Roman Catholic apologist has trouble explaining the “Immaculate Conception” when students interject Scripture (imagine that).


The following two short videos are of a Roman Catholic apologist leading a class on the defense of the Immaculate Conception. He starts off the conversation explaining his conversation with a Christian youth pastor (who evidently needs to spend less time playing games and organzing ski-trips with his youth group and more time studying the Word of God to know what he believes and why he believes it).

The speaker is interesting to listen to but my head really spun when this apologist and his class used the pure conjecture of worldly human wisdom (and very minimal Scripture) to dismiss Romans 3:23 . . . when “all” doesn’t mean “all.” He also provided us with his “most important verse in the Bible” in an attempt to justify his point.

Now things get really interesting when one student in the class named Frank brings up a great point: If Mary was sinless, then why did she die if indeed death is the wage of sin? If Mary was sinles then she would have never died.

The Catholic apologist teaching the class seemed to realize this was detrimental to his teaching so he provided the quick but incorrect reply “Mary was still human.” Allow me to remind the teacher that humans only die BECAUSE OF SIN! The teacher’s pious answer sounds humble but it fails to address the fact that if Mary knew no sin then she should not have died.

The teacher quickly moves on and just when he thinks he’s out of the woods, another student (who brought up the Romans 3:23 problem) directs the conversation back to Frank’s inquiry: If sin = death + Mary died = she must have been a sinner. Even with the valiant effort of another pupil who jumps in to help–trying to just explain the problem away with human reason–it still leaves the teacher a little perplexed. He tries to use the sinless Messiah as an example but obviously forgot that Jesus took on the sins of the world, Mary did not.

In spite of all the speculation and assertions hurling around the room (very little if any of it being Scripture) Frank didn’t give up so easily–still pressing the issue. Finally, after seeing the gaping hole in this Romish false doctrine of Immaculate Conception, the teacher decides to “shift gears.”

All in all, the two videos (6 minutes and 5 minutes respectively) are actually rather entertaining. If you’re going to watch these videos, however, be prepared to jump through some wild hoops as you follow along.

Part One:

Part Two:

Apparently when Pope Pious IX proclaimed the doctrine of Immaculate Conception in 1854, he couldn’t imagine those pesky little verses (Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23) causing so many problems.

Sola Scriptura!

Solus Christus!

195 thoughts on “Roman Catholic apologist has trouble explaining the “Immaculate Conception” when students interject Scripture (imagine that).

  1. Isaiah says:

    This is funny, but sad at the same time. The Truth is starting them in the face, but they choose to believe in the lies of Romish tradition rather than what Scripture really says!

    How much weight on the heart must it be to bury the Truth as they did…

  2. Cruci-Fide says:

    In the first video at 3:45 the instructor attempts to address Romans 3:23 and how Mary could be sinless:

    Can a baby sin? No. Can a severely, mentally retarded person sin? No.

    Uh…so what’s the point? We know Mary didn’t die as a baby. So is his position that Mary was “severely, mentally retarded”? There’s one I haven’t heard before.

  3. Pathetic.

    They also need to explain the implications of Mary being born sinless since this would require her mother Anna and every woman in her genealogy all the way back to Eve being sinless…but…ooops! Adam AND Eve both sinned! I guess the Bible is telling the truth and all really have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God!

    But let’s not pester the heretical church of Rome which was founded upon the very gates of hell itself with such minor details from the scriptures they so love to twist and wrest to their own destruction!

  4. Wow. After listening to that, I’m starting to feel like a…

    Or would this be more appropriate?

    Question: Where in the Bible does it say that “babies and the mentally handicapped” can’t sin? It certainly is a nice sentiment and we would like to believe it, but it isn’t biblical.

    You know, there were about 60 years from Christ’s ascension until God closed the canon with Revelation. And in all those years, don’t you think the Holy Spirit could have told us a little bit more about Mary if it was that important? I mean, couldn’t he have thrown us a bone about her being sinless, assumed into heaven, etc?

  5. doreen,

    Mary’s mother’s name is actually a matter of extra-Biblical church tradition. My emphasis wasn’t on her name because regardless of her actual name Rome’s falsely implied sinlessness remains, all the way back to Eve.

    Hope this helps.

    In Christ,
    CD

  6. paarsurrey says:

    Hi

    In my opinion the concept of Immaculate Conception of Mary developed very lately. Paul- an enemy of Jesus, later presented himself as a follower of Jesus, never gave any importance to Mary. He never met her to pay regards to her or for any consultation with her in matter of religion. Paul changed all concepts of Jesus with his own philosophical theology invented or imported from the pagans at Rome.

    Later the Catholics Prealized their mistake and went to another extreme of making a sort of deity of Mary; which is also wrong, as Jesus never said anything like that.

    Kindly visit my blgosite for interesting posts and for peaceful discussions on threads there.

    Thanks

    I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

  7. Ahmadi,

    I am not surprised that you, as a Muslim, reject the Bible. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe it.

    I have a question that I’ve asked Muslims over and over, and none have ever been able to answer. You believe hell is eternal torture, correct? The Bible agrees with Islam on that. We’ve sinned against an infinitely holy God and our punishment is therefore infinite. We have all sinned against God, and therefore we all deserve this punishment. Since God is infinitely just, payment for sins must be made. One way to make payment is hell, but if any Muslim ever hopes to get to heaven, how do they pay their infinite penatly?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  8. orville schmidt says:

    Joseph did not believe in the Immaculate Conception since on discovering Mary was pregnant he was prepared to divorce her, obviously considering the possibility that Mary had committed sin.

  9. Rich says:

    Well, in all fairness, the “defender” of the Faith in this case is a layperson not a theologian, and not sufficiently well informed concerning his own religion. Actually, it’s in the place where he departs from Catholic teaching (in saying that “Mary died”) that he leads himself into the swamp and can no longer reconcile one part of what he’s saying with the rest. (His questioners are correct in seeing the contradiction between sinlessness and death.) But actual Catholic teaching does *not* say that Mary died. The dogma of the Assumption says: “Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”

    Incidentally, the The Immaculate Conception (not to be confused with the Assumption) was defended in the 13th Century by Blessed John Duns Scotus, so it is certainly not new. What’s “new” is declaring it to be a dogma (1854).

    God Bless,
    Rich

  10. dmh724 says:

    “Now things get really interesting when one student in the class named Frank brings up a great point: If Mary was sinless, then why did she die if death is the wage of sin? If Mary was sinles then she would have never died.”

    There is no historical evidence that she did die. The Church holds the position that she was assumed into Heaven the same way Elijah was, body and soul together.

    There is however, plenty of historical evidence to suggest that most people believed she was assumed into Heaven.

  11. dmh724 says…
    “There is however, plenty of historical evidence to suggest that most people believed she was assumed into Heaven”

    Is there biblical evidence? Where in God’s word does it say she was assumed into heaven the way Elijah was? The bible speaks of Elijah’s being carried off into heaven in a whirlwind {2Kings 2:1, 11}, but there’s nothing on Mary being carried off in such a way. If this is the case, why is God’s word silent on this issue? Surely it would have been noteworthy if the maidservant chosen by God to deliver the Christ child were carried off in such a way; one would think God would have included such a matter in His word. Yet, we find of no such incident.

  12. Sadly, it is an apostate church that teaches Mary was assumed into heaven. It is a religious organization full of the traditions of men, false teaching, and finds itself without true knowledge of the Almighty God of heaven and earth.

  13. God created the world in 6 DAYS, but in the 60 YEARS between the resurrection of Christ and the writing of Revelation He couldn’t squeeze in a word or two about Mary’s sinlessness.

  14. For Mary to have been sinless then it follows that either a.) she must have descended from a sinless line of humanity in order to not inherit the original sin of Adam or else b.) she must have been miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit in her mother’s womb in the same manner as Jesus Christ.

    The Bible teaches neither of these, in fact the Bible teaches that Mary was a normal human being in need of a Savior just like everyone else.

    For more read Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: An Overview by John MacArthur. With that I’m off to church! Have a blessed Lord’s Day!

    In Christ,
    CD

  15. I don’t find this surprising. When I last debated Roman Catholic apologists I found a great deal of the writings of the early church fathers directly contradicted scripture on the roles of priests in the old testament and there was a general ignorance of this.

    Protestants may abuse scripture but at least they know what it says.

  16. I too would like to weigh in on this subject.

    If Mary was presumed to be sinless, then why did God not choose her to be the propitiation for the sins of mankind instead of sending His own Son?

    Additionally, if Mary was sinless, then there was absolutely no reason for her to bring a sacrifice to the temple in Luke 2:24. The grounds for this is laid out in Leviticus 5:11 and 12:8. And why in the world (if Mary had committed no sin) would she acknowledge God as her Savior? Sinless people do not need a savior?

    Also, in regards to Lyn and 4 Pointer’s comments, one would be surprised to discover how little the Bible speaks of Mary in contrast to the amount of emphasis, veneration, adoration, and flat out worship of her by many adherents to the Romish faith.

    One would think that with the amount of emphasis placed on Mary that there would certainly be something about her in the Epistles and Acts (church history).

    Once you leave the gospels, Mary is absent from Scripture. The following is a quote from my post It’s all about Mary?:

    Mary is never spoken of in the history of the Church or the letters (Epistles) to the Church (except in Acts 1:14 where a brief mention of her is made). Nowhere in all the instruction of conduct, examples of operation, and direction given to the early church for its operation and function is Mary ever mentioned, yet today you couldn’t walk into a Roman Catholic Church without bumping into something to do with Mary, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a member of the RCC that would deny Mary as being a pivotal or important part of their life in the mother church. This devotion and near-deification of Mary is something you cannot find anywhere in the early Church. The silence of the Scriptures alone speaks volumes against the RCC’s current obsession with Mary.

  17. The Pilgrim –

    Great post except I loved the line “Additionally, if Mary was sinless, then there was absolutely no reason for her to bring a sacrifice to the temple in Luke 2:24. The grounds for this is laid out in Leviticus 5:11 and 12:8. And why in the world (if Mary had committed no sin) would she acknowledge God as her Savior? Sinless people do not need a savior?

    There is one line I would disagree with. This devotion and near-deification of Mary is something you cannot find anywhere in the early Church. That’s just not true, you can certainly argue it is not scriptural and I think you did a great job on that but I’d want to caution you on the later point. There is pretty good evidence that the Marys: Mary Mother of God, Mary of Magdala and Mary the prostitute, Mary of Bethany…. go back to will into the 1st and frankly I think even earlier into proto-Christianity. I’d stay away from the historical argument the evidence is more mixed.

  18. Dear CD-Host:

    What I was thinking and what I typed were a little different. What I was referring to specifically was the early Church as recorded in Acts.

    “This devotion and near-deification of Mary is something you cannot find anywhere in the early Church. The silence of the Scriptures alone speaks volumes against the RCC’s current obsession with Mary.”

    I clarified it (in my mind) with the sentence immediately following the line you disagree with. But I can see how unless you were inside my head, you could easily misunderstand me.

    However, in order to understand anyone’s reference to “the early church” one must define “early.” How early is “early?” How late can it be before it’s no longer “early?”

    As anyone knows with me, everything (including church history) takes a back seat to Sola Scriptura, and Sola Scriptura obliterates any vain attempt to justify the deification and worship of Mary.

    When church history takes precedence over Scripture it is then known as tradition.

    Sorry for any confusion.

    - The Pilgrim

  19. OK seems like we agree on that last point.

    And I wasn’t justifying with history just saying that early history is more diverse than Acts. Today I was just reading a reconstruction / translation of The Great Deceleration of Simon Magus, very likely 1st century Christianity but very far away from scriptural.

  20. Lisa says:

    Hi all hopefully I won’t get judged, I use to be part of the Ptotestant Church but recently became a Catholic. In regards to Mary, I never use to believe in Mary’s Immaculate Conception or her sinless nature. I use to read the Bible all the time and I still do but My friend’s mum one day challenged me and showed me the truth and now I am glad that I am Catholic.

    Anyway In regards to Romans 3: 23 my pastor used to tell us that Mary is but a creature and we are told that in Romans “all have sinned” My pastor used to tell us that everyone commits actual sins.

    But isn’t there any exceptions? Doesn’t a child below the age of reason cannot sin? so doesn’t that contradict Romans? “all have sinned” does that mean the child sinned because “all have sinned?” if that was the case than I would have stopped believing in Christianity I would have stopped reading the Bible…why would it say that “all have sinned” does that mean even babies sin as well?

    If all have sinned does that mean Jesus had sinned as well? Why would have God chosen a sinful women to give birth to our Messiah? who raised Jesus? These are some things I pondered about…now I’m still studying and I really fill fulfilled being in the Catholic Church

    One thing that I realised is that Christians in the Catholic Church do not attack other Protestant, Pentacostal Christians and all other 330 000 Christian denominations. But all I seem to see is that all these Christians, it feels like their life long journey is in attacking other Christians in the Catholic church. It doesn’t make sense because it is not a Christian thing to do.

    Anyway seeing all this, it opened up my eyes and as I started thinking and researching, I think that I have found my place and the right church which is the Catholic Church the only church established by Jesus himself.

    If people only just start reading especially what the early Christians in the first millenium wrote and even in the scripture itself than they would know the truth. I would love to write more of the things that I have discovered but it’ll be long anyway if anyone would like to talk to me about it or want to show me their side please do so it’l be much appreciated.

    Here are some reasons why you can’t just rely on Sola Scriptura

    1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
    2. The “Word of God” Refers to Oral Teaching Also
    3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
    4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
    5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
    6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
    7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
    8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text”
    9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
    10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

    go to this website for more info: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

    and search up a guy called Tim Staples he is a major influence on why i decided to become a Catholic

    Thanks guys and God Bless you all

  21. Dear Lisa:

    I noticed that on this same post (and all on the same day) there were three comments hailing from the same area of Australia, all in defense of Marianism. One of the other editors must have deleted the other two but yours was left.

    In regards to the issue of Mary, please see my previous post entitled It’s All About Mary? in which I address the 15 most common arguments used by Marian worshipers to promote Mary idolatry.

    I also recommend to other readers who are interested in this subject to check out John MacArthur’s sermon entitled Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship.

    So tell me, Lisa, in regards to your comment, have you ever raised any kids? And do you not believe in original sin?

    Sincerely,
    - The Pilgrim

  22. Hi Lisa~ May I recommend a couple of sites to you? One is from a former Roman Catholic, Mike Gendron. His site is http://pro-gospel.org/x2/
    Another is Christian apologist Dr. James White, his site is http://www.aomin.org/

    When you state that ‘sola scriptura’ is NOT taught in the bible, you conveniently overlook this passage, ‘ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.’ 2 Timothy 3:16,17
    Put the emphasis on ‘all scripture’.
    Or this from Deuteronomy 8:3, ‘man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live’
    The RCC does just as Satan did to Eve in the garden, ‘Did God REALLY say…’
    God’s word is all the true born from above believer needs; however, if someone can get you to doubt, as Satan did Eve, then it is easy to lead you astray.

    I do hope you will visit the links provided by both Pilgrim and myself.

  23. Lisa – I also recommend http://www.bereanbeacon.org for some good information and articles about Catholicism from a former Dominican priest.

    As far as your defense of oral tradition, I recommend you study the history of the religion you now have embraced. In so doing you will find how a departure from God’s word alone (i.e. Sola Scriptura) led the Roman religion into the most abominable and blasphemous doctrines where even killing true followers of Jesus was viewed as doing God’s service (see John 16:2).

    This being the same thing that happened with the Pharisees when they departed from God’s word and built their religion on the oral traditions of men. It so blinded them that they could not see the Lord of Glory and killed him and his followers.

    In answer to your rhetorical question, most assuredly children sin. All one has to do is spend a few minutes with them to see the rotten fruit they bear from their Adamic nature.

  24. Joanna says:

    I see that my posts have been deleted which is upsetting since I only wanted to be part of the discussion. I will continue posting nonetheless in the hope that I will be able to hear other opinions on these topics.

    With regard to your comment Lyn-
    Catholics do agree that the Bible is important, that’s why we have the Liturgy of the Word every Sunday. It is part of our lives and teaches us about our lives. And, I agree that ‘scriptura’ is taught in the Bible, using the passage you provided…
    In this passage “what Paul does not say [2 Timothy 3:16], however, is that the Scriptures are sufficient all by themselves.” (The Way, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 122). Thus what is said here is ‘scriptura’, rather than sola scriptura.
    And remember there are many more teachings in the Bible and not just these 2 verses. Recall that as stated in the Bible Jesus ALSO gave us the Church. Did Jesus say, “On this rock I will build my Bible?”- NO! That’s false and I am sure you would agree …But that does not mean the Bible is insignificant, because the importance of scripture is demonstrated elsewhere and Catholics and Protestants agree that the Bible is EXTREMELY significant! What He did say is, “On this rock I will build my CHURCH”. Now here we must not ignore a verse in preference to one which supports our claims. Take the Bible in its fulness and you will see the Truth of the God-made Church.

    False teachings will arise when we take the scripture out of context. We can’t select some of the teachings in scripture and ignore others. We must take the whole of the sacred scriptures and understand them as a complete text rather than single verses. Remember that some parts relate to others and that one can’t fully know the faith unless they have the whole truth.
    The scriptures are indeed important to me and I love meditating on them, but I also feel that the Church which began almost 2000 years ago by Jesus Christ, our GOD, is the one true church; the Catholic Church.

    Can I ask all the Protestants here a question:
    Which books of the Bible belong in Scripture and which do not? How do you know?
    Answer: The Catholic Church :) (please answer me otherwise with your view if you feel this is untrue)

    Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the Magisterium,
    endowed with Christ’s own teaching authority (c.f., Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18; Luke 10:16) guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 16:13), and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Timothy 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not. Here you need to appeal to the very “testimony of man and Church” that you claim to not need.

    For more details regarding the Catholic view: http://www.ewtn.com/Iibrary/scripture/solascri.txt

    To the editor,
    I do hope that my post is posted because I did want to discuss this. Please respect my opinions. If what I am saying sounds rude or I am writing in an unacceptable manner, please inform me why?

    God Bless,

    Joanna

  25. Matthew Johnston says:

    Joanna,

    Hello I enjoyed reading your post.

    Without spending hours refuting the heresy that is rome, I would just like to state that in no way shape or form is the Roman Catholic Church part of the bride of Christ in any way shape or form.

    Everything from the false gospel to the error taught about ‘pergutory’ and ‘penance’ to the rank inter-faith beliefs that abound in the RCC. Just a few small reasons why the RCC is in serious error. visit http://www.carm.org and click on the the information on Roman Catholic’s.

    Just look at exactly why Luther wrote all he did and you are sure to find and see the difference between Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church.

    Perhaps begin with the gospel, the apocrypha and transubstantiation……….

    May the LORD open the eyes of you heart to see the heresy that is called the Roman Catholic Church.

    Soli Deo Gloria

  26. lyn says:

    Joanne~ I am glad your comment was approved, however, I must disagree with your statement concerning 2 Timothy 3:16, and I will use scripture to prove my point. Verse 17 is the result of the use of scripture, ‘That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works’. The word of God makes the believer perfect, or complete in the faith. We are equipped because of His word to serve, to do His will. There is nothing needed outside of His written word to shape the believer into the image of Christ. The word of God is illuminated to us through His Spirit, there is no other way to understand scripture apart from the Spirit of God teaching us His truth. The phrase ‘sola scriptura’ stems from passages such as this. If God’s word were not sufficient, He would have said so. Nowhere in His word to we find a command to seek His truth elsewhere, or outside His word.

    As for the ‘church’, the twisting of scripture has led the RCC to teach that Peter is the ‘rock’ , the first pope on which Christ builds His church. The office of pope is found nowhere in scripture; however, we do find passages pertaining to deacons and overseers. You would think such an important office would have been mentioned in scripture, yet, it isn’t. Christ is called the ‘rock’ in different places in the Bible, for instance, Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 2 Samuel 23:3, and various other places too numerous to mention. If Christ is the Rock, then how is it the RCC gives this title to Peter? God’s word does not contradict, so somebody has to be in error. There is a very informative website which addresses this very issue biblically, here is that link… http://vintage.aomin.org/Epitetaute.html

    The true church of Jesus Christ is not any one single denomination. This is where the RCC trips up its followers. There are no passages in scripture stating the Catholic Church as Christ’s church. From Revelation 5:9, ‘And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation’. Who has Christ redeemed? People from all walks of life, all different types of religious backgrounds {even atheists are religious}, people from all parts of the globe. There is nothing in that passage about having to be a Catholic in order to be saved, on the contrary, salvation is a gift. There is nothing you or I could do to receive such a gift. God gives this gift of salvation by His grace. He saves all who repent and believe in the Gospel. There is nothing that needs to be done, no work on man’s part. Everything about salvation is a work of God, the power of God convicts the lost sinner by the Spirit of God, He then draws the convicted sinner to Jesus. The sinner cries out for mercy and forgiveness, and God graciously declares the unrighteous sinner righteous, all because of Christ’s finished work on the cross.
    Water baptism does not save, it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves {John 1:33}. Nor does partaking of the Lord’s supper save you, for Christ is not in a wafer. He is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. He commands us to partake of the Lord’s supper ‘in remembrance of Him’ {Luke 22:19)

    False teachings do indeed arise when we take the scriptures and twist them to fit man made tradition. There is only one way to receive spiritual truth, ‘ye must be born again’. There must be evidence of this new birth, a changed life, a new creation in Christ. An inner change that manifests itself outwardly. God working in the believer’s life will be evident, especially to family and friends. Does your spirit bear witness with His?

    ________________________________________________________________________________________

    Joanna, to address your question as to how we got our bible, may I suggest this link… http://www.biblebb.com/files/howbible.htm

  27. Joanna says:

    Just one question before I discuss each of the topics that were brought up-
    How do you know which books of the Bible belong in Scripture and which do not?

  28. Joanna –

    The “how can you have an infallible bible without an infallible church” apologetic strikes me as well overblown. Catholics seem to believer that the only possible answer is “you can’t”.

    But I can think of dozens of possible answers:

    1) We don’t have an infallible bible
    2) The contents of canon are fallible the canon itself it not, “a fallible collection of infallible books”
    3) The contents of the canon pre-exist the catholic church. I.E. the church that “picked” the bible was not the RCC
    4) God attaches importance to his word that he does not attach to institutions. So fallible institutions can make infallible choices when on some issues
    5) The choice of books was easy, one doesn’t need to be infallible to choose perfectly
    6) The specifics aren’t that important. What is 1Enoch had gotten in and say Titus, 1Tim, 2Tim had not. This wouldn’t have led to major doctrinal changes.

    In general I don’t see how the Catholic position makes things any better. There are a few key specific choices one has to endorse. For example books that support the institution church are in, books that attack it are out. Once you accept those you get our canon. If you reject those or question those you end up asking serious question about the nature 1st and 2nd century church which tend to disprove Catholic claims.

    Catholics are right to say there is nothing particularly different between the battles for authority in the 16th century from those in the 2nd. But there are two ways to read that fact.

  29. fourpointer says:

    Joanna,

    Your last question is the same one used by RCC apologists like Gerry Matatics and Robert Sungensis. They like to claim that Rome established the canon of Scripture, and without Rome we poor, poor Protestants wouldn’t have a clue about which books are Scripture. However, that is simply not true.

    The canon of Scripture had been hotly debated during the first two centuries of the church. Everyone from Marcion to Origen had their own ideas about which books belonged. Then you throw in the Gnostics, and other groups wanting to be counted as “Christian” and it was a mixed-up time to be sure.

    Funny thing is, if you read what many of the early church fathers considered “Scripture,” many of them leave out the Apocrypha. In Eusebius’ History of the Church, he includes the lists compiled by many early writers that Rome considers to be “authoritative” and not one of them includes the Apocrypha as being in the list of canonical books–Not even Origen thought they were Scripture. Melito of Sardis. The Council of Jamnia. These and so many others completely exclude the Apocrypha from inclusion as God-breathed Scripture.

    Josephus even wrote that after Malachi (who prophesied during the reign of Artaxerxes), nothing was added to the OT canon: “From Artaxerxes until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased….For though so long a time has now passed, no one has dared to add anything to them, or to take anything from them, or to alter anything in them” (Josephus, Against Apion I. 8.).

    In fact if, as Paul writes, “all Scripture is God-breathed,” then God must have a poor grasp on geography and history. Judith 1:5 says, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Nineveh the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.” The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was in fact king of the Babylonians. Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.” Jeremiah 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

    Long story short, the canon was settled by the early church–not by Rome. Of course, without the Apocrypha, and Purgatory, and Indulgences, where would Rome get the money to build a palace for St. Peter? The Magisterium is a bunch of men who pass down man-made interpretations of what God has said.

    PS–your take on 2nd Timothy 3:15 is not quite accurate. When Paul says the Scriptures are able to make one wise unto “salvation through faith,” he did not attach any conditions to it. He simply said the Scriptures have the power to show a person “salvation through faith.”

  30. Joanna says:

    Ok, so for some strange reason, the link I provided to explain the Catholic view of sola scriptura leads to a site which is anti-Catholic. I’m hoping that this is a technical error and not done on purpose.
    Here is what the site states:

    Sola scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy

    The Catholic case against sola scripture may be summarized by saying that sola scripture is unhistorical, unbiblical and
    unworkable.
    by Patrick Madrid

    Let’s say I’m an Evangelical. When I find out you’re Catholic, I’m going to hammer you with Bible verses that I believe demonstrate that the Catholic Church’s teachings on issues such as purgatory,
    Mary, the papacy, and the Eucharist are unbiblical. “The Bible
    alone provides the totality of God’s revealed truth that’s
    necessary for the Church to have. Forget about all those man-made Catholic traditions (traditions which, by the way, are condemned by Christ in Matthew 15:3-9 end Mark 7:6-8). Just go by the Bible alone,” I’ll argue.

    Let’s say you’re hip to this argument. You know that the
    Protestant principle of the Bible alone-, as the
    Reformers called it-is untrue. But you don’t know how to
    demonstrate that is not what Christ taught, it’s not what the apostles and Church Fathers taught and, most ironically, it’s not what the Bible itself teaches.

    Catholics need to realize just how untenable is and simply ask that it be proven from the Bible. Instead of
    allowing himself to be put on the defensive when purgatory, the Real Presence, or some other Catholic doctrine1 is challenged by a demand that be proven from Scripture, the Catholic should ask, “Where does the Bible teach ?”

    —————————————————

    Edited for brevity. You can read the whole thing here.

  31. Lisa said there are, “330 000 Christian denominations”.

    Tim Staples and Steve Ray say there are 33,000 denominations, so I assume the extra “0″ was a mistake.

    However, there is a problem even with the 33,000. Staples gets that number from the World Christian Encyclopedia. That number includes 122 denominations of Mormons, 228 Arian (Jehovah’s Witness type) denominations, many other types of non-Trinitarian “Christians”, Eastern Orthodox and even 242 Roman Catholic denominations.

    True protestants (as classified by the World Christian Encyclopedia) would have about 9,000 denominations.

    Maybe Staples didn’t read his source very carefully. I don’t really blame the Catholic laymen for repeating bogus facts, but the integrity of the Catholic apologists must be questioned if they refuse to correct their error. Check out this page to find more specifics.

    I certainly admire Lisa’s and Joanna’s courage to come in here and talk to us.

  32. The Pilgrim says:

    Dear Joanna:

    The link issue was not a glitch. Please check out number nine of our Rules of Engagement in regards to adding external links to your comments.

    And, though it’s not mentioned in our RoE, copying and pasting whole writings of others in your comments is frowned upon. If you wish to quote points from others here and there, that’s fine, but we will not permit discussions/debate to dissolve into who can copy and paste the most articles elsewhere from the internet.

    I hope you understand our conditions and the reason for them. With that said, I will permit your last comment (with the long copy and paste article) to stand, but please refrain from further such occurrences.

    Thank you.

    Respectfully,
    - The Pilgrim

  33. lyn says:

    Joanna~ You come here flaunting your ‘wisdom’ taught by men and want to engage in debate, however, your desire to ‘debate’ is a waste of time. No one is interested in your propaganda. You cannot prove your views from scripture, which is what the true believer adheres to. Your insistence on exalting your cultic religion will fall upon deaf ears. You do not realize that there are only two kinds of people, not prots and catholics, but saved and lost. You cleave to teachings of men, believing traditions handed down by mortal men. Your ‘wisdom’ is not of God. The Spirit of God is the teacher of the people of God, not teachings of men handed down from generation to generation. Your desire to re-hash old worn out issues is not worth anyone’s time. All of your ‘views’ have been argued for generations; you may believe everything taught by the RCC. BUT, those whom Christ saves will follow Him, ‘My sheep hear my voice, I know them and they follow me’. All whom God saves will follow Christ alone, not Christ plus tradition plus church doctrine plus Mary plus anything; we simply follow the Great Shepherd.

    May I suggest you read DefCon’s rules of engagement? This site is dedicated to exalting God, edifying true believers, and glorifying Christ, as well as exposing error.

    If you wish to debate, it must be done from scripture; otherwise, your views are simply the teachings and opinions of mortal men.

  34. I was going to explain how the canonical books were chosen for inclusion in the Bible by the Council of Laodicea (363 AD) and the Council of Hippo (393), the same canon being affirmed by the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) , but I see fourpointer already beat me to it. :)

    The Petrine Theory (the idea that Christ made Peter the head of the visible church and establishment of the papacy) did not even begin until the fifth century – beginning with Leo I. The Petrine Theory permitted the ideas of the supremacy of the Church of Rome and of bishops to merge. The result was an unholy mix of political ambition and religious tradition – the beginnings of the corrupt institution of the Romanist church.

    I was a practicing Catholic for 19 years – I’m still stunned by the revisionist version of history we were taught in school and catechism!

    Lisa, your statement about infants and the handicapped not being (born) sinners is false, and is NOT a doctrine taught by the catholic church. Actually, the name of that particular heresy is Pelagianism, the denial of original sin. However, it is true that there are different levels of accountability, and a mentally handicapped adult would not be held to the same standard of understanding or behavior as you or I. But that does not change the fact that he/she is still a sinner (as was Mary – the Gospel of Luke affirms that she was, in fact, a sinner). Infants are born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Proverbs 22:15). That does not mean they have committed personal sin; it means they have inherited the curse of death and sin nature from Adam. This is actually something Catholics and Protestants agree on.

    You say you “feel fulfilled” by your recent decision to convert to the Roman church, but from reading your post it appears you do not have much doctrinal knowledge or have received much teaching. I would offer that faith must be based on fact, not on feelings; and the Word of God is indeed the source of Truth. Emotional decisions rarely lead us into biblical Truth (I include myself as one who erred in this area; I pursued the error of the charismatic movement for several years before realizing it was not of God).

    The “33,000 Protestant denominations” is an urban legend catholics use to try and disprove Reformed and Evangelical teaching. The actual number is a small fraction of that, but that doesn’t stop that convenient (yet silly) statistic from being pulled out in debate when one side runs out of anything fruitful to contribute to the conversation. Neil Simpson of 4Simpsons blog has a link to data disproving the figure – if I can find it, I’ll post it for the benefit of any misinformed romanists reading. :)

    As far as the marian doctrines go, hopefully we all agree these theories about the mother of Jesus were developed very late in Church history – some began during the Middle Ages as the “cult of the virgin” grew in popularity (around the time of John Wycliffe); and others still later (the Assumption became official church doctrine in 1950). Here’s a small timeline (as you can see, NONE of these titles were even close to being Apostolic Age):

    1. Mary is called the Mother of God. AD 431
    2. Prayers offered to Mary AD 600
    3. Immaculate Conception AD 1854
    4. Assumption of Mary AD 1950
    5. Mary Proclaimed Mother of the Church AD 1965

    These doctrines are very easy to disprove biblically, and one of the first “holes” I saw in Catholicism after becoming a Christian and beginning to read the Bible (I was initially very surprised to learn that neither the Assumption nor the Immaculate Conception had so much as a shred of Scriptural support).

    Doctrine of “Perpetual Virginity” of Mary

    The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

    Matthew 1:24-25 – “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”

    Matthew 12:46-47 – “While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

    Matthew 13:55 – “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

    Mark 6:2-3 – “And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

    John 2:12 – “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”

    Acts 1:14 – “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”

    1 Cor. 9:4-5 – “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”

    Gal. 1:19 – But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.”

    (Will continue in another post; this one is already too long…)

  35. Joanna~ I could post all kinds of links disproving your claim that the RCC ‘gave’ us the bible. but you would not read them anymore than I would read your links. Ultimately, credit for God’s word goes solely to Him, and Him alone. To try and steal God’s thunder is both shameful and sinful; it’s just another way for the apostate RCC to try and exalt ‘self’ as the one true church.
    I do pray God will be gracious to you and reveal truth to you through His Spirit. Only God can open up the mind to receive His truth. My anger is not so much directed at you as it is the false teachings you spew out here. But, I must remember, once upon a time I was just as lost as you are.
    May Almighty God save you from the apostate teachings you know cleave to, may He reveal your true spiritual condition to you and grant you the new birth, saving you from what you, and all of us deserve…eternal torment.

  36. Seriously, guys, I submitted it 3 times…and twice got a message saying “duplicate post”. I wouldn’t care, except that I spent at least half an hour typing and carefully checking my facts. As an ex-Catholic, this is an issue I am prepared to discuss in minute, Scriptural detail. :)

  37. Michael says:

    Trying for forth time as my post keeps getting bounced. If I have violated any rules, please advise.

    In reading Joanna’s comments and perusing the fodder titled, “Sola Scriptura – A Blueprint for Anarchy”, I must digress and say how thankful I am that I was raised in the religion of Rome. Raised by a multi-generational Catholic family from a babe on upwards to nearly 25 years of age. Here, I consider myself most blessed to have sat under the feet of nuns and priests being educated by them from grammar school through high school, to have served as a faithful alter boy, to have been baptized, catechized, confirmed and even married as a RC. I am thankful that I was deemed a faithful follower of Mother Rome and was looked upon highly by large and small in her community.

    I am thankful that I had my Marian statue and faithfully prayed many a night my decades on the rosaries. My homemade cross (from my 1st “holy” communion) I hung with pride in my bedroom where every Palm Sunday I would take the new palm branches and drape them over it for another year.

    So too am I thankful that I use to look down with disdain on those “born again” Jesus wackos (the way I sadly felt at the time) since I “knew” that ONLY Catholics were going to heaven. And of course for no other reason but that we were faithful, card-carrying Catholics. This party line I parroted like a well trained student of my Jesuit and Franciscan pedagogues.

    Why am I so thankful? I am thankful because I KNOW the truth about mother Rome. I know the truth whereby the outrageous claims made by RC apologists, the lies, distortions and incredible falsehoods are laid bare before my eyes. 33,000 or 330,000 denominations doesn’t really matter as it is pure straw-man blather. The so-called unity of Mother Rome is a smoke screen; it is like an old Hollywood western movie set where once you walk into the apparent salon or hotel, you realize all you have is a thin facade with nothing behind it but empty space. This is Rome’s unity, a paper thin facade.

    Here, I challenge anyone to take a poll of their local RC parish, a poll not in paper alone but by looking at life choices and you will find discord and disharmony that will begin to show the heart of the RC religion. People divided about sex before marriage (and most partaking), divided about birth control, divided about woman being priests, divided about divorce/remarriage/annulments, divided about priests marrying, divided about girls being alter boys eh I mean alter people, divided about homosexuality, divided about the liturgy, divided about Vatican II, divided about purgatory, divided about people of other “faiths” going to heaven, divided about evolution, divided about Mary, divided about the current pope, divided about abortionists (e.g. Nancy Pelosi and others) receiving the holy wafer, divided about tithing, divided about praise and worship, divided about fund raising, divided about …. fill in the blanks.

    Oh – but we have unity because all these people for one hour (hopefully less as a priest is always commended if he can get you out in less than an hour) who gather in a building and like trained puppets on cue sit down, stand up, cross themselves, kneel, recite words back and forth, shake hands, walk an aisle, sing a song, and walk back out the door being elated the ordeal is over for another week.

    I am also thankful that I know the heart of those cute Catholic boys and girls who look so prim and proper in their uniforms where it is hard to think they could do anything wrong. Oh what a lie! Thankful because I was there where the sin that me and my faithful heaven bound (eh – well probably purgatory bound first) Catholic friends partook in was no different than that of our agnostic/atheist cohorts; possibly even worse in many respects. Mocking the nuns, swilling beer like it was water, drugs (even on our HS bus), stealing, cheating, sex, mouths like sailors and more bore ample witness to the fact that we were dead in trespasses and sins regardless of the lies the priests fed us with.

    Oh- wait, but we were Catholics and on our way to heaven because we said our five “our father’s” and ten “hail mary’s” so as merit our forgiveness after our 5 minute penance. Lies damnable lies!!!

    I could go on and on how I witness the same today being surrounded by DEAD Catholic families and friends who HATE the gospel and Lord of Glory and LOVE their sin. And what incenses me the most is that in Rome Jesus Christ is NEVER enough for it is the organization, the 501c-3 den of iniquity that is always preached as the way of salvation. This is the heart of every RC apologist for if they preach Jesus alone the gig will be up and the power over men’s souls will be vanquished. And so it will be…

    “And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication”

  38. I had a dropped post too. You all may be having some sort of technical difficulties.

    Joanna I’m not sure they are going to let you debate it here. If you want to do a debate on this email me (this should link to my page if not cd DOT host AT gmail DOT com) and we can set something up.

  39. I was going to explain how the canonical books were chosen for inclusion in the Bible by the Council of Laodicea (363 AD) and the Council of Hippo (393), the same canon being affirmed by the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) , but fourpointer already beat me to it. :)

    The Petrine Theory (the idea that Christ made Peter the head of the visible church and establishment of the papacy) did not even begin until the fifth century – beginning with Leo I. This dogma permitted the ideas of the supremacy of the Church of Rome and of bishops to merge. The result was an unholy mix of political ambition and religious tradition – the beginnings of the corrupt institution of the Romanist church.

    I was a practicing Catholic for 19 years – I’m still stunned by the revisionist version of history we were taught in school and catechism!

    Lisa, your statement about infants and the handicapped not being (born) sinners is false, and is NOT a doctrine taught by the catholic church. Actually, the name of that particular heresy is Pelagianism, the denial of original sin. However, it is true that there are different levels of accountability, and a mentally handicapped adult would not be held to the same standard of understanding or behavior as you or I. But that does not change the fact that he/she is still a sinner (as was Mary – the Gospel of Luke affirms that she was, in fact, a sinner). Infants are born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Proverbs 22:15). That does not mean they have committed personal sin; it means they have inherited the curse of death and sin nature from Adam. This is actually something Catholics and Protestants agree on.

    You say you “feel fulfilled” by your recent decision to convert to the Roman church, but from reading your post it appears you do not have much doctrinal knowledge or have received much teaching. I would offer that faith must be based on fact, not on feelings; and the Word of God is indeed the source of Truth. Emotional decisions rarely lead us into biblical Truth (I include myself as one who erred in this area; I pursued the error of the charismatic movement for several years before realizing it was not of God).

    The “33,000 Protestant denominations” is an urban legend catholics use to try and disprove Reformed and Evangelical teaching. The actual number is a small fraction of that, but that doesn’t stop that convenient (yet silly) statistic from being pulled out in debate when one side runs out of anything fruitful to contribute to the conversation. Neil Simpson of 4Simpsons blog has a link to data disproving the figure – if I can find it, I’ll post it for the benefit of any misinformed romanists reading. :)

    As far as the marian doctrines go, hopefully we all agree these theories about the mother of Jesus were developed very late in Church history – some began during the Middle Ages as the “cult of the virgin” grew in popularity (around the time of John Wycliffe); and others still later (the Assumption became official church doctrine in 1950). Here’s a small timeline (as you can see, NONE of these titles were even close to being Apostolic Age):

    1. Mary is called the Mother of God. AD 431
    2. Prayers offered to Mary AD 600
    3. Immaculate Conception AD 1854
    4. Assumption of Mary AD 1950
    5. Mary Proclaimed Mother of the Church AD 1965

    These doctrines are very easy to disprove biblically, and one of the first “holes” I saw in Catholicism after becoming a Christian and beginning to read the Bible (I was initially very surprised to learn that neither the Assumption nor the Immaculate Conception had so much as a shred of Scriptural support).

    Doctrine of “Perpetual Virginity” of Mary

    The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

    Matthew 1:24-25 – “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”

    Matthew 12:46-47 – “While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

    Matthew 13:55 – “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

    Mark 6:2-3 – “And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

    John 2:12 – “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”

    Acts 1:14 – “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”

    1 Cor. 9:4-5 – “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”

    Gal. 1:19 – But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.”

    (Will continue in another post; this one is already too long…)

  40. Marina W. says:

    Hi, Peace everybody,
    I admire how you all guys spend all this time defending your faith and also giving us (Catholics) the chance to say our point of view on your website :)

    I know it’s common to believe that Catholics never refer to the Scriptures and they only take blindly the interpretation of their ‘authority’ which is the Roman Catholic Church.
    Well that maybe true somehow. But I believe it makes sense, let me tell you why:

    - The Bible was written in a language that I do not know, in a time when I did not exist (2000 years ago). I believe if I was given the Bible I would not be able to understand without the help of professionals.

    - The Church has put the Bible together for us. If she wanted to keep us from reading the scriptures and just impose her teachings, She would’ve not make it available for us.

    - Let’s not forget that The Bible was written by mortal people.

    - Lynn “You come here flaunting your ‘wisdom’ taught by men …”
    I would like to ask you, when you interpret the mighty Bible by yourself, you are using your ‘wisdom’ too and there’s nothing wrong with that, but I believe you didn’t get a divine education, so your wisdom is taught by men too.

    “I promise and God is my witness that, everything that I wrote is, to my knowledge, the Truth and I’m using it for the pure purpose of announcing the Truth and not for competition” Marina

  41. Marina W., to reply to two of your statements:

    “- The Bible was written in a language that I do not know, in a time when I did not exist (2000 years ago). I believe if I was given the Bible I would not be able to understand without the help of professionals.”

    Reply: Actually, the truth is that without the aid of the Holy Spirit, you will never understand the Word of God. It has nothing to do with being a professional. When a person has not placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for their eternal salvation, the Word of God will seem but mere words of wisdom or even foolishness.

    “- The Church has put the Bible together for us. If she wanted to keep us from reading the scriptures and just impose her teachings, She would’ve not make it available for us.”

    Reply: Again, the truth is that “The Church” as you refer to the Roman Catholic system of man-made religion did NOT put the Bible together. The fact is that Rome in her depravity did try to stop the common person from reading the Scriptures. The fact is that she DID just impose her teachings and all who have fallen under her spell have been expected to swallow hook, line, and sinker those teachings or face persecution. The fact is that this is still taking place in places such as South and Central America. The Roman Catholic Church did NOT make the Word of God available to the common man. This was made possible by the miraculous work of Almighty God.

  42. Not to mention the lengths the Jesuits went to to prevent laymen from getting their hands on a Bible.

    The atrocities committed by the RCC over the centuries have been legion, yet a system of elaborate cover-ups, revisionist history, and outright deception has helped the Vatican retain it’s death grip of power. One day soon these fat, jewel-bedecked workers of iniquity will hear “Depart from Me; I never knew you.”

    May God grant them repentance and a saving knowledge of Himself before it is too late.

  43. Marina W. says:

    Hey Desert Pastor,
    thanks for your reply..

    I grew up in a Catholic family and my mom taught me how to pray. We would usually open the Bible and read the passage that God gives us and listen to what he wants to tell us. As a kid I’ve never went to read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” to pray. It’s a misconception to say that the Catholic Church doesn’t want us to read our Bible and listen to God from it directly.

    But it’s a fact that, the eye sees what it wants to see, and the mind understands the way it wants to understand.
    I have no doubt in the powers of the Holy Spirit, the problem is not with the Holy Spirit, the problem is in our nature, our limitations and internal resistance. We are not some perfect electronic “receivers” who would process “information” without affecting it contents and meaning. We are subjective creatures, our opinions are affected to a great extent by our emotions. We cannot simply deny this and say that the Holy Spirit transform us to some kind of highly enlightened minds, with full wisdom to instantly interpret what we read from the Bible (if this is the case then we are brainwashed by God and His Holy Spirit, we are not being us). It’s not out of laziness that I adopt the Church’s interpretation of the Bible but out of humility. Because Jesus said: “Whenever two or three of you come together in my name, I am there with you”. This is why I wouldn’t call it man-made religion, Marie.

    The Catholic Church teachings are the sum of so many efforts to understand the Bible (Fathers of the Church, doctors, …). It’s not written by a pope. It’s not a given that we have to believe blindly. The theology of the Catholic Church is based on reason, philosophy and led by the Holy Spirit. If these doctrines are undemonstrated logically, I would’ve been the first to protest. If the Church leaders are only money and power-hungry people they would’ve not bother to write these clever books and go into these long reflections to explain for us the doctrines. They would rather then go for a never-ending shopping with their money :) But it’s not fair to judge people who gave their whole life in the service of what they believe is the TRUTH. Read one of Benedict’s book and tell me if you would still think that the Catholic Church is dishonest in any way.

    “I promise and God is my witness that, everything that I wrote is, to my knowledge, the Truth and I’m using it for the pure purpose of announcing the Truth and not for competition” Marina

  44. fourpointer says:

    Marina,

    You said that I have no doubt in the powers of the Holy Spirit, the problem is not with the Holy Spirit, the problem is in our nature, our limitations and internal resistance. We are not some perfect electronic “receivers” who would process “information” without affecting it contents and meaning. We are subjective creatures, our opinions are affected to a great extent by our emotions. We cannot simply deny this and say that the Holy Spirit transform us to some kind of highly enlightened minds, with full wisdom to instantly interpret what we read from the Bible (if this is the case then we are brainwashed by God and His Holy Spirit, we are not being us). However, that is exactly what Rome would have us believe about the Magisterium. That they do not interject their own personal opinions into their “infallible” interpretations of Scripture–while at the same time declaring us Protestants “anathema” for daring to interpret the Scriptures without their permission.

    Think about this: if you have your own personal interpretation of a passage, and Rome has declared it is to be interpreted a different way–which interpretation do you think your bishop would tell you to believe?

    And as far as It’s not a given that we have to believe blindly. Consider all the things that have been declared as “dogma”: The Eucharist, veneration of Mary, Purgatory. Add to that all the “anathemas” from the Council of Trent (e.g.: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema” (“The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist,” Canon 1). That sounds an awful lot like a “church” that wants to keep its people in lock-step.

    We Protestants don’t declare “anathemas.” We know that is not a charge we can make. We may say that someone holds views that are heretical, and even refer to that person as a “heretic”–but that is a title that applies to the person’s present condition. We do not take it upon ourselves to pronounce final, eternal judgment on a person like Rome does.

    ——————————————

    PS–For those of you who are new here, and who seemed to have trouble getting your comments to publish: the first comments from new commenters automatically go to moderation. We do appreciate your input, but we also get a lot of spam, and this process helps keep the spam down.

  45. The Pilgrim says:

    Dear Joanna:

    You asked: “Really, when were lay people not allowed to have Bibles Marie?

    The Roman Catholic organization put countless people to death for those caught translating the Scriptures into the tongue of the common man, and for those caught in possession of such Scriptures.

    This is common historical knowledge. Even the RC organization does not attempt to deny this.

    Fortunately for Rome (and unfortunately for those seeking the truth) your organization is once again keeping the Bible out of the hands of laymen.

    Where they once failed to keep the Bible from lay people by force, they are now successful in doing so by brainwashing; poisoning the minds of people to doubt God’s Word (hath God really said?).

    By suggesting that the Bible is corrupt and can’t be trusted and somehow the RC hierarchy is free of error and should be trusted, the RC organization has persuaded its adherents to put their Bibles down and follow the “leader” on blind faith, perpetuating the lie that the Bible cannot be trusted but the organization can be.

    This tactic of subverting God’s word has been highly successful (as evidenced by the arguments against the Bible proposed by myriads of Catholics) and helps the RC organization retain its power over the people.

    Very clever, and it seems to be much more effective (and politically correct) than burning people at the stake.

    - The Pilgrim

  46. Before ANYONE can receive God’s truth from His word via His Spirit, they MUST be born again. Salvation is God’s gift, given by His grace. Faith to receive Christ is God’s gift, given to all who He calls and saves. Repentance is God’s gift, given to the lost sinner dead in sin {Eph. 2:1}; causing him/her to see their true spiritual condition and being broken over it. Salvation is of the Lord….period. There is not ONE thing anyone can do to bring themselves to Jesus. Undergoing water baptism does not save, partaking in communion does not save. Think about it, when you receive a gift, did you do anything to merit that gift? Why would anybody think they could do anything to merit salvation? ‘For by G-R-A-C-E are ye saved, through faith, and that NOT of yourselves, it is the G-I-F-T of God; NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should BOAST’ Ephesians 2:8,9 The grace of God is what saves a lost sinner and draws them to Christ, nothing else, simply grace.
    There is absolutely nothing we could do that would cause God to look upon us and say, ‘ I think I’ll save so and so, look how hard he/she is working. He/she deserves to be saved, for he/she has met all the requirements!’. Until the Spirit of God brings the lost sinner to repentance, breaking them over their horrific crimes against a Holy God, salvation is not possible. There MUST be an inward change, and not one that consists of ‘boasting’ of church tradition’. Humility is key factor in a regenerate heart. The broken and contrite heart cries out, ‘O God!! Have mercy on me, a sinner!’. There is a gut wrenching plea for forgiveness that stems from a heart which now sees how horrible its atrocities against Almighty God are. Too many are like the Pharisee, and INSIST on exalting ‘self’, or the ‘teachings of men’. Do you believe what you believe because God’s Holy Spirit has revealed truth to you through Sacred Scripture, or because it has been ‘handed down’ by mortal men?

    Until God does a work in your heart, all the ‘head knowledge’ in the world is absolutely useless. There are many to whom this passage applies, ‘ Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.’ 2 Timothy 3:5
    To be ‘religious’ is to be lost in sin. To cleave to the teachings of men is to be lost in sin. Unless the Spirit of God is your teacher, your knowledge is vain and merely the teachings of men.

  47. Pilgrim –

    Be careful here. “The Roman Catholic organization put countless people to death for those caught translating the Scriptures into the tongue of the common man, and for those caught in possession of such Scriptures.This was done during the dark ages and is common historical knowledge. Even the RC organization does not attempt to deny this.”

    I’ll deny it, and so will they and we’ll both be right. Bible translation was pretty limited in the dark ages. The big issue in terms of versions for the dark ages church was preferences for older bibles: Aramaic, the Old Latin Vulgate (pre-Jerome), Greek; and non canonical summaries like the Diatessaron. There was no popular movement towards translation, and when there was interest the church was generally supportive. It was during and after the Cathars (starting in the 11th century) that there is controversy at all regarding the scriptures.

    The 13th century church saw association between heresy and the scriptures that (from their perspective) would only get worse. The 8th century church had entirely different problems.

  48. The Pilgrim says:

    CD-Host:

    For clarification you are not denying the fact that the likes of Tyndale and others were murdered for translating (and possessing) Scripture in their language by the RC organization, but my identifying this particular time as “the dark ages”?

    You are correct that the “dark ages.” They were from approximately 450 AD to 1000 AD. So I have corrected my comment for accuracy.

    - The Pilgrim

  49. Correct that is what I was denying the time frame. Denying that anyone to the best of my knowledge was killed for translating scripture during the dark ages. 300 years after the dark ages ended, depending on how you want to count anywhere from hundreds to hundreds of thousands. I think it is certainly fair to say that the right to translate, read and interpret was met with genocide.

  50. Marina W. says:

    Hi four pointer, Thanks for your reply.

    You said: “that is exactly what Rome would have us believe about the Magisterium. That they do not interject their own personal opinions into their “infallible” interpretations of Scripture–while at the same time declaring us Protestants “anathema” for daring to interpret the Scriptures without their permission.”

    Look dear, it’s true that the Church does NOT want us to interpret the scriptures without Her permission. But why:

    - The Roman Catholic Church is NOT Rome and the pope, this is NOT what we call The Roman Catholic Church. (The Roman Catholic Church = all of us catholics+the fathers of the Church+the saints+the popes+clergy+the apostles+early church). I know that from your perspective you don’t see it like that. But from my perspective, this IS the Church. It’s the community of faithfuls who witnessed Jesus (the apostles) and then preserved his teachings for us: the Bible (early Church) and then interpreted the Bible (fathers, saints, theologians, us, …) and so on …

    - Did you know that as Catholics, we can always disagree with the Church? did u know that?
    But when we do, we are asked to contribute with what we thought and debate and if we prove our point, we can change the position of the Church about some things. (Example: One of my friends is a gay theologian and he is doing that debate now with Rome to reconsider her position about homosexuality and the Church is cooperating) but in case the debate leads to a disagreement, he is asked to obey the Church, and I say the CHURCH not the POPE. because the Church is all of us, since Jesus till today.

    The Church blames Martin Luther not because he dared to interpret the Bible by himself but because he didn’t add his intellectual work to the Church and discuss and debate. He was not willing to change it. He wanted to skip Her authority, and again let me remind you, I’m not talking about an authority of a man (pope) or a government (Vatican), I’m talking about a community that has her roots in the apostles and extends till our time. But he went to make his own church, a church based on his own interpretations only.

    You may say, oh what an innocent girl is Marina! Rome is corrupted, many popes came and history showed they were corrupted.. That’s right. They were. But the Church is not them, this is why the Church is not corrupted and will never be. Cause God the almighty is able to protect His Church from any evil even this that can come from Her administration.

    - You said: “… let him be anathema”
    And my answer is: “If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[b] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

    Peace :)

    “I promise and God is my witness that, everything that I wrote is, to my knowledge, the Truth and I’m using it for the pure purpose of announcing the Truth and not for competition” Marina

  51. Joanna says:

    I agree with Marina. Please stop looking at us Catholics with pity. We do not need it.

    We pray to our Lord Jesus Christ with the hope that we may have eternal life with him. I also pray for each and every one of you. I pray that Jesus blesses you and your family because I am so grateful that there are many who believe in Him and want to give him praise and glory. We do not deserve eternal life, or anything, but are given everything through the grace of God. We are blessed in this life to be able to discuss our faith openly without fear of persecution.

    What I am also grateful for is that we can have open discussion via the internet with people all over the world about our faith. Please don’t take anything as a direct attack at individuals. These discussions are directed at identifying and understanding different beliefs.

    It is important that any discussion we do not attack individuals. I notice that there are many attacks on the Pope. Please don’t attack the Pope. Even if you don’t see him as having authority, see him as any other human- with compassion and love. He is a great man. He and others in the past have helped bring the world to Christ. We must do the same. What bad things has Pope Benedict done looking from a moral stance as your equivalent human being? He is in a position in which I feel requires great strength. He is under constant scrutiny. He does not claim to be impeccable, yet people constantly judge him as a person who should be without sin. The Pope is not God, and in no way tries to be. He is a man who was given authority by Jesus, where Jesus said “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18).
    So instead of looking at him with hatred, see him as an example of a life lived like Christ. He has dedicated his life to showing people the Truth. Whether you believe this Truth or not, my point is that he has dedicated his life to proclaiming the Gospel message in the way it has been seen since Christ. Remember, we are all made in the image and likeness of God.
    Thus the Pope is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). Hating the Pope loosens our connection to God, as does hating any human being.

    And please don’t call us the ones with the mark of the beast, because I am quite certain you would not appreciate the same said to you. We are not here to judge one another, for it is up to God to judge (Matt 7). Let us just discuss faith rather than each other’s final judgement, for neither you nor I knows that judgement. We must live in the hope that we have eternal life, not the certainty.

    I would like to ask you all to please pray for everyone, that they may understand the beauty of our Christian faith. We share a common enemy; that of atheism- a non-religion which does not believe God exists. May our multitude of prayers help bring people of no faith to see the beauty of Christ’s teachings.

    God bless you all.

  52. Marina wrote:

    “The Church blames Martin Luther not because he dared to interpret the Bible by himself but because he didn’t add his intellectual work to the Church and discuss and debate. He was not willing to change it. He wanted to skip Her authority, and again let me remind you, I’m not talking about an authority of a man (pope) or a government (Vatican), I’m talking about a community that has her roots in the apostles and extends till our time. But he went to make his own church, a church based on his own interpretations only.”

    With all due respect, Marina, that is an absolute falsehood. Completely untrue, from both a secular historical view AND that of the Church.

    Luther, in fact, had NO intention of seceding from Rome and repeatedly said as much, before and after the Diet of Worms. From the very beginning, he worked to reform the RCC from within; the main problem (for him) being the corrupt sale of “indulgences”. It was the VATICAN, not Luther, who refused to cooperate. How much have you actually studied about Reformation history, before I go any further? Never did Luther attempt to start his own church, or any institution based on the wisdom of man – he attempted to engage the existing church leaders of the time in Scripturally-based dialogue. What was the response? The Vatican tried to coerce him to recant.

    By no means was Luther giving the Scripture his private interpretation. He translated the Bible into German (a crime at the time which Rome attempted to prevent, although his Geneva Bible remains well-respected as a thoroughly accurate translation).

    I understand your passion and wish to defend the Vatican at all costs, but please at least get your historical facts right.

    As far as the pope goes, when he speaks “ex cathedra” it is considered infallible. Interesting, given the large amont of Romanist dogma declared into being that contradicts Scripture. One of the titles ascribed to the papacy is “The Vicar of Christ” – quite literally, he is held as being Christ’s representative on earth. (Remember, I was a Catholic for half my life and studied Catholic belief exhaustively from the inside). Holding a fallible human as the earthly representative of Christ and “Head of the Church” (a title the Bible ascribes to Jesus Christ, btw) is not only the height of presumption, it is blasphemy.

    The historical record bears this out as well, from the ascent of Leo I, the greed and ineptitude of the four Crusades, the evil of the Inquisition, countless intrigues and murders, and the many illegitimate children sired by popes down through the centuries.

    As the great theologian John Wesley once stated, “When Scripture and tradition contradict each other, one muust always side with Scripture.”

  53. Marina,

    As far as your assertion that The Church blames Martin Luther not because he dared to interpret the Bible by himself but because he didn’t add his intellectual work to the Church and discuss and debate. He was not willing to change it. He wanted to skip Her authority…he went to make his own church, a church based on his own interpretations only—I’m not sure if you have simply not studied history, or if you have been short-changed by Rome’s revision of history. But either way, your interpretation of the historical facts is, I’m sorry to say, not quite accurate. Let me clear it up for you.

    In 1517, a Dominican priest named Johann Tetzel began selling indulgences in and around the area of Wittenberg, Germany. He sold them with the promise that the people were helping to alleviate their loved ones’ time in Purgatory. Luther saw this as an abuse of power and was actually saddened by the practice. So he wrote a list of questions he wanted to ask the local Church authorities about indulgences and nailed it to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg University. This list was, of course, the famous “95 theses.”

    When Luther nailed his list to the door, he was not trying to break off and separate from the Roman Catholic Church. He wasn’t even trying to get rid of indulgences— He simply thought Rome was overstepping her bounds, and sought to debate these points. His disagreement was based on whether or not one could pay indulgences at the expense of personal repentance and good works. And since Luther was a rather obscure priest in a rather obscure area, Rome didn’t think much about it.

    Thing is, all this happened shortly after one of the most important inventions in history—Gutenberg’s “moveable type.” And when Luther nailed his theses to the door, they caught someone’s attention, and they sent them to be printed. Again, it was not Martin Luther’s idea to publish his 95 theses and spread them far and wide. Long story short, over time, Luther’s these grew in fame and popularity, and Pope Leo X was forced to respond. This did not happen until 1520—three years after their posting. Now, it was not Luther’s intention to create a “new church” or even to leave the RCC. The reason it is called the “Reformation” is because Luther sought to “reform” (NOT re-form) the RCC.

    Joanna,

    Let me begin by saying we Protestants do not “hate” the Pope. What we believe is that there is no one man on earth who is over the whole church. There is no man on earth who has any power to “infallibly” interpret Scripture.

    What bad things has Pope Benedict done looking from a moral stance as your equivalent human being? Well, for one, he has declared us Protestant “anathema”:

    The view that Protestants cannot have churches was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican “ministry” for doctrine. A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, had caused “no little distress”.

    But it added: “It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.”

    He is still encouraging people to bow down to statues in clear violation of Exodus 20:4-5.

    He is a man who was given authority by Jesus, where Jesus said “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18). No one after the apostles had any of the authority they held. Our head is Christ—not the Pope. The Pope does not have any power to shorten anyone’s punishment in “Purgatory” (which does not exist) through indulgences.

    And please don’t call us the ones with the mark of the beast… I don’t believe anybody here has done such.

    We must live in the hope that we have eternal life, not the certainty. But we DO have certainty of eternal life. John 5:13—“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.”

  54. Joanna –

    I don’t know anyway who has expressed personal hatred Benedict XVI. You want a Pope I have no problem hating Innocent III who was a mass murder and set in motion a reign of terror that lasted centuries.

    Going back to the late Roman empire you had popes that destroyed what remained of human knowledge. While humanity was slipping into a pit of ignorance they destroyed the ladder we could have used to climb out. Someone like Pope Siricius could be blamed harshly for encouraging this fall.

    But on the other hand the Catholic serious structural deficiencies and complaints at all levels like:
    – lack of vocations
    – many priests that would like to revisit the marriage issue
    – the unbiblical and untraditional attack on the authority of nuns and female deacons
    – positions taken in Humanae Vitae and their widespread rejection by the faithful.

    No Benedict the XVI is not an exceptionally wicked man. He is however an authoritarian and not particularly visionary at a time when the church desperately needs vision. He’s very smart, but Leo X had excellent taste in art and architecture as well.

  55. Marina W. says:

    Thanks guys for politely humiliating me about my history knowledge lol :) anyways

    I didn’t pretend I know history, nor I will.. what I said was what I know about the position of The Church concerning Luther.. And by the way guys, I admit it, u r much more knowledgeable than me, in history and scriptures and everything.. and I admire you for that.. But I believe that I know enough of the Catholic theology to convince me to be Catholic.. and it’s only for that I’m speaking with you.. Because I KNOW that the Catholic faith is reasonable..

    Marie and fourpointer,
    u said, Marina said …
    but there’s other things that Marina said that you ignored :) Like “I know there was times when there was corruption, but God is able to protect his Church..”
    Marina said: “The Church blames Martin Luther not because he dared to interpret the Bible by himself but because he didn’t add his intellectual work to the Church and discuss and debate.” I don’t think nailing 95 theses, (and not just a list of questions, fourpointer!) on the door of a local church is considered a debate or dialogue as you call it, i would say the purpose of that person for doing that is making a SCANDAL. And that would’ve been good if he was making a scandal of the “ABUSE” of the doctrine of indulgence, but since he was actually attacking the DOCTRINE ITSELF! and i believe the appropriate approach to do that is rather a theological debate and not a scandal..
    And If his intention was to debate he could’ve addressed these in a letter to the pope (which was common) or go to Rome. But it was a rebel not just against some corrupted people but against a corrupted CHURCH (the whole system with its doctrines). And the Church can’t be corrupted because it’s the body of Christ. And the body of Christ doesn’t know corruption. (At least this is what was his faith as a Catholic priest).

    And Marie, well, call it whatever you want to call it but actually by making his own new doctrines, he was creating his own church!!

    Anyway, the point of my last post was NOT Martin Luther but it was more about what is the Church and Her Magesterium from a Catholic perspective, I hope you didn’t miss it.

    PEACE :)

    “I promise and God is my witness that, everything that I wrote is, to my knowledge, the Truth and I’m using it for the pure purpose of announcing the Truth and not for competition” Marina

  56. I don’t think nailing 95 theses, (and not just a list of questions, fourpointer!) on the door of a local church is considered a debate or dialogue as you call it, i would say the purpose of that person for doing that is making a SCANDAL. And that would’ve been good if he was making a scandal of the “ABUSE” of the doctrine of indulgence, but since he was actually attacking the DOCTRINE ITSELF! and i believe the appropriate approach to do that is rather a theological debate and not a scandal..

    One thing to remember: A “thesis” is not an entire paper. In its strictest sense, it is “a position or proposition that a person advances and offers to maintain by argument” (from Merriam-Webster Online). Hence the phrase “thesis statement.” And at the time, the door of Wittenberg Church was kinda like a “bulletin board” of sorts, and it was how people communicated (not to be sarcastic, but they didn’t have telephones or interwebs back then). And yes, Luther did in fact send a letter to Leo X. And as I stated, Luther was not so much hung up on the doctrine of indulgences, but indeed that abuse of the practice–that it had, at the time, come to be viewed as a substitute for personal repentance.

    A little bit more about the surrounding events: Tetzel was called by Archbishop Albert of Mainz (who also received a copy of the 95 theses) to raise as much money as he could for the archbishop, since Albert had gone into hock to buy his position in the church (Sorry to say, but it is a historical fact that this was the practice in the RCC at the time, which kinda goes against your assertion that the Church can’t be corrupted because it’s the body of Christ. And the body of Christ doesn’t know corruption. If selling positions isn’t corrupt, I don’t know what is). So Albert allowed Leo X to sell indulgences in his district, as long as he got a cut. And since the abuse of indulgences was a public practice, it did not call for a private meeting (see 1st Timothy 5:19-20).

    You can read the 95 These here, and see for yourself.

  57. Marina W. says:

    Well, let me tell u some of our “heresies” to give you a sense of how we see it:

    - The Church is the body of Christ,

    - we, christians, are the member of this body (the Church)

    - when a member SINS he disconnects himself from this body, (Our sins separate us from God. Isaiah 59:2)
    Note: We can reestablish this relationship through the sacraments of: Eucharist, reconciliation/confession

    - So when I commit a mortal sin, I’m choosing to separate myself from this Church.

    - This is why spiritually this man “was not into the Church”

    - and this is why the body of Christ (the Church) doesn’t know corruption!

    This was my point on the last post. you see the Catholic Church just physically. But you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. The Church is that ideal, it’s a utopia.

    Marina

  58. Marina W –

    This was my point on the last post. you see the Catholic Church just physically. But you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. The Church is that ideal, it’s a utopia.

    This is one of the Catholic doctrines that drive me up a wall. When Protestants talk about the invisible church and spiritual body of Jesus…. Catholics legitimately get to play the gnosticism card. No they argue, the church is material, the membership is the baptized faithful it is a real church not some abstract entity as per OK fair enough.

    But then if you get to play the card.
    The church of Jesus Christ, sold offices
    The church of Jesus Christ, was running brothels
    The church of Jesus Christ was involved in genocide
    The church of Jesus Christ ran scams involving fake artifacts.
    The church of Jesus Christ sold off indulgences
    The church of Jesus Christ mistranslated the bible
    etc, etc….

    If it is a real physical church then the holy catholic church did all the good stuff and all the bad stuff. You don’t get to have it both ways. Either you can have a Protestant Invisible church which is loosely connected to the material church and perfect, or a physical church which has engaged in institutional sin.

  59. So, Marina, let me ask you this: by my being a Protestant, who does not consider the Pope to be the “Vicar of Christ,” and who does not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and who does not believe that the bread/wine of the Lord’s Table become the literal flesh/blood of Christ, and who does not believe in Purgatory, and who does not believe in praying to Mary and the other dead saints (or the angels)–as a Protestant who does not believe in any of these man-made inventions….do you consider me to be in the “body of Christ?” Or do you believe as Benedict XVI, that I am outside the “true church” and, therefore, “anathema”?

  60. fourpointer –

    Or do you believe as Benedict XVI, that I am outside the “true church” and, therefore, “anathema”?

    I’m not sure if Marina is going know the answer to this. I hate to have to now defend the Catholic side but I am the church discipline guy. (What follows is all according to Canon law).
    The formula “let him be anathema” is considered to be a statement of excommunication not a statement of anathematization (I know that sounds odd). You cannot be implicitly anathematized it has to be explicit. Voluntarily leaving the church is excommunicating yourself, you agree you aren’t in communion with the Catholic church.

    Those curses would apply to someone who was in the church but held those beliefs. For example if you wished to remain catholic yet deny the real presence you would be self excommunicating, your priest may be unaware of your status but you would still have it. So you would be stealing the host.

    None of that applies to you since you agree with the church you are out.

  61. Joanna~ you claim, ‘We are blessed in this life to be able to discuss our faith openly without fear of persecution’. Did you know you are in direct violation with what the word of God teaches?
    “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” 2 Timothy 3:12
    If you do not undergo persecution of some type or form, you DO NOT belong to Jesus Christ.

    As for who teaches us what the Bible really means, we need look no further than God’s Holy Word…

    “Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will He teach sinners in the way.” Psalm 25:8 {NOTICE- in this passage God teaches sinners – plural- not one man and then expect that man to be the sole authority on Godly wisdom. All who Christ saves will be given wisdom as we study His word, under the careful teaching of His Spirit}.
    “I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.” Psalm 32:8
    “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ” John 14:26
    “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” 1 John 2:27

    How does one get understanding of the scriptures?
    “Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” Luke 24:45

    If the Spirit of God is not leading you in all truth according to His word, your wisdom is nothing more than man’s wisdom, you boast of a wisdom taught by men. It isn’t God’s wisdom, so it is useless. God gives wisdom to His people, all that He calls and saves by His grace.

    To say only one man-made denomination has the ‘market’ on scripture is to be totally ignorant of scripture itself!
    Those who cling to a man-made tradition NEVER use the Bible as their sole authority…this is the telltale sign of apostasy and being deceived. You ‘blow off’ anything outside of your own concocted view of what you think ‘religion’ should be as nothing more than the view of a protestant. Again, it bears repeating, there are only two kinds of people in this world…lost and saved.

    The word ‘church’ means ‘called out ones’. These are INDIVIDUAL lost sinners whom God has called and drawn to Christ {John 6:44}. He gifts them with repentance and faith to believe. He saves them to the uttermost, there’s no wondering if they’re saved, His word assures. Sinners saved by His grace come from every part of the world, called out of darkness into the Light. They worship Christ alone, not Christ plus Mary, plus the ‘holy father’, etc. Which brings me to another horrific sin practiced daily by the RCC, calling a mortal sinful man ‘holy father’. The Lord Jesus Christ says this, ‘And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. ‘ Matthew 23:9
    The Lord means this in a spiritual sense; the RCC is in direct violation of this stern commandment given by the Lord Himself by referring to some sinful man dressed up like a Pharisee {looking quite religious on the outside, but on the inside, extreme filth} as ‘holy father’. How do you justify breaking this command given by the Lord? How does the RCC dance around this one?

    This merry go round that the RCC continually rides concerning the Word of God and its meaning will lead nowhere, except around in a circle. I feel terribly sorry for all who are so steeped in this cult. Satan has you so blinded you cannot see the light of truth, not even a shred. You are under the judgment of God even now because you refuse to hear and believe His truth. You have no clue how scary that is. I do pray for great mercy of all who ‘have a form of godliness, but deny its power’. 2 Timothy 3:5
    There is an outward appearance, just like the religious Jews of Jesus’ day. Yet, inside the heart remains unchanged, still steeped in sin and its bondage. They work and work, going through rituals and traditions in hopes of salvation. Then they die and step into the blackest black. At this point, the ‘religious’ sinner realizes just how worthless his/her religion truly is. How very sad, why? Because it is too late. When a person dies, they either go into the presence of the Lord if they have been born again by God, or they step into outer darkness awaiting final judgment. There is no stop off, no holding tank. Read Luke 16, the Lord Jesus teaches very plainly what happens to a lost sinner, he/she goes to Hades, a place of the dead. There is torment and agony there. In Revelation 20 we see the great white throne judgment about to unfold, the final judgment of wicked sinners. Notice what this verse says, ‘The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.’ Rev. 20:13 The dead were kept in Hades for this very hour, their courtroom like appearing before a Holy and Just God to receive their final fate…the lake of fire. There is no middleman, no lawyer to ‘plea bargain’, they are guilty as charged and they know it. There is no escaping the evidence, for it is all in the ‘books’, the recordings of every single sinful thought, word, and deed by the guilty as charged.
    Once you leave this world, your fate is sealed. That is what the Bible really teaches, but if the RCC were to teach truth, it would lose millions of dollars it has bilked out of its bible illiterate followers.

  62. Dominic says:

    It helps to understand how this false doctrine came about:

    The RC heirarchy (pope) declared it to be true because a/. ‘it is fitting’ and b/. ‘because it was generally held to be true by RC’s’.

    It came into existence therefore, simply because people wanted it to, not because it had any sound reason for doing so, even in Roman Theology. As ever, their theology follows their practice – that is, they develop theology to justify the position they have taken. That can never work.

    (as an ex-Roman Priest I do know what I am talking about – I spent too long being taught this stuff…)

  63. CD-Host,

    By extension, however, he is in fact declaring me to be a heretic and is, in a way, condemning me to Hell. according to Benedict’s belief, “excommunication” from the RCC, means being put out of “the one true church” since he does not believe Protestants to be in the body of Christ.

    I guess the word “anathema” wasn’t the best word to use, considering Rome’s misuse of it. But I was using it in the biblical sense, instead of the Romish sense.

  64. fourpointer –

    By extension, however, he is in fact declaring me to be a heretic and is, in a way, condemning me to Hell.

    Lets get a bit more specific (again all according to the RCC, I’m not asserting any of these things as being true in an absolute sense). A statement is heretical if it is a denial of a religious truth. A person who makes heretical statements is not necessarily a heretic, they have to meet additional criteria.

    From their perspective because you have been raised Protestant you might be believing you assenting to all of Christ’s truths even when you are in fact denying them.

    Now in your particular case, I do think you do show enough depth of understanding that some of your heresies would rise to the level making you a heretic but I’m not sure Benedict himself, nor the church is making that assertion.

    So they would assert (I think) that you are likely damned but there hasn’t been a finding one way or another. They wouldn’t declare you to be.

    according to Benedict’s belief, “excommunication” from the RCC, means being put out of “the one true church” since he does not believe Protestants to be in the body of Christ.

    As for Protestants not in the body of Christ. That’s just false. Protestant baptize, so they are in the body of Christ. The church is quite specific that a schismatic may be an “extraordinary minister of baptism”, that is when they administer the rite it is both valid and licit. In fact it is a sin for a priest to treat a Protestant like an unbaptized person and not distinguish. It would be a very a very grave sin for them to re-baptize you.

    So from their perspective you are a full member of the body of Christ, who has from his baptism fed on a diet of heresy and is a member of a schismatic church. Excommunicated, that is not in communion with the Catholic church, certainly. Damned (Anathematized) no. Remember being in communion requires “in full agreement, without exception, with all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church” which is something I don’t think you even claim to be.

    I guess the word “anathema” wasn’t the best word to use, considering Rome’s misuse of it. But I was using it in the biblical sense, instead of the Romish sense.

    You are both using it in the same sense, as a proxy for excommunication. I wrote a post on excommunication vs. anathema 2 years ago.

  65. Dear Dominic:

    Would you mind sharing your story of how you came out of the RCC? I’m certain there are a few of us that would be very interested to hear your story.

    - The Pilgrim

  66. CD-Host – What official Catholic doctrine are you quoting that states that so called schismatics, per Rome, are part of the body of Christ? I read nothing of this but rather see the Cathechism brashly declaring that “Outside the Church [Roman religious system] there is no salvation.” More specifically:

    “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” [846 RC Catechism]

    No explanation is needed for the words are clear. And I’m sure the brethren who are associated with DefendingContending including fourpointer do not reject the Catholic religion out of ignorance (see Para 847) but with a sound mind and solid conviction.

    Likewise, maybe I am not clear on your post, but are you saying the anathemas of Rome are no longer on the books? I trow not for any true Protestant (one truly protesting Rome) is under a host of anathemas. Just one example of the many from Trent reads:

    “CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed”!

    And even though times ostensibly have changed with the ecumenical spirit of the day, this is merely a facade for Rome to gather up as many “schismatics” into mother Rome under the supremacy of papa pope. Yet for all those who stand for Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone and protest mother Rome, the hatred has not lessened from the days gone by when the fagots were gathered and the fires kindled to purge the empire of the damnable protesting heretics.

  67. Marina W. says:

    CD-host

    Just one final word..
    We believe that the Church is human and divine in the same time! Constituted of us humans, it’s then visible. But being the body of Christ and led by the Holy Spirit, it is then divine (which is something you won’t be able to SEE except spiritually).

    “It came into existence therefore, simply because people wanted it to, not because it had any sound reason for doing so, even in Roman Theology. As ever, their theology follows their practice – that is, they develop theology to justify the position they have taken. That can never work.”?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    Sorry Dominic, I’m offended!! being an ex-priest doesn’t make your unsupported claim any true or special, It’s a shame that this is what you kept from your studies.

    I expected that, being an ex-priest who left the Church, you’ll at least have a more convincing reason to give.

    About the VICAR OF CHRIST :
    Jesus wanted to leave on Earth a community of faithfuls who has experienced Him at one point and can witness to each others and to the world. He left a Community and not just a BOOK. And this community wrote the book. And with His wisdom, at the head of which he placed Peter, Peter who is mortal and a sinner as all of them. BUT Jesus has chosen him to bind and loose. Does this mean that Peter will be the one to bind and loose using his own wisdom?? let me remind you that he was ignorant, just a fisherman. But with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter is binding and loosing as Christ (through the Holy Spirit) who is the only head of His Church. And I’m sure Jesus knew that Peter will die one day, but he was making a Church for the generations to come and not just for Peter’s life. Any institution needs a head. And this head is not there to impose her personal teachings but the teachings of the whole Church.

    Marina

  68. Brother Michael –

    What official Catholic doctrine are you quoting that states that so called schismatics, per Rome, are part of the body of Christ? I read nothing of this but rather see the Cathechism brashly declaring that “Outside the Church [Roman religious system] there is no salvation.”

    15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.(LUMEN GENTIUM #15)

    By being baptized you are part of the church. You are a schismatic but you baptized into the Catholic church. The church only recognizes one baptism and you got it.

    Being a Catholic in good standing assures salvation only anathematization precludes. You are not anathematized you have excommunicated yourself.

    There have been protestants specifically decleared to have been saved, Adelaide McAlpin Pyle (protestant) and Julius Fine (Jewish) are examples both declared by Saint Padro Pio. Since he is a saint ….

    I can keep going. In general think about Paul’s comments like “fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God”. That does not mean if you fornicated there is no point in being a Christian anymore, game over you lose. To read it that way would be to read it outside the context of crucifixion for the remission of sins.

  69. David says:

    “About the VICAR OF CHRIST :
    Jesus wanted to leave on Earth a community of faithfuls who has experienced Him at one point and can witness to each others and to the world. He left a Community and not just a BOOK. And this community wrote the book. And with His wisdom, at the head of which he placed Peter, Peter who is mortal and a sinner as all of them. BUT Jesus has chosen him to bind and loose. Does this mean that Peter will be the one to bind and loose using his own wisdom?? let me remind you that he was ignorant, just a fisherman. But with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter is binding and loosing as Christ (through the Holy Spirit) who is the only head of His Church. And I’m sure Jesus knew that Peter will die one day, but he was making a Church for the generations to come and not just for Peter’s life. Any institution needs a head. And this head is not there to impose her personal teachings but the teachings of the whole Church.”

    Absolutely zero, zilch, nada, none, no Biblical support for this. Don’t use Matthew 16 to back up what you say please because it does not back up having a Vicar or Pope or whatever he is supposedly called. Christ will always be the Head of the Church. As the saying goes….”It’s all about context context context when you read and apply scripture.”

  70. CD-Host – I am not going to steal this thread as you can PM me to discuss, but I am not part of the RC institution. What I quoted was the official Catholic Catholicism from the Vatican. Maybe you did not read this? “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” Para 846.

    I know the Catholic religion, was raised in it and I refuse to enter in it as I reject it as anti-Christ. And yes, per Trent I and countless others are anathematized; let’s not play word games as the teaching of Trent and their meaning (not your revision) is clear.

    Just as an aside, were the Romanists at peace with and consider brethren Jan Hus, Tyndale, Wycliff, Calvin, the Christians of the Piedmonts, the Hugenots, Michael de Molinos, et al?

    Finally, there is not nor will there be any peace between me and Rome’s anti-Biblical religion for my Lord came not to bring peace but a sword. For Rome is drunken with the blood of the saints and sits as a queen and says she will see no sorrow; but sorrow she will see and double she will be given for what she has given the saints. And for the books, saints are Spirit-filled believers and not the supposedly ultra pious declared so by a committee. Those mother Rome then uses to bilk the deceived and often dirt poor peasants of countless sums of money through pictures, statues, special masses, medallions, etc. to gain more mammon to feed her rapacious appetite for queenly living.

  71. brother Michael –

    Take a look at the structure of 846 again, “..they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church … was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

    In other words you need to know
    1) The catholic church was founded by God
    2) The necessity of this (that is understand the doctrine of the church)
    3) Reject the church

    For this clause to apply.

    Just as an aside, were the Romanists at peace with and consider brethren Jan Hus, Tyndale, Wycliff, Calvin, the Christians of the Piedmonts, the Hugenots, Michael de Molinos, et al?

    I’m not sure what you are asking me here.

  72. CD-Host,
    I know that the Papacy preaches that the Catholic religion is necessary for salvation; that Jesus Christ is not enough. I know that Rome preaches she is the door whereby even anti-Christ Muslims are part of the family of God. Yet never will I know that the Catholic religion was founded by God for it was not.

    Likewise I full well understand the doctrine of your religion and categorically reject it lock, stock and barrel. The papacy, the desecration of Mary turning her into the Babylonian Queen of heaven, transubstantion, baptismal regeneration, the priesthood, nuns, penance, the Mass, etc., etc., etc.

    You may believe that Rome has me and others like me under her wings with her modern ecumenical umbrella theology, but I can assure you this is not so. Neither in truth nor in what she believes at heart per her fruit. This is why I mentioned just a snippet of those who Rome without mercy hounded, persecuted and for many slaughtered. You are saying schismatics are part of the family of God and Mother Rome but the history of your religion tells another story. All because they would not bend knee to papa pope and instead looked to Lord Jesus.

    I hope and pray the Lord God grant you grace to see his true Church and to come to believe on Jesus Christ alone for your salvation and to come out of Rome lest your partake of her sins.

  73. Thank you all for a spirited discussion.

    Dear “The Pilgrim”

    I wonder, how would you deal with the commandment, “Honour your Father and Mother”.

    The Bible says that Jesus is the son of Mary. Mary therefore is the Mother of Jesus Christ.

    And as Jesus Christ is “true God”, then He would truly love His Mother, Mary.

    He, Jesus Christ is also “true Man” and a perfect man at that, so He would love His Mother, Mary most perfectly too.

    But “nowhere” in the Bible have I seen where Jesus Christ says to Mary, “I love you Mother” and so, do you really believe that Jesus Christ does not love His own Mother?

    Well then, what are we to do in the face of all this”?

    But supposing now, that you will be able to reconcile us all to the fact that, yes, Jesus Jesus Christ is true God, and true man and as He is the perfect man, then He would love His Mother “most perfectly”.

    In the magnificent Magnificat, Mary says that God has done great things to me. What exactly are these great things. Are all these great things, “good” things?

    Will Jesus Christ not do any great things for His Mother at all times, when He is true God and true Man who would love Her most perfectly?

    Can you, plus all the Roman Catholics of all times think up and write down all the good great things that Jesus Christ can and will do for His own Mother?

    Please forgive me for suspecting that there is a mother problem or complex rearing its head up here.

    Sincerely, Nik A Morris

  74. Dear Nikola:

    In answer to your query regarding the Bible never quoting Jesus saying to Mary, “I love you,” it’s what we would call a foregone conclusion.

    You see, if Jesus did not honor and love His mother, then He would have been in direct violation of God’s commands. Thus Jesus would have sinned. Thus He would be incapable of being a propitiation for anyone else’s sins and unable to ransom anyone from the wrath to come.

    Since Jesus was the perfect, spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, we know that He must have honored and loved His mother.

    It’s rather quite simple.

    Now, regarding the rest of your comment, I am at a loss as I am not sure what you were trying to say and what any of it had to do with this post regarding Mary’s supposed immaculate conception.

    Perhaps your comment would be better addressed by visiting my previous post on Mary entitled It’s All About Mary?

    Sincerely,
    - The Pilgrim

  75. Jeff H says:

    Nikola,

    Will Jesus Christ not do any great things for His Mother at all times, when He is true God and true Man who would love Her most perfectly?

    Well, then, we have a GREAT problem here.

    The Creator of the universe, God Himself, must now obey His creation (Mary) for all eternity.

    Jesus explained and modeled earthly relationships that likely will change or be eliminated in eternity.

    One relationship the Lord told us would no longer exist is marriage.

    If we are to remain subjected to our earthly ancestors then there is an implied hierarchy that has eternal implications.

    This hierarchy flies in the face of clear Scripture teaching on Who will receive ALL of our devotion, affection, and obedience… and THAT is Jesus Christ, not ‘mom’ and ‘dad’.

    We have but One Abba, Father.

    In Christ,
    - Jeff H

  76. The Pilgrim -

    “Since Jesus was the perfect, spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, we know that He must have honored and loved His mother.

    It’s rather quite simple.

    Now, regarding the rest of your comment, I am at a loss as I am not sure what you were trying to say and what any of it had to do with this post regarding Mary’s supposed immaculate conception”.

    End of quote

    Thank you for saying that Jesus Christ would love and honour His Mother, Mary, even though Jesus Christ himself never ever said this in all of Scripture!

    Now then, you also say that it is rather quite simple that Mary’s supposed Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus Christ would honour His Mother, Mary.

    How else is it not possible for Jesus Christ to do this?

    Is it because, it is not a “good thing”?

    Is it because it is not a “great thing” for Jesus Christ to honour His Mother, Mary in this way?

    Is it because it is really impossible, but how can that be when Jesus Christ is God?

    Or, is it really impossible because the Bible does not say that He did? And if this is true then how do you imprison Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, in the confines of your Bible pages?

    What I am trying to say is indeed simple – that the mind of man cannot think up and pinpoint how much, how good, and how great are the things that Jesus Christ can/will do to honour His own Mother, Mary.

    One of these “good and great things” that may be granted by the mind of man is the ‘Immaulate Conception”, and surely even Catholics of all times will not outdo the honours that Jesus Christ will bestow.

    I have accepted your opinion/s as expressed in “its all about Mary” as your entitlement as I accept John Martignoni’s in his most recent newsletter of the Bible Christian Society.

    Finally, one of my six children left the Church to become an Evangelical Christian and immediately he said nearly all the things you have said about Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ. Ironically, he said that he left the Church so that he could reallyy love the Lord, Jesus Christ, but as for Mary, the Mother of the same Jesus Christ, she was a merely “vessel”.

    Then, soon afterwards our only daughter followed her brother and not astonishingly while she affirms her love for Jesus Christ, Mary His Mother was only a “seed pod”!

    Neither of them say that they have a “mother problem” and faced with their “mother Mary-complex”problem, I could only tell them that if they can love/honour their own mother, then why is it that they cannot allow their Lord Jesus Christ to love/honour His Own Mother, Mary? And their answer is “it is not in the Bible”

    Really it is rather simple as you say, it is all about Mary, it
    is all about love, and sadly I had to tell my son and daughter that as a gardener I know a lot about “seed pods” because many a seed- pod has no seed inside, simply there is no heart.

    Sincerely, Nikola

  77. Dear Nikola:

    How Jesus could honor his mother is simple. The Law of God commands this and to be perfectly obedient, He did this. Otherwise He would have sinned and been unable to be a propitiation for our sins.

    His following God’s command to love, honor, and obey His parents (the Bible commands children to obey and honor their ‘parents’ not just their mothers) is also expected of you and I. You honoring and obeying your mother and father does not equate to them being conceived immaculately does it?

    You asked:

    . . . how do you imprison Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, in the confines of your Bible pages?

    I don’t, but God does. He revealed Himself and His Son and His plan of redemption for sinful mankind in holy writ. In times past He revealed things through His prophets (and never popes) but no longer. We have His Word and it is complete and perfect.

    It is when one takes liberty with the Scriptures and ADDS to them that false doctrines and false teachings abound. Hence, this is why we’re having this conversation now isn’t it?

    You cannot support your doctrines on Mary from Scripture so you flip the debate and claim I’m “imprisoning” Him in the very Words that God spoke of Him, but yet your adding to the Word of God doesn’t concern you. It should alarm you.

    As it’s been said above, it is a wicked notion indeed that God the Son, in His risen, glorified state, would ever be subject to His creation.

    And finally, please do not misunderstand what I (or we) are saying about Mary. We are not saying that Jesus did not or should not have honored her, anymore than we would never say that our kids or your kids should not honor their mother and father. But when your kids begin to elevate you or their dad to a position that is rightfully and only that of our Lord, they have become idolaters.

    Respecting what Mary did in God’s sovereign plan for mankind does not mean she was conceived immaculately, sinless, remained a virgin her whole life, should be prayed to, intercedes for sinners, or any other extra-biblical, false doctrines dreamt of by the traditions of men in the Roman Catholic institution.

    This makes Roman Catholicism no different than Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons. They all downplay the Scriptures and elevate their traditions and extra-biblical teachings. But as for me and my family we will be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 and compare all “teachings” and “doctrines” with the revealed Word of God, and if they don’t match up, we aren’t buying it.

    Sincerely,
    - The Pilgrim

  78. Nikola,

    If it came down to believing the Magisterium or whether to believe the Scriptures, which would you choose? Because it is a choice you need to make. Here’s why.

    The RCC teaches that Jesus gave a throne to Mary, correct? Yet our Lord Jesus Himself was very clear that this was not for Him to decide. Matthew 20:23–So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.”

    Also, consider your statement how do you imprison Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, in the confines of your Bible pages? When, in fact, we again have our Lord’s words in John 5:39–”You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.” We also have the words of Paul, in 2nd Timothy 3:15–from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    Nikola, it is not a case of “imprisoning” Jesus in the words of Scripture. On the contrary. It is the Scriptures which lead us to Him. May you come to know this truth. I pray you would ask your son and daughter what led them out of the Roman church, so that you may see the truth as well.

  79. Dear Pilgrim,

    “How Jesus could honor his mother is simple. The Law of God commands this and to be perfectly obedient, He did this”. End of quote.

    Thank you!

    The good question still remains – how would Jesus Christ show “love towards his Own Mother” although in the Bible, He never said at any time to Mary, “I love you Mother”.

    In the Magnificat, Mary proclaims that “He has done great things to me”.

    I simply believe that these “great things” are good things?

    But how great are these good things?

    Now, you seem to be saying that “Catholics” are simply wrong when they declare that Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ was/is “Immaculate”, because the Bible does not say so. Therefore Jesus Christ will not/cannot grant Mary, His Own Mother, this honour.

    Hence my simple question – how do you imprison Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, within the confines of your Bible pages so that He, cannot/will not grant “Immaculate Conception” honour to Mary, His Mother?

    Firstly, is it a good thing for Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ to be Immaculate?

    Secondly, is it a great thing, a great honour for Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ to be Immaculate?

    Thirdly, is such an honour too good, too great, too much and quite simply, “Mary the Mother of Jesus Christ” does not merit/deserve to be so accoladed?

    Finally would you care to say what exactly are the great things that God had done for Mary, and why is it that her Immaculate Conception cannot be included in the great things mentioned in the Magnificat?

    Sincerely, Nik.

  80. Dear Nikola, you said:

    Hence my simple question – how do you imprison Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, within the confines of your Bible pages so that He, cannot/will not grant “Immaculate Conception” honour to Mary, His Mother?

    This was answered in my last comment.

    The immaculate conception doctrine is man made by the Roman Catholic church. It is not from God, it was never from God and it was added by the RCC in their further advance of Mary idolatry. To “prove” something by its absence is illogical. You might as well argue that “Jesus gave Mary Twinkies and Coca Cola” based solely on the fact that it’s not in the Bible.

    However, I argue from the stance of God’s revealed Word.

    Mary was born as everyone else. A human with sin. The Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God but that Jesus knew no sin. This means Mary was a sinner like everyone else. And when you consider that Jesus said that John the Baptist was the most blessed born among women, that makes Mary take a backseat to John. If Mary is all that you keep trying to make her out to be, why did Jesus not say that Mary was the most blessed instead of John?

    Remember also Nikola, Mary called God her Savior. Sinless people don’t need Saviors.

    So at this point Nikola, (since you are suggesting we ADD doctrines to the Bible that are not there) the burden of proof for Mary’s immaculate conception (and all the other Marian doctrines that I’ve already answered) falls on YOU!

    - The Pilgrim

  81. Nikola,

    Would you please be so kind as to answer the Scriptures I offered in my last comment concerning the fact that giving Mary a throne was not up to Jesus to give?

  82. Dear Fourpointer,

    Presently, I am working out a reply to your May posting.

    Also, I will check out your quotes from Scripture but quickly, though your-

    “The RCC teaches that Jesus gave a throne to Mary”, correct?” is a great puzzle tto me.

    I will need to check this out too as you offered no reference whatsoever!

    You say that it is a “teaching”, so I will look at the catechism.

    Do you by the way have a similar catechism of your Church? (I have asked my son and daughter for just such a document but none is forthcoming).

    Now because Jesus Christ is “King”, we celebrate a feast day known as “Christ the King”, and because Jesus Christ is the son of Mary, then by virtue of this, Mary would be a “Queen”.

    Is this a good thing?

    Is this a great thing?

    Is it possible that the Queenship of Mary could be one of the great things that God would grant to her as she had mentioned in her song of praise, the Magnificat?

    Surely, a Queen may be seated on a chair or a throne on more formal occasions.

    Pope Paul VI had commented that Mary, was the first and most perfect disciple of Jesus Christ.

    I trust that you will be in agreement, so that we may allow Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ the honour of a seat or throne near her son, Jesus Christ the King.

    Do you think that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man would honour His mother in this way as one of the great things mentioned in Mary’s song of praise?

    Many thanks, Sincerely, Nik.

    PS. I had asked both my children, why they had decided to leave the faith of our Fathers. Both say that they believe in the “Bible Only” so I have had to caution them that sounds like idolatary as it is a book only.

    Perhaps we can put this aside for a while as I can become very confused.

    Oh, but perhaps you can help me here – I went to their “baptism by immersion”, because they say that their Catholic Baptism was inadequate. and at the reception fellowship I asked, “when will you be remarried again”, as they were originally married in the Catholic Church. No answer is forthcoming after these many years.

  83. Tanya C says:

    Nikola,

    The “great thing” the God did for Mary was grant her, a wretched sinner, the honor of carrying the savior of the world and for a moment in time being his earthly mother and the salvation that comes in his name. To say that He granted her immaculate conception would put her on par with Jesus and take glory away from Him. He alone was born of a virgin, HE alone was sinless, He alone is worthy to be slain for our sins. NO ONE else can have those attributes, NO ONE!!

    Mary is not a Queen because Jesus’ kingship came from His heavenly Father and has absolutely nothing to do with Mary. A good analogy would be this, if a King impregnated a poor woman to have an heir this would not automatically make the poor woman his Queen but the son would become his heir because of his FATHER alone. It’s really quite a miracle that God would use a broken vessel to bring life to the savior of the world. When we try to break it down by human reasoning we diminish God and His Holiness. God ALWAYS uses the broken things in this world for His purposes. He came for the sick and the weak and the sinner. All the men you mentioned (David , Noah etc.) were all wretched sinners that God used in spite of their short comings. We do not worship or honor them anymore than we should worship or honor Mary.

    Some questions now for you

    How did Jesus have brothers and sisters if Mary was a perpetual Virgin?

    If Mary had a part in the work on the cross and was sinless why didn’t she die right alone side Jesus?

    How do the Popes and Mary fit into 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” ?

    If Jesus continually intercedes for us (Romans 8:34) why do we need to ask Mary or the saints to do it? Is Jesus too busy or are His prayers not sufficient?

    Was Jesus’ work on the cross not sufficient enough to be “once and done”?

    If anything Jesus does is not sufficient then he can not be God and that puts us in a pickle then cause if we worship someone who is not God then we are idolaters.

    Tanya

  84. Dear Tanya C,

    Thank you for the exciting news. I will leave your questions to rest awhile as otherwise we will be going in too many directions.

    But here is a quite impromtu reply!

    You say that -

    “The “great thing” the God did for Mary was grant her, a wretched sinner, the honor of carrying the savior of the world and for a moment in time being his earthly mother and the salvation that comes in his name”.

    To this, Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ had already responded with “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord! Be done to me according to your word”

    And the words of scripture says “he has done great things to me. Holy is His Name”!

    You have now named, just one, of the great, good things that God would do for Mary.

    Would you care to name a few more?

    Please forgive me for having to say this, but “your moment in time” can only mean that you have not enjoyed the joys of motherhood. And the ecstasy of suffering!

    Surely, you ought to know that normal child bearing involves 9 months of pregnancy. During this time Mary had to live sensibly so as not do anything silly that may cause her to abort the child Jesus. Mary already knew, all about this Saviour Child in her womb. And so I would have to be less than human to think that Mary was not “fearful” in all this time.

    Also Mary would have to have an abundance of God’s grace to sustain her, to protect and preseve their wellbeing.

    Is it impossible for God to do another great and good thing like bestowing an abundance of grace from His infinte treasury? Would this not make Mary, “full of grace”?

    But let us fast forward to the time when Mary received the bad news – Herod will kill the Child!

    How do you think the Mother of this new born Baby would react to this?

    I am not a mother either, but I would think that Mary would make haste to wrap Jesus up in a small bundle and run into the desert in the middle of the night.

    Lest you forget, Mary is full of grace which will empower her to “save” her Saviour, her son Jesus Christ!!

    This is yet another good and great thing that God can do for Mary; it is a great honour that no one else in all of creation can undertake without an abundance of God’s grace. Jesus Christ, True Man excepted, of course.

    During the Liturgy of the Word in this morning’s Mass, I heard, that nothing is impossible to God.

    May I stop now with – Jesus stayed at home for some 30 years before He began His public ministry, and tradition says that Jesus met His Mother, Mary on His way to Calvary.

    Finally Mary was at the foot of the Cross to the end when Mary then held the broken – up Body of her Saviour, her Son, as in the “pieta”. And that is why Pope Paul VI with great insight said – “Mary was the first and the most perfect disciple of Jesus Christ – refer post no.84.

    Sincerely, Nik.

  85. Dear Nikola:

    In one of you previous comments to me you summarily dismissed my post on Mary (It’s All About Mary?) as just “opinions” when in fact I referred to holy Scripture alone as I tackled the top false Marian doctrines advanced by the RCC. Yet I have not seen any attempt to refute those challenges with Scripture on your part.

    I have noticed, however, a common theme throughout your argument for extra-biblical RC doctrine. The common thread throughout seems to be human reasoning with a whole lot of ‘I think,’ and ‘I feel,’ and ‘I believe.’ That is where the problem is (and what I’ve been trying to convey to you). It doesn’t matter what one thinks or feels or believes about something. All that matters is WHAT HAS GOD SAID ABOUT IT?

    Once you throw out the Bible as the final authority in matters of the Church, the Faith, doctrine, etc. then all we have left is human “wisdom” and “reasoning.” This is very, very dangerous ground that ALWAYS leads to error, heresy, and apostasy.

    Why should I believe your pope’s extra-biblical ideas over that of Charles Taze Russell, or Joseph Smith?

    I recently addressed this very topic on DefCon in the post entitled Nada Scriptura? I request that you check it out to see why putting the Scriptures on a the same level (or lower) than man’s traditions and “new revelations” is very, very dangerous.

    When one places Scripture on an equal or even lower authority as their leaders (see again, JWs and LDS) then anything goes. Any new and false “doctrines” can be introduced without anyone measuring its truthfulness by the very standard of God’s revealed Word.

    And again, since your propositions on Mary are based on the RC’s extra-biblical teachings and NOT the Bible, the burden of proof falls on you.

    - The Pilgrim

  86. Jeff H says:

    Nikola,

    Also Mary would have to have an abundance of God’s grace to sustain her, to protect and preseve their wellbeing.

    Is it impossible for God to do another great and good thing like bestowing an abundance of grace from His infinte treasury? Would this not make Mary, “full of grace”?

    Did God include in His Plan to “sustain her, to protect and preseve their wellbeing” to have Mary give birth to Jesus in a barn stall as a ‘royal blessing’ to bestow?

    I think you are misunderstanding the roles Jesus and Mary were living out in God’s Plan of Redemption.

    Mary was blessed to be a vessel through whom the Son of God would be born.

    Mary’s role is completed… God is God, His creation (Mary) is not God.

    God called a man, Abram (a Chaldean), to be the father of a great people… His descendants would be God’s chosen people and number ‘as the stars.’

    Abram’s (now “Abraham’s”) role is completed… God is God, His creation (Abraham) is not God.

    God called a man, Isaac, the ‘Child of the Promise’, and was in many ways a foreshadow of Jesus Christ.

    Isaac’s role is completed… God is God, His creation (Isaac) is not God.

    God called a man, Jacob, to be the father of a great Nation… Israel itself! God’s chosen nation. They were to be a holy people through whom God would reveal Himself to the world. God would bless those who blessed Israel, and curse those who cursed Israel.

    Jacob’s role is completed… God is God, His creation (Jacob) is not God.

    David was one of the greatest kings in the Bible, and God called him ‘a man after [God's] own heart.” David (as inspired by the Holy Spirit) penned many of the Psalms.

    David’s role is completed… God is God, His creation (David) is not God.

    … and the list goes on. There are many people in Scripture who are specially chosen by God to fulfill an important, or even great, purpose.

    Their ultimate purpose, however, is to accomplish God’s Plan and to glorify God.

    Perhaps you should take a lesson from Job, Nikola.

    Job was blessed by God beyond measure.

    The Lord, in His infinite, perfect Wisdom permitted all that Job had to be set aside from Job.

    While the Scripture is clear that Job did not sin during his discussions with his three “friends”, Job does at the end posit a respectful question to God.

    The response from God is that God BLASTS Job for thinking to question God at ANY level about what He is doing.

    It begins in Job 38:1-4,

    1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

    2 “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?

    3 Dress for action like a man;
    I will question you, and you make it known to me.

    4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”

    And then… page after page… chapter after chapter in the Bible, God hammers Job concerning the fundamental difference between God and His creation.

    In the end, after receiving an education about who he is and who God is, Job humbly repents:

    1 Then Job answered the LORD and said:
    2″I know that you can do all things,
    and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
    3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?
    ‘Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
    things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
    4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
    I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
    5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
    but now my eye sees you;
    6 therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”
    (Job 42:1-6)

    Learn this lesson, Nikola.

    Mary is NOT on ANY par with God.

    She was created, and God was NOT.

    Where was Mary (or you… or I…) when God “laid the foundation of the earth?”

    The answer is that we were NOWHERE!

  87. Dear Jeff H and The Pilgrim

    Hey guys – please accept my apologies for I often make mistakes.

    Most times I pray to the Holy Spirit for help, This will enable me to offer comments that express my Faith in Jesus Christ, a Faith working in love.

    Jeff’s first posting to me says

    Well, then, we have a GREAT problem here.

    The Creator of the universe, God Himself, must now obey His creation (Mary) for all eternity.

    End of quote.

    At that time I had only made 2 posts but already my comments had led Jeff H astray, so that he believes :

    1. that I had elevated Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ
    so that she is more almighty than the Holy Trinity.

    This is blasphemy!

    I read my postings over and over and over and was about to come back to Jeff, when I realised that The Pilgrim has come out like this!

    Quote –

    You cannot support your doctrines on Mary from Scripture so you flip the debate and claim I’m “imprisoning” Him in the very Words that God spoke of Him, but yet your adding to the Word of God doesn’t concern you. It should alarm you.

    As it’s been said above, it is a wicked notion indeed that God the Son, in His risen, glorified state, would ever be subject to His creation.

    End of quote.

    The Pilgrim was right – I became alarmed, so I read all my posts over and over and over in great fear and I prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance.

    To be honest, I also prayed to Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ to pray with me to God, as Catholics always do.

    Always we say, “Pray for us”. Always and always we say, “Pray for us”. This is a Catholic tradition that we hold fast to.

    And now, brothers in Christ, I need to to tell you that you have not interpreted what I have said in true Christian charity.

    So please go back to all I have said in order to document what it is that I have said that makes you believe what you claim.

    Sincerely with my prayers. Nik

  88. Jeff H says:

    Oh, please, Nikola,

    We are merely responding to the implications of your assertions about Mary. Your church, the RCC, has elevated Mary to the point where she continues to receive biblical, parental honor from Jesus, even though she is no longer Christ’s mom anymore.

    Please don’t be disingenuous towards us now that we have punctured your Marian arguments.

    Re-read my post above.

    Mary has completed her role.

    She is finished.

    That’s it.

    Done.

    She is not an intercessor on anyone’s behalf.

    She can’t hear prayers – only God can. She ain’t God.

    She is not a co-redeemer, as the RCC is considering.

    As was pointed out earlier, she is not even on par with John the Baptizer!… This from our Savior, Lord Jesus Himself!

    Your posts are notably devoid… barren… lacking… free from ANY Scripture to support your theology.

    You can’t, because the RCC theology is false… heresy… damnable.

    Nikola, turn away from the RCC and turn TO JESUS CHRIST.

    He alone can save you still.

    In Jesus Christ,
    - Jeff H

  89. every human that is born out of the womb is born into a sin cursed world. every person ever born enters this lifewith the curse of sin in their very being. it is ONLY through the regeneration of the blood of CHRIST JESUS that we are saved mary was a virgin with the favor of GOD ALMIGHTY on her life. if she could come back to earth long enough to speak to the pope. I am sure she would tell him, stop worshipping me, I too am only as you are the only difference is i am saved and you are not.-repent now.

  90. Nikola,

    Do you think that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man would honour His mother in this way as one of the great things mentioned in Mary’s song of praise?

    So, which is it? Does she have a throne or not? (And I’m sure you are aware that the Catechism (CCC) is not the sole source of teaching in the RCC, since Catholic doctrine has changed countless times over the centuries according to ever-changing “Traditions”). But, if you want a reference, I give you Pope Benedict’s words on August 15, 2007:

    “…that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of Heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendour at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.”

    Unless you think that a queen would not have a throne, and you obviously believe she does have a throne, as evidenced by your statement, I trust that you will be in agreement, so that we may allow Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ the honour of a seat or throne near her son, Jesus Christ the King.

    —————————–

    Do you by the way have a similar catechism of your Church?

    Not that that has anything to do with anything, but we do have a “statement of beliefs.” And these beliefs are based on Scripture, not on an arbitrarily-devised set of fables cobbled together from various local traditions (the way the CCC was). Then there is always the Westminster Catechism. What, you think the RCC is the only church that formalizes its beliefs?

    I had asked both my children, why they had decided to leave the faith of our Fathers. Both say that they believe in the “Bible Only” so I have had to caution them that sounds like idolatary as it is a book only.

    That is a statement we normally hear from atheists and skeptics, not from people who call themselves Christians. At any rate, we do not “worship” the Bible–we consider it the one true source of truth about the one who alone is to be worshipped.

    In your response to Tanya, you inadvertently made a mistake concerning biblical chronology. You said, But let us fast forward to the time when Mary received the bad news – Herod will kill the Child! How do you think the Mother of this new born Baby would react to this? I am not a mother either, but I would think that Mary would make haste to wrap Jesus up in a small bundle and run into the desert in the middle of the night. Lest you forget, Mary is full of grace which will empower her to “save” her Saviour, her son Jesus Christ!! The problem with that statement is that Joseph was the one warned about Herod’s plan. And, Joseph had already been warned to flee with his wife and child before Herod’s “Massacre of the Innocents.”

    Matthew 2:13-16–Now when [the Magi] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him. When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt…Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.

    Finally Mary was at the foot of the Cross to the end when Mary then held the broken – up Body of her Saviour, her Son, as in the “pieta.”

    Not quite. The idea for the “Pieta” is absolutely unbiblical, and is the result of a man’s imagination:

    Luke 23:50-53–Now behold, there was a man named Joseph…from Arimathea…This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before.

    John 19: 38-39–After this, Joseph of Arimathea…asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. And Nicodemus…also came…Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.

    Don’t forget, Mary was not at the cross when Jesus gave up the ghost. The apostle John had already taken her home:

    John 19:26-27–When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

    We should always be careful about developing our doctrines based on works of art. That is how the whole “DaVinci Code” nonsense came about. Also, Michelangelo forgot that King David was Jewish, and carved him as being uncircumcised.

    Your approach is one that we have seen many times here, and it is one of the more frustrating ones to deal with–the appeal to human emotion, and as Jeff H said, completely lacking in any Scripture. It is hard to convince someone of the truth of Scripture when that person doesn’t even believe what the Scriptures say.

  91. Dear Jeff H,

    Quote –

    Oh, please, Nikola,

    We are merely responding to the implications of your assertions about Mary. Your church, the RCC, has elevated Mary to the point where she continues to receive biblical, parental honor from Jesus, even though she is no longer Christ’s mom anymore.

    Please don’t be disingenuous towards us now that we have punctured your Marian arguments.

    End of quote.

    Jeff H, In order that you may form the “implications of your assertions about Mary”, I would have had to have written something, some words in my posts.

    Now, you are challenged to tell the “truth” and you are running “hither and thither”!

    It is so much easier for you, now, to cut and paste from what I had written to prove your accusation that I had “blasphemed” – meaning that what I had actually said/written shows that I believe that Mary, the Mother of
    Jesus Christ is “GREATER” than the Holy Trinity.

    Oh please Jeff –

    Quote –
    “And now, brothers in Christ, I need to to tell you that you have not interpreted what I have said in true Christian charity.

    So please go back to all I have said in order to document what it is that I have said that makes you believe what you claim .

    Sincerely with my prayers. Nik”.

    End of quote.

    Pope John Paul II had often repeated the words of Jesus Christ – “Be Not Afraid”!

    And I am very sure too, that you must know that the “Truth will set you free”. You may have to say sorry but the Truth will set you free. The Truth will save you from running “hither and tither”!

    Please everyone, pray to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, my dear brothers in Jesus Christ for the grace that will empower Jef H to tell the truth, now. Amen.

    Most sincerely, Nik A Morris.

  92. Dear Jeff H,

    Quote -

    “Oh, please, Nikola,

    We are merely responding to the implications of your assertions about Mary. Your church, the RCC, has elevated Mary to the point where she continues to receive biblical, parental honor from Jesus, even though she is no longer Christ’s mom anymore.

    Please don’t be disingenuous towards us now that we have punctured your Marian arguments”.

    End of quote.

    Jeff H, in order that you may form your opinion – ”
    We are merely responding to the implications of your assertions about Mary”, I would have had to have said/written something in my posts.

    Whatever it is that I had said/written that has led you to believe that I had blasphemed – meaning that I believe that Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ is GREATER than the Holy Trinity.

    Now, you are challenged to document my sin of “blasphemy” from what I had actually written, and you are running hither and dither.

    It should be easy for you to “cut and paste” from what I had written to prove your accusations.

    Oh please Jeff H, my “brothers in Christ, I need to to tell you that you have not interpreted what I have said in true Christian charity.

    So please go back to all I have said in order to document what it is that I have said that makes you believe what you claim”.

    “Be not afraid”, the words of Jesus Christ which were often repeated by Pope John-Paul II and I am very sure that you must know that the “Truth will set you free”.

    Please every one, may we all pray, to the Spirit of Truth for the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, which will empower Jeff H to document his charge of blasphemy against me from what I had actually written and published here.

    Sincerely, with my prayers, Nik A Morris
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Dear Jimmie Jones,

    Thank you!

    quote –

    if she could come back to earth long enough to speak to the pope. I am sure she would tell him, stop worshipping me, I too am only as you are the only difference is i am saved and you are not.-repent now.

    End of quote.

    From what I had written and published here- do you think that I “worship Mary the Mother of Jesus Christ”?

    Also what makes you believe that the Pope worships Mary”?

    Would you care to document why do think that the Pope worships Mary.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Dear Fourpointer,

    Quote

    God created the world in 6 DAYS, but in the 60 YEARS between the resurrection of Christ and the writing of Revelation He couldn’t squeeze in a word or two about Mary’s sinlessness.

    End of quote

    When Adam & Eve disobeyed God and became “friends with Satan”, God rebukes the Serpent and announces the redemption of mankind – “I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between her seed and your seed, and she shall crush thy head”.

    As Eve had just committed sin at this point, so I must believe that the “woman” here cannot be the same Eve, simply because the Seed that could crush the head of the Serpent, can only be Jesus Christ, the son of Mary.

    Now please take due notice of God’s declaration of fact/truth – I will put “enmity” between the Woman and You!

    Remember too that God had decreed, “My Word shall not return to me empty, for it shall achieve the purpose for which it was spoken”.

    And a fine example is the point you made above – God created the world in 6 DAYS.

    God merely spoke the Word!

    Again, the coming of Jesus Christ, the Word, is spoken of here in Genesis and in the traditional Angelus prayer of Catholics we say – “And the Word was made Flesh, and He dwelt among us”.

    When Catholics pray the Angelus, traditionally in the morning, at noon, and in the evening, they fall on their knees when saying these words – “And the Word was made flesh”.

    On Calvary, Jesus Christ declared the accomplishment of His Mission on earth – “it is finished”!

    And only now, the Word may proceed to return to the Father as in “My Word will not return to me empty for He will achieve the purpose for which they were spoken”.

    Now therefore, who is this “woman, that God will make, the “woman” that will give birth to the Seed who will crush Satan?

    But alas, right now, I feel so crushed that The Pilgrim is so right, that “it is all about Mary”.

    Yes indeed, when it is all about Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, as “the Pilgrim” has proclaimed, then of necessity, ”it is all about love”!

    Sincerely, Nik.

    PS. From the Cana marriage scene, Jesus addresses His Mother thus – “Woman”!

    From the Cross, Jesus directly names His Mother, again as “Woman”!
    From St. Paul, he spoke of Jesus Christ as “born of Woman”!

    And in Revelations, a Woman gave birth to the Child who would rule the world. Satan then gave chase but failed to catch her because God had protected/preserved the Woman so that there would be “enmity” always between them from the beginning of the world to eternity.

    From the Magnificat, Mary praises God, “for He has done great things for me, Holy is His Name”!

    Truly then, one of the great things that God would do for Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, His only Son, is to make enmity between the Woman and Satan at all times.

    This is what He had said and His Word will not return to Him empty, for it will achieve the purpose for which it was spoken.

    In the Liturgy of the Word, during Mass today, Jesus says “to God, all things are possible”!

    Therefore I believe that it is possible for God to honour Mary in such a way that no human mind can understand.

    Such honour will be demeed so great that the human mind will need to say “No way, God will not grant such an abundance of grace to Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, His only Son, because the Bible Scriptures do not say so”.

    That is why I asked “how do you imprison Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, within the pages of your Bible”?

    The Pilgrim comes out with the astonishing reply – “I don’t. But God does”! This means that it is God who imprisons His only Son, within the pages of the Protestant Bibles.

    But where oh where, in all of Scripture does God say this?
    If you ask the Pilgrim for a Scripture verse that says this, then I bet you he will run hither and thither and go somewhere else where there is gnashing of teeth.

    But he will not answer because he is afraid as he is afraid to answer my questions.

    But as a Catholic, I do not have a problem because I can say that in Scripture, Mary proclaims that God has done great things for me. Holy is His Name.

    And for that reason –
    I can believe that Mary’s Immaculate Conception is just ONE OF THOSE GREAT THINGS.

    Sincerely, Nik.

    PS. Sorry that this comes to you a bit late as it was typed on my eldest son’s computer and it had crashed.

    By now you will have seen my “mea culpa” to Jeff H and The Pilgrim.
    I am puzzled that so far I have only directly responded to 3 people – the Pilgrim, yourself, and Tanya C.

    Out of you 3, only the Pilgrim has accused me of blasphemy, so far.

    And out of all others who may have read my offerings, only one, Jeff H, has accused me of blasphemy, so far.

    But anyways let us now await the testimony of The Pilgrim and Jeff H, for their documentation of my indictment.

    PPS
    I have just read your most recent contributions and will take a while to compile an answer.

    but very quickly, I have not found in the Catechism, the teaching that you had referred to.

    Now you say that there are other places where I may find the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is indeed great news to me.

    If as you say that the doctrines of the Church had changed then this is even more GREAT news to me.

    But again you offer NO reference whatsoever!

    Sincerely Nik A Morris

  93. brother Michael says:

    Nikola,
    You cannot seriously be asking whether or not the Pope worships Mary. And not only he but millions of deceived Roman Catholics as well. This is a question beyond pale and makes me wonder why you are asking it. Is it so that you can come back with the classic RC retort that Catholics do not worship Mary but adore her? Please – that line may work on EWTN and Catholic Answers but it won’t work here.

  94. Tanya C says:

    Nikola,

    You make absolutely no sense at all. I am a mother of SIX children. I know full well what it means to carry a child in your womb and bring life into the world!! But what does that have to do with anything I said ??? Is English your second language? Cause any English speaking person would understand that by saying “a moment in time” meant that the time that Mary had Jesus as her son on Earth was a small bit of time as we know it and even a smaller amount of time in light of eternity! So of course that “moment in time” included the entire pregnancy and motherhood until death.

    But again, God blessing her in that way means absolutely nothing to us! It does not mean that we should worship her! God gave me grace through each of my pregnancies and continues to give me grace through the daily trials of being a mother to many young children. That does not make me eligible for worship!!

    I think you enjoy going off on rabbit trails about things that mean nothing so that you can dodge the true questions. You ignored my questions because you can not answer them. I am sorry that you have devoted your life to something that you cannot intelligently defend. May God open your eyes to the truth and grant you repentant unto salvation.

    Another thing, not that it really matters but it is an inconsistency in your posts, are you or are you not a mother??

    You said, “one of my six children…. I had asked both my children,….”

    then said, “I am not a mother either..”

    So do you like to make up scenarios for the purpose of debate, are you unable to keep your lies straight, or is there more than one person using the pen name Nikola to post here?

    Tanya C.

    Tanya C.

  95. When Adam & Eve disobeyed God and became “friends with Satan”, God rebukes the Serpent and announces the redemption of mankind – “I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between her seed and your seed, and she shall crush thy head”.

    Well, I see you have bought into the Roman Catholic misinterpretation of Genesis 3:15–seeing as how the Douay-Rheims is the ONLY English translation to render it as “SHE shall crush your head” instead of “HE shall crush your head.” This is a reference to Jesus destroying the power of Satan:

    Hebrews 2:14-15 (KJV)– Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death [Satan striking Jesus' heel] he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil [Jesus crushing the serpent's head]; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

    Mary did not crush Satan’s head–Jesus did. To say that Mary crushed the serpent’s head is to say that Mary did what Jesus alone had the power to do.

    ——————

    but very quickly, I have not found in the Catechism, the teaching that you had referred to.

    Well, I guess you’ll have to ask your Pope where HE got the idea. All I did was quote what the man said. If you don’t agree with it, call Rome.

    —————–

    Now you say that there are other places where I may find the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is indeed great news to me.

    If as you say that the doctrines of the Church had changed then this is even more GREAT news to me.

    Then I give you this link, directly from the Catholic News Agency itself, where you can read about when the Marian Dogmas were added. Anyone who has studied church history (and any Catholic who will be honest) can tell you that the Marian Dogmas were not always set in stone from the earliest days of the church. They evolved over time, with the belief in the “Immaculate Conception” being formalized in 1854, and her assumption into heaven being dogmatized as late as 1950!!

    Not only have the Marian Dogmas been added to the CCC, but other “dogmatic” Vatican teachings were added in hundreds of years after Christ (Purgatory: about 600 AD; forbidding priests to marry: 1139 AD [1st Lateran Council]; transubstantiation: 1215 AD [4th Lateran Council], and so on and so forth). And if John Paul II had gotten his way, he would have had Mary declared Co-Redemptrix with Christ–yet another change to Catholic doctrine.

    Hope this helps, and I hope that eventually we can help you see why you need to leave the Roman church, and find the truth that is in the Scriptures.

  96. Jeff H says:

    Now, you are challenged to document my sin of “blasphemy” from what I had actually written, and you are running hither and dither.

    I don’t even know what that means.

    What are you talking about… “running hither and dither”?

    It should be easy for you to “cut and paste” from what I had written to prove your accusations.

    I have already responded in detail to your and your church’s heresy. Just re-read the above posts… or actually read them for the 1st time.

    Suspend for a minute the ‘traditions’ of the RCC…

    Now, let God’s Word sink in and convict you.

    Oh please Jeff H, my “brothers in Christ, I need to to tell you that you have not interpreted what I have said in true Christian charity.

    Do not call me ‘brother in Christ’.

    If you are a Roman Catholic then your church has declared me ‘damned’… ‘accursed’… ‘anathema’.

    I’m fine with the RCC proclaiming me as such… are you?

  97. to Brother Michael,

    quote -”Nikola,
    You cannot seriously be asking whether or not the Pope worships Mary. And not only he but millions of deceived Roman Catholics as well. This is a question beyond pale and makes me wonder why you are asking it. Is it so that you can come back with the classic RC retort that Catholics do not worship Mary but adore her? Please – that line may work on EWTN and Catholic Answers but it won’t work here.
    End of quote

    Dear Brother Michael

    Thank you but I am serious, honestly very serious, because I am a Catholic.

    However I have not heard any Pope, even the most wicked ones ever say that they worship/adore Mary.

    Indeed “no Catholic” will tell you or anyone else that Catholics worship Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ.

    If I understand it correctly, you were once a Catholic, so did anyone tell you to worship Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ.

    Have you read/studied the Catholic Catechism where ALL Catholic teachings are documented, so that you may speak the Truth. In other words, so that you may know what are you talking about.

    In Christian Charity and for the love of Jesus Christ, please do this and document your questions!

    Be not like “fourpointer”, who is unable yet to say where exactly is the Catholic teaching that he is flouting!

    He makes a point, more or less on hear say – very sad.

    May I hear your documentation soon?

    Sincerely, Nik A Morris
    ________________________________________________________________________________
    Dear Tanya C,

    Thank you – please accept my apologies.

    I had typed out a considered follow up to my last posting to you on my other son’s computer and will send this later on this afternoon.

    Very quickly though did I not ask that I would let your questions rest awhile.

    Now you came in on certain questions I had asked @fourpointer@, which you did not answer.

    In the UK, it is a courtesy to keep place in the line up when in the supermarket!

    Sincerely, Nik A Morris.
    ________________________________________________________________________________

    Dear The Pilgrim,

    Please forgive me because the following has become necessary for me to say.

    Are you a real human person with a real name?

    One gets an uneasy feeling – it is truly quite unreal, that I am talking to an “IDOL with many X-factors”!

    Certainly, you do have the X-factor! And with it, you do have many axes to grind!

    Your understanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church as you have committed in writing is awesome, in vehemence and malice against the Roman Catholic Church and towards “little ole me”.

    Have you read/studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church so that you may know what you are talking about?

    To be sure my own dissident son, James and dissident daughter Veronica when leaving the Faith of the Fathers have said and displayed the same frame of mind as you have.

    But now, may I begin from the beginning like the good song sings in the Sound of Music – do! re! mi!

    From the very start of “Defending, Contending” there was much song and dance, gleeful twisting and turning about 2 videos of a Catholic teacher who could not give answers, when he could have said “sorry, I do not know so let me write this down and check the Catechism of the Catholic Church and come back to you”. Is it genuine?

    There was “much ado about nothing” as Shakespeare had said because you were celebrating a “falsehood about what Catholics do believe”!

    You were celebrating a figment of your imagination because you did not check the Catechism of the Catholic Church to ascertain what Catholics do really believe.

    Your celebration of falsehood was like the scene before Moses when he came down with the Ten Commandments.

    He saw before him, his own people dancing and prancing around the IDOL of a golden calf.

    May I refer you to St. Paul’s comment – “I would be but a noisy gong”!

    (This is what I told my dissident son James when he declared “I believe only in the authority of the Bible, me and my Bible only, me and my own interpretation of the bible Scriptures, only”. The sad irony of what he said is this – I will decide what the Bible says and what it means, all by myself, because Luther had said that even a “plough boy” can understand the clear words of Holy Scripture ).

    Sorry to digress, but now that the shouting and tumult has died down a little, no one, yes not one, has come out to show any Christian Charity to say “sorry we made a mistake”!

    Instead, your goodself, the spectral Pilgrim and Jeff H, have made claims about something that I had never said or believed in, and consequently you say that I have committed blaphemy!

    I have asked you to subtantiate your claim and now I am requesting the views of all who have posted or bothered to read my postings.

    Sincerely, with my prayers, Nik A Morris.

    PS when 2 people disagree on what the Scripture means, for instance like you disagree with me, is there any authority on earth who can say anything before ruling on the matter?

    Is there an authority in your Church that can give such counselling.

    Do you think then, that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man would establish a Church with his Scriptures and leave it entirely up to each and every one to decide for themselves?

    If He did not establish a Church, then to whom did He entrust the deposit of Faith?

    Honestly I do take you seriously. I will meditate on your last posting to me truly closely and as I have said I will pray to the Holy Spirit and to my Mother Mary, who is also Mother of Jesus Christ.

    I note that you are very very sure that your method of interpretation of Scripture is so absolutely correct/proper.

    This means that you want me to accept “your authority”.

    Are you assuming infallibility here – so please document this charismatic gift.

    Firstly then, who gave you this authority and because you believe in Scripture only as my son James, does – where oh where does Scripture confer on you such awesome power?

    Needless to say, I have asked James and Veronica but no answer is forthcoming from both my 2 dissident children after all these years many many years.

    I will be happy to send your response to them or if you wish I will arrange direct contact for you.

    Now therefore do you have a Catechism of your own Church that I can study, because I do want to ask you questions and I want to be sure that I do know what I am talking about.

    Nik.

  98. Dear Fourpointer

    When Adam & Eve disobeyed God and became “friends with Satan”, God rebukes the Serpent and announces the redemption of mankind – “I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between her seed and your seed, and she shall crush thy head”. Quote from Nik

    Quote from Fourpointer -
    Well, I see you have bought into the Roman Catholic misinterpretation of Genesis 3:15–seeing as how the Douay-Rheims is the ONLY English translation to render it as “SHE shall crush your head” instead of “HE shall crush your head.” This is a reference to Jesus destroying the power of Satan:

    Hebrews 2:14-15 (KJV)– Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death [Satan striking Jesus' heel] he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil [Jesus crushing the serpent's head]; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

    Mary did not crush Satan’s head–Jesus did. To say that Mary crushed the serpent’s head is to say that Mary did what Jesus alone had the power to do.

    End of quote from the Fourpointer

    Dear Fourpointer

    You will see from Tanya C’s most recent that she rates my understanding of English to be at second language level.

    Please see now the body of my same message that you are using as below -

    ” Now therefore, who is this “woman, that God will make, the “woman” that will give birth to the Seed who will crush Satan”?

    A petulant point to make and one only from you a “Fourpointer” – because quite simply the fact is, NO Mary, the Mother, then No Jesus Christ is ever born.

    But since you display good knowledge of Scripture then, please, how is it possible for Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ to have “seed”.

    What does the Bible say about – seed?

    Is Mary also a MAN to have seed? See now, how Scripture imprisons YOU within its pages.

    But seriously, does this mean that Mary is so very special that God allowed her to have SEED THAT IS JESUS CHRIST by granting Mary a very extra ordinary gift such as an abundance of GRACE? So full of grace to empower her and preserve her and protect her to “save” her son Jesus Christ who will crush the Satan?

    Is this not a good thing?

    Is this not a great thing?

    Is this but ONE of the GREAT things that GOD HAS DONE for Mary in the Magnificat?

    Is the Magnificat scripturally genuine?

    Do you have a genuine bible?

    How do you know that it is a genuine Bible – the very word of God?

    Please look into your Bible now and tell me who translated your Bible?

    Who authorised him/them to translate?

    Did they certify that your Bible is the Holy Word of God?

    And if you accept the certificate, then why/ how do you know?

    Sorry, I will get back to you about the other comments etc where you say that I should now ask the Pope about a “teaching”, that you have been flaunting as a Catholic teaching.

    The truth is “Fourpointer”, you have been flaunting falsehood.

    First you claim that it is a Catholic teaching and when challenged where is it?

    Then you say there are other Catholic teachings elsewhere.

    Really? Where?

    So when I insisted you then say – go to the Pope! To the Vatican!

    OK, you have seen already here where I offered apology for my mistakes, because I am human.

    “I think, I feel, I believe” as the Pilgrim had said in his last posting to me and I pray for the grace of the Lord so that I may express my Faith in Jesus Christ, a Faith that is working, and working in love. Always

    This is, the faith of the Fathers! This is the Catholic Faith!

    Sincerely with my prayers, Nik A Morris

  99. Dear Tanya C

    I had replied impromptu to your last missile, and that may make you feel that I was not taking you seriously.

    Sorry, for being seemingly discourteous, but you see, you were so much on heat and ferocious that I thought it best to speak heart-to-heart, so to speak.

    After pondering over your comments though, I am still cut-to-the-quick because you were coming at me for things I had raised directly to the points of the “Fourpointer”!

    Following is what I had said.

    Now because Jesus Christ is “King”, we celebrate a feast day known as “Christ the King”, and because Jesus Christ is the son of Mary, then by virtue of this, Mary would be a “Queen”.

    Is this a good thing?

    Is this a great thing?

    Is it possible that the Queenship of Mary, could be one of the great things that God would grant to her as she had mentioned in her song of praise, the Magnificat?

    End of quote.

    Cconspicuously, you offered no answer to any of the queries in that post – none!

    But you rushed in with this “To say that He granted her immaculate conception would put her on par with Jesus and take glory away from Him”. End of quote.

    You must know by now that 2 people, Jeff H and the Pilgrim have deduced from what I had written a serious charge of “blasphemy”.

    But so far you have not made this accusation.

    From the above you say that the honour “Immaculate Conception” would make Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, HIS EQUAL and this would take glory away from Him.

    How is it possible that this title of honour granted by Jesus Christ Himself would put Mary on par with Him?

    Do you think that Jesus Christ would not know what he is doing?

    Do you think that Mary’s “fiat” – Behold, the handmade of the Lord. Be done to me according to your Word@ put her on par with her Son, Jesus Christ?

    And while my little mind cannot fathom this out – but what if Jesus Christ should raise up Mary, His Mother, to be on par with HIM as you say.

    Then what is it to you or to anybody else on this earth, in all creation?

    Would you dare to deny Him this prerogative?

    How are you going to stop Him?

    Are you going to haul Him up to His feet before you, and thumb up the pages of your Bible in front of His face?

    Would you say, show me where in the Bible are YOU authorized to do this. Do think about it!

    And yes – you would be right to think- that I am the imbecile here, just to think the thought!!

    Now then consider this in your words –

    “A good analogy would be this, if a King impregnated a poor woman to have an heir this would not automatically make the poor woman his Queen but the son would become his heir because of his FATHER alone”.

    Excuse me, please, but what are you doing?

    A good analogy, you say for Jesus Christ, the King to be doing this to a poor woman or to any woman?

    Would Jesus Christ be looking for an heir?

    Why?

    You see, if you had only considered the above questions and answered them even just to yourself then you would be spared to not come out like this.

    But anyway, what is it to you if the King grants her, this “poor woman” of your analogy, the honour of QUEENSHIP?

    Now let us look at what the Pilgrim came out with on the same subject.

    Quote –

    “The immaculate conception doctrine is man made by the Roman Catholic church. It is not from God, it was never from God and it was added by the RCC in their further advance of Mary idolatry.
    To “prove” something by its absence is illogical.
    You might as well argue that “Jesus gave Mary Twinkies and Coca Cola” based solely on the fact that it’s not in the Bible”.

    End of quote.

    Oilei! There is a such a great deal of meat here for another day but for now let us focus on the last sentence.

    Let us go along with the Pilgrim – if Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ should ask her Son, Jesus Christ, for “Twinkies and coca cola”, what do you think Jesus Christ will do?

    Now lets us refer to another reading of the “Liturgy of the Word” from the morning Catholic Mass the other day – I heard this, “what manner of a Father would give his child a stone, when asked for bread”?

    For good measure, let us see what happened at the marriage feast in Cana when Jesus Christ was just beginning His Ministry.

    Here Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ prayed to her Son. “There is no wine”.

    Do you think that Jesus Christ did not know this already? That the wine has run out?

    So apparently he was waiting for someone to ask Him? But who?

    And since no one came forward, perhaps He wanted Mary, His Mother to come to Him. Why?

    Perhaps he wants to show the people the power of His Own mother’s intercession?

    “Woman”, He says. And from this my son James, an Evangelical Christian says that Jesus Christ is here rebuking His Mother not to bother Him.

    That is his interpretation – Bible Authority only, me and my Bible only.

    How does this measure up to to what the Pilgrim had said
    – that Jesus loved and respected His Mother in obedience to the Father.

    Sorry to digress so I will now answer one of your questions.

    Quote – How did Jesus have brothers and sisters if Mary was a perpetual Virgin?

    Please understand this, the subject under discussion presently is “the Immaculate Conception” and I was pulled up by the Pilgrim from the outset.

    However my answer is back to you, because I am a Catholic. I do not believe that Jesus Christ had any other biological brothers or sisters. So, please tell ,why do you say this?

    7.30 pm Sorry that I need to stop here. After my earlier posting to you today, I went shopping to Sainsbury and the queue was long and after that I went to the pub!

    This will allow time you to substantiate what you say – this post comes to you un-edited.

    Sincerely with my prayers. Nik A Morris

  100. Nikola,

    The reason I told you to “ask the Pope,” is because HE SAID IT!!! Now, if he is saying something that is not true Catholic doctrine, then shouldn’t HE be questioned about where it comes from? But, I will tell you where it comes from.

    I trust that since you are a Roman Catholic, that you pray the Rosary. And you have, no doubt, prayed the fifth of the “Glorious Mysteries”:

    As Mary enters heaven, the entire court of heaven greets with joy this masterpiece of God’s creation. Mary is crowned by her divine Son as Queen of heaven and earth…Mary shares so fully in the glory of Christ because she shared so fully in His suffering. Only in heaven will we see how central is the role of Mary in the divine plan of redemption.

    I didn’t make it up.

    Now, as far as “how could Mary have a seed.” If one were to seriously study Scripture, they would find that when it speaks of a boy being the “seed” of someone, they are always referred to as being the “seed” of their father (the Greek word is “sperma”). Yet God told Satan that Satan would be crushed by the “Seed of a woman.” This was the prophecy of the virgin birth.

    If Jesus had been born to an earthly father (a son of Adam), He would have inherited the sinful nature we all inherit from Adam–since that corrupt nature is passed down from fathers to all their children. But, since Jesus’ Father is not human, He did not inherit the corrupt nature we are born with. And, since Jesus Christ did not inherit the sinful nature from Adam, He was born free from sin. In other words, in order to be born sinless, He did not need for His mother to be perfectly sinless. Thus, an “Immaculate Conception” was completely unnecessary.

    See, Nikola–the words of Scripture do not “imprison” me. These are the words which testify of Christ, and they are truth. And as our Lord said, “The truth shall set you free.”

    As for Catholic doctrines that are taught (but not yet incorporated into the CCC)–where did all those Marian Dogmas come from? Like:

    Mary’s perpetual virginity. It was not in the CCC before 649, but it is in there now.
    The Immaculate Conception. It was not in the CCC before 1854, but it is in there now.
    Mary’s assumption into Heaven. It was not in the CCC before 1950, but it is in there now.

    Then there are other Dogmatic doctrines:
    Purgatory. It was not in the CCC before Gregory the Great put it in there in 594 AD, but it is in there now.
    Transubstantiation (wafer/wine actually becoming flesh/blood). It was not in the CCC before the 4th Lateran Council put it in there in 1215, but it is in there now.
    Priests are forbidden to marry. It was not in the CCC before 1st Lateran Council put it in there in 1139, but it is in there now.

    They were not in the Catechism before, but they are in there now. So ask yourself–if they were not in there before, but they are in there now, they had to have come from somewhere–some teaching that had not yet been canonized was incorporated into the Catechism by decree of some Vatican council. If Pope John Paul had succeeded in having her declared “Co-Redemptrix,” then we would have seen another teaching from outside of the Catechism being incorporated into the Catechism. So, as you can see, it is NOT the only source of Roman Catholic teaching.

    I’m sorry, but your Catechism has in fact undergone many changes over the last 1400 or so years–whether you want to believe it or not (I even provided you with a link to an official Roman Catholic organization!). Now, if you don’t believe me, if you want, you can look up these dates and councils. You can even read (at this link) an article about the debate over making changes to the CCC as late as 1995-97!! Nikola, I am not making this stuff up–please, read it for yourself!

  101. brother Michael says:

    Oh Nikola – you are holding fast to the Roman traditions of men and kicking hard against the pricks. With all the words that have been graciously written to you by these long suffering brethren, what more can I add? If you do not hear their words, you surely will not hear mine. But I will answer in brief your questions.

    To say Catholics do not worship Mary is ludicrous. Anyone who is honest with the plain facts would admit this. First, the definition of worship per Webster’s dictionary is:

    1. To adore; to pay divine honors to; to reverence with supreme respect and veneration.

    Now, you are honestly going to tell me that Catholics do not do this with Mary? And the Pope, are you toying with me? Come, come. Let me ask you this, unto whom did Pope John Paul pray to upon the assassination attempt on his life? Unto whom did he credit with sparing his life? What did the big “M” carved into his casket stand for? On and on I could go….

    And other Catholics, do they worship Mary? Absolutely. All one has to do is watch some videos of the Marian processions or cultic adoration at Lourdes or Fatima. Or drive by a Catholic “church” and invariably you will have the HUGE statue of Mary and quite often Jesus totally missing . Or, if he is found he is always the wee wittle helpless baby in BIG mama’s arms. But that’s Rome – your “jesus” is either eaten like a Ritz cracker, hanging defeated and forlorn on the crucifix, or perpetually frozen in time as an infant in Mary’s arms.

    Finally, yes, I was taught to worship Mary. I was taught to pray to her (which is a form of worship due ONLY to God), I was taught to bow down unto statues of her (violation of a clear command of God), I was taught to look to her for many of my needs (God is the supplier of all needs), to pray the rosary to her (pagan repetition of vain prayers), etc..

    Repent and believe the gospel. You will be all the more severely judged if you forsake all that has been shared with you. For unto whom much has been give, much will be required.

  102. Lisa says:

    Hi all

    I posted something here a few months ago but ever since I could not find the link to this but finally I did.

    I am a protestant who converted to catholocism and I know that I have made the right decision and there’s a lot that Protestants don’t know and there’s alo that Protestants should learn. All Protestants will do is fight till their face turn blue and will not accept anything but keep asking questions because that’s the tactic.

    Anyway I’m not going to go into that but I am here to please ask you all Christians to stop this nonsense and wake up! I admire that we are trying to “evangelise” each other but can’t you see that this is just a cycle? Protestants trying to get Catholics to be Protestants and Vice versa and it even happens with other Christian denominations…Put your time and effort and evangelising those who have never heard about Jesus…The fastest growing religion is ISLAM and in a few decades time it will be the dominant religion…Christians in the Middle East are being killed because they believe in Jesus regardless of which denomination they fall in yet we are fighting each other knowing that we are all christians

    Put aside all the differences and focus on the similarity that we are all one in Christ! Share the Good News! to those who are Buddhist and Hindus those who have never heard about Jesus and those who are against Christians like the Muslims

    I know that as a former Protestant, we would evangelise but no one would want to try and evangelise Muslims because of fear but I tell you evangelise without fear! I converted a Muslim and yes it came with a price I was harrassed and threatened but it was worth it…We need to share the Good News!!! Use your energy to share Christ with people who don’t know him.

    I am rallying all christians regardless of what denomination what differences we have, to come together and work together to bring Christ to everyone who don’t know him…Muslims say we are crazy because we have so much denominations and we fight against each other, Islam has many denominations they disagree with each other but they work together and that is how they are growing

    Every time you speak to a Muslim they would say Chrsitians are like dogs and cats because they fight amongst each other and that is why they would never consider being a Christian…

    This will be my last post because i am not going to waste my time on this as there are other things more important

    The link I have provided is a 7 minute clip of what is going to happen in the Western world if it is still going the way it is and Islam will be the one that will take over so share the GOOD NEWS to MUSLIMS!

    Please feel free to comment and share your ideas!

  103. Lisa,

    Whether you read this or not, I feel a few comments are in order, but I want to preface by saying that historically and Biblically, I am NOT a Protestant. My baptistic belief and faith has been held to for two millennia of church history which predates both Protestantism AND the Roman Catholic system.

    First, the jump from much of Protestantism to Catholicism is not that great in many instances. The reason is because they originally came from Rome and most of them kept far too many of the traditions and teachings of Rome. This is why so many churches and congregants are finding themselves moving back in the direction of Rome.

    Second, all are NOT Christians and this is true within the Roman Catholic heresy as well as in much of Protestantism. A true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ desires truth and can only be regenerated when the Holy Spirit of God convicts that individual of sin and their need of a Perfect Saviour – the One Who became the Sin-Bearer for all who place their faith in Him alone for their salvation.

    Third, you said, “Put aside all the differences and focus on the similarity that we are all one in Christ!” I am afraid that you speak from a point of ignorance of doctrine. The problem is that without doctrine, you end up with nothing more than ecumenicalism. The RCC wants its members to believe that doctrine apart from the mother church is not really important. Sadly, Protestantism has failed to truly teach their people doctrine any longer which is why their members have no problems going back to their roots.

    Finally, the reason the Muslims say Christians are like dogs and cats is because they do not see the truth within their own midst. They persecute AND kill true believers of Christ, not those who profess to be Christians and yet know not what they truly believe.

    The Desert Pastor

  104. Jeff H says:

    DP,

    First, the jump from much of Protestantism to Catholicism is not that great in many instances. The reason is because they originally came from Rome and most of them kept far too many of the traditions and teachings of Rome. This is why so many churches and congregants are finding themselves moving back in the direction of Rome.

    Please be a little more considerate when wielding a broad brush as you just did.

    I am a member of a Lutheran Church (LCMS – not the apostate ELCA) and I can tell you there is NO LOVE OF ROME IN MY CHURCH SIR!

    To suggest such in the presence of my fellow members would elicit the response of showing you the door.

    Many of the folk in my Church LEFT the RCC at some point in their lives… and have nothing but disdain for Rome.

    Please extend consideration in your posts, my friend

    Thank you,
    - Jeff H

  105. glenn christopherson says:

    Lisa

    The title of anyones denomination or church tradition is not the defining factor with a christian. If you are not born again by the Spirit of God all you have is a dead religion. When someone is truly regenerated ,the same Spirit of God will rapidly lead one out of God dishonouring cults such as the roman church. Sorry to be so blunt but there is too much at stake to play religious word games. The fact that you converted from one religion to another religion suggests you were not saved before and you’re not saved now .Lisa ,you must be born again. Religion brings death Jesus grants life and life eternal.

  106. Jeff H,

    My apologies for what seemed like an all-inclusiveness statement. We have very good friends who consider themselves Protestant, and for awhile our boys went to school at a LCMS school. My statement is not meant that all Protestants love Rome or are going that direction. I know many who hate Rome with a passion. My point is that Protestantism, as a point of fact from history, came directly out of the Roman Catholic system and there are far too many similarities within many mainline Protestant denominations to show the link between the two. Even worse is that many who left never fully broke from Rome such as was the case with men like Luther, Knox, and even Calvin. Many of the Reformers (those called Protestants) kept traditions or doctrines or practices that herald directly from Rome and not from Scripture.

    On the other hand, I realize that there are some Protestants who are not fully aware of history, but strive to cling solely to the Word of God. I give commendation for that and again my email was not intended to cover every single Protestant as being a lover of Rome for I know that is not correct as you have pointed out. However, to conclude for now, the point still remains that many mainline denominations are moving back in the direction of Rome for unfortunately they never fell far enough from the branch from which they sought to cut themselves off. Now instead of staying true to the Word of God, these churches and their members are trying desperately to be grafted back in with much haste – and the harlot which is Rome is standing with her arms open wide ready to receive them.

    I hope this has clarified. If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to share them here or to my email at thedesertpastor@yahoo.com.

    With kind regards,

    The Desert Pastor

  107. brother Michael says:

    The truth be told, it is not only the mainline Protestant denominations that are on their way back to Rome, but many churches that may never have “come out” of her. Likewise, these churches have adopted many of Rome’s days, seasons and practices and now teach them as doctrine.

    And for Rome, this is fine for she doesn’t care if she receives back into her arms daughters she bore many years ago, or newly converted ones.

  108. Jeff H says:

    Hi DP,

    Thank you for your kind response. I rejoice that there are Baptist, Lutheran, and other churches full of those who love the Lord.

    We both know that every congregation (much less denomination) contains both wheat and tares, and that the most important task our churches have is to ensure that each week “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Corinthians 1:23), and nothing else.

    Feed the sheep!

    I realize that there are some Protestants who are not fully aware of history

    If by this you mean the Reformation, we are indeed cognizant of Martin Luther, his RCC origins, his 95 theses, Wittenberg, the Diet of Worms, etc.

    The point we stress, though, is that the purpose of the Reformation was for God to glorify Himself, and not to glorify the clay pot(s) (Martin Luther, and earlier with Wycliffe, Hus, later with Calvin, et al) that the Lord used to rebuke the false RCC, and to return His Word to the hands of man.

    Jesus is Lord!

    Blessings,
    - Jeff

  109. Tanya C says:

    Nikola,

    You were already given adequate scripture to prove that Jesus had siblings. You do not believe it because you believe the authority of the RCC over the Bible.

    Mary cannot be a queen because she was a human just like us. She is not on par with God period, that is blasphemy, there I’ve said it. We’ve already gone over this so I will not elaborate. We have given you scriptures and you ignore them. There is nothing else we can do but pray that God would open your eyes to the Truth of His Word. Did you know that John 1:1 says that Jesus is the Word? He is One with His Word. If we want to know Him we need to Know his Word. Therefore anything that contradicts His Word is contrary to the nature of God and ultimately false. The Bible also says that the Word is foolishness to those who are perishing, so I don’t expect you to understand it until you have been regenerated.

    And I DID answer your questions. The good or great things that God did for Mary revolve around her son. She was humble yet you want to puff her up. She knew that the great things done to her were the things that God was doing and would continue to do in her life in regards to JESUS. She humbly submitted to God yet you would have it that God/Jesus submits to her!! How ludicrous!

    We have answered all your questions yet you continue to act as if we didn’t. You just regurgitate the same old rhetoric. I think this conversation is pretty much useless at this point. However, I’ll wait patiently in line now for your response to my question about your honesty. We cannot have an honest discussion and take you seriously if you lie. So are you a mother or not? Is someone else sharing your pen name? Or can you just not keep the lies straight?

    I’m pretty sure that Def Con does not want people misrepresenting themselves simply for the purpose of being a “counter balance” (see rules of engagement #3)

    Tanya C.

  110. Tanya C says:

    Dear Nikola,

    Please forgive me for being too harsh in my posts. I reread them and realized that I may have come across that way. I tend to enjoy debate a little too much :)

    I have family that are Catholics and my parents are not believers. I started thinking that if my family came to a blog, rather than being debated, I would hope that they would be presented with the Gospel. If it is true that you have children and that they converted then I am sure they are praying for you and would want that for you as well.

    So here’s the Gospel:

    1)We ALL have sinned
    Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

    2) Our sin separates us from God
    Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death…”

    3) But God offers us a FREE gift! (it doesn’t need to be earned, nothing we do can make him give it to us or add to it)
    Romans 6:23 “…but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

    Notice that its through JESUS alone!!

    4) God sacrificed his son out of love for us because we needed to be redeemed.
    Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

    5) Repent and turn to God alone
    Romans 10:9, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

    6)Once we repent and are saved we can have assurance of our salvation and our eternal place with him!

    Romans 8:1 “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

    Romans 8:38-39, “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

    Its that simple yet it is so hard because to repent we must turn from everything we hold dear and take up our cross and follow him. Putting our faith in Christ alone for our salvation.

    Praying that God will grant you eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Tanya C.

  111. Dear Tanya C,

    Thank you for your patience as so much water has rushed down under the bridge in mid/norhtern Uk!

    Sunday today, is the Catholic Feast Day of “Jesus Christ, the King – King of all Kings”!

    Pilate had asked “Are you a King”? And Jesus answered , I am a King – I am born for this, to witness to the trhuth”!

    That is why I had said “that by virtue of Christ’s declaration that He is King, His Mother, Mary is “QUEEN”.

    Sadly though you came out this way, “Mary is not Queen”!

    Then you went on to say that I had blasphemed , I was contradictory, I could not straighten out my lies, I had regurgitaed all manner of rhetorics.

    But nowhere did you quote what I had written to support your accusations. In the sme way, neither has Jeff C and the Pastor!

    Now although we are straying a way bit from the Immaculate Conception of Mary, you had asked about the Bible mention of the “brothers” of Jesus.

    So that we may move forward, may I say that Jesus had said in Scripture that “hese are my brothers, sisters and Mother. whosoever who does the will of My Father?

    Are these people that He had addressed the same as “your brothers|?

    From the Cross , Jesus had said to St. John, the beloved discipile – “this is yhour MMother”!

    Perhaps when you clear up your undestanding of the above we can move forward. Sincerely, Nik A Morris

  112. Nikola,

    Thanks for coming by again. Again, to reiterate, the doctrine of the immaculate conception was not even a Catholic teaching until the mid-1800′s. Even the early church did not believe that Mary remained a virgin or that she was sinless. That was a heresy propagated by the Roman Catholic system.

    The New Testament makes it very clear that Jesus had earthly family born through Mary.

    John 7:3-5 says, “His brothers therefore said to Him, ‘Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.’ For even His brothers did not believe in Him.”

    The verses you referred to were actually preceded by Matthew 12:46, “While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.”

    Matthew 13:55-56 even names Mary and the names of Jesus’ brothers, and the next verse speaks of the truth that He also had some sisters! “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”

    From the cross, Jesus was addressing the apostle John, who is considered to be probably the youngest of all the disciples. Jesus is merely placing the care of His mother, the one who bore and raised Him to adulthood, in the hands of a disciple who would love and care for her during the remainder of the years of her life.

    The word “mother” in that passage is NOT capitalized and is not a religious reference, but is merely saying, “John, take care of Mary. My earthly work is done, and she needs somebody to care for her as I will no longer be here to do so.”

    The bottom line is that Mary was his earthly mother only. No other heavenly honor was bestowed upon her than is due any other person who places their faith in Christ alone for their salvation. Mary is in heaven only because she realized that she too was a sinner and needed a Saviour. Only those who by grace through faith alone place that faith in the Eternal Son of God will find eternal life in heaven.

    I trust this clarifies your questions and feel free to respond if you have more questions.

    By the way, there are many more passages which I would encourage you to read for yourself about the family of Jesus. Mark 6:3; 15:40; Luke 8:19-21; Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5; and Galatians 1:19 to start with.

    The Desert Pastor

  113. Dear Desert Pastor

    Quote – Thanks for coming by again. Again, to reiterate, the doctrine of the immaculate conception was not even a Catholic teaching until the mid-1800’s. Even the early church did not believe that Mary remained a virgin or that she was sinless. That was a heresy propagated by the Roman Catholic system. End of quote.

    Surely you are aware that the doctrines of the Catholic Church had developed over time. And for this reason the @Trinity@ was not formalised for many many years.

    I would not like to speculate that the Early Church did not believe in the doctrine in those earlier years but no doubt the Fathers were thinking about it, studying the scriptures. discussing and praying over their collective understanding.

    Finally in the fulness of time the Holy Spirit inspires the declaration of the Church.

    Your above comments clearly indicate that you are not a Catholic so I would not expect you to believe in it.

    The Canon of Scripture went through many many years of enduring discussions and similarly Mary’s role in the Church
    was subjected to the same careful scrutiny over the years.

    When and how did your own church develop your understanding of these doctrines.

    On the brothers, mothers and sisters of Jesus Christ I find it very interesting that nowhere, the scriptures name these supposed brothers as @sons of Mary@! And the sisters are also nameless and none of them was ever referred to as the @daughter of Mary@.

    Only, yes only Jesus Christ was ever referred to as the Son of Mary!!

    Additionally you say this @“John, take care of Mary. My earthly work is done, and she needs somebody to care for her as I will no longer be here to do so.”@

    In my Bible Jesus merely says to John, @this is your mother@ as in Sola Scriptura so how do you wrap up your mind around this speculation?

    Sincerely, Nik A Morris

  114. Nikola,

    I sense that you are not here to learn, but to merely propagate Roman Catholic heresy. No, I am not Catholic, but a true believer of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am part of the True Body of Christ which has remained in existence since Jesus Christ Himself began His work. The idol worship, the worship of the dead (including Mary), the confessing of sins to a man, the belief that the pope is the representative of Christ on this earth is all heresy.

    Rome’s beliefs stagger the imagination and so does the blindness of her followers. We at DefCon love the Roman Catholic followers, but we hate with a passion the disconnect between the harlot of Rome and the infallible Word of God. God has already inspired His Word and it is that alone (Sola Scriptura) by which we acknowledge the understanding of God through His Word. There is NO extra biblical revelation ordained or commissioned by God such as is found in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic man-made religions.

    In conclusion, if you are only here to make your point or to argue, there are plenty of other blogsites where you may do so freely and without censure. This is our blog seeking to defend and contend for the true faith once delivered to the saints. Saints through the ages have been hounded, persecuted, and murdered by such religious organizations as the Roman Catholic Church and this STILL takes place today in many countries. As for me, I serve a Risen Saviour, NOT one who is still on the cross being celebrated in the cannibalistic ritual known as “mass.”

    The Desert Pastor

  115. shane says:

    Followers of the Pope are proof that it takes God to open a persons eyes to see the Gospel. There is no way a true Christian can follow what the RCC teaches.

    1Tim4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
    1Tim4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
    1Tim4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

    I have often thought these verses are speaking of the RCC. Especiall the part about “forbidding to marry”.

  116. Jeff H says:

    shane,

    1Tim4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

    I have often thought these verses are speaking of the RCC. Especiall the part about “forbidding to marry”.

    shane you are right, but the RCC violates BOTH tenets here: 1) priests cannot marry; 2) “fish on Friday” – ie no meat.

    How blatantly the RCC tosses aside God’s specific admonitions… sort of a ‘poke in the eye’.

    I’m glad I don’t have to answer for RCC heresy!

    - Jeff H

  117. shane says:

    I was thinking there was something also about only eating fish on Friday. The town I in which I went to college has a lot of Catholics. The cafeteria at the college sold fish every Friday. My instructor said it was because Catholics only ate fish on Fridays.

  118. Shane,

    The whole “fish on Friday” is usually during Lent. I grew up in upstate NY, a veritable Roman Catholic stronghold (Syracuse is split 50-50 between Irish and Italians). I remember when I used to work in restaurants, I hated working Friday nights during Lent, because I was usually on the fryer. And all the “good little Catholics” would order their fish dinner because it was some grievous error to eat meat on Fridays during Lent (I recall Jesus saying something about “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel” that seems appropriate here).

    Of course, if St. Patrick’s Day happened to fall on a Friday, the local archbishop would give a special dispensation so the same “good little Catholics” could have their traditional corned beef and cabbage (whether you’re Irish or not, if you live in any part of New York state north of Yonkers you are bound by law to eat corned beef and cabbage on St. Patrick’s Day, even though it has nothing to do with St. Patrick or Ireland, for that matter).

    So, there is more than you ever wanted to know about that :)

  119. brother Michael says:

    Fourpointer – Don’t forget to mention about the gorging and gastronomic orgy that happens before lent! Sales for ice cream, chocolate, cigarettes and all the other vices given up by “good” Catholics in self-flagellation certainly spiked that day.

  120. shane says:

    fourpointer

    “So, there is more than you ever wanted to know about that :)”

    it’s nice to get little nuggets of trivia. might come in handy while playing Jeopardy.

  121. Jeff H says:

    Hi Pilgrim,

    I’ve been off-line for a while. My wife was in the hospital with double pneumonia, congestive heart failure, and flu.

    Our awesome heavenly Father brought much glory to Himself by healing her and she is at home now.

    God is GOOD!

    Blessings,
    - Jeff H

  122. David says:

    Praise the Lord that she is well and healed now Jeff. God Bless to you and your wife. I know all too well what pneumonia can do to a person. But again, Praise the Lord she is healed.

  123. Jeff H says:

    Thank you all for rejoicing with me!

    BTW, did anyone notice how rapidly Nikola’s english skills improved at the end? And how Nikola’s false ingenuousness evaporated?

    Hmmmm. My guess is that things are not what they seem.

    In Jesus,
    -Jeff H

  124. The other thing I was waiting for was Nikola to explain why this person (I even wonder if we’re talking about a male or female) said at one point that they had 6 children then at another point they had no children. This person also seemed to indicate they only had 2 children at one point! When lyn asked about this they side-stepped the whole issue with saying they were trying to answer other questions from other people and never ended up answering the question. How convenient! It sounds slithery to me!

    Glad you are back, Jeff H, and glad to hear that the Lord has healed your wife! What a blessing!

  125. Jeff H says:

    Mrs. DP,

    Yup! You are right, Nikola had 6-2-0 children depending on the post. I’m sure it’s hard for Nikola to keep all of the story-telling and heresy straight through many posts in several blogs… but as for me, I have two children – I can easily remember that!

    Blessings,
    - Jeff H

  126. jerry d says:

    It sounds like the Catholic apologist was ill-prepared to answer the questions, but the answers are quite simple.

    If you argue that “all” means “all” (Jew and Gentile), then you must include the Lord in “all” as well, since He is also fully human, born of Mary. You are not saying (as St. Paul would never say) that the Lord sinned, would you? Thus, “all” does not mean “all” in this context, obviously.

    Second, since you agree that Jesus Christ is God (you do believe this, right?), then Mary, being His mother (you believe this, right?), is indeed The Mother of God. It would be the ultimate blasphemny to say that the Mother of God was ever stained by sin, original or personal.

    Third, the author of the original post said that the following was a “great point”:

    “If Mary was sinless, then why did she die if indeed death is the wage of sin? If Mary was
    sinless then she would have never died.”

    By this logic, then the author must also believe that Jesus was not sinless (pure blasphemy). Of course, you could say that Jesus was murdered, and Mary wasn’t. But where do you get that from? – that’s not in the Bible (“sola scripta”, right?). Actually, Catholics believe that Mary was very probably not murdered, but “suffered” a special death. Eventhough Mary was sinless, she still lived in a sinful world, that had been cursed by Adam and Eve’s original sin. Her body would likely not have been immune to the ills, sicknesses and diseases unleashed by Original Sin. The Garden of Eden was perfect in every material way: life giving (e.g. labor-free food and water) and death defying (e.g. no diseases). After their fall, the Earth was cursed, and all future inhabitants were left with the consequences (regardless of their personal or original sin).

    Fourth, it is possible that Mary’s “death” was not a true death. Keep in mind that Lazarus was said to have been “only sleeping” by the Lord, even after four days in the tomb, and there seems to have been no signs of decay of his body (Lazarus’ sister feared a horrible stench).

    Finally, keep in mind that there are two people who were conceived with original sin and have lived for over 2,000 years, and are still alive today! That’s right, and their names are Enoch (see Genesis, Enoch is Noah’s great-grandfather) and Elijah. Both were assumed (taken up) to Heaven and reside there today.

    P.S.
    Some other inane arguments from comments posters:

    “They also need to explain the implications of Mary being born sinless since this would require her mother Anna and every woman in her genealogy all the way back to Eve being sinless…but…ooops! Adam AND Eve both sinned! I guess the Bible is telling the truth and all really have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God!”

    ….by this logic, then this poster must also believe that Jesus was not sinless (pure blasphemy), since He is the Son of Mary, the Mother of God. The poster actually makes the case for the necessity of the Immaculate Conception, not against it.

    “Joseph did not believe in the Immaculate Conception since on discovering Mary was pregnant he was prepared to divorce her, obviously considering the possibility that Mary had committed sin”

    ….this comment is just stupid. Joseph had considered the possibility that Mary had comitted sin, but he was quickly corrected on this via a dream. Thus, Joseph had no reason to believe Mary had comitted sin, rather, that she was supremely special and chosen by God (i.e. “full of grace”) for a special purpose.

    “Surely it would have been noteworthy if the maidservant chosen by God to deliver the Christ child were carried off in such a way; one would think God would have included such a matter in His word. Yet, we find of no such incident.”

    …once again the failure of “sola scripture”. Prideful people challenge God’s choice of what is and what isn’t in the Bible. Please note that Jesus did not come to establish a Bible but to establish His Church on Earth, actually the same Catholic Church who ultimately and officially decided which books are to be included in the Bible and which are not. The same Bible that Protestants use today….why don’t you go and check the Gospel Book of Thomas (one of many actual books rejected for inclusion in the Bible by the Catholic Church).

  127. Hello Jerry,

    Let’s look at a few things you said, we will start with this, “It would be the ultimate blasphemny to say that the Mother of God was ever stained by sin, original or personal.”

    Look at this verse, from Luke’s Gospel, ‘And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. ‘ {Luke 1:47}. If Mary was sinless, why does she call God her saviour? What did she need saved from if she was sinless?

    You also state ‘Actually, Catholics believe that Mary was very probably not murdered, but “suffered” a special death.’ What is your scripture/verse for this belief? The Bible is silent on how Mary died, so where did you get your information? The last mentioning of Mary in the Bible is found in the book of Acts, “And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” Acts 1:13,14. There is no mention of her death; notice, she is listed last. She is not given preferential treatment in these verses; it is a group of believers, men and women, gathered together in the upper room. There is no one in this group praying to Mary, or treating her in any special way.

    I will give you time to respond to this before continuing on…

    Lyn

  128. LUKE1732 says:

    Hmm… It looks like the link to a Catholic source has been hacked. So much for “Defending truth”.

  129. No, LUKE1732, it is precisely our defense of the Truth that prevents you from linking to false teachings on other websites. If you want to argue your position on here, that’s one thing, but links to sites teaching heresy is another. We’ve already addressed this in rule number 7 of our Rules of Engagement.

  130. jerry d says:

    Sorry, I was not aware of the no-links policy…..I’ll repost without any links…..but in fairness, you should remove the re-direct link (or entire post) otherwise that is just dishonest and rather juvenile.

    Lyn,

    I’ll address your first point here, giving you time to respond, before responding to your second “point”:

    “Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

    Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

    Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!”

  131. The ramifications of posting links to heretical information is also noted in rule 7; sorry that you still think it’s “dishonest” or “juvenile.”

  132. jerry d says:

    Pilgrim,

    Having a pre-written rule, does not mean that the rule is reasonable or just. A rule needs to be judged based on its merits, not on when it came into existence.

    I welcome arguments from heretics, because their arguments are relatively easy to refute. And since some heretics (but nowhere near the majority) are people of good faith, there is an opportunity for them to be brought to the Truth and the True Catholic Faith.

    Regards

  133. fleebabylon says:

    “there is an opportunity for them to be brought to the Truth and the True Catholic Faith. ”

    Jerry-

    Quit trying to convert people from following Christ to following your demonic pope and his satanic religion. Jesus Christ will overthrow your devil pope and satanic church with the splendor of his coming. You need to understand something, for those who are Gods elect, born again by His will, they have a real relationship with Him. They can not be turned away from life and back to the religous death of Rome because Jesus gaurds theHis sheep. Repent and believe the Gospel – there may be mercy left for you. You can leave the flock of your devil pastor and come into the love and care of the good sheppard Jesus Christ.

    -Jim

  134. LUKE1732 says:

    The Early Church Fathers referred to Mary as the second Eve. Where the first Eve was disobedient by sinning the second Eve (Mary) was obedient by not sinning. This is the natural conclusion to Genesis 3:15 where God says that He would put enmity between Satan and the woman (Mary). If Mary were to sin there would be no enmity or complete separation between her and Satan.

    Luke 1:28 uses the perfect passive participle kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes ‘continuance of a completed action’; ‘completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.’ [Blass/DeBrunner and Smyth]. On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as ‘completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.’

    Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of grace from the first moment of her existence.

    In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation.

  135. Jerry,

    I, for one, could sit in any church where the true gospel of Christ is preached. Differences of opinions on peripheral matters are secondary. If the core essentials of the Christian faith are not present, then count me out.

    Many of our readers are from a variety of Christian denominations (as are my friends) and we may disagree on nonessential matters, but our unity is in the essentials

    Rome, however, preaches a false gospel of works (which Paul already addressed in his letter to the church in Galatia), that no perceived Romish “unity” can cover over.

    To be unified under a false soul-damning gospel of dead works is certainly nothing to boast over, but you know very well Rome is not as unified as you are implying (Mormons try the unity shell game too).

    If unity of thought and blind adherence to a leader or body of enlightened men in an Orwellian fashion is evidence of truth, then sorry my friend, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses have you beat hands down.

  136. fleebabylon says:

    Jerry said “O.K. Jim, you win, you’re right……I will convert. Now please kindly direct me to the correct Protestant church.”

    Jerry-

    This is where you error, you think God is found in a religous institution. I am not calling you to a protestant denomination but to the person of Jesus Christ. God does not dwell in temples built with human hands, or in religous institutions that feign some sort of apostolic succession (yet are riddled with the fruits of murder, greed, and pedophilia). Jesus has a bride on the earth, satan has a harlot imposter of this bride. Jesus Christ is the head of His church on the earth. The pope is the head of satans church. Come out from among them – you can go straight to Jesus… no pope or priest required.

    Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

    PS- Surely some of Gods elect may fellowship in protestant churches that do not blatantly mock Him, and many in home fellowships too.

  137. jerry d says:

    JIm and Pilgrim,

    I’ll try to respond to both of you based on your apparent commonality, which I synthesize as:

    “Many of our readers are from a variety of Christian denominations (as are my friends) and we may disagree on nonessential matters, but our unity is in the essentials……..I am not calling you to a protestant denomination but to the person of Jesus Christ.”

    Assuming, the above “meta-statement” is fair and agreeable to you both, could both of you kindly identify some of the specific essential matters and those that are not essential. Let me start you off with a list:

    1. “Homosexuality”
    2. Immersion Baptism
    3. Birth Control
    4. Forgiveness of Sins – the Lord only or could it be done via a priest (as is done by Catholics)?
    5. Communion – The real Body and Blood of the Lord, or just symbolic
    6. Women clergy
    7. Noah and the Flood – possibly not true?
    8. Is abortion murder?
    9. Bible – Literally true or some parts not necessarily true?

    Any other specific matters you may wish to add are also welcome. I’m not asking for you to assert your position on each matter, simply identify which are “essential” and which are not.

    Thank you for your assistance.

  138. Let’s start with the only real issue, if you get this right, all else will fall into place.
    What is the Gospel and how is a sinner saved Jerry?20-.

    {BTW, your whole theory on Mary is very interesting considering you gave no scriptural basis to back your theory, like this “She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.” No one here will take you serious if the word of God doesn’t back your story}. In any case, let’s hear how a sinner is saved, Roman Catholic style…

  139. jerry d says:

    O.K. Lyn, you win, you’re right……I will convert. Now please kindly direct me to the correct Protestant church, one that can instruct me as to what is required for a sinner to be saved and explain to me what the Gospel is.

    Here’s the options:

    http://www.philvaz.com/DENOMS.php

    Let me know when you come up with an answer.

    Regards.

  140. Jerry,

    I thought it was fair question, however, you do not care to answer.

    ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.’ – Ephesians 2:8-9
    I emphasize ‘not as a result of works’, which includes infant baptism, sacraments, etc.

  141. Well Jerry d, your agenda certainly comes undisguised. Allow me to be frank with you: I haven’t the time, nor the desire, to play 21 Questions with a “Jesus + _____” Romanist today, any more than Paul desired to play 21 Questions with the “Jesus + _____” Romanists of his day, the Judiazers.

    If anyone preaches another gospel, he is accursed. Period! As an apologist for Rome, we know what your “gospel” is, but I really don’t care to beat around the bush or play games.

    With the limited time I have available to me currently, if you were an honest seeker of truth I would certainly prioritize my time to discuss the glorious grace of the Lord Jesus Christ with you, but I can see that in your current state I would be wasting both your time and mine.

    You provide no biblical justification for attempting to call readers away from the true living God to Marian worship (disguised as “devotion” of course), nor will you be able to do so, even with the best scriptural gymnastics.

    Lyn’s question about what the gospel is, is the zenith. Anything else is merely a distraction. If you don’t get this right, nothing else matters and going round and round about Mary, popes, denominations, sacraments, etc. is futile.

    Others may desire to continue in the debate, but I do not. I encourage you to heed Paul’s warning against you in Galatians, repent of your sins, and put your trust in Christ alone.

    He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
    - Titus 3:5-10

  142. jerry d says:

    First, I believe my request of you to pin down the essentials (and non-essentials) of the True Faith is an obvious and straight-forward request. Perhaps I am not asking you that question sincerely but rather rhetorically, and you resent that for some reason, so let me try it another way. If a person who was sincere about converting to become a follower of the Lord, and he asked you what was essential to believe and what was not, then how would you answer him? Surely this question comes up often, does it not? Isn’t there an “app” (i.e. tract) for that? Seriously.

    Second, there does seem to be a consistent “essential” element of belief that Lyn, Pilgrim and others on here have identified over and over again, summed up by “salvation by faith alone, and not by works”. If this is accurate please confirm, and please answer the following True/False questions.

    1. True/False: A man who has true faith in the Lord (Jesus Christ) and believieth onto Him, is saved by this alone, and nothing else after this is required for his salvation.

    2. True/False: No man who truly believieth onto Him and persists in his belief till death, has never been condemned to Hell, even if that man is completely devoid of good works.

    3. True/False: A 30 year old rich man who truly believieth onto Him and persists in his belief till death at age 80 will not be condemned to Hell, even if that man is completely devoid of good works, despite being financially well-off his entire life, with the means and multiple opportunities to perform good works. Since by faith alone we are saved, not by good works. Good works are “good” but not essential or required for salvation.

  143. OK, so I’m kinda late to the party, but…

    Jerry said, ….by this logic, then this poster must also believe that Jesus was not sinless (pure blasphemy), since He is the Son of Mary, the Mother of God. The poster actually makes the case for the necessity of the Immaculate Conception, not against it.

    Well….that might be true, if we didn’t also believe what is said in 1st Peter 2:21-22–”Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth.” Peter tells us that Christ did not sin–did not even want to sin. And yet not one phrase in any verse of any chapter of any of the New testament gospels or epistles do we ever read anything that says about Mary being one “Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in her mouth.” You would think that if this was such an important subject, a subject upon which one’s salvation rests (as Rome teaches), then God would have managed to find at least one little place to fit it into the Scriptures.

    And before we get bombarded with so many of the tired, old, “Mary doesn’t save us” comments that this is bound to generate, let me remind you of a couple paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphases mine):

    • 964 Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”
    • 969 “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation…Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

    Paul said there is ONE Mediator between God and man–and it wasn’t Mary (see 1st Timothy 2:5). Now, how is it, that Paul says there is ONE Mediator? If Mary had some role as “Mediatrix”, then he did not tell the truth, for (according to Rome), there is yet a Mediatrix.

    The written Scriptures speak many times about Christ being our Mediator, our High Priest, the one who made peace between God and man, the one who redeemed us, the only name by which men may be saved, the one who took our sins upon Himself, and so many other like titles and offices. But never–NEVER–do we ever read any of these titles being bestowed upon Mary. But, as with many of Rome’s dogmas, they were invented later on, based on the writings of men who made things up as they went along. Unfortunately, we Protestants don’t have an Infallible Magisterium™ to come up with new ideas every time some mystical enchantress sees a vision of angels hauling a house from Nazareth to Rome. All we have at our disposal is the sure word of God.

    Hmmm…come to think of it, I would rather have the latter.

  144. LUKE1732 says:

    “And yet not one phrase in any verse of any chapter of any of the New testament gospels or epistles do we ever read anything that says about Mary being one “Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in her mouth.”

    * sigh *

    If only my January 12, 2012 at 5:32 pm comment would be allowed…

  145. jerry d says:

    O.K. Fourpointer, you win, you’re right……I will convert. Now please kindly direct me to the correct Protestant church, one that can instruct me as to what is required for a sinner to be saved and explain to me what the Gospel is.

    Here’s the options:

    http://www.philvaz.com/DENOMS.php

    Let me know when you come up with an answer.

    Regards.

    P.S.
    You may object to this request as you think I am not being sincere. If so, then scratch the question and replace it with:

    If a sincere person who wanted to convert, approached you and asked: “Please kindly direct me to the correct Protestant church, one that can instruct me as to what is required for a sinner to be saved and explain to me what the Gospel is.”

  146. So basically, in response to being shown that Scripture says nothing about Mary being sinless, Jerry’s response is to take the focus away from the subject at hand, and move it to another area and avoid the subject of Mary altogether. It’s a technique we’ve seen here time and again.

    It goes like this: We post something that goes against a certain false teaching. Someone who adheres to that false teaching comes in and tries to show why we’re wrong and they’re right. When they are shown from Scripture their position is faulty, they say something like “Well, Ok, what about…” and take the spotlight off the false teaching, onto another doctrine, thus beginning (for all intents and purposes) a new thread, redirecting people’s attention away from the fact they cannot answer the original thesis.

    For example, Mormons will respond to a post about Brigham Young teaching “Blood Atonement.” After being shown that yes, he did teach it, they will veer the conversation away from Blood Atonement, and argue something like, “Well, what about you Evangelicals? We Mormons are the One True Church™”! Why, look at all your different denominations!” (Hmm…seems I’ve heard THAT argument somewhere before?). They can’t defend their position, so they try attacking a different flank.

    Well, if you want to talk about Mary, then talk about Mary. But if you’re gonna take the focus off of Mary, then we’ll just let your comments stand so the world can see that without the Infallible Magisterium™, many of the man-made Roman Catholic dogmas and doctrines fall apart.

  147. jerry d says:

    Fourpointer,

    For the sake of argument, I am (temporarily) conceeding the point and volunteering to convert. Now just simply point me to the correct church. If you don’t like that request, then how would you respond to someone who was truly sincere and asked you the same question? Surely you must be prepared to provide this answer when/if this opportunity presents itself to you/others in the future, are you not?

  148. Jerry,
    You are not able to simply conceed and volunteer to convert; enough with the silly pointless empty words.
    Ephesians 2:1 -’And you were dead in the trespasses and sins’
    How does a dead person respond to life, let alone spiritual life; how does one become ‘born again’ as Christ commands in John 3:3? Impossible
    Ephesians 2:5 -’even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved’–

    God saves, according to His grace, those He chose before the foundations of the world – ‘ But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.’ -2 Thess. 2:13

    This is why your dead religion is worthless, it is based on man’s work, man’s tradition, adding to the finished work of Christ thus making it null and void. You are still dead in your sins, your defense of a dead religion God hates proves such.

    May God be merciful to your deceived soul and rescue you from the delusion you are under.

  149. fleebabylon says:

    Jerry said:

    O.K. Jim, you win, you’re right……I will convert. Now please kindly direct me to the correct Protestant church.

    O.K. Lyn, you win, you’re right……I will convert. Now please kindly direct me to the correct Protestant church,

    If a person who was sincere about converting to become a follower of the Lord, and he asked you what was essential to believe and what was not, then how would you answer him?

    O.K. Fourpointer, you win, you’re right……I will convert. Now please kindly direct me to the correct Protestant church, one that can instruct me as to what is required for a sinner to be saved and explain to me what the Gospel is.

    Please kindly direct me to the correct Protestant church, one that can instruct me as to what is required for a sinner to be saved and explain to me what the Gospel is.

    Jim says:

    Jerry this is where Jesus Christ has become a rock of offense to you and your religious mind. If you were truly converted (which you can not simply ‘decide’ to do) you WOULD be part of the Church of the first born whos names are written in heaven. (Hebrews 12:23)

    Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
    Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

    You are very ‘religious’ Jerry, but the kingdom of God has passed you by. Repent and believe the Gospel. Turn from your filthy religion to Jesus Christ. There is no point in pontificating about what health club a dead man should join. Likewise you are dead in your sin and there is no point in speculating about what local assembly you should attend if God were to grant you repentance onto life.

    Joh 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
    Joh 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
    Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

  150. jerry d says:

    It’s not me doing the deflecting, rather those who are unwilling to state what is and what is not essential to believe. And those who refuse to answer simple true/false questions about “by faith alone”. And those who are unwilling to identify the correct Protestant church.

    C’mon now, it ain’t that hard…..here’s thousands and thousands of people who haven’t dodged these questions. If they can do it, why can’t you?

    Google search: “how does one become saved”

    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=how+does+one+become+saved&pbx=1&oq=how+does+one+become+saved&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=57467l60149l0l60362l16l10l0l2l2l2l218l1545l3.5.2l12l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=79a914ef1cf0f6d4&biw=1024&bih=518

  151. The reason there are so many denominations (worthless denominations) is because man is sinful and man ruins everything…even the places of worship. There is only 1 church and that is the body of believers found in Christ…they are the children of God, adopted to a new inheritance. The Gospel isn’t defined by churches or denominations, but it is defined by the Word of God alone as BELIEF IN: Jesus Christ as the Son of God, sent by the Father who put out sin on the Son of God and punished the Son for our transgressions, which transferred His righteousness to us as a substitution. He then rose, defeated death, ascended to heaven and intercedes with the Father on our behalf. When we die and face judgement, God the Father will see the righteousness of the Son on us for His work and fulfillment/satisfaction of the penalty due us and we will be ushered into the kingdom as adopted sons with the Son for all eternity.

    your true false questions from above:

    1. True/False: A man who has true faith in the Lord (Jesus Christ) and believieth onto Him, is saved by this alone, and nothing else after this is required for his salvation. **answer: TRUE

    2. True/False: No man who truly believieth onto Him and persists in his belief till death, has never been condemned to Hell, even if that man is completely devoid of good works. ***answer: THIS QUESTION IS UNANSWERABLE BECAUSE IF FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SCRIPTURE TRUTH THAT ALL WHO ABIDE IN CHRIST BEAR FRUIT AND ALL FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. FRUIT IS THE EVIDENCE BUT NOT THE REQUIREMENT IN THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT. THIS QUESTION IS FLAWED.

    3. True/False: A 30 year old rich man who truly believieth onto Him and persists in his belief till death at age 80 will not be condemned to Hell, even if that man is completely devoid of good works, despite being financially well-off his entire life, with the means and multiple opportunities to perform good works. Since by faith alone we are saved, not by good works. Good works are “good” but not essential or required for salvation. **ANSWER: SEE ANSWER TO QUESTION 2. YOUR QUESTIONS ARE COUNTER-BIBLICAL, COUNTER-GOSPEL. THE SUBTLY OF JOHN 15 VINE AND BRANCHES MAKES THESE QUESTIONS FLAWED AND UNANSWERABLE.

    Nothing is required after salvation, but no person that is truly saved will NOT exhibit fruit in the areas of Gal 5 and what you call good works.

    In the love of Chirst,
    -atg

  152. jerry d says:

    Thank you atg for stepping up and answering.

    Just to clarify, you are saying that “ALL FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD”. Thus, would someone who disagreed with this be counter-Gospel and counter-Biblical? The other obvious implication is that a person who claims to believe and to be saved, who is devoid of good works, is not actually saved. Agree?

    Also, as I had asked in a previous post, would you also step-up and kindly identify some of the specific essential matters required of a true believer. Let me start you off with a list:

    1. “Homosexuality”
    2. Immersion Baptism
    3. Birth Control
    4. Forgiveness of Sins – the Lord only or could it be done via a priest (as is done by Catholics)?
    5. Communion – The real Body and Blood of the Lord, or just symbolic
    6. Women clergy
    7. Noah and the Flood – possibly not true?
    8. Is abortion murder?
    9. Bible – Literally true or some parts not necessarily true?

    Any other specific matters you may wish to add are also welcome. I’m not asking for you to assert your position on each matter, simply identify which are “essential” beliefs and which are not.

    Thank you again atg for stepping up, as I look forward to your kind response.

  153. fleebabylon says:

    Jerry D said:
    “And those who are unwilling to identify the correct Protestant church.”

    Here you again.. There is no correct protestant church. There is a correct Christ though (not the false Jesus that the roman catholic whore preaches). You only reveal that you dont know Christ and your faith is in a devilish religion rather than in a living God.

    Jerry D said:
    “C’mon now, it ain’t that hard…..here’s thousands and thousands of people who haven’t dodged these questions. If they can do it, why can’t you?”

    Because the question flows from a reprobate mind that thinks salvation is found in something other that Jesus Christ. Repent and believe the Gospel. I will at least grant you that the roman catholic church has a prominant place in the Bible though as seen here…

    Rev 17:3-6 ..and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

    I wonder too Jerry, if you will become sober to the things of God before you are destroyed with mother church at the splendor of Christ’s appearing.

    -Jim

  154. jerry d says:

    Heh, we’re making progress here……”There is no correct protestant church”…….explain exactly how that works now?

    Can one potestant church state that “homosexuality” is morally acceptable, and another say that it is an abomination, and both be correct?

    Can one potestant church state that Noah and the Flood is a fable, and another say that it is a literal fact, and both be correct?

    Can one potestant church state that “birth control” is morally acceptable, and another say that it is sinful, and both be correct?

    According to you, can the Lord accept and save all people who believieth onto Him, regardless of how accurately or inaccurately they interpret the Gospel, regardless if they lives their lives in a most sinful manner?

  155. Rather than look to any denomination for answers, look to His word, that will save much time and meaningless debate.
    The only way anyone is saved is by God’s grace, which is exactly what God’s word teaches in Ephesians 2:8-9.

    As for birth control, the Bible is silent on this issue, so it must be a decision made between a husband and wife. The Bible also tells us about the flood, so whatever denominations teach, if it doesn’t line up with God’s word, it is to be rejected. That is why sola Scriptura was the cry of the Reformation, and still is to those who hold to God’s word as the sole authoritative and only source of truth.

  156. jerry d says:

    Thank you Lyn for stepping up on these two issues.

    Just to clarify, you said that the Bible is silent on the issue of birth control, and thus it is a decision to be made by a married couple. To be consistent though, you must also endorse the following three obvious implications of your position here:

    1. Birth Control is NOT immoral or sinful, or if it is sinful, it is nonetheless allowable/tolerated for any married Christian who is already saved.

    2. Any person who asserts that the Bible condemns Birth Control, either explicitly or implicitly, is adding to the the Word of God, and should not be taken seriously (in accordance with your logic in your 1/12/2012 post: “No one here will take you serious if the word of God doesn’t back your story.”)

    3. Any religion (or person) which condemns birth control as sinful is a dead religion (or believes in a dead religion), since they are adding to the Word of God (in accordance with your logic in your 1/13/2012 post: “This is why your dead religion is worthless, it is based on man’s work, man’s tradition, adding to the finished work of Christ thus making it null and void”)

    These are all obvious and fair implications of your posistion, are they not?

  157. CD.Host says:

    Jerry –

    You are using a Catholic standard and arguing that Protestantism fails to fulfill it. Protestantism is a meta-denomination it doesn’t have much doctrinal content. Catholicism in general (western and eastern rite) also has limited content, though certainly more than Protestantism.

    To get to actual doctrinal content you need to go at least one level deeper. In the case of Catholicism to Western Rite Catholicism i.e. Roman Catholicism. In the case of Protestantism you can get limited content at the denominational level and to get specific you often need to go to the individual level.

    That may sound bad from a Catholic perspective. On the other hand, if we use the United States as an example… Protestant individuals tend to broadly agree with their church on most doctrinal issues to much greater degree than Catholics do. The data on self proclaimed Catholics and their attitude towards church doctrine in the last 50 years are rather negative and it is starting to be reflecting in widespread refusal to even do the minimums like marriage or baptism of children in the church. I’m not sure why if given the choice:

    (a) Individuals belong to a denomination with highly structured beliefs that they reject
    (b) Individuals belong to a denomination with moderately structured beliefs that they accept.

    You are arguing that (a) is so much superior to (b).

    The fact is a Protestant who is looking for a church that has rigid doctrinal content covering most areas of life can find one. A Protestant looking for a church that has rigid doctrinal content covering most areas of theology can find one. Those things are available. But most Protestants to hold to sola scriptura as vital. The catholic position in practice (though not in theory) is prima ecclesia.

    ____

    As far as the doctrine of Mary I think this explicates the basic church issue.

    There is evidence of a very expansive Marion theology very early in some sects of Christianity. Identifications of Mary with Sophia are common in 2nd century literature. And of course in Collyridian Christianity Mary was a full fledged member of the Godhead. Obviously docetic sects have more room for a elevated Mary than those that emphasized the full humanity of Jesus. When the books were selected for the canon those that had an elevated role for women tended not to be selected. So the canon does not have much of a Mariology.

    Irenaeus certainly taught something like the current Roman Catholic position, But I think it is fair to say that Mary’s extensive role, as it exists in Western Rite Catholicism primary comes from the 4th century virginity movement and Ambrose. If one accepts Ambrose (mostly) then one should be Catholic so I’m not sure how this whole divergence into essentially prima ecclesia helps your case on Mary.

  158. As I already stated, the Bible is silent on birth control, with that said, how can it be sinful/not sinful? Circumstances would decide this better, such as an unmarried woman using birth control because she wanted to be sexually active but does not want a child. Here the sin is not birth control, but sexual immorality.

    As for #2, those who claim the Bible states birth control is sinful are in error and should be corrected. If they cannot argue rightly from God’s word, they should be shunned and avoided.

    As for #3, stating birth control is sinful is not the only reason Roman Catholicism is a dead religion, it is one of many.

  159. jerry d says:

    Thank you Lyn once again for stepping up and dialoguing.

    Consider the case of someone I know who used to be Catholic, but became a Protestant. Although a Protestant, he considers any non-procreative sex act (even inside marriage) to be horribly sinful, even more sinful than adultery. His view is actually officially shared by the particular Protestant church he belongs to. He and the Protestant church he belongs actually claim their view is based on the Bible (sola scriptura).

    Thus, my questions to you are:

    1. Would you shun and avoid this person? If not, why not? (your quotes: “As I already stated, the Bible is silent on birth control” and “those who claim the Bible states birth control is sinful are in error”)

    2. Do you consider this person’s Protestant church a “dead religion” since they too state birth control is sinful based on sola scripture? If not, why not?

    Thank you.

  160. First of all, Christ does not call us to be Catholic or Protestant, He calls us to count the cost, deny self, pick up our cross and follow Him, be His disciple. There are those who call themselves Protestants that are dead in sin, just as there are those who call themselves Catholic who are dead in sin.
    Would I shun him? I would examine the evidence, i.e., his claim of having biblical backing, then show him the error of his belief based on what Scripture[s] he brings forth. Knowing the Bible is silent on this issue beforehand, the argument against his faulty belief would be based on comparing Scripture with Scripture.

    Again, I consider anything that is contrary to sound doctrine a dead religion, a faulty belief, false, erroneous, etc.

  161. jerry d says:

    Fair enough Lyn, I will present you the evidence of this particular Protestant I know. Unfortunately he cannot present it himself since he is deceased. However, he did leave a pretty extensive paper-trail, which presents his case in full detail, and trust me, even if he were alive today, he would not budge (as you’ll be able to tell from his writings). As a bonus, I will also present the writings of a few of his like-minded friends (also deceased) who are equally adamant about this issue. (Sidenote: I and the Catholic Church fully approve of and agree with their writings/thoughts on this issue).

    I will provide you with a link to their writings, but as a back-up I’ll also repost them below (I know the moderator for this site will not be able to object to the content, but just in case). Please share your thoughts on these misguided men when you get a chance. Please enjoy! Thank you.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.thinkchastity.com/aProtestantisx.html

    Here’s relevant content from the link:
    “It’s time to look at how Protestant’s throughout history have viewed sex deliberately made non-
    procreative. Let’s start at the beginning…

    (Note: I owe much credit to the research of Protestant scholar, Charles Provan. In 1989 Mr.
    Provan published a book, The Bible and Birth Control. Most of his research into historical
    Protestant views on this subject came from reading commentaries on Genesis 38, in which
    Onan, who married his deceased brother’s wife to fulfill his familial obligation, withdrew from her
    during intercourse rather than impregnate her. God then killed Onan.)

    Martin Luther and John Calvin are recognized as fathers of the Reformation.

    Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) – “Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel.
    This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it
    unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and
    copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman
    conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be
    followed.”

    John Calvin (1509 to 1564) – Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the
    ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills
    the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is
    possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and
    untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has
    thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part
    of the human race.

    Also, John Wesley is recognized as the founder of the Methodism.

    John Wesley (1703 to 1791) – “Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great
    abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone,
    refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very
    displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did
    displeased the Lord – And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very
    thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

    Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant
    leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical,
    Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non-
    procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated,
    “We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth
    Control before the 1900′s. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly
    regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it.”

  162. CD.Host says:

    We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900′s. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it.”

    Baloney. In fact I’ll do you one better, I’ll pick one from your team. Saint Birgitta in her vision of Anne and Joachim procreative sex is a result of the fall. Procreation is sin, “When the couple comes to the bed, my Spirit leaves them immediately and the spirit of impurity approaches instead because they only come together for the sake of lust and do not discuss or think about anything else with each other.”

    Children of God should not be born through sex but rather, “Seventh, they beget sons and daughters for their God through their good behavior and good example and through the preaching of spiritual words. ”

    And frankly Jerome breached something similar that God partially redeems the sin of procreation via. implanting souls (revelation 1.26). For example when she describes the consumation that led to the birth of Mary,

    When an angel revealed to them that they would give birth to the Virgin from whom the salvation of the world would come, they would rather have died than to come together in carnal love; lust was dead in them. I assure you that when they did come together, it was because of divine love and because of the angel’s message, not out of carnal desire, but against their will and out of a holy love for God.

    Where Augustine disagreed was arguing that the sin was the procreative act (sex), not procreation, “use but do not enjoy”. But the minority position best expressed by Birgitta and certainly well by Jerome led to a whole subgroup on this matter that would have and did rejected the idea that procreative sex was to be preferred over non-procreative. Sex was

    The inquisition goes after anti-procreative preaching in later centuries since it is (usually rightfully) associated with Catharism or spin off sects. In terms of sexuality both Luther and Calvin challenged Catholic views on sexuality, you can’t get more authoritative than that for Protestants. After that the reformers are mainly coming from the left both in terms of Protestantism and Catholicism.

    If you want to get more recent, since you are using the 1900 as a cutoff, in the early 19th century you would find both left wing Jacobin and right wing Napoleonic Catholics rejecting the Augustinian view. Both would have asserted that laws governing marriage came from the state not from the church. To conservatives sacramental marriage led to youngsters marrying for sexual attraction and hence divorce. The church in sanctifying procreative activities based on sex, and not on proper exchanges of contract and property by parents was sanctioning immorality.

    So no. Just not true at all. The truth is much more complex.

  163. jerry d says:

    CD.Host,

    You cannot prove the cited work (not my work, I’m just the messenger) wrong by citing Catholic writers.

    The claims made (not my claims, btw) are that

    a. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all condemned non-procreative sex (as their own quotations clearly demonstrate). To disprove that they believed this, you must disprove the accuracy of that reference OR bring forth a later reference which indicates that they changed their position. CIting what Catholic saints believed is completely irrelevant as to what Luther, Calvin and Wesley believed.

    b. “We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900′s. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it.” It’s easy to show that this statement is false (if it is false) if you can find “one orthodox (Protestant) theologian before 1900″ that defends Birth Control OR if you cannot find several “high-regarded Protestant theologians who enthusiastically opposed it (before 1900)”.

    In both cases, you should start by picking apart the research of Protestant scholar, Charles Provan. who in 1989 published the book, “The Bible and Birth Control”. While Mr. Cowan is now deceased, there are many Protestants who share his view (and the views of Luther, Calvin and Wesley) on this matter. Suggest you challenge them at Quivefull.dot.com or SWRB.dot.com.

    In any case, please keep in mind that this all boils down to a debate between some Protestants who use sola scriptura to conclude that Birth Control is horribly sinful, and some other Protestants who also use sola scriptura to conclude that Birth Control is not (per se) immoral or sinful. Note: The exact same methodology (sola scriptura) is used by both parties, but the exact opposite conclusion is obtained.

    With most kind Regards.

  164. CD.Host says:

    Jerry

    I disproved (b) for you. I gave you a theologian from the 13th century whom you consider orthodox.

    You want Protestants, OK I’ll give you the Americans. Americans until well into the 19th century held that birth control, mostly what we would today call abortion, was legitimate until “quickening” (externally feel-able movement) which was about the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy. There was in fact encouragement the entire social purity movement considered birthing bastard children a far greater sin than either birth control or abortion, and encouraged prostitutes or distressed young women to abort.

    This opinion only started to change in the US around the 1850s when abortions started being about 1/5th of all pregnancy. I think you can argue that American Protestant theologians became opposed when it was obvious that Protestant women were regulating family size much more-so than Catholic women. Groups like woman’s Klan was pro-eugenics for other races and Catholics, but most Protestants didn’t want to take such openly racist positions so they argued the issue wasn’t race but the inherent immorality of birth control….

    So no, I don’t agree with your (Charles Provan’s) historical claims at all. Unless the writer is going to play the game of defining “orthodox” to be “people who agree with me”. But by any neutral definition like wide mainstream acceptance (b) is false.

    As an aside I have argued against Quiverfull people before on their history.

    _____

    In terms of your broader point, of sola scriptura I’d say I’m reinforcing it not undermining it. I’m presenting a bunch of sola scriptura Protestants that believed that abortion was acceptable, some even a moral necessity; which of course almost all conservatives Protestants would disagree with today. I just disagree with your specific point of fact.

    However, you aren’t on any better ground than they on sexual issues. Certainly on birth control the church is pretty consistent. Catholics are all over the map on whether procreative sex is more or less sinful than non-procreative sex. Or even how sinful marital sexuality is. Conversely Protestant don’t view marital sexuality as sinful.

  165. I see no point in wasting my time researching what fallible men believe, my belief is based on God’s word, which is silent on birth control. What others believe concerning birth control is secondary, much like eschatology. The primary concern I have is defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Roman Catholic church has made a mockery of.

    You are going down rabbit trails to try and discredit what some protestants do or do not believe, again, this is secondary compared to the most vital truth found in God’s word…the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the gift of eternal life given by God according to whom He chooses, all by His grace for His glory. What are you trusting in on that final day Jerry D.?

  166. jerry d says:

    CD.Host:

    a.) Saint Birgitta was actually from the 14th Century

    b.) She was never considered a theologian during or after her life

    c.) She was not Protestant

    d.) I am not the one bringing up the issue of “orthodox (Protestant) theologians” – it is the late, Protestant scholar, Charles Provan (d. 2007). He (nor I) consider St. Birgitta a theologian.

    e.) I am not the one asserting that “we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900′s. NOT ONE!” – it is the late, Protestant scholar, Charles Provan (d. 2007) who did so.

    f.) We are discussing birth control not abortion.

    g.) Was the “social purity movement” a Protestant-led or affiliated movement? Did prominent Protestant theologians publicly support it? If so, which ones? If not, this point is irrelevant. What does Quiverfull have to say on this matter?

    h.) Nothing you have presented so far undermines Charles Provan’s historical claims at all, thus you haven’t proven anything.

    i.) You made no attempt to undermine his Luther, Calvin or Wesley quotes. Even if you did discredit Provan’s “Protestant theologians” claim (which you didn’t, so far), you still have left standing Luther’s, Calvin’s and Wesley’s comments.

    j.) Not undermining Luther’s and Calvin’s comments is actually a significant problem for you, because according to you (see your previous post): “Luther and Calvin…….you can’t get more authoritative than that for Protestants”

    k.) You appear to be using “mainstream acceptance” as a criteria for judging the correctness of a theological position. Surely you’re joking. Leaving moral theologogy to the whims of the masses, like in Noah’s time, or Sodom and Gomorrah, or Nineveh, are we?

    l.) In what forum did you argue with Quivefull? I’m sure you did, but I’d like to see the transcript, and how they responded. Perhaps you did prevail there.

    m.) You think you are reinforcing “sola scriptura”:
    “In terms of your broader point, of sola scriptura I’d say I’m reinforcing it not undermining it.”

    n.) In reality, you actual destroyed it, in your very next sentence:
    “I’m presenting a bunch of sola scriptura Protestants that believed that abortion was acceptable, some even a moral necessity; which of course almost all conservatives Protestants would disagree with today.”

    o.) How can some Protestants, using sola scriptura, arrive at the conclusion that abortion is acceptable, but other Protestants, using sola scriptura, arrive at the exact opposite conclusion? As I said before, “The exact same methodology (sola scriptura) is used by both parties, but the exact opposite conclusion is obtained.”

    p.) Your last point about Catholic opinions on this matter are completely off-base and irrelevant:
    “Catholics are all over the map on whether procreative sex is more or less sinful than non-procreative sex.”

    What individual Catholics believe or practice is not at all relevant to the teaching of the Church or the underlying theology of the issue – no more than what the city folk of Nineveh in Jonah’s time thought about their sin. Can you cite any Catholic theologian who thinks procreative sex is sinful?

    @Lyn said:

    “What others believe concerning birth control is secondary, much like eschatology. The primary concern I have is defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Roman Catholic church has made a mockery of.”

    But the underlying issue is Sola Scriptura. If Sola Scriptura fails so miserably on the issue of Birth Control (and according to CD.Host, also fails on abortion), then where does that leave you?

    If you claim Sola Scriptura is true, then you must condemn those (using your own logic, standards, and words) who claim that Birth Control is sinful, and this includes Luther, Calvin and Wesley, just like you have condemned the Catholc Church who holds the exact same position as these guys using the exact same reasoning. You must be consistent here. You simply must.

    Lyn,

    You say:
    “I see no point in wasting my time researching what fallible men believe”

    However, in a previous posting, you stated:
    “That is why sola Scriptura was the cry of the Reformation”

    Also, when I click on the link (that corresponds to your name hi-lighted), I see many references to “falliable men” and their teaching there, such as:

    “….as I read ‘The Doctrines of Grace’ by Dr. Boice, I realize Calvinism is the only correct biblical view; it all depends on how you view God’s glory and His grace. Let’s look at what Dr. Boice has to say…”

    “….If it weren’t for men like Watson, Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, and in these days men like MacArthur, Washer, Boice, Lawson, and Begg, I would never have learned the deeper truths of God. I have never been ‘fed’ in my church life, ever. The Bible is the sole source yes, but, hearing it properly expounded is essential in growth: this is rare in our day. I found this quote from David Wells’ book ‘God in the Wasteland, the Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams’…..”

    “…..However, the deepest and most significant thinking ever done on the subject of the will and its impotence was by Jonathan Edwards in a treatise called ‘A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of the Will’…..”

    “Sola Scriptura” Lyn? Really? Sounds like someone’s “playing footsy” with falliable men and their teaching, don’t it?

    Sounds like someone’s been doing a whole lot of “wasting my time researching what fallible men believe,” don’t it?

    These guys you believe, but you reject/dismiss Luther, Calvin and Wesley (the ones who originated the “crying” of “Sola Scriptura”)? Really?

    You actually state that “I realize Calvinism is the only correct biblical view” but yet you reject his view of Onan, Genesis 38, and birth control? Wait a minute now, there’s a major contradiction here.

  167. Jerry,
    your interest seems to be to discredit ‘Protestantism’ and glorify ‘Catholicism’. You are swaying from what I declare to be essential…the study of soteriology, NOT what someone’s view is on birth control. You are creating a mish mash so you can discredit truth and uphold a false church by claiming it has unity in all that it believes, but what you fail to understand is this; if the way of salvation is not understood, it is sure whatever else one believes will be a foundation of sand.

    As for your misguided and false accusations -“Sola Scriptura” Lyn? Really? Sounds like someone’s “playing footsy” with falliable men and their teaching, don’t it? Sounds like someone’s been doing a whole lot of “wasting my time researching what fallible men believe,” don’t it?”- I reiterate…my reference was in the understanding of the doctrines of grace and the study of soteriology, NOT birth control, which is a secondary issue. This is why I read the Reformers and Puritans writings, who uphold the doctrines of grace, because if the foundation concerning salvation is not right, essential doctrines will not be correct, doctrines such as sanctification, regeneration, total depravity, limited atonement, eternal security. As for what Calvin believed to be true concerning a non-essential issue such as birth control, it is irrelevant when it comes to the salvation of a soul and the growing in Christ-likeness. His view on birth control does not hinder my spiritual growth, his teaching on the five solas as well as tulip is spot on when it comes to getting right what is absolutely essential…the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    You have a misguided understanding of what true unity within the body of Christ actually is…it isn’t adhering to believing what a church as a whole tells you to believe on matters that again, are secondary. The true body of Christ differs on issues such as eschatology, but that doesn’t mean we are not one. It isn’t our views that unite us, it is the Spirit of God and Christ Himself that unites us through His saving power and understanding of His commands for His people. Love and humility are the ties that bind believers to our Great Shepherd, not upholding church tradition.

  168. CD.Host says:

    jerry.d –

    Following your lettering:

    a) Agreed. Thanks for the correction there.

    b.) Actually she was, not only that she was a theologian in this area. Her writings focused on spiritual marriage, which is a sex/birth topic. Her visions did as well. And I quoted her originally if you would remember in the context of whether Mary could have been conceived by normative intercourse.

    c) I agree she is not Protestant. Your claim had been more broad to Lyn that until recently everyone was in agreement. If you want to restrict your claim to only Protestants and concede the Catholic church was all over the place in previous centuries that’s fine.

    d-e) You are quoting Provan as part of an argument. Yes you are bringing up his point.

    f) Read what I wrote earlier. The people at the time viewed this as birth control. Today we would view it as abortion. The definition of birth control vs. abortion change over the centuries.

    g) Yes the social purity movement was Protestant, with prominent Protestant theologians. As an aside the German social purity movement was Catholic and also pro birth control (though admittedly in supported birth control as an alternative to sterilization).

    George and Mary Craigan — Preached on birth control as leading to spiritual perfection
    Luciana Umphreville — All carnality including giving birth was sinful
    John Henry Noyes — Discourages sex, marriage and procreation seeing them all as from the devil.
    Erasmus Stone — Who supported spiritual wifery (semi-polgamy). Marriage was financial / procreative not sexual.
    Hiriam Sheldon — Same

    I could keep going and going and going.

    As for what Quiverful has to say… generally they play the “well those people don’t agree with me on sexual theology”. So their claim of 19th century Protestants just becomes a claim that “19th century Protestants that didn’t believe in birth control didn’t believe in birth control”.

    h) Actually I’ve named a 1/2 dozen groups that disprove his historical claims. He claimed such people didn’t exist.

    i) Luther, Calvin and Wesley were opposed to birth control. I don’t disagree with you on that. Point conceded.

    j) I agree they are authoritative. If people like Lyn did believe in the “teachings of men” them having been in the anti-contraception camp would be very troublesome. Further anyone who is free to disagree with them on this issue becomes free to disagree on others. Hence my point that Protestantism has methodological but not doctrinal content.

    k) I am using mainstream accepting for judging the existence of theological positions. “Correctness” is not an objective criteria. If “orthodoxy” is to mean anything objective it means what is widely believed. Otherwise there is just rampant personal judgement. In other words what is seen as orthodox is orthodox.

    If you want to feel free to use non-objective criteria, then I’ll just declare all statements against birth control backwards in time to be heretical and thus freely discount them while declaring all statements in support of it to be orthodox and thus considering them church history. You will declare the opposite and there is nothing to say.

    l.) Wow I’m not sure these forums even exist anymore. A lot of the stuff surrounding Doug Phillips. When CREC was breaking away I was talking to people on both sides.

    m.) I don’t understand what you are even saying here. I think some words are missing.

    n) If you mean I destroyed sola scriptura as pointing to specific doctrine on this, I agree.

    o) Sola Scriptura is highly dependent on how you weigh evidence. Scripture doesn’t provide a guide to weighing evidence. Focus on law and morality the old testament, you end up with Judaizing sects. Focus on Romans and John you end up where Luther did. Focus on Revelations and Daniel and you are where Ellen White was.

    p) Actually no the comments about Catholics are not irrelevent. Because you are about to suggest the superiority of a magisterium as a solution to the problem of sola scriptura. If the supposed solution still produces the same symptoms…

    p.) Your last point about Catholic opinions on this matter are completely off-base and irrelevant:
    “Catholics are all over the map on whether procreative sex is more or less sinful than non-procreative sex.”

  169. jerry d says:

    Lyn,

    You gotta be fair here. I am not using Catholic or my own personal standards. Rather, I am using your own statements, standards and logic. You have repeatedly condemned Catholicism on specific issues, essentially because they violate Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone. Examples:

    On 1/13/2012, you implicitly condemned Catholicism for infant batism and the sacraments:
    “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.’ – Ephesians 2:8-9
    I emphasize ‘not as a result of works’, which includes infant baptism, sacraments, etc.”

    On 1/28/2012 you explicity condemned Catholicism for saying birth control is sinful and you said you would condemn ANYONE else (including Protestants) who also did so:
    “…..those who claim the Bible states birth control is sinful are in error and should be corrected. If they cannot argue rightly from God’s word, they should be shunned and avoided.”
    “…..stating birth control is sinful is not the only reason Roman Catholicism is a dead religion, it is one of many.”

    You have to be consistent here, if Catholics are wrong and condemnable on birth control, infant baptism, and the sacraments, then so are Luther and Calvin. Why will you not “pull the trigger” here? It is not that hard to do.

    For your reference, here is a consistent Protestant who did exactly that and condemned both Calvin and Luther using the exact same standards as yours:

    “There is NO way that such men (Luther and Calvin) could have been saved because they ADDED works to faith, which is no faith at all. Calvin taught that believers must persevere to the end to be saved. This is works salvation.”

    from:

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Calvinism/john_calvin_exposed.htm

  170. Catholics are wrong on just about all of their teaching because they do not have the foundations right…the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not visit the link you provided because they attack men of God like MacArthur and many others with false accusations like ‘lordship salvation’.

    I will not waste any more time going around in circles with you, I have made myself clear and you want to confuse my words to defend a pointless and secondary issue, birth control. For your information, I did NOT condemn the Catholic church on their view of birth control, I stated they should be corrected. Luther and Calvin got the Gospel right, that is essential. The Catholic church is NOT open to correction by anyone outside their ‘denomination’, plus they teach a false gospel. They should be shunned for that reason more than any other. Please, do not add words to my comments, I never condemned anyone solely on the basis of a view on birth control, but rather on a combination of views.

    Please, move on sir, enough time has been wasted on your endless and pointless merry go round.

  171. jerry d says:

    Lyn,

    Your bottom lines:

    1. Sola Scriptura is correct – and anyone who adds to it (e.g. the Catholic Church) is to be condemned BUT NOT Luther, Calvin, or Wesley. They get a pass.

    2. Birth Control , abortion, stealing, lying, the 10 Commandments, etc. are all pointless and “secondary” issues because “once saved always saved” and anyone who says otherwise (e.g. the Catholic Church) is to be condemned BUT NOT Luther, Calvin, or Wesley. They get a pass.

    3. Sola Scriptura is correct – and will always lead an individual to the correct conclusion. BUT, you will not explain how Protestants yesterday and today can all use Sola Scriptura and reach a whole spectrum of varying, and often contradictary, conclusions. Especially the wide gulf between the “Reformers” and modern day Protestants. Sola Scriptura Fail Supreme – but you will not explain how this is possible.

    These are all fundamental issues that undepin your and all Protestant thinking. I understand why you avoid discussing these issues (i.e. they are impossible to reconcile to truth, logic, consistency or scripture), but refusing to discuss them, does not make them go away.

    I think you know (in your heart and your head) that there are indeed major,fatal flaws in Protestant
    views that you just cannot reconcile. I don’t expect you to admit that publicly, but keep trying hard
    enough, and I think you’ll eventually reach the correct conclusions.

    P.S.
    C’mon Lyn, you can see it, right?……

    Martin Luther wrote:
    “Even if you sin greatly, believe even more greatly, and be a sinner and sin boldly but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. No sin will separate us from the Lamb even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”

  172. Honestly, what part of “Please, move on sir, enough time has been wasted on your endless and pointless merry go round.” is not clear?

  173. jerry d says:

    Pointless?

    Sola Scriptura? …..crickets
    “Faith Alone”? …..crickets
    “Once Saved, Always Saved”? …..crickets
    “Murder a thousand times a day”? ……crickets

    I agree.

  174. Sola Scriptura? …..crickets
    “Faith Alone”? …..crickets
    “Once Saved, Always Saved”? …..crickets
    “Murder a thousand times a day”? ……crickets

    But Jerry your problems are so so much worse.
    A succession of Pope’s going back to Peter … huge breaks at several critical points.
    A doctrine once taught to the apostles …. a clear historical evolution of doctrine.
    A church claiming to be inerrant in matters of faith and morals…. a long history of grievous institutional sins of the worse sorts.

    The Reformation happened for good reasons. It is time Catholic apologists addressed those.

  175. jerry d says:

    CD-Host:

    I brought up the issue of Birth Control as an example (one of hundreds) that shows how incomprehensible and self-contradictory Protestantism is to me. You seem like a fair-minded individual, so can you help me out here?

    What would you tell someone who was looking for a Church to join?
    What would you tell someone who asked you what is required to be saved?
    What would you tell this person as what are the deterministic and non-deterministic issues (with regards to his peronal salvation)?
    What would you tell this person as to what positions are heretical?

    I’m just trying to pin this down here. I’ve asked every way I can think of, but to no avail.

    Thank you in advance.

  176. OK I’ll give you my old Baptist style answers.

    What would you tell someone who was looking for a Church to join?

    I’d pick one out. My criteria would be to generally be looking for

    a) Credobaptist.
    b) Evangelical.

    What would you tell someone who asked you what is required to be saved

    A saving faith in Jesus. Sola fide. You must want to be saved and asked to be saved and allow Jesus into your life and heart. From there it is between you and the Holy Spirit and fully individual. I can possible advise but ultimately nothing I say beyond that is definite.

    What would you tell this person as what are the deterministic and non-deterministic issues (with regards to his peronal salvation)?

    There are no deterministic issues. There are beliefs that may create enough distortion as to make things less likely, but saving faith is possible in any belief system.

    What would you tell this person as to what positions are heretical?

    Any belief which is contrary to scripture, honestly held due to a misreading or misunderstanding of scripture. However heresy is often used to mean a definitive definition which implies the existence of a permanent extra scriptural collection of doctrines that are fully binding. What I would tell someone who was asking the question that way was that the very belief in such a thing is a violation of sola scriptura. There is no heresy in that sense.

    The creeds for example can act as a personal guide, how others read and understand scripture, but not being scripture they are not ultimately binding. In other words, a read of scripture is binding on you only if the Holy Spirit makes it so. I can’t tell you what is binding for you. I can tell you what is binding for me.

  177. Now that was not the next round I was anticipating…. Congratulations on throwing me off!

    Staying with my Baptists answers, I was Arminian. I’d have rejected all 5 points of Calvinism and in particular have asserted conditional security.

  178. jerry d says:

    Is someone who accepts TULIP a heretic? If no, why not? If yes, will they be damned for doing so?

    Is TULIP in violation of Sola Scriptura? Does it contradict scripture?

  179. fleebabylon says:

    Some more questions for the mix.

    How many angels can fit on the head of a pin…

    Here’s a better one. How many souls has the RCC helped damn to hell for eternity.

    Rev 18:2 And he called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.

    -Jim

  180. Is someone who accepts TULIP a heretic? If no, why not?

    No, and see above where I talked about heresy. People who accept TULIP are honestly mistaken. The same way that most people think of space-time as flat not curved, they aren’t evil they are just wrong.

    Is TULIP in violation of Sola Scriptura? Does it contradict scripture?

    No, it is not a violation of Sola Scriptura. As for contradicting scripture, yes, but in subtle non-obvious ways. TULIP rightfully supports that majesty of God and the importance of divine involvement. It takes Soli Deo gloria seriously. Arminianism quite often in practice turns into semi-Pelagianism. TULIP aims to correct this.

    The problem is that it replaces a defect with a much more serious defect. TULIP taken to its logical conclusion destroys all moral accountability from people and undermines freewill. Scripture does not present a systematic theology of salvation that rectifies all questions, people have to do that on their own and do the best they can.

    Progress happens by people trying to figure out ways to make sense of these hard questions. Thinking about them, drawing analogies, praying about them, talking to one another. Overtime these issues get refined and resolved. Catholics and Baptists don’t disagree that doctrines need to develop. Where they disagree is the idea that anyone can rule on anyone else by force of authority or worse force of law rather than by force of argument. We call this bible freedom, the belief that the individual is free to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, using the best tools of scholarship and biblical study available to the individual.

    I understand that people who believe in TULIP are doing this.

  181. Well, well, well. It appears that Jerry D has hijacked this thread and taken it over as his own. Kinda like being invited into someone’s house then placing your muddy boots on the kitchen table while eating the peanut butter with your fingers straight out of the jar.

    I think I’ve seen enough of your subversive attempts to tear down the Christian faith while spreading the false gospel of Romanism.

    I know, I know, this is the part where you pound your fist on the table and declare that, “It’s not fair that I can’t have complete and totally unfettered free rein to say and do whatever I want on someone else’s blog.”

    From here on out, perhaps your ideas would be better received (and believed) on a Romanist blog.

  182. Jerry –

    I think we should respect Pilgrim’s wishes here. If you click on my name you’ll go to my blog. The lead article (by chance) is about Catholic apologetics vs. Reformed apologetics vs. Restorationists (The Rock-paper-scissors of Apologetics). Feel free to continue this discussion there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s