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.
How true.
Usually when a Christian gets no answer or a snarky question after posting scriptural Biblical truths that go against what Catholicism teaches it’s because they have no way to fight against the Sword of the Sprit, which is the Word of God.
LOL at the links posted for answers...would take days to read all of them, especially if there are links in the links. Then it would take a lifetime.
Funny how Salvation, whom I love with the love of Jesus, doesn’t seem to read links posted to her for Biblical clarification.
I sometimes remind her of what I posted to her in case she wants to put the crickets away and actually defend her positions.
I have to empty my cage of crickets periodically because even though I love their sound ourside at nite, a cage full of them is deafening. Ahhh, the high decibel sound of silence...
I relate to the lyrics of this one all too well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzGAYNKDyIU
Hope you enjoy!
Yet we are commanded to love the brethren, so perhaps the best one can do is manage one's own responses not to sin against the one holy catholic church, her separated brethren, or the Jewish people.
But I'm not Catholic.
True.
And neither should we sin against those who have no faith whatsoever. Including those that think they are secure but are not.
KR
Just facts.
... seems to me, overly emotional response
Good tactic, attack the messenger
If someone is afraid of leaking details of their experiences, they need to practice better operational security...
Straw man argument, it's not fear. "Leaking?" Nice choice of words.
It has been shown many times that some posters want to find out another's personal information so they harangue them with doctrine from Catholicism and false accusations (once a Catholic, always a Catholic, if you were baptized into the Catholic church (un scriptural actually, no one is baptized into a denomination but into the body of Christ) you are marked for life as a Catholic and you may not leave to become a Christian.
How many times have we heard "you are still a Catholic" "all Christians must be Catholics to be saved" or the use of the condescending demeaning un-Biblical "separated brethren" to infer that Christians that are not Catholic are a lower form life?
but you seem, to me, overly concerned about what another posted.
Your opinion is duly noted. Check your own posting history to observe that phenomenon, especially the "overly" area.
Isn't FR about debate?
Perhaps you should take that up privately without involving the RM over an innocent question?
First, I didn't involve the RM.
I rarely do because I would rather leave up blatant guideline misuse for all to see.
Innocent? (see above) LOL! You seem like Slavation's PR guy...
I simply don't see what you are concerned about.
That should be obvious. Leading baiting questions.
No one asked you about your marriage, and if they did, you could ignore them
Thank you! If anyone does, I will do that.
Or I will make up a long story just to bring some humor to the RF...
... Or fools, or charlatans or modern day Pharisees.
Right?
Yes I realized my faux pas when you posted to me.
And informed me the post of yours I responded to was sarcasm. Sometimes things just go over my head...
It's nice to know who the Bible believing born again Christians are here.
True, I've seen many claims on the RF to "know Jesus" and "all sins, past, present, or future" are forgiven no matter what they do and regard those comments as a false sense of security. Beyond doubt, the Lord knows our works (He said so) and warns against people thinking they know Him (but their works are evil; they don't keep His commandments). Yet love covers a multitude of sins and we are called to love, to be saints, to walk worthy of His calling, though we all fall short.
First I am glad to see "separated brethren" in that context. Separated from Catholicism, not the body of Christ.
I will dispute that Catholicism is the "one holy catholic church" because Biblically it seems the one holy body of Christ is made up of every born again saved believer in/on Jesus Christ. Probabaly including a lot of Catholics.
I have no problem with Catholics following all of their traditions and beliefs and rituals and being beholding to your pope, and it would be nice if Catholics gave the same grace and consideration to OTC's (Other Than Catholic's)
(There is a lot of Catholic proselytizing goin' on here...)
And yet, not one roman catholic can point anywhere to the Word where it says we must be "catholic" to be saved.
It does say we are to believe Christ though in a whole bunch of places.
Regarding separated brethren, I think if you like your faith community, you can keep your faith community (assuming it has not apostasized from the doctrines it preserved from the one holy catholc church, ie., does not deny the council rulings in place before they separated).
I notice you are using the lower case “catholic” - meaning “universal.”
By God’s grace - and only that- I am a living stone in that Church.
.
But does it rely on “council rulings” in place of the word of God?
.
Amen!
Jesus is Our Advocate
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
3By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
King James Bible
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.--1 John, 2:2
It does; no matter who sings it.
I’m halfway there...
Obama?
Another great one!
Then there is Kristofferson singing Why Me; Lord?
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.