Sermon of the week: “A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism” by John MacArthur.

John MacArthur completely obliterates the erroneous doctrine of infant baptism in this week’s sermon of the week: A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism. This can be considered a follow-up to Coram Deo’s original posting (the transcript of this sermon) found here.

If you are curious about the doctrine of infant baptism: why it’s practiced in so many churches (even in Reformed Churches), and why many others don’t practice it at all, then you must listen to this sermon.

39 thoughts on “Sermon of the week: “A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism” by John MacArthur.

  1. Do we really have to go over this again?!

    First of all, it’s hardly a “scriptural” critique:

    “And He said, ‘Just do these two things. They are symbols.’

    Where is this in Scripture???

    “In the jailer’s house—Acts 16 is the next one…Philippian jailer. Paul, you remember, gave him the gospel, it says, ‘All heard the gospel…all were baptized.’

    Where is this in Scripture???

    I thought MacArthur “obliterated” the doctrine of infant baptism. All he’s doing is obliterating Scripture to make his point.

    “There is no parallel to [circumcision] in the New Testament.”

    It’s interesting that he didn’t address Col 2.10–12. I wonder why?

    I tried before to get answers to the following questions, but to no avail. I’ll try again:

    1) If “congregation”/”church” in 1 Corinthians must include women, then why is it impossible to accept that “household” in Acts might include infants?

    2) If the “regulative principle” does not apply to women receiving Communion, then why must it apply to infant baptism?

    3) Why, if baptism is merely a “symbol,” is it such a problem for churches to baptize infants, when it doesn’t seem to be a problem at all for churches to allow anyone and everyone off the street to receive Communion, willy-nilly, without any hesitation whatsoever?

    4) Where in the Scriptures, or in the Patristic writings, or in any of the Ecumenical Councils does it state that baptism is merely a symbol and nothing more?

    5) Is anyone willing to deny that there is, however, plenty of evidence that it is more than merely a symbol?

  2. Amen Matt. Didn’t this make the headlines just a month back on this blog?

    What’s the deal guys? Isn’t there a greater cause than this debate?

    While Islam marches on the west, we turn our guns on one another. Covenant baptism has been considered ORTHODOX throughout church history. The quote just before this post was from Matthew Henry – a man who supported the practice of covenant baptism.

    Let’s get over the petty differences and let’s be about the work of the Kingdom.

    http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/a-step-toward-winning-the-battle-loving-each-other-amid-differences/

    James M McDonald
    Pastor
    Providence Church

    Phone: 309.387.2600
    Mailing Address
    PO Box 19
    Kingston Mines, IL 61539

  3. James and Matt, if this is just a “petty” difference, then why are you gentlemen making just as big a deal with your critiques and/or twisting of history and Scripture in the attempt to prove your own point so vociferously? If this was a matter of difference between being either Reformed or Catholic, then I could understand why part of this might be such a big issue to those who want to try and “prove” from church history that the practice of covenant baptism is supported and “ORTHODOX” through the history of the church.

    However, this is very misleading to those who do not believe in covenantal baptism (particularly of infants) and hold to the what we believe is clearly a Scriptural understanding of baptism – for true believers only who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, and then are willing to follow the command of Scripture to be baptized. This they do not having been forced, but voluntarily to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and their willingness to take a stand for the faith.

    Read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, or even old theologians from the Catholic church, or even some of the so-called “great” reformers and see what they had to say about those who held to believer’s only baptism! Read how men like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and many others sided with the Catholic church in persecuting those who held to a baptistic form of doctrine. Even the Catholic church recognizes that the baptistic churches and doctrine predates anything from the Reformation AND also recognize that “baptists” have never been Protestants.

    Study history from both perspectives. Being “reformed” is not all the world implies in today’s evangelical church-at-large and certainly in many respects does not currently resemble all that it represented 250-400 years ago or more.

    Pastor James, it is true that Islam marches on the west, but it is imperative that we take a stand on all matters of doctrine, not cherry-pick what we like or don’t like. My church ancestors died for their faith AND for the doctrine to which they adhered. They died and were tortured at the hands of the Catholics AND many reformers because they not only believed in justification by grace through faith alone, but also in the truth that ONLY believers who showed forth a changed life were to be immersed in the baptismal waters.

    Unlike men like JI Packer, Ravi Zacarias and others who are willing to hold hands at the expense of most (or much) doctrine claiming it to be petty, I am not willing to do so for I believe I would desecrate the honor of those who have gone before us in the Christian halls of fame. More importantly, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, etc.; therefore, it must be considered important enough as John MacArthur rightly points out that we stand on such issues and do so not from trying to argue from the silence or twisting of church history or even trying to argue about “whether women are allowed to receive communion or not”, but do so from a Scriptural basis.

    Please do not misunderstand. I respect that others hold to differing views and some things we will never be sure on until we are glorified. Until that day comes and we stand in the presence of the King, we must and will continue to fight the good fight of faith. Doctrine does and will divide, and the church that willingly puts it aside for the sake of unity will give away far more in the end then they truly bargained for.

    In Christian grace,
    The Desert Pastor

  4. “if this is just a “petty” difference, then why are you gentlemen making just as big a deal with your critiques and/or twisting of history and Scripture in the attempt to prove your own point so vociferously?”

    ‘Scuse me?

    Twice this sermon has been posted on this blog. I’m simply asking someone to defend it (and its twisting of Scripture), and to explain to me why, if baptism is just a symbol, that infant baptism is so repulsive to its opponents. Where’s MacArthur’s–or anyone’s–sermon condemning open Communion?

    “More importantly, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, etc.; therefore, it must be considered important enough as John MacArthur rightly points out that we stand on such issues and do so not from trying to argue from the silence or twisting of church history or even trying to argue about “whether women are allowed to receive communion or not”, but do so from a Scriptural basis.”

    Scripture is so important that twice on this blog a sermon was posted in which Scripture was blatantly and repeatedly misquoted in order to bolster an argument.

    Nice.

    So instead of “trying to argue from the silence,” which is exactly what MacArthur is doing (“Infant baptism is not in Scripture…It is therefore impossible to prove that infant baptism is valid, from the New Testament.”), please show me where in the Scriptures, or in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils or elsewhere prior to the Reformation we are told that baptism is merely symbolic.

    “it is imperative that we take a stand on all matters of doctrine.”

    Yes it is. So please defend communion of women.

    I really, truly am eager to see how someone can, with a shred of intellectual integrity, accept communion of women and not throw out the “regulative principle” argument with regards to infant baptism.

  5. Wouldn’t it make more sense to avoid issues that cause others to become angry? If one disagrees with the stance on baptism presented here, simply avoid the sermon!!! There are varying views concerning many issues in the bible; i.e. pre-mil, post-mil, a-mil, for example. That does not mean we should waste time debating if we disagree. This sermon is for those who hold to the view of opposing infant baptism. Differences in views are never changed by continual debating, that just leads to heated discussions and flaring tempers. For every passage one has for his/her defense, those with opposing views have equal number of passages. What happens is that time is wasted, and the end result is the same…people with opposing views {which is where it all started to begin with!}.
    Let’s not forget the need for humility. Pride can easily raise it’s ugly head in situations like this as the desire to insist on being right grows with every opposing comment.

    One day soon enough we will see and understand fully…when that day comes, will any of this of mattered?

  6. Matt,

    Do you still believe there is any salvific instrument other than faith alone through which a believer appropriates once-and-for-all, complete, and total justification before God by His grace? In other words do you believe there is any other instrument (or channel, or conduit, or means) other than faith alone by which believers are linked to Christ and receive the grace of full justification – meaning a complete and total reconciliation unto, and a perfectly righteous standing before God?

    If so, then you are guilty of believing another gospel and discussions about the proper mode of baptism with you are really quite pointless. If this is in fact your spiritual condition then, according to the scriptures, you are presently without Christ and without hope and you are commanded to repent.

    In Christ,
    CD

  7. Well, y’all are certainly proving the old maxim to be true – it is far easier for a Baptist to join a Presbyterian church than the other way around. We have a number of Baptists at the church I serve. We welcome them as brothers with open arms.

    The easiest way to answer your questions CD is with the words of the Westminster Confession, the most complete yet concise statement on doctrinal truth ever developed. This following are paragraphs 4 – 6 from Chapter 28…

    4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, (Mark 16:15–16, Acts 8:37–38) but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. (Gen. 17:7–8, Gal. 3:9,14, Col. 2:11–12, Acts 2:38–39, Rom. 4:11–12, 1 Cor. 7:14, Matt. 28:19, Mark 10:13–16, Luke 18:15)

    5. Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, (Luke 7:30, Exod. 4:24–26) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: (Rom. 4:11, Acts 10:2,4,22,31,45,47) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (Acts 8:13,23)

    6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; (John 3:5,8) yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. (Gal. 3:27, Tit. 3:5, Eph. 5:25–26, Acts 2:38,41)

    With that, I go back to my little corner of the Kingdom to fight the good fight of faith and working for the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

    James M McDonald
    Pastor
    Providence Church

    Phone: 309.387.2600
    Mailing Address
    PO Box 19
    Kingston Mines, IL 61539

  8. James,

    I admire the Westminster Confession, but I think you’ve misunderstood my line of questioning to Matt. You’re probably unaware of the fact that in other threads here at DefCon Matt has self-identified as a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy who has articulated his adherence to their “faith plus works-righteousness” soteriology.

    Presumably this is anathema to a Presbyterian Reformed pastor such as yourself, therefore I should expect that you’d be a bit uncomfortable being the amen chorus for an armchair apologist for Eastern Orthodoxy. Amen?

    In Christ,
    CD

  9. Now that the dust had finally settled on the debate on the previous thread (only to rekindle on this one), I wanted to add my humble comment to the mix.

    First I wanted to thank Corem Deo for originally posting on this subject. Growing up Catholic and then falling into the Charismatic movement, (which I was eventually rescued out of) I have since come to learn much more about true Christianity in recent years and this involved unlearning some things from the Charismatic circles I had been influenced by.

    I have been fond of much of the Reformed teachings due mainly to their strict adherence to Sola Scriptura (and the other Solas) and their use of expositional teaching. However, I have not been completely receptive to all their views (like infant baptism for example) and I have (still) not been sold on all 5 points of Calvinism (but very close).

    Furthermore, I will never consider myself a “Calvinist,” but a Christian. If I ever agree with all five points of Calvinism, I would have to be convinced from Scripture. And thus I would just be adhering to Scripture, not Calvin. Additionally I do not ring the bell for any denomination. If I had to label myself anything, it’d be a Biblicist.

    Now in regards to infant baptism, I have found no justification for it from reading the Bible. So I was interested in this topic originally posted by Corem Deo.

    I then listened to the actual sermon from MacArthur and he only solidified my notion that any teaching, instruction, or example of infant baptism is completely absent from holy writ.

    I then printed out and read all the comments from the previous post. These comments still did not make the case for this doctrine.

    Although the thread quickly branched into the topic of salvation (which is never a bad topic), I understood why. No reason to discuss peripheral issues with a man if he’s perishing.

    What I did get out of the comments in defense of infant baptism was this:

    The Bible doesn’t say women can partake of Communion = Infant baptism is doctrinal.

    Taking everything up to this point into consideration, along with my own Bible reading, it is pretty apparent to me that one must perform some rather astounding hermeneutical gymnastics to pull off justifying infant baptism using Scripture alone.

    Additionally, I looked at some pictures from what I believe to be an Orthodox adult baptism (found here) and was astounded at the similarities of imagery between them and the Romish system.

    – Baptismal robes and candles?
    – Patron Saint?
    – Holy oil washed off with holy water?

    This all smacks of Romanism.

    I am not above reproof, correction, and instruction, but it must come from the Bible alone, and not man’s tradition or creeds. So far, (in my view), the case to support infant baptism has not been made.

    Sincerely and respectfully,
    – The Pilgrim

  10. My friend Pilgrim, the problem you have is you forget the Bible has a left side and a right side. The promises of God in the New Testament are not less than those in the Old, they are greater in the day of the New Covenant. This includes the promises to our children.

    There are many reasons 80% of the children from evangelical homes are running from the faith. And a lack of a covenantal understanding of Scripture is one of the biggest.

    But there will never be unity on this issue – especially on a blog. So, I again retreat to my corner of the Kingdom and prepare to preach about God’s grace this Lord’s Day.

    Peace to you all,

    James M McDonald
    Pastor
    Providence Church

    Phone: 309.387.2600
    Mailing Address
    PO Box 19
    Kingston Mines, IL 61539

  11. Pilgrim,

    Check out the James White / Gregg Strawbridge debate that I posted on this subject. It’s a couple of hours long, but it’s quite informative and well worth the time spent listening. Sadly paedobaptism is a prime example of the vain traditions of men, and as we know tradition is very, very powerful.

    In Christ,
    CD

  12. Pastor James, I appreciate your reading here and your willingness to post comments even though we would be in disagreement with some of your beliefs. You are correct that we will probably unite on this issue on a blogsite. As you prepare to minister about the grace of God this Lord’s Day, may you be encouraged in the Word.

    I will be addressing some issues in the near future in regards to the departure of evangelical children from the faith. However, in my extensive study on the matter, I am not convinced that a big reason for children running from the faith has to do with the preaching or understanding of covenants from the Scripture. I shall elucidate later, Lord willing. Again, thanks for reading and your gracious responses. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the comments I made in regards to church history when you have free time either publicly on the blog or to my personal email at thedesertpastor@yahoo.com. Thanks.

    The Desert Pastor

  13. “Do you still believe there are salvific instruments apart from…”

    That’s great CD. We’ve been over this before. Please don’t change the subject. Please answer my questions about infant baptism. If you can.

    “who has articulated his adherence to their “faith plus works-righteousness” soteriology”

    I’m not sure whom you’re quoting here, CD, but it is not me. I told you before and I will tell you again for the last time, I–along with the Orthodox Church–do not believe in works-righteousness. Please do some research before you spout off about something about which you quite clearly know nothing.

    “What I did get out of the comments in defense of infant baptism was this:
    The Bible doesn’t say women can partake of Communion = Infant baptism is doctrinal.”

    That’s not exactly what I’m getting at, Pilgrim.

    What I am saying is that if you can say that communion of women is acceptable, despite no evidence of it in Scripture, then your argument against infant baptism on the grounds of it being “unscriptural” fall apart.

    Now let’s try this again:

    1) If “congregation”/”church” in 1 Corinthians must include women, then why is it impossible to accept that “household” in Acts might include infants?

    2) If the “regulative principle” does not apply to women receiving Communion, then why must it apply to infant baptism?

    3) Why, if baptism is merely a “symbol,” is it such a problem for churches to baptize infants, when it doesn’t seem to be a problem at all for churches to allow anyone and everyone off the street to receive Communion, willy-nilly, without any hesitation whatsoever?

    4) Where in the Scriptures, or in the Patristic writings, or in any of the Ecumenical Councils does it state that baptism is merely a symbol and nothing more?

    5) Is anyone willing to deny that there is, however, plenty of evidence that it is more than merely a symbol?

  14. I hope I’m not too out of place by interjecting something here, but I’ve been following along and I couldn’t let a particular comment rest:

    “3) Why, if baptism is merely a “symbol,” is it such a problem for churches to baptize infants, when it doesn’t seem to be a problem at all for churches to allow anyone and everyone off the street to receive Communion, willy-nilly, without any hesitation whatsoever?”

    -All churches?

    I would assume that you are merely generalizing, and didn’t mean exactly what you wrote. But if this isn’t the case, I’d like to say that neither the Church I belong to, nor any other Independent Baptist Church in Canada (that I know of), have a communion that is open to (willy-nilly) anyone. The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, in our Church, is open to believers only. If someone came “off the street,” and confessed that they are true a believer on Jesus Christ (the second Person of the Trinity; God-incarnate), we’d allow them too. But only on those grounds.

    Please forgive my ignorance (I may have missed this part of the dialogue), but what about the thief on the cross? What about the silence on the baptism of infants throughout parts of the Bible where one would expect to find such an important doctrine (i.e.: With the Samaritans; Acts 8:12 – “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women”)?

    I’m no theologian, but it seems to me that those who would purport infant baptism are doing so based on an allegorical interpretation of certain parts of the Old Testament; specifically Jewish circumcision. To bolster this, they view the Church as “spiritual Israel.” My *guess* is that some time in the early history of the Church, they lost faith and hope in what the Bible teaches: A literal millennial reign of Christ from the throne of David and from the third temple, over the whole earth. They began to interpret this as allegory, and in doing so all proper Biblical hermeneutics went out the window (i.e.: most prophecy now treated as allegory, not taken literally). By the time of the Church fathers then, you begin to see the emergence of an unbiblical form of the Lord’s Supper (transubstantiation, et al…) and other rank heresies.

    That being said, I must profess that see no grounds for infant Baptism in the Bible AT ALL. Also, I am a relatively new believer (coming up on 2 years; I used to hate Christians, Christianity and most forms of religion and would have considered myself an agnostic), and am not ‘steeped’ in any tradition or heritage. I’ve read the Bible in its entirety once, and in part, several times, and simply do not see it. Praise God!

    Brother Aaron

  15. “I would assume that you are merely generalizing”

    Of course. I don’t believe that every Protestant church practices open communion. But some do. Where is the outcry?

  16. Brother Aaron, I pondered the same question you do! The thief of the cross was NOT baptized, so now what?
    I also bring this passage to light – – “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” Acts 2:41
    It appears the condition for baptism is based on one gladly receiving His word FIRST, then followed by baptism.
    I was baptized as a youth, and lived a godless life thereafter up until six years ago. Why? Because water baptism does NOT save, it cannot regenerate the dead sinful heart. It has no saving power in of itself.
    I have also seen a grown woman profess Christ, undergo baptism, and fall back into sin. She now rejects Christ, God, and anything to do with Christianity. She is steeped in sin; homosexuality, addiction, etc. So what happened here?
    There was no regeneration, no new birth that comes supernaturally solely by God through His grace.

  17. matt,

    i wouldn’t mind talking to you about these subjects! i know this was a little while ago but write back if you come back to this site.

    thanks,
    tlm

  18. I don’t mind other Christians disagreeing with infant baptism, but find it unnerving to see them classifying it as a heresy with no biblical basis, worthy of being placed on an apologetic website.

    I have made a case for infant baptism here: http://www.giffmex.org/blog/?p=153

    Disagree all you want about whether we ought to baptize babies. But can we please dispense with the demonizing approach?

  19. So Dave, you believe in salvation by works?
    I was baptized as a child, and lived the most sinful life one could imagine. Had I died at any time before Christ saved me, I would have faced God’s wrath.
    Note this passage from Acts 2:41, ‘Then they that gladly received his word were baptized’…how does an infant ‘gladly recieve his word’?
    Infant baptism does not save the soul; no ‘work’ of man saves. Ephesians 2:8.9 clearly states how we are saved, ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.’

  20. Hey unworthy1,

    No, I don’t believe in salvation by works. I don’t believe that infant baptism saves one’s soul. I agree completely with Eph. 2.8-9. But I believe the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism, which doesn’t contradict anything you mention in your post.

  21. I came across this sermon when I was looking for information about the Baptist Catechism. I read it until he stated that Jesus said, “Just do these two things. They are symbols.” I found this Sermon of the Week blog by trying to locate where it actually says that in the bible…this and other postings of the sermon are the ONLY places that statement is written. I was raised Southern Baptist, so I’m very familiar with the faith, but I’ve gotta say I’d never been able to worship as completely as a Baptist as I have as a Catholic. Not for lack of trying or devotion…but for lack of proper guidance. There are too many instances just like this, of men trying to seem more Godly by rewriting God’s words (or in this case making them up). I loved my Baptist faith, but Catholicism offers a more complete method of worship, and the fact that it’s the ORIGINAL Church is something you can ACTUALLY find in the bible, as is the fact that Jesus never intended his people to turn into bitter hate-mongers. Maybe if more sermons preached something, in stead of preaching against something, the sermon would hold more water.

    I didn’t even go past that one line of his sermon. I don’t feel I’ve missed out on anything. I do feel for people who believe that just because a preacher says it that God musta’ said it first! Look it up yourself, do the research.

  22. Lady Dispatcher,

    More Christians died at the bloody hands of the RCC pope “Innocent III’ than through any other persecution in the history of the Christian Church.

    You keep your blood-thirsty pope-devil, his damning doctrines, and his silly perpetuation of the succession myth.

    The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.

    However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The Apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14).

    Read the rest here:

    http://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html

    The Catholic church could not recognize Jesus Christ… She has never met Him.

  23. Lady Dispatcher:

    Thanks for your comment.

    I must admit, I too did not like how MacArthur said that, but you can rest assured he wasn’t saying it as if he was quoting Jesus verbatim. He was merely relaying the Scriptural stance regarding baptism and the Lord’s supper.

    I understand that a misspoken or poorly worded sentence can taint our view of the rest of a sermon, but I wish you had not stopped at that point and continued to listen to the message. He makes a great case against the practice of infant baptism.

    Now, you said:

    I loved my Baptist faith, but Catholicism offers a more complete method of worship, and the fact that it’s the ORIGINAL Church is something you can ACTUALLY find in the bible, as is the fact that Jesus never intended his people to turn into bitter hate-mongers. Maybe if more sermons preached something, in stead of preaching against something, the sermon would hold more water.”


    Firstly, exactly how does the Romish religion offer a “complete method of worship?”

    Secondly, you said Rome is the original church and that can be found in the Bible. Can you please show us that? Be prepared to . . .

    1). Explain why Mary was barely ever mentioned after the Gospels (mentioned like only one time).
    2). Find me any reference to the Rosary (other than Jesus’ admonition against repetitive, babbling, rote prayers).
    3). Find me the mention of or the word “pope” anywhere in Scripture.
    4). Find me “monks” in the Bible and examples of the monastic lifestyle in the NT church.
    5). Find me nuns in the Bible.
    6). Find me why priests are still needed when Hebrews is clear that Jesus was our great and final priest who offered Himself “once and for all” (not being re-sacrificed week after in the Romish mass) and then sat down at the right hand of the Father.
    7). Show us the teaching or example of priests being required to remain abstinent. (Hint: You’ll have to try to find that in the OT because Jesus did away with the need for a priest in the NT so after the OT it’s a moot point.)
    8). Prove to me that Peter was the first pope. I have a post of 17 reasons to prove that he was not.

    Also, your subtle reference to us as bitter hate-mongers is unwarranted. I don’t think it’s fair to allude to us that way. I encourage you to see how you fare after taking the six-question quiz: Are you Loving or unloving?

    John MacArthur has preached many, many sermons for something–more than against something–so your attack on him, by suggesting otherwise, was also unwarranted.

    Look, your opinion that we hate or even dislike Catholics is untrue. We have many family and friends who are following after this religion, hoping that they will somehow merit God’s favor by their own hands, when the sacrifice was already done by Someone else. It is not the people of Rome that we are against, it is the doctrine of Rome that we oppose. I hope for Romanists to come to the truth, but telling Romanists (or Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Muslims, or fake Christians) the truth is always painful.

    My grandfather recently became one of Rome’s latest victims (see here and here). This is very serious and not something we take lightly.

    Sincerely, and in love,
    – Pilgrim

  24. I know that a lot of fundamentalist preachers are exellent. The first time I heard a Catholic say “Baptists hate us” I was appalled. MY Baptist church never said anything about other denominations, so I had no idea what they were talking about. This was the first time I read a sermon like this. My reference of “hate-monger” wasn’t unwarranted or towards every fundamentalist, just the radicals that do preach hate (which is exactly what happens when someone spends time putting down other denominations in order to justify his own). I know I’m butting against a brick wall here, and I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind over the internet like this, but here are the answers to your questions. Individual interpretation and is a part of protestant understanding of scripture and faith, so it might be fair to read this as a “Catholic Interpretation”:

    People dying at the hands of the Pope: The Pope is not perfect, he is a man, not God. He makes mistakes. He is considered infallable only in regards to what he says during religious council. Pope Innocent III lost control virtually from the start. That doesn’t excuse him, or any Pope that aids in murder or dabbles in war. Anybody can kill someone and say it’s in the “name of the Lord”.

    1.) Mary is not a Goddess. She is not the Savior. Mary gave birth to Jesus, and it is because of the Trinity that we say Mary is mother of God. She did not create God, she was asked, and agreed, to be used as a vessel. Why should she be spoken of as though she is as important as God in the Bible? She isn’t. She is understood to have significant importance, though, due to her devotion to Him and her being the first diciple. When Jesus was presented in the temple, the prophet Simeon, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, told Mary that “a sword will pierce your own heart also” (Luke 2:35). This verse is the basis for the Catholic understanding that Mary shared in the sufferings of Jesus in a mysterious (not magical) way, and that her sufferings were a part of the suffering he went through.

    2.)The “Rosary” isn’t mentioned in the bible, just like “Trinity” and “Pope” aren’t. 1 Timothy 2:5 says “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Catholicism doesn’t dispute that at all. We use the word “intermediation” because there is no better word to describe someone praying to God for us. Psalm 103:20–21 says “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!”. That is literally asking the angels to bless the Lord, his hosts, and his ministers! It’s not against any teaching to ask people to “bless”/pray for us even if they are already in Heaven, which is what is done in saying the rosary. If you look at the words said during the rosary, it all comes from the Bible. It begins with the Lord’s Prayer, Glory Be to the Father and then continues to ask for prayer. “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” This is nothing more than the greeting the angel Gabriel gave Mary in Luke 1:28. “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” This was exactly what Mary’s cousin Elizabeth said to her in Luke 1:42. Christ forbade meaningless repetition (Matt. 6:7), but the Bible itself prescribes some prayers that involve repetition. Look at Psalms 136, which is a litany (a prayer with a recurring refrain) meant to be sung in the Jewish Temple. In the psalm the refrain is “His mercy endures forever.” Sometimes in Psalms 136 the refrain starts before a sentence is finished, meaning it is more repetitious than the rosary, though this prayer was written directly under the inspiration of God.

    4./5./7.) Monks, nuns, and priests take vows of celibacy because they want to devote their lives to God alone. Can you seriously say that there is something WRONG with celibacy? I would think that celibacy would be the one topic nobody took issue with. For the sake of biblical “proof” of monks and nuns: The Nazirites (“consecrated ones”), were were essentially monks and nuns. They took vows of self-denial (Num. 6:2-4, 6-8) and had a distinctive appearance (Num. 6:5). John the Baptist was one of these (Luke 1:15), as were Samson (Judges 13:5-6) and Samuel (1 Sam. 1:11). Others too led a consecrated lifestyle, such as the prophetess Anna, who lived like a cloistered nun (Luke 2:36-37). In the Christian age Paul himself took a temporary Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18) and recommended that others live celibate lives, consecrated to God (1 Cor. 7:32-38), especially ministers (1 Tim. 2:3-4). He set up an order of widows living the consecrated life after the deaths of their husbands (1Tim. 5:3-12), warning that those were not to be enrolled in this order if they were in danger of leaving the consecrated life to get married and so “incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge” (1 Tim. 5:12).

    8.) Peter the first Pope: The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). The biggest dispute is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Simon “rock”: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). There is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra, which is a feminine noun). Since Peter was male the context was changed from -ra to -ros purely for “stylistic reasons”. Also, Jesus spoke Aramaic. John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”

    Apostolic succession/Tradition: (Paul) “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). **By word of mouth, or letter.** “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). **Entrust to faithful men who will teach others.**

    6.) A priest is a preacher. Can you tell me why all denominations need preachers? The main difference is that we “confess” to our preachers on a regular basis. After his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, “‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23). This is the basis of our belief in confession.

    Eucharist: In John 6:30 the Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” Jesus says the bread is his body, and goes on to clarify that it is the same flesh that will be given up on the cross. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant only “figuratively” or “spiritually speaking”, then so is the flesh of the crucifixion! We partake in the Eucharist regularly because Jesus commanded that we do it in rememberance of him. He didn’t command that we do it once a month, or every so often. By partaking in Eucharist we continue to follow instructions left on how to worship.

    Works (aka: Being a Good Catholic): Ephesians 2:8–9: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” We believe that we are only saved by the grace of God, no if’s, and’s, or but’s. We also acknowledge the responsibility taken on by a saved Christian to live an honorable life, treating others well and doing good for others, as stated in James 2:22-24: “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”**By grace alone he is saved, but by keeping faith and treating others as God commanded, a person is justified.**

    I think I answered all the questions you asked, and I hope I represented the Catholic position well. If nothing else, I hope you can understand that it’s not evil to be Catholic, there is ligitimate reason for everything (tradition and scripture both) that can be found in the Bible. We believe that we are following the faith in a church built by God. Catholicism is the parent denomination from which others came from, so we are in fact all Christian (by definition, believers in Christ).

    **Personal Note: I recently lost my granny to cancer, and my father just a few weeks later, so my heart goes out to you. The pain of loss never goes away but with faith and support it does get easer. I’ll keep your family in my prayers.**

  25. Lady Dispatcher,

    My reference of “hate-monger” wasn’t unwarranted or towards every fundamentalist, just the radicals that do preach hate (which is exactly what happens when someone spends time putting down other denominations in order to justify his own).

    So.. by your standard, if we defend and contend for the faith then we are ‘hate mongers’ (your words)? Well, then… we are in good company: Paul, Jude, Luke, Peter, in the NT… and every prophet in the OT — all disputed openly with those in error. That is the RCC and that is YOU. Your false religion has been weighed and found wanting.

    I know I’m butting against a brick wall here, and I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind over the internet like this

    Lady Dispatcher, ‘It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ (Acts 26:14) You are challenging God’s Word. You will lose.

    Individual interpretation and is a part of protestant understanding of scripture and faith,

    No. Proper employing proper hermeneutics allows Christians to rightly divide the Word of God… something the RCC will not do.

    The Pope is not perfect, he is a man, not God. He makes mistakes. He is considered infallable only in regards to what he says during religious council. Pope Innocent III lost control virtually from the start.

    If he makes mistakes, and is thus fallible, how could you ever trust him to speak infallibly? Jesus never had that problem… and thus the Bible is the only trustworthy source of truth.

    “VICAR OF CHRIST?’ Never!!

    That doesn’t excuse him, or any Pope that aids in murder or dabbles in war. Anybody can kill someone and say it’s in the “name of the Lord”.

    Your trivialization of this event is shocking.

    She is understood to have significant importance, though, due to her devotion to Him and her being the first diciple.

    Whoa! Where in the Bible does it say THAT about Mary? Where does it say that Jesus called Mary to be His disciple? Please site Scripture ONLY.

    When Jesus was presented in the temple, the prophet Simeon, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, told Mary that “a sword will pierce your own heart also” (Luke 2:35). This verse is the basis for the Catholic understanding that Mary shared in the sufferings of Jesus in a mysterious (not magical) way, and that her sufferings were a part of the suffering he went through.

    No… Again, try using proper hermeneutics. Mary was a sinner equally guilty as we are before a perfectly holy God. She was in need of a Savior as we all are. That’s it!

    Jesus suffered and died on the cross because the Father was pouring out His indignant unbridled WRATH on His Son for our salvation:

    “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” (Isaiah 53:10)

    See, NO MARY!!

    To say that her suffering IN ANY WAY to our salvation (the only reason He was on the cross) is blasphemy.

    The “Rosary” isn’t mentioned in the bible, just like “Trinity” and “Pope” aren’t. 1 Timothy 2:5 says “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Catholicism doesn’t dispute that at all. We use the word “intermediation” because there is no better word to describe someone praying to God for us. Psalm 103:20–21 says “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!”. That is literally asking the angels to bless the Lord, his hosts, and his ministers! It’s not against any teaching to ask people to “bless”/pray for us even if they are already in Heaven, which is what is done in saying the rosary.

    The Bible forbids us to pray to dead people. Please don’t insult us with the non-biblical ‘Mary was “assumed” into Heaven’ rubbish. Show me where any of the RCC false teachings here are supported by Scripture.

    Praying to the dead is necromancy. Period.

    If you look at the words said during the rosary, it all comes from the Bible. It begins with the Lord’s Prayer, Glory Be to the Father and then continues to ask for prayer. “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” This is nothing more than the greeting the angel Gabriel gave Mary in Luke 1:28. “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” This was exactly what Mary’s cousin Elizabeth said to her in Luke 1:42. Christ forbade meaningless repetition (Matt. 6:7), but the Bible itself prescribes some prayers that involve repetition. Look at Psalms 136, which is a litany (a prayer with a recurring refrain) meant to be sung in the Jewish Temple. In the psalm the refrain is “His mercy endures forever.” Sometimes in Psalms 136 the refrain starts before a sentence is finished, meaning it is more repetitious than the rosary, though this prayer was written directly under the inspiration of God.

    Lady Dispatcher, please let this article from Greg Durel shed some light on your blasphemous RCC prayer:

    The prayer life of the Roman Catholic is quite different from the Bible believing Christian. The predominant prayer in the life of almost any catholic is the “Hail Mary.” It goes like this: “HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE. BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB, JESUS. HOLY MARY, MOTHER OF GOD, PRAY FOR US SINNERS, NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH. AMEN.” The statements made in this prayer are quite significant. Allow us to look at them one at a time and compare them with the word of God to see if there is a basis for such a prayer at all.

    1) Hail Mary—The word “hail” brings with it today the connotation of royalty, nobility and power. It is a greeting given to someone of great power, influence and preeminence. We know very well that is the position that Roman Catholicism places on Mary. For example: the principle form of prayer for most Catholics is the “rosary.” The rosary is a system of beads where a prayer is said for each bead. The beads are a way to count the prayers and to know where and when to say a particular prayer. In this “rosary,” ten prayers are said to Mary for every one that is said to God the Father. In other words Mary is preeminent ten to one over God! Mary is referred to as the “mother of the church,” “the second eve,” “the queen of heaven.” The queen of the universe,” “co-redemptrix,” “co-mediator,” and if that were not enough, the head of the Roman Catholic Church has dedicated the world on at least two occasions, not to the savior Jesus Christ, but to Mary. When he was shot in an assassination attempt, he thanked and credited Mary with saving him! Attributing praise and worship to humans that have no basis to receive such is not uncommon in forms of religious and political paganism, e.g., “Hail Caesar” or “Hail Hitler.”

    2) Full of Grace—Wow! What a statement. The teaching is clear. Mary was not ordinary, but was in fact “full” of grace. She must have been special to be “full of grace,” right? What does God’s word have to say on the matter? John chapter 1 is like a giant spotlight on this subject. It clearly tells us that Jesus Christ is the one that is full of grace. Mary is never said to be full of grace in the scripture. John goes on to tell us in verse 16 that we are all full of His grace and truth, because all believers have Jesus dwelling within them. Only in this sense could Mary have been full of grace. The grace would have been the savior she carried in her womb and after Pentecost, the spirit of Christ that lives in every believer.

    3) The Lord is with thee—The Lord is with every believer or they are not in fact a believer (Rom. 8:9)

    4) Blessed art thou among women—While this statement is certainly biblical, it must be understood in the light of biblical truth and not as a result of subjective interpretation. The New Testament was written in “koine” Greek as opposed to classical. There are several words in the Greek language for blessed, just like there are several words for “love,” each having a different meaning or carrying with it a particular connotation. A failure to examine the underlying text is a gross mistake on the part of the student of God’s Word. The word translated “blessed” when speaking of Mary is not the same word used when referring to our Lord. The word used for Mary means to pronounce fortunate, and indeed she was. On the other hand the word used for blessed when referring to our Lord means to be adored. Quite a difference, wouldn’t you say? You may even wish to check your concordance to see if there is a woman whom the Bible says is blessed “above” women.

    5) Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus—Without a doubt this is the truth that should be the focus: the Lord Jesus, the Messiah and savior of the world. This should be the emphasis and not Mary. Many, though, know not what they worship.

    6) Holy Mary, Mother of God—What a statement! Is it true? Not by any stretch of the imagination. The Bible clearly teaches that the only HOLY one is God. Mary in what is known as her Magnificat, rejoices in God HER SAVIOR (Lk.1: 47). Holiness does not need saving. Mary, after the birth of Jesus, offers a sacrifice for HER SINS. Holiness need not offer a sacrifice for sins. Mary, as any believer, received her righteousness as a gift from the Father. There was nothing inherently holy about Mary. Even Thomas Aquinas denies the “immaculate conception” of Mary. Regarding the “Mother of God” statement much not need be said. God was not born nor was He created. Mary gave birth to the “humanity” of Jesus. Jesus was God, because He is God! The statement “Mother of God” developed out of a reaction to the denial of the Deity of Jesus by some. That overreaction has resulted in the tail wagging the dog so to speak. Mary was the vessel by which the incarnation took place but she was not the supplier of Divine chromosomes.

    7) Pray for us sinners—Mary does not pray for you or me. She does not even know that we exist. If she could know millions and millions of people then she would be a God! While I can pray for you if you were to ask me to, I am alive here on earth. If I would know that you were asking me to pray for you from a thousand miles away, then I would be like God. Do you get the picture? Mary has been clearly given the attributes of God. The adjective “sinners” is used because all good Catholics are still trying to pay for their sin debt. Failing to realize that when Christ said, “it is finished,” He meant it. When God the Father declared it through Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17-20, He certainly was not kidding.

    8) Now and at the hour of our death—”Now,” she could not even if she wanted to. “At the hour of our death,” why? Please tell me what would be the purpose of such a prayer (if one could be made) at the hour of our death? Further, she again would have to be a “GOD” to know where and when we were going to die.

    9) Amen—A permanent amen should not be given to prayers to anyone other than God. The Father is to be the recipient of all prayer.

    In summary, allow me to say that Mary was a wonderful vessel that the Father used. Mary was chosen for these reasons:

    1. She was a fine, virtuous, faithful to the law Jewish maiden.
    2. She was of the “seed” of King David.
    3. She was a virgin.

    These qualifications were the biblical reasons to choose her. Not having just one of these prerequisites would have caused God’s prophecies to fail. Did Mary play an important role in the Bible? Yes, but so did Noah and Joseph, etc. Remember, Jesus never called Mary Mother. Not even once! No Apostle ever asks her opinion on anything. No one in the Bible ever asks Mary to pray for them. After the first chapter of the fifth book of the New Testament she is never mentioned again, and then only in a list of other believers.

    Please allow the Scripture to bring you to a true understanding of Mary the Mother of Jesus.

    http://www.reachingcatholics.org/hailmarymd.html

    Peter the first Pope

    and

    There is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra, which is a feminine noun). Since Peter was male the context was changed from -ra to -ros purely for “stylistic reasons”. Also, Jesus spoke Aramaic. John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”

    Wow! Your scholarship is sloppy. When you read the Greek words Petra and petros, you are reading the Words spoken by our Lord. Nice try, though.

    You can keep trying to breath hot air into that fallacious balloon, but there are too many holes in it to make it float. Sorry.

    Eucharist

    So, your priest can order Jesus Christ down from the Father’s right Hand each Sunday to re-sacrifice our Lord in an ‘un-bloody’ sacrifice (whatever that means) is also blasphemy.

    Works

    “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so that thus he understands nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.” – Canon 9, Trent’s Decree on Justification

    Nuff said.

    May the Lord bless you with the truth of His Word, the Bible (alone).

    In Christ (alone),
    – Jeff H

  26. Jeff,

    I’m a little disturbed by your disregard for the scripture Lady Dispatcher used. You asked for an explaination, and she went as far as to use actual scripture…and lots of it. That’s something most catholics couldn’t do. You can’t sidestep what is written in the Bible. Some of those passages I had to look up because I’d never heard them mentioned in Bible Study or in service…but sure enough, there they are. I’ll have to do more studying about it, but I’m kinda surprised nobody mentioned them before. I think you misunderstood what she said about hatemongers. I don’t think she said everyone who defends their faith is a hatemonger, just everyone who twists the words in the bible to put people of their faith against those of another faith. It really does happen, and it’s happening all too often nowadays (heard of Westborough?). Just stating facts is different from twisting facts. She also didn’t say that Mary’s suffering aids in our salvation, just that she suffered with Him as a mother and follower of Christ. I would immagine it’s true, she was with him longer than any other person on Earth and always knew him to be Christ. And that passage about works completing faith, I’d never heard that before!! That really got me angry (I thought it was a twisting of words), and then when I saw that it actually IS in the Bible, I’m shocked! This is definitely something I’m taking to talk to my pastor about. I’m glad Lady Dispatcher posted this stuff because I actually do understand better why they believe what they believe, but I don’t think it’s something I can subscribe to. It’s good to know what “the other side” thinks and how they justify what they do. Interesting.

    -CS

  27. By my standard, when you pick a denomination to specifically run into the ground by changing the words in the Bible, you’re being a hate-monger, and that’s what this preacher did. 1 Timothy 6:20-21 says”Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith…” I really feel that when someone rearranges scripture, professing false knowledge is exactly what they are doing.

    When you asked your questions, I gave you real references in context from the Bible, and you seem to have misunderstood both the quotes and the teaching of the Church, so I’ll try to explain it better.

    The Pope’s infallibility is limited only to what he says in religious council. That means if he says the sky is magenta, he’s entitled to his opinion. The color of the sky is not a religious matter. See the difference? When they dabble in war, make opinionated statements, etc, they are not infallible.

    Apostollic Succession: I’ll give another example of where the apostles understood that the leadership of the Christ’s Church was to be succeeded. In Acts 1:20 Peter led a meeting after Jesus’ ascension to decide who would take the place of Judas. Peter quoted from Psalms saying,””For…it is written in the book of Psalms, “‘May his place be deserted; and there be no one to dwell in it,” and “May another take his place of leadership.’ “. They chose Matthias. They new that their leadership and responsibilities did not end with Jesus’ ascension, and their places of leadership did not disappear when they left this earth.

    I stated clearly that it’s not the belief of the Catholic Church that one is saved by “faith alone”. Your quote from the Canon supports this Catholic belief. Do you understand the meaning of that quote? That anyone who believes that they don’t have to willingly cooperate in their own justification is condemned. One is saved by the Grace of God, and it is expected for saved Christians to live in faith. Works come into the picture as a way to live in our faith (also see Titus 3:8). Even by living every day as God commanded we are not guaranteed salvation. We must be baptized and accept Jesus Christ as our savior. If we do good works and expect people to praise us for it, that’s just being boastful and egotistic (Matthew 6:1-34), and not in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Did you even read the scripture I quoted? Were you trying to argue against the Bible by quoting Cannon 9, which SUPPORTS what was said?

    The Aramaic translation is correct, Jesus often spoke in Aramaic (reference the whole story behind your quote in Acts 26). If you want to talk about “sloppy” scolarship, turn to the man you quoted. The quote you left for me to read is incorrect. The “predominant prayer” in Catholic life is private prayer directly to God. The Rosary is never a part of Mass. Especially since Vatican II Council, the Rosary isn’t said as often as non-Catholics think. The author also says, “Hail Mary, full of grace,” is not scriptural, but the angel Gabriel gave Mary this greeting in Luke 1:28. If the grace she was full of was just a baby she would have been told simply that she was with child. Mary is called,”mother of my Lord,” in Luke 1:43. The only way to deny that Mary is Jesus’ mother is to separate Jesus from the Lord, and deny the Trinity. Saying that Mary wasn’t Jesus’ mother due to lack of the word in the Bible goes along the same lines as “Trinity”; just because Jesus didn’t say the word doesn’t mean it isn’t truth.

    I have to point out that Jesus did not say, “don’t pray using meaningless repetitions like the Jewish people do”. He specified “As the Gentiles do.” Surely Matthew 6:7 isn’t condemning Jesus for “saying the same words” in his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus illustrates that He Himself is not opposed to all repetition in prayer, by the example of His own practice: Matthew 26:39, 42, 44: “And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” . . . [42] Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be done.” . . . [44] So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words.” Mark 14:39, “And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.” Jesus certainly wasn’t shy about challenging the traditions of his fellow Jewish people when he found them incorrect, yet he didn’t say “Jews”. Jewish tradition includes prayer that is passed from generation to generation and does include repetition (as do many Hymns, which are essentially prayer and worship in song). Gentiles (chanting pagans, babbling oracles, etc..) practiced “vain repetition”. We also know that the angels use repetitive prayer. In Rev. 4:8 the angels repeat, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.” God is also pleased at the tax collector’s repeated prayer in Luke 18:13.

    On Intercession/Necromancy: The faith of the Church is that the saints are fully alive in Jesus Christ, who is life itself (John 11:25; 14:6) and the bread of life who bestows life on all who eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:35, 48, 51, 53-56). If, after reading that we are granted eternal life through Him, you still reason that those in Heaven are dead souls, then your belief is blasphemy also. The book of Revelation even shows the saints offering prayers for the saints on earth (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11). According to scripture, God wants us to pray for one another. This must mean that prayer for one another cannot detract from the role of Jesus Christ as our one mediator with God.”Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16-17).

    On Assumption: Assumption into Heaven is not just something Mary recieved, it’s something that both Enoch and Elijah recieved (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. Epiphanius said in A.D. 377, “Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary's earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy. . .” ((Basically, why would anyone expect them to speak extensively about Mary, she isn’t the important one.))

    On the Eucharist: There is no magic involved when a priest asks God to accept the sacrifice of Eucharist. Jesus said to do it, so we do it. I’ve already posted scripture for reference on how the bread and wine were LITERALLY body and blood of Christ, and it doesn’t get that way because some priest decides it is. A priest can only ask God to accept the sacrifice. By Jesus telling us that the bread and wine are his body and blood, we know that God makes it so. There is no magic involved, it’s written in scripture. ((un-bloody sacrifice means that no chickens or livestock are killed. Jesus was clear about how to remember him, and it didn’t involve animal blood.))

    INFANT BAPTISM: Aside from Luke 18:15 (which specifically says infants) that was already made, in Col. 2:11–12 Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision . In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was very rare, since there were so few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism. Nowhere is it stated that baptism is only for adults, not even implied. It’s also important to understand that Catholics have what we call Confirmation, which occurs at the same age that others call the “age of reason”. It is at that time the young believer will declare their avowal to the promises made in their baptism. This is similar to the proclaimation of faith made before a non-Catholic baptism.

    Like I said, I don’t expect to change any minds, just to point out parts of scripture that explain why the Catholic Church does what it does. After doing the research myself I believe it is right, and all the proof needed to support the Catholic Church is in the Bible. It’s there, it’s not imaginary. Even if you don’t believe the scripture posted, I hope it helps you undersand the Catholic Church better.

    (Proverbs 18:2)

  28. Dear Lady Dispatcher:
    Thank you for your response and your continued civility in this discussion (unlike another commenter whose comment was not approved due to his argumentative, snarky tone with accusations that were misguided due to a lack of doing his homework on where we stand on several of the issues he lumped us in with).

    I also want to apologize for taking so long at getting back. I’m burning the candle at both ends (even now) in order to reply.

    I appreciate you taking the time to explain why you believe what you believe, however, I wholeheartedly disagree with most of what you proposed in your attempt to use Scripture to justify Romish doctrine. Why? Three words: Context, context, context.

    You see, anyone can make the Bible say what they want it to say if they disregard proper hermeneutics. When you throw proper biblical interpretation to the wind you can justify any extra-biblical revelations (just ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Much like when you cite the passage in Luke to justify infant baptism, yet the passage has absolutely nothing to do with baptism.( If baptism replaced circumcision, then why do girls get baptized, they never got circumcised?).

    Much of the Bible is perspicuous and not as convoluted to understand as some would attempt to make it out to be.

    Anyway, with the brief time I have available, I will attempt to quickly touch on some of your key points.

    Firstly, you approach this whole matter on the wrong foot when say that Christians and Catholics are just different denominations. Denominations differ within a religious body on non-essentials (there are even denominations within Romanism). However, when a group or organization differs from Christianity on essential doctrines, then it is no longer a denomination, but an apostate or heretical group.

    For all the things we agree about that are key doctrines (e.g. Virgin birth, the triune nature of God, etc.) there are many areas where Rome has deviated from Scripture and Truth (e.g. Justification, monergistic regeneration, etc.).

    Secondly, you said Mary was asked and agreed to be a vessel by God. Where does it say that? This implies Mary had to grant permission to God. This doesn’t sound like God is sovereign over His creation. If this is your view, then we obviously serve and worship a different God than one another (which furthers my point on denominations of which Christianity and Roman Catholicism are not).

    Next,you cite Luke 2:35 and that is supposed to be the foundation for the abhorrent co-redemptrix theology of Rome? I’d like to see a little more Scriptural support for all the idolatry, statues, devotion, misdirected reverence, prayers, and worship of Mary, including the millions of those who take pilgrimages every year to places to commit idolatry (worship) Mary because she allegedly spoke to someone there a long time ago. And let us not forget those who flock to a water stain on the side of a freeway overpass because it looks like Mary (although we have no photograph of her to know who the stain actually looks like, but that’s another whole issue). Really, LD, I need to see more support for these practices in relation to the massive world-wide idolatry by millions (perhaps billions) of Roman Catholics.

    You are absolutely right that the word “trinity” is not in Scripture. It is a word we use to describe a concept that we cannot truly wrap our minds around. However, the fingerprints of the concept of the triune nature of God is all over Scripture. Not so with the pope who intermediates (prays for us). Jesus Christ is my mediator (which you later in your comment claim to believe, yet by your practice you reject). For I need no man to be my mediator between me and God; that is what Jesus shed His blood to accomplish and is what he does continually for His saints.

    Furthermore, I need not practice necromancy by speaking with a non-omnipresent, non-omniscient deceased saint. I can say I believe Jesus is my mediator all day long, but if I pray to saints and ask any other human to “go to God for me,” then I’ve betrayed my very claim and do not practice what I believe. And in relation to your latest post to Jeff, even those in hell are still alive, so the prohibition to necromancy simply cannot be explained away by that use of Scriptural gymnastics. Offer me an example of a NT figure praying to a dead OT figure like David, Moses, Abraham. Or even show me someone praying to Elijah who never died. What about a NT figure praying to Stephen the first Martyr.

    To justify your stance on this subject, you take the pretext that it’s ok to “ask people to bless/pray for us even if they’re already in heaven.” Then you find a Bible verse which you take out of its context (Psalm 103:20-21) to create your proof-text. What in the world does this verse have to do with asking angels or anyone in heaven to pray for us, and how does this justify violating God’s command against contacting the dead? I have no problem with asking others to pray for me (by which I mean to be praying with me for something, not because I am unable to go directly to my heavenly Father through Jesus), but to contact someone dead to pray for me is a direct violation of Scripture and your Psalm verse does not render God’s prohibition against necromancy void.

    You said: “Look at the words said during the rosary, it all comes from the Bible.” So does much of the Book of Mormon. In fact, much more of the Bible (plagiarized by Joseph Smith) is contained in the Book of Mormon than is found in the reciting of the repetitious mantra of the rosary, so by these standards, the Book of Mormon must be good, right? And lest we forget, Satan cited Scripture to Jesus to tempt Him.

    You said: “Can you seriously say that there is something WRONG with celibacy?” This is a nice sentiment, and sounds pious, but let’s not appeal to what we as sinful human beings would consider right and wrong based on what we feel. In the OT God went to great lengths to reveal the details of the construction, ordinances, commands, etc. involving the tabernacle, the temple and the practices within; even going so far as prescribing the exact design of the priestly attire, yet there is no command that these priests were to be celibate. You’d think if God thought it was good and right for them to remain celibate that would have been mentioned. God did not intend for priests to be celibate (with the obvious exception of our great high and final priest, the Lord Jesus Christ) so imposing these extra-biblical restrictions on priests to remain celibate is indeed wrong. If a man or woman has been granted the gift of celibacy then by all means use it to the glory of God. If it were a good thing and God intended it to be the norm, then God would not have instructed us to be fruitful and multiply, the OT priests would have all been instructed to be celibate, and we too should all be celibate because it seems so right and holy. But we would soon find out that the human race would quickly cease to exist. Experientially we can see that celibacy is not good when one looks at the sexual crimes that are rampant within Romanism. This can partly be blamed on the unbiblical doctrine of priestly celibacy (as well as proof of an unconverted, unregenerated soul), no?

    The translation of “upon this rock” can be argued till the cows come home, but there are some additional hard facts that I presented in my post Was Peter the First Pope? –seventeen of them in fact—that simply cannot be glossed over.

    Regarding your reference to “Apostolic succession/Tradition,” are you suggesting that the popes are inspired of God? Based on elsewhere in your comment, I trust that you do not believe this. Well, we agree on that point!

    I believe Scripture was inspired by God through inspired men and that His hand was in its recording, preservation, and distribution, even in spite of Rome burning men and women alive for committing the heinous crime of daring to possess a Bible in their own native language (talk about your church-sanctioned hate-mongering). This, of course, was done by the supposed true church headed up by those that were part of this “Apostolic succession/Tradition.” Who dropped the ball on that one? You think someone in Rome would have said, “Uh, guys, murdering families for possessing a Bible is probably not God’s intention.” The whole time this was happening, was the “vicar of Christ,” the “mouthpiece for God,” simply misunderstanding God, not hearing from God, or was God giving the church leaders bad information?

    Regarding your attempt to draw a comparison between a priest (OT) and a preacher of God’s Gospel (NT), you utterly ignore the vastly distinct roles those two positions hold. Seriously, read OT duties and responsibilities of priests, then compare that with the actions of the Apostles.

    You make another mighty leap by suggesting that if Christians view the sacraments as symbolic, then we must view the sacrifice as symbolic as well. I can assure you this is not true. In fact, if the bread and wine we literally his body, then what did the disciples eat on the Last Supper? I shudder to think of what you are proposing.

    As you can imagine, we could debate volumes on each one of these subjects. I too am not delusional about changing anyone’s mind here. Without the Holy Spirit opening the eyes and the heart of a reader, what I write will not change one single mind.

    There are so many points in this discussion that this debate is too broad to accurately handle each issue fairly and without writing pages upon pages. And yes, I completely conceded that in this present case it is solely my fault. :o)

    If I had to pick one issue that was of most importance in this thread (in my humble opinion) it would be that of justification in Christ alone (our view), or justification in Christ and . . . (Rome’s view). And if you’re wondering why I have not addressed that, that’s because I actually have a post dedicated to that which I will be publishing soon, so for the sake of brevity (or what’s left of it) I will refrain from covering that here in lieu of covering that in the very near future. I invite you to check it out when it’s published and feel free to comment.

    For the sake of weaker brothers and sisters who are persuaded by your fine sounding arguments, I felt it was necessary to attempt to address some of the points so they are not swept away by every wind of doctrine. And speaking of which, Christian Soldier, I suggest you return to Christian boot camp, because if the arguments LD proposed here stunned and awed you so, then you really have no right calling yourself a soldier. A good soldier knows what he’s fighting for, what he’s fighting against, the tactics of his enemies, and certainly he knows his weapon inside and out. If LD has gotten you so twisted into a pretzel, I suggest—no, I plead with you—don’t let the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons sit down with you. Mormons will be able to “prove” to you that there are many gods and JWs will “prove” to you that Jesus is not God . . . and they’ll do it using the Bible!

    Sincerely,
    – Pilgrim

  29. Thank you Pilgrim! You don’t know how much I appreciate just the fact that you actually took the time to read the quoted scripture! It shows a lot about your character :)

    I was raised Southern Baptist (religiously and literally..in the southern most part of Florida!), and it wasn’t until recently that I’d ever took the time to learn about other religions (began about 5 years ago). I started just as a method of soul winning, I wanted to have information so I knew how to explain my faith to non-Baptists. My conversion wasn’t abrupt, and I spent years praying that God would help me learn and teach His word as he intended. Slowly, as I read through the Baptist Catechism and Catholic Catechism I saw so many similarities that it triggerd specific research into Catholicism. I looked at scrpture noted to support each line, and while I didn’t read much in either that sounded blasphemous according to scripture (Marian doctrine was the exception), I found that the worship of Catholicism seemed more in-line with what was taught by Jesus. I really don’t have any ill will towards Baptists (none of my family converted, but none of them attend church anymore either). As far as I’m concerned anyone who accepts Christ as savior is a Christian. I still have my evangelical conscience telling me to soul-win, and I hope I never loose that. As long as someone has all the facts and makes an informed decision (not just sticking with a religion because someone told them so) then I feel that they are where they need to be. God puts people in all kinds of situations in order to reach people that he knows would otherwise leave Him unheard.

    I’ll definitely be looking for your upcoming post!

  30. Lest anyone be deceived by Lady Dispatcher’s grotesquely bald-faced lies about the heinously adulterous prostitute; the wicked mother of harlots; the diabolical synagogue of Satan which is founded on the very gates of hell in which anti-christ sits as “Pope” arrogating to himself the very titles of deity, know this about Rome:

    In the sixth session of the Council of Trent, in the Canons Concerning Justification, ALL of those who fail to adhere to the “gospel according to Rome” are anathematized no less than 23 times – and bear in mind that there were 25 sessions at Trent!

    Canon 4.
    If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

    Canon 6.
    If anyone says that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil as well as those that are good God produces, not permissively only but also propria et per se, so that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of St. Paul, let him be anathema.

    Canon 7.
    If anyone says that all works done before justification, in whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins, let him be anathema.

    Canon 9.
    If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

    Canon 11.
    If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

    Canon 12.
    If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

    Canon 13.
    If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary for every man to believe with certainty and without any hesitation arising from his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema.

    Canon 14.
    If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

    Canon 15.
    If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined, let him be anathema.

    Canon 17.
    If anyone says that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.

    Canon 18.
    If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.

    Canon 19.
    If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.

    Canon 20.
    If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.

    Canon 23.
    If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.

    Canon 24.
    If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

    Canon 25.
    If anyone says that in every good work the just man sins at least venially, or, what is more intolerable, mortally, and hence merits eternal punishment, and that he is not damned for this reason only, because God does not impute these works into damnation, let him be anathema.

    Canon 26.
    If anyone says that the just ought not for the good works done in God to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and by keeping the divine commandments they persevere to the end, let him be anathema.

    Canon 27.
    If anyone says that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief, or that grace once received is not lost through any other sin however grievous and enormous except by that of unbelief, let him be anathema.

    Canon 29.
    If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by the grace of God rise again, or that he can indeed recover again the lost justice but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord and His Apostles, has hitherto professed, observed and taught, let him be anathema.

    Canon 30.
    If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened,[132] let him be anathema.

    Canon 31.
    If anyone says that the one justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal reward, let him be anathema.

    Canon 32.
    If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

    Canon 33.
    If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, let him be anathema.

    Rome is not THE church, Rome is not even a church! In fact she is an apostate false religion that is responsible for leading countless myriads of condemned souls into flaming perdition with her damnable lies. She is a Satanic church substitute deluding and deceiving foolish men and women laden with sins, luring them down the broad road which leads to destruction.

    May the Lord of Glory utterly destroy His enemies with the brightness of His coming, and in flaming fire inflict vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

    In Christ,
    CD

  31. I’m just not sure all the name calling is necessary. If you quote the Canon, and it’s so blatantly evil, let the words speak for themselves. You can give a church any title you wish, just understand that the title you give it doesn’t change what it is and doesn’t change the scripture that makes up its doctrine.

    Peace

    [p.s. remember the game we played as kids, "I'm rubber and you're glue.."? I know it's silly, but that's what I think of when people start to name call during a serious discussion. :-D ]

  32. I know people who would say regarding the Council of Trent quotes above: “But the Council of Trent was way, way back in the 1500’s. Certainly the Catholic Church has changed a lot since then. Surely they don’t believe those things anymore”. The hard truth is, the LATEST Vatican Council (Vatican II), actually re-affirmed the decrees of the Council of Trent:

    “This sacred council [Vatican II] accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death; AND IT PROPOSES AGAIN THE DECREES of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence, and of THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.” (Vatican Council II, Costello Publishing, Austin Flannery O.P. ed., Vol. 1, p. 412).

    So, yes, the Council of Trent teachings listed above, are still just as binding on Catholics today as when they were written.

  33. Dear MATT:
    You have revealed the true nature of your polemic by your tone, your sarcasm, and your request that we give an answer for beliefs and practices that we don’t even agree with ourselves (e.g. “the sinner’s prayer,” “youth pastors,” etc.). You have apparently judged us incorrectly.

    If you refuse to understand that this blog is Defending. Contending. not Arguing. Fighting. then so be it, but we will not be baited into your fight. If you wish to conclude the reason your comments have not appeared is because you have so astounded and confounded us with your wisdom, so be it . . . whatever helps you sleep at night. It is too easy for us (me included) to fall into the trap of ‘arguing.’ It does no one any good, so nipping it in the bud is found to be the best defense against vain and futile arguing. For more, allow me to direct you to our Rules of Engagement.

    Dear LADY DISPATCHER:
    I appreciate you telling me about your story. Mine is similar but in the exact opposite direction. I grew up Catholic. You know, the kind who only went to church on Christmas and Easter. But in spite of that, if anyone asked me if I were a Christian, I would correct them and say, “No, I’m Catholic.” I was proud of my ‘faith tradition.’

    It was almost twenty years ago that I first attended a Bible study in Southern California and was shown so many things in Scripture in just a short couple months that really stopped me in my tracks. Why had I never heard of this before? Why had my family, nor the priests ever mentioned any of these things that were clearly in the Bible? (I guess Christian Soldier and I have that ‘shock’ in common.)

    I remember telling these guys in the Bible study that I was a good person. I never smoked, drank, did any drugs, never killed anyone, and was an overall good guy. It was then that I first heard that all my righteous acts were as filthy rags and that no one does good, not even one. I also learned that I could never merit God’s favor by my actions, no matter how hard I tried. (I had never been shown that before either.)

    I ended up leaving that church (where I had begun studying the Bible) to move back to south Florida. Once back there I made an appointment with and met a priest at the Roman Catholic church I used to occasionally attend. I told him about this experience I had and the things I had been learning because I wanted to get his take on it and see if maybe I was being misled by those guys in California somehow. Instead of taking the time to address my questions, he simply handed me two little booklets and sent me on my merry little way. The booklets were Catholic Answers to Fundamentalists’ Questions and Handbook for Today’s Catholic: Beliefs, Practices, Prayers, both from Liguori Publications

    Little did he know, but those two booklets were the nails in the coffin to end my looking toward Rome for salvation, and I’ve never looked back since. When someone who only began reading the Bible a couple months earlier could find numerous errors and lies in these booklets, (including stripping God of His power and casting doubt about Scripture), it says a lot.

    I am grateful for that priest who answered my concerns by giving me those booklets. He just answered my questions in a way that he probably had not expected.

    I have actually considered publishing excerpts from these books on DefCon for others to see the absurdity of their explanations to questions and challenges from Christians, and to show what it was that was the final step in me completely severing ties with Rome.

    Speaking of future posts, I will try to get the post (that I was telling you about in my previous comment) published as soon as I can. I’ve just been very limited on time lately. Until then, can I suggest a post for you to check out? It’s in relation to your remark, “As far as I’m concerned anyone who accepts Christ as savior is a Christian.”

    Although there is truth to that statement, it must be qualified: Which Jesus? There’s only one true Jesus as revealed in holy Scripture, but many, many, many counterfeits.

    If I call the tree in my backyard “Jesus” and accept this “Jesus” as my savior, should I expect to be in heaven upon my death? What if I accept the Muslim Jesus as my savior? Or the Scientologist Jesus as my savior? Trusting in a false savior (one that doesn’t exist) will be of no benefit to anyone on the Day of Judgment. I will never get to New York or Miami if I’m on Interstate 5 (which runs through California, Oregon, and Washington) no matter how much I believe that I-5 is really I-95. If I’m on the wrong interstate, it won’t get me to where I want to go no matter how much I have faith that it will.

    Anyway, I think you’ll really enjoy the post, and even though I know you’ll disagree with some of it, I have a sneaking suspicion that you will actually agree with most of it and find it an entertaining read as well as an informative one. You can check it out here at Which Jesus Do You Worship?

    Respectfully,
    – Pilgrim

    P.S. If you liked that post and want to read something similar, check out How Do You Read Romans 1:16?

  34. DEAR CHRISTIAN SOLDIER:

    “This is definitely something I’m taking to talk to my pastor about.”

    How was your meeting with your pastor?

    _______________________________________

    DEAR MATT:

    Your comments are still not being permitted, and even though you don’t know where you fit in regarding our Rules of Engagement, see #s1, 2, 3, and 4 for an idea.

    We both know that the current discussion between you and DefCon is pointless as neither will budge from our respective positions. Your adjusting your comment in order to get it through was commendable, but your comments have shown your unwillingness to consider our position.

    When you take (for example) your argument that since Protestants use grape juice during communion and not wine, then we don’t have a leg to stand on regarding our argument against Rome playing fast and loose with the Scriptures, then you reveal that our debate is in vain and that you will even resort to comparing apples and oranges to argue for Rome.

    If you can’t see the difference fermented and unfermented grape juice used in the Lord’s Supper, and that of praying to Mary, praying to dead saints, calling a man “holy father,” infant baptism, purgatory, etc. then there’s really no point in continuing this current argument.

    I hope that you understand our position, and that is precisely why we’ve implemented our RoE so we can make it clear that we will not waste our time arguing with every single commenter who visits here. Nothing personal, but the day is short and night is coming when we can no longer work.

    Sincerely,
    – Pilgrim

  35. Matt:

    If we took the position that we do nothing that’s not expressly written in Scripture, then none of us would drive cars, listen to podcasts, drink Starbucks, give people tracts that explain the gospel, or blog.

    What you are suggesting is that because Christians use grape juice over wine in our observance of the Lord’s Supper, that this justifies what Rome has done with her adding to and taking away from the Bible. Apples and oranges, Matt, apples and oranges.

    We are not altering the very foundation of the gospel, nor are we adding an additional mediator (Mary), nor are we creating a false hope of salvation via purgatory (to purify us from the very sins Jesus Christ already paid for – 1 John 1:7), etc.

    Here’s what it boils down to, Matt.

    You represent a gospel that is in opposition to the gospel preached by Paul. Just like the Judiazers in Acts chapter 15 (and which prompted Paul to write the entire letter to the Church in Galatia), Rome directs its followers to observe the Law of Moses (as a synergistic working toward salvation) and requires certain acts to be performed for salvation:

    Rome = Baptism, Communion, etc.
    Judiazers = Circumcision.

    This blog is not and will not be a soundboard for you or anyone else who preaches “another gospel” to espouse their doctrines. We will not be a conduit for readers to be led astray by fine sounding arguments of “hath God said,” whether they come from Rome, Brooklyn, or Salt Lake City.

    This does not mean that we are in opposition to debate (we have 3 years of comments to prove that). However, when we see that the debate is going nowhere and is just arguing about speculations, myths, and endless genealogies (1 Tim. 1:3-4), then we will choose to not waste any more time on the matter.

    When someone like yourself (who has a blog devoted to Rome), comes here only to disagree with us on what we write about Rome, it is apparent that you will not change your mind (at least not right now) and it is equally important for you to know that we will not change our minds.

    If someone really wants to know more about Rome, they can find it for themselves, but we are not going to be the place where poisoned glasses of water are permitted to sit along side genuine glasses of water for the weaker brothers and sisters to ingest to their demise.

    Again, it’s nothing personal. We don’t dislike you, and you’re probably a very nice person who I wouldn’t mind enjoying one of those extra-biblical lattes with. We wish to see you come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as much as anyone, but we will not permit false teaching to have free reign on this site. It would be contrary to the very purpose we toil for.

    This will probably be the last time I address this explanation as to why your posts have been withheld . . . at least on this subject. After all, we’re only withholding your comments, it’s not like we’re burning you at the stake. ;o)

    Sincerely and respectfully,
    – Pilgrim

  36. Matt, you said:

    “I’m done here. I’ll be desubscribing to this thread, so feel free to continue your childish antics without me.”


    How quickly your true colors come out again. Your tone and attitude (which is part of the reason we stopped posting your comments) has emerged yet again, revealing that the civil and nice-toned Matt of the last couple comments was only a facade.

    This is precisely what I meant by not wishing to argue with you Matt. You’ve proved my point.

    You can keep telling yourself that I do not want to “engage the opposing position head-on, [but] rather caricature his argument in order to discredit and ridicule it.”

    However, your opinion is easily disproved by the facts. We have a plethora of “opposing” comments throughout this blog on all sorts of subjects, so your characterization of me/us is absolutely fallacious.

    If you choose to believe that your comments have not appeared for the reason you cited here . . .

    “It is because your position, your beliefs, your dogmas and the arguments you use to support them are feeble, untenable, extreme, illogical, bizarre, are bereft of any intelletual integrity, and are completely without any basis in reality, let alone sound Christian doctrine.”

    . . . then so be it. But I think your tantrum due to your comments still being withheld (even after trying to butter me up with sweetness) shows that you are only here to argue. You thank me for my civility in this thread in your previous comment, then call me childish in the next.

    Don’t get mad at us/me because we don’t wish to engage in this type of “discussion” with you. I was hoping you would understand, and this is why instead of just not allowing your comments to post, I actually took (wasted?) my time to explain our position to you . . . several times.

    I am truly sorry that it has ended this way, but I will not be goaded into an argument, and I will not allow this blog to be a soapbox for false teaching. Especially false teaching seasoned with insults and personal attacks.

    (Still) Sincerely,
    – Pilgrim

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