27 Comments

Quotes (404)

The Roman Catholic religion claims that the Bible does not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72). Catholicism also says the Bible does not contain everything God taught about salvation (A Catechism for Adults, p. 52); is not clear and intelligible (The Faith of Our Fathers, pgs. 70, 152); is a dead book (Question Box, p. 67); and does more harm than good (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274). These, and many other comments against the Bible, reveal that Catholicism is not a loyal friend of the Bible but a forceful enemy that needs to be confronted. Roman Catholicism constantly seeks to undermine, weaken, oppose and nullify the Bible from its God-ordained place of authority.

- Mike Gendron

27 comments on “Quotes (404)

  1. You would do well to cite the quotes alleged with actual quotation in context.

    This is common enough among those who are seeking to misrepresent the Catholic Church and her position… references to that which is taken out of context is offered in a way that is both shocking on the sound of it and defamatory.

    This will work and appeal for some… But a goodly number of us are going to ask for the context of the reference.

  2. Context of the Council of Trent is pretty easy, “REFORMATION BAD!!”

  3. From Faith of our Fathers (p. 108) –

    Quote – “We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of Faith, because they could not, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.”

    Hope that helps to clarify the misquote of the page numbers.

    The Desert Pastor

  4. Berry – thank you for your impressions… I was asking for concrete evidence of what was ascribed to quoted texts even with page numbers…

    The Desert Pastor,

    As noted in our blog by Bob:

    Directly following that clip is this quote

    “God forbid that any of my readers should be
    tempted to conclude, from what I have said, that
    the Catholic Church is opposed to the reading of the
    Scriptures, or that she is the enemy of the Bible.
    The Catholic Church the enemy of the Bible!
    Good God, what monstrous ingratitude, what base
    calumny is contained in that assertion!”

    I am going to ask:

    * Have you read the full text?
    * Where did you originally get the page numbers cited in this post?

  5. Thank you Bob.

    The Desert Pastor:
    * Where did you get the original quotes?
    * Have you read the full text of TFOOF?

    Page 72 reads as such:

    …whose extend of territory our Republic is only a province, was unable to crush the Church or arrest her progress. In a short time, we find this colassal Empire going to pieces, and the Head of the Catholic Church dispensing laws to Christndeom in the very city from which the imperial Caesars had pro-mulgated their edicts against Christianity!

    During the fifth and sixth centuries, the Goths and Vandals, the Huns, Visigoths, and Lombards and other immense tribes of Barbarians, came done wlike a torrent from the North, invading the fairest portions of Souther Europe. They dismembered the Roman Empire, and sept away nearly every trace of the old Roman civilization. They plundered cities, levelled churches, and left ruin and desolation after them. yet, though conquering for awhile, they were conquered in turn by submitting to the sweet yoke of the Gospel. And thus, even the infidel Gibbon observes, “The progress of Christianity has been marked by two glorious and decisive victories over the learned and luxurious citizens of the Roman Empire; and over the warlike Barbarians of Scythia and Germany who subverted the empired and embraced the religion of the Romans.” [Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xxxvii. p450.]

    Mohammedianism took its rise in the seventh century in Arabia, and made rapid conquests in Asia. In the fifteenth century, Constantinople was captured by the followers of the false prophet, who even threated to subject all Europe to their sway.

  6. Now let us take a look at page 108:

    ..voice givs assurance, amid the fierces storms, that all is well.

    3d. A rule of Faith, or a competent guide to the heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicityly enjoin all the duties to which he obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genisis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religous observance of Saturday, a day which we will never sanctify..

    The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles inculccated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers [see John xxi. 25; II. Thess. ii. 14.] For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which nowhere is found in the Bible.

    We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be sufficient guide and rule of Faith, because they could not, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, abd because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.

    for good measure, we do well to look at page 109, for greater context:

    Directly following that clip is this quote

    God forbid that any of my readers should be tempted to conclude, from what I have said, that the Catholic Church is opposed to the reading of the Scriptures, or that she is the enemy of the Bible. The Catholic Church the enemy of the Bible!
    Good God, what monstrous ingratitude, what base calumny is contained in that assertion! As well might you accuse the Virgin Mother of trying to crush the Infant Savior at her breast, as to accuse the Church, our Mother, of attempting to crush out the existence of the Word of God. As well might you charge the patriotic stateman of attempting to destroy the constitution of his country, while he strove to protect it from being mutilated by unprincipaled demagogues.

    For fifteen centuries, the Church was the sole guardian and depository of the Bible; and if she really feared that sacred Book, who was to prevent her, during that long period, from tearing it in shreads and scattering it to the winds? She could ahve thrown it into the sea, as the unnatural mother would throw away her offspring, and who would have been the wiser for it?

    Whas has become of those millions of once famous books which were written in past ages? They have nearly all perished. But amid this wreck of ancient literature the Bible stands almost a solitary monument, like the Pyramids of Egypt amid the surrounding wastes. That venerable Volume has survived the wars and revolutions and the barbaric…

  7. Hello asimplesinner!

    If you were on the way to confession and got ran over and killed while crossing the street on your way to visit your priest according to the Holy Bible where would your eternal soul go – heaven or hell? (P.S. – it can’t be “Door Number 3″ i.e. purgatory since that’s an unbiblical concept and even Jerome denied the canonicity of 2 Maccabees).

    In Christ,
    CD

  8. Hello Coram Deo!

    Before we start hopscotching around the various and sundry issues of controversy from Purgatory (No, we don’t beleive it is “door #3) or the canonicity of 2 Maccabees….

    Well before we do any of that, I want to know what three quotes that Mike had in mind either from those pages, or at least from the book he tried to ascribe these quotes to.

    I am not interested in broadening this discussion all willy-nilly, I want to know the answers to the questions I have asked first.

    Thank you for your interest.

    In Jesus Christ Our Savior,
    -Simple

  9. Dear ASIMPLESINNER:

    As I already posted on your blog I have e-mailed Mike Gendron in regard to this and am awaiting a reply.

    So at this time you can press Coram Deo to answer for Mike Gendron but I don’t think CD (nor I) can adequately answer your question without it being a guess or pure conjecture (and I’m sure you don’t want that).

    Furthermore (just so you know) if I do not hear back from Mike Gendron soon, I will remove the quote.

    Sincerely,
    – The Pilgrim

  10. To The Pilgrim –

    I certainly appreciate your efforts on this matter.

    To be clear, I am not asking CD to speculate, only letting it be known that before conversation, discussion or debate broadens to any number of the manifold issues of contention and controversy, I want to deal with one issue at a time.

    Discussions of confession, purgatory, and the like are all easily enough had in any number of comboxes over at The Black Cordelias

    One thing at a time.

    Thank you again for your time,

    Your brother in Jesus Christ, the Living God,

    -Simple

  11. asimplesinner,

    As has already been pointed out you’d need to ask Mike Gendron to answer your question, not me, and it appears that The Pilgrim has already taken the initiative to do so on your behalf.

    It seems clear to me that while we were all waiting for a clarification of the original author’s intent you were given the choice to either dodge a fair and honest question or else engage in meaningful dialogue and you chose the former over the latter.

    Speaking of confession I’ll confess that I find it strange (but telling) that you would defiantly disobey scripture and sidestep an opportunity to give an answer for the hope that lies within you.

    In Christ,
    CD

    P.S. – If you are presently a practicing, faithful Roman Catholic as opposed to being a born-again Christian then you are not anyone’s “brother in Christ” as you claim since Romanism is a false religious system that stands over and against Biblical Christianity. This being said we here at DefCon would be honored to share the truth of the REAL Jesus Christ of scripture with you in order that you might be miraculously translated from spiritual death unto spiritual life by grace alone through faith alone in Him alone. According to the Holy Bible how are asimplesinner’s sins forgiven?

  12. It appears there have been different page numbers associated with different prints and re-prints – see page 100. That said, it always amazes me how Catholics go off on tangents rather than recognizing the truth of what was presented. The Catholic religion’s current authority that builds itself on all previous councils is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Paragraphs 82 and 95 claims that the Bible does not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe. It teaches that Tradition and the Magesterium are so connected to Scripture that they cannot stand alone. The Bible exposes this fatal error by showing the Scripture is sufficient or able to make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 3:15-16). If Scripture is sufficient then nothing else is necessary for instructing us about life’s most critical issue – What must I do to be saved? The only saving response to the Gospel is to obey the first command of Jesus – “Repent and believe the Gospel” Mark 1:14-15. Repentance is a change of mind that produces a trust in Christ alone. The only thing we can bring to the cross is our sins.

  13. It appears there have been different page numbers associated with different prints and re-prints - see page 100.

    Hmmmm… That accounts for ONE of three citations offered. (Thought it still does not offer an actual text.) Maybe you could quote the actualy texts (all three please!) that you just allude to. (So whatever you were alluding to on pp. 70, 72, 152, let’s have the full quote.)

    That is fair enough. Before we wade into a discussion about the errors of “Romish ways” I just want to get you to quote the actual texts you are alluding to.

    What are they, please?

    Can we get that accomplished first? It should be easy enough.

    ______________________________________________________________

    Just for ease of reference, I thought we could quote the CCC as you bring up paragraphs 82 & 95…

    II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

    One common source. . .

    80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

    . . . two distinct modes of transmission

    81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42

    “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43

    82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44

    Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

    83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

    Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

    _________________________________________________________

    I will post the other paragraph in context tomorrow, time for bed and prayers.

    Cheers.

  14. asimplesinner,

    Thus far you’ve made it evident that you prefer asking questions over answering them, but nevertheless I thought I’d ask a few more in light of your latest comments.

    Do you affirm Sola Scriptura, or do you affirm that the RCC’s tradition is on par with God’s Word as it is contained within the Holy Bible? Are you personally able to read and understand the Holy Bible or must you rely upon the interpretations of the Magisterium? If you don’t mind my asking what did you pray about last night and to whom did you pray?

    In Christ,
    CD

  15. Thus far you’ve made it evident that you prefer asking questions over answering them…

    Actually, what I have thus far done is held the line to essentially this: the poster has made a claim about claims in a book and gave page numbers (not quotes) that didn’t seem to correlate.

    Now it is being explained that the page numbers of his edition and the page numbers of my edition differ. (Odd, as my edition uses the larger type with wider margins… I would think that other editions – I was not aware that there were any – would have more condensed type and that the page number would be smaller than 100s… so it goes.)

    At any rate, I am doing what is common enough in academic circles – I am asking for a clear citation (quote included) from this text.

    That is reasonable.

    To date, we haven’t even come close.

    If the texts back up what is being claimed, this is easy enough. Remove the edition off of your bookshelf (the one I presume Mike just took down to discover the page discrepency) and let us know what it is.

    Why can’t that be done before broadening the discussion to go accross the board, up to and including asking about my prayer life?

  16. asimplesinner,

    As previously noted you’d need to ask the original author, Mike Gendron your questions, not me, not The Pilgrim, but Mike Gendron.

    For your convenience his website is linked in his comment above and I’m sure you can e-mail him or contact his ministry directly for further clarification with respect to his sources if you’d like.

    Happily the original author was kind enough to offer a reasonable solution to the tempest in a teapot that you’re endeavoring to sustain here, yet still you persist in your earnest resolve to remain dissatisfied.

    So be it.

    Duly noted.

    Yet even with your grievances against Mike Gendron in view I nevertheless find it a quite strange that you would flatly refuse to respond in any way to a few straightforward and honest questions for apparently no other reason than your general sense of dissatisfaction with Mike Gendron’s source citations.

    Stranger still is the fact that you are refusing to respond to my questions because you’re unhappy with Mike Gendron’s scholarship. Can you explain this seeming absurdity? Your position here is patently illogical and therefore it’s absolutely outrageous to claim that said position is “reasonable”!

    It isn’t.

    It’s ludicrous.

    See here’s the thing asimplesinner, the original author set forth the following claims:

    The Roman Catholic religion claims that the Bible does not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe.

    Catholicism also says the Bible does not contain everything God taught about salvation, is not clear and intelligible, is a dead book, and does more harm than good.

    Catholicism is not a loyal friend of the Bible but a forceful enemy that needs to be confronted. Roman Catholicism constantly seeks to undermine, weaken, oppose and nullify the Bible from its God-ordained place of authority.

    The author’s claims as stated above are either true or false and they form commonsense, straightforward, and objective propositions which demand either an affirmation or a denial.

    Yet rather than making any effort whatsoever to deal with the propositions in view (or any other questions put forth) you’ve made it abundantly clear that you prefer to studiously avoid engagement of any form apart from engaging in hairsplitting about page numbers.

    Sadly instead of confronting any of the issues raised here you’ve chosen the broad, well worn, and easy path of intellectual posturing by pretending that your private and personal objections to page numbers and source citations somehow nullifies the propositions themselves.

    Ridiculous!

    Look asimplesinner, you’re free to claim that your overarching objective here is merely to champion academic purity and faithfulness to the text if you wish, but it’s my sincere hope and prayer that you might require of yourself the same rigid adherence and faithfulness to the inspired text of the Holy Bible as you’re demanding of Mike Gendron with respect to his uninspired textual citations.

    In Christ,
    CD

  17. Happily the original author was kind enough to offer a reasonable solution to the tempest in a teapot that you’re endeavoring to sustain here, yet still you persist in your earnest resolve to remain dissatisfied.

    He offered one page number without direct quote to answer my question what are the three direct quotes of three different page numbers. That is not a reasonable solution. If you are of the thinking that it is, than you are the one persisiting with earnest resolve to remain indifferent.

    Heaping upon me the invectives of

    … tempest in a teapot that you’re endeavoring to sustain here, yet still you persist in your earnest resolve to remain dissatisfied….

    …this seeming absurdity

    …Your position here is patently illogical and therefore it’s absolutely outrageous to claim that said position is “reasonable”…

    …It’s ludicrous…

    …studiously avoid engagement of any form apart from engaging in hairsplitting about page numbers….

    …Sadly instead of confronting any of the issues raised here you’ve chosen the broad, well worn, and easy path of intellectual posturing by pretending that your private and personal objections to page numbers and source citations somehow nullifies the propositions themselves…

    …Ridiculous…

    In other words, having taken it as a priori truth that Gendron’s point is true, it is just academic hairsplitting and posturing to want to see that his sources are correctly quoted. Unreasonable, ridiculous, hairslpitting, ludicrous me.

    In Jesus Christ, Our Savior,

    -Simple

  18. Who would have guessed that the victim card would play so nicely at this juncture? Yet another nice dodge, bravo asimplesinner! You’re nothing if not consistent.

    By the way, irrespective of their source the propositions stated by Mike Gendron above – you know, the ones you absolutely and assiduously refuse to engage – have been affirmed by true Bible believing Christians ever since the Reformation.

    Of course they were also affirmed by true Bible believing Christians prior to the Reformation but the RCC’s brutal suppression of Biblical truth was manifestly more efficient and deadly prior to the “Wittenburg door issue”. Please understand that this observation is not meant to diminish in any way their impressively lethal post-Wittenburg record mind you, but I think you get my meaning.

    There truly are none as blind as those who refuse to see.

    In Christ,
    CD

    P.S. – as I’ve previously mentioned if you are presently a practicing, faithful Roman Catholic as opposed to being a born again Bible believing Christian then you are not “in Christ” nor are you anyone’s “brother in Christ”, rather you are presently outside the family of God and without hope.

    This is true statement because Romanism is a false religious system that stands over and against Biblical Christianity therefore Roman Catholics stand condemned and guilty in their sins and trespasses which things cannot enter into the perfectly Holy Creator God’s presence in heaven.

    Since the Bible teaches it is appointed once for men to die and then the judgment (Hebrews 9:27) practicing, faithful Roman Catholics cannot possibly hope for purification in the cunningly devised fable of men called “purgatory”. Sadly this means they will be subjected to God’s righteous wrath and judgment and will damned to eternal and fiery punishments in hell forevermore for professing and trusting in another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

    According to the Holy Bible how are asimplesinner’s sins forgiven?

  19. Coram Deo –

    I am inclined to recipricate the praise you offer me. You are nothing if not consistent yourself.

    Unwilling or interested to help resolve this defamation of the late Cardinals work, and unwilling to then step aside gently allowing for Mike to return or the OP (The Pilgrim) to deal with the lack of ability to cite reference, you continue to goad and demand (and detract when I demure) that the conversation be widened.

    Disinterested in seeing my objection responded to honestly, you move with insistence to force my hand into another conversation altogether. Up to and including offering that I am recalcitrant and wallowing in my own ignorance, ludicrous, ridiculous, hair-splitting, academic posturing, and now “playing the victim card.”

    From there the gist of what I am getting in your aggressive arguments are “So what if he is misrepresenting this guy? Let’s not use that as an excuse to not have the debate I want to have!”

    Are you that indifferent to honesty and integrity, or do the ends justify the means?

    In Jesus Christ,

    – Peccator Simplex

  20. asimplesinner said: Unwilling or interested to help resolve this defamation of the late Cardinals work, and unwilling to then step aside gently allowing for Mike to return or the OP (The Pilgrim) to deal with the lack of ability to cite reference, you continue to goad and demand (and detract when I demure) that the conversation be widened.

    I’m sorry but this is simply a laughable assertion. It is the propositions themselves that demand a response – not page numbers. Do you really believe that questioning Mike Gendron’s scholarship in his source citations somehow nullifies the actual propositions set forth? Is this your claim?

    asimplesinner said: Disinterested in seeing my objection responded to honestly

    Mike Gendron responded to your objection and you find his response unsatisfactory and continue to object demanding more information about page numbers.

    I noticed that you commented upon the MacArthur quote (416). If you’d like to hear or read that particular sermon in its entirety it is linked in my comment number 15 above.

    asimplesinner said: Up to and including offering that I am recalcitrant and wallowing in my own ignorance, ludicrous, ridiculous, hair-splitting, academic posturing, and now “playing the victim card.”

    Based upon your consistent position here I stand by this assertion.

    asimplesinner said: Are you that indifferent to honesty and integrity, or do the ends justify the means?

    Unlike you I’m simply willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Mike Gendron as opposed to bristling at the possibility that he may have cited page numbers incorrectly and thereby summarily dismissing everything the man has to say.

    This is especially the case when the propositions he has set forth are at least as old and well known as the Reformation itself and are foundational to an understanding of the vast and impassable theological gulf that lies between the false religion of Roman Catholicism and true Biblical Christianity.

    In Christ,
    CD

  21. “Unlike you I’m simply willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Mike Gendron as opposed to bristling at the possibility that he may have cited page numbers incorrectly and thereby summarily dismissing everything the man has to say.”

    You are rioght, we are not willing to extend the same benefit. Inasmuch as The Pilgrim has had time to get clarification and Mike G has been able to speak up and offer direct quotes – and neither have done as much… Well I am first and foremost interested in getting the exact quotes of this author having his work misrepresented.

    The idea that I am being unreasonable in not simply moving on and begining a debate with you on the merits or demerits of his point – without regard to wether they are accurate because, truth be damned, you simply want to start either the witnessing or the debate without reference to or possible correction of fallacious references.

    If that is the case, I would not hold out much hope that a debate or discussion – given your apparent indifference to accuracy of texts – would avail much but a time consuming war of wits.

    Lets list these quotes. The text is online, maybe if you read it for yourself, you can find some direct quotes too.

    In Christ,

    ASimpleSinner

  22. The irrefutable fact is the dogma of Roman Catholic Church concerning Scripture, ecclesiology and soteriology remains exactly the same as when it was infallibly pronounced by the Council of Trent.

    My source; Will the Pope Do?

  23. asimplesinner said: Well I am first and foremost interested in getting the exact quotes of this author having his work misrepresented.

    It’s simply amazing to me that you are “first and foremost” more “interested in getting exact quotes” than you are in the fact that as a practicing, faithful Roman Catholic your eternal soul is presently on a one way trajectory to never-ending torments in hellfire because you profess and trust in a soul-damning false gospel. Unbelievable!

    In your very first comment in this thread you accused Mike Gendron of employing a tactic that is “common enough among those who are seeking to misrepresent the Catholic Church and her position”.

    Perhaps you can enlighten us here – which of the propositions listed below (which were set forth by Mike Gendron in The Pilgrim’s original post) “misrepresents the Catholic church and her position” as you claim?

    The Roman Catholic religion claims that the Bible does not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe.

    Catholicism also says the Bible does not contain everything God taught about salvation, is not clear and intelligible, is a dead book, and does more harm than good.

    Catholicism is not a loyal friend of the Bible but a forceful enemy that needs to be confronted. Roman Catholicism constantly seeks to undermine, weaken, oppose and nullify the Bible from its God-ordained place of authority.

    asimplesinner said: “I would not hold out much hope that a debate or discussion”

    Maybe you wouldn’t and maybe you don’t, but I suppose hope is a well which springs eternal because as long as you continue visiting here I’ll continue sharing the truth with you.

    I’ll also continue earnestly praying that the One True and Living God whom I serve might open your eyes to His glorious truth and miraculously translate you from spiritual death unto spiritual life to the praise of His glory alone forever and evermore.

    As a false religionist you are a slave to sin and you are in bondage to your father the devil. The Holy Bible reveals your desperate need of repentance and salvation because as a false religionist you presently abide under God’s curse – the curse of sin and death – and the Lord Jesus Christ plainly says that you must be born again. This is in reference to the spiritual re-birth that must occur or else the natural man will remain spiritually dead in his sins and trespasses and therefore stands condemned before God.

    The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and unforgiven sin at death will result in eternal damnation to hell which the Bible refers to as the second death (Revelation 20:14).

    Roman Catholics trust in a false authority (Papacy, Magisterium, tradition, priesthood) when in truth the only authority is Christ whose perfect, sinless sacrifice alone was and is sufficient to expiate sin. Christ alone has the power and authority to save men’s souls by His eternal Gospel of grace made possible through His once and for all perfect and finished sacrifice upon the cross. Jesus Christ is the One and only Great and High Priest and He alone is the Head of His church.

    Likewise Jesus Christ alone is the sole mediator between God and men and there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:10-12).

    Jesus Christ alone is the all-sufficient Savior. Jesus Christ alone can completely forgive sins and He promises to impute His perfect righteousness to all those who come to Him by grace through faith alone, trusting solely in Him and His finished atoning work on the cross. Not only does Jesus Christ promise to impute His perfect righteousness to those who trust in Him alone by grace through faith but He also offers full assurance of eternal life to those who come to Him granting them the peace of God which passes all understanding (Philippians 4:7).

    God Himself through His Word commands you to repent, asimplesinner. He commands you to turn away from your self-righteous, works based, idolatrous false religion and to abandon all hope in yourself, your works, your sacraments, and your standing in the apostate Roman Catholic Church.

    That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

    For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10:9-13)

    In Christ,
    CD

  24. “It’s simply amazing to me that you are “first and foremost” more “interested in getting exact quotes” than you are in the fact that as a practicing, faithful Roman Catholic your eternal soul is presently on a one way trajectory to never-ending torments in hellfire because you profess and trust in a soul-damning false gospel. Unbelievable!”

    And so begins the latest and longest diatribe that demands I become disinterested in the veracity of the quoted material to move on to what you deem as important and worth considering.

    Essentially Who cares about this, I want to get down to what I want to get down to and I am infuriated that you will not engage me on my terms as I demand.

    For all the time and effort, why not read Faith of Our Fathers yourself and see if you can come up with three direct quotes that correspond to what is purported to be in there vis. the quote of this post?

  25. I understand asimplesinner’s point of the integrity of the quote. I too believe in integrity and accuracy.

    I also understand Coram Deo’s point that there’s more at stake here than page numbers.

    I, for one, wholeheartedly believe the greater importance in the face of eternity is the latter. (Those in Hell will not be concerned with page numbers, but instead loathing and cursing the false gospel they believed which made them recipients of God’s holy and righteous wrath throughout all eternity.)

    In light of all this, I propose a possible solution based on the following three facts . . .

    1). The RCC actually holds to the points made in the original quote (whether through dogma, doctrine or practice).

    2). Asimplesinner has not refuted that the RCC holds to the points made in the original quote.

    3). The biggest point of contention is the page numbers cited in the original quote (depending on which printing of The Faith of Our Fathers one has).

    . . . So, would it make everything better if the page numbers were removed so the meat and potatoes of the quote can then be dealt with? Like a loose paraphrase of Gendron’s original quote?

    I’m certain it will not, but it was worth the suggestion, eh?

    Rest assured asimplesinner, I have e-mailed Mike Gendron again (11/7) for more clarification since you found his previous comment lacking. I hope to hear back from him soon so we can move on (if you’re willing to stick around).

    Respectfully,
    – The Pilgrim

  26. asimplesinnersaid: And so begins the latest and longest diatribe that demands I become disinterested in the veracity of the quoted material to move on to what you deem as important and worth considering.

    In fact I do deem your eternal soul as being infinitely more important, valuable and worth considering than page numbers, asimplesinner. And I’m surprised that you evidently don’t seem to feel the same way. Do you really believe that “the veracity of the quoted material” cited by Mike Gendron is more important, valuable and worth considering than the state of your eternal soul? This is an interesting sentiment – certainly it’s simultaneously a deeply saddening and troubling sentiment – but interesting nonetheless.

    asimplesinner said: Essentially Who cares about this, I want to get down to what I want to get down to and I am infuriated that you will not engage me on my terms as I demand.

    You’re just flat wrong here. I’m not infuriated in the least, nor am I dispassionate about accuracy in citations, yet when presented with propositions which stand upon their own merits irrespective of the source – propositions that were true both before and after the Reformation – I become less concerned about page numbers and more concerned with the truth claims set forth in the propositions themselves. Perhaps you’ve mistaken my earnest desire to share the truth in love with you as anger or fury, but it’s none of this.

    It isn’t love to speak gentle, soothing words and walk agreeably alongside someone who is foolishly walking towards a precipice from whence he’ll fall to certain death. It isn’t love to discuss the beauty of the rock formations and the gossamer strands of clouds as they travel across the face of the sky while that lost soul blithely strolls towards his own destruction. And it isn’t love as he approaches the very edge of the chasm (for there’s no promise of tomorrow) to engage him in a rollicking debate about whether or not a tree makes a sound if it falls in the woods and no one hears. This isn’t love, it’s the very worst kind of hate and it is demonic.

    You appear to be either unable or unwilling to see the forest for the trees, asimplesinner.

    True love cries out to that foolish person and throws itself in his path kicking and screaming as it desperately grasps at his ankles and legs begging him to stop his mad rush towards self destruction! I’ll have no part in aiding and abetting your spiritual suicide just so you might think well of me, asimplesinner. In fact I don’t care what you think of me because the Bible claims that those such as yourself live under the power of Satan the enemy and therefore you spiritually and intellectually operate under his power. You’re a slave to the devil and you don’t even realize it, but I realize it and I want you to know that Jesus Christ can set you free from the power of sin and death and deliver you perfectly and completely once and for all from your present miserable estate.

    Have you ever said anything that wasn’t true, asimplesinner? If so, according to the Holy Bible you’re a liar.

    Have you ever taken anything that doesn’t belong to you asimplesinner? If so, according to the Holy Bible you’re a thief.

    Have you ever looked upon another human being and lusted in your heart? If so, according to the Holy Bible you’re an adulterer and a fornicator.

    Have you ever been angry at another human being without a cause? If so, according to the Holy Bible you’re a murderer.

    Tell me asimplesinner, why should I care about what a lying, thieving, adulterous, fornicating murderer thinks of me?

    The truth is that God commands you to repent and turn away from your sin and turn unto Christ alone:

    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

    Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7)

    Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matthew 3:2)

    Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. (Acts 3:19)

    And they went out, and preached that men should repent. (Mark 6:12)

    I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luke 13:5)

    The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:41-42)

    As a professing, faithful Roman Catholic I know that in your heart of hearts you hate the real Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible and you are at enmity with the One True and Living God. I know this because the Holy Bible teaches that no man can serve two masters for he will hold to the one and despise the other (Matthew 6:24). You have trusted in a false manmade religious system instead of trusting in Jesus Christ alone, thus you are trusting in a source other than God alone for your salvation. This means that you are a false religionist (an idolater to be more specific) and because you are a false religionist (an idolater) who serves a false god (an idol) you must hold to your master Satan and love his kingdom, therefore you must despise the One True and Living God, the Infinite Creator and Judge of the universe and hate His kingdom.

    These are spiritual laws and realities which man is unable to affect. Just as your feet hit the floor each morning because of the law gravity and just as you breathe air and not water because of the laws of your biology unregenerate, sinful humanity must serve the enemy and reject the One True and Living God apart from miraculously being found in Christ by grace alone through faith alone which is the gift of God alone to the praise of His glory alone.

    asimplesinner said: For all the time and effort, why not read Faith of Our Fathers yourself and see if you can come up with three direct quotes that correspond to what is purported to be in there vis. the quote of this post?

    Again you’d need to speak with Mike Gendron about the citations not me. His website is linked in his comment above and I’m sure The Pilgrim would be happy to share his e-mail address with you if you’d like to correspond with Mr. Gendron directly. The propositions in view must be dealt with, asimplesinner; but instead of dealing with the issues raised you continue to protest about page numbers. It’s as though you wish to pretend that the propositions may not be true (or might not even exist) because of the possibility of an error in citation. Such logic is, of course, patently absurd. Again how I pray you might apply this same rigorous adherence to the purity of the text to yourself when the subject is the Holy Bible. Perhaps then you’d realize that you’ve been sold a false bill of goods by the RCC.

    I’ll let you in on a little secret here – I actually understand why you’re refusing to deal with propositions set forth in this post, asimplesinner; it’s because you are attempting to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

    This is what all unbelievers always do since it’s as natural for them as breathing air. In fact the unregenerate are unable to do anything else. As a practicing Roman Catholic your mind has been blinded by the god of this world:

    In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

    I don’t expect to see a robin eating carrion by the roadside, nor do I expect to see a vulture picking seeds from the birdfeeder in my backyard any more than I expect to see a Roman Catholic submitting to the veracity of scripture alone. This is because all three of these scenarios are unnatural. Only by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in a man’s heart is he able to cling to the truth of Jesus Christ, the sinless eternal Son and Lamb of God crucified, dead, buried and resurrected on the third day for remission of sins for all those who are drawn by the Father and come unto Him (Christ) by grace alone through faith alone in Him alone to the praise of His glory alone.

    Soli Deo Gloria!

    Pilgrim,

    Blessed are the peacemakers, brother; and I applaud your sincerity here, but I’m afraid there’s no making peace with asimplesinner. It’s my well considered opinion that his feigned indignance and myopic straining about source citations is simply the natural outworking of his unrighteous suppression of the truth. The real issue at hand isn’t Mike Gendron’s scholarship, but rather asimplesinner’s rebellion against God.

    There’s simply no reasoning with the powers of darkness, there’s only confronting it with the light of the true Gospel. As anyone can see I’ve pressed our guest numerous times to deal with the actual propositions in view, but he steadfastly refuses preferring instead to remain indifferent to and aloof from the fact that Roman Catholicism is all the things claimed above and worse. It’s clear that he loves the darkness and hates the light.

    For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. (John 3:20)

    My hope for asimplesinner is the same as my hope for all those who are deceived by the enemy. I will continue to sincerely pray for the deliverance of his soul, and since I serve a mighty God I am fully persuaded that prayer to Him is a formidable and powerful weapon against the demonic strongholds in which Satan has all unregenerate sinners ensnared.

    Since he continues to return here by God’s providence let’s continue to share the truth in love and earnestly pray that our King might miraculously translate asimplesinner from spiritual death unto spiritual life by His power and for His glory alone.

    In Christ,
    CD

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

%d bloggers like this: