not know that God loves everyone including the homophobe?
Indeed, we say God loves everyone, including, but not limited to; heretics, pedophiles, hemophiliacs, sodomites, lesbians, murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug pushers and every mutant from the pit of hell, except, of course, the legalist and the Pharisee, that is, the good old Catholic Church.
y now, objectors who read so far what I wrote here will only pull out a Tommy machinegun and begin to spray all the high-caliber bullets at the comment section of my blog to write: Catholics are legalists, the Pope kissed the Quran, they worship Mary, they pray to saints
May I say that a bigot is recognized when he avoids the question at hand by always changing the subject.
The God of love, does He not love the legalist, the Pharisee and even the bigot? Does He then not also love the Catholic?
The issue is not an issue of Love, but that Love is always used to obstruct correction and reproof. Such Love is nothing more than hate. I always keep my eyes out for a mind that reverses everything.
The issue is an issue of SLANDER.
Slandering Catholics is the ONLY accepted prejudice in America.
Exposing Sodomite behavior in America is prejudice, but slandering the Vatican is not?
The Vatican has been slandered for centuries without a shred of biblical evidence. They call it the Harlot of Babylon, the killers of the saints, the woman drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus Christ. And for historic evidence they say that the Catholic Church eliminated the Manichaeans, Arians, Cathars, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles and Albigensians. But can anyone quote a single historian who confirms or proves that these groups were Bible believing Christians? Yet thousands of books were written slandering Catholics for eliminating these while elevating such heretics as the true Bible believing Christians.(For more on this read my article Drinking the Blood of Saints)
But instead of answering such a simple question, I get machine-gunned every time by changing the subject; but what about all these pedophilia cases? It is true that there is a major mess to clean in any Christian circle, but may I say: let the denomination that has no such sin cast the first stone. Sexual sins and deviancies are equally spread in all denominations.
But does such issues entitle us to only focus on what is wrong with the Catholic while ignoring what is wrong with Protestants? Even Jesus, while he reprimanded the institution of His time for its corruption, He never eliminated its authority over the flock.
And what about the Pharisee? Did the New Testament hate Pharisees? And how could we say that Judaism is legalistic just because individual Pharisees were challenging Jesus by using the Law to trap, discredit and accuse Him of heresy? Can this be applied to all the Pharisees in general or the Jews collectively?
Why then do we use the term Pharisee as a dreaded label of scorn and insult?
In the Bible, we can find verses where God condemns Israel. But is that a blanket statement to condemn them for eternity? If so, what then do we do with verses in which God honors Israel? Condemning the Jews for eternity is a sign of bigotry and prejudice. I see many Catholics who hate Israel. Evangelicals by large have done a much better job than Catholics in recognizing and supporting Israel.
When it comes to the Pharisee, Jesus spoke of the righteousness of the Pharisees. Was Jesus degrading the righteousness of the Pharisees, or was He simply setting up the standard, that unless we are perfect, we couldnt enter the Kingdom, for even if we kept the law as good as the Pharisee, these do not equip a man for the beatific vision of Gods essence? This of course, can never be attained until the end when God accomplishes in us His plan after we are purged from all sin.
Nicodemus was a righteous Pharisee and so was Gamaliel, Pauls teacher, the grandson of Hillel and the founder of a dominant school of the Pharisees, a major branch of Judaism. It was Gamaliel (a Pharisee) whom God chose to save the apostles from death and opposed the apostles execution. Josephus and some Talmudic works also mention Gamaliel, the Pharisee, describing him as a benevolent and brilliant man. William Barclay states:
He was a kindly man with a far wider tolerance than his fellows. He was, for instance, one of the very few Pharisees who did not regard Greek culture as sinful. He was one of the very few to whom the title Rabban had been given. Men called him The Beauty of the Law. When he died it was said, Since Rabban Gamaliel died there has been no more reverence for the Law; and purity and abstinence died out at the same time.' (The Daily Study Bible Commentary, Bible Explorer software.)
In fact, Christianity, and by extension, Catholicism was derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. In reality, when we compare Catholics and Protestants today in light of ancient times, it was the sola-scriptura Sadducees who rejected all authoritative oral teaching and were considered the theological liberals of that time. Even the New Testament records the first Christians were Pharisees (Acts 15:5, Philippians 3:5), but never once mentions Christian Sadducees.
Having few children by using birth control is the practice of liberals. Why would many Evangelicals support birth control is beyond me. Yet both religious Jews and Catholics see such practice as going against Gods plan. I agree 100%. God after all said to be, fruitful and multiply. My wife Maria put up with me for over two decades because she was brought up Catholic and to her marriage was a holy sacrament.
I have always believed that there are anti-Semites regardless of denomination. However, it is not true that Catholicism is anti-Semitic. Catholic Jim Blackburn from Catholic Answers in his article Do You Know Jesus explains that Christianity stems from Judaism, which is the official stand of the Catholic Church. Jim explains Paul:
Paul said: My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee. And now I stand here on trial for hope in the promise made by God to our fathers. (Acts 26:4-6)
Paul does not denounce the religion of Judaism here. He clearly recognizes that it is from this religion, which Christianity sprang. And he does not view Christianity as a new religion but, rather, as the fulfillment of the promise of Judaism. It is a continuation ofnot a break fromJudaism. And in this continuation it does not throw off its religious aspect. (Ibid)
We always attribute to Catholics as the prime example of a legalist; they after all believe that they can earn or merit Gods approval by performing the requirements of the law, they neglect mercy, are ignorant of the grace of God and are so focused on the obedience to the law; the Catholic preeminent principle of redemption is not by faith alone in Gods grace.
Was the Catholic unsaved just because he believed in sola gratia (by grace alone) as Trent decreed, the justified increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ by means of faith co-operating with good works, which uses the phrase of the Council and that of Saint James?
Fact is, the Catholic Church condemns anyone who attempts to justify himself by his own works:
Canon I. If any one says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christlet him be anathema.
The Council of Trent even elaborates:
We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justificationwhether faith or worksmerit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
Is this teaching an anathema? For how long must we continue slandering? Even the Jewish faith, King David broke the law and was not saved by keeping it, yet he was nevertheless saved. David was a repentant servant of God. Calling Catholics legalists came from Martin Luther who drew this view from reading the correspondence between the Judaizers of Pauls days and applied it to the Roman Catholics of his.
George Foote Moore and Claude Montefiore protested that Judaism was not legalistic, and that such a view of Judaism was a distortion of Jewish documentary sources.
Indeed, if biblical Judaism was legalistic, how could God then provide salvation to the Jews of the Old Testament? How could God be arbitrary selecting Israel as His plan for salvation if they were legalists? (See Claude G. Montefiore, Judaism and St. Paul (London: Max Goschen, 1914).
And here comes my biggest dilemma: during my two-decade walk in many American churches, it was as if all the battles, struggles and martyrdoms, which the Catholic Church endured from the Muslims for over millennia was simply written off by my evangelical friends. These sold such wealth of Catholic history as Judas sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.
Its heart breaking.
In two decades, I have never heard a mention of the contribution of Catholics fighting Islam in the battles of Poitiers, Lepanto and Vienna.
My struggle with so many anti-Catholics began when I pointed to the rich history of the Catholic struggles with Islam. To these, it didnt matter that millions of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were martyred under Islams scimitar; Islam to them was simply the cleansing agent of Catholic heretics. I could not understand how could such a movement that is pro-Jew, yet be so anti-Catholic?
I slowly began to realize that in America being anti-Catholic is Americas ONLY Acceptable Prejudice.
Even historians agree, slandering Catholics, as John Highham described it is:
the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history, (Jenkins, Philip (1 April 2003). The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Oxford University Press. p. 23)
Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called Anti-Catholicism the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people. (The Coming Catholic Church. By David Gibson. HarperCollins: Published 2004.)
Indeed. America is a nation that isolates racism and addresses skin-color and gender as the only definition for racism, so much so, even though they exercise the least of this type of racism than any other nation on earth, yet they discuss racism more than any other nation on earth.
We even have come a long way in combating anti-Semitism to soon forget quickly the horrors of Nazism. We still openly denounce skinheads and neo-Nazis, yet when it comes to the slander of Catholicism and Catholics, America is not only silent, but also is still a major participant.
Bible believing Christians who are Anti-Catholics need to answer one question: why only Catholicism unites all haters? Why when it comes to Catholicism, they are all united; liberals, atheists, Mormons, feminists, Satanists, Scientologists, Jehovas Witnesses, Seventh Day Advantists, Uniterians, Moslems and so many Bible believing Christians officially and doctrinally are all anti-Catholic? It is time that Evangelical Bible believing Christians be removed from this equation.
But perhaps I need to exercise an American tradition; I should have prequalified my statement and say that: I am not saying that protestants and evangelicals are all anti-Catholic, by God no, yet every time I praised Catholics, I found so many pin-pointing the leaven of the Pharisees without looking into the piles of heretical books written by so-called evangelicals who do much worse than the Pope kissing the Quran or that Nostra Aetate praised Islam. Yet even Pope Benedict criticized Nostra Aetate. I too hate some of what I see in Nostra Aetate and Second Vatican and find so many devils within the Catholic Church.
But is the Catholic rich history such an evil subject that warrants ignoring Catholic wars with Islam and that during Nazism, there were many more of these precious Catholics that chose to die in Hitlers ovens than there were wonderful Protestants? It is a fact of history that Catholics lead any other religion in rescuing the highest numbers of Jews during Nazi Germany. Are all these Catholics damned to hell despite making a choice to enter Hitlers furnace and save Jews? Which of the two is more pleasing to God, the evangelical health and wealth televangelist or the Jew loving Catholic who died in the infernos of Hitlers crematoria?
From top preachers in America, we can see the terrible trend. John MacArthur, who is esteemed as a formidable and excellent Calvinist theologian, made a sermon in which he agreed with Charles Spurgeon when he declared that he would rather be called a devil than a priest, and that the Catholic Church is worse than Satan himself. MacArthur, in agreement with the statement, proclaimed the quote in his presentation:
Call yourself a priest, sir! I wonder men are not ashamed to take the title: when I recollect what priests have done in all ageswhat priests connected with the church of Rome have done, I repeat what I have often said: I would rather sooner a man pointed at me in the street and called me a devil, than called me a priest; for bad as the devil has been, he has hardly been able to match the crimes, cruelties, and villainies which have been transacted under the cover of a special priesthood. (Macarthur on Youtube, http://youtu.be/7WbF-BZxu6s)
Christian author and conspiracy theorist Mark Dice stated:
The Catholic Church, the popes, and bishops are basically the same as the Pharisees that Jesus denounced over 2000 years ago for their hypocrisy and their pride and arrogance due to their spiritual knowledge. (The Vatican, Modern Day Pharisees, MarkDice.com)
Another evangelical author, S. Mason describes the Catholic Church as:
The Pope declares the Catholic hierarchy to be the only ones allowed to interpret scriptures. Therefore, they elevate themselves as the Scribes and Pharisees of the Temple. Think on how Jesus described them HYPOCRITES! He described them as painted white sepulchers, looking god on the outside but smelling with the stench of death on the inside and filled with dead mens bones. (Mason S. Religion the Great Harlot in the Devils Playground, P.p. 81)
For more information refuting such accusations see [here] and [here]
Anti-Catholics simply transferred the term Pharisee from the Jew to the Catholic. Indeed, hating Catholics and Pharisees is Americas ONLY Accepted Prejudice.
And with practical sanctification as the cause for justification and perfection of character (nothing unclean) necessary to be with God, thus the baptized who dies in grace must suffer "purifying torments" in order to enter Heaven.
"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224
ones who will go directly to heaven are the ones who have already shed every last trace of self-love left in their hearts...Their hearts are left with nothing but pure love for Christ. -http://stillcatholic.com/CATHPurg.htm
We also see that those who are born again not only receive the state of grace, but also a complete remission of the temporal punishment due to their sins. Thats what the Sacrament of Baptism gives. Thats why those who are born again go straight to Heaven if they die immediately after baptism. - http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/baptism_salvation.php
If one were to die immediately after Baptism, he would go straight to Heaven (assuming one presents no obstacles). - https://www.fisheaters.com/baptism2.html; https://ourladyporingland.wordpress.com/sacraments/baptism/
Of course, in Scripture it is on Christ's account, not because he is practically good enough, that one is justified by faith and has direct access now to God in prayer, and will be with the Lord at death or His return.
More on that here where i said,
Man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)
Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) man can not claim he actually deserves anything, and God does not owe him anything but damnation, except that under grace which denotes unmerited favor God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.
Which means that God justifies man without the merit of any works, which is what Romans 4:1-7ff teaches, with works of the law including all systems of justification by merit of works, for, if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (Galatians 3:21)
Thus the penitent publican and the contrite criminal, both of whom abased themselves as damned and destitute sinner and cast all their faith upon the mercy of God (which ultimately is Christ), were justified, and as such could go directly to be with the Lord at death, even before they did any manifest works of faith. But works justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace for such, (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) though only because God has decided to reward man for what God Himself is actually to be credited for.
But; if not...
I will be happy to send you one for free along with the Tim Staples CD.
What’s that got to do with the price of rice in China?
Or what I said for that matter?
I'm sure you do or you wouldn't keep posting them.
Might want to read that a bit more closely, and thank you for proving me correct.
I have heard all I need of your type of Christianity. and yes it would hurt to listen to what ever it is you linked to since I would never get amount of time back.
No kidding! It's something, isn't it? Funny, though -- the very title is fallacious. I guess it starts there and gets worse.
:D
Hoss
Dude... you might owe me a keyboard. THAT was great! :D
Hoss
“Says the guy that responds to every one...”
I respond to posts, but not every comment.
Monosyllabic comment from Elsie coming any time now.
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
I've already listened to that charlatan on the internet...What a difference when you listen to people who actually know and believe the bible...J. Vernon McGee comes to mind...
Numerous, numerous Christian teachers out there make that book come alive with their knowledge that one can prove to be true just by studying the scriptures...
I feel sorry for you guys who are so bereft of the knowledge of God that he preserved for us in his scriptures...
Psa 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Psa 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
Psa 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
So were you Catholics when you got married?
And like moths to a flame the hates flock to it proving the OP correct
LOL, whatever dude. I see you did not deny this is a flame baiting thread. I will keep on believing it is.
You will have to excuse me, I am having some Catholics over, and one Muslim, for a little Bible study. This should be fun, and I am leading it. 😇
Oh good, hugh sorry.
So many post that kind of stuff and they are seris!
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.