Free Republic

I've been to John MacArthur's church (Grace Community Church). He sure drills deap down into Scripture during his teaching.

It's a little far to attend regularily, but a co-worker is a member there and we have lot's of discussions during lunchtime walks around the Rose bowl (Pasadena).

Great article, great news. This is something we should all get behind.

This country was founded on Christian values. D. James Kennedy wrote a book "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born", which gives great quantity of statements proving beyond any doubt what this country was founded on.

In 1831 France sent a man named Alexis de Tocquelille to America to find out why there was so little crime and so few prisons. Ultimately, he reported "America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great".

Well, we have plenty of prisons now. We have to fight to say the name Jesus, unless we are cussing. Our great organization, the ACLU, changed from protecting those who's rights were being wronged, into an organization who fights for men who feel it's their right to have sex with boys, and threaten to sue any school district who wants to include the word Christmas in their holiday (Holy day) programs.

All politicians that claim a religious faith should be held accountable on the abortion issue. All of their arguements fail when they are forced to answer the question "Just what is a fetus?"

It's not about privacy, because we do not allow anyone to kill their infant in the privacy of their home.
It's not about poverty, because we do not allow anyone to kill their infant if they decide they don't have enough money.

The "fetus" is not a thing, but a stage of life.
Fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, adult, and senior.

Let's hold their feet to the fire, making sure they know that we know what they are doing.....pandering to the abortion mill special intrest.

Let's make it a mission,

God bless.

<<>> I really don't think so. I'm not a fan of Scott's, but this was a good article. I wouldn't expect any negativity on this one.

Merry Christmas Terri,

Stay warm :-)

I'm not a fan of Scott's by any means, but this article is pretty good.

Hey B-

As someone who mostly just reads the posts, I try to objectivily weigh the temperment and arguements of each side.

I'll be honest with you. The "verbal frothing, snide comments, or judgemental pronouncements" that you refer to applies to both sides, and both sides think the other side is the one doing the worst.

Just a thought.

God bless.

I also think the human side of him was getting the best of him. He knew than he had to decrease and Jesus increase, but I'm sure he didn't think he was going to be rotting away in prison. I think he was really doubting.

Grace is God's unmerited favor. Something given freely.

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

And the works that follow, verse 10

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

The works do not gain us salvation, that is the free gift of Grace. The works follow as we obey Him. As I walk in my Christian life I hope to improve, so I hope to be better than I am now. So I will change, hopefully for the better. But salvation is a free gift.

For anyone who is interested, go to www.cvchurch.com to see how we handle this (there will be a pop-up).

Our Church, along with a few others in the community, use our Church parking lot to set up games, horse rides and petting zoo, and fun for any families that want to show up. Last year we had over 1500 people go through.

It's a lot of work, but the kids are in a safe environment. One other thing. No ghosts or gobblins. No witch or devil costumes allowed. Only wholesome costumes.

I worked traffic control last year and had dozens of people as they were leaving say thanks for providing a safe and non-halloween environment. They had a great time.
Oh yeah....I heard "Free Candy...yesss!!!" all night long :-)

<<< . If a person has no real close friendships in the church eventually they will probably just fall away and one day kinda find it hard to come up with a reason to get all dressed up on sunday and go to church and act the way your suppossed to act when one goes to church. >>>

I'm sure that is true for many people. For many what helps this is Bible Studies, Discipleship classes, Community groups, encouraging participation in retreats, and encouraging everyone to get involved and participate.

In short, good teaching from the pulpit, with good Christian fellowship encouraged for all.

As for me, it seems this would be very difficult in a mega-church structure. I enjoy knowing most peoples names.

<< The problem with Protestant churches is that they've been taken over by liberal Democrats. Every single thing the Democrat Party believes, they believe. Being pro-choice, having no problem with Partial Birth Abortion, and ignoring the Ten Commandments have turned off decent people. A lot of people are looking for churches that actually follow the Ten Commandments. >>

You are painting with a very broad brush. I can't speak for other Church's, but what you said is not even remotely close to true in my Church.

I have a question. Where can I find out the Catholic Church's official teaching, or interpretation, of any given Scripture? Is there an interpretaion for all verses, or only some?

If it is all Scripture, then one would only need to look up what the Church says to determine the Catholic position. But I thought I remembered listening to a debate with James Akin, where he said that it wasn't all Scripture that had offical interpretation.

Is that correct? If so, where can I find the resource. If not, what about the Scripture without the official interpretation?

The reason I'm asking this is that someone on another thread was defending an analogy that didn't seem right to me. I wanted to know if the way the Scripture was being interpreted was the official teaching of the Catholic Church, or only this persons own intpretation.

Thanks in advance for the information.

I just checked an on-line site www.christianity.com, where there are many versions but didn't find this on any.
ASV
KJV
NASB
NKJV
NLT
RSV
YLT
I don't even know what some of these stand for. At home in either my NIV or NLT study Bible there is a footnote that says that this was on some manuscripts. I don't remember the wording but it gave me the impression that it was the lesser quantity rather than in the majority.

<> Look, you really have no arguement here. It was an excellent analogy. And as you view yourself as free to read the Bible and decide for yourself what it intends, you jettisoned any basis for calling Hahn's use of analogy wrong or out of context. Yuor position is a subjective one and you, therefore, have no objective criteria for an appeal that another is in error. He is, like you would advance, similarly guided by the Holy Spirit while reading Scripture.. <>

If you were to review post 438, you would find that my whole purpose in posting was to add to a conversation you were having with Rnmonof7. It had to do with Scott Hahn's character. I don't disrespect his reading the Bible for himself. I'm questioning honesty.

Let me explain myself. If I were to say (and this example is very extreme) Jesus thought Peter was satan, and used for my evidence Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned to Peter and said "Get away from me, Satan?", I would expect to receive posts from others indicating that I'm extremely misinformed or that the Scripture is taken way out of context. But if I claimed to be a expert and said I actually taught in Seminary, I would expect people to wonder what my real motive was, or if I'm crazy.

For Scott Hahn to say that "Honor thy Father and Mother" as part of the law given to the normal everyday Jew wandering around in the desert is cause for Jesus to glorify and exult Mary (instead of showing respect, as it would mean to all the other Jewish hearing the law), is far fetched. But he proclaims himself an expert and even a teacher in Seminary.

My whole point is that I don't believe he is being honest with his interpretation, and using that to influence the people he was speaking to.

Now I think this is obvious, but based on your response you did not. So maybe I'm wrong. If this is not obvious I'll stand corrected.

I'd like to ask the opinion of any and all still hanging on with this thread. Do you think an expert such as Scott Hahn could really have this interpretation of this Scripture? Or do you agree with his interpretation and think that I'm just just way off base?

One more question. It is my understanding that a Catholic must interpret some Scripture as meaning what the Catholic Church says it means. I may or may not be correct on this.

If this must be interpreted as the Church says, is Scott giving us the official teaching of the Catholic Church? And if not, Scott is doing the very thing you criticize, reading Scripture and interpreting it for himself.

Catholicguy, it's very clear that you oppose many people's meaning of Scripture. Are your responses all official Catholic Church teaching, or is some of it your own interpretation (this is a serious question, not meant to be sarcastic).

Anyhow, I hope that some will give feedback.

Thanks, and may God bless.

You have to admit, the ugliness comes from both sides...

"He was reasoning by analogy. He in no way intended to trick or fool others."

It was not a good analogy because the Scripture was taken way out of context. He got the reaction from the audience he wanted. I still think he knew what he was doing.

I can only speak for myself and the Church I attend. When I attended the Catholic Church I didn't know anyone who read the Bible and don't remember ever being encouraged to. In my current Church I know many people who read the Bible regularly, and it is encouraged during the teaching most weeks. It is this that I based my comment on. I have no idea what percentage of people truely study the Bible. I'm sure there were Catholic's who did and I just didn't know it.

You are correct that I "abandoned the Ark of Salvation", about eight years ago when I stopped attending Church and even became bitterly vocal against God. But due to what I consider a unique and wonderfull set of circumstances my current Church found me.

I consider my authority Jesus and the Bible the inspired Word of God. It is to this authority that I put everything to the test to determine what is true. I don't just take anyone's word on issues of doctrine. Good tradition is good. Good teaching is good. What makes it good is when it complements the Bible. What makes it bad is when it contradicts the Bible.

I'm sure we have much in common, but also some things we would disagree on. Truth will prevail. I've a fairly open mind that can be changed, given the evidence. That's why I read these threads. I'll keep reading, and keep on sucking up all this good info:-)

Lord, I pray for wisdom and correct discernment for myself and all those who read these posts. This, so that we can glorify you in the mannor you intended when you created us. Thank you Jesus for taking our sins and dying that horrible death, the death we deserve, so that we may have eternal life. You are my Lord and Savior, and in Your name I pray to the Father. Amen.

May God bless

Most of the time I just read what others are saying. In fact the only time I've posted is when I've found someone in some kind of leadership role being less than honest.

In posts 200,250,255,290, and 415 you both are discussing the character of Scott Hahn.

I was away from the Church for many years. When I told a friend I began attending Church again she was thrilled until she found out it was not a Catholic Church. This began a debate that lasted for some time, and included her giving me a tape named "Scott Hahn conversion tape".

The following is a portion of my response to my friend, pertaining to some of what Scott said on this tape:


One last point, but this is a very important point because it speaks of Scott Hahn’s character. I believe it is more important for Scott to have people convinced of his point of view than to tell the truth. I am very much interested in the truth and will go where it leads me. I have a big problem with people who try to manipulate or fool people into their point of view.

Let me explain. Here I am not arguing for or against the Catholic Church’s viewpoint of Mary. However, what Scott presents here I consider intellectual dishonesty because he is deliberately trying to trick people. He says on the tape:

I’ll give you two points, and if you can answer them, I’ll give it to you (referring to the Catholic viewpoint of Mary, talking to a Protestant friend).
Point 1. Christ obeyed the law perfectly right? Of course.
The Ten Commandments sum up that law, right? Of course.
The first command that deals with our fellow relations is “Honor your Father and Mother”. When Christ fulfilled the law, He fulfills that command “Honor your Father and Mother”. The Hebrew word for honor, ‘Kabad’, means glorify. So Christ honors, He bestows honor, He glorifies, He bestows glory upon His Mom, right?
What’s point 2?
We imitate Christ. The Catholic Church isn’t exalting Mary, Jesus beat her to it. We’re just echoing and imitating our Lord. All we’re doing is what Christ has been doing, as a perfectly faithful obedient loving Son.

Scott Hahn indicates he is a scholar and has taught in seminary. He talks about his study of Scripture. He knows about taking Scripture out of context because even in this tape he accuses others of doing just that (pertaining to the Body and Blood of Christ).

So let’s look at the context of this Scripture. The law is being given to the Jewish people. Do not murder. So the Jewish people, in order to obey this commandment, must not murder.
Do not commit adultery. So the Jewish people, in order to obey this commandment, must not commit adultery.
Honor your Father and Mother. So the Jewish people, in order to obey this commandment, must honor, bestow glory, and exalt their Father and Mother?
Is that right? The average Jewish person is to bestow glory and show exaltation to his Father and Mother? I don’t think so.
Here is the thing…..In Hebrew there is more than one meaning for the word ‘Kabad’. One is to honor, to bestow glory and reverence, and other is to respect. So let’s fix this one.

Honor your Father and Mother. So the Jewish people, in order to obey this commandment, must honor, by showing respect for, their Father and Mother.

Now that this is in the proper context, Jesus fulfills this commandment by respecting his Father and Mother.

Catholic Church members receive most of their religious information from the Church leaders, Catholic Catechisms as children, and people like Scott Hahn, rather than going themselves to the Scriptures. I believe that it’s a fair statement to say that most Catholic Church members do not read the Bible, and of those that do a large percentage do little more than dabble at reading Scripture. The Catholic Church, in general, doesn’t do much to encourage individuals to read the Bible (I freely admit that most of the time I didn’t pay attention, that I was ‘dead wood’, in the Catholic Church. However, I believe I’m correct about this. If you disagree then let’s discuss it).
Scott used a trick to try to convince people who do not know much about Scripture into believing that this specific Scripture indicates Mary should be bestowed glory and that she should be exalted. This Scripture does not indicate that Mary should be glorified or exalted. If you look closely at what he said, “The first command that deals with our fellow relations”. Fellow relations means human relations. And besides, it makes absolutely no sense to tell the Jewish people to glorify, bestow glory, and exalt their Dad and Mom.

This is my opinion. I believe, because of his stated background and experience, that Scott didn’t make a mistake. I believe he is purposely being deceptive in order to convince people of his point of view. I’m on a quest for the truth, and tricks like this disturb me greatly. Please be very careful with what you believe from this man.

There is no way he would attempt this in a debate format with one of the reformed Church debaters. But then again, it is his speech and his audience.

I agree. Their pitch can be very suttle and it's hard to determine where their misinterpretation of Scripture is.

In addition to reading and knowing the Word of God, there are many apologetic books avaliable that can let us know exactly where the cults will misinterpret Scripture.

Very much worth the time and price to become familiar with their tactics.

In defending the use of the deuterocononicals by Jesus and the apostles you provided a link with 112 references from the New Testament that you say refers to these Old Testament books (By James Akin.)

I think most people who see a list this large just assume that it is correct, and do not take the time to check into each reference. I'm certainly one of those people who doesn't have the time to check everything out.

I did, however, recognize one of these and am a little disappointed. The list says that Matthew 4:15 refers to
1 Maccabees 5:15. I don't have a Catholic Bible with me so I can't check up on this right now.

It doesn't really matter. Maybe 1 Maccabees 5:15 does have this information and maybe it doesn't.

But let's look at Matthew 4:14, just one verse prior to the verse that says refers to 1 Maccabbees 5:15.

Matthew 4:14 says, " This fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy: "

Let's be fair here. Matthew is specifically saying that verse 15 is a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, which can be found in Isaiah 9:1-2.

To say that 1 Maccabbees 5:15 is referenced by Matthew 4:15 is not accurate, even if the information is in there, because the author tells us exactly what he is referring to.

This is misleading and makes me wonder about the other 111 references.

I mostly just read the posts and follow the debates. It's clear that on both sides of arguements people sometimes take liberties. However, being a person in search of the truth wherever it leads me, I become distrustfull of the material posted that I cannot check out or don't have time to check out when something I can check out is misleading (again, on either side of the debate.)

When someone posts something that is misleading, some people will accept it. Some others, however, will form a bias or skepticism to whomever posted it.

Anyhow, that's what I had to say....your comments are welcomed.