|
Shoebat's sophistry. Shoebat, which is not even his real name, is of dubious credibility even when it comes to his own personal claims, while he is the RC equivalent to how RCs see Jack Chick, with his railings against Protestants. Shoebat has provided much flame bait that has demanded response ,and while here he attempts to sound reason-able, yet he engages in one or misleading false statement after another. His article is rather rambling, and so my response deals mostly with it according to subject.
WRONG , but for blind devotees only what Rome says must be correct in any valid. After all, 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. That itself, her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unecessary in Scripture, is is not Scriptural but it is Scriptural and not not slander to say so. Meanwhile, in the past Rome has made much use of forgeries to supply support what Scripture, the weight of substantiation from which is not her basis for her veracity, does not.
I dare say he would be hard pressed to name a dozen that call all such Bible believing Christians, while what he avoids is the fact that Rome did indeed slaughter multitudes for theological dissent, even if not as many as some Prots alleged. And early Prots had to unlearn such means of warfare.
Which presumes the argument that denominations are being debated, versus Biblical warrant for the claims of Rome to be the one true church, which thus makes her institutional iniquity an issue.
Why? Because despite Shoebats attempt to redeem them, they were overall legalistic, hypocritical and warranted the rebuke that Lord gave them. (Mt. 23) Or does Shoebat want to reproof the Lord and His disciples? But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matthew 3:7) Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. (Matthew 15:12-14) Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matthew 16:6) Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matthew 16:12) But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! (repeated 7 times: Matthew 23)
That was a refreshing bit of honesty!
What kind of support is that? Catholic Answers propaganda? Rome has a record of such, while in modern times has been reluctant to meaningfuly correct that.
-
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,
Considering that the Pharisees overall were never set forth as much of any example true righteousness, it would most likely mean believers must have more than the mere external righteousness of them.
Nicodemus was a blind Pharisee and one of the few who seems to have seen the light to some degree. And even then, it was a "certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed" that caused problems due to their bondage with the ceremonial law.
A few righteous Pharisees do not redeem them as a group, and it is as a group that they were condemned.
-
In fact, Christianity, and by extension, Catholicism was derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism.
Wrong and right. Catholicism was derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism, presuming a level of veracity above that which is written, and Catholicism goes even further, presuming the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. And that this is essential in order to know what is God. ..the Pharisees introduced rites in the Temple which originated in popular custom and were without foundation in the Law... they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error... they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times... and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death...By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine..They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows. - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees But the NT 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.)
More sophistry, as the aberrant conclusions of one group's interpretation of Scripture (they only went by the Torah) neither invalidates their source nor the position that source was held by them. The most serious errors under the "Christian" umbrella are from those who basically hold to the Roman model for assurance of Truth, that being sola ecclesia. A Watchtower or LDS disciple is sure there are right because their org is the supreme ensured mouthpiece for God. Likewise 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 by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth. ...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html
In a negative light as a group.
Irrelevant, while it never mentions RCs either with their distinctives. .
-
that unless we are perfect, we couldn’t 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 God’s 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.
Which is more deception, as nowhere (despite RC extrapolative attempts from texts which do not teach it) at all are believers said to endure postmortem purification commencing at death. The only suffering is that of the judgment seat of Christ due to the loss of rewards and the Lord's disapproval, which one is saved despite of, and which does not occur until the Lord's return! Meanwhile, being practically perfect in character as God is cannot be a condition to be with Him as believers even now have direct access into the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of Christ, with faith being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:1-7) and appropriating the purifying of the heart in the washing of regeneration , (Acts 15:7-9; Eph. 1:7,13) And wherever the Scriptures manifestly speak of the next realization for believers after this life then it is with the Lord. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:10f)
Lack of maturity on an issue of derived teaching. They should not and it is contrary to historical basic Protestant faith they most strongly contended for, and less seem to be supportive of it today.
Meaning a minority, while both overall subscribe to BC and also overall raise what kids they have as liberal.
No, "the law" aspect is his addition, but as for "they can earn or merit eternal life by good works," they can easily see Trent supporting this. Canon 32 states, "If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32) Shortened, this teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema." 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.
Indeed it is, as she fosters faith/dependence on and confidence in one's goodness and the merits and power of Rome.
-
“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 Christ—let him be anathema.”
Shoebat is wrong and his words misleading as well, for it is only justification without grace that is condemned, while in Scripture good works justify one as having true faith and salvation and fit to be rewarded under grace, though they really warrant Hell apart from grace. (Rm. 6:23; Heb. 6:9; Rv. 3:4)
But this is misleading as it fails to not the difference in Cath teaching btwn justification and salvation. They admit an infant cannot merit justification, but which is by sprinkling of water which renders such forgiven and holy enough for Heaven due to his actual holiness via "infused charity." Thus being justified due to the holiness he actually posses via regeneration (while in Gn. 15:6 Abraham was counted as righteous by faith, not because he was regenerated) such a soul must usual ends his salvation process by once again becoming good enough for Heaven via "purgatory." James teaches an inert faith is not salvific, and faith can be equated with works as it is faith in action, and it justifies one as a being a believer, but Catholicism equates the effect of justifying faith with being the actual cause, which it cannot be. Moreover, while the newly baptized are said to be fit to enter glory by RCs, yet such a soul still possesses inherent character defects which purgatory is said to be needed to purge. Note also that the EOs, among other things, tend to reject the purgatory of Rome, though they both claim tradition is one their side.
George Foote Moore, Presbyterian minister, 33rd Degree Mason of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite founding president of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, and an influential anti-Zionist leader in the communal body, and who formed a commentary on the Bible with moral reflections from the standpoint of the [notoriously liberal] "higher criticism", (WP) Such credentials do not impugn their conclusions, but what saith Scripture? For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. (Romans 10:3)
This is the first time he specifies "biblical Judaism" but what is meant by the term? That the biblical Judaism of the Jews Paul just describes was not salvific is clear, and it is clear that under the Law one was not saved, but it was designed to bring souls to realize they could not do what Rome fosters, that of confidence in merit, but must cast themselves upon the mercy of God to save them, as the penitent publican did in Lk. 18. That is how some Jews of the Old Testament were saved. In order to justify Rome, Shoebat seems to be trying to rehabilitate the Judaism which Scripture reproves. 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. Rather, why credit a church when it acted as Islam toward the likes of Huss, Tyndale, Luther etc. with its equivalent of Fatwahs? Shoebat has traded one religion of the flesh for another that is much the same.
Through its unScriptural theocracies that is, which also fought Prots (who also fought them). Islam was a judgment upon the Christian church for becoming institutionalized/Romanized while its use of civil power for itsw ends (the fourth century pope Damasus himself employed a murderous mob in seeking to secure his seat), and to torture and slay merely theological dissidents is not heard of from Shoebat. Islam to them was simply the ‘cleansing agent’ of Catholic heretics. Rome earned the antipathy, while does Shoebat imagine Rome would come to the aid of Lutherans being attacked by Islam? I slowly began to realize that in America being anti-Catholic is America’s ONLY Acceptable Prejudice. Actually, Catholics are seen a overall source of support by liberals, and are shown more favorably by the media than evangelicals, whom are treated as the greatest opposition by both liberals and RCs, as they indeed have been in contrast to evangelicals, who are the most conservative , and anti-Islamic. Yet whom Shoebat, due to being a RC, must war against. .
Meaning an seemingly victim-mentality historian, whom George M. Fredrickson, writing in The New York Review of Books in 2002, applauded, citing Dr. Higham's unwillingness to dismiss the culture created by ''elite white males.'' John Highham urged historians to relax their impersonal stance for one of moral engagement. " (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E3DA1330F93BA2575BC0A9659C8B63)
A Progressive Era intellectual (1888-1965). In Boston in 1929, city officials under the leadership of James Curley threatened to arrest Margaret Sanger if she spoke on birth control. In response she stood on stage, silent with a gag over her mouth, while her speech was read by Arthur Schlesinger. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_M._Schlesinger,_Sr. Regardless, their conclusions are to be judged by the warrant for them, and the anti-Catholicism which these write of was real, yet substantially warranted, despite some of being based upon false history. When you have papal decrees requiring RC rulers to exterminate all the heretics in the land, and absolving Caths from obedience to those who do not, and denying separation of church and state, (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors) and the use of torture etc in church discipline, then how could one not see this as anti-American? RCs must become somewhat Protestant to become otherwise. Thus traditional RCs here have promoted Cath monarchism here, under which evangelicals would be silenced. he Pope acquired the temporal power in a just manner by the consent of those who had a right to bestow it. He was deprived of it in an unjust manner by political changes. - http://baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm : Q. 549. How is the Church One? "....Constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that the political proscription [ban] of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they have against a Catholic state? What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation. [But] the danger of religious intolerance toward non-Catholics in the United States is so improbable and so far in the future that it should not occupy their time or attention." — The State and the Church (1922), pp.38,39, by Monsignor (and professor) John Augustine Ryan (1869–1945), imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes (http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sac002.htm). Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church. - - Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215: . (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp) "The Church has the right,..to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction." - Catholic encyclopedia, Jurisdiction (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm) And which Shoebat ignores.
So now Caths are in danger of being persecuted as Jews under Nazism? Shoebat is rapidly loosing what little credibility he attempted to gain in this area. What will occur is that of persecution of any conservative Christians (true evangelicals) by the state, under those which a near majority of Caths elected.
The answer is that actually the main reason for much of the little anti-Catholicism that is substantially expressed by Bible believing Christians is due to a common consent to basic truths which Rome is against, likewise is evang. opposition to cults as well. What if Mormons claimed Bible believing Christians who are only united by irrational anti-Mormonism? Should such an accusation be seen as credible. Meanwhile, Globally 98% of evangelical leaders agree that the Bible is the word of God. Only 3% believe that human life has evolved with no involvement from a supreme being, and 47% reject theistic evolution, while 41% believe God has used evolution for the purpose of creating humans and other life. http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangelical-protestant-leaders/ 51% do not see influence of Catholicism as a threat, while 35% see it as a minor threat, and 10% see it as a major one. 92% express favorable opinions of Pentecostals, and 76% express favorable opinions of Catholics. 7% say they consider non-religious people to be friendly toward evangelicals, and 35% say they have a very unfavorable opinion of atheists, with 35%saying mostly unfavorable. ^- http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
-
Why when it comes to Catholicism, they are all united; liberals, atheists, Mormons, feminists, Satanists, Scientologists, Jehova’s 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.
And when it comes to fund evangelicals, they are all united in opposition, Catholics, liberals, atheists, Mormons, feminists, Satanists, Scientologists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Advantists, Uniterians, Moslems.
Names please?
-
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..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 ages–what 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)
And can Shoebat even find one instance of out the many places in which NT pastors are mentioned that ever calls them "priests," which is an exclusive word in Greek that is only ever used for Jewish or pagan priests, or that of the priesthood of all believers? No, he cannot as instead Catholicism has presumed to correct the Holy Spirit by distinctively giving NT presbuteros/episkopos (one office: Titus 1:5,7) that title, based upon imposed functional equivalence, with error begetting error. In addition, is Shoebat blind to the crimes, cruelties, and villainies which have been transacted under the cover of a special priesthood, as manifested by the Inquisitions and treatment of Jews? See here in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .
Benedict as seen by a translated (into English) transcript of one of the pope's radio addresses, criticized Nostra Aetate as speaking too positively of other religions and not looking at them critically, as the Church had from the outset," but which does not invalidate the requirement of religious assent to encyclicals, which forbids public dissent. Thus Shoebat indicates he is traditional cafeteria Catholic, who does not simply follow the pastors as he is enjoined to do, since " the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906) but who determines what valid church teaching is according to his own judgment. Of course, due to the plethora of papal conciliar pronouncements, RCs from both sides can support their positions by invoking the magisterium which they both claim is the solution to divisions.
-
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)
Thus Shoebat worked to redeem the reputation Scripture leaves of the Pharisees! But the fact is that Shoebat even affirmed Catholicism was "derived from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism." And despite Shoebat's attempt to rehab them, Scripture does impugn them as a group as being the above. And by doing such things as that and introducing rites in the Temple which originated in popular custom and were without foundation in the Law. akin to praying to created beings in Heaven, Rome has been much like them historically (not that i need no repentance). And RCs here even express an arrogance akin to the following: The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49) And it is no wonder he cited "Mark Dice," (Illuminati type stuff) who seems to be soft with Islam. (http://studygrowknowblog.com/2014/07/16/mark-dices-take-on-muslims-the-virgin-birth-and-the-return-of-jesus/)
Another? Meaning the first was while this minor author of a 2012 book is so popular that it has zero reviews on Amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/RELIGION-Great-Harlot-Devils-Playground/dp/1619966085) And yet we can understand how a RC would be opposed to the those who oppose a one world authority/religion. ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE 67. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority,... Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties.... Invoking "subsidiarity" does not rectify the problems of such a proposal before the Lord returns. Couple this with the RC monarchy with "coercive" powers which traditional RCs yearn for, and you can see why Shoebat has left one theocracy which has historically relied on the sword of men to achieve its goals for another one which has done the same. And he is aligned with those who long for the good old days of the Inquisitions. For that kind of anti-Protestant prejudice is one she has experience in, and would deal with anti-Catholic prejudice, which victim mentality, like liberals whom her multitude elect, they make merchandise of to demand special treatment. Which so many FC RCs expect here while incessantly posting provocative pro-RC articles. Thus Shoebat ignores Rome's historical anti-everything not of Rome and the warrant for anti-Catholicism, while using falsehoods or misleading statements in his appeal to special victim status. But he does seem sincere, if mistaken. May the Lord grant him repentance unto life. (2Tim. 2:25) |
