Hi Guys!
Sorry I’ve been a bit silent lately. Lots of stuff going on behind the scenes.
Dates have been pushed back a bit in the lawsuit, February 19th looks to be the big day now.
My take is that things are going well and I’m confident we’ll get a good and just outcome. Our attorneys are awesome, we’re on the right side of the issues and we have the truth on our side.
Prayers are appreciated. Thanks for all the private emails of encouragement and the public comments of such as well.
I’m not at liberty to discuss details at this time, but when I am, I’ll share more.
I will be posting some new articles soon. There is a lot going in CC and in the Evangelical World as a whole and even our Society as a whole with regards to the same issues we deal with on here. We’re a part of a much larger Movement in the areas of whistleblowing and calling Institutions to crack down on abuse and corruption. It’s very encouraging to see the progress.
Thanks for the update. This is good news. Continued prayers…
So good to hear. Yay, I can quit obsessively refreshing….
LoL – I resembled that obsessive refreshing remark, Sheck! Afraid I’ll probably continue in anticipation of new threads
Now I’m wondering if it is a cadre of obsessive refreshers that keeps the visitor map ticking so high….
Alex, thank you for the update—will continue to pray and to comment of this site.
Will be looking forward to new postings—as you say, there is a huge or much larger movement going on all over the place dealing with the things that we have been sharing about on this site. This movement, I believe is moving us even closer to the great apostasy and gathering those in the church, to stand up and yes, to be persecuted in the process of bringing it all to that which we all place our hope upon—-we must speak the truth—-we are compelled to speak the truth—and putting on the whole armor of God, we can rise above and overcome that which sought to destroy us, as the bride of Christ.
So, brothers and sisters, put off any leaven you may have in your life, that which would hinder you to stand fast in His name and in the power and love of the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 12:1-2
King James Version (KJV)
12 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Hi Alex,
You stated -
” There is a lot going in CC and in the Evangelical World as a whole and even our Society as a whole with regards to the same issues we deal with on here.”
You are right. Nick VanderLaan, Martin Hardy & myself confronted Brian Brodersen on December 30 at CCCM after the last service.
There are 5 things we witnessed -
The members of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa have ZERO knowledge of -
1.) Greg Laurie/Jesuit Roman Catholic Bishop Ricken did a joint crusade in Wisconsin in July 2011.
2.) Brian Brodersen is doing ECUMENICAL events in England.
3.) Ergun Caner is an exposed liar
4.) David Barton is an exposed liar
5.) Veritas Evangelical Seminary was started by Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa through Brian Brodersen. Brian Brodersen was the person listed on the Veritas Evangelical Seminary Trademark application on September 22, 2008 and Brian Brodersen is still listed as the Trademark owner only now under Veritas Evangelical Seminary, Inc.
Brian Brodersen told us that Veritas was independent of Calvary Chapel, after investigating Veritas, we believe he is not being honest.
We caught Brian Brodersen stating emphatically that Greg Laurie did NOT do a crusade in Wisconsin with Jesuit Roman Catholic Bishop David Ricken when the documented proof with newspapers articles and photographs show otherwise. The reason Brian said that was because there were a lot of CCCM members standing around when we confronted him about that.
We will be doing an article on that (Lord willing).
Here is the first article that shows Calvary Chapel is NOT independent from Veritas (Pagan Roman goddess of truth) Evangelical Seminary as Brian tried to make us believe. There is an 18 second audio/video of Brian stating this. Again, people standing around.
The documentation shows that Brian/CCCM was the original owner of the Veritas Trademark and Brian/Veritas Inc. is the current owner.
http://ephesians511blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-hidden-apostate-catholic-world-of.html
It appears there is a purposeful cover-up Roman Catholic ecumenism of information being withheld from the CCCM members.
“Independent” in the same sense as all the churches are too
. Since main campus of VES is at CCBC Murrieta and the branch campus is in the CCCM Logos Bldg, a high level of interdependence is more than evident.
Other than having a name that represents a Roman God what else am I missing here?
Norman Geisler is not long Catholic and yes, Caner has misrepresented the beginnings of his early childhoold which not good when representing the Lord and the VES. Independent means they have simply incorporated under Brian Broderson’s name which I see nothing wrong with that. We all know its linked to CC, but does not shared a common corporate link.
As for curriculum, I would think that would be a greater indicator in determining if catholicism is being taught. The documents reflect that part of its focus is to teach concervative historical christian perspective. Does that mean catholicism?
Holden and Geisler are well educated expereince teachers, apologist, although with an evangelical arminianism bent. So, if they mean conservative, it would be refreshing to see a seminary go beyond the box and teach all of the various Christian theological positions and vigourously challenge their students to challenge and to develop the ability to developed the ability to think and to argue the truth of God’s Word while also standing firm on a clear doctrinal position, other than Chuck Smith or other modern day theologian. Not that there never was anyone that God raised up, for He did, but they have all been pretty much sequestered in a closet gathering a heck of a lot dust.
Will need to research curriculum with an understanding already have a dim view of the scholasticism (sp) at CCBC and lack of accreditation.
Sorry — Correction: Norman Geisler is no longer a Catholic.
Is it possible or plausible that Brian decided to use his own funds to enable VES to be founded and established? Is it possible that CCBC had the building available to be leased or sold to another entity, and that entity was to BB?
I totally understand the concerns regarding ECUMENICALISM within CC. And that does need to be exposed and denounced. I stand with you on holding BB and GL to an account on their involvement with such dignitaries, meetings, and so forth. At the same time, it is a fine line they need to walk when coming together with such to combat the evils that plague our world. We also have to remember GL permitting RW to appear at the Harvest Anaheim.
Most people don’t know what ecumenicalism is and why it is something that Christian churches and Christian need to back away from. Perhaps, you can share a lit bit to define this, as viewers can be informed and then more research on their own.
Just went to the site for this Seminary—–it is interdenominational. The curriculum and degrees are quite impressive. From what I can see, they are offering in the course content the same coursework any other Graduate Program offers. The staff is well-educated and come from a variety of Christian positions. So have a good representation across the board. Statement of beliefe are solid with a list of what they do not believe, such as the Positive Confession teachings.
Would I go there—–No. Why, because they do not have a female professors on staff. I don’t believe in the complimentarian position—-it is a cover up to abuse, to silence, subjugate, and to oppress thos who has the Holy Spirit and gifts as much as any. I would also have difficulty knowing Caner is an adjunct Professor and would need to know what were involved in these activities BB, GL, and NG had —- a simple answer would not suffice. So there would be a huge question in this sense? But then again, just know most of the seminaries and “Christian” college are doing the same things.
On VES’s 2009 Form 990, Brodersen is listed as Chairman, without compensation. I also discovered that the school is considered an intermediate corporation for tax purposes – a term which I am unfamiliar with. Alex, you’re pretty savvy about that kind of stuff. What is an intermediate corp?
Thanks for the update, Alex. My lawsuit buddies are not far from my thoughts and prayers. I still have a hard time wrapping the idea around my head that pastors would have the audacity to sue.
Should we start a Sued-by-Pastors-and-Survived blog? LOL
Clue:
Independent” in BB’s lexicon means “Chuck is not involved.”
Norman Geisler was NEVER Catholic. He attended Loyola not as Catholic. I probably can speak to this more than anyone here as I’ve had Geisler as an online teacher and was in Holden’s classes at CCBC. Geisler attended Loyola because at the time it was one of the few universities that studying philosophy and holding the belief in God was acceptable. Finding a mentor who will sign off on your dissertation is a challenge and more so for a theist in philosophy.
One other consideration was Geisler was at that point enamored with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Of course, during his time there Catholic philosophy was delving into Phenominalism. Phenominalism in theory underminds all the proofs for the existence of God and any reason to believe in God.
Geisler is a deceiver. Loyola is a catholic institution. Someone that thinks catholicism is false, doesn’t go to catholic institutions. Geisler even wrote a book trying to semi-promote catholicism. The man is a deceiver and a jesuit plant, and CC is too undiscerning to care.
Best of luck in your lawsuit Alex.
Non Sequitur: No articles on CC Albuquerque? I was hoping to read something that tied into the recent tragedy and CC’s stance of not seeking worldly mental care.
Here’s the link if anyone wants to read:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-albuquerque-family-shooting-20130120,0,917364.story
Alex, I will keep you in my prayers and this whole lawsuit thing. I thought that the lawsuit was dropped by Bob, but maybe I missed something? Anyway, prayers will continue and God bless you!
DA Armstrong
Interesting information you provided.
Phenomenalism—-I can remember using that word as a slang as an young adult. For real, they made a theory out of it, huh? LOL
I would tend to agree with Andy if one is not sympathetic towards Catholicism, they would in my mind be careful how their name might be associated with it. Having done a Master’s level dissertation myself, I find your statment rather curious:
“at the time it was one of the few universities that studying philosophy and holding the belief in God was acceptable. Finding a mentor who will sign off on your dissertation is a challenge and more so for a theist in philosophy.”
Claremont, Chapman College, USC, Cal State Universities, all provide such mentoring and have done so as far as I know since as early as 1980. What university was Geisler attending at the time. What I mean is, was he attending one university for his master’s or doctorate, but sought mentoring through Loyala. If his studies were in philosophy, then why not Biola, Talbot, Claremont, or Pepperdine instead. Most dissertations, unless done online requires that you go through their board to be approved and mentored. So, what university granted him the degree?
Going to a catholic university, you will be bathed in its teachings. Which is not the worse thing that could happen, but will most likely impact your positions regarding various areas of studies. For instant, many theologians, teachers, and pastors went to liberal colleges, getting a biblical studies degree, then transferred to more conservative school to get a Master’s in divinity. Once out in the field, one could see and hear little threads coming through that weaved itself into the conservative camp and then others took that and never even knew that false doctrine had entered as a result of this process. It only became apparent when a person question what was being stated, did the research on where this person attained their education concerning such things a philosopy and theology that it became evident that it was as result of earlier beliefs that had taken root, but never dismissed as one moved on in their career or occupation as an apologist, teach, pastor or some other capciaty such as a writer, journalist, or community leader.
Good luck Alex –
I don’t agree with the sentiment about Catholics expressed above. I think it is wrong to judge them so. I know many Catholics strong in their faith in Jesus Christ. The anti-Catholic sentiment is old and belongs buried in history. I am not a Greg Laurie fan. He is way too much imo a clone of Chuck Smith, and even sounds just like him imo. He is confident we are in the end times, blah blah. Imo, that belief is ludicrous. Imo we are in the end times of Chuck Smith, Hal Lindsey, and Greg Laurie. Even so, I find it admirable that Greg Laurie would do a crusade with a Catholic. Good for him. Get to know some Catholic true believers – they are awesome. They can’t help it that the Catholic church has to dredge society to find priests willing to not marry who aren’t good, imo. The Catholic Church has its problems but so does the protestant world. And the protestant history isn’t so great either. After all about 1 million Irish died of starvation in the past because of Protestant policies. Give the Catholics a break – they are God’s children too!
If a catholic person thinks they are saved by Catholicism, they are not saved, and they are not God’s children, no matter how much they say “Jesus”. Many will say, “Lord, Lord”, and be cast into the lake of fire. The Gospel is without works. But Catholicism demands works. No need to be Catholic or Protestant. What matters is only the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Andy- I agree with you. If we trust in anything other than Jesus for salvation, we have mocked the cross. If there was any other way, Jesus’ death was in vain. I know many Catholics who love Jesus + their works. The Priesthood is over. The office of Priesthood mocks the book of Hebrews. The Catholic Priesthood is an extension of OT Judaism. There is no longer a sacrifice. “It is finished”. In the RCC, it is not finished. Jesus is still sacificed at the altar by the Priest every Mass. I have heard all the excuses…there may be Catholics who love Jesus, but it is a different Jesus and it is a “different gospel” that we are warned about. Their Jesus was not sufficient to get us into heaven without the “mother church”. I suggest to get a Catechism and READ it. See the error. If an unsuspecting Catholic has no idea what their own church teaches, telll them and let them decide if they are still a Catholic. If they do not believe the wafer is the ACTUAL substance of Jesus (and not just a representation), according to the Catholic Catechsim they are anathema…which means that they are cursed. Also all grace comes from Mary (not her son)
Every Protestant owes it to their RC friends to get a Catechism, test it against the scriptures, and see if it is the truth.
Andy – Always amazes me how people try to pin on Catholics that they think they are saved by works or “Catholicism” when actually they believe it is through faith in Jesus Christ (which results in works) that saves them which is exactly what CC and other evangelicals, etc. believe when they always preach things like “faith without works is dead”, “know them by their fruits”, “work out your own salvation”, blah blah. By the way my Catholic friends do not go around saying “Lord, Lord” like my CC friends do who continually say things like the Lord this the Lord that, the Lord told me to do this, blah blah. God looks on the heart, thankfully, and I’m glad for that because no one is going to understand exactly what all the scriptures mean obvioustly. We are just not meant to because we can’t. Faith is freedom to love and be loved by God, not a bunch of rules we can’t possibly live up to. God doesn’t love us any more or less based on our performance.
Hannah, you hit the nail on the head. The catholic “jesus’ is “another jesus”, not the true Jesus. The true Jesus doesn’t teach Catholicism or anything it asserts.
Sue, the statement that “faith will produce works” isn’t supported by Scripture. James 2:14-26 is about helping other people. It isn’t about entering the kingdom of God. Besides, the council of trent, which is official Catholic doctrine, states that salvation by faith is anathema to them.
The catholic Jesus in not “another Jesus” and this anti catholic sentiment of yours goes way back to the dark ages and beyond – it’s time to let it go imo. The Catholics have had plenty of problems in the past that have been well documented and have had to change their ways over the years and are still evolving. They have also taken plenty of abuse from others. Most non Catholic Christians believe faith is not enough and that you need works too. CC is one place where this is implied from what they teach. They claim they believe it is through faith alone but then they say things like faith without works is dead, you can lose your salvation, work out your own salvation, blah blah. I personally think it is through faith alone but I am always blasted for saying that. I don’t believe God disowns his children, but most Christians do believe works are needed also “work out your salvation”. I think a loving relationship is what God wants – that is my personal belief though and I am not among those who think you can lose your salvation. He is able to keep us is my opinion and those who love rules to feel justified can have them all they want. Good luck to them – I’ll take my freedom in Christ any day.
The “Catholic jesus” says to do Catholic works as part of salvation, says to listen to the Pope, says that Catholic traditions are equal to the Bible, says that purgatory exists, and on and on and on. That is “another jesus”. Not the true Jesus.
I won’t give up on true doctrine. You can call it “anti-Catholic” if you like. That doesn’t bother me.
I also defend my freedom in Christ. My freedom to say that Catholicism is a lie that doesn’t save anybody.
Andy – Sorry but there is no such thing as “true Doctrine”. There are many many opinions out there on what is true doctrine. I never called “true doctrine” anti-Catholic. You are anti-Catholic in blasting them in the manner in which you do and saying their Jesus is “another Jesus”. You can say whatever opinion you want just like I can. It is just like A-holes – everyone has one.
Overly Concerned—what say ye?
There are works of the flesh and works of the Spirit. Works of the Spirit is evidence of our faith in Christ. We shall know them by their fruits. It is by the Holy Spirit that we bear these fruits as a result of the works done by the Spirit within us. Everything else is wood, hay, and stubble.
You’ll just have to be upset, Sue. There is such a thing as true doctrine. It’s found only in the Bible. The Bible is not an “opinion”. It is the very unchangeable unmatchable Word of God. If you want to call me “anti-Catholic”, fine. I am against Catholic lies. I am for the people that are trapped by its damning lies.
We sow to the flesh which brings death or we sow to the spirit which is life eternal. If we
1 John 3: 3-9
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
James 2:14-26
You make me laugh – Sorry but I am not “upset”. Yes the Bible is the Bible – But it as a “true doctrine” is interpreted in may ways and there are many opinions out there as I would think you would be aware of concerning its contents. Catholics don’t need your condescending attitude that they are “trapped by its damning lies”.
Sue- It is for love for the Catholic people, that Andy and I (if I can take the liberty) want our family members to be saved. We love them. The greatest form of love is to care enough about someones eternal life, to tell them the truth. Actually, by NOT sharing the fact that their doctrine is in error, is NOT loving them.
So if we are judged by love, we love them tremendously…we know they are damned by their false religion on works and the re-sacrifice of Christ on the altar. (thats why he is still on the cross)
A “good” Catholic MUST confess their sins to a Priest, they MUST take communion every week to be right with God (along with many other tradiitions that nullify the word of God.
We are not Catholic bashing, we are telling the truth in love (written words cannot express tone of voice.)
I LOVE my mother-thats why I want her to give up the rosary, give up her scapula, give up her rules and regulations, have freedom to KNOW she will enter heaven (and not hope that her “good works” are enough. Believeing you are saved according to the RCC, pronounces another anthema on you, which is called the “sin of presumption” (presuming you can be assured of salvation). Purgatory is a chance after you die, to have $ given on your behalf, by “good Catholics” who pay for novenas and masses to be done on your behalf (i get tons of these cards from my mother) so that someone else (she) can earn “brownie points” for you. That is insinuating that someone else’s works can buy time off for you in purgatory and help you in this life, apart from your relationship with Christ. Does this not anger you? It would anger Jesus, and I am sure Mary is grieving in heaven that people have made doctrines that SHE was born without sin (her immaculate conception)
Oh, by the way, Dual Covenant Theology exists in the RCC.
That means that a Jewish person does not have to know Jesus to be saved.
Same with Islam.
Check that out.
Catholicism doesn’t even believe the Bible alone is the authority. They advance their made-up “traditions of man” to the level of Scripture. I don’t care how many pejoratives you attach to me. Catholicism is a lie that damns people. I will keep saying it here (unless Alex stops it), and there, and everywhere. Nothing you can do about it. That must upset the ecumenical crowd. So much so, that the true believer is hated around the world by the ecumenical-minded garbage that is partially Catholicism.
Hannah, thank you. Some of my relatives are trapped in Catholicism, and they readily say that they learn every week at “mass” that faith in Jesus is not even required to enter heaven, and that they probably won’t enter heaven until they’ve done time in purgatory, and done sufficient Catholic good works. That is a total lie from hell. The fact that it doesn’t bother Sue, tells you about Sue’s doctrine.
1 Corinthians 2:11-13
King James Version (KJV)
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Everyone has an opinion, but there is that which holds true in scripture that no one can argue with unless they do not possess the Holy Spirit. God’s word is not that difficult to understand. As for many opinions, God’s word also speaks on this. When we take the whole counsel of God aside from extra external materials and teachings, it stands on it own. But when we place the Bible in the shadows of other teachings, then we err in our understanding and we make God’s Word insufficeint, anemic, and in another image. The truth is the truth, even if no one chooses to believe it.
Moderator, have one waiting in moderation @31—:-)
Andy- We need to be clear that we are not against the Catholic people-most of them don’t even know what their church stands for. Thats why it is up to us to let them know.
Sue, Do you believe Noah’s ark was real? Also Jonah? The RCC teaches that these are fables/stories and are just “symbolic”. When I talk with RC’s, and I share what I know about their councils and their traditions, and the many anathemas the church places on them, they are shocked. They dont even know what the Mass is. Many of them are set free when they find out that they can “know that they know” that they can have eternal life…but they are trained to have to earn it. And their religion is idolatrous, and their Pope infallable. They accept the celibacy/Priest postiion, and it is very difficult to undo their mindset.
A person is saved as an infant (against scripture), reaffirned at confirmation (against scripture-a ceremony does not make a heart decision and most kids have no idea or no underestanding of salvation), and are read last rites before they die. They go through all the “steps” required of them, never really ever hearing the gospel, and the GRACE that is freely given. If they are not given an opportunity to hear the gospel (they won’t because it goes against all the traditions of their church), they cant be saved.The church can not give them an opportunity. If they believe they are saved through faith alone, then that position is against their church doctrines. It is a shame.
Hannah, indeed that is true. I’m not against any person in Catholicism. I’m against Catholicism itself. But in the attack against people like me, you can see how Sue is not against what I say, but against me. You can tell by the number of pejoratives that she has tried to attach to me. I speak of doctrine. She speaks of personal attacks (on someone she doesn’t even know).
Speaking of doctrine, Catholicism also states that the person that believes in Jesus alone for salvation, is anathema. That’s from their council of trent, which Vatican II reiterated as true. So they are calling anathema on you and me, Hannah.
Andy- I knew without knowing you that you must have some family-thats why it grieves you as it does me. I was asking my mother to pray for someone we know. She said to me “But ____ is a good person”. It made me realize that nothing I have said to her for the last 16 yrs since I am saved has registered. The enemy has blinded her. When I told her that we need to share the gospel, she says “That isnt for you to do. You need to just love people and let people see that.” I tell her “I am not who they should be looking at- It is Jesus they need to see and they will see Him when the gospel is shared.. She believes that this is for someone else to do (I assume her Priest). Only God can take the blinders away. She sends me mass cards for every holiday. I surely dont want masses said for me! The enemy has blinded her. She puts scapulas on people who are sick. Look up the scapula…I can only pray for her. She is the most dedicated Catholic I know. But she is not saved because as much as she loves Jesus, she loves Mary more. And her church- and she will not give up her allegiance and dedication to it, and it’s doctrines of demons.
Andy–According to the RCC, we Protestants are anathema…yes, we are going to hell. They pronounce that on us….I bet Sue doesnt know that. ..they are the only “true church”..yes, indeed….ought to make some angry but it doesnt. For some reason we are unloving….
One more thought before I go Andy….
I know many Protestants who really want to believe that because their RCC family member “believes” in Jesus ( that Jesus died and rose from the dead,) they are saved. Because of that one verse. But what does “Believe” really mean? Does it mean just believe that he did this? No, it is that we believe that the only way to salvation is the finished work on the cross.
You can believe IN Jesus, but you have to BELIEVE Jesus.
Believe what he said…He is the way…the only way…
There is not any other way than by faith.
Andy #39 that is sad you would think I’m against you personally. Please don’t be paranoid – I don’t even know you. Your mind is made up as is mine and you are entitled to your opinions as I am. It’s ok to disagree imo. Jesus is the way the truth and the life no matter what “church” you worship him in. That is what counts to me and God looks on the heart for sure, not on the institution. I know many loving Holy Spirit filled Catholics. Peace —–
1 John 5:1-4
(KJV)
5 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
Romans 6:15-17 (NKJV)
From Slaves of Sin to Slaves of God
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
True and False Profession,
Matthew 7:21-23
Not only are there false prophets but there is false profession on the part of some who claim to follow Jesus. Not every one who addresses Him as Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven, even if they have prophesied in the name of Christ and have cast out demons and have performed wonderful works. The ultimate test is whether they are obedient to the Father and characteristically do His will. This principle does not mean that salvation in the kingdom is secured by works, but it does teach that works are the fruits, or evidences, which are found in a true disciple.
Romans 6:1-5
New King James Version (NKJV)
Dead to Sin, Alive to God
Romans 6:1-4
6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Romans 8 Romans 9
Have a wonderful Spirit-filled and led life.
The Catholics believe that Jesus rose from the dead bodily and that because of His resurrection we also will raise from the dead bodily. Calvary Chapel (Chuck Smith) denies that we will raise bodily and Chuck Smith teaches that Jesus rose as a spirit. Which is Christian in this case, the Catholic Church or Calvary Chapel?
The Catholics believe that Jesus is and has always been part of the Triune Godhead. Chuck Smith says that Jesus will retake His position in the Godhead at His return. Which is Christian in this case, the Catholic Church or Calvary Chapel?
The Catholics believe that Jesus is fully God and fully Man – the God-Man. Greg Laurie teaches that Jesus is a mixture or intermingling of God and man – which is heresy. Which is Christian in this case, the Catholic Church or Calvary Chapel?
My point is that Catholic bashing is pretty pointless since there is such a diversity of views in the Catholic faith, but the essentials of the faith are present there. Why not focus, instead, on our own backyard, Calvary Chapel? We have more than enough heresy of our own…
Hannah, yes, Catholicism pronounces us as unsaved. Yet it is Catholicism that cannot save. They don’t have the Gospel right, and it grieves me that people are unwilling to see it. But ultimately they will answer to Jesus for rejecting the Gospel in favor of a religion.
Doug, you avoided the issue of the Gospel of grace which Catholicism rejects, your avoidance being on purpose I presume. You might have discussed some issues about certain people in Calvary Chapel that are in error, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Catholicism is in far greater error when it comes to the Gospel. I know you have that one CC note to play and enough of an obsessive grudge to fill a lifetime, but there is a big wide world outside that little CC tent.
Two comments hung up in moderation
Comments 45 and 46 hung up in moderation.
Doug G—appreciate the information. There are errors in both camps and we need to know what they are, no matter how irrevelant they may seem. They are not, not when it comes to our salvation and He who provided the way to enable unsaved to be reconcile to Him. Some will preach grace with works and others will preach grace with works. Yet, Jesus has told us to Repent, Believe, and obey Him.
I think alot people get tripped up on the “works” part of it all. Not really understanding there are 2 types. One of the spirit done by faith and the other done according to the flesh. There are some that would vigourously, and almost viciously defend the faith alone is sufficient, yet do not understand that scripture as mentioned in the above comments does not prove this out. If Abraham had not had faith, he would not have been willng to sacrifica Isaac and if Rabab had not faith, she would not have hidden the spies.
If we do not believe, then the works done in the spirit will not be manifested. We will continue to live in the flesh and bear the fruits of the flesh.
1 John 1:6-7 (NKJV)
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
True Christianity is not just another religion. It is not understood by gathering information and by observing ceremonies. It is the life with power, which is directed by the word of God and by the Holy Spirit. True Christians will mortify their carnality and will be raised in the spirit life. They are led of the Holy Ghost. They are spiritual Christians. “Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Those who are not lead of the Holy Spirit are not of God, but they are just religious Christians. Receive the Holy Spirit and his power. “John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” Live as a Spirit filled Christian, become the son of God and be blessed.
“Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”
AG: Sorry I’ve been a bit silent lately. Lots of stuff going on behind the scenes.
Alex. why do you have time to post multiple replies on other blogs and not your own? Bullshit!
Gee, I didn’t know that it was mandatory for Alex to post on his own site. He is very good about keeping us up to date and to raise issues to our awareness as needed. As for posting, I think he is being wise and using his time well in going beyond this site to also express his views on other sites.
You can do the same, if you like. That is what is so great about the first admendment, but even better, it is also what is so great about being a Christian. We can speak the truth and as long as we do, it is not slander, but a mechanism to right the wrongs and to warn others of those things that are and have corrupted the church by those who uses God’s name to gather unto themselves that which is not theirs to have.
I don’t think there is any nonsense in that. My only question is if you are not, why are not doing the same. Instead of chastising by using verbal expletive, Alex instead. Am I missing something here, because I thought you knew better than to say something like this to Alex.
“Alex. why do you have time to post multiple replies on other blogs and not your own?”
Guru, you answered yourself:
“Lots of stuff going on behind the scenes.”
Lol
Please click on my moniker to read what goes on not quite so behind the scenes at CCFTL
Andy wrote “You might have discussed some issues about certain people in Calvary Chapel that are in error, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Catholicism is in far greater error when it comes to the Gospel.”
Andy – the Gospel is that God became a man, died for our sins and rose bodily from the dead. If we believe that Gospel we are saved. Catholicism affirms each of these points but Calvary Chapel doesn’t. Which is Christian given the above?
I don’t believe we are saved by having any particular view of anything other than who Jesus is. To say that someone has to hold a particular view on grace, etc is to put grace above the position of the Gracious One. Grace doesn’t save, grace is an act, not an actor. The one who acts is God. God is the one who saves.
When Scripture saves we are saved by grace, what does it mean? It means we are saved by God’s grace. It is God, not grace doing the saving. I don’t worship grace or put it above God.
I suspect you probably can’t grant the point above, but if you are trusting something other than the Saviour to save you, it’s a shaky ground.
And, as far as what is on topic and what isn’t on topic, pet peeves against Catholicism are in vogue at Calvary Chapel, but not here. This is “CC Abuse” and isn’t focused on your agenda against the Catholic church. I’m not saying go away, I am saying, try to not turn this into your place to vent against the Catholic church.
Doug G @ 55
When you shared that CC does not teach that Jesus rose bodily from the grave (dead), I was initially amazed. Not at what you stated, but that CC taught this.
I remember one day listening on the radio and thought I had heard a CC Pastor say this, but then I again I have heard them say many foolish things, and when you are on the radio it’s real hard to backup and do a do over. So out of grace, I told myself I just misheard what I thought they had said, but then again granted grace in knowing how radio shows can go. But now, you have stated this is what they actually teach.
At the same time having attended CC for over 34 years and sitting under many different pastors at a several CC, I have to say I never once heard this being taught. Is this something more recent? Is it commonly taught across the CCs? Because if it is, it is heresy, as you have already pointed out. We are now speaking of an essential doctrinal belief, so if you have anything in writing or other type of reference to this, I would certainly be interested in reviewing it.
Ur – click on my name to go to the CC wiki. You can hear papa Chuck say it for himself. From the page:
Smith said on the tape #5263:
But flesh and blood, can’t inherit the kingdom of heaven, so I’ve got to have a new body. A new body that will be fashioned like to the body of Jesus Christ; His spiritual, heavenly body.
Put simply Smith does not believe that the body is raised.
Doug, first, the adding of works to salvation, destroys salvation and grace (Romans 4:5, Romans 11:6). So the Catholic establishment most certainly doesn’t have the Gospel right and can’t lead one soul to the Gospel. So you are dead wrong there.
Second, yes, I have an “agenda” against all false teachings. Whether they be in Catholicism, or Calvary Chapel. You fixate on just CC, and while I do understand this site focuses upon CC, yet I have seen Alex open discussion to other topics as well. You have your own site to go after CC and prevent any other topic from coming up. So enjoy that, friend.
My previous comments seem to have been deleted. I’ll try again. The long overdue father Bob – vs- son Alex lawsuit for a “Hate Campaign” should resolve charges of criminal activity by the father. It could also be a watershed case to make it illegal — a hate crime — for websites to publish criminal allegations against pastors and churches by contributors who use cryptic usernames, i.e. not their real names. Martin Luther stood against the Catholic Church at a time when heretics were burned at the stack or tortured. Contributors who use clever cryptic usernames are not following the biblical precedent of restoration in Matthew chapter 18: 1) first go to your brother in private, 2) then bring 2-3 witnesses, 3) then go public to the the church. Cryptic usernames who slander pastors are hit and run artists, basically cowards, and should be held liable for hate crimes. The FBI can recover the emails addresses.
Doug, Romans chapter 4 verse 5 proves that salvation can’t include works, and Romans 11 verse 6 proves that works delete grace. So Catholicism is false and can’t save. You are dead wrong on that.
Also, Alex has on occasion allowed discussion of non-CC topics. If you prefer a place that is only about CC, you have a site, right? If Alex wants this to stop, he is able to tell me to stop, and I will comply.
The fact is that CC’s lack of desire to discipline wrongdoings, comes right out the Catholic playbook anyway.
James 2:24-26 says that “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. ”
Paul is often misunderstood by Protestants who read him through Luther’s medieval monk eyes rather than the eyes of a first century Jew. There’s been a lot of work done to recover what Paul meant in his time. Reference anything by N T Wright or James Dunn or Sanders to understand what Paul meant by works.
But, that’s not the subject of this thread nor this site and I suspect it won’t satisfy someone with your anti-Catholic agenda…
Romans chapter 4 verses 2 through 5 say that justification with God cannot include works. The justification in James chapter 2 verses 24 through 26, is a justification in the eyes of man, and it cannot save the soul. You are basically a Catholic man, Doug, and that explains your wrong theology. I’m also not a “protestant”, since such a title was nonexistent with the first Christians that would surely have rejected Catholicism, had it existed at that time.
I don’t need your “reference men”. I have a Bible and the Holy Spirit. And you’re right, your answer doesn’t satisfy me and my “agenda”.
In other words, Doug, there are two justifications, one with God, and that one is always by faith in Jesus without any works. As Galatians says, getting circumcised as part of salvation (just one work), deletes grace. The other justification is with man, and it cannot save, but it can help fellow man with what he needs.
Andy – “I don’t need your “reference men”. I have a Bible and the Holy Spirit”
No need for further dialog.
Well done, Doug. You took your own advice and ended the off-topic discussion once and for all.
Keith – the FBI can’t recover “e-mail addresses” for posts on websites. Someone could subpoena the service provider and the service provider could provide IP addresses. That might or might not be traceable yo a particular person’s service…
I notice yo don’t post using your entire name, why not? I do!
Andy, there are 2 types of works. One is by the law (flesh) and the other evidence the faith that a person has that Jesus is who He says He is. When you are filled with the Holy Spirit, you cannot, not produce works of the spirit.
Moderatro, please release comments at 45, 46, and 51—-thank you
Keith, you have already stated your position and you have already been given a response. In case don’t remember what it is, go back to where you were before so that you can be reminded. Our answer has not changed.
Ur – I learned long ago and am constantly relearning this same lesson when I try and dialog with someone and they come back with the “I have the Bible and the Holy Spirit” that usually means they are unteachable and can’t be corrected from their errors. After that, I don’t find any benefit in dialog since they want a monologue not a dialog. They act as if God put teachers in the church for no reason or the church was invented with them…
But Doug, what makes you think that you are the one to “correct” everyone, and that you hold the truth? And what makes you think that you are my teacher? I have people that I go to as anointed teachers of the Word. I’m not standing alone without that. I’m just rejecting your attempt to teach me. I don’t believe you to be right on doctrine at all, and that is why.
Doug G
I know it can be terribly frustrated for all involved. But you do have it right, Doug. All you can do is put it out there and it will be up to the Holy Spirit to break through or break down the resistance to even consider what you have shared with them.
Andy
You come across as being terribly sarcastic. I don’t know what church or denomination you attend, but I shudder to think this is the way you might speak to one another being in the Lord and all. What more, we who are in the Lord have all been filled with the Holy Spirit and can discern the truth of what God’s word is and is not. Sure, we might discuss what this or that means, for iron does sharpen iron, but to be sarcastic and to try to discount another by using it is only bringing doubt upon what you are saying. Obviously, you are not interested in discussing this in an apologetic form, so yes it does leave you as being unteachable, as well as, being able to teach.
Doug G
So far in looking through the bodily resurrection material you referenced, I see that Mr. Smith is making reference to what takes place with a believer. Please direct me to where he states Jesus did not rise from the dead with his entire body. In the meantime, I will continue to look at your site CCwiki.com to see if I can find it myself. It just that if you would point me straight to it—it would save me time
Uriah, I’m not being sarcastic at all. So you read that into my words on your own. And I also don’t consider you a Bible teacher either. That is my prerogative. If you don’t like it, ignore me. I am under no obligation to pass your tests.
Chuck after being hit by this for months said -
“There is a relationship, there is a tie, there is a mystic relationship between this body and the new body that I will have. Just what it is I do not know, but I do believe in the resurrection of the dead. Now Jesus rose and seemed to be in the same body, but in reality His was a special case and we need to recognize that. ”
The audio clip is up there…
There is no “mystic” relationship between the body that is buried and the resurrection body. It’s the same body. Jesus didn’t rise in a spiritual body – His body was flesh and bone.
They keep moving their audio around on the cc site – I do have the tape numbers up there.
Now that point about Chuck Smith’s view of the resurrection, Doug is right about that. Smith’s view is bizarre and against Scripture. I can only figure that somewhere along the line, Smith figured getting a “new” body was a hope he just couldn’t give up. Why that would be superior to the glorified form of the same body, I don’t know. Or perhaps he figured it was beyond God’s desire to reassemble all the “parts” from wherever they disintegrate.
http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/w/page/13146615/Chuck-Smith-Resurrection
Whew, Andy—–in your mind, what constitute a person who is able to teach Bible truths.
For when you put something out there concerning the essentials of biblical teachings, then you are also putting yourself out as a teacher, filled with the Holy Spirit (which by the way, anyone who is mature in the Lord is able to do, who has that particular gift and/or is led of the Spirit to do so, man, woman, or child). This is what you have done with Doug and now, with me. Doug and I have spoken on the same things to bring to mind scripture that counter what you have put forth. So, in realty you are not contending with either of us, but with Scripture. Being so, then wouldn’t it be wiser to keep yourself more humble and open, rather than to contend in the tone and attitude that you have taken on in instance. I am not testing you, but I find it curious that you think that this is what I am attempting to do with you. I have every confidence that the Holy Spirit will make these things clearer to you, now that you have heard what we have shared with you. That is, unless you are so locked into what your “annointed” teachers have told you, in which case, whew—I would be very, very cautious in putting that above what God’s word teaches.
The point is, Andy. You have to choose, God’s Word or your desire for it to be a certain way to accommodate the lifestyle you have chosen to live. For he or she that has the Holy Spirit would know, that it is, being in the Lord will be evidenced by the works that the Holy Spirit compels us and enables us to do —-and to walk in obedience to Him. Not given to the flesh, but in all things given to that which is of the Lord and that glorifies Him and Him alone. That is why we cannot boast of these works, for without the Holy Spirit, it would be the work of the flesh. But with the Holy Spirit, it is impossible not to have them working in us and being shared with others for the sake of His name and what He has told us to do—-abide in Him.
Uriah, too much to read. I’m not interested in an elongated debate on this website. I’ve already stated my belief, and you don’t like it, so you’ll have to live with it. I don’t believe your view, at all.
My understanding is that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is there is no salvation outside the RCC and the Council of Trent includes over 100 anathemas including the true gospel.
Some examples are listed below;
Canon 9. “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
Canon 12. “If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.”
Canon 24. “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
Canon 30. “If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.”
Canon 32. “If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, …and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.”
Q nailed it.
Andy, that was not a debate–if you had read through it, you would have known this.
Speaking of elongated, I think Doug was correct when saying you have made many comments to counter what Sue was sharing in order to get your point across. But you are not able to hear anyone else other than yourself to speak—-interesting. And just so you will know, I do not support RCC as there are enough teachings that changes the meaning of God grace and so great of a salvation given to us through the blood of Jesus. The number one teaching is that the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ, Jesus—when scripture has told us, there is only one mediator between humans and God. That is, Jesus by way of the Cross.
With CC, a similar teaching occurs due to having the Moses Model in place. Special knowledge and privileges that are set apart from the rest of the body of Christ, without acccountability.
Doug, I’m listening to the tapes—-so far cannot pinpoint a heresy. Will move on to listen to the other tapes you listed. May I message you through CCwiki.com, rather than to keep this topic going on Alex’s site—-would encourage others to listen as well to discern for yourself if CC is being heretical regarding the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
The wiki gets so much spam – dozens a day – and all goes to my junkmail box.
Had this hung up in moderation, so thought I would try it again to see if it is posted. Please pardon the redundancy if the other one is posted if this one goes through.
1 John 1:6-7 (NKJV)
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
True Christianity is not just another religion. It is not understood by gathering information and by observing ceremonies. It is the life with power, which is directed by the word of God and by the Holy Spirit. True Christians will mortify their carnality and will be raised in the spirit life. They are led of the Holy Ghost. They are spiritual Christians. “Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Those who are not lead of the Holy Spirit are not of God, but they are just religious Christians. Receive the Holy Spirit and his power. “John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” Live as a Spirit filled Christian, become the son of God and be blessed.
“Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”
Had this hung up in moderation, so thought I would try it again to see if it is posted. Please pardon the redundancy if the other one is posted if this one goes through. Moderator, please delete #51 in this event.
1 John 1:6-7 (NKJV)
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
True Christianity is not just another religion. It is not understood by gathering information and by observing ceremonies. It is the life with power, which is directed by the word of God and by the Holy Spirit. True Christians will mortify their carnality and will be raised in the spirit life. They are led of the Holy Ghost. They are spiritual Christians.
“Romans 8:13 (NKJV) For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Those who are not lead of the Holy Spirit are not of God, but they are just religious Christians. Receive the Holy Spirit and his power.
“John 1:12 (NKJV) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” Live as a Spirit filled Christian, become the son of God and be blessed.
“Rev 3:21 (NKJV) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”
Q- It’s all there.
I suspect many would just gloss over these.
Can you make a summary for each that would make it easier not to?
Hmmm—-really don’t want to go too much in depth on this site — that is unless, it is a an outright heresy regarding the bodily resurrection of Christ.
As for those who have died and will be resurrected, I totally understand what Mr. Smith is teaching. At least as far as the first tape goes—-our mortal bodies will take on an immortal body—how that happens is up to debate, but is not an essential of Christian doctrine either. But if he denies that Jesus who initially was that of a spiritual body was then clothed with that of a fleshly or human body, then died and rose again without that body made of skin, blood, and bones, then it is heresy to teach otherwise.
However, even that human body will be transformed in such a way that He is not limited by it as we currently are living in a “terrestrial” type of environment (gravity, oxygen, food, etc). For it will now take on the incorruptible and not be subjected to that which is able to be destroyed by such atmospheric and chemical decomposition processes, if you will.
Clarification:
If Mr. Smith is teaching that “that Jesus who initially was that of a spiritual body was then clothed with that of a fleshly or human body, then died and rose again without that body made of skin, blood, and bones, then it is heresy to the max. And that is an essential in Christian doctrine and Mr. Smith needs to be taken to task on this.
The logical question would then be: What happened to the body for in the accounts of the woman and disciples, and reports given to others (Romans/Jewish leaders), the body could not be found. What more, afterwards Jesus ate and drank with those as He gathered together once last time to breathe His spirit upon them and commissioning them wilh words or encouragement a promise that he would return likewise. Giving us the hope and the faith that we too will be with Him one day when all is said and done upon this earth, as it is.
Keith @ 55,
I doubt any of us would be bothered to be visited by the FBI (though it doesn’t work that way.) we have truth on our side. My situation has already been proven legally. The only people who might get in trouble would be the other CC pastors who chose not to have the fallen pastor repay what he was proven to have stolen & that they did not investigate in the other years. But I would be delighted to have anyone investigating.
Mods, feel free to delete this exchange as well. The lies Keith is using to intimidate are inappropriate.
Btw, Keith,
Alex, myself and many others went through long drawn out sincere attempts at the Mt. 18 process. It was the CC pastors who refused to partake in the process. They are guilty, not us. We are now at the warning others stage since they are unrepentant.
Grateful—-well stated. I concur.
@Keith:
“My previous comments seem to have been deleted. I’ll try again. The long overdue father Bob – vs- son Alex lawsuit for a “Hate Campaign” should resolve charges of criminal activity by the father.”
You are probably a shill for or are the father, aren’t you?
“It could also be a watershed case to make it illegal — a hate crime — for websites to publish criminal allegations against pastors and churches by contributors who use cryptic usernames, i.e. not their real names.”
Contributors who use clever cryptic usernames are not following the biblical precedent of restoration in Matthew chapter 18: 1) first go to your brother in private, 2) then bring 2-3 witnesses, 3) then go public to the the church.”
Nonsnes. Matthew 18 based restoration attempts have been tried to no end, as others have stated. You should know by now that abusive CC pastors don’t do the Matthew thing. It’s not in their DNA.
“Cryptic usernames who slander pastors are hit and run artists, basically cowards, and should be held liable for hate crimes.”
What about real pastors with real names who slander parishioners non-cryptically at and away from the pulpit?
I think we already know that Alex uses his own name and a few others. So what? It’s his site and the CC pastors and their shills/trolls are doing it too. Maybe he’ll kick us all off and require registration.
I know I’m like 4 days late to respond to my Geisler comment. But I’d like to put some things in perspective.
Geislers was born in 32. I believe his PhD was completed in the 60s. I’m not certain you know what happened in philosophy in that time, atheism ruled philosophy. I know of NO philosopher that was a Christian. I’m not saying there aren’t any, but Logical Positivism, which ultimately leads to atheism, was rampant amongst philosophy departments up until the 80s and 90s. I have plenty of books from that that period and none of them have support for the existence of God. Some of the Christian schools that you mentioned didn’t even have graduate programs while Geisler was working on his PhD.
The second part is simply this. The Catholic philosophy programs during this time were teaching philosophy that is ultimately in-congruent with Catholic Theology. This is not the first or last times I’ve heard of a Catholic school teaching something that would contradict official Catholic dogma. Normally the professors and students have intricate and convoluted ways to attempt to reconcile these problems.
Q #76 My understanding about Roman Catholics is that you are talking about pre 1960′s before Vatican II. Before Vatican II the RC ‘s taught that only RC had a chance to go to heaven. That belief of theirs changed after Vatican II which took place in the early 60′s. The Second Vatican council’s work stated that Jesus is the way to heaven. Only throught Jesus. Their position after Vatican II was that salvation is a gift that comes from God through Jesus. Bashing Catholics is really ignorant and belongs buried in history.
Keith: You’re a piece of work.
“My previous comments seem to have been deleted. I’ll try again. ”
You’re lucky this comment stayed up. This is a place to talk about CC abuse, not to say it didn’t happen. Make your own blog if you disagree.
“The long overdue father Bob – vs- son Alex lawsuit for a “Hate Campaign” should resolve charges of criminal activity by the father. ”
There will be resolution alright. Most likely not the way you are speculating.
“It could also be a watershed case to make it illegal — a hate crime — for websites to publish criminal allegations against pastors and churches by contributors who use cryptic usernames, i.e. not their real names. ”
You’re thinking this case is going to change the laws of the land? LOL Free speech, baby.
“Martin Luther stood against the Catholic Church at a time when heretics were burned at the stack or tortured. Contributors who use clever cryptic usernames are not following the biblical precedent of restoration in Matthew chapter 18: 1) first go to your brother in private, 2) then bring 2-3 witnesses, 3) then go public to the the church. ”
Why are you presuming these steps have not been taken?
“Cryptic usernames who slander pastors are hit and run artists, basically cowards, and should be held liable for hate crimes.”
How can you prove anything slanderous was said? I’m not understanding all of this “cryptic” nonsense. Alex’s name is everywhere – first and last.
” The FBI can recover the emails addresses.”
Probably so, but only through appropriate legal measures first.
Pardon me, Alex, I couldn’t resist a troll.
Julie Anne – lol—-
Hey Julie Anne, I can read that you are doing just fine—LOL
Posted this on another thread that Keith was trolling, but I’m re-posting since it got buried and he hasn’t answered my questions yet. (Aww, who am I kidding, I don’t really care what/if he replies, I just didn’t want my snark to go to waste):
Is this guy for real? Keith, many posters, including Grateful and Alex, have stated early on in this blog how they painstakingly applied Matthew 18. Unless you have read this blog from start to finish you have no basis to assume they haven’t gone through the Biblical channels. This IS telling it to the church. And your persistent demand for names is ignorant at best, sinister at worst. If something is true, it remains true no matter who says it. If I say my name is Wanda Finkelstein or Jean Luc Fernandez or Frodo Baggins, how do you know if that’s really my name or not? And newsflash, people can still give their name AND tell a lie. Happens all the time. And thanks for the dictionary lesson on slander. You have just acquitted everyone who has shared factual statements here about their experience of abuse at the hands of CC. By the way, why haven’t you shared your last name? Give me a last name and I’ll believe anything you say.
DA Armstrong—thank you for your response.
I believe Chapman College and Whittier College had a philosophy department in the 60′s. And yes, it could have been geared to athiesm as most philosphies were until the early 80″s. I know as I took five different classes of philosphy and 1 class of archeology (Christian Professor) and 2 anthropology courses (by the same professor) to complete my bachelor’s degree.
I believe that there were other schools internationally can could have been tapped into, however. His bio statements: ” M.A. in theology (1960) from Wheaton College, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. Does not mention what year he earned the Ph.D. Seems to me that may have much to do with why he went from being more reformed than he was and leaned towards Arminianism/Evangelism.
Please tell me, if you know what church Geisler did attend during this time. Was he affliated with the Catholic church in any other capacity, other than a student for his dissertation? I ask this because it appears he is promoting that we extend a hand of brotherhood much like Rick Warren has also stated to “accomplish world peace agendas.”
On Geisler:
http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/10/ecumenical-teachers-at-calvary-chapel.html
As mention much earlier: Going to a catholic university, you will be bathed in its teachings. Which is not the worse thing that could happen, but will most likely impact your positions regarding various areas of studies. For instant, many theologians, teachers, and pastors went to liberal colleges, getting a biblical studies degree, then transferred to more conservative school to get a Master’s in divinity. Once out in the field, one could see and hear little threads coming through that weaved itself into the conservative camp and then others took that and never even knew that false doctrine had entered as a result of this process. It only became apparent when a person question what was being stated, did the research on where this person attained their education concerning such things a philosopy and theology that it became evident that it was as result of earlier beliefs that had taken root, but never dismissed as one moved on in their career or occupation as an apologist, teach, pastor or some other capciaty such as a writer, journalist, or community leader.
Is the Evangelical community being seduced into becoming ecumenical without even knowing it. When a church lacks accountability, it is easy to compromised God’s Word and be drawn away by seducing spirits. When the church is so self contained that it cannot see beyond its leadership, then false doctrine will enter in and the sheep will be led to the slaughter one at a time. There does not exist a watchman within the confines of CC. However, there are those who have left due to one reason or another who I believe God has compelled to reach back to warn those that the Holy Spirit will speak to in order that they would be spared that which is to come to those who refuses to repent and to purge the CC of such offenses and errors.
Just looked up Veritas Evangelical on Corporation Wiki and found out that Chuck Smith’s nephew, Jay H. Smith is listed as its Director.
Sue — Vatican II in the 1960′s reconfirmed every statement that Q made. Look it up. Official Catholicism put an anathema on the true Gospel. Turn a blind eye if you want to. But it is fact. Maybe you have family or friends stuck in it. I’m not under the bondage of avoiding truth to keep friends or family. I have family stuck in it, but they lose with me compared to the truth, as Jesus said it must be.
DA Armstrong — Going to a Jesuit Catholic university, and agreeing to do so, severely taints the ability of the person going there, to be objective about doctrine. That is why Geisler wrote a book in favor of Catholicism. Geisler is false.
This is a test. My last comment several days ago did no go through.
This is the opening speech re: Vatican 2
If you read through you will find a sentecne beginning with ” For this a council was not necessary”, and you will see that Council of Trent holds for today.
See the end where it is stated…”Mary, Help of Christians, intercede for us.”
Just this alone can open up much dialogue.
“There is one intercessor between God and man…Jesus.”
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm
Pope John Paul 13-1962
Opening paragraph in above speech(On October 11, 1962, the first day of the Council, Pope John XXIII delivered this address in St. Peter’s Basilica.)
“Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has finally dawned when — under the auspices of the virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast — the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside St. Peter’s tomb.”
Yes, the RCC is the “Mother church” for sure. Attributing to Mary God’s attributes.
BTW, I would have to refresh my memory but it was only in the mid 1900′s (I believe the 1950′s) that the doctrine of Marys ascension into heaven in body and spirit, and her immaculate conception (that SHE was born without sin) was pronounced.
JUst to prove how current some of these false teachings are:
11/1/1950 Pope Pius XII–Mary’s assumption into heaven in body and Spirit.
We know from the word that this is not possible.
12/8/1854 Pope Pius IX – Mary was free from all original sin when she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne.
We know that no one is free from sin at birth.
One more—
I remember when I studied all this years ago, that the reason for the 1950 Doctrine of Mary’s ascended to heaven in body and spirit, was because people were asking where her grave was because they wanted to worship her there. So the “church” came up with the doctrine of her ascension so that they could deal with this issue and explain why there was no grave.
I understand that this is not directly related to the thread, but you never know how the Holy Spirit will work. There may be one person reading this who will now believe they need to pray for their RC family member, or at least challenge them with these facts, and there may be a soul won to the Kingdom.
In my opinion, for what it’s worth, My heart goes out to Catholic congregants. There are many, many good Catholics. It is the Catholic system that is the problem. As you will see in the following, the ones in the system themselves claim that they have the power to change the words of God Himself. If that, in and of itself, does not make it an Anti-Christ system what does?
Catholic Priests claim power over God Himself:
“…we find in obediance to the words of his priests – Hoc est Corpus Meum – God Himself descends on the altar, that he comes whenever they call Him; and as often as they call Him, and places Himself in their hands, even though they should be His enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move Him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut Him up in the tabernacle, expose Him on the altar, or carry Him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat His flesh, and give Him for the food of others. ;Oh how great is their power!’ -The Dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p. 26,27
“…the power of the priest is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world. …thus the priest may be called the creator of the Creator…” -The diginity of the priesthood by Liguori, p. 33
“I explained that I wanted to give them [Yemen government] sisters, but the trouble was that, without a priest, without Jesus going with them, our sisters couldn’t go anywhere… I was so struck with the thought that ONLY when the priest is there can we have altar and our tabernacle and OUR JESUS. Only the priest can PUT Jesus there for us…Jesus wants to go there, but we cannot bring him unless you first give him to us.” –Mother Teresa
” you [priests] are called ‘another Christ.’ ” –MOTHER TERESA
Vatican claims power to change God’s Law:
“Not the Creator of Universe, in Genesis 2:1-3,-but the Catholic Church can claim the honor of having granted man a pause to his work every seven days.”-S. C. Mosna, Storia della Domenica, 1969, pp. 366-367.
“The Pope is of great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws… The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth.” -Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Ribliotheca, “Papa,” art. 2, translated.
“The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.” “The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ.” Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris’ Ecclesiastical Dictionary.
They “dispense with the command of Christ???” When the Catholic church is asked…”Why do you feel you have the power, authority and ability to change Scripture to match your traditions?” They answer…
“Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; –she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” -Rev. Stephan Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, “On the Obedience Due to the Church,” chap. 2, p. 174. (Imprimatur, John Cardinal McCloskey, archbishop of New York.)
“The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the Church had changed…the Sabbath into Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by its own authority.” Canon and Tradition, p. 263
“Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” -James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.
“The Catholic church,” declared Cardinal Gibbons, “by virtue of her divine mission changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.” Catholic Mirror Sept. 23 1983. (Official organ of Cardinal Gibbons)
Question – Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer – Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question – Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer – We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd ed.
“The Bible says, Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. The Catholic church says, No! By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day, and command you to keep the first day of the week. And lo, the entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic church!” Father Enright, C.S.S.R. of the Redemptoral College, Kansas City, Mo., History of the Sabbath, p. 802
“The Adventists are the only body of Christians with the Bible as their teacher, who could find no warrant in its pages for the change of day from the seventh to the first. Hence their appellation,” Seventh-day Adventists. “They’re cardinal principle consists in setting apart Saturday for the exclusive worship of God, in conformity with the positive command of God Himself, repeatedly reiterated in the sacred books of the Old and New testaments, literally kept by the children of Israel for thousands of years to this day, and endorsed by the teaching and practice of the Son of God while on earth.” -Rome’s Challenge, page two
Popes & Priests declare they can forgive the sins of men:
“Don’t go to God for forgiveness of sins, come to me.” -Pope John Paul II, LA Times, 12-12-1984
“And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it.” -Liguori, «Duties and Dignities of the Priest», p.27
“This judicial authority will even include the power to forgive sin.” [The Catholic Encyclopaedia Vol xii, article ‘Pope’ pg 265]
“the poor sinner kneels at his confessor’s feet. He KNOWS he is not speaking to an ordinary man but to ‘ANOTHER CHRIST,’ He hears the words: ‘I absolve thy sins…” and the HIDEOUS LOAD OF SINS DROPS FROM HIS SOUL FOREVER.” -William Doyle “Shall I be a priest” pp 14, 15
Can someone explain why this thread has turned into a Catholic bashing thread? Aren’t there better places for this?
PAL-
Yes….If the Pope has any new revelation (even if it opposes the Word) , the Catholics are to expect it is divine revelation; it supercedes God’s Word, so therefore the Bible is not the authority but the Church/Pope is. The Bible is null and void, and most Catholics have been trained to believe it is antiquated and outdated, since revelation is ongoing in their system.
Most Catholics are not encouraged to read their Bible since the sole interpretation belongs to the “church”, and the Popes, Bishops…authority.
My problem with Geisler is not that he went to a Catholic school of higher education fifty years ago, My concern is that he well knows that Chuck Smith teaches heresy on the resurrection and he only makes veiled criticisms. My concern is not that CC associates with Geiser, but that Geisler associates in any way with CC. He knows better but does what he does for the audience that he gets.
These arguments that Geisler is a Jesuit because he went to a Catholic university are what is known as ab “association fallacy” in logic. For those unfamiliar with logical fallacies (which fill the anti-Catholic arguments here and other places), see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Let me follow how we got here…
Alex starts a thread on the CCV lawsuit against his free speech…
Someone mentions the connection from Veritas to Brian Brodersen,
CCCM has BB as their pastor.
Veritas connects to Geisler.
Geisler’s university choice of 50 years ago was Catholic.
Hence, the thread gets hijacked by Catholic bashing who turn it into a discussion of the relation of the council of Trent to Vatican II and other related issues of Catholic dogma.
This isn’t a Kevin Bacon six degrees of separation movie. Can we turn the thread back to the subject?
Alex, I am praying for you and your family in this time that God will give you the strength and conviction to stand strong and that those around you will have the courage to stand with you and not back down.
Does anyone else want to offer specific prayer concerning the lawsuit so we may stand in agreement together?
Doug-
You are concerned about what you claim are CS’s false teachings on the resurrected body. You have brought that up before here.
I listened to that clip yrs ago when this blog started.
I didnt see the error.
In saying we are “catholic bashing”, you have no problem with the RC false teaching of Mary’s ascension to heaven in BODY and Spirit., and her conveived without sin? Are these TRUE doctrines according to the Word of God?
What would Bob gain under the following scenario?
Bob wants to shut up the critics (mostly Alex) and decides to sue for libel, defamation of character, etc for statements made against him on the Internet.
Bob consults attorneys who know that his charges won’t stand due to the protections in California against people like Bob who file lawsuits to chill free speech (Anti-SLAPP). Bob’s attorneys either -
1 – Just want to be paid so they don’t tell Bob he won’t win or.
2 – Told Bob he can’t win, but know that it might get Alex to shut up. Actually, it might have that effect for the duration of the trial.
Bob’s attorneys get paid either way, win or lose so they aren’t going to be the ones to stop.
Bob loses a lot in the local press due to the lawsuit, but gets to have a public enemy – which he can go on and on with a martyr’s complex in the pulpit and develop an us – vs – them approach which has worked for CCSPs in the past.
Trying to see what other angles there are in this for Bob? Obviously he’s hemorrhaging people/money or he wouldn’t have gone down this path
Anyone else have any thoughts?
Hannah, I could care less about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on any subject. If I want to know what they teach, I’d pull of a copy of the Catholic Catechism that I have in my library and read what they say they teach.
This site is about Calvary Chapel’s abuse – theological abuse is the root of much of their other sorts of abuse. Suggest the Catholic bashers take it elsewhere since it’s not the subject of this website nor this thread.
I have no problem with the ascension of Mary or the Immaculate Conception in that I don’t believe or teach either doctrine but since it really doesn’t touch on the Gospel I could care less. If I was dialogging with a Catholic I might bring it up and they probably would tell me they don’t believe it either so again, not an issue.
Hannah if you don’t understand the error in Chuck Smith’s doctrines related to the resurrection,. I have much more serious concerns about YOU then I do about the Catholics.
Doug:
“I have no problem with the ascension of Mary or the Immaculate Conception in that I don’t believe or teach either doctrine but since it really doesn’t touch on the Gospel I could care less”
Really? why would you not care that Mary ascended into heaven in BODY and Spirit, and care what CS teaches about this subject?
The gospel according to the RC does include Mary for salvation since all grace comes through HER.
PS Doug- I have never made this into a personal attack as you have clearly done.
I am presenting FACTS, not an opinion.
Overly Concerned….where are you? I miss my daily devotions
Jus kidding, but I do enjoy the depth of your writing.
“Really? why would you not care that Mary ascended into heaven in BODY and Spirit, and care what CS teaches about this subject?”
Is there a single Catholic here now defending that view? If not, I see no need to care. How does the subject bear on CC and abuse? I don’t see that it does. here’s where the thread is at now…
Alex starts a thread on the CCV lawsuit against his free speech…
Someone mentions the connection from Veritas to Brian Brodersen,
CCCM has BB as their pastor.
Veritas connects to Geisler.
Geisler’s university choice of 50 years ago was Catholic.
The thread gets hijacked by Catholic bashing who turn it into a discussion of the relation of the council of Trent to Vatican II and other related issues of Catholic dogma.
If someone doesn’t want to discuss the Assumption of Mary, they are now in the wrong…
Really???
Doug,
To be honest, you are correct in that this site is primarily titled as, “Calvary Chapel Abuse”. However it is in general referenced to spiritual abuse towards the congregation, coming from the people behind the pulpit who belong in a system that claims they are teaching the word of God but instead are more interested in the money tree than the cross. Therefore I think saying some of us are, “Catholic bashing” is incorrect. Perhaps “Catholic System Exposing In Order To Warn” is more like it. If this warning is offending to Alex and not appropriate to be addressed in his blog, I apologize to Alex for not being in line with his intention; but I do not apologize for warning the congregation of being mislead and being spiritually abused.
“PS Doug- I have never made this into a personal attack as you have clearly done.
I am presenting FACTS, not an opinion.”
Not all facts are relevant to all places. Don’t take it as a personal insult. Take it as a chance to focus on your own doctrine, rather than the doctrine of some other errant group. I could care less about what some anonymous person believes when there is a flesh and blood person here who doesn’t see what is wrong with Chuck Smith’s heretical views.
Tell me, Hannah, do you agree with Chuck Smith when he says that the “real me is spirit”? Do you agree when Chuck Smith says that the body isn’t redeemed? Do you agree with Smith when he says that their is only a “mystic” connection between the body that dies and the resurrection body? Do you agree with Smith that you get a resurrection body at death, thus yielding billions of individual resurrections rather than one great day of resurrection? Do you agree that the soul sleeps at death or do you believe that we go to be with the Lord at death?
Or do you stand with the historical churches; Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches who all affirm the resurrection of the flesh?
As for me, I’d rather stand with the Catholics on the resurrection of the flesh than with Chuck Smith who is clearly a heretic.
Study to show yourself approved…
PAL and others. Whether or not Alex asks this conversation to change focus is not particularly important to me. He and I are both particularly bothered by people who want to shut down threads since we went through it at the PP site including bans for being off-topic. Nevertheless, I am asking that the bashers stop. I have no power to enforce it and wouldn’t want to but when I see names who are not regulars here come on and turn a thread into Catholic bashing I have to wonder about THEIR agendas.
PAL, why choose the particular warning against Roman Catholicism? There are a million other errors in the world which are much worse than Roman Catholicism. This site is not about abuses in the RCC. There are perhaps hundreds or thousands of those sites out there. This is about Calvary Chapel. If you feel that your mission is to warn people then please consider it done. They are warned…
Doug,
You said, “This site is not about abuses in the RCC. There are perhaps hundreds or thousands of those sites out there. This is about Calvary Chapel. If you feel that your mission is to warn people then please consider it done. They are warned…”
This is my last word and I truly am sorry if I offended anyone.
Nor did I intend to go off thread. If you look at the top of the page you will see in Alex’s last paragraph, “There is a lot going in CC and in the Evangelical World as a whole and even our Society as a whole with regards to the same issues we deal with on here. We’re a part of a much larger Movement in the areas of whistleblowing and calling Institutions to crack down on abuse and corruption. It’s very encouraging to see the progress.”
God bless you all; and Alex I’m praying for you and your purpose to succeed in your attempt to help those who do not know they can become spiritual warriors like you instead of being hurt further.
D.J. Chuang has ideas about Asian American churches.
Lots of ideas.
This isn’t about Calvary Chapel but its interesting what is happening with the Asian churches, I know some of complain about me mentioning race or ethincal background but its understand.
Katie Lee, left, and Mychel Hartdige greet each other at Newsong Church in Irvine. Lee has been at the church for four years and Hartdige for eight. The young adults group meets weekly at the church.
PAUL BERSEBACH, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
MORE PHOTOS »
ADVERTISEMENT
He has ideas about online-only Asian churches, about so-called “next-gen multi-Asian churches,” and about churches frequented by Asian Indian, Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese worshippers.
Chuang, 46, a Taiwanese-born church consultant/social media guru/faith entrepreneur, keeps searchable databases of all these kinds of churches, and more, on his consulting website.
Also on the website: a guide to Asian American youth ministry, links to the online Asian pop culture magazine Giant Robot, and a page dedicated to explaining why Yogurtland is an Asian foodie’s delight (think lactose-intolerance-friendly and self-serve gadgetry).
Chuang has so many ideas about the fast-growing world of Asian American Christianity, he devotes an entire section of his website to them, under a tab labeled “Ideas.” Actually, there are two tabs; the second one is labeled “Even More Ideas.”
One of the “Even More Ideas” is about bipolar disorder, a condition with which Chuang is intimately familiar. But more about that later.
•••
The first thing to know about Chuang, who lives with his wife and son in Aliso Viejo and works as a consultant for churches and Christian organizations nationwide, is that he is one of the most networked, knowledgeable and restless experts on Asian American Christianity at a time when Asians have become America’s fastest-growing ethnic group.
Also, it’s no accident Chuang lives in Orange County, where a population of roughly 562,000 Asians comprises one of America’s largest and most densely populated Asian communities.
Long the birthplace of trends in American Christianity, Orange County is exporting a new and influential style of Asian American worship. Church innovations that took root here – multiethnic congregations, pastors preaching in T-shirts and jeans, extensive use of social media, inner-city ministry – are spreading around the globe.
“Culturally speaking, Orange County is open space, so it frees up people to imagine new things,” Chuang said. “It’s an enterprising place.”
Nationwide, 42 percent of America’s 18.2 million Asians are Christian, according to the Pew Research Center. Until recently, most of those worshippers attended churches geared toward first-generation immigrants craving the sort of monocultural, hierarchical, morally strict faith communities they left behind.
Now, as second- and third-generation children of Asian migrants come of age, they are creating churches almost unrecognizable to their forebears.
At Newsong church in Irvine, where each Sunday more than 1,500 worshippers from 15 Asian cultures gather alongside whites, African Americans and Latinos in a cavernous warehouselike hall, pastor Dave Gibbons, who is half-Korean, inveighs against behavior such as masking failure to avoid shaming one’s family.
Newsong members have started ministries in Los Angeles’ historically black Crenshaw District, among the homeless in downtown Santa Ana and in a roster of global cities, including London, Mexico City, Bangkok and Mysore, India.
Ambassador Church in Brea, which started 10 years ago in a rented office building in Anaheim, leads a growing network of multiethnic churches in Hollywood, Colorado and, soon, Vancouver, Canada.
The church runs a church-planting training program that shows aspiring pastors how to adapt to new settings by reaching beyond traditional Asian communities.
At Epic Church in downtown Fullerton, a onetime offshoot of a historically Japanese church in Los Angeles, homeless people are members and nearly half the congregation isn’t Asian.
“When I talk to people in Toronto or Vancouver or New York, they say, ‘We’re 15 or 20 years behind you,’” said Ken Fong, pastor of Evergreen Baptist Church in Rosemead, the parent church of Fullerton’s Epic Church. “They say, ‘Wow, we’re not even close’ to adopting changes already common in California.”
Fong, who in 1999 wrote a book forecasting a more informal, multi-ethnic future for Asian American Christianity, said Epic Church and other ministries in Los Angeles and Orange County are at the vanguard of church innovation.
“The student has become the teacher,” Fong said of Epic’s pastor, Kevin Doi, who grew up at Evergreen and was mentored by Fong.
Or, as Doi put it, worshipping in diverse downtown Fullerton forced Epic’s members to think what it meant to “love and be friends with people who are different from us.”
This rapidly changing landscape of Asian American ministry is D.J. Chuang’s livelihood and his intellectual obsession. The stakes for him are personal. Chuang grew up the eldest son of strict, morally austere Taiwanese parents who immigrated to America in 1974 when Chuang was 8. The family ran a motel in northern Virginia.
In part to please his father, Chuang studied computer engineering in college and worked for two years for a government contractor near Washington, D.C. He said the day he told his father he wanted to leave his job and go to seminary “was one of the fear and trembling kinds of conversations.”
Chuang graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1995 and worked as a pastor at a traditional Chinese church in North Carolina, and at a smaller church in Virginia aimed at second-generation immigrants.
Both jobs left him dissatisfied.
“I’m an experimenter,” Chuang said. “My heart is in the church, the Asian American church. But church is not known for being a place of research and development.”
Chuang left formal ministry and became a consultant, working for churches, parachurch organizations and Christian nonprofits, always aiming to help Asian American Christians become more digitally savvy and culturally responsive.
He’s helping Brea’s Ambassador Church expand its network of sister churches and advising La Mirada’s Talbot Seminary as it develops one of America’s first doctoral programs in Asian American ministry.
Chuang is a manic presence, especially online. He was, he says, the first person in Orange County to sign up for Twitter seven years ago (a distinction confirmed by the rankings website Twitaholic). He tweets throughout each day, blogs, produces a weekly podcast and talks by phone, Skype and Google Chat with a nationwide roster of church leaders. Callers make appointments via an interactive scheduler on Chuang’s website.
Last year, Chuang traveled 35,839 miles in 74 days on 16 trips to conferences and meetings
This information comes from the Chuang family Christmas card, which also details the number of followers (7,000) Chuang has on Twitter and the number of reward points he earned last year at Starbucks (50).
Since 2005, Chuang has edited two books on Asian American ministry, produced a report on current trends in Asian American churches, written 23 magazine articles and made 28 presentations at church conferences and seminars – achievements tabulated, in chronological order, on Chuang’s website.
Chuang has bipolar disorder. He has been successfully treated for the condition since 2001. But he attributes his numerous career changes and intellectual restlessness, in part, to manic episodes.
His periods of depression, he said, brought him near suicide. And they convinced him that helping Asian American churches become more culturally inclusive is tantamount to a life-or-death calling.
“It’s very hard for Asians to talk about their weaknesses,” Chuang said, explaining why he waited years before publicly acknowledging his condition and seeking treatment.
Chuang said traditional Asian American churches are especially inhospitable to painful personal problems because many Asian cultures prize a veneer of stoic hard work and moral respectability.
“I want to bring churches into a place to deal more honestly with the real person,” Chuang said.
“I would like to see Asian Americans become more healthy and whole as people.”
•••
Dave Gibbons, pastor of Irvine’s Newsong church, said Orange County’s rapidly changing demographics force Asian American churches to become early adopters of the inclusivity Chuang seeks.
“Orange County is a beautiful laboratory,” Gibbons said. “You have multiple cultures come together, and there’s this clashing and creativity.”
Even successful first-generation churches are adapting. Until five years ago, Steve Choi was leading a small English-language service at SaRang Community Church in Anaheim, the largest Korean church outside of Korea, with 10,000 mostly Korean-speaking members.
With church leaders’ blessing, Choi left SaRang and started a new church, CrossWay, dedicated to reaching a younger, multiethnic audience. Some 1,000 worshippers now gather for three Sunday services at two locations, in Brea and Irvine. A quarter of the congregation is non-Korean.
CrossWay members travel to Haiti to volunteer at an orphanage, support a seminary in India and organize a basketball camp for low-income youth in Mississippi.
“When we go there (to Mississippi), people have never seen such a thing,” Choi said, adding: “To be honest, the kids there are better than the guys” who lead the camp.
Chuang said he now sees signs of Asian American church innovation outside California – in Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
Ultimately, he said, only “two things are required” for Asian American churches to innovate.
“One is people. The second is a leader or pastor. If there are pockets of Asian Americans, and a pastor or leader willing to lead a church, it can happen.”
Contact the writer at jhinch@ocregister.com or twitter.com/jimkhinch
More from Morning Reads »
COMMENTS | PRINT | EMAIL | SHARE
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.
1. Keep it civil and stay on topic.
2. No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
Stating facts that a church or in this case Church says about it’s self is not “bashing”. That in it self seems like a logical fallacy; when someone presents truth you do not like call it bashing (narrow minded bigotry) to discredit the them, throw in some “off topic or should be “buried in history” comments and maybe they will shut up or go away.
So to stay “on topic” This is what CC pastors do when they do not like the facts.
Q, it’s not whether or not I “do not like” the facts about Catholicism, it’s about whether they are germane to the subject of this BLOG or not. How does whether or not the Catholic church teach something or not teach something bear on the subject of Calvary Chapel abuse? For the life of me, I can’t see how it relates.
If anything, it’s very CC-ish to bag on the Catholics and to ask people not to turn it into an anti-Catholic forum would be very anti-CC. I think we need to get beyond the CC mindset of looking at what others teach and how they are in error and examine our own church (in this case Calvary Chapel) and what was taught to us while we were in Calvary Chapel. We can start to step away from Calvary when we stop looking at every other church as inferior and ask what is good in them. We can look at their doctrine, true or false but we should look at that in our own community as well.
My question is how is the Evangelical community so broken that Chuck Smith can teach what he does and people don’t call him out. Really, he should be denounced like the Mormons or any other cult for his teachings.
Doug:”As for me, I’d rather stand with the Catholics on the resurrection of the flesh than with Chuck Smith who is clearly a heretic.”
And the RCC church isn’t heretical with their teachings on Mary’s assumption to heaven in BODY and Spirit.?
The entire RCC rests on the fact that Mary was born without sin, and resurrected in her original body. Because of this she has God like attributes, doesnt need a Savior (even though Luke clearly states she rejoiced in God her savior…she can hear our prayers and ask her son to obey her as he did in changing water to wine…How can you defend that heresy? Or excuse it?
“My question is how is the Evangelical community so broken that Chuck Smith can teach what he does and people don’t call him out. Really, he should be denounced like the Mormons or any other cult for his teachings.”
Why not denounce the Pope since there are more Catholics in this world than evangelicals.
Dough- Can you paste here in CS’s words what you believe is heresy? Thanks
Re #109 – “Trying to see what other angles there are in this for Bob? Obviously he’s hemorrhaging people/money or he wouldn’t have gone down this path. Anyone else have any thoughts?”
I have no idea if this means anything from a legal viewpoint, but if Alex keeps his promise to Bob then he will not use anti-SLAPP to defend himself. On Alex’s Oct 1, 2012 blog post, he wrote to his dad: “Drop the others from the lawsuit. Don’t re-victimize Tina Jenkins, Edna Silva and Not Alone. You’ve hurt them enough already. If it’s a fight you want, I pledge not to anti-SLAPP you if you drop the others…” Well, those three are not listed in Bob’s lawsuit; the defendants are Tim Taylor, Alex Grenier, and (John) Does 1-50. If Tina Jenkins, Edna Silva and Not Alone are not are not named as “Does” in the trial, then Alex’s credibility is on the line. Or if he wants to use Anti-SLAPP, then he can repent of his statement and Bob can decide whether to amend his suit to include Jenkins, Silva, and Not Alone. See: http://calvarychapelabuse.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Calvary-Chapel-Pastor-Grenier-Lawsuit3.pdf.
Doug, for one Calvary Chapel and the Roman Catholic Church both have the same Episcopal polity which is an authoritarian style of government that exalts men to an unbiblical position over the body of Christ and has led to abuse to both adults and children and has been an effective tool to allow the abusers to remain above accountability.
PAL @ 120
At first, I felt that the thread having to do with Catholic teachings was not being done as well as it could have been. But then it took on a more academic tone rather than making personal remarks that had no bearing in facts that are easily ascertain. In your comment, I totally agree with you when you redefined “catholic bashing” into ““Catholic System Exposing In Order To Warn.” It would seem to me that there are two concerns here, and unfortunately for whatever reason, the 2 camps cannot see that each is as important as the others in joining with one another to warn those who attends CC, as well as, those who share its leadership role and direction.
I say this because initially it was brought to our attention that Greg Laurie had participated in a conference with those who represent the Catholic Church. What more, CC does have very close ties and links with Veritas Evangelical Seminary that President is Norman Geisler, a known friend and advocate of both camps for bridging the gap or relationship between RCC and the Evangelical community. In turn, it was pointed out that CC position on the resurrection was not in line with scripture and therefore, unlike RCC who position or doctrinal teaching on the same topic, made CC as being in error of an essential doctrinal teaching.
How this has anything to do with CCA and Alex is extremely relevant. It may not have been comfortable as things could have been stated better and with less defensiveness, but oftentimes, the most critical of error do bring forth strong reaction and unneeded personal remarks or criticism of anothe to somehow establish a fact. It does work very, as it only turns things into a mud-slinging event, but nevertheless, it does happen.
I say it is extremely relevant that Hannah, Andy, Q, and a couple of others have care enough to provide some very good information regarding the teachings of RCC and that Doug also alerted us concerning a possible doctrinal error CC has made concerning the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I’m still listening to the tapes, so haven’t made up my mind about this yet. Nevertheless, Doug did bring this to our attention, because he is very concern, as well as, he should be in warning others. What is most important is the fact that CC and RCC are engaging with one another in such a way that does lay the groundwork for ecumenicalism and even worse, tolerance for false teaching to enter in to a system that is already riddled with so many errors due to the Moses Model, that in many ways does mirror the constructs of RCC in its leadership makeup and that has led, fostered, and covered up many of its abuses by using tactics that has in turn corrupted it even further, permitting such leaven with barely a hint of accountability.
So, with that being said, we also need to keep in mind that those who have come to this site—many are doing so as they have been injured and abused as a result of such leadership and abuses and misrepresentation of God’s word. In this processes of bringing these things now to the church at large, we are in part vulnerable still desiring to be in fellowship and hoping to find a church that is safe, balance in teaching, leadership, and without prejudice and lack of accountability. So in the search of finding another church, the concerns that everyone has brought concerning CC and RCC doctrinal error, it equips this person to consider these things and equips them to find a home church that does not replicate that which has deceived, abuse, and corrupted that which is very dear and close to their heart and soul.
It helps everyone to study to show themselves approved and to enable them to rightly divide the word of God and to know why they believe what they believe. For there are many in CC who haven’t a clue what the essential of doctrinal beliefs contained, nor why they are important to know. For without understanding these things, it is so easy to be seduced and to have our ears tickled thinking, all is well—then boom! The leaven is revealed, but no one listens and no one cares, and this site provides the vehicle to make these things known and to give a voice to those who have been silenced for speaking the truth, for asking questions, and for their attempts to hold CC to an account for the erros and offense that have been made but kept hidden by their own silence and unrepentance.
““Catholic System Exposing In Order To Warn.” is a good and biblical thing to do on this site as it ties in with CC efforts to align itself with RCC via such persons as Geisler. Due to the errors that are inherent in the Moses Model, it is not surprise that they would find themselves akin to RCC.
Alex – Have you thought of starting a blog on Catholicism? Wow. You have far more tolerance than me, friend.
Hey, all, have you seen this article? This is the real issue I think Alex has been discussing all along – - – the kind of abuse that pastors have been doing, abusing, covering up abuse, not being held accountable. This article is excellent. It is very important to watch the current Sovereign Grace MInistries lawsuit because it closely parallels a lot of what many of you have experienced at CC.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/26/calvary-chapel-s-tangled-web.html
Julie Ann – It’s like when someone starts a “Calvinism is the true Gospel” thread. It leads to a lot of hot air and nothing much more. At the moment we are infested with Catholic bashing. I want to return to the days when we were Calvary Chapel bashing
Great article..
“““Catholic System Exposing In Order To Warn.” is a good and biblical thing to do on this site as it ties in with CC efforts to align itself with RCC via such persons as Geisler. Due to the errors that are inherent in the Moses Model, it is not surprise that they would find themselves akin to RCC.”
Guilty by association even when there is barely any association? There is no Calvary Chapel efforts to align itself with the RCC. That’s just bullpuckey. And yes, I have heard the “evidence”. Why does CC attract such crazy conspiracy theory types?
Rick Gross @ 130
Have you loss something—because your statement nothing whatsoever to do with #109 and more than the statement you made regarding Alex’s integrity.
What more your statement did not hint of anything that was of the Lord. So, whose integrity are we really to question? Yours or Alex?
Corrections:
Rick Gross @ 130
Have you loss something—because your statement had nothing whatsoever to do with #109, any more than the statement you made regarding Alex’s integrity.
What more your statement did not hint of anything that was of the Lord. So, whose integrity are we really to question? Yours or Alex?
Rick why the attempt to threaten people on the periphery? I would hope Alex would follow his attorney’s advise as the best way to defend himself against these charges by Bob. My guess is that would be to do down the Anti-SLAPP path since it will save significant dollars and time as well as emotional stress.
It needs to be remembered that Alex doesn’t have to prove himself in any way in this case. Bob has a burden of proof that Alex has done what he has done knowing what he has done is wrong. A very high impossible burden of proof.
” Why not denounce the Pope since there are more Catholics in this world than evangelicals.”
If this BLOG was Catholic Church Abuse I just might do that. Not relevant to this BLOG nor any that I frequent. All these crazy conspiracy theories do is discredit this BLOG as a haunt of nutcases. I nuts enough on my own without this crazy anti-Catholic crusade.
Rick the lawsuit still has people other than Alex.
I’d say Bob didn’t accept Alex’s proposal, but instead dropped them since he would lose on the lack of merits of his claims anyway.
Okay, Doug—
Have to ask you—are you pro Catholic or Catholic? Because you are totally incorrect when you say CC have not permitted itself to become engaged in the sense that has already been referenced. I can see that you hold a favorable view of Geisler and this in itself would prompt you to take the position that you have.
But now to allude to those who are standing as a watchman as being “conspiracy” driven. Come on–that’s a bit out there, don’t you think. It may be a way of muddying the waters, but it doesn’t negate the facts, as prsented. Geisler is up to his ears in bridging the gap between RCC and the Evangelical Community. Sounds as if you are as well. I certainly hope not, but the defense you are now making causes me to wonder. No offense is meant—please believe this, but if this is the case, I think we all need to know this as well. And if this is the case, I certainly hope you would reconsider the things that have been brought forth regarding RCC doctrines and understand that not only does CC have errors, but RCC is not to be viewed as being with less errors in exchange.
Ur: I could care less one way or the other about the RCC. I am not Catholic, and I am pretty familiar with what they teach and believe.
I think we should start in our own backyard before we go after other people’s faith communities. Yes, I have seen the evidence on the ODM sites about the alleged CC to RCC connections and I am completely unconvinced they have ANY substance, particularly given the years of Catholic bashing I have heard from the mouths of CC pastors.
I take seriously the prayer of Jesus that we might be one and I count as brothers and sisters many that you obviously dismiss. However, with the log of gross error in our community, I have a very hard time taking the splinter of error out of their eye.
I heard plenty of anti-catholic sentiment at CC – I think because many in the camp are ex-Catholics who had a bad experience. So when I was looking elsewhere, I went to check out the Catholic system for myself and went away with a different opinion. I really was touched by God there and met some wonderful Catholics. Their system has many things I would never agree with and I and many Catholics would like to see changes. They have members from those stuck in their ways who want to go back to the Latin mass to those who call themselves contemporary Catholics who want to see change. But Jesus is alive there for those who worship him in spirit. That can’t be denied just like he is alive for those at CC or elsewhere who worship him in spirit, in spite of the problems and false beliefs. God looks on the heart.
Rick, for which sin should I be re-victimized? Having compassion for the hurting or speaking up for myself? Thats pretty harsh.
Re 125 & criticism: Doug Gilliland, you asked a question in #109: “Trying to see what other angles there are in this for Bob?” and I tried to answer it, that’s all. If you’ve read my past posts, then you’d know that I also have issues with CC. I used “repent” in the sense of to change one’s mind, but integrity is still on the line – both Bob’s and Alex’s. I believe that Alex is the good guy here and he made a promise to Bob Grenier in the Oct 1 blog post and it appears that Bob complied – unless Tina Jenkins, Edna Silva, and Not Alone are named during the trial as one of the “Does”. This is the only other angle that I can see Bob Grenier playing – trying to force Alex into foregoing his use of Anti-SLAPP. Bob is not suing because he or his lawyer expect something to gain from it. Whether it is money, martyrdom, or disparaging his step son’s integrity, who knows. But Doug, you asked a question, and I tried to answer it. But since everyone seems to be on attack mode on this site the last couple of days, I’ll leave. Don’t feel safe here.
Correcton: “Bob is not suing because he or his lawyer do not expect something to gain from it.” Bye.
Well, actually the worst bashing of Roman Catholics is half-truths about the middle ages. Some protestants o are the worst think they Roman Catholics killed millions, how could you killed millions with the primative transporation system of the middle ages no trains like in Nazi Germany. also no gun powder until the 14th century. Second, some killing for religious belief was also done in the Byzantine Empire. the Paulician incident where Empress Theodora of the 800′s killed thousands of Paulicians who were also allied with the Moslems. Justinian in the 6th century burned Machaeians and sent there ashes to the sea. The inconlastic period Priests and Monks were imprisoned and put to death in the 7th and 8th but most Protestants and Eastern Orthodox believe that only Roman Catholics did this.
Ok Rick, I’m sorry I misunderstood your statement. Its all good. Im a little sensitive on the subject. No harm done
The abuses that Alex has shared that occured by the hands of his step-father did not happen in a vacuum. CC shared in perpetuating these abuses by failing to hold this man to an account and to exact biblical discipline and sanctions upon him. This is not just a “family matter” as it does involved CC in that this man was not only one who attended CC, he is a pastor as well. The systemic constructs of an abusive person, domestic violence, and child abuse are practically identical to that which not only Alex has reported, but others who have shared in their own efforts to seek assistance in their own pain and suffering with and through the leadership of CC.
In educating and informing others who have or are attending CC, it has been necessary to bring to the table the underlying causes of such cover up and offenses that are so vile and so cruel that it continues to happen within that which we know to be CC and its affiliated network of pastors and associates. We do this by referencing scripture and by estabishing facts that cannot be repudiated, but rather can be verified by anyone who cares to do the research. When such facts establishes a pattern of such offense that also contains the overlapping of engagements with other doctrinal teachings or organizations that are not correct biblically, then this must be brought to the forefront as well. It is meant to raise the attenna’s of those who are filled with the Holy Spirit to test these spirits to see if they be true and then to provoke the same to get rid of the leaven that initially set itself up to permit such things to occur as has occurred to Alex and so many others.
In doing so, does this constitute that those that have stood as watchmans to be “nut cases, seeking to develop some type of conspiracy theory and raising the alarm to ward off some type of unknown plausible attack against that which does not exist. I seriously do not think this is the case at all. Alex’s case scenario did not happened in a vacuum. CC, due to the Moses Model is prime for attracting such persons who exploits the vulnerable and abuses them behind closed doors while putting on a mask of sanity while in the public eye. This is referred as being Narcissistic. And being so, it does not see beyond its own need to survive, at the expense of those who support them. And will turn on them in a flash, if challenged or in the process of being exposed.
This is even more evident as we see the nepotism, such as Mr. Smith’s nephew, being made the Director of the VES which was founded and partnered between BB and NG. And something we all ought to be concerned about. If we are ever going to be able to reconciled the CC leadership with their respective flocks placed in their care, these things must be rectified and resolved. But we cannot grasp these things unless we understand how this corruption and the abuses of the most vulnerable, such as Alex and his family has taken place unless we also consider these alliances made with those who have perverted and compromise God’s word as a result of the Moses Model, and more recently a tolerance of enabling such people as Caner, D’Souza, Don Steward, Geisler, Hocking, and so many others to be viewed as leaders to what—–sell God’s word out and exchange it for the lies that is perpetuated in order to promote or to gain what—–certainly not for the sake of the church—-the real church, that is. And certainly not for those who were not able to speak the truth, as they were being betrayed, molested, beatne, alienated, isolated, and then accused of being the abusers for their attempts to make these thing known so that what they were losing and had loss could be restored—but most all to stop the horror, the terror, the intimidation, the bullying, and the pain and suffering of a broken heart and a broken spirit that should never have taken place in the first place, all in the name of the Lord.
So, no—Alex case is not just contained in the suit brought against him by his step-father and mother. It is so much more and CC knows this, as much as BG and his attorneys, as well, as everyone else. To think otherwise is only another mechanism to simplify that which cannot be due to the failure of those that could have stopped this a long, long time ago, but decided to ignore the cries of those who attempted to be heard, instead.
This case is very much about Alex, but it is also about every man, woman, and child who has suffered abuse at the hands of a church, a pastor, and those we trusted and loved, but was turned away simply because we dare to stand up to follow biblical mandates to speak the truth to the CC church in the only way that was made available to us.
And in that, I give thanks to Alex to enable each of us to speak those things that have led to being abused and betrayed by CC and those parties that have caused us much harm, while being able to do so in such a way that would enable others to be warned and also to reduce the harm that have already been done against us.
Uriah, well said
In regards to gathering to together to worship Jesus in spirit, many abherent and cults will claim to do this. What separates these out from being gathered together in His name is this: the truth. So if we are in a church that is not practicing sound doctrine, then how can we worship the Lord in spirit and in truth?
John 4:20-25 KJV
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
If CC was making friends with any other teachings, I would hope that would be brought to our attention as well. Just because a person may be sympathetic or in an agreement with a church does not invalidate the truth that needs to be known particularly when there is a concern in CC’s subtle engagement with it. Good, sincere, and loving people does not establish credibility and truth of that which needs to be declared to be unbiblical and heretical. Sue, your experience with RCC is very much the same that can be said about CC. As for speaking of RCC doctrinal errors which are many, as well as gross, it would be better for you to listen, heed, and modify your stance than to miss the mark entirely due to the good feelings you might get as a result of those that think they are worshipping in spirit. Likewise, the same goes for those who would permit and tolerate those who seek to bridge a gap between RCC and Evangelicals by the mere exercise of permitting such to have their nephew be a Director of an institute founded by Geisler who have been very opened and have authored a book specifically geared to do this.
As for being in prayer with any that would espouse or tolerate such things, I could never agree to this.
“Geisler who have been very opened and have authored a book specifically geared to do this”
Geisler indeed wrote a book with the very intent of bringing born again believers into communion with the Catholic lies. That puts a stain on Geisler and on any in CC that support him. If a person can’t see that Catholicism is false, then they are not a Bible teacher nor are they an apologist.
To keep it about CC and on topic, Chuck Smith himself in several books makes the terrible claim that Catholicism is just another denomination.
Amen #144
Well, I’m tired of the born again movement. I think born again christians have split up society for the past 200 years or so. Protestantism has lead to the debate over gay marriage since there is not one church in the West anymore. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have been influence by liberal protestants and Conservative Protestants bad mouth everyone.
Cynthia,
Some spend their time ” bad mouthing” others while others have contended for the faith by speaking truth and exposing the false doctrines of various denominations, cults, and abberenat Christian groups.
This is why it is so important to read the Bible, so that you will also know the truth and the truth will set you free. It will help you to know the difference between “bad mouthing” and that which exposes evil, false doctrine, false teachers, wolves, and enable you to contend for the faith as well.
Since the beginning of times, Satan has used the things of the Lord to undermine the souls of human beings. But God has provided us with His word to help us to understand what is and what is not of Him. What more He has equipped us with His Holy Spirit to discern the truth of doctrine and filled us with the boldness of the Holy Spirit to stand up against that which is heritcal to the faith. So when you hear that someone has an issue with a teaching, be curious and find out why this is, rather than to just shut down and tune out. Be sound in your own doctrine, so that you can contend for the faith. Be able to give an answer for the faith that you say that you believe upon.
For in Jude, who was the brother of James told us in verse 3, that he “was exhorting us to content earnestly for the faith which ws once for all delivere to the saints.” He continues on in Verse 4 and states: “For cetain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnatio, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the “only” Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
It is in the flesh that we do not want to discuss or contend for the more difficult issues that faces the church and those who are seeking the truth. It is so much easier and less contentious to sit back and sing kum bai ya with one another, saying that God is love and as long as we love one another, all is well. But that is not what God’s Word tells us at all to do. Not for a minute, does He tell us to take on this passive attitude about our faith and walk in Him. But rather, He tells us that we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, exposing these things that is misrepresenting who He is and who we are in Him, while making Him known by the witnessing of our own faith through works that He has ordained us to do before we ever knew Him. Not to earn our salvation, but to glorify Him and for His good pleasure.
As already stated, those who are in Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit cannot but help to speak the truth and contend for the faith that has been given to us by His grace. Those are evidence of works of the spirit. So, please when someone is attempting to expose false doctrine, consider what they are saying, search the scriptures, to see if they be true. In addition to this, know that it is good to sharpen iron with iron, as it does cause us to study scripture more carefully and to refine that which needs to be known in order to expose that which is not of the Lord. By no means are we to be so passive that we become complacent towards that which defines being or not being in the Lord.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/26/calvary-chapel-s-tangled-web.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
Bob Grenier failed as a pastor by never reconciling with the multitude of people he has personally offended over the years. When he takes his offering to the altar, and remembers the many who have issues with him, he is to make every effort to reconcile with them. He never has. And when you harden your heart to the clear word of God, you eventually pay a price for it.
I don’t know what happened in Grenier’s home. I don’t know what happened to the CCV church financial accounts. I do know many many people who have been burned by him, been permanantly scared emotionally, and spiritually by him. And I do know he has almost never reconciled with an estrangled relationship in the many decades he has lived in Visalia. That is a community fact that can be verified by many interviews. This would never have reached national attention if he had been a real pastor in all this.
cynthia #149 – agree with you. The “born again” say a little prayer to get saved is man made religion. #146 Uriah – miss the mark? Obviously you don’t have ears to hear and that’s ok.
Sue, taking a cheap shot at me is not going change God’s Word. Your argument is with the Word of God, and God Himself—–and Jesus is the only mediator between you and the Father. Not the Pope or any other saint that you pray to or seek absolution of your sins from. I am not into throwing back trite little insults, ony stating the facts that you can search the Scriptures to find out for yourself if they are true. I know that you are a very sincere person, but you are sincerely in error. No offense is intended, only concern for you and the heretical teachings that you would bank your soul upon. For your own sake, at least search these things out that have been shared with you by myself and others on this thread. That is the least that you could do instead of digging your feet into the mud that is a slippery slope into placing one stumbling block after another that keeps you from knowing our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus of the Bible. Get out of your catechism, the novenas, and start studying scripture. And as you do, please keep in mind that God’s Word supercedes everything else. The Bible has revealed these things and I truely wish you could believe in it.
Really, don’t these Catholic bashers have anything better to do than to repeat the same old tired mantras? It’s like they have Tourette’s Syndrome where they just can’t stop. Ya, Geisler is the devil, the Pope is the Anti-Christ, Mary is the pagan goddess Queen of Heaven, Chuck is a secret Jesuit…
Ya, I’m not sold on the Jesuit conspiracy thing and I’m not ready to assign all Catholics to the pit of hell. I think there are many RCC who are saved and many who probably aren’t, just like in evangelical circles.
Comes down to Jesus Christ as Messiah and your Faith/Belief in Him for Salvation…but even so, while I have hope for Salvation, I’m not 100% sure I’m saved. I beg God for mercy on me a sinner.
I do, however, see stuff that’s clearly wrong in CC and clearly should be dealt with. The apparent stuff speaks for itself and needs to change.
But, folks are entitled to their opinions and Doug is entitled to push back.
The daily beast article was a c=very good summary of CC events of the past few years. I sent the author an email thanking him for a good article.
Thanks Doug for doing that and I agree. David did an awesome job connecting all the dots. He’s a real pro.
It is a tangled web and CC has flown under the radar for far too long.
Your work has helped a ton, so has your buddy’s
Alex, I’m ok that they have opinions but I’m really tired of them constantly turning anything to an anti-RCC tirade here. I like anti-CC tirades, they are on topic here.
Alex-
I think it is wrong for you to make the claim that because we are attempting to challenge others about RC doctrine, that we are “assigning Catholics to the pit of hell”.
Their own church is doing that.
I hope you didnt come to this conclusion based on a preexisting mind set, and you have read everything written , which were facts, not opinions. I think you owe it to us to do this, if you are making this accusuation.
I know Alex that you spend a lot of time debating other doctrinal issues.
Why not the same for this subject?
We are not assigning Catholics to hell.
They are our family members, and we love them so much that we want them to KNOW that they have eternal life.
How is that condemning them to hell?
We are being obedient to the Lord.
We want to save them from the false system which demands man-made doctrines to be performed – and rituals, that at best keep them HOPING they have a chance to be cleansed in purgatory.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for closing out the kingdom of heaven to their people with their man made doctrines of demons and traditions. He would rebuke the Pope for the same.
There was not an ” agenda” in bringing all this up. Perhaps the Lord will bring someone here and they will learn the truth.
“while I have hope for Salvation, I’m not 100% sure I’m saved. I beg God for mercy on me a sinner.”
If a person doesn’t know that they are saved, then what are you trusting in? That’s the whole problem with the lies of Catholicism and its Protestant daughters, is that it removes any possibility of believing the Gospel, which Gospel always comes with much assurance. I am trusting in Jesus alone, so I will be in heaven. If a person can’t say the same, then are they believing the Gospel?
PS Alex– When you say you think there are many Catholics who are saved, that is an oxymoron because in their own system they CAN’T be saved.
If they know they are saved, then they can’t call themselves a Catholic because you can not presume to be saved- That is called the “sin of presumption”. Did you know that? You are then condemned to hell by the church. So once a Catholci is saved, they are delivered from the false teachings of their church,a nd God will remove them and they will no longer be a Catholic. The “church” is giving people slack on this because they dont want to lose members. Regardless, thjey need to sign on the dotted line to be a “member” and ultimately adhere to the official doctrines. The Holy Spirit will remove them. Why would I want to continue to call myself a Catholci when I don’t agree or submit to the doctrines? Because I was “born” into the system?
So-
If a Catholic becomes saved, then they are no longer a Catholic.
That is why a Catholic Christian is an oxymoron.
You need to go to purgatory after death to have your sins purged.
You have no assurance here on earth when you die.
I am not making this up.
This is official doctrine.
But I suspect if I gave all the Catechism references, it wouldn’t matter.
I am Catholic bashing….wow..
Done with the matter…
Andy- You are right.
You can know that you know…that doesnt mean we stop sinning.
But our sin does not remove our assurance.
I lied- I said I was sone- and here I am. Perfect example.
That did not break my covenant with God.
When God brings us through the fires of sanctification (here on earth-not purgatory), we feel the sting so much…but He is doing a work in us — we have GRATITUDE that we are such filth and He loves us anyway. Many-myself included, never knew that kind of love from a father-so we are always wondering how we can earn it-human flesh stuff…one day when I realize how much grace is given undeserved, and can rest in that- I can have true joy. I think we all if we are honest can relate to this, right Andy?
See, I am a liar. I said I am done with the subject and here I am…
But that doesnt take away my salvation. That lets me know I am human and will continue to sin, but sin will not be my habit, and I will be convicted and repent.
Maybe we judge our salvation based on our merit. That would be what “religon” does to a person. That’s really waht we have been talking about. Not Catholic bashing.
Hannah, two great posts in a row there. And thank you for pointing out the contradictory nature of saying “Catholic Christian”. Since a Christian by nature is supposed to know that believing in Jesus and the blood of Jesus means heaven for the believer. But Catholicism makes up a sin called “presumption” to state the Gospel’s assurance. They keep control over the crowd that way. I’m astonished that a group of people that see the abuses in CC, can’t see the master of abuses, Catholicism, who has perfected the abuse system for centuries.
I meant to say, Catholicism makes up the “sin of presumption” to try to eliminate the Gospel’s assurance.
Andy- For some reason, many Protestants do not see the Catholic church as a mission field. Even when you list the doctrines, no one seems to care. Outrage ought to be the reaction for a believer to knwo the Lord is mocked by this institution. It is not a judgement on an individual believer, just as the Jews of Jesus’ day were not to blame because they depended on the “men of God” to instruct them. It is the same today. Maybe others dont have family members in this church. I do and they won’t even rea the Bible. They believe it is an outdated book. The Pope has new revellation that usurps the authority of the Bible. How can other believers be O.K. with this? It is mind-boggling.
Andy- It was through Mike Gendrons minsitry that I learned the phrase” Catholic Christian is an oxymoron” His ministry has helped me greatly over the years, especially when I was saved and wanted to understand the difference between my new faith and Catholicism.
“Even when you list the doctrines, no one seems to care.”
And that is truly the source of the whole problem. We live in a time when doctrine is considered by some to be a bad word. Some don’t like absolutes, some don’t like clear black-and-white reality. They prefer a buffet approach to beliefs. Catholic beliefs are so off the wall, yet the mind frame that hates doctrine, won’t acknowledge the clear reality.
It is impossible to read the New Testament, and avoid the constant references to doctrine, holding up doctrine, standing with right doctrine, defending true doctrine, and avoiding false doctrine, hating lying doctrines. It is impossible to read the NT and avoid these hundreds of Scriptures.
Hannah, I’ve got no problem with you challenging RCC’s beliefs/doctrine etc. I’m sure Doug could argue the finer points of the doctrine and theology and how it relates to historical Christian orthodoxy.
Me? I dunno for sure. I know what I know…abuse and corruption in the church is wrong, no matter what flavor of Christian one is.
Hannah, I’ve gone round and round….and round with RCC apologists. I have noticed a lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense from a philosophical logic perspective if Scripture is the Authority. RCC holds a view, however, that God continues to speak outside the bible, etc.
The RCC’s strength is Apostolic Succession and the fact that protestantism, in effect, “rebelled” against the “authority” God had set up with direct lineage to Peter the Apostle and the Early Church.
The weakness, IMO, is that much has been added on to the simple message of the Gospel.
“Venial” vs. “Mortal” sin as it relates to Original sin has some big holes (IMO)…but to what end?
There are some solid folks, like Perry Robinson who is former CC and former CRI who could build a strong case for RCC and Eastern Orthodox being very much Christian and Christ-centered.
Often, it’s a matter of not fully understanding the other person’s position…you may be battling a Strawman and what you think they are saying, when in fact there is nuance on some of the issues.
I look to the Core Essentials. I think the RCC and EO holds an orthodox historically Christian belief in the Essentials.
I think Martin Luther had some very legit beefs about indulgences etc etc and that there was (and still is) much corruption etc. I think “reforms” are good and I’m sure God has used the rebellion of the Protestants.
I’m not a big fan of a “specially anointed’ Pope speaking on behalf of God…very similar to CC, IMO.
I hold a Priesthood of the Believers position, but who knows.
Before the RCC existed, they weren’t Catholics or Protestants. So such terminology is essentially RCC-speak. And I think Alex said that it comes down to the authority of the Bible. That really is the issue. The RCC doesn’t believe that the Bible has the authority, since the RCC believes that the Bible can be usurped at any time. Therefore the authority becomes man, and then you have to figure out why you’d believe the men of the RCC to possess any truth. I know they don’t possess any truth, because the Bible makes that clear.
Alex:
“I look to the Core Essentials. I think the RCC and EO holds an orthodox historically Christian belief in the Essentials. ”
What are the core essentials of salvation in the RCC?
So how are they saved?
“So how are they saved?”
…keeping in mind that “Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins” is not their answer. Their answer is Catholic works.
Andy and Hannah, Good stuff.
Many push repentance and good works = salvation, but how much is enough, and how will I know? Not much assurance in that.
But repentance from good works and putting your faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross for salvation leads to peace and assurance of salvation.
It is then no longer based on my performance but on His and His promises and He is faithful.
That’s assurance.
One of the things I appreciate about Alex is that he allows people to speak what they believe, he allows push back, lets people put their foot in their mouth and does not block comments he does not agree with.
It’s not perfect by any means but better than the unwritten hush rule that is in abusive settings.
Hey guys I asked Alex!!
Because I do not believe we have the same “essentials”.
The Catholic is saved at infant baptism, and then goes through a process of losing and gaining their salvation back through repentence of mortal sins through the sacraments.
So therefore it is :
FAITH + WORKS (through the RCC Church)= SALVATION
Q@175
Isnt it hard to wrap the mind around the fact that we can’t do enough to earn God’s favor, and that it is ALL about what His Son did for us?
“But repentance from good works and putting your faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross for salvation leads to peace and assurance of salvation.”
That’s the Gospel.
And yes, I concur with the compliment about the open policy of Alex. There are certain others that, well, can’t handle it.
Hannah, man already has God’s favor, but yes it’s hard to wrap our minds around the fact we can’t do enough to earn salvation, that’s the purpose of the law (it leaves no doubt to a sincere person) to get us to repent of good works as a means of justification and to look outside ourselves and eventually to Christ who died for our sins.
Assurance comes by spending time in God’s word and getting to know the Father and Son’s Character, Their love, faithfulness leading to a trust with much assurance.
John 8:31-32
Doug G @ 160
“Ya, Geisler is the devil, the Pope is the Anti-Christ, Mary is the pagan goddess Queen of Heaven, Chuck is a secret Jesuit…”
LOL
Really, I wasn’t aware these things—are you sure????????
Uriah # 154 Accuseing me of taking “a cheap shop at you” ? Oh my – My response that you don’t have ears to hear was in reply to you telling me it would be better for me to listen, heed, and modify my stance that misses the mark entirely due to the “good feelings” I might get as a result of those that think they are worshipping in spirit. You obviously can’t hear what I am saying and don’t get it and probably never will because of your own viewpoint on Catholics which is why I said you don’t have ears to hear. I experienced what I experienced and can not deny the truth I experienced. You deny what I know really is true. There are many Catholics out there who are saved whether you deny it or not. That’s a fact. Argue with God on that one because he saved them.
Catholicism is contrary to the Gospel that alone leads to heaven. So it doesn’t matter what anyone feels or experiences. The Word of God wins. God doesn’t save anyone that refuses the true Gospel, no matter what they feel or experience. The Bible discusses demonic deceptions of “experiences” that are contrary to His Word.
Alex, @ 176
“The RCC’s strength is Apostolic Succession and the fact that protestantism, in effect, “rebelled” against the “authority” God had set up with direct lineage to Peter the Apostle and the Early Church.
That’s the biggest lie that RCC has held onto since French Toast.
There no such thing as an apostolic succession. That was made up by RCC. There were many Christian churches in place during the time of Peter, outside of Rome, where history reports him to have been hung upside down. But biblically speaking, there is no record whatsoever that one apostle handed off or had the authority to hand off the church to someone else. Even Jesus told, Peter and the others, that upon this Rock (meaning, himself, His church will be built. But RCC takes that passage and twists it to saying it was upon Peter (the name means little rock), God would build His church. Historically speaking, RCC was not the only Christian faction in existence, not by a long shot. What more, it was people like Princilla and Aquila that began the church community located in Rome, prior to Paul’s being brought there to give a defense to Caeser. Peter, came afterwards, but not as a result of being commission by Paul or any other.
It was a faction that split off from the church in Greece who created the church in Rome. There are many practices that were adopted by RCC that came from the heathen idolotrous worship. Constantine sought to united the country and although some would state that he converted to Christianity, others would say no, that it was more of a political move to make sure that the church was not an authority over him. So, what he did was to marry the church in Rome to that of the heathenistic practices. In the meantime, RCC and the Greek Orthodox church was arguing with each other doctrinal issues and preminency of where the true head of church ought to be—-totally losing site that neither of them had preeminence over God’s church. But as RCC grew stronger due to Constantine desire to build his kingdom, he also provided a lot funding and clear the way for the RCC to wage war against any Christian group that would not pay homage to them. RCC also attempted to lay claims to Jerusalem and waged what they called “the holy war” that in their minds (vain imagination) they were cleansing the land of anyone who did not pledge their allegience to the Vicar of Christ.
While recently reading my Bible, I brought to mind that God’s church is not a building, but that which exist in the heart of the person that believes in Him only—it’s not an organization and what more He has told us that we who do believe are the priesthood—the royal priesthood and that no man or woman is to come between us and Him. That He alone is our High Priest. What more in Romans, chapter 1, verse 5, Paul tells us (speaking to all the believers in Rome) that: “Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith amog all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called Jesus Christ; To all who are in Rome, beloved of God called to saints.
Yet RCC has created this system that determines who is and who is not a saint. And in this they make it clear that they are to be the most venerated of the “faithful.”
The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 AD) declared that “we adore and respect God our Lord; and those who have been genuine servants of our common Lord we honor and venerate because they have the power to make us friends with God the King of all.”
What I am attempting to say here is this, RCC is a cult even if they use some of the same language that Christian do, they are no better than Mormons and J.W’s for they teach an entirely differen doctrine and do not preach the Cross and the Cross alone.
When I was a Catholic, it was drilled into me that Mary was the person we needed to go to. Because she was the mother of Jesus, Jesus had to do what she asked of him. It was Mary that we needed to pay homage to as she gave up her son to die for us and that she was the Queen of heaven, so to speak.
The Bible clearly tells us something totally opposite of what RCC teaches:
RCC Cause and Effect of Salvation = works + faith
Bible Cause and Effect of Salvation = God’s grace + faith = evident by good works.
RCC Works are done in the flesh, just as they were done by the Levitcal Priesthood
Bible 2 types of works: Works of the flesh to earn merit is wood, hay, stubble
Works done by the Spirit—as evident of a change life.
See Ephesians, chapter 2:8-10 (NKJV)
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anone should boast. For we are His wormanship created Crhist Jesus for good works (wrought by and in the Holy Spirit), which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (abiding, obeying, sowing to the spirit as the HS equips us and our hearts are changed as a result of our godly repentance and belief).
If anything, it was Paul that commission Timothy to carry on the work that he had promulgated among the gentiles. But we all know that Timothy didn’t write any of the books of the Bible. James, the brother of Jesus was overseeing the church community in Jerusalem. And Jerusalem was the home base for all. Yet everyone sent by the Holy Spirit to go into other lands to spread the gospel.
As for the essentials, they do not believe in the most essential of all:
It is by God’s grace that we are saved through the shedding of Jesus blood on the Cross that we would believe upon this and be saved.
I left the RCC when I read in the Bible that there is only one mediator and that was Jesus. I realize that no man can forgive my sins and no man or woman adds to my access to God. i also read that I could not earn my way into heaven, nor was there any such thing as purgatory and that Mary was much a sinner as I am, and that she had other children. It wasn’t until 15 years after that, when I finally bowed my heart to Jesus that I was set free and born again. And I haven’t looked back since. So, I know Catholicism. No hard feelings or ax to grind—just know the truth and that settled it for me. So i also know where Sue is coming from as well.
Uriah- That was great for a Bible study. Very thorough.
Yes, Peter was the first Pope according to Rome.
Interesting that He was sent to the Jews and Paul the Gentiles.
The RC church seems to forget about Paul.
I would add that in the RC system, Mary is not only the mother of Jesus but the mother of God. We know that God has no mother.
She also rejoiced in the Lord her SAVIOR.
How can she need a savior, if according to the RCC she is sinless?
And why would she say she needs a savior if she was born without sin?
LOL–it seems we agree on something.
Andy- Right about “feelings”.
They can’t be trusted.
A feeling needs to line up with the Word of God to count for something.
John Macarthur has a book called “Charismatic Chaos” that addresses these things.
1 Timothy 4:16
Titus 2:1
Hannah,
“I would add that in the RC system, Mary is not only the mother of Jesus but the mother of God. We know that God has no mother.
Jesus is God and he came to earth fully man, but fully God. Scripture states in:
Philippians, Chapter 2, verse 7, Paul wrote that Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” Exactly what did the apostle mean by the phrase, “emptied himself”? Because it is assumed that the verb “emptied” (Greek ekenōsen) requires an object (a genitive qualifier), then Christ must have “emptied himself” of something. However, as Gordon Fee has mentioned in his commentary on Philippians, “Christ did not empty Himself of anything, the text simply says that He emptied himself, He poured Himself out” (1995, p. 210, emp. added). The NIV seems to have captured this sense by stating that He “made himself nothing” (emp. added). The Greek word kenόō literally means “to empty; to make empty; or to make vain or void.” This word is rendered “made void” in Romans 4:14, where Paul stated that “faith is made void.” Faith did not empty itself of anything, rather faith emptied itself. Similarly, commenting on Jesus death as if it had already occurred, Isaiah wrote: “He [Jesus—EL] poured out his soul unto death” (Isaiah 53:12). What did Christ pour out? Himself.
Jesus was placed into the womb of Mary, being born of the Spirit and of the flesh. Therefore, she is the mother of the god-child (man/flesh), Jesus. But the seed was from Mary and it was planted by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, Mary was not without sin and she needed to be saved as well. It was through Mary’s lineage that Jesus bloodline (to another son of David) could be trace as being the rightful heir to King’s David throne as promised by God to David, outside of the curse placed on Solomon through Jeconiah. But it was the straight line to the Father, that He could say that He is God, to the Jews, the priest and others. He laid claim to both of these and that is why they felt so threatened by it all.
I don’t know how much this hold true, but I had thought often about when Jesus handed off his mother to John while hanging on that cross. What I see it to mean, as nothing is recorded in the Bible that does not have significance, is that Mary’s relationship to Jesus had changed. For He went to the cross for her as well and once He died, He then became Lord, God, and Savior to her only. A bittersweet experience for her, if this was the case. And this is why Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this earth but of Heaven and one day He will return establishing that Kingdon on earth and sit on David’s throne, the throne God gave to David, in Jerusalem.
Which brings another thought to mind. Although RCC tried to conquer Jerusalem to call it its own—-guess what? They failed and never could. That should tell us all something don’t you think? Jerusalem belongs to Jesus, not to anyone else. He is our King, our Lord, and our Savior and He alone reigns as our High Priest and our sovereign God. Can I get an Amen, here–
That’s a really, really good point that you made. That is Paul was sent by Jesus to preach the good news to the gentiles while Peter specifically to stay with the Jews. And that is why he went to Rome, beside to speak to Paul, as he often did when Paul was in other places as well. Paul was the one that taught Peter that the Judaic customs had no effect upon the position of ones standing with God, but rather it was that of the circumcision of the heart that matter instead. But RCC sure didn’t teach this. Oh, submission was emphasized, but in the sense of submitting to the teachings, not that of submitting to the Lordship of Jesus. And the Bible—what was that. I truely believe that if I stepped inside another church other that RCC, the roof would cave in on me. At the same time, I thoroughly enjoy the artwordk that can be seen in many of the RCC’s. Very interesting, as much of it also has carvings of images that are gothic and symbolic of fertility and demon like characters. Other items are just awesome in declaring the glory of the Lord. The way I look at it, is so close, yet so far away—like playing the games horse shoes.
Due to scripture, this was hung up in moderation, so I will again cite it in a different format.
Hannah,
“I would add that in the RC system, Mary is not only the mother of Jesus but the mother of God. We know that God has no mother.
Yes, we can. : -)
Jesus is God and he came to earth fully man, but fully God. Scripture states in:
Philippians, Chapter 2, verse 7, Paul wrote that Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” Exactly what did the apostle mean by the phrase, “emptied himself”? Because it is assumed that the verb “emptied” (Greek ekenōsen) requires an object (a genitive qualifier), then Christ must have “emptied himself” of something. However, as Gordon Fee has mentioned in his commentary on Philippians, “Christ did not empty Himself of anything, the text simply says that He emptied himself, He poured Himself out” (1995, p. 210, emp. added). The NIV seems to have captured this sense by stating that He “made himself nothing” (emp. added). The Greek word kenόō literally means “to empty; to make empty; or to make vain or void.” This word is rendered “made void” in Romans, chapter 4:14, where Paul stated that “faith is made void.” Faith did not empty itself of anything, rather faith emptied itself. Similarly, commenting on Jesus death as if it had already occurred, Isaiah wrote: “He [Jesus—EL] poured out his soul unto death” (Isaiah, chapter 53:12). What did Christ pour out? Himself.
Jesus was placed into the womb of Mary, being born of the Spirit and of the flesh. Therefore, she is the mother of the god-child (man/flesh), Jesus. But the seed was from Mary and it was planted by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, Mary was not without sin and she needed to be saved as well. It was through Mary’s lineage that Jesus bloodline (to another son of David) could be trace as being the rightful heir to King’s David throne as promised by God to David, outside of the curse placed on Solomon through Jeconiah. But it was the straight line to the Father, that He could say that He is God, to the Jews, the priest and others. He laid claim to both of these and that is why they felt so threatened by it all.
I don’t know how much this hold true, but I had thought often about when Jesus handed off his mother to John while hanging on that cross. What I see it to mean, as nothing is recorded in the Bible that does not have significance, is that Mary’s relationship to Jesus had changed. For He went to the cross for her as well and once He died, He then became Lord, God, and Savior to her only. A bittersweet experience for her, if this was the case. And this is why Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this earth but of Heaven and one day He will return establishing that Kingdon on earth and sit on David’s throne, the throne God gave to David, in Jerusalem.
Which brings another thought to mind. Although RCC tried to conquer Jerusalem to call it its own—-guess what? They failed and never could. That should tell us all something don’t you think? Jerusalem belongs to Jesus, not to anyone else. He is our King, our Lord, and our Savior and He alone reigns as our High Priest and our sovereign God. Can I get an Amen, here–
That’s a really, really good point that you made. That is Paul was sent by Jesus to preach the good news to the gentiles while Peter specifically to stay with the Jews. And that is why he went to Rome, beside to speak to Paul, as he often did when Paul was in other places as well. Paul was the one that taught Peter that the Judaic customs had no effect upon the position of ones standing with God, but rather it was that of the circumcision of the heart that matter instead. But RCC sure didn’t teach this. Oh, submission was emphasized, but in the sense of submitting to the teachings, not that of submitting to the Lordship of Jesus. And the Bible—what was that. I truely believe that if I stepped inside another church other that RCC, the roof would cave in on me. At the same time, I thoroughly enjoy the artwordk that can be seen in many of the RCC’s. Very interesting, as much of it also has carvings of images that are gothic and symbolic of fertility and demon like characters. Other items are just awesome in declaring the glory of the Lord. The way I look at it, is so close, yet so far away—like playing the games horse shoes.
Just for clarification regarding the curse of Jeconiah. Because they did not keep the way of the Lord, as God had dictated to David and promised that as long as they did, then the throne would survive, but because they did not, no one sat on the throne since Judah (southern kingdom) was taken away in captivity by the Babylonians.
At the same time, because Joseph adopted Jesus, he had the same rights of a natural born son would have. Joseph’s lineage led straight through Solomon and David. But the curse was on this lineage. Otherwise, Joseph would have been King, but he wasn’t because of the curse. Yet God had made a promise that someone of his blood would sit upon his throne forever. So, the deal was that it was through Mary’s lineage that can be traced back to another son of David that did not come through Solomon instead.
Back then, it was through the mother that determine if a person was a Jew, but it was from the father that determined the tribe. So, through Jospeph, Jesus was of the tribe of Judah and it was through Mary that he was a Jew and it was through her that established Jesus’ right to sit on the throne to fulfill the promise to David and the People of the Lord. He will not forget them and one day their eyes will be open and they will know Him as their Messiah. When the time of the gentiles are full. He will gathered His People from the four corners of the earth and bring them back to Jerusalem and they will call Him their Lord, their God, and their King, along with those who were grafted in as a result of their rebellion and blindness to God’s commands regarding them. So, He has not forsaken them. He is only preparing the way and will open their eyes and heal their land and open their hearts to see the truth and the truth will deliver them from the People of exile that they have been.
Uriah- I know that Jesus is God.
But when they say “Mary is the mother of God”, it implies that she is the mother of Yahweh. We know that God created Mary so Mary could not create God
So it should be stated “Mary, mother of Jesus”, not “Mary, mother of God”
Ex:In the RC prayers to Mary (rosary) is “Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners”
She is also referred to as “Queen of heaven”…you can see the reference for that in Jeremiah.
“But when they say “Mary is the mother of God”, it implies that she is the mother of Yahweh. We know that God created Mary so Mary could not create God”
Luke 1:41-1:43 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Was Elizabeth correct? Was Mary the mother of the Lord?
Is Jesus fully God and Man? Did Mary give birth to just a man?
The Bible says that God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts Gal 4:6 and this is the Holy Spirit that we and the Catholics have that I know, not some “demonic deception” as Andy wants to think. How arrogant can you get. God is bigger than any denominations and alone can look into a person’s heart and see someone’s true colors. Catholics have alot of incorrect theology just as many Protestants do. You can have alot of errors in your theology and still have Christ in your heart. You can also be very “correct” in your theology and not have him in your life at all. Having “correct theology” is not as important as knowing and loving God through Christ and that doesn’t take alot of brains to do. God is there for everyone open to him through Christ, not just theologians who have it all correct. Following Christ and loving him in your heart is the true Gospel message.
Actually, it was under Theodosius the first that a law was created if you were not Catholic you were insane not Constantine. Justinian was the creator of the church-state not Constantine eithter yet some trace that back to Theodosius as well.
I’ve read a seventh day adventists that doesn’t like the Catholic church either and traces the stronger church-state roots to Justinian and actually believes that Justinian wife Theodora was the whore of Babyloni.
Not that I believe that Justinian was the Anti-Christ like the Seventh Day Advenists or historian Procopius in his Secret History.
Alex wrote – “I look to the Core Essentials. I think the RCC and EO holds an orthodox historically Christian belief in the Essentials.”
Agreed. If they didn’t then I’d have real concerns about what happened to the church for a millennium and a half. The church wasn’t born from Martin Luther, but from Jesus and the Apostles.
The historical continuity claim is really the hardest one to answer for Protestants. These churches (East and West) have a demonstrated historical continuity that goes all the way back to the start. When they say that they are the “true church”, it’s actually true. All others are schismatics from one of them. So you either accept that you are a schismatic – something Jesus specifically prays against in John 17 or you connect up with one of the historical churches.
I think there are possible ways to escape the horns of that dilemma but they are not easy to discover.
My opinion is that Chuck Smith is better off without these anti-RCC conspiracy nuts who are now ODMs. They made Chuck Smith look like a nut when he tolerated them. He’s probably breathing a sigh of relief now that they are gone.
I just wish they weren’t infesting this site now.
The RCC may be a whore, but she is our mother
She was the only source of christianity for centuries. Luther and Calvin depended on the sacred texts she preserved for their work. The forms of worship in most churches still bear traces of liturgies that sprang from her bosom. That folks still find a living faith in her midst isn’t really any more startling than folks in all the schisms that have followed and fallen prey to organizational, doctrinal and ethical folly still manage to somehow find their way to individual faith as well. I suspect our individual response and how we walk our talk will transcend whatever religion/tradition we happened to belong to. Orthopraxis will always trump orthodoxy.
Our authority is from God’s Word. And when doctrine does not agree with it, then doctrine is wrong. What more when we take God’s word to fit our doctrine, then doctrine is in error.
I’ve already shared how the Catholic (West and East) began its roots. Prior to this, there were many Christian communities and those that attempt to live side by side with that is called the Catholic church were persecuted and thus went gave an appearance of joining them, but in their hearts they did what they could to worship God and to hold to the Pauline epistles that they had. There were many within the Catholic church that did not agree with its practices and its doctrines. The Catholic church played their politics and garnered power through Constantine to terrorized and to put to death anyone that dared to question, to leave, or to preach that which they deemed not to be doctrine. At no time, did the Catholic church preach the scriptures, nor make it available to the people, but rather claim to have special knowledge and the authority to intepret them. That does not constitute Godly authority. Nor does it make it the “Mother” of all the protestant churches. Not by a long shot.
So, you can call me or anyone else that is standing for the truth as being a “nut” case or any other derogatory name, but that doesn’t change the truth or establish a fact either. It is only a reflection your own heart and the the intent to defend that which you are sympathetic to. So, I say to you—–dig deeper and you will find out that what I had told you to be true.
Peter was not called to preach to the gentiles nor did he pass the baton on to anyone to become the Vicar of Christ. That alone is heretical and flies against everything that the Bible has taught us. It is a lie and unfortunately you are using the same arguments that the Catholic church uses to justify its existence within the Christian community.
@191
Mary is not the mother of God. She was the mother of Jesus in that she was the “surrogate” for the seed that God planted in her through the Holy Spirit. And she was favored among women to be the carrier of the Messiah.
Sorry @192
Many women give birth to other’s children.
That is what surrogacy is.
The child does not have the DNA of the carrier.
The child has the DNA of the parents.
Jesus was the “seed” of the woman.
Women don’t have seeds, men do.
It was not Marys egg that was used.
We all know that , don’t we?
Mary is the mother of God incarnate, if you take the verses literally, or “God-bearer”…or so the argument goes.
Scripture calls her the “mother” of Jesus, the “mother of my Lord” etc. so in one sense she is the “mother of God” in terms of Jesus incarnate and Mary’s DNA is in Jesus, no?
Jesus, God incarnate, is literal human flesh and blood, no? Conceived of the Holy Spirit, yet Mary’s (man’s) egg, no?
It is a bit Gnostic, IMO, to view Jesus as a Spirit-being w/o flesh and bone…as the literal physical bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the Testament and validation that He is Messiah. If one accepts the literal glorified, transfigured man flesh Jesus as truth…then it’s hard not to call Mary “the mother of God” in the context of Jesus Incarnate, God in the flesh.
Now, venerating her, worshipping her etc is a whole other ballgame.
Just my take, FWIW.
Uriah: “But the seed was from Mary and it was planted by the Holy Spirit. ”
I dont think that’s the case. Women do not have seeds.
Alex- We have the Ftaher, Son and Holy Spirit.
Does not he Bible, when referring to “God”, mean the Father?
Hannah, I would invoke the Trinity here…and we just can’t understand it fully.
“I and the Father are One”
Jesus appears to be “God incarnate” and separate yet part of the Triune God.
I can’t explain it, but that’s what Scripture seems to say, so in one sense, it is understandable to me to call Mary “the mother of God” meaning the physical “God-bearer” of Jesus as man (and God, but lets not forget man) or “God incarnate”…God in the Flesh.
Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. The doctrine of the Trinity is unfathomable, makes no sense, is illogical to man, yet that’s what the Scripture says (I think).
Another consideration.
Within the Catholic church there were many factions and political undergirdings. Outside of the Catholic church, Christain were hard put to be able to survive due to the penalties and persecution placed upon them by RCC. It was due to the power given to them by Constantine that they were able to force people into accepting Catholicism, not because people chose it, although many did. But those that did not found ways to do the best that they could under the tremendous cruelties placed upon them. Eventually, things came to a head and more and more rebelled. Luther was not the first to do this—there many others. As for the doctrines, not everyone agreed with the RCC but was able to work within the ranks to get the essentials together. However, even then the RCC did not hold to the essentials, but changed them by adding to it — thus, they failed to practice and to teach that which was establish initially by these councils. Therefore, they did not hold to the essentials, but preached a different gospel instead. And placed the Pope as the ultimate authority and mediator between God and humans.
Remember, it was those that God used to write the scriptures, not to be controverted by adding to them and practicing things that are clearly against it. The Catholic church is neither the Mother or the originator of Christianity. Not by a long shot. What more, although the essentials were written by the councils, for the purpose of organzing many groups to come into agreement, by no means did the Catholic church stick to them which is evident by their practices and catechismal teachings to suit their own purpose and political desires. And they did this by declaring to others to be the voice of authority over scripture, which is hardly recognized to this day. Constantine shared a similar agenda and land and property was confiscated and people were placed under their fule and dominion as a result of the war waged in “God’s name.”
But to say they were the first Christian church or that we gain the esentials from them–is not a proper or factual representation of what the Bible tells us. The first church was established along time ago and can be found in the book of Acts. From there, Paul teaches us and anyone with the Holy Spirit can understand it. And that is what Martin Luther and others before him gave their lives for in order counter the misrepresentation of God’s word being put forth by the Catholic church.
So say what you will, I stand with all that have gone before me that have spike bravely and boldly to declare the Catholic church as being what seemed to be a good idea at the time, but went terribly afoul as a result men who used scripture to commit and to teach things that totally dismisses the gospel and the way to the Crosss.
By the way, I’m not into conspiracy theories—just the truth of God’s Word.
Alex:
I dont see Jesus as a spirit being without flesh.
I just think that Mary ought to be seen as a surrogate for the seed planted in her.
She was favored and God used her.
She was used by God to be the incubator for the Messiah. And to raise him as her son. He was her son.
But many Catholics forget that was her mission.
They have elevated her to a position God did not intend where she is “Co-redemptrix” and thus has been elevated to be co-equal with God.
Her position is like any other deceased human being. She is not to pray for us here on earth and tell her son what to do.
By worshipping her through the rosary, we do not receive grace and favor with God.
My mother says “we ask Mary to appeal to Jesus because he can’t turn his mother down…just like he did at the wedding”.
If I am a nut case to Doug, so be it.
I am more concerned that my family leave this earth having the assurance of heaven.
Uriah- The early church for the first couple of centuries was Jewish. There has been reason to believe that the Judaizers became the first Popes of the RCC. That is why Judaism is so similar to Catholicism. You have the Priesthood which ought to no longer exist (Book of Hebrews). If you go into a synagogue and a RCC it looks eerily the same. The Torah is kept in the “ark”, and the Eucharist is kept in a similar place in the same kind of wall.
Hannah, AMEN
#198 – You explain it well. Thank you.
Uriah – You can paint a horrible picture of the Catholic Church all you want and it is true they did horrible things back then. But so did protestants later especially after King Henry 8th. Catholics were put to death, etc. by protestants, and the Irish were especially picked on in the 1800′s – especially those who would not give up their Catholic faith. The English protestants caused a mass genocide against the Catholic Irish and about 1,000,000 died in the mid 1800′s. It sounds like you are an ex-Catholic and that explains your position being as strong as it is, but Once upon A TIme says it well. I’m glad God looks on the heart and not on our understanding or lack of understanding everything. Those who are not Bible Scholars would be in deep due due.
Sue- I think the picture Uriah painted would be more colorful and more horrific if we added anti-semitism into the mix. The enemy always wanted to keep God’s people from the truth and their Messiah.
Catholicism and Protestantism both have errors. Catholicism just has much more error. God didn’t call anyone to believe either. God called everyone to faith in His Son Jesus as Savior apart from Catholic or Protestant works.
Uhh….. there were many gentile converts in the earliest church. Remember Paul’s commission and mission? The Romans were gentiles. Elements of both pagan and jewish liturgies are present in the liturgies of both Roman and Eastern Orthodox. Visiting and observing a Buddhist temple many years ago, as a former catholic, I was struck by many liturgical similarities as well.
No matter our theologies or creeds, no matter how correct or well protected, as Jesus’ words to the religious of during his life, it doesn’t mean anything if one’s heart and the fruit of one’s life remain dark.
The Good Samaritan, whose theology was in error, demonstrated the true heart of God.
Hannah,
On the trinity, read John, Chapter One
(NKJV) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came as a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He wasnot that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that light. That was the true light which gives light to every man (and woman) coming into the world. He was , and the world was made through Him and the world did not know him. he came to His own, and his own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him to them He gave the right to become children of God. And the Word became flesh and dwell among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of race and truth.
Then hop over to: John, Chapter 16 (NKJV)
16 “These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble. 2 They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. 3 And these things they will do to you[a] because they have not known the Father nor Me. 4 But these things I have told you, that when the[b] time comes, you may remember that I told you of them.
And these things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you.
The Work of the Holy Spirit
5 “But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.”
And finally, stop by: 1 John, Chapter 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.
Simple: The Holy Trinity which is initally spoken of in Genesis when God declared in Chapter 1:26
“Then God said, ” Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness let “them” have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” So God created man in His own image, “in the image of God He created him, male and female” He created them. Then God blessed them and God said to “them . . . .
Jesus was full man and fully God. Jesus did have the DNA of Marry as his bloodline to enable God to keep His unconditional promise to David was fulfill through her. That was that through Mary, the Jeconiah curse could be bypass and by right, he could claim to be the next and everlasting King to the Jews and to those who would be grafted in.
Sue,
We are talking specifically about the teachings and practices that Catholicism has perpetuated throughout its history. I am not picking on Catholicism as being the only religious group who have done scripture or God’s people an injustice. It is a fact that they persecuted God’s people as well as the Jews. Now to speak of any other groups serves only to distract and somehow counter what is factual.
I understand you love the RCC and I understand why it is that you do. But that doesn’t change the facts or the truth of scripture. It is what it is and God’s not going to change one jot or tittle to accommodate anyone. And by the way, my people are Jews as well.
So I have the luxury of having an inside take on both. Which I think is a tremendous heritage to be able to understand both mindsets, cultural, and political underpinnings.
Once Upon A Time
In the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus was speaking on who are neighbor is, not what it means to be a believer in the Lord. He was teaching the followers who were Jews that even though this man was not a Jew, his heart was right because he was not a respector of persons. Like wise, as Christians we are to love them as they love us, but also we are not to be a respector of persons either. Remember the Samaria Jesus spoke to regarding the her comment to him about eating the crumbs that fell from the table. During that time in history and in some Orthodox Jews group today those from Samaria were not consider to be blessed of the Lord because of their disobedience of not worshipping in Jerusalem, but setting up their own altar? But Jesus didn’t hold to this. He recognizes the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms of Israel and one day prophecy states that He will gather them both together and make them One people again. Also, the story with the woman at the well. Jesus was saying this again, as well as, to say that He did not look at the woman as being secondary or less than men, but equal with them. It was the RCC or what is referred to the Church Fathers that made women out to be less than who they really are in the eyes of Jesus. And this is how we came up with a Patriarchel society by and large.
On the last bit of fact finding, you can find out what the beliefs and attitudes were by simply putting in your search: Church Fathers and Women.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Seed means offspring. Men produce sperm, women produce ovum. Both have seed = offspring.
Jesus in His human nature came from woman. His divine nature was begat of the Father. Of course Mary is the Mother of God since Jesus is God, To deny Mary is the Mother of God is to deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. That is what historical Christians affirm. That is what Elizabeth affirmed in Scripture. Both are in agreement.
If yo believe the Bible, you believe that Mary is the Mother of God. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny that God became man in Jesus.
Andy wrote – “Catholicism and Protestantism both have errors. Catholicism just has much more error.”
What Catholic bishop teaches that “Jesus will once again take His place in the Triune Godhead” as Chuck Smith does in Tape 0518?
Really, how can anyone have much more error than that? That’s just plain heresy, no doubt about it.
Andy wrote ” God called everyone to faith in His Son Jesus as Savior apart from Catholic or Protestant works.”
Sorry, Andy unless you are Protestant, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox there just aren’t that many other choices.
There’s no such thing as faith away from the church. That’s a sterile empty godless “spirituality”. As much as I’d like to declare a pox on all their houses, it just doesn’t work that way. You end up being yet another Protestant schismatic and there are already tens of thousands of those. I have no desire to be a part of another one of those.
The church of “you and me and I’m not so sure about you” doesn’t leave much of a church.
Ahh, Uriah. And what is required? As a follower of Jesus? To love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
I find your views on church history to be some of the most unique that I’ve ever come across
My apologies for getting this thread more off topic than it was already headed
Peace
Hannah wrote ” The early church for the first couple of centuries was Jewish.”
Not true – no where near true. Read Acts. The early converts were from the Jews and the Gentiles. In fact, after 70 AD there was much less Jewish influence. Something about having your capital city destroyed and your citizens carried off to the nations and all that.
To make the point directly from Acts read about the first church council. The seven deacons were all Greeks because the distribution to the Greek speaking (ie, Gentile) widows wasn’t being hand;ed properly. It take nothing more than reading their name to see that. Read Acts 15.
Not a Jewish church much at all…
Uriah- Does a surrogate mother have the DNA of the child she is carrying?
I think you are thinking I dont have the proper understanding of the Trinity.
Thats not the case.
Because He was born to her, he is in her lineage. Of course.
If a woman has a donor egg, she is still the babies “mother”.
In fact we are all “children” of God through adoption, that does not mean we are all “little gods” as he Mormons believe.
Are you saying her egg was in some way fertilized for Jesus to have her DNA?
Once Upon A Time @ 218
“Uhh….. there were many gentile converts in the earliest church. Remember Paul’s commission and mission? The Romans were gentiles. Elements of both pagan and jewish liturgies are present in the liturgies of both Roman and Eastern Orthodox.”
You are correct in saying that there were converts in the the earliest church and it was Paul who was commission by the Holy Spirit to do this, not Peter.
If you remember, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and surrouding areas were being martyred, tortured, and sold into slavery. In this process, they were also leaving Israel altogether and settling elsewhere, including Rome. So there was also a Christian Jewish community in Rome before Paul arrrived there. By the time they killed Paul, Peter came to Rome to minister to the Christian who were Jews and to visit with Paul, as he did a few times when Paul was establshing the 7 churches outside of Israel and Rome. Then the great persecution by Nero and by 70 AD all was destroyed in Jerusalem. The people were scattered. Even more so the Christians. But God used it and not everyone became a Roman or a Greek Orthodox Catholic, not in their hearts anyway. For they held to the truth of the letters penned by the writers of scripture and it is in that they initially organized, but because other winds of teachings and practices took over that things became perverted and in turn, the heart of men rebelled against this and stood firm on the Word of the Lord. Even to the point of being put to death by those who placed themselves above God’s Word and what we know to be the RCC. The Greek Orthodox sure was far more peaceful than this. But then again, they did not have the money nor the funding that came from Constantine. Rome was the center of the universe, so it was RCC that had the resources and power to dictate pretty much whatever they wanted in order to maintain “ecclesiactical” control over those without any power or say so.
Amazing how much animosity Sue has gathered by suggesting that there may be God-loving Catholics. Sorry, Sue, that just doesn’t fit into the narrow categories they have created in their own minds. You must be a Jesuit plant (tongue firmly in my cheek).
Hannah, the Scripture says that Jesus was born of the seed of a woman. I can’t take it any other way than what it says.
Hannah wrote – “Uriah- Does a surrogate mother have the DNA of the child she is carrying?”
Where in the Bible does it say that Mary was a surrogate? Scripture says Mary was the Mother of Jesus, and the Mother of God. I believe it. Why concoct some other story? There’s nothing in the story to suggest she was a surrogate.
Uriah – your view that there were a remnant, so to speak, of true believers, neither RCC or EO, who only believed the bible “the correct way” sounds exactly like the revisionist church history taught especially in the early CC days to justify their being the new chosen of God to lead people away from the dead churches to their true church led by the new Moses, Chuck Smith. The party line still is that they have revived the church as it was in the books of Acts. I not very respectfully call BULLSHIT.
Once – Correct. The remnant theory has it’s advocates and they usually appeal to some schismatic group or another over the centuries. None of which have had more than “their day in the sun”. Yet the church lives on.
Hannah, why have you not dealt with the words of Elizabeth and taken them to heart so that you might, like her, recognize the incarnate God born of Mary?
Hannah,
When I was writing about the trinity, I thought you were solid on that, but was thrown for a loop when Alex made mention about it and alluding to something you said. So I thought, why not–if you know, that great, but in the event someone else needed to know or to even copy these easy reference to witness to someone else that comes to this site–that’s a good thing too.
Interesting question about Mary and the DNA. As always we have to go to Scripture.
For one thing, God made an unconditional promise to David that there would be a heir that was of his bloodline that would sit on his throne forever. God also made a conditional promise to David and to Solomon. That is, as long as they did not follow after other gods, there would be an heir sitting on the throne. As mentioned in other comments that I’ve made, the second promise was conditional and because the terms were violated, no one from Solomon bloodline could sit on the throne after they were carried into captivity by the Babylonians. But there was still the first bloodline promise that was unconditional–so since it could not be fulfilled through Joseph lineage that led directly back to Solomon, it had to come from Mary. Adoption by Joseph permitted Jesus to lay claim that He was from the tribe of Judah, but due to the conditional curse, he could lay claim to the throne. At the same time, Mary was said to be the cousin of Elizabeth, who was John the Baptist’s cousin. And John was of the Essene sect and could be because Elizabeth who what married to a High Priest with a direct line to Aaron (dtr of Aaron) which meant her father was a priest as well and was from the tribe of Levi. What that then tells is that it was Mary’s mother who was Elizabeth sister and Mary’s father who was of the tribe of Judah. And that is why another prophecy is fulfilled: that is that Jesus, will be our High Priest, after the order Melchsedek and not from the Levitical tribe. For then that would make Him of the Aaronic Order instead. Had Mary’s father been Elizabeth relative, then the prophecy could not be fulfilled as it would have then made Jesus having the same rights as John the Baptist as being from the tribe of Levi.
So what does this all have to do with Mary’s DNA. Jesus was born of the spirit but he very much fully man with all the trappings within the human body. Including the bloodline of Mary lineage that can be traced back to one of David’s son, who because he was not from Solomon, yet he was Davids son.
You posed the ideal that Mary was a surrogate carry God son. Well, she was a bit more than that. God used her reproductive system to beget a child within Mary. We have to remember that God is spirit and by entering into Mary’s womb a miracle was wrought that that caused an egg to be fertilized. The seed that God planted within her was joined with one of her eggs and thus we know this means that Jesus was biologically the son of Mary.
1) Through adoption, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah.
2) Through Mary’s seed (her lineage/bloodline) prophecy was fulfilled
A. unconditional promise that Davids seed would sit forever on the throne.
B. that the Messiah would be both God and man, born of a Virgin.
C that the Messish would be of after the order of Melchisedek (not having a father)
D. that he would not be from the Levitical Aaronic Priesthood
E. that from the Messiah would be a Jew, (mother determines race)
F. that the Messiah would be the Lion of Judah and the Lamb, unblemish 9sinless)
Jesus had to be tested, tempted, tried, smitten, beatean scouraged and not make a sound. In order to do this he had to empty himself of His divinity to endure the way of the cross set before Him.
Hope this adds food for thought. I’m tired, so am going to move on for now.
Doug G]
“lMy opinion is that Chuck Smith is better off without these anti-RCC conspiracy nuts who are now ODMs. They made Chuck Smith look like a nut when he tolerated them. He’s probably breathing a sigh of relief now that they are gone.
I just wish they weren’t infesting this site now.
And I wish you would be more respectful. That’s fine if you choose not hear what we have shared, but it is not okay for you insult me or anyone else like you did the quote cited. That is abuse and I am asking that you back off. Just because you have your own particular bent towards Catholicism and you would rather in your terms “bash” CC does not mean we need to follow your lead. We have stated our concerns and how this is related to CC. You have attempted to discount that as well. But would rather have us buy into and put our stamp of confirmation that Mr. Smith is teaching heresy regarding what happens to the believer’s body and spirit when the die. Apparently, no one is interested in discussing that. And that is okay. I told that I had listen to the first tape and still needed to listen to the other ones. For I did not hear anything that was heretical in the sense of being a basic serisous essential doctrine. As for the relevancy, that’s been explained as well. You just don’t like anyone pointing the problems of what the RCC teaches. My hunch is that you also don’t teach others the truth about the RCC, but are more in line with what Geisler is attempting accomplish with CC instead. And since there are viewers that come this site, it would not be good for them to hear what we have shared thus far. For if they did, it would be a hard sell for Geisler and the likes of him to bridge the gap between Evangelicals and Catholicism, would it, not?
I am doing this comment over as I think my keys are getting stuck. My apology to the reader of the above comment. How torturous or funny that might have been.
Doug G]
“lMy opinion is that Chuck Smith is better off without these anti-RCC conspiracy nuts who are now ODMs. They made Chuck Smith look like a nut when he tolerated them. He’s probably breathing a sigh of relief now that they are gone.
I just wish they weren’t infesting this site now.
And I wish you would be more respectful. That’s fine if you choose not to hear what we have shared, but it is not okay for you to insult me or anyone else like you did in the quote cited. That is abuse and I am asking that you back off. Just because you have your own particular bent towards Catholicism and you would rather in your terms “bash” CC does not mean we need to follow your lead.
We have stated our concerns and how this is related to CC. You have attempted to discount that as well. But would rather have us buy into and put our stamp of confirmation that Mr. Smith is teaching heresy regarding what happens to the believer’s body and spirit when they die. Apparently, no one is interested in discussing that. And that is okay. I told you that I had listened to the first tape and still needed to listen to the other ones. For I did not hear anything that was heretical in the sense of being a essential doctrine that would be considered serious error due to the salvation of a individual. This proposed error would be considered a non essential doctrine, therefore is not all imminent to get all up in the air about. I also ask you to tell me specifically where Mr. Smith claim that Jesus did not rise in his bodily form.
As for the relevancy, that’s been explained as well. You just don’t like anyone pointing the critical and morst serious errors of Catholic doctrines. Then you have an inordinate amount of time putting up smokescreens to dissuade us from discussing this. My hunch is that you also don’t teach others the truth about the RCC, but are more in line with what Geisler is attempting to accomplish with CC instead. And since there are viewers that come this site, it would not be good for them to hear what we have shared thus far. For if they did, it would be a hard sell for Geisler and the likes of him to bridge the gap between Evangelicals and Catholicism, would it, not?
Doug, I am not into bashing anyone, including CC. I am here to bear witness to what I know without a doubt is true. I don’t knowingly make false accusations and I certainly do not resort to name calling to bully or to discredit a person. Now, if you are Jerk, then I will tell you that I think you are behaving like a jerk. But do not speak to someone else while calling me a name, as if I cannot hear you. That is a form of abuse and you don’t have a right as a brother in the Lord to do that to me or any other in order to get your way.
So, push back is fine, but abuse is out of order. And you are out of line.
Pulling the “abusive” card on DG regarding the debating above is an amazing stretch and an insult to victims of real abuse, including the blog host…IMNSHO that is!
Alex – I apologize for any of my part in derailing this thread and causing any distraction away from the more important issues that merit this blog’s existence.
DG and Once U a T – Thank you for your comments, especially #224 and #227
Doug seems to be a Catholic man, since he believes that everyone must fit neatly into one of three categories made up by man. But Jesus didn’t ask me to be a part of any such categories. I won’t fit into Doug’s narrow view of things. I am on Jesus’ narrow way, which is faith alone in Jesus Christ apart from works. Of those three ways that Doug promotes, two of the three (and sometimes the third) believe in works, not Jesus’ narrow way.
Ur – You convinced me. Geisler is a Jesuit plant that was put in place to convert people to the Roman Catholic faith. He was personally baptized by the Pope and commissioned for the job of perverting the faith and moving people from the truths of the Protestant religion into the Catholic Church. Wow, so glad you showed me that.
Now that you have made your same point about Geisler for the 50th time, I think we got it. Geisler is a devil, I get it…
Speak to a OB/GYN about the mothers blood and the placenta of a surrogate.
Yes, Her blood gives the embryo/fetus nourishment, but thats all.
The surrogate can have a completely different blood type than the child they are carrying.
Doug, women don’t have seeds.
That seed (Jesus) was planted inside of Mary, Just like a Dr. can implant an embryo inside a surrogate.
If a child is adopted, on their birth certificate they are part of a family.
He was her son.
God did not use any eggs of her own. He was born of “seed”.
That is how I have always understood it.
I would be more concerned Doug, that the RCC has made Mary to be born without sin.And that she was “translated” in Body and Spirit to heaven.
For some reason, CS’s position bothers you more than the RC position on their co-redemptrix .Where is the outrage over this?
I am grateful to the Mary, the maidservant, the one who rejoices in her Savior.
The RCC Mary doesnt need a Savior. It is a different gospel, and a different Mary.
“Doug seems to be a Catholic man, since he believes that everyone must fit neatly into one of three categories made up by man. But Jesus didn’t ask me to be a part of any such categories. I won’t fit into Doug’s narrow view of things. I am on Jesus’ narrow way, which is faith alone in Jesus Christ apart from works. Of those three ways that Doug promotes, two of the three (and sometimes the third) believe in works, not Jesus’ narrow way.”
Not a Catholic man at all. I could give plenty of arguments against the RCC and if this was that sort of forum, I might do so. But this isn’t that forum and the one trick ponies that are infesting this site now are being fed by anyone who engages them even if the engagement is only to say their constant bashing of the Catholic Church is not the subject of this BLOG.
Wow, Hannah. Once again you deny the words of Elizabeth when she greeted the “Mother of her Lord”. You deny that Mary is the mother of God and in the process deny the promise of Genesis 3:15 that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head. That was the first Messianic promise and Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of that promise.
In your attempt to discredit the Catholic Church you are rejecting God’s promise to save the world through the seed of the woman. If it takes rejecting God’s promises to reject the Catholic Church, I will chose to not reject both. I’m not a Catholic but these sorts of arguments against Mary are driving me closer to the Catholic faith.
It’s interesting Doug, how you are avoiding direct questions to you regarding the RCC false teachings, especially when challenged with the same subjects you are criticizing CS about. (resurrection).
Just making excuses… and resorting to name calling and lack of respect for others.
Catholic bashing or revealing false doctrines/false gospel that you will not respond to?
It was pointed out to you that the RCC teaches the “Assumption of Mary”-that after death she rose in body and Spirit.
(the RCC Mary-not Mary of the Bible)
That doesnt bother you?
You feel no responsibilty to call this out?
And her sinless birth?
Why the emphasis on CS when there are millions of Catholics who are believing this and many other false teachings, and a distorted view of the gospel?
Why is your passion (or anger) only on CS?
The seed of the woman is JESUS.
Mary is Jesus’ mother.
God created Mary.
Mary did not create God in any way.
I dont think any conversation with open your ears Doug.
It is like a stronghold.
If you are driven to the Catholic faith, ask yourself who is behind the wheel.
“In your attempt to discredit the Catholic Church ”
Here we go again….a stronghold.
Do you want a list of false teachings?
Will you respond to it?
Infant Baptism saves
Clergy Celibacy
Divine Revelation -Apostles Successors
Eucharist as reappearance of Jesus to be worshipped and sacrificed
Holy Days of Obligation
Indulgences
Justification by faith plus works
Magisterium of bishops only qualified interpreter of scripture
Marys assumption
Marys Immaculate Conception and sinlessness
Peter the Rock on which the church is built
Pope as head of the church
Prayers for and to the dead
Priests continuing to offer Jesus as sacrifice for sins
Purgatory- to purify sins
Rosary and repititious prayers
Salvation not assured
Second Commandment removed from Catechisms
Statues and Images
Tradition equal with scripture in authority
Venial sins
Geneaology
Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?
For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin – Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.
■
Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).
■
Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary’s womb (Hebrews 10:5—“…a body hast thou prepared me…”). This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).
Last in moderation (scripture references)
Doug, for someone that pipes the importance of the focus of this blog, you sure are posting enough off-topic stuff of your own. Set the example for us and focus only on the topic.
And anyone that can claim to be “driven closer to Catholicism”, is Catholic or at least Catholic-lite.
The fact that Catholicism teaches against the true Gospel in the Bible, and even puts an anathema on it, is all that has to be said about Catholicism. If that is “bashing Catholicism”, then I am bashing it, yes.
Andy and Hannah – you’ve made your points against the Catholic faith over and over again. We get your stance – its anti – Catholic. Its clear —– Need you keep repeating your position? Your stance is nothing unique – Its been going on for centuries – and people like you will continue on with the tradition and will feel very self righteous about it. King Henry 8th would give you a medal. All the ex-Catholics will love you and so will the CC’s and others who want to think they are just like the “original” church and everyone else is not up to snuff. I get your thinking – nothing new here. And nothing new about thinking your faith is on the “narrow correct path” and everyone else is less than. Arent you special!
Sue- I have listed Catholic Doctrine.
My question to you is this..do you agree with these doctrines?
Do they line up with scripture?
Please answer this.
It is not about me.
.
To clarify a comment I made well up the thread, Catholics call Mary the “God-bearer” …and build a case for Venerating her and elevating her to something to be worshipped…which I personally strongly disagree with and don’t see the Veneration as logical or scriptural at all.
I do get the “She physically gave birth to Jesus Christ who is God incarnate and Mary’s egg (seed, DNA, genetics, etc) are a part of Jesus incarnate….that I get…if Jesus is truly God and Man and if Jesus truly walked this existence as a literal man and if Jesus was truly Resurrected in the glorified/transfigured man flesh (as scripture and Christian orthodoxy seems to indicate).
If you believe Jesus is a Spirit-being only and was never and is not any part human or man…then I can see your argument regarding Mary. It’s a very Gnostic position and doesn’t seem supported by Scripture (if that is your appeal to authority)…but it would make sense if that is your underlying Premise.
I you are talking to me Alex, I already said I dont believe He is a Spirit being.
I have one in moderation that will explain my position.
I think much here is not even read.
Maybe you can take 244 out of moderation and let me know what you think
“Do they line up with scripture?”
That’s the key question. I’m not concerned at all about being called “anti-” whatever. I am anti-lies. Most of all, the Lord is against lies, that is why He puts constant emphasis on doctrine and truth. Anything doctrine that contradicts Him, we should be anti.
Hannah said:
“Infant Baptism saves”
Dunno. Lutherans have a similar position and take the verse about “Be baptized for the remission of sins” and other verses that if read “simply” seem to say “Baptism saves” as literal and w/o other qualifications.
Personally, I disagree that Infant Baptism saves, though there are good arguments for it being a “Means of Grace” and that it somehow its literal physical expression and obedience sticks with that person the rest of their Journey and they end up saved, dunno.
“Clergy Celibacy”
Disagree with this one and don’t see it supported by an appeal to Scripture, other than Paul the Apostle’s example, and I think it’s a very bad idea from a Common Sense perspective and opens the door to all kinds of trouble with Priests and sex (and Nuns, too). Paul was a unique person in history. I doubt we have millions of Paul the Apostles, though folks sure think they’re “anointed” and Apostolic like him.
Recipe for disaster, IMO and I think the fruit of it is self-evident these days with all the Pedophile Priests and sexual perversion in their ranks. Get married Priests and Nuns, have some heterosexual sex and chillax.
“Divine Revelation -Apostles Successors”
Many in CC and other Charismatic and Semi-Charismatic churches embrace this doctrine too. Progressive Revelation, “I got a SPECIAL word from God for you today!” and so on and so forth. “I am SPECIALLY ANOINTED by God!” “Don’t touch God’s ANOINTED!” etc etc.
I dunno. I think if the folks were that anointed and that Apostolic, they’d act differently in their private lives, but who knows. The Apostles could be total jerks (Peter comes to mind) and King David was an adulterer and murderer etc.
This one is a big fat: I dunno. There are arguments for and against…but IMO, if there are “anointed” “Apostles” today….real ones….we have about 1,000 fakes to every Real one.
“Eucharist as reappearance of Jesus to be worshipped and sacrificed”
Eucharist is pretty explicit if one takes a ‘literal’ and simple meaning of Scripture: “This is my Body, this is my Blood”.
Personally, I appeal to the qualifier: “Do this in remembrance of Me” as a clue and personally, while I take communion and “remember”…I don’t know if it is Salvific in and of itself.
“Holy Days of Obligation”
Tradition. Add-on.
“Indulgences”
Total bullspit. (Holding back my inner-Luther).
“Justification by faith plus works”
The Book of James makes a solid case that affirms the “faith plus works” thesis. Read James chapter 2, hard to get around. Of course there are lots of explanations around this passage, but if one takes a ‘literal’ and simple approach to the text here…you really can’t get around it. It is in direct contradiction to Paul’s teaching on Grace (or seems to be).
James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
My Conclusion? Dunno. I hope Paul is right and the author of James is wrong or they’re both right and I just don’t understand how the two fit together. I can’t keep the Law and I don’t think there’s enough I can do to “get saved” and I don’t think that one can not have any good works or want to do any good works, etc and “get saved”.
Personally, I hope in Jesus Christ as my Messiah and Savior, I “try” to do some of the good works…and I beg God for mercy on me a sinner.
If the Catholics are right on this one, I’m probably screwed.
“Magisterium of bishops only qualified interpreter of scripture”
Calvary Chapel would agree, only replace “bishops” with CC Senior Pastors and Chuck Smith.
Bullspit in my opinion. Priesthood of the Believers and the explicit words of Jesus in the Gospels seem to put us all on pretty equal terms…though some have gifts etc.
“Marys assumption”
Don’t see it. Don’t see a good argument for it.
There is a pretty weak appeal to John 14:3 as to the Scriptural support…but I don’t see it. I think it’s Tradition and lore. But, I guess we’ll find out for sure someday.
“Marys Immaculate Conception and sinlessness”
Disagree with this one, though the argument goes that Jesus’s mom had to be w/o sin…yet there is the whole problem presented by the Fall. Really comes down to an argument on Anthropology and Original Sin…which is where the Catholics really weak spot is from a Philosophical Logic perspective.
Venial and Mortal sin as it relates to Original Sin…which affects Mary’s “sinlessness”. I had a lengthy discussion with and RCC apologist once and it was good in demonstrating the fundamental problems with the RCC Position and Assumptions regarding these issues. If my Position is correct, then Mary was not “sinless”.
“Peter the Rock on which the church is built”
Pretty explicit verse that says so, but this is a non-issue, other than the Appeal to Apostolic Succession….which is a biggie if one hinges their Belief System on that issue.
“Pope as head of the church”
Disagree strongly with this one. The Papacy is a construct of man, IMO. Very much like a Moses Model and “Don’t touch God’s anointed!”
Papa Chuck should be Pope Chuck.
“Prayers for and to the dead”
Disagree, but there is some scant Scripture that appears to demonstrate it.
“Priests continuing to offer Jesus as sacrifice for sins”
Largely Tradition and don’t see it supported in Scripture. Priesthood of the Believers.
“Purgatory- to purify sins”
Scant Scripture reference. Personally, don’t see it. Like Dante’s and Milton’s “hell”…I think there’s a lot of creative license in this one.
“Rosary and repititious prayers”
Tradition. Doesn’t hurt I guess, but no real support in Scripture IMO. But, again, that’s an Appeal to Scripture as Authoritative and the RCC believes that there is Truth spoken outside of Scripture regarding these matters…as does CC as do many Charismatics and others. “I got a special word from God for you!”
“Salvation not assured”
Who knows. There are very contradictory and competing verses. It boils down to what is pre-eminent? God’s Sovereignty or Man’s perceived Will?
“Second Commandment removed from Catechisms”
Dunno.
“Statues and Images”
Tradition and seems like idolatry and graven images that Scripture speaks against.
“Tradition equal with scripture in authority”
This should’ve been your #1, as this is the Crux of the Issue. RCC and many others believe that there is Authority outside of Scripture. Renewalists, Charismatics, even CC and many others essentially believe this and practice this (CC will deny such, but they model it famously and infamously).
No one is a True Fundamentalist in reality. There are Selective Fundamentalists and there are Liberals in Christian Theology. That’s about it.
My conclusion: Dunno. There are truths outside of Scripture, Laws of Physics are true for this dimension, Math is true, Gravity is true etc. Regarding Spiritual things…Dispensationalism assumes a lot of truth that changes depending on cultural context and the day and age etc. Again, I can find no one under the sun that has a purely 100% Fundamentalist and Absolute hold of Scripture as it is written “literally”…everyone appeals to “proper exegesis” and “the correct hermeneutic” etc. Much is a function of interpretation and what they think it says and what the “truth” really is. Most think they have the “100% correct truth!” yet we have 9,000 to 30,000 denominations in Christianity.
I dunno.
“Venial sins”
Biggie, very much disagree. Could lay out the argument, but it would take pages.
“Read James chapter 2, hard to get around.”
Nobody is trying to get around it. It isn’t talking about justification with God. Justification with God is in Romans chapter 4 verses 2 through 5, where it says no works can be added. The justification in James chapter 2 verse 24 is with man, not with God. Works help others and should be done for that motivation. Works added to salvation, however, is a rejection of salvation itself.
Andy, while I tend to agree with your position…if one takes a literal face-value approach and then cites explicit teachings of Jesus in combination with James…there is a case, with a strong appeal to Scripture, than can be made.
Even some like Uriah and more John MacArthur type Fundamentalists see works as necessary to demonstrate saving “true” faith.
So clearly, by your own admission Alex, this is a false system based on false doctrines, right?
I have many comments to yours, but it is kind of futile and the Lord reminded me of disputes, etc.
I will just say this…Ask Catholics (I have asked many over the years whether they are going to heaven when they die. 99% will say how they hope to get there and it is not by way of Jesus.
So my grieves for them. Thats is what God has given me the heart and the privelege to meet them, not to argue against their doctrines, because they do not have the H.S. to understand, but to let them know they can know for sure they have eternal life. Most of them think itis too easy and dismiss is, but I pray that their eyes will be open-that there is nothing they can do that will surpass what God did for us when He sent His Son and nailed to HIM what we deserve. We can nver be good enough.
Please take out my 244 in moderation!
BTW Alex- Thanks for taking the time to go over all that.
It’s nice to have you here
Alex- I am a John Macarthur “Type” as he has been my Pastor for many years. And he would say that works demonstrates that we are saved. Works do not earn salvation. I have heard him over and over again say that you have to question someones salvation of they don’t have the works. But he has never advocated a works based salvation.
Alex, I don’t happen to agree with them in regards to James chapter 2. I used to be one of them, but I now am fully persuaded that James chapter 2 is written, along with the rest of James, to already saved people. Not as a test to see if one is saved, and not as a requirement to be saved. But as a logical response to being saved. If the saved person refuses the logical response found in James 2, they are still saved, but will find some form of Fatherly discipline to come into their lives.
Macarthur from “Hard to Believe”
Don’t believe anyone who says it’s easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God’s Son His life, and it’ll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn’t gained by reciting mere words. Saving faith transforms the heart, and that in turn transforms behavior. Faith’s fruit is seen in actions, not intentions. There’s no room for passive spectators: words without actions are empty and futile. Remember that what John saw in his vision of judgment was a Book of Life, not a book of Words or Book of Intellectual Musings. The life we live, not the words we speak, reveals whether our faith is authentic.
++++++++++++++
I think in the CC system it is about “saying the prayer”.
Macarthur has some teachings on the unbiblical altar call.
I remember one of the Pastors at my old church saying that someone can say a prayer, and spend the rest of their life living their old lifestly and still be saved. I remember asking him “So a prostitute comes to church, says the prayer, and goes back to prostitution and never changes her life, and because she came here and walked forward, she is saved”? He said “Yes, as long as she came up to the altar and said the prayer. That was early in my walk, and it bothered me a lot. People have a false assurance based on a prayer. Perhaps that is what P.Macarthur was referring to here,.
Of course we never know who is saved and who isnt.
I think MacArthur’s statement there is very harsh. He gives no room for the thief on the cross, nor the publican simply calling for mercy. That’s just my opinion.
Works is the evidence of faith that would otherwise be invisible, hence you show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works.
I think Andy and Hannah and Sue are talking about 2 different things; I think Andy and Hannah are talking about official RCC doctrine and Sue is talking about what she believes are true Christians in the RCC.
I believe their must be many true Christians in the RCC and many of them do not know that they have been officially pronounced anathema for believing the biblical gospel because they do not know official church doctrine, others do and remain for different reasons and others leave.
Hannah, I went to Big Grace and majored in Speech Comm at Master’s College. Johnny Mac would hang with us in the cafeteria and come to games etc. He’s really a great guy and much more friendly in person. I liked that he was so approachable at the school and not the least bit uptight and not snobbish in the least.
I also like that his daughter seemed to report good things about the home-life, but who knows what really goes on. If she is still saying good things in her more advanced adult-hood, then great, he’s also the real deal at home (and I haven’t heard otherwise).
I think Mac’s position is a bit “Chicken or Egg” and while I think he’s probably correct, it’s a very very very minute step to the RCC Position of “Works Righteousness”
Many in RCC would say that the Works are evidence of Faith as well…and that one can’t have ‘true” “saving” Faith w/o the Works.
No Works in Mac’s position = No Saving Faith
No Works in the RCC position = No Saving Faith
There are very slight differences in the two views…and if you hear an RCC apologist explain their position more clearly…it takes on a very John MacArthur appeal to “validation” and “evidence” of Faith rather than “Works saves you”
RCC believes that Faith saves you and Works “validates” and “evidences” the true Faith…ironically, Mormons hold the same Position and make the same/similar claims.
…at least many of the RCC and Mormons do. I’ve debated/discussed at lengthy with many from both Groups.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiPrUE4qVv8
The RCC position seems to be that you must have “Good Works” to be saved, but in the Context of a profession of Faith in Jesus Christ as Messiah and the belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The RCC would not necessarily consider a “Good Works” Atheist to be “saved”…(though there are some Liberal camps in RCC who would assert that, but it is not the prevailing position, to my knowledge).
The fact that the RCC wold not necessarily consider a “Good Works” Athesist to be “saved” demonstrates their connection of the Works to Faith in Jesus and the relationship of Works to Faith in a similar manner to a Johnny Mac or more legalistic Evangelical Christian construct.
Q: Agreed, I am referring to official Catholic doctrine. If there is a person that identifies Catholic and yet believed the Gospel in spite of the wrong Catholic doctrine, then they would be saved. That doesn’t change the fact that official Catholic doctrine is not the Gospel, but attacks the Gospel.
Alex: Johnny Mac’s (I believe incorrect) understanding of things is actually endorsed by some Catholic theologians. Catholicism front-loads the works, and Johnny Mac back-loads them.
Andy,
Have you ever heard the series P. Macarthur did on the Catholic church?
I have the series and I think it is about 10 CD’s.
He goes into everything about this false system.
You an go on his website and listen or read the transcipts.
Much of what I have learned was from his teachings.
In no way does he endorse the RCC or its teachings.
Or should I say, that with his outspoken stand on the RCC, they would never endorse him.
Alex- Is there a reason why you dont want to take my 244 out of moderation?
Hannah, b/c I didn’t know it was stuck
Q@262– Thats what I have been trying to say. I am not bashing Catholics, because I have family that I love. I am exposing a system that does not offer salvation outside of the “church” and it’s man made traditions which nullify the Word of God and make it “another gospel” that we are warned about.
Alex:
No Works in Mac’s position = No Saving Faith
No Works in the RCC position = No Saving Faith
I don’t believe he is saying that at all. I have 8 years of listening to him..many many sermons and that is not his position. I think you are attempting to make that his position.
He states that if you are saved, you will produce good works.
If you stay in habitual sin, you have to question salvation. And he has made it clear that none of us know who is saved and who isn’t. The thief had no time for sanctification-so thats not a good example.
The bottom line is this as I recall…
We are to be grieved over our sin enough to want to change.A sinner who is in habitual sin (Google Habitual sin with his name and you may still find the sermon) is not demonstrating salvation. I will see if I can find it because it is not fair to critique someones position without his own words.
“Dealing with Habitual Sin” Transcript
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-106
Alex, I think your talking about John MacArthur’s belief in Lordship Salvation. He wrote a book on that some time back that kind of stirred things up in the Christian world.
Many in reformed theology hold a Lordship Salvation view, I know John MacArthur is not fully into reformed theology but is TULIP and so LS would seems to be a logical conclusion.
“The justification in James chapter 2 verse 24 is with man, not with God.”
Not in the text… Nothing there about before men. In fact the example of Abraham wasn’t before anyone other than Isaac and God so it’s explicitly not a “with man”. Who would Abraham have had around him to justify him to? He was pretty much a one of a kind at the time he did those acts.
But I understand if James doesn’t fit for you. It didn’t for Luther either. He wanted to take it out of the canon. He called it an “epistle of straw”.
As for me I have more respect for the Word of God than to twist it that way.
(Alex note I am using their own argumentation style – not so much my own “regular” style here).
Alex, not sure how the RCC justify the Assumption of Mary, but try this thought on for size.
Revelation shows a picture of the woman in heaven about to give birth to her son who would rule the earth with a rod of iron. Mary – in Heaven with queenly ornaments (sun, moon, stars).
Enoch and Elijah were both translated to be with God and didn’t see death.
Although there’s no direct Scripture on Mary as being assumed without death into Heaven, I can see how they might justify it on the basis of the above. Add to that the thought that perhaps Mary died later than the book of Acts.
I don’t buy it, but it’s not unscriptural.
“Have you ever heard the series P. Macarthur did on the Catholic church? I have the series and I think it is about 10 CD’s.”
Seems like you’d do better to study solid doctrine and correct your own before attempting to tackle someone else’s doctrine.
““Magisterium of bishops only qualified interpreter of scripture”
Calvary Chapel would agree, only replace “bishops” with CC Senior Pastors and Chuck Smith. Bullspit in my opinion. Priesthood of the Believers and the explicit words of Jesus in the Gospels seem to put us all on pretty equal terms…though some have gifts etc.”
The passage – “No Prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation” should be born in mind. Without some teaching authority heresies abound and there’s no authority to correct the heresies – not that the RCC has been particularly effective in that area.
Sadly the authority here for many seems to be repeating John McArthur’s messages. I’m sure McArthur is fine in his own world, but I don’t see him an an authority on anything in particular or all that knowledgable on any of these matters.
So, Hannah, now that I have answered how a RCC person might justify their teaching of the Assumption of Mary, will you answer my question about how Elizabeth called Mary the Mother of her Lord? If Mary isn’t the Mother of the Lord, then how could Elizabeth say that? Was Elizabeth incorrect?
“And anyone that can claim to be “driven closer to Catholicism”, is Catholic or at least Catholic-lite.”
I really didn’t consider Roman Catholicism seriously until now. When I read all of these arguments here against the RCC, I wonder if the RCC might actually be true. I didn’t think so, but the contrary arguments are so weak that I might have to rethink that position.
Thanks everyone. I think I might just visit the local Catholic Church this weekend. i wouldn’t have even considered it if I hadn’t been encouraged by the anti-Catholic arguments here. Might even take communion – they won’t know I’m not Catholic so I can probably get away with it.
LOL Doug you better do it right or they will follow you back to the pew and questioned. I was raised Catholic.
I’ve been reading all the arguing back and forth. Not that my oppinion makes any difference at all, lol, I hear what you all are saying and there are things I agree with and things I don’t in the Catholic church. I think God searches a person’s heart, I think there are Catholics who are saved. Is it a hill to die on? I don’t think so. I think our greater concern should be to love one another and preach the gospel message with our lives. When the opportunity rises, then we can share our faith with them in love.
Tina, I’d like to see this site focus on CC and I know that when a site becomes focused on anti-CC or alternately on promoting Reformed Theology it can take away from the focus the site should/could have.
correcttion, anti-RCC…
I agree with you Doug, there is a lot going on within CC and it seems to be a bit of a distraction, not that my oppinion counts. Lol (I had this visual of the priest following you back to your seat, gave me a good laugh!)
“I think our greater concern should be to love one another and preach the gospel message with our lives”
No disrespect to you Tina, but that is what I have attempted to do.
There is no greater display of love for someone than to have them have assurance that they have salvation, and to preach the gospel Jesus died for.
Last comment on the subject. Carry on.
I agree Hannah
“Who would Abraham have had around him to justify him to?”
There was a company that went with Abraham and Isaac. They saw Isaac come back. Abraham was justified before them, and, not to mention the billions that read the story in the Word of God since then, that Abraham is justified with, and he is now called a friend of God by all of us. So you are dead wrong yet again.
Stick with CC bashing. It is the only thing you’re (marginally) good at.
James is not an epistle of straw. James is the Word of God. It’s just not telling anyone how to get into heaven. Romans chapter 4 verses 2 through 5 do that. James isn’t telling anyone how to get into heaven.
Let us know how your time in Catholicism goes, Doug. Let us know if you were permitted to take the host, if you ate it out of your priest’s hand, if you told your priest all your sins. Don’t forget to mention to your priest how long it’s been since your last confession to your priest. Make sure that you are there for the incense, and light a candle for those who have died. When this Pope kisses the Quran as the last Pope did, tell us how that makes you feel inside.
Doug @ 242
“Ur – You convinced me. Geisler is a Jesuit plant that was put in place to convert people to the Roman Catholic faith. He was personally baptized by the Pope and commissioned for the job of perverting the faith and moving people from the truths of the Protestant religion into the Catholic Church. Wow, so glad you showed me that.
Now that you have made your same point about Geisler for the 50th time, I think we got it. Geisler is a devil, I get it…”
LOL Those are your words, not mine.
Hannah @207
“It was not Marys egg that was used.
We all know that , don’t we?
LOL The question that you posed was a good one. How I answered in was base on what I know or the covenant made with David. Anything beyond that was mere speculation. Didn’t mean to sound like I knew the answer. But here’s a question to consider.
Mary was a woman and woman have eggs. Granted, the Bible tells us that He would come from the seed of the woman. Could that mean, that she would not have sexual intercourse with a man. That the seed could mean that it would be placed in her by the Holy Spirit without the act of sexual intercourse.
Another question, without an egg, He could not have been born fully man. He would have been born spiritual only. I say this because in Hebrews it mentions He was tempted in every way, so He was able to have compassion upon us, Not that He, as God would not, as God is love, but according the Scripture, it was emphasizing his human nature.
Doug G answer @ 223 is totally accurate.
It was from her seed that God could keep the unconditional covenant he made with David to bypass the Jeconiah curse.
I had totally forgotten about “seed” being used in this way.
Thanks Doug—fully God and fully man born by Mary, His mother.
Doug @ 225
“Sorry, Andy unless you are Protestant, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox there just aren’t that many other choices.”
Jesus told us that where 2 or more I gathered in His name, He is in the midst of them.
Where in the Bible do we find the name of a specific church, other than the Christian Jews, the church in Ephesus and the other 6 churches named in Revelations. Oh, also the small home churches, the Bible mention that as well.
Protestant, RCC, and Orthodox came long after this. No one other that the Catholic church made this edict that you just “had” to belong to them or not be a Christian. Jesus certainly did not say this. He simply told us to forsake the fellowship of the bretheran. He also made a number of statement on: “when we gather, so on and so forth.
Schimatic—-LOL
Re: Doug @ 284
In Europe one has to find a way to have some common ground and respect for Catholicism or you cannot survive in a ministry, at least not effectively or for long. It’s a very tight rope to walk.
In order to help our kids prepare for this, some years ago, we took them to a Catholic church in America. Silly us, though we’d grown up in Catholic cities (one in Europe and one in America) we did not realize we could not take communion. We (my better half and I) had each gone with our friends to Catholic churches and taken communion with them while growing up. We simply overlooked the fact that we were not supposed to do this. When we took our kids up, the kids reached for the wafer and they were severely chastised before the entire congregation. It was one of the most humiliating moments in our lives.
After the public berating, we sought out the priest after the service to apologize and ask what we did wrong. He turned his back and refused to speak with us. We realized how woefully unprepared we were and began to study after that. It was at that point that we really began to wrestle with how we were going to be respectful and find common ground. It’s not been easy.
We’ve watched true converts be immediately engulfed and spend 2 years learning specific prayers to Mary and the Saints, with whom they are to develop a relationship with, along with memorizing which symbols go with which holy day, etc…. It’s not that there can’t be a place for some of those things (like symbolism,) but that the new convert was kept so busy with these fringe peripheral issues that they never developed a relationship with Jesus Christ, nor did they learn the Word, or pray to Jesus/God. We grieve over what certainly seem like very real converts in the beginning who are trained very quickly in religiosity till it’s very difficult to even encourage them to read the Bible or pray to God at all.
So if you do try to take communion, you have to take the wafer in a very specific way or you may be the object of grave public humiliation. Our children were not even spared. But just so you know, many think it’s terribly rude of anyone to even attempt to take communion on the Catholic church since they do not recognize non-Catholics as Christians.
I’m apologize for contributing to the diversion of this thread.
Doug @ 227
“Not quite true. Read Acts. The early converts were from the Jews and the Gentiles. In fact, after 70 AD there was much less Jewish influence. Something about having your capital city destroyed and your citizens carried off to the nations and all that.
To make the point directly from Acts read about the first church council. The seven deacons were all Greeks because the distribution to the Greek speaking (ie, Gentile) widows wasn’t being hand;ed properly. It take nothing more than reading their name to see that. Read Acts 15.”
I read that Chapter about 4 times and really don’t see how you came up with that. . It takes more than assuming they are greek due to what you maintain to be “Greek Names.” You need to read the passage. Barnabus and Paul were both from Jerusalem. They went there to settle some things concerning circumcison and eating pork. What more the persons sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabus were Jews as well. were from Jerusalem as well. The letter was written by those in Jerusalem to the 2 brothers.
The Jerusalem Decree
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the gentile brothers as noted.
23 They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
“To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:”
Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”[f] —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth
All throughout the N.T. from Acts forward, we are told of the Jewish Christian gathering in other places outside of Jerusalem due to the growing persecution there. A little more on this subject: “Alister McGrath, former Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, claims that the 1st century “Jewish Christians” were totally faithful religious Jews. They differed from other contemporary Jews only in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.[12]
However as Christianity grew throughout the Gentile world, Christians diverged from their Jewish and Jerusalem roots.[13][14] Jewish Christianity, initially strengthened despite persecution by Jerusalem Temple officials, fell into decline during the Jewish-Roman wars (66-135) and the growing anti-Judaism perhaps best personified by Marcion (c. 150). With persecution by the orthodox Christians from the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, Jewish Christians sought refuge outside the boundaries of the Empire, in Arabia and further afield.[15] Within the Empire and later elsewhere it was dominated by the Gentile based Christianity which became the State church of the Roman Empire and which took control of sites in the Holy Land such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Cenacle and appointed subsequent Bishops of Jerusalem.
The term “Jewish Christians” in the 3rd and 4th centuries can refer to groups such as Ebionites, Nazarenes and other groups, and related to these groups are quotation fragments of non-canonical gospels referred to as the “Jewish-Christian Gospels”.
Now the Catholic church may have discounted these groups, but that is most likely due to the Jewish Christian not wanting to align themselves with them in the way that was proposed. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus did not accept them. Like I said, there were many Christians around other than those who either forced or to join the RCC/GRC religious/political group.
Yeah, I know they would have pulled my teeth out, cut my bowels and fed them to the pigs while proclaiming they were saving my soul by now. Fortunately for me, for such a time as that, I was not born. Thank you Lord, Jesus.
http://bible.org/article/origins-church-rome
A historical account of Jewish Christian in Rome
The Origins of the Church at Rome
Study By: Greg MaGee
One other note: How many time does scripture tell us that the Paul and Barnabus, and Mark when entering into a city, they made their way to the synogogue to speak publicly to the people. How many time did were we told they stayed at a home of one who had been converted from teaching in the inner and outer courts.
The first church of Christianily in was established in Jerusalem by Jews.
The first church of Christianity in Rome was established by the Jews.
And none of them were classifed as being the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Protestant church.
The fact is Jerusalem is the home of our risen King. And it was by the Jews that the gospel was spread throughout all the world because of the Holy Spirit that was placed in their hearts that day in Jerusalem.
Hannah @ 251
I see you found the material regarding the 2 covenents made with David.
Very interesting on “prepare a body for me.” Have to give that some more thought, but won’t cancel it out because: In Hebrew and the O.T., scripture, not only would He be our High priest —– there would no longer need to be a system of levitcal priests. Boy, that should throw a wrench in few radiators. Back to topic: scripture tells us that Jesus would not be of the Aaronic Priesthood, but rather after the order of Melchizedek (c).
Meaning, He would not have a mother or a father (bloodline).
Hebrews, Chapter 7
King James Version
7 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Thanks Hannah, this helped me to figure out something —- Thanks, God ( whistling)!!
Alex @ 250 and Andy
There are works of the flesh and works of the spirit.
The first is to earn or to balance that which we have done wrong and/or what we do wrong.
The second has to do with the natural outflowing of being born again.
See Ephesians, Chapter 2:8-10
For instance, if I say to myself that I need to give you some money so that you can pay your rent. I could be doing it a a work or the flesh or a work of the spirit, depending on the motives of my heart. God could have layed on my heart to help you out and I simply obeyed him. Or I could l give you the money, because of so many other reasons that would not have anything at all with just loving the Lord and doing what He has enabled me to do.
Being in the Lord, having the Holy Spirit enables me to have a mindset like Christ, seeing people the way He sees them and looking at things the way He see them. It’s a changed heart wrought by God’s grace that equips me to do the good works that He’s ordained before time—-that’s all. It does save me, but it certainly is an outpouring of evidence that I am saved. And if their is no evidence, then your faith is dead. As James explain to us.
Sorry, alot of typos again.
Alex @ 250 and Andy
There are works of the flesh and works of the spirit.
The first is to earn or to balance that which we have done wrong and/or what we do, do wrong. You know, cheat, lie, still, call people names, be mean minded, etc.
The second has to do with the natural outflowing of being born again.
See Ephesians, Chapter 2:8-10
For instance, if I say to myself that I need to give you some money so that you can pay your rent. I could be doing it as a work or the flesh or as a work of the spirit, depending on the motives of my heart. God could have layed this on my heart to help you out and I simply choose to obey him. Or I could l give you the money, because of so many other reasons that would not have anything at all to do with just loving the Lord and doing what He has enabled me to do. I could be doing it because I want everyone to see me as good guy. I could be doing this to then be able to tell everyone how much I helped you or because I needed an excuse to hold you hostage or make up the times I used money to cheat on my wife instead. Or I could do this because I simply feel compelled out of the love I have for the Lord to do this and I’m trusting that God will provide for me when I might need help one day as well.
Being in the Lord, having the Holy Spirit enables me to have a mindset like Christ, seeing people the way He sees them and looking at things the way He see them. It’s a changed heart wrought by God’s grace that equips me to do the good works that He’s ordained before time—-that’s all. It does not save me, but it certainly is an outpouring of evidence that I am saved. And if their is no evidence, then your faith is dead. As James explain to us.
So if this is not happening, you will know because you know what you are doing that is in the flesh and you know if you are sowing the fruit from the good works that God has enabled you to do, mentally, spritually, emotionally, physically, enconomically, and sexually. Like He said, love Him wiith all of your heart, mind, body, soul, and strength, and love others as much as you love yourself (in Him, that is). Love is a verb. It is a choice. Love can mean saying, No, that is not scriptural and this is why. Love is speaking the truth, even it means that those things hidden will be exposed. Love is not an emotion, nor is it passive—it is the heart and mind of the Lord.
But it is never a lie, or a false doctrine, or anything that would distract or steer away from the Word of God and that which He would have us to know and to do accordingly. Particularly, it is never replacing Jesus, by any other means or any other person for that is idolatry and will surely cause you to preach a different gospel and a different Jesus.
Good Works are of the Lord, if it was not so, He would not have told us this.
The Bible is not that difficult to understand—not really.
Alex @271
RCC = Works to be Saved
Bible = Works as evidence of the Holy Spirit as a result of being saved. .
The first is done out of a self serving motive—it fleshly, “must do in order to.”
The second is done as a result a natural outpouring of one’s love for God: Agape. I want to do, I cannot help but do, I am comple out of the love of my heart towards God to do.
Correction: “comle” should be “compeled” or “led” or “convicted” but not out of fear of man, but of the Holy Spirits’s nudging of my heart to do.
@282
1 Corinthians Chapter 3:2
New King James Version (NKJV)
2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;
2 Tim, Chapter 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Doug, and whose knowledge in scripture would you accept, besides your own?
What Church are you align with that also buys into catholic teachings? There many factions out there that may not be Catholic entirely, but close enough to ride the wind. I think it was you that had referenced some Anglican author, much earlier in this thread, if my memory serves me right. Oh that’s right it was on the site you set up that provided all the tapes you did on “heretical” teaching of CC/Smith.
Not that he doesn’t have anything worth while to say–just interesting he was the bishop of an Anglican Catholic church. Hmmmm.
“Barnabus and Paul were both from Jerusalem.”
I thought he was Paul of Tarsus?
Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man [which am] a Jew of Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Paul was also a citizen of Rome due to his bnirthright.
Ur – “I think it was you that had referenced some Anglican author, much earlier in this thread, if my memory serves me right. Oh that’s right it was on the site you set up that provided all the tapes you did on “heretical” teaching of CC/Smith. Not that he doesn’t have anything worth while to say–just interesting he was the bishop of an Anglican Catholic church. Hmmmm.”
Same old fallacy of guilty by association.
I think you’d find NT Wright to be considered as a New Testament scholar widely outside of the Church of England. In fact, if you watch any of the history channel shows on Jesus they bring out the heretic John Dominic Crossan and other Jesus Seminar nuts but bring on Wright as the Christian counterpoint.
But you’d have to be learning at a level way above John McArthur tapes to encounter someone like Wright.
Feeling disappointed that after dozens of posts Hannah folds on one fairly easy question and now doesn’t want to defend what she believes is right.
“but I don’t see him an an authority on anything in particular or all that knowledgable on any of these matters.”
And what would constitute being an authority to you?
For the Bible teaches us that Jesus told us that He would send His Holy Spirit to:
John, Chapter 16, beginning at verse 7
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.[c]
Then in 1 John, Chapter 2:27 NKJV
27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will[a] abide in Him.
Then in Acts, Chapter 17:11
These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Doug, I find you to be rather condescending to those that have opposed you efforts to justify Catholicism and to make this irrelevant to what has also taken place in CC. I believe it was William Saunders, then D.A. Armstrong that drew our attention to the two. Alex has helped to also tie the two together. But, you have dug your heels in deep by saying alot of things that is typical for one to say when you don’t like hearing what we have shared about a group that they may be sympathetic to.
That is most unfortunate for all concern. But it still does not negate the facts that have been presented. Knowing the esentials of basic Christianity is important as it gives us framework to work within. But when we go beyond that and start adding or taking away from scripture in order to accommodate a particular group, then we are in error. To say, a church holds to these doctrinal statements but practices things that are oppose to it, dissolves the validity in what claim to stand upon. You know this, but I guess we all need to be reminded of this from time to time.
To say that you need to talk our language insinuating that you need to be on a lesser level of intelligence comes across as being a bit arrogant and not at all in the spirit of the Lord. In the event, that you are accustom to speaking more academically concerning these matters, then that is what you should have done for I am certain there are those who are able to comprehend this and who can go toe to toe with you if they so choose to do. But, one must ask themselves in doing this—for what purpose does that serve, when God’s Word does not even do this? Oh, for those who do not have the Holy Spirit, God’s Word may seem a bit befuddling or nonsensical or even secondary to what appears to be far more intellectually stimulating, but for those who do have the Holy Spirit, it is rich and with such substance that the heart is overwhelmed at times and the mind is in awe of the truths that consistently bears itself out.
In part, my heart is saddened over the lack of being able to find some common ground and agreement with you. At the same time, I feel within in me a growing inpatience with you that I am asking the Lord to calm so that I can hear His spirit speak wisdom into my heart in bringing reason and truth to the table here with all. I do not pretend to have all the answers but what I do know it is no good, unless I buy up the opportunity when it comes knocking on my door. For I would be remissed in not doing so then find myself standing before the Lord and having to give an answer for permitting such heritical statements to go unnoticed. If this offends you, I pray that it offends you enough to search out beyond what you have bought into. You have a terrible propensity to want to put everything in its little box and expect everyone else to do likewise as well. Exmaple: “either you are protestant, RCC or orthodox. And anything beyond that, well then you are schizmatic. My Bible does not say that, and neither does yours.
I am not bound by these 3 groups or any of the subsets or offshoots of them. I am in Christ Jesus and in that I take confidence. Now, at the same time I will acknowledge that humans like to have everything nice and neat, categorized, and easily able to identify. But in these terms, it is not the wisest thing to do, for then we get caught up saying that we are of this or we are of that, when in biblical truth, we are who are in Christ, Jesus are in Him, and in Him alone and everything else is just a shadow of what His word and the Holy Spirit bears witness to us. If it tells me, we should not pray for or to the dead, then we are not to pray for or to the dead. If it tells me to not to even pray to the angels, then I am not to even pray to even the most honored of all saints. If it tells me that I am not to work my way into the good grace of God, then it means that there must be something that I am missing if I am doing this. If it tells me that all have sin and come short of the glory of God , saved one called Jesus, then that means Mary is not anyone that is more special than anyone else as what she did was to be obedient, but even more her heart was right so that she could do the “good work” that God had prepared in her heart to do, a very long time ago. And that we too, can do these things as we surrender our hearts in submission and obedience to His word.
But when that which claims to be of the Lord does not abide by scripture and practices such things that is clearly forbidden, then make arguments to twist and to confuse others on what the normal understanding of scirpture is to be then that is misleading and misrepresenting the gospel message and robbing people of the truth, the way, and the life in Jesus and must be brought into the light and exposed.
I’m done for now . . . . . . . .
“So, Hannah, now that I have answered how a RCC person might justify their teaching of the Assumption of Mary, will you answer my question about how Elizabeth called Mary the Mother of her Lord? If Mary isn’t the Mother of the Lord, then how could Elizabeth say that? Was Elizabeth incorrect?”
Doug- You may have answered the question, but I don’t buy it.
If you were to be honest, you know that you are not reading anything I am posting on the subject “Lord”.
I really believe that your attack is a spiritual attack that I really don’t need to be a part of. If you are intent on claiming victory because I won’t waste any more time on this, so be it. Give yourself a pat on the back.
#229 Grateful
It’s a good thing you were denied the wafer.
You would have to believe that Jesus came down from heaven, (at the beckoning and authority of the Priest, through specific ritual, through the Catholic church) and ACTUALLY replaced the wafer with his body. (Actually, by a MIRACLE the substance of the wafer is no longer a wafer but the body of Christ aka Transubstantiation)…In Latin, the Priest holds up the wafer and makes this statement.
Anything left of Jesus is then placed in the Eucharist receptacle.
It is not communion as per the Bible, it is a man made religious act that denies the finished work of Christ on the cross. If you do not belioeve that this wafer is not Jesus, you are anathema. Do you want me to get the specific mention of this in the latest Catechism?
Jesus died on the cross.
In the Mass, he is sacrificed repeatedly, because his FINISHED work on the cross was not sufficient to save sinners according to the works based RCC.
BTW, my parents are not allowed to take communion in any other church but the Catholic church, and we are also denied communion at their RCC. (not that I would want to partake of it)
But if we “return” to the true Mother church, and convert, and repent of our Protestantism, we can then take communion. But we would have to go to Mass every week, confess beforehand to a Priest, and have absolution of our sins with a few Hail Marys.
People, why aren’t you outraged over this???
BTW, the Mass is the entire basis for the Catholic faith.
It is not communion, it is re-sacrifice.
The Mass is all about the wafer. The wafer IS jesus.
Notice the small “j”.
What is going on there is not communion.
People need to know this and study the “Mass”
There is no righteousness AT ALL in this system without the partaking of the Mass.
The Mass is REQUIRED (among other things.)
It is interesting to me that Protestants, born again people are defending a faith that curses them. Sure, in the recent yrs the Pope has repented,but it is official dogma. If he is the greatest Prophet we have, being a successor of Peter, and he was wrong, what does that make him? A false Prophet. What does the Bible say about False Prophets??
I urge everyone here who is defending the RCC to read this.
This woman is a former Catholic nun.
I will be gone for the day (as I was yesterday-Doug)
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/catholicconcerns.html
It seems like some of these things is more like what the church of Satan would come up with to mock God.
Re-sacrifice Jesus every week
Then drink His Blood and eat His flesh (actually not figuratively)
Put the bread in a monstrance and then worship it
Call men your spiritual father directly against Jesus saying not to
Force Men and women to not marry and remain celibate to serve (no wonder there is so much sexual sin)
Teach millions to pray to Mary for salvation (sending them to hell because it is not the gospel)
Doug @ 331
Your site recommended a total of 5 books by him. I would say that you are pretty much into him. IMO
Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Benedict issues statement asserting that Jesus established ‘only one church’
(Excerpts from msnbc article)
Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.
In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-other-denominations-not-true-churches/#.UQWk8R2Yu8B
After receiving criticism for the above statement ‘Dominus Iesus’ John Paul II said
1. Concerning salvation:
In response to these criticisms, Pope John Paul II on October 2 of that year emphasized that this document did not say that non-Christians were denied salvation: “This confession does not deny salvation to non-Christians, but points to its ultimate source in Christ, in whom man and God are united.” John Paul II then issued on December 6 a statement to emphasize further that the Church continued in the position of Vatican II that salvation was available to believers of other faiths:
“The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes – the poor in spirit, the pure of heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life – will enter God’s kingdom.”[5]
2. Concerning building the “kingdom”:
He further added,
“All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and his Church, contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this kingdom.”[6]
(Q comment) Sounds likes works to me.
Uriah @296 Wasn’t God able to create Adam without a woman’s egg? Why would he has to use Mary’s egg for Jesus to be “fully man” ?
Uriah @ 313- I agree with your sentiments towards Doug. It is baiting and attack. There is also what I find to be a disrespect towards women. I am not sure where that comes from. And I agree with you that it is a form of abuse. And God is not behind that. Uriah, you have put mich time and thought into your posts. I glanced quickly over them but will spend more time tonite.
I just didnt want to pass over your comments without responding.
Q@ 270- That was a very good synposis and I hope everyone watches is. It is worth the 5 minutes. Love The Who! Also, I wrote down these comments that stood out:
“The Church system is not the way to God..Jesus is (AMEN!)
Q-
Most important quote from the Pope RE: your article:
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.
+++++++
Any ecumenical meetings are only to get everyone back tot he TRUE (RC) church.
So, according to the Pope, Doug is not part of the church.
Doug @ 310
Okay, after this I’m giving myself a rest. There are things that you do not understand about Judaism. The most important is that no matter where we might live in all the world, we share a duel citizenship. That is, always, but always, our home is in Israel. Our primary place or center of worship is Jerusalem. We are the people of exile, through slavery or dispersion. But we always claim Israel as our nation, our land, our country, the covenant made by God through all our Fathers, the prophets, and priests.
Isaiah, Chapter 43:5
Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west.
6
I will say to the north, `Give them up!’ and to the south, `Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth-
In Isaiah, Chapter 43:5-6, the prophet said that the people of Israel would return to their homeland from the east, the west, the north and the south. Isaiah lived 2700 years ago. Beginning at that time, a succession of empires conquered the land of Israel and forced many into exile. This led to a worldwide scattering of Jews. But, during the past century, millions have returned to Israel.-
Jeremiah, Chapter 23:3-6
“I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,” declares the Lord. “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness.
So in all likelihood any Jew living in Rome or Greece was there as a result of being taken captive at sometime in their family history. In Rome, there was a law that a Jewish slave could be set free after a given number of years. They were called libertini.
As for Paul, both of his parents were Jews, however, the father held Roman citizenship, meaning he had either been a slave or bought his citizenship. But by no means did he ever give up his national citizenship as a Jew, particularly if he was a pharisee himself which I believe was mention in Acts, Chapter 23 or there about.
The tribe of a Jewish child at that time was determined by the Father. The nationality by the mother. Paul was a Benjamite or from the tribe of Benjamin. A native of Tarsus (Saul), Cilicia, and was born about A.D. 5, a free Roman Citizen (by descent of his father),. He had a sister and a nephew living in Jerusalem, as they were mentioned when the Jews plotted to kill him just after he was arrested there and was then ordered to be taken to Rome. Paul was a stickler for the Moses law and obviously knew the Roman law as well.
Josephus (37 – c. 100 CE), himself a Pharisee, claimed that the Pharisees received the backing and goodwill of the common people, apparently in contrast to the more elite Sadducees. Pharisees claimed prophetic or Mosaic authority for their interpretation[2] of Jewish laws, while the Sadducees represented the authority of the priestly privileges and prerogatives established since the days of Solomon, when Zadok, their ancestor (disputed; see Sadducees), officiated as High Priest. Josephus’ statement ‘common people’ strongly indicates that most Jews were ‘just Jewish people’ by separating them, and making them independent of the main liturgical groups. The New Testament also makes common reference to the common people indicating that the Jewish identity was independent and stronger than these groups. In his Epistle to the Philippians, Paul of Tarsus claims that changing liturgical sects in the Diaspora had occurred while still identifying oneself as ‘Jewish’ or ‘Hebrew’ ‘circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, I am a Pharisee’, but the position of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still disputed.
Paul studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem as a young adult. It is estimated that he was in Jerusalem before the stoning of Stevens 10-15 years, as it would take that long to have worked his way through his education to become a pharisee or rabbi, himself. Saulus was an intermediary between the Chief Priests and the Pharisees, the Herodian king and the Romans, a role that would have him seen in an unsavoury light by Jews and Christians alike. It was and is a custom to raise up a son in his father’s profession, so he learned to make tents. And during this is how he supported himself while being sent to preach the good news to the gentiles. Paul could not stay in Jerusalem as he was so hated and feared by Jews and the Christian Jews alike for respective reasons. Later, Christian Jews did take to him, but due to the diplomatic skills and encourgement of Peter and Barnabus.
Paul had automatic citizenship in Israel just as any Jew had. Jesus changed his name to Paul—-He was a Jew by birth, by heritage, by His mother and by promise. He was a Roman citizen by his father by law.
1.^ Jewishvirtuallibrary.org
2.^ Ber. 48b; Shab. 14b; Yoma 80a; Yeb. 16a; Nazir 53a; Ḥul. 137b; et al.)
3.^ a b Matthew 3:1–7,Luke 7:28–30
4.^ a b Apostle Paul as a Pharisee Acts 26:5 9 See also Acts 23:6 9,Philippians 3:5 9
5.^ Klein, Ernest (1987). A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English. City: University of Haifa. ISBN 965-220-093-X.
6.^ Hebrew word #6567 in Strong’s
7.^ Greek word #5330 in Strong’s
8.^ Ant. 18.9
9.^ The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. by Michael D Coogan. Pub. by Oxford University Press, 1999. pg 350
10.^ Jeremiah 52:28–30
11.^ See Nehemiah 8:1–18.
And so pertaining to H.T. Wright vs Mac Arthur you are saying that because he wrote a lot of books, was a teacher, and received by many other theologians outside of England, he is to be more creditable than John Mac Arthur. Wow, a true respector of persons. As for me, I don’t care if its a child, woman, or an Ass that God uses to speak His truth. As long as it lines up with all of scripture, that’s good enough for me.
Stuck in Moderation: This time left the footnotes out that cited scriptures.
Doug @ 310
Okay, after this I’m giving myself a rest. There are things that you do not understand about Judaism. The most important is that no matter where we might live in all the world, we share a duel citizenship. That is, always, but always, our home is in Israel. Our primary place or center of worship is Jerusalem. We are the people of exile, through slavery or dispersion. But we always claim Israel as our nation, our land, our country, the covenant made by God through all our Fathers, the prophets, and priests.
Isaiah, Chapter 43:5
Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west.
6
I will say to the north, `Give them up!’ and to the south, `Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth-
In Isaiah, Chapter 43:5-6, the prophet said that the people of Israel would return to their homeland from the east, the west, the north and the south. Isaiah lived 2700 years ago. Beginning at that time, a succession of empires conquered the land of Israel and forced many into exile. This led to a worldwide scattering of Jews. But, during the past century, millions have returned to Israel.-
Jeremiah, Chapter 23:3-6
“I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,” declares the Lord. “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness.
So in all likelihood any Jew living in Rome or Greece was there as a result of being taken captive at sometime in their family history. In Rome, there was a law that a Jewish slave could be set free after a given number of years. They were called libertini.
As for Paul, both of his parents were Jews, however, the father held Roman citizenship, meaning he had either been a slave or bought his citizenship. But by no means did he ever give up his national citizenship as a Jew, particularly if he was a pharisee himself which I believe was mention in Acts, Chapter 23 or there about.
The tribe of a Jewish child at that time was determined by the Father. The nationality by the mother. Paul was a Benjamite or from the tribe of Benjamin. A native of Tarsus (Saul), Cilicia, and was born about A.D. 5, a free Roman Citizen (by descent of his father),. He had a sister and a nephew living in Jerusalem, as they were mentioned when the Jews plotted to kill him just after he was arrested there and was then ordered to be taken to Rome. Paul was a stickler for the Moses law and obviously knew the Roman law as well.
Josephus (37 – c. 100 CE), himself a Pharisee, claimed that the Pharisees received the backing and goodwill of the common people, apparently in contrast to the more elite Sadducees. Pharisees claimed prophetic or Mosaic authority for their interpretation[2] of Jewish laws, while the Sadducees represented the authority of the priestly privileges and prerogatives established since the days of Solomon, when Zadok, their ancestor (disputed; see Sadducees), officiated as High Priest. Josephus’ statement ‘common people’ strongly indicates that most Jews were ‘just Jewish people’ by separating them, and making them independent of the main liturgical groups. The New Testament also makes common reference to the common people indicating that the Jewish identity was independent and stronger than these groups. In his Epistle to the Philippians, Paul of Tarsus claims that changing liturgical sects in the Diaspora had occurred while still identifying oneself as ‘Jewish’ or ‘Hebrew’ ‘circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, I am a Pharisee’, but the position of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still disputed.
Paul studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem as a young adult. It is estimated that he was in Jerusalem before the stoning of Stevens 10-15 years, as it would take that long to have worked his way through his education to become a pharisee or rabbi, himself. Saulus was an intermediary between the Chief Priests and the Pharisees, the Herodian king and the Romans, a role that would have him seen in an unsavoury light by Jews and Christians alike. It was and is a custom to raise up a son in his father’s profession, so he learned to make tents. And during this is how he supported himself while being sent to preach the good news to the gentiles. Paul could not stay in Jerusalem as he was so hated and feared by Jews and the Christian Jews alike for respective reasons. Later, Christian Jews did take to him, but due to the diplomatic skills and encourgement of Peter and Barnabus.
Paul had automatic citizenship in Israel just as any Jew had. Jesus changed his name to Paul—-He was a Jew by birth, by heritage, by His mother and by promise. He was a Roman citizen by his father by law.
And so pertaining to H.T. Wright vs Mac Arthur you are saying that because he wrote a lot of books, was a teacher, and received by many other theologians outside of England, he is to be more creditable than John Mac Arthur. Wow, a true respector of persons. As for me, I don’t care if its a child, woman, or an Ass that God uses to speak His truth. As long as it lines up with all of scripture, that’s good enough for me.
“Doug @ 331 – Your site recommended a total of 5 books by him. I would say that you are pretty much into him. IMO”
That’s all? I will need to review the site and include many more references to Dr. NT Wright. Here’s his CV if you want to try and understand the difference between Dr Wright and someone like John McArthur.
http://ntwrightpage.com/NTW_WebCV.htm
“It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.””
In the case of Calvary Chapel he is right. They don’t have the marks of a true church.
“I agree with your sentiments towards Doug. It is baiting and attack. There is also what I find to be a disrespect towards women. I am not sure where that comes from”
I believe that ideas (good or bad) don’t have a gender. I probably am different than other men because I won’t cut you a break just because you are a woman. I think if you are going to dialog with someone that is the best form of respect – not to be deferential or condescending due to gender but to engage someone else’s ideas.
The problem isn’t your gender. It’s your doctrine. It’s pretty bad and you seem to be spending all of your energy on refuting Catholicism. In the end, I see you throwing out the Christian baby just because it’s in the Catholic water. Not you say you won’t dialog with me and then post several public attacks on me.
“Doug, I find you to be rather condescending to those that have opposed you efforts to justify Catholicism and to make this irrelevant to what has also taken place in CC.”
LOL. That’s rich.
UR, I have to tell you if you post something more than a half a screen I just don’t read it. Particularly if it’s a copy paste of some other article or even a long copy/paste of some Scripture. My guess is that nobody reads a long post since there’s really no conversation there, just monologue.
Hannah @ 314 “I really believe that your attack is a spiritual attack that I really don’t need to be a part of.”
Hannah @ 318 “I will be gone for the day (as I was yesterday-Doug)”
Hannah @ 323 “Uriah @ 313- I agree with your sentiments towards Doug. It is baiting and attack”
Hannah @ 324 “So, according to the Pope, Doug is not part of the church.”
So which is it, Hannah? Are you going to dialog with me or just continue to monologue against me?
“Doug- You may have answered the question, but I don’t buy it.”
As I said I don’t buy the explanation either, but it does have enough explanatory power to deal with the question. I did demonstrate that your claim that the RCC position is unscriptural is not true. It may not be in Scripture, but it’s not at all contrary to Scripture.
“If you were to be honest, you know that you are not reading anything I am posting on the subject “Lord”.”
No, I’ve read it all. It just hasn’t yet dealt with Elizabeth who called Mary the Mother of her Lord, IE, the Mother of God.
“You would have to believe that Jesus came down from heaven, (at the beckoning and authority of the Priest, through specific ritual, through the Catholic church) and ACTUALLY replaced the wafer with his body.”
No, you wouldn’t have had to believe anything more than “This is my body” and “this is my blood” as many fellow Protestants do who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
You don’t have to believe that Jesus came down from Heaven either. He’s God so He’s already here. As God Jesus is Omnipresent. Nothing about coming down from Heaven needed…
“Do you want me to get the specific mention of this in the latest Catechism?”
That would be preferable to misrepresentation…
“BTW, the Mass is the entire basis for the Catholic faith.”
Not anywhere near true.
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
Doug-First of all, I spent some time on Youtube watching your idol today so now I understand entirely where you are coming from.
I really dont get what the issue is with “Lord”. I have never said that Jesus is not Lord. Anyway, if you want to have a conversation about the word “Lord”, Sarah called Abraham” Lord”. Rather than hunt me down over this, why don’t you let me know what the point is?
I am not goign to entertain this cat and mouse chase that will satisfy some kind of challenge for you. Since you are accusing me of misrepresentation, here it is.
I dont suppose you would buy any of the books I can recommend, and you already seem to be in the Anglican church, against the rapture, against the Millenial reign of Christ on earth. Against God’s covenant promise to Israel, etc…, what is the point of an argument with you?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist (communion wafer) are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.” (An exhausted definition of “Anathema” = To be damned and put to death) p.79, Canon 1.
By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651). From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.1413
1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing180) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
“Doug-First of all, I spent some time on Youtube watching your idol today so now I understand entirely where you are coming from. ”
Awesome, you must be a genius and me a total idiot since I’ve spent years studying NT Wright’s books and I barely get it.
Well Doug, ask the Holy Spirit to help you
The Mass as “Unbloody Sacrifice”:
Very early on, the Church saw the Mass as a mystical reality in which the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is renewed. Responding to Protestant sects who denied that the Eucharist is anything more than a memorial, the Council of Trent (1545-63) declared that “The same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, is present and offered in an unbloody manner” in the Mass.
This does not mean, as some critics of Catholicism claim, that the Church teaches that, in the Mass, we sacrifice Christ again. Rather, the original sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is presented to us once more.
The Mass as a Re-presentation of the Crucifixion:
This re-presentation, as Fr. John Hardon notes in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary, “means that because Christ is really present in his humanity, in heaven and on the altar, he is capable now as he was on Good Friday of freely offering himself to the Father.” This understanding of the Mass hinges on the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Christ is truly present on the altar. If the bread and wine remained merely symbols, the Mass could still be a memorial of the Last Supper, but not a re-presentation of the Crucifixion.
The Mass as Memorial and Sacred Banquet:
While the Mass is more than a memorial, it is still a memorial as well as a sacrifice. The Mass is the Church’s way of fulfilling Christ’s command, at the Last Supper, to “Do this in remembrance of Me.” As a memorial of the Last Supper, the Mass is also a sacred banquet, in which the faithful participate both through their presence and their role in the liturgy and through the reception of Holy Communion, the Body and Blood of Christ.
While it is not necessary to receive Communion in order to fulfill our Sunday obligation, the Church recommends frequent reception (along with sacramental Confession).
The Mass as an Application of the Merits of Christ:
“Christ,” Father Hardon writes, “won for the world all the graces it needs for salvation and sanctification.” In other words, in His Sacrifice on the Cross, Christ reversed Adam’s sin. In order for us to see the effects of that reversal, however, we must accept Christ’s offer of salvation and grow in sanctification. Our participation in the Mass, and our frequent reception of Holy Communion, brings us the grace that Christ merited for the world through His unselfish Sacrifice on the Cross.
======================
Some truth and a lot of lies.
“I really dont get what the issue is with “Lord”. I have never said that Jesus is not Lord. Anyway, if you want to have a conversation about the word “Lord”, Sarah called Abraham” Lord”. Rather than hunt me down over this, why don’t you let me know what the point is? ”
Sarah referred to her husband as her Lord indicating her submission to Abraham. Nobody would ever refer to someone else as their Lord if that person didn’t see the person as in authority over them.
Elizabeth referred to Jesus as the Lord. a clear reference to the Deity of Jesus who is the LORD. Look up kurios in a Greek Concordance. It’s a reference to the LORD (ie, God).
Elizabeth referred to Mary as the Mother of God. If it’s good enough for Elizabeth, it’s good enough for me. Mary is the Mother of God.
When did I say Jesus was not Lord?
All I said was that it was not Mary’s egg and that she was the carrier and mother of Jesus.
I think you are purposely confusing the issue and diverting attention from my others posts that challenged you.
So you just passed over everything else about the Mass?
Jesus is not LORD.
Thats Yahweh.
He is Lord.
You ought to know better Doug
Once again—
Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?
For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin – Romans 5:12-19). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.
•
Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator (John 1).
•
Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary’s womb (Hebrews 10:5—“…a body hast thou prepared me…”). This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29). (For further explanation, see: CREATION AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH and WHEN GOD BECAME MAN]
Oy vey!
345 in moderation
“I dont suppose you would buy any of the books I can recommend, ”
I probably already own them. J Dwight Pentecost, and all of the “best” Dispensational authors as recommended by friends over the years who are Dispensationalists. I don’t buy the arguments because they don’t take into account the fullness of the Scriptures.
“and you already seem to be in the Anglican church,”
I’ve only been to one C of E service and that was in London 10 years ago where I got to hear NT Wright preach on the resurrection at Westminster Cathedral the week after Easter. It was a special moment for me because I got to meet Dr Wright who laid hands on me and prayed for my ministry. So, not I’m definitely not Anglican nor Anglo-Catholic as Ur and yo have wrongly claimed.
I just appreciate good scholarship and Dr Wright is one of the best out there.
“against the rapture”
The pre-trib rapture is a false doctrine invented in the 1820s which has deceived much of the Evangelical world but is in serious decline (outside of CC where it still reigns supreme).
“against the Millenial reign of Christ on earth. ”
I am totally for the millennial reign of Christ. Just not for the Dispensational distortions of Matt 24 and Rev 20.
“Against God’s covenant promise to Israel, etc…”
All of the promises of God are in Christ as the Scripture clearly states:
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, [even] by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
“, what is the point of an argument with you? ”
You might come to a knowledge of the truth or convert me to your view? Why warn some non-existent Catholics (none here that I can see) when you can dialog with someone who holds a different view.
“I dont suppose you would buy any of the books I can recommend, ”
I probably already own them. J Dwight Pentecost, and all of the “best” Dispensational authors as recommended by friends over the years who are Dispensationalists. I don’t buy the arguments because they don’t take into account the fullness of the Scriptures.
“and you already seem to be in the Anglican church,”
I’ve only been to one C of E service and that was in London 10 years ago where I got to hear NT Wright preach on the resurrection at Westminster Cathedral the week after Easter. It was a special moment for me because I got to meet Dr Wright who laid hands on me and prayed for my ministry. So, not I’m definitely not Anglican nor Anglo-Catholic as Ur and yo have wrongly claimed.
I just appreciate good scholarship and Dr Wright is one of the best out there.
“against the rapture”
The pre-trib rapture is a false doctrine invented in the 1820s which has deceived much of the Evangelical world but is in serious decline (outside of CC where it still reigns supreme).
“against the Millenial reign of Christ on earth. ”
I am totally for the millennial reign of Christ. Just not for the Dispensational distortions of Matthew 24 and Revelation 20.
“Against God’s covenant promise to Israel, etc…”
All of the promises of God are in Christ as the Scripture clearly states:
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, [even] by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
“, what is the point of an argument with you? ”
You might come to a knowledge of the truth or convert me to your view? Why warn some non-existent Catholics (none here that I can see) when you can dialog with someone who holds a different view.
“I dont suppose you would buy any of the books I can recommend, ”
I probably already own them. J Dwight Pentecost, and all of the “best” Dispensational authors as recommended by friends over the years who are Dispensationalists. I don’t buy the arguments because they don’t take into account the fullness of the Scriptures.
“and you already seem to be in the Anglican church,”
I’ve only been to one C of E service and that was in London 10 years ago where I got to hear NT Wright preach on the resurrection at Westminster Cathedral the week after Easter. It was a special moment for me because I got to meet Dr Wright who laid hands on me and prayed for my ministry. So, not I’m definitely not Anglican nor Anglo-Catholic as Ur and yo have wrongly claimed.
I just appreciate good scholarship and Dr Wright is one of the best out there.
“against the rapture”
The pre-trib rapture is a false doctrine invented in the 1820s which has deceived much of the Evangelical world but is in serious decline (outside of CC where it still reigns supreme).
“against the Millenial reign of Christ on earth. ”
I am totally for the millennial reign of Christ. Just not for the Dispensational distortions of Matthew chapter 24 and Revelation chapter 20.
“Against God’s covenant promise to Israel, etc…”
All of the promises of God are in Christ as the Scripture clearly states:
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, [even] by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
“, what is the point of an argument with you? ”
You might come to a knowledge of the truth or convert me to your view? Why warn some non-existent Catholics (none here that I can see) when you can dialog with someone who holds a different view.
Repeat of #250
Doug- Did you read it?
Signing off .
Hannah – “Jesus is not LORD.”
Are you a Christian? No offense intended but no Christian can say that…
“You might come to a knowledge of the truth…….oh, really?
or convert me to your view?…sure!! Ha!
Capital L-O-R-D= Yahweh (The Father)
Didn’t you know that?
LORD=YAHWEH= God the Father
Lord= Jesus/Son
@343 – “When did I say Jesus was not Lord?”
@344 “Jesus is not LORD.”
Doug- I think you really have a problem here.
It’s not possible that you don’t get it.
I’m convinced you are just playing with my head now. Signing off.
Seriously, Hannah, are you a Christian? If not that’s OK. Maybe you are a Jehovah’s Witness. because you are arguing for a JW doctrine If so, I’d like to share with you the true Jesus and the true Gospel.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/527-is-jesus-jehovah
Ya, I read #250. It’s crap. Henry Morris is neither a scientist nor a theologian. This is the sort of garbage you hear at Calvary Chapel where Morris is appreciated.
Jesus was born of the seed of a woman. He crushed the head of the serpent. He wasn’t some specially created being put into Mary as if she was some sort of surrogate. Mary was, as the Scripture says, His mother.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
conceived… not planted… but conceived…
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
How much more clear could Scripture be? Not a surrogate, but the Mother of God’s Son, the Mother of God.
“Didn’t you know that?
LORD=YAHWEH= God the Father
Lord= Jesus/Son”
Since I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness I don’t agree.
Jesus is Jehovah – YAHWEH.
Hannah, allow me the honor of introducing you to Jesus -
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
@ 359
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heAw4z71lvo
I believe NT Wright is advocating ‘new spirituality’ (spiritual formation) and a gospel that is truncated if it does not include the social gospel and the building of the kingdom of God on earth which has been the RCC goal for ages, Calvin attempted the same thing in Geneva as a protestant, the church rules and the government is supposed to enforces, hence ruled over the kings of the earth.
Calvary is on board the ecumenical movement-
Calvary Chapel’s Chuck Smith Says “You Know Catholics Are Basically Christians Too”
http://www.spiritual-researcnetwork.com/chuck_smith_catholics_basically_christians.html
As is Billy Graham when he said that him and John Paul II agree on most everything, that other faiths will be saved whether they have ever heard of Jesus or not because they walk towards the light they have whether Muslim or Hindu, same as Rick Warren and Greg Laurie, fix the world, take over the world, be missional (show everyone how it’s cool to be a Christian) instead of preach the gospel and be separate it’s bring peace but that contradicts scripture.
So NT Wright and Calvary Chapel actually have much in common if it is coming from Chuck Smith or Brain Broderson.
Doug G
“So, not I’m definitely not Anglican nor Anglo-Catholic as Ur and yo have wrongly claimed.
Never said you were. What I stated was that you appear to be sympathetic to Catholicism and since you stated that you were not Catholic, I then ask if you attended a church that was akin to the Catholic church due to your admiration of N.T. Wright.
Hannah,
Reading through the LORD and Lord—–have to ask you if you are Jehovah Witness, because this is the argument they use. Doug is correct the scripture he referenced regarding Jesus being God and Mary being his mother.
Hannah,
Just read back on the comments. Doug G. does not want to talk about RCC—not really because he is very pro catholic. IMO opinion, it’s just another way that people who don’t want to hear the truth they will blow smoke or get you to focus on one item that really misses the whole point of it all.
As for the stuff regarding Jesus dual nature—-and parentage, I certainly hope that you are not Jehovah Witness and I don’t think you are because I think I remember you saying that you attend John MacArthur’s church, who I know is really good about letting others know the basic information regarding the mainline cults and their brand of jesus.
If you have ever witness to a Mormon then you will know the maze they live in. One rabbit trail after another. They will use the same terms that we, as Christians do, and if you are not familiar with their doctrines and who their jesus is, they will convince you that they are Christians as well. The trouble with catholicism is that they recognize the trinity and lay claim to being the first church, as well as participating in the councils that passed the basic tenets of Christianity. So, that confuses the issues for many, not knowing all the things that you have been faithful to post for us to show us that their gospel is very different from what we are taught through scripture.
I am done with Doug as far as this topic is concern. He does not choose to hear any other than that which is supportive towards Catholicism. All along the way, he kept saying to you and Andy that is would be better for you to fix what is wrong with CC and to stay on topic of what this blog is about. Since he is aligned with the Anglican way of thinking, it surprises me that he doesn’t follow his own suggestion, rather than to come on here to throw darts at CC while there is much to be known about a church that is even more corrupted in their teachings, practices, and thelogy. To me, this is not honorable, but is a way to win people to buying into the Anglican/Catholic theology as a result of good people coming on here as a result of being hurt by CC. To me, that is like a man who will seeminly rescue a person who has been raped,, then turns around and rape them again. And that is wrong—-so thank you Hannah, Andy, Q, Tina and Alex for contributing and being patient with us as we contended for the faith to make sure the vulnerable are not mislead again.
Still need to hear you say, Hannah, you are not a Jehovah Witness—-okay
Doug G
What you stated about Hannah’s ability to get through and understand H. T. Wright is surprising to you as you have been reading his material for some time now and you are still, in my words, grasping the concepts he communicates.
I’ve just spent the last 2 days going through some of his stuff. “Stuff” meaning scholasticism. I had not problem whatsoever in getting through it. But then again, you also did not want to read through any materials that I included. Your excuse was becuase it was not of my own hand, but rather copied and pasted. When I do this, it is because it presents information that is able to counter or support the point I have made and hopefully would have provoke you to think a bit more as either you have presented information that is not entirely accurate and founded upon that which you have limited knowledge in. Example: Jewish traditions and mindset.
N.T. Wright is an intelligent and well studied scholar—but so am I. Perhaps, that is why he was so easy to understand. But I don’t think so because any mature Christian familiar with the basic theological arguments and scripture who does have the Holy Spirit would be able to “get through it.”
Ur,
Wright certainly is scholarly but isn’t part of “scholasticism.” Unless you are misusing the word “scholasticism” to mean something different than the normal meaning of the word.
Two days of reading NT Wright articles on the web and now you are an expert? I don;t see how that is possible. Suggest you pick up “Jesus and the Victory of God” and when you work through the 700+ pages then we can start to talk about Wright’s views on Jesus.
You say you are a “scholar” and were not familiar with Wright, the leading scholar on Jesus? I don;t see how that is possible.
If you get the gist of Wright then I should not expect any more posts about how people in the Jewish religion were trying to gain righteousness through good works.
But, none of this matters. We have someone with JW beliefs here and that should take priority over all other issues.
“Since he is aligned with the Anglican way of thinking”
Huh? Really? Hardly. I am not aligned with the “Anglican way of thinking”. I appreciate one Anglican scholar and now I’m “aligned with the Anglican way of thinking”? You really love to pull out the guilty by association fallacy, don’t you?
“So NT Wright and Calvary Chapel actually have much in common if it is coming from Chuck Smith or Brain Broderson.”
And, the award for Most Superficial Analysis of the BLOG goes out to….
Doug and Uriah-
It has been my understanding, that whenever we see the word LORD in captials in the Bible, that this refers to God the Father andis translated YAHWEH.
I have been trying to remember where and when I learned this.
God the Father is not God the Son. God the Father is not God the Holy Spirit.
Yet they are all God and all one.
Are you saying that God the Father is also Jesus?
Yes, in the fact that they are all God but they have distinct attributes. (notice I didn’t say “persons” because I know I will be attacked for that word)
I posted the fact that if Jesus contained Mary’s DNA it woudl be tainted with sin unless she was decared sinless at conception, which is why the RCC declared her this in the 1900′s.
Please read the DNA article to better understand why it was not her “seed”.
Jesus is God. Mary could not have used her egg for Jesus existed in spirit since the beginning. If it were the case that he had a beginning physically (which we know he appeared as the “Angel of the Lord”, that would negate much that we know from scripture about Jesus.
Before you attack me for being a Jehovah witness, give me a chance please.
Once again—
Although Jesus was clearly legally related to both parents (to Mary, by being born from her, and to Joseph by legal adoption), was he genetically related to them or to his brothers and sisters?
For thousands of years, every human child has been born with an inherited sin nature and sinful flesh This is a result of our sinful first parents, Adam and Eve to whom we are all genetically related. Each generation (without exception) has sinned and passed on its sinful nature and the curse of death, to each succeeding generation (the biblical doctrine of imputation of sin – ). There is only one exception in history. Although Jesus grew in the womb of Mary, in the same manner as any baby, he was different from all other babies. It appears that he was not genetically related to either Mary or Joseph, for both had an inherited sin nature. Jesus was sinless, and one may reasonably assume without genetic flaw, since he was to serve as the spotless and sacrificial Lamb of God.
•
Ever since the Creation, each subsequent life has been created at the moment of conception. Scientifically, the new entity begins at the moment the DNA of man and woman combine. This was not the case with Jesus. As a spirit and part of the Trinity, Jesus existed before the Creation of the world. In fact, John reveals that he is the Creator
•
Furthermore, the physical body of Jesus as born in Bethlehem was clearly a special creation of God, placed in Mary’s womb a body hast thou prepared me…”). This is the biblical doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
Thus, neither Christ’s spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary’s egg or from any man’s sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam. Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sin.. (For further explanation, see: CREATION AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH and WHEN GOD BECAME MAN]
No one wants to comment on this. I posted it again without the scripture references because it is still in moderation from last night. I took out the references.
No comment on this Doug or Uriah?
PS. Who is the “Angel of the LORD’ that appeared and spoke to Abraham, Hagar, David, etc. ? Do a word search and read the verses.
ex: See Genesis 16:7 He spoke as though He were distinct from Yahweh, yet also spoke in the first person as thought he were to be identified as Yahweh Himself. He does not appear after the birth of Christ, and is identified as pre-incarnate Christ.
Sue,
I’m with you. I get sick and tired of the Catholic bashing too. Or any other type of religion bashing for that matter. Worship of the Bible as the fourth person of the Trinity is every bit the invention of man as any other man-made religious system. We would all do well to remove the planks from our own eyes before we set about removing slivers from the eyes of others.
Muff Potter,
So the Bible is not allowed to be used as the final authority? Then something is the final authority, even if you claim that “nothing is the final authority”, then that statement becomes the final authority. Therefore you bash everything except your own opinion, based on such a belief. At least some are just bashing Catholicism. You’re bashing everything in existence, including the Bible.
….whereas for me, the Bible is the final authority.
“Please read the DNA article to better understand why it was not her “seed”.”
I read it. It is false because it contradicts the Bible where it clearly says:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Not only is it unscriptural, it has led to serious heresy, in this case – the denial that Jesus was born from a woman, Mary. The reason you have an issue with the Bible on this subject is that it contradicts your anti-Catholic arguments.
The reason you are stuck on this is that you have bought into the Roman Catholic dogma of original sin. It’s the dogma of original sin which has led to the RCC belief in the Immaculate Conception. They are caught on the same dilemma that you are. Rather than come to the conclusion that Mary may have been a sinner but that doesn’t reflect on Jesus, they choose to place a special grace on Mary. You are stuck with the same problem but you try and solve it by denying the incarnation. Clearly you have made a bad choice.
If I had to choose between the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and your denial of the Incarnation, I’d choose the Catholic doctrine in a minute. However, I don’t accept the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin so I don’t have the same problem you have.
“It has been my understanding, that whenever we see the word LORD in captials in the Bible, that this refers to God the Father andis translated YAHWEH. I have been trying to remember where and when I learned this.”
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They are the heretics which teach this.
Jesus is Jehovah.
Doug
“But, none of this matters. We have someone with JW beliefs here and that should take priority over all other issues.”
This we can agree upon, brother.
Oh, by the way H.T. Wright is only one scholar among many in a variety of camps. You reasoning is illogical to say if a person is not familiar with his works, therefore they must not be scholarly. Nice try but rather thin.
It never ceases to amaze when working through various discussions how truth finds it way and leads us always back to scripture to enable us to discern and flush out that which is so simple to conclude. Jesus is God in the spirit and of the flesh. Fully man and fully God. He was born of a woman and she is his mother, by spirit and by blood. She is a chosen vessel to receive that which is of spirit upon that which is flesh. It is a miracle and like the trinity, is difficult to understand that although Jesus was man, he was also sinless, as he was tempted in all ways, but did not sin but was able as a man to have compassion upon us who were so vile and full of sin to lay His life down to be the final sacrifice for all who would repent and believe. So simple of a message, yet made complicated by hundred of years of scholorly and non scholarly debating.
Hannah, I am so sorry to hear that you are a Jehovah Witness. It confuses me though how you would quote John MacArthur who is clearly not and would take you to task on using his material to then insert the JW’s denial of the person (flesh) of Christ.
No, I do not want to debate about JW’s but I will pray that God opens your eyes to reveal the truth of the trinity to you. And how Jesus can appear as a spirit in the form of an angel, as much as He can be joined with the body of flesh by being born of a woman.
I’m sorry, Hannah—-we agree on Catholicism, but I cannot abide with you beyond that.
An added note to readers of this thread:
The Jehovah Witnesses uses an entirely different Bible, not a translation. You can pick one up at most thrift bookstores and compare the first chapter of John. They speak of an entirely different Jesus than that is decribed in scripture which Doug has shared and that I shared on the trinity.
What more you can also go to Utube and listen to Dr. Walter Martin regarding this cult. You can also visit CARM.org or the Christian Research Institute online and ask any questions you may have. They will be happy to assist you, no matter what faith group you may be involved.
I was so hoping Hannah’s answer would have been different, but I am glad that she chose to let us know. My heart is heavy to say the least.
“Oh, by the way H.T. Wright is only one scholar among many in a variety of camps. You reasoning is illogical to say if a person is not familiar with his works, therefore they must not be scholarly. Nice try but rather thin. ”
That’s twice you have referred to NT Wright as HT Wright.
It is not illogical at all. Anyone who has studied contemporary scholarship on the Quest for the Historical Jesus couldn’t miss him. The Quest for the Historical Jesus has consumed NT scholarship for at least 20 years. If, for instance, you attended a credible seminary in the past 15 years you would have read at least several of Dr NT Wright’s books.
N. T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and one of the world’s leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. For twenty years Wright taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford Universities, and he has been featured on ABC News, Dateline, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air. Wright is the award-winning author of After You Believe, Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, The Challenge of Jesus, and The Meaning of Jesus (coauthored with Marcus Borg), as well as the much-heralded series Christian Origins and the Question of God.
It’s as if I claimed to be knowledgeable about Calvary Chapel and had never heard of Chuck Smith.
Ur, I don’t think she has confessed to being a JW. I think you are misreading her comment.
Hanna, regarding your # 368:
Your point of Adam being the first man and Jesus being the second Adam is a very good one regarding the similarity of them being created (Adam) and born (Jesus) without sin. I had to think a lot to return to my way of thinking that Jesus did come from Mary’s egg. The method of thought that I returned to my way of thinking is the following:
The, “Original Sin” was eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge, not from being born from a human egg being conceived. Adam did not come from the womb of a woman and he was not fully God so that in and of itself shows that the comparison of Jesus being the second Adam is not referring to the exact situation of their way of coming into this world. Mary was a virgin but she was still a human woman with the ability to have eggs. The Bible states that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, (Matt 1:20) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.. Conceiving means that the egg is fertilized. It does not say that “God placed an already conceived egg in Mary”. It is my opinion that the similarity of Jesus and Adam is the fact that both had not personally sinned at birth but both had the choice to sin or not for the rest of their life. Also in my opinion, it is not the inherent sin nature that damns any person; it is the usage of that nature when we do sin (which all people other than Jesus have done). Inherent nature can be what temptation is.
Thank you for making me think deeper but I still believe Jesus was born from Mary’s egg.
Doug
You’re wierd, in a funny sort of way. And now you have copied and pasted as well. See, isn’t it much easier to do this when someone else has done the work already than to put in your own words of what you want to get across. LOL
Seminary is good, however, it is not the end all of what establishes truth as we know how for instance, liberalism, ecumenicalism, and the emergent teachings has infiltrated them.
Thanks for pointing out the error in Wright’s initials. I do a similar thing when speaking of Chruch Smith, but we both know who I am speaking referencing, don’t we.
Oh and about “The Quest.” that’s your trip, not mine. There is life and a heck of a lot of other scholasticism out there beyond that. Hope you discover it and it would help you to balance things out or at least enable to you to go beyond this and provide additional considerations. It’s a good start, however. Just don’t just stop there—–Shalom. in Jesus
PAl- I dont believe God put a conceived egg in Mary. I think Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, not an egg. The word “conceived” does not have to mean from an egg. Mary’s egg was tainted by original sin. So was her DNA. It really doesnt matter what I think, does it?
Doug- It has been convenient for you to avoid all the RCC references and false teachings, and shift the focus to my being a JW (in your words).
You still have not adressed all the false teachings.
Why don’t we just stay on topic with that.
Uriah “Hannah, I am so sorry to hear that you are a Jehovah Witness. It confuses me though how you would quote John MacArthur who is clearly not and would take you to task on using his material to then insert the JW’s denial of the person (flesh) of Christ. ”
Really. Because I don’t believe God used Marys egg, and that God planted a seed (Jesus) in Mary, I am denying that he is God in the flesh?
Did I ever say that Jesus was not God?
Uriah, Since you know me better than myself, why don’t you explain to me why I am a Jehovah witness?
Very condescending of you to say this.
Really, by what authority do you have?
“Doug- It has been convenient for you to avoid all the RCC references and false teachings, and shift the focus to my being a JW (in your words). You still have not adressed all the false teachings.”
Hannah, We need to address your position on these issues. I started with your first claim and when I dug deeper I found that you believe what amounts to JW doctrine. I’m not about to move to any further points until you have been converted from JW doctrine to the Christian faith.
I realize it’s very difficult for you to reject false teachings which you have learned but you need to take the time to look at this issue. If you have the question “Who is Jesus” so seriously wrong, what does it matter what you believe about Catholicism? And how can you lead someone out of Catholicism when your own doctrine is so much worse?
Where’s the response to #370??
Doug- Of course you dont want to move any further-it’s very convenient to shift the focus from the RCC to me.
What doctrine is “worse”?
What is “seriously wrong” abotu what I believe about Jesus?
Who was the “angel of the LORD’?
You haven’t answered this yet.
“Really. Because I don’t believe God used Marys egg, and that God planted a seed (Jesus) in Mary, I am denying that he is God in the flesh?”
No, you are denying the humanity of Jesus not the Deity of Jesus. You are denying that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent. In effect, denying the work of the Incarnation. But Ur and others have explained that and you are stuck….
PS. You mentioned “conceived” top support that it was Mary’s egg.
“Conceived” means to become pregnant.
A woman who recieved IVF “conceives” even if it is a donor egg.
So that word is no proof it was Mary’s egg.
“No, you are denying the humanity of Jesus not the Deity of Jesus. You are denying that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent. In effect, denying the work of the Incarnation. But Ur and others have explained that and you are stuck….”
Really? How?
How am I denying that the seed of the woman (who I believe is Jesus-Jesus was the seed inside her womb) would crush the head of the sepent? How am I denying the incarnation? Does the incarnation have to use her egg?
Why don’t you explain that to me?
You are making a serious mistake in judging me here.
“How am I denying that the seed of the woman (who I believe is Jesus-Jesus was the seed inside her womb) would crush the head of the sepent? ”
#1 – You deny that a woman has a seed.
#2 – Seed of a woman, not someone else’s seed put into a woman. Mary is the woman. The seed is Mary’s.
“You are making a serious mistake in judging me here.”
The serious mistake is when you so blatently deny the faith. I think most everyone else “gets it” here. I don’t know how to explain it better to you.
‘“Conceived” means to become pregnant.’
Yes, the egg gets fertilied.
“A woman who recieved IVF “conceives” even if it is a donor egg.”
Nope . Jesus wasn’t a test tube baby. Mary was actually His Mother.
Doug -I remember you over at Phx P.
You used the same tactics there.
God does not need to use Marys egg for her to conceive.
Keep sidetracking away from answering anything about the RCC.
And anything else that does not fit your agenda.
#1 – You deny that a woman has a seed.
#2 – Seed of a woman, not someone else’s seed put into a woman. Mary is the woman. The seed is Mary’s.
#1 I never denied that the woman has a seed. I have said repeatedly that the seed is Jesus
#2 The seed of the woman =Jesus.
Women do not have seeds.
The seed is Jesus.
Mary did not create Jesus from her seed cause she doesnt have one.
By whatever miracle the Holy Spirit did this-it doesnt matter.
The important thing is that Jesus is fully God and fully man.
So, how about the Angel of the LORD? For the third time.
Luk 2:21 ¶ And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
OK, Doug, where is the womb?
It is the uterus.
Embryo’s are not conceived in the womb.
They are conceived in the fallopian tube, and then they travel down and later implant themselves in the womb (uterus)
So the fact that it is stated in scripture that Mary conceived in the womb, supports the fact that it was not her egg.
That the seed of Jesus was conceived in the womb.
Can you argue with that?
“I never denied that the woman has a seed.”
“Women do not have seeds.”
Do you even read what you write? Don’t you see that what you write just a couple of sentences apart is contradicting yourself?
Listen, I’m not moving on to other subjects (pre-incarnate appearances of the LORD Jesus Christ) until we get past this heresy.
“Womb” is not specific to a uterus or fallopian tubes or any other specific separate organ. It represents where the baby comes from in a less biological and more generic sense.
I really don’t know how to help you see the truth. You are clinging so hard to your heresy that you are unable to see the truth.
For you, Jesus was a created being and not a descendent of David. For me, David was his actual ancestor. I believe, along with Scripture, that Jesus was not adopted, but biologically descended from David.
For you, Jesus wasn’t even a Jew, he was some created being that probably just looked Jewish for convenience. For me, Jesus was a Jew not just an adopted Jew, but one by HIs biology.
For you Jesus was not related by blood to Mary but she was just his surrogate. For me, and other Christians, Mary was the Mother of Jesus.
Jesus is also referred to as a “seed of David”
So are you saying that David conceived him?
Wow Doug- you are lying here. I never said this:
“For you, Jesus wasn’t even a Jew, he was some created being that probably just looked Jewish for convenience. For me, Jesus was a Jew not just an adopted Jew, but one by HIs biology.”
You are taking real liberties here.
I dont need to” move on” with you-you are not my teacher. You left Phx P because of your constant challenges with anyone who disagreed with you.
Maybe you need to answer some of the RC heresies before you take me on as a project.
You really know how to put others on the defensive.
You believe tons of heresies about the RCC- that you will not even respond about because you want to conveniently draw the conversation away from the facts presented according to RCC doctrines, and onto your percieved ideas about what I do and do not believe. As if you could care less what I believe. It is just about proving yourself right. You have always been a distractor and disrespectful of others.
And when others leave the conversation because of your tactics and attempts to wear them down, you claim a victory. The truth is, you really dont care about what I believe you just love the battle. I won’t be drawn into it.
I hope others here see the distraction of what you have been doing by avoidance of any RC doctrine.
Thats about all I will say.
““Womb” is not specific to a uterus or fallopian tubes or any other specific separate organ. It represents where the baby comes from in a less biological and more generic sense”
Less biological and more generic sense? Are you kidding??
You are wrong. Is this your own definition?
The womb is the uterus.
There is no conception there.
Ask your wifes Gynecologist. (If you have one)
WOMB
uterus [ˈjuːtərəs]
n pl uteri [ˈjuːtəˌraɪ]
1. (Medicine / Gynaecology & Obstetrics) Anatomy a hollow muscular organ lying within the pelvic cavity of female mammals. It houses the developing fetus and by contractions aids in its expulsion at parturition Nontechnical name womb
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) the corresponding organ in other animals
[from Latin; compare Greek hustera womb, hoderos belly, Sanskrit udara belly]
Hannah, I’m sorry that I am unable to help you. I have offered scripture to you and you reject it. I have used logic and you don’t get it. I have even quoted back your own inconsistencies and you can’t even see them.
I really wish I could convince you of the truth of the Incarnate Christ. All I can do now is warn others that your teachings are heretical.
I’m beginning to find it disturbing to consider that when someone new or possibly an investigative reporter comes to this site and clicks on the update section, etc, they will find repetitious theological debate rather than information or discussion relevant to CCA, the lawsuit, etc.
I imagine reporters/news organizations might click on links elsewhere and be a bit flummoxed by all the stuff they may have to wade through to get to info pertinent to the reasons this blog exists.
I wonder what impression all this must make on any non-christian media types who might stumble through here. Perhaps they spend their effort just on Alex’s entries avoid the comments. I wonder about folks struggling with abuse or spiritual issues in their faith. Looking at some of these threads could be more discouraging or confusing I imagine.
Unless I am really bored, I mostly scroll or ignore several posters as my main reason for visiting this site is to follow and support Alex efforts. I know I’ve done my share of distracting posting and will cease.
Peace
Once Upon A Time
Your point is well taken. At the same time it is important for those in the faith to know that we are solid in our faith and will call out those who preach another Jesus. Think of it this way, there are many who will attempt to use the idea that Alex is not a Christian due to various posts that would reveal another Jesus. That would serve to discount him entirely.
Another thought is: CC behavior is founded upon the Moses Model which is not biblical. If it is not biblical then it follows that the issues that have led to corruption and abuses without a hint of repentance needs to be establish. At the same time, when another teaching that does not bear out biblical truths aligns itself with CC constructs, or is offering criticism involving CC unbiblical practices (even though they may be true), then that needs to be smoked out as well, to protect the sheep from going from the fire into the pan, so to speak.
I understand it may not be interesting to those who are more interested just getting the nuts and bolts, but at the same time, people have been injured and are now having to rethink a lot of what they were taught by CC and still holding to the faith in the midst of having been deeply injured, alienated, isolated, and persecuted.
But I do understand what you are saying and your point is very valid.
Doug-
I am not about reproach.
If I am accused of heresy (and I beg to understand why you have not addressed my heretical teachings of the RCC, yet are condemning me and believing you have to “warn others” LOL), I will do all I can to search the truth. More than I can say about you.
I know that for Jesus to be born sinless, he could not have had Mary’s blood which would not be sinless. So I have understood that if Mary’s blood mixed with Jesus, there could not be a sinless Savior.
I found this , written by an MD that explains that the blood of the fetus is from the FATHER, from his sperm, and that NONE of Mary’s blood mixed with Jesus’, which I already knew. The mother supplies the nutrients but her blood never passes through the placenta. Thats how Jesus remains sinless as a fully human being (which you wrongly accuse me of not believing)
Whether God used Marys egg, or whether he planted the “seed” is not important to me, and doesn’t make one a heretic. I would be careful of name calling, but I get that this is your method of attack. I would be more concerned about you and pray for you, since you are supporting heretical teachings in the RCC.
I wanted to post this from a Christian MD.
There is much insight here.
I am sorry that others are not interested in this subject and will refrain from any further posts.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/04.htm
1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
“I know that for Jesus to be born sinless, he could not have had Mary’s blood which would not be sinless.”
False. Having Mary’s blood wouldn’t make Jesus a sinner any more than touching a leper would make Him a leper.
But a child does not have either parent’s blood otherwise they would inherit the blood type from one gender instead of it being a genetic variation. Two parents with two different blood types can give birth to two children (no identical twins, but other children) with two different blood types.
If a parent and a child’s blood type did get shared, then it would kill the parent and the child. There’s a barrier that keeps the blood separate between a mother and a child.
“So I have understood that if Mary’s blood mixed with Jesus, there could not be a sinless Savior.”
False. You are saying the same thing which is not true. See above for why it is not true.
“I found this , written by an MD that explains that the blood of the fetus is from the FATHER, from his sperm, and that NONE of Mary’s blood mixed with Jesus’, which I already knew. ”
Even that you misread since it actually says
It you read carefully you will see that the blood doesn’t come from the father’s sperm nor the mother’s egg, it comes from the fetus’ own development.
“Whether God used Marys egg, or whether he planted the “seed” is not important to me”
It must be important since you have been defending your position that Jesus was not born from the seed of the woman. If you are saying that Jesus was born of the seed of a woman, then there’s no issue but you say both Jesus was and Jesus wasn’t born of the seed of a woman as I have quoted in previous exchanges with you.
“and doesn’t make one a heretic.”
Actually, it does. Denial that Jesus is related to Mary produces a great many heresies circling around the central question of “Who is Jesus?” I produced a list above of the heresies which are necessary consequences of Jesus being a created being rather than of the seed of Mary. You said you don’t believe any of those things so you can’t believe what you say you believe.
I could be nice and tell you that you are not a heretic but that would not be true and it would be unkind to let you remain in heresy without a chance to repent.
I won’t deal with your other anti-RCC claims until we resolve this one. With what you are teaching you are not bringing a Catholic an alternative, but a false teaching.
“I am sorry that others are not interested in this subject and will refrain from any further posts.”
Not sure why since I asked you a lot earlier to refrain and you insisted you were on a mission to correct false teaching as you saw it in the Catholic Church. I suspect it’s because the microscope has turned away from the Catholics (who aren’t here to argue with you anyway) and has turned to you that you are now backing away.
Here is a general rejoinder to some of the anti-Catholic nonsense here.
First if you haven’t spent time studying Catholic theology from its own sources, you probably know not of what you speak. Reading works by Protestants is no more a fair or accurate way to get a sense of Catholicism than studying Protestantism from Catholic critiques. Do unto others.
If he priesthood is over, then someone needs to tell Paul because he uses the language of “priesting” the Gospel in Romans 15. And Hebrews 13 speaks of the church having an “altar” from which its members eat sacrifices from.
I
t is false to say that Jesus is killed every time the Eucharis tis offered on the altar. Jesus’ body and blood are presented and the church participates in the once for all offering made spiritually present at that moment. There is no killing going on.
If someone thinks that the use of secondary means like oh, people, books and rites implies that Jesus is not sufficient for salvation, then they should throw away their bible, and renounce their baptism, not to mention burn the book of Acts. People got healed by touching items the Apostles had touched not to mention regularly received the Spirit by the laying on of hands.
Not only James 2 but Matt 25 indicate that human acts play a role in our judgment and hence our standing. James is quite clear that as the soul makes the body alive, so works make faith genuine. They don’t manifest it, they complete it. 1 Cor 13 says that it is love and not faith alone that produces saving faith. Sola Fide excludes Love and Hope from contributing to justification, which seems at odds with 1 Cor 13. In any case any human effort in Catholic theology that increases our justification are human acts that are moved prior by grace so all ultimate credit goes to God. This is why Augustine says, God crowns his own merits in us.
Trent never says that salvation by faith is anathema. Trent teaches that salvation by faith alone, namely that faith of itself is worthless but acts as a conduit for the transfer of extrinsic moral credit, is anathema. Trent explicitly teaches justification by faith, just not faith alone.
Of course most popular protestant bodies don’t believe in faith alone either, because the Reformation doctrine entails the belief that regeneration comes before faith and God picks who gets faith (predestination). If you believe first of your own “free will” as far as the Reformers are concerned, that is works salvation too. Just read Luther’s Bondage of the Will. The primary issue of the Reformation was whether men could move themselves to faith or not, not Mary, the saints or any other issue. Luther says as much.
Catholic traditions had better at least in some cases be equal to the bible since what books ended up being the bible is part of tradition. If not, then the bible is just a book collected and selected by fallible men. Second, some traditions in Catholicism are equal in authority to the Bible, but only the Bible is inspired. This is upheld in De Verbum in Vatican 2 among other documents of the Catholic Magisterium.
I dare say the persons speaking of the “true Jesus” probably have little to any familiarity with a proper Christology (Chalcedonianism) or could articulate it or defend it. Does Jesus have two minds or one? Does Jesus have a human soul or no? Does Jesus have two wills or one will? Was Jesus ignorant? Did God suffer when Jesus suffered on the cross or did a body suffer and God just watched? So please, show some humility when talking about the “true Jesus.”
Priestly celibacy is a rule, not a doctrine and so can be changed at any time. And it is a rule for only a few of the churches within the Catholic church, namely the Latin Rite, which is the largest. Eastern Rite Catholic clergy can be married and many are.
And while it is quite true that Catholicism anathematizes Protestant doctrine, the conditions for eternal punishment for individual Protestants depends on a whole mess of factors, not the least of which is whether they fully understand what it is they reject and what it is they maintain. So it isn’t some carte blanche assurance or teaching that all Protestants are cosmic toast. Besides, Protestant have been condemning Catholics to hell and as pagans for the last five centuries as well.
If the gospel of grace amounts to the Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide, then most Protestants, including CC do not have the gospel of grace. Added to this, no one did either prior to the Reformation since no one taught justification by faith alone prior to the Reformation. (Someone call Salt Lake City!!) This is conceded by Protestant historians such as McGrath in his work on the history of Justification, Iustitia Dei.
Second, if you do not believe that God unconditionally predestines some people to salvation, the according to the Reformers, you have a false gospel too since that is an essential part of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide.
Romans 4 teaches that Abraham only had the virtue of faith and it was on that basis he was justified. It doesn’t teach that he didn’t later or couldn’t ever have other virtues like love and hope that built on that basis. Saying you only have faith as a basis for being declared just at the start does not mean that it is the only basis all the way through one’s life. In this way Abraham’s later actions became part of his initial faith, which is why James says he wasn’t justified by faith alone.
And btw, I am not Catholic either.
It is quite true that the Catholic church teaches that there is no salvation outside of her. But two things should be kept in mind. This was expressed long before the Reformation when there were three categories of people generally speaking-pagans, Christians and Jews. And the only Christians were members of the Catholic church. Secondly, Catholicism teaches that membership in the Catholic church isn’t defined exactly by where one goes or doesn’t go to church on Sunday. Many Protestants are Catholics without knowing it since they were so baptized and God dosn’t instantaneously let people know that they have received grace, what grace they have received or where they ought to go to have the fullness thereof.
As far as giving up rules and regulations, popular Protestants have plenty of rules of their own making. Pot meet kettle. Second, take a long hard look at what Protestants have done with their supposed “freedom.” Usually watching about ten minutes of TBN will be sufficient. When people complain about a lack of freedom it is because they wish to be the master. Chuck Smith is a perfect example along with dozens upon dozens of others.
As far as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, well one may not think it is biblical, but Protestants and Catholics do not even agree on what books should be considered biblical, let alone how to go about interpreting them. Secondly, Catholicism doesn’t teach that all doctrines have to be derived from the biblical text so holding them to standards that they do not admit and are in dispute is the fallacy of question begging at the least.
Intercession and mediation in Catholic theology, let alone Paul, are not the same. Catholicism affirms one principled mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. Like Paul, they teach that intercession is possible by others through the one mediator. Language about Mary being co-mediatrix is understood in a derivative sense, that is Mary because of her participation in the Incarnation of Christ and her transformation of it participates in Christ’s mediating work in terms of dispensing graces, not in terms of originating them. Think what you like, but Catholic theologians aren’t stupid. They would never have framed their doctrinal statements to be so easily overturned. If you think they are, well, you just haven’t done the requisite work to understand it.
Popes don’t put out new revelation. Catholicism affirms a closed canon in terms of general revelation. Private revelations are not binding on Catholics for assent.
Mary doesn’t ascend, she is assumed in the doctrine of the assumption. She is taken up by Jesus, she doesn’t get there by herself. To portray Catholic theology in this way is not only unfair but attacks a view they do not teach.
To say that Mary is the Mother of Jesus but not the Mother of God, is the fifth century heresy of Nestorianism, which posits two subjects or persons in Christ under a single outward manifestation-the man and the Logos under the single form of “Christ”. By contrast the bible and the early church councils clearly and fully teach that Mary bears the one divine person of the Eternal Son and not some human person conjoined to the Son. To take Theotokos (God bearer) or Mater Theos (Mother of God) as meaning that God has a source of his being in a woman is just to show that one has no idea what those titles mean or were intended to articulate. In this way Romaphobes go so far out of their way to say Rome is wrong and end up denying the true Jesus. The tittles in question were accepted by all of the Reformers so it just isn’t an issue between Protestants and Catholics.
The ovum had better be from Mary, otherwise Jesus is not her offspring. This surrogacy theory that Hannah is proffering I nothing less than Nestorianism or Apollinarianism, which all of Classical Protestantism rejected for the last five hundred years. This is what happens when people rely on their own understanding and let their desire to be right get the best of them. Hannah should stop talking before she utters more blasphemies. Jesus doesn’t go through Mary as water does a pipe, as Nestorius taught. Go read the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon which all the Reformers upheld.
As far as women not having seeds, well seed in the scripture often refers to offspring or descendant. The divine person of the Son is Mary’s offspring in his incarnation. She bears this person and no other. If he isn’t then someone else died on the Cross, namely just a man. Good luck with that. The Christian faith affirms, God was born. God sucked at the breast. God pooped and God suffered and died for our sins. This is foolishness to Greeks and a stumbling block to Jews (and Muslims).
As far as how Mary can be sinless and still need a Savior, here is an idea. Why not make oneself familiar with the arguments given in the primary sources to find out? The requisite source is John Duns Scotus, otherwise known as the Subtle Doctor. Scotus argues that there was two ways one can be saved. First by rescue and second by prevention. Mary is saved by Christ by preventing her from being tainted by original sin. In this way Christ is still her savior because she was full of his grace. Read Ps 45, no one else is spoken of in the Scriptures in this way except Mary alone which is all the more relevant since Christ gets his flesh from her body. They flesh of flesh and bone of bone, which is why the early Christians (2nd Century) called Mary the Second Eve. That would be 200 years before the canon of the bible was established mind you and at least fifty years before any named copies of the Gospels show up.
If Rome is a Whore, then that makes Protestants her bastard children. And that is just fine as far as the Orthodox are concerned.
As far as Hannah’s claim that one of the genealogies in the Gospels is that of Mary, well get ready for some irony. That view was a medieval invention designed to give more honor to Mary. Up until about the 12th century or so and continuing in the East, the belief going back at least to Julius Africanus in the 2nd/3rd century (which is the earliest source) was that both genealogies are of Joseph, who’s father was the product of a Levitical marriage (a brother or cousin dies without providing an heir and so a male relative marries the widow and provides an offspring and so the child has legally two genealogies). Henry Morris is simply not a church historian and it shows.
The use of Heb 10:5 is somewhat humorous since the text the author of Hebrews uses is the LXX, not the Hebrew. The Hebrew text is about the digging out of ears. The preparation of the body is a reference to the forming of the body in the womb, not some pre-existing body coming to be placed in Mary’s womb. The latter is just the plain old heresy of Apollinarianism, which again, all of the Reformers condemned as heretical.
There is no such thing as a “sin nature” nor does the bible speak of it. The Bible speaks of the flesh, sarx which generally denotes moral corruption and mortality. But all natures are created and sustained by God and evil has no substantial existence anymore than blindness does. To speak of a “sin nature” is just plain old Gnosticism. The lack of something Is not some stuff. Besides, if human choices could change the image of God, then human choices could thwart God’s will for human nature to be the way he willed it. Take that Calvinists!!! lol
As far as Apostolic Succession goes, no, CC does not embrace it. The doctrine of Apostolic succession is not a thesis about ongoing revelation. It is a claim that a portion of the Apostles ministry and authority is handed on to their successors by the laying on of hands so that the ministry of Jesus begun in them continues and that there is a threefold order of ministers, bishops, presbyters and deacons, with the first alone having the power and right to ordain. Try reading the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (died 107 AD). Oh yeah, he was ordained by the Apostles Peter AND Paul and dies as a martyr in the Roman circus.
The irony about citing MacArthur on salvation is that MacArthurs Lordship position just is that of Trent, that other virtues and human acts form or complete faith. I remember when I was talking with Horton back in the early 90’s about this during the Lordship controversy and he explicitly said so. MacArthur is a closet Tridentine Catholic on justification and rejects Sola Fide and he doesn’t even know it. Listening to MacArthur talk about Catholic theology is like listening to Bryson on Calvinism.
As to how Catholics arrive at the assumption of Mary, well Scripture doesn’t say much about Mary’s death or most of the Apostles for that matter. Much of that information is derived from the testimony of Christians in the first four hundred years of Christianity or so. But since Catholics don’t think that all their doctrines have to come from the bible, that isn’t a problem for them that it isn’t in scripture.
People who think they know it all are especially annoying to those of us who do.
Hannah @ 368
“Before you attack me for being a Jehovah witness, give me a chance please.”
So do you deny being a Jehovah Witness?
Jesus is fully God, second person of the trinity.
Jesus is fully man, whom the Holy Spirit of Father beget (impregnated) through Mary.
Hebrews, Chapter 2, Verses 14-18. (NKJV)
“14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”
John Mac Arthur stated:
“Nobody has heard from an angel, or even from God in well over 400 years. Miracles didn’t happen. God didn’t speak. Angels didn’t show up until now. And it all begins with these two amazing conceptions…Elizabeth, chosen to be the mother of John the Baptist, the forerunner of Messiah, and Mary, chosen to be the mother of Messiah, the Son of God.”
“And she cried out with a loud voice and said, ‘Blessed be among women are you and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how has it happened to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For ”
“I mean, she had just been told something that was absolutely humanly impossible and frankly unimaginable, that she was going to be the mother of Messiah. She was going to be the mother of the Son of God. She was going to bear a holy offspring that would be conceived in her by God the Most High Himself. And all of this while being a virgin. She had been chosen by God to be the mother of Messiah. Messiah would be a holy offspring. All of this would happen without a man’s involvement. It would all be done by God. This was…this was just mind boggling, just more than any human could ever understand or comprehend. No woman who ever lived had heard such a word…beyond understanding, beyond comprehension. And besides, miracles didn’t happen and God didn’t speak and angels just didn’t show up in visible fashion.”
I mean, she had just been told something that was absolutely humanly impossible and frankly unimaginable, that she was going to be the mother of Messiah. She was going to be the mother of the Son of God. She was going to bear a holy offspring that would be conceived in her by God the Most High Himself. And all of this while being a virgin. She had been chosen by God to be the mother of Messiah. Messiah would be a holy offspring. All of this would happen without a man’s involvement. It would all be done by God. This was…this was just mind boggling, just more than any human could ever understand or comprehend. No woman who ever lived had heard such a word…beyond understanding, beyond comprehension. And besides, miracles didn’t happen and God didn’t speak and angels just didn’t show up in visible fashion.
I mean, she had just been told something that was absolutely humanly impossible and frankly unimaginable, that she was going to be the mother of Messiah. She was going to be the mother of the Son of God. She was going to bear a holy offspring that would be conceived in her by God the Most High Himself. And all of this while being a virgin. She had been chosen by God to be the mother of Messiah. Messiah would be a holy offspring. All of this would happen without a man’s involvement. It would all be done by God. This was…this was just mind boggling, just more than any human could ever understand or comprehend. No woman who ever lived had heard such a word…beyond understanding, beyond comprehension. And besides, miracles didn’t happen and God didn’t speak and angels just didn’t show up in visible fashion.
I mean, she had just been told something that was absolutely humanly impossible and frankly unimaginable, that she was going to be the mother of Messiah. She was going to be the mother of the Son of God. She was going to bear a holy offspring that would be conceived in her by God the Most High Himself. And all of this while being a virgin. She had been chosen by God to be the mother of Messiah. Messiah would be a holy offspring. All of this would happen without a man’s involvement. It would all be done by God. This was…this was just mind boggling, just more than any human could ever understand or comprehend. No woman who ever lived had heard such a word…beyond understanding, beyond comprehension. And besides, miracles didn’t happen and God didn’t speak and angels just didn’t show up in visible fashion.
I mean, she had just been told something that was absolutely humanly impossible and frankly unimaginable, that she was going to be the mother of Messiah. She was going to be the mother of the Son of God. She was going to bear a holy offspring that would be conceived in her by God the Most High Himself. And all of this while being a virgin. She had been chosen by God to be the mother of Messiah. Messiah would be a holy offspring. All of this would happen without a man’s involvement. It would all be done by God. This was…this was just mind boggling, just more than any human could ever understand or comprehend. No woman who ever lived had heard such a word…beyond understanding, beyond comprehension. And besides, miracles didn’t happen and God didn’t speak and angels just didn’t show up in visible fashion.
I mean, she had just been told something that was absolutely humanly impossible and frankly unimaginable, that she was going to be the mother of Messiah. She was going to be the mother of the Son of God. She was going to bear a holy offspring that would be conceived in her by God the Most High Himself. And all of this while being a virgin. She had been chosen by God to be the mother of Messiah. Messiah would be a holy offspring. All of this would happen without a man’s involvement. It would all be done by God. This was…this was just mind boggling, just more than any human could ever understand or comprehend. No woman who ever lived had heard such a word…beyond understanding, beyond comprehension. And besides, miracles didn’t happen and God didn’t speak and angels just didn’t show up in visible fashion.
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/42-13 John Mac Arthur whom Hannah often quotes, along with Charles Spurgeon who also recognized Mary as being the mother of God/Jesus and of the man, Jesus. God/Man = dual nature. When being born of Mary, he became flesh. Prior to this He could reveal himself as an angel, as He may have done when He wrestled with Jacob or when He may appeared to Abraham and Sarah.
Oh, one other bit of information: When a Jewish father does not have a son, His lineage is passed on to the daughter. Mary lineage is traced back to Nathan who was David’s son. Because Nathan was not from the seed of Solomon, but David’s seed only, he was not under the curse of Jeconiah. It was her seed that fulfill this prophecy, the seed she inherited by blood and and by right. It was her seed alone that was used to fertilize the egg that was necessary to beget the son of man and the son of God.
ROTFLOL — Haven’t a clue how that happened. LOL
If you haven’t stumble on it, don’t bother—-Moderator please delete my comment #410.
Here’s the shortened version of it.
John Mac Arthur stated:
“Nobody has heard from an angel, or even from God in well over 400 years. Miracles didn’t happen. God didn’t speak. Angels didn’t show up until now. And it all begins with these two amazing conceptions…Elizabeth, chosen to be the mother of John the Baptist, the forerunner of Messiah, and Mary, chosen to be the mother of Messiah, the Son of God.”
“And she cried out with a loud voice and said, ‘Blessed be among women are you and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how has it happened to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For ”
I mean, she had just been told something that was absolutely humanly impossible and frankly unimaginable, that she was going to be the mother of Messiah. She was going to be the mother of the Son of God. She was going to bear a holy offspring that would be conceived in her by God the Most High Himself. And all of this while being a virgin. She had been chosen by God to be the mother of Messiah. Messiah would be a holy offspring. All of this would happen without a man’s involvement. It would all be done by God. This was…this was just mind boggling, just more than any human could ever understand or comprehend. No woman who ever lived had heard such a word…beyond understanding, beyond comprehension. And besides, miracles didn’t happen and God didn’t speak and angels just didn’t show up in visible fashion.
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/42-13 John Mac Arthur whom Hannah often quotes, along with Charles Spurgeon who also recognized Mary as being the mother of God/Jesus and of the man, Jesus. God/Man = dual nature. When being born of Mary, he became flesh. Prior to this He could reveal himself as an angel, as He may have done when He wrestled with Jacob or when He may appeared to Abraham and Sarah.
Oh, one other bit of information: When a Jewish father does not have a son, His lineage is passed on to the daughter. Mary lineage is traced back to Nathan who was David’s son. Because Nathan was not from the seed of Solomon, but David’s seed only, he was not under the curse of Jeconiah. It was her seed that fulfill this prophecy, the seed she inherited by blood and and by right. It was her seed alone that was used to fertilize the egg that was necessary to beget the son of man and the son of God.
At the same time, we need to give Hannah credit on exposing some of the false Papal doctrines. Funny ow God will use one thing to expose another. Any one can look it up to see how the Catholic and their kissing cousin, the Anglican Church acknowledged the essentials but then distorted them by using authority that was not theirs to have but used to cause many to be led astrayed, murdered, and worshipping those whom the Bible has told us not to do as well as to place scripture under submission to it instead.
Read the history (not catholic history) but historical christianity, apart from Catholic proponants. It’s all there—–Hannah is correct.
It is just like CC and the Moses Model—both wanting to think they have the right to practice a priesthood apart from the body of Christ. Both think they have some type of authority to avoid accountability by the body of Christ and both think they have the right to sit in the place of Moses and our Lord, as if they are them themselves in order interpret that which we who are filled with the Holy Spirit and are the Holy Priesthood, the body of Christ who are given these things as well by His Holy Spirit.
There is only One Mediator between us and God—His name is Jesus.
Correction: ” if they are given some special knowldege of interpretation that which we who are filled with the Holy Spirit and are the Holy Priesthood, the body of Christ who are given these things as well by His Holy Spirit are not able to understand and to discern. Yet , we are told to study to show ourselves approved, to expose and to know the difference between that which is of God and that which is not. Scholasticism is good until it is used to trump the Word of God and that which the Holy Spirit makes known to even the most unlearned person. That is the beauty of the Word and what Jesus has done through the cross, then sending His Holy Spirit to bear witness to these things in our hearts and in our minds.
From the other guys blog… there I did it!
A while back I wrote an article about the creation of a “new” Calvary Chapel, one created to facilitate the transition of power from Chuck Smith to a board of elders and regional overseers.
How’s that working?
It’s not…in fact according to sources, the organization doesn’t officially exist.
The non-profit paperwork has yet to be filed.
The reality of the matter is that Calvary Chapel is in a state of conflict and chaos at the top level and that conflict and chaos is the purposeful creation of it’s founder as he refuses to let go of his throne.
The portrait of Chuck Smith presented to the public has always been one of the smiling, warm, pastoral, Pastor Chuck…the one seen behind the scenes has often been one of a jealous, hot tempered patriarch who manipulates people to keep hold of both his power and the huge assets generated by Calvary Chapel.
His greatest power comes from his ability to use the emotional attachments that young men without fathers developed with him, even though those young men are now in their fifties and sixties.
He uses the threat of rejection to quash any disagreement….and it has worked with clock like efficiency through the years.
Another technique he has mastered over the years, is to let all sides of a conflict believe they have his imprimatur and watch them fight it out as he does what he pleases.
In this instance he has given his approval to the creation of the new organization…while telling traditionalists opposed to it that in reality he is with them.
He was telling the traditionalists the truth…in fact he brought back brother Paul to construct a “hit list” of dove holders he wants expunged from the movement.
They won’t be expunged for moral or ethical reasons, but for thinking outside the “distinctives” or speaking out of turn at all.
This follows on the heels of an email blast sent out to all the senior pastors informing them that if they criticize the movement on blogs they can basically get out and stay out.
He has facilitated the transfer of the Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa Corporation (and it’s massive assets)… to his son Jeff, not to Brian Broderson., his supposed successor and son-in-law whom he allegedly undercuts at every turn.
For background on Jeff, see the Christianity Today and L.A. Times articles on the Calvary Satellite Network and Calvary Chapel.
They do not paint a portrait of an eminent churchman…
I have written on these pages before that upon Smiths departure that the remaining movement would fracture…it’s already happening.
Certain groups of pastors within the movement have been discussing a wholesale departure from the current set up as they had no say in either the direction of the movement or the overseers placed over them.
Long time pastors are essentially being treated as wet behind the ears assistants as the “Moses Model” evidently has different levels of “Moses”.
Others have been frustrated by Smith’s duplicity and are weary of the process.
When Smith does leave, he will leave the financial assets securely in family hands…and the rest of the movement in shambles.
This isn’t the legacy of “servant leader “or a “pastor of pastors”…but of a self absorbed businessman looking out for himself and his family alone.
Why should I bother writing this when I know how much heat it will generate for me?
Because an organization will always reflect the values of it’s leader.
While I truly believe that the majority of Calvary Chapel pastors bought into a vision of ministry that was originally pure in it’s intention, too many others have followed Smith’s template for unchecked and unaccountable power and self enrichment at the cost of the Gospel and the name of Christ.
For too many years the mythology surrounding Chuck Smith has prevented an honest assessment of his ministry and methodology…and the negative aspects of both have been replicated far and wide.
Good men have suffered from guilt by association and bad men have remained unaccountable as a result.
True servant leadership that cared for the needs of the next generation of leaders would help provide ordered succession and clear guidance for those involved in the process.
Smith is running out of time to live up to his legend…and to prove he cares about what happens to Calvary Chapel when he’s gone.
He’s already taken good care of himself and his own family.
once…
The most pointed and accurate analysis of the state of the state of CC that I have ever read in one place. Matches what I have heard for years from the insiders. The carefully cultivated cult of personal humility…
Ur – “Scholasticism is good until it is used to trump the Word of God”
Not sure what you mean when you repeatedly use the word scholasticism but the word has a formal definition which is different from your use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
If you are going to target something using the right word would help others to know what you are referring to.
Ur wrote – “Because Nathan was not from the seed of Solomon, but David’s seed only, he was not under the curse of Jeconiah. It was her seed that fulfill this prophecy, the seed she inherited by blood and and by right.”
I’ve heard this line of reasoning before, but I am fairly sure that it is not correct. The main problem I have it that it renders Matthew’s genealogy pointless. If the genealogy doesn’t demonstrate a legal claim, then why present it? As one page put it well:
Ur – “It was her seed alone that was used to fertilize the egg that was necessary to beget the son of man and the son of God.”
I don’t follow this point at all. Mary’s seed fertilized her own egg?
Here’s a pretty good page on the so-called “curse of Jeconiah” which presents a more coherent and Scriptural accounting of this issue above:
http://www.therefinersfire.org/disputing_messiah2.htm
I guess this is yet another case where CC gets it wrong. Important that we pull down these strongholds because we can clearly see the sorts of heresies which result from bad roots of teaching.
Doug
There were 2 promises God made to David. One was conditional and the other was unconditional. One being fulfilled in the geneology of Joseph (rights to the throne/ conditional) and one being fulfilled through the geneology of Mary (unconditional).
2 Samuel, Chapter 7:12
12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will “set up thy seed after thee,” which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his (Jesus) kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
Davidic (2 Sam, Chapter. 7:5-12-17 and Psalms Chapter 89), establishing the “throne” of David, as an everlasting King to sit on the throne of David, an everlasting Kingdom.
See Solomon’s warning from David in 1 Chron, Chapter 28:9, and subsequent removal of ten tribes from Solomon’s kingdom in 1 Kings, Chapter 11:29-31-34-39.
Accordingly, Solomon was personally “cast off forever” (1 Kings, Chapter 11:1-13; 1 Chron, Chapter 28:9), as no evidence is available, to our knowledge, of his repentance or change from “forsaking” God, as summarized in 1 Kings, Chapter 11:11.
Also, a subsequent blood curse upon evil King Jeconiah (aka, Coniah or
Jehoiachin, Jeremiah, Chapter 22:30) in the Solomon blood line, made Nathan, the second
son of Bathsheba, to be the blood line from David through Mary (Luke, chapter 3:23-38) to
the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
The royal heritage (always going through the males) from David went from Solomon through Joseph (Matthew, Chapter 1:1), Mary’s husband.
This blood curse required the virgin birth of Jesus. Mary’s full legal rights of
blood line inheritance were granted through the Mosaic Law of single daughters
rights instituted by God through Moses concerning Zelophehad’s single
daughters left after their father died ( Numbers, Chapter 27:1-11 and confirmed by
Joshua, Chapter 17:3-6), but the single daughter must subsequently marry within the
same Tribe (Luke 1:27, Joseph “of the house of David”).
Mary married Joseph who was from the same tribe of her deceased father.
Ur – “Also, a subsequent blood curse upon evil King Jeconiah (aka, Coniah or Jehoiachin, Jeremiah, Chapter 22:30) in the Solomon blood line… This blood curse required the virgin birth of Jesus. ”
Yah, I know… Missler said it, you believe it and that settles it. I don’t buy the argument,
I presented a page which had a cogent alternative which didn’t destroy the value of the genealogy of Matthew and you restated your same argument, which, again, I don’t find valid. Rather than restating for the tenth time your same argument, it would be helpful if you dealt with the objectives to the argument and attempted to deal with them.
You have to understand the laws of Judaism, Doug.
Through her deceased father, because she had no son, she took on the same as a son would, as determined by Moses long ago.
CC has nothing to do with this. Scripture tells us these things. Why in the world do you think her geneology was so important. She not only inherited her father’s property but the bloodline that went with it. She was also required marry a husband from the tribe of her father. Her bloodline, however, was not under the curse of Jeconiah that had to do with Solomon and his sons and their sons, and so forth.
Just as the priesthood was ended as a result of their own disobedience so was the Solomons ended when the kingdom was divided. However, God also promised that he would joined the 2 tribes or houses together one day and gather them back to Israel to reign with him along with the gentiles who claimed Him as their Messiah.
He has not forgotten His people. When the fullness of the gentile is brought in . . .he will removed the scales from their eyes and they will know Him, the one that was rejected when He walked among them. He has promised this throughout biblical history. And this is an unconditional promise. Whether or not this means all Jews, I don’t know—I only know what scripture tells us.
I don’t know anything about Missler teaching this—-let’s just stick to scripture. It is what it is. Each person has to decide for themselves.
I’m simply not interested, but wanted to give the scriptures references for you and anyone else to determine for themselves.
You really got it in for CC, don’t you. For the sake of another agenda I fear, that is to proselytize to a Catholic way of thinking, unfortunately. Not interested in giving you the air time to enable you to do this, Doug.
Your effort to sound intelligent is undermining you, Doug. The scripture speaks for themselves. You will have to contend with this all by yourself and within yourself. Sorry.
It would be more honest if when you copy/paste you at least put the reference where you are taking your argument from… In this case you have copy/pasted from Chapter 11, Covenants of God as found at doffun.com, and perhaps other places. Since it came up at the top of a google search it was pretty easy to find the actual source.
I realize you think it makes you look scholarly when you have a post like that, but it just makes me think you look dishonest and lazy.
See, I’m not interested in dialog with someone who’s just going to copy/paste a long section from another page which does not interact with the point that I made.
When I copy/pasted I noted such and it was intended to interact with the argument presented. Yours was just to restate the same thing without interaction. Do you see the difference?
“You have to understand the laws of Judaism, Doug. Through her deceased father, because she had no son, she took on the same as a son would, as determined by Moses long ago. ”
If you had bothered to read the link I provided you would have read the following:
Once again you are missing the central issues.
“You have to understand the laws of Judaism, Doug. Through her deceased father, because she had no son, she took on the same as a son would, as determined by Moses long ago. ”
If you had bothered to read the link I provided you would have read the following:
HOWEVER – In Numr 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numr 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Numr 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Numr 36:6).
“I don’t know anything about Missler teaching this”
Missler has your same argument at:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/73/
That was enough for me to want to rethink the argument. Turns out it’s very wrong.
Let’s deal with the so-called curse of Jeconiah in Jeremh. 22:30:
Does this mean that no distant descendent of Jocaniah would ever sit on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah, OR did it mean that in his days, ie, during his lifetime, Jocahiah wouid not have sons on the throne?
It can’t be the first possibility since we read:
And who is Zerubabel but the grandson of Jeconiah. Of course that was after Jechoniah was dead. Prophecy fulfilled completely. No need to disregard the legal claims of the genealogy in Matthew.
It was not through the blood or seed of Solomon that Jesus gained rights to David’s throne. It was through adoption that he gain rights to the throne. It is clear in the geneology of Joseph that Jesus was adopted. Therefore, he could claim the throne without the blood curse placed upon this lineage.
No one sat on the throne during captivity. What more, if David was not affected by the blood curse of Jeconiah, then why wasn’t he seated on the throne of David? Because he was curse, but Jesus was not—-why? Instead by the people they were referred to as the Nazarenes. Surely the pharisees and scribes would have known this.
http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/rrj_curse_of_jeconiah.html
Uriah,
Why would you think one of the gospel geneaologies is of Mary? Where does the text say ot intimate that either are of Mary?
As I noted previously, the belief (and arguments) tht one is from mary are a medieval Catholic reation designed to give more honor to Mary. This arose at a time when devotion to the Holy Family in Catholicism was coming about in the 12-th13th century.
There is just nothing in the Gospel text that ind9icates that either genologies are from Mary.
Ur wrote “No one sat on the throne during captivity.”
No kidding. That’s pretty much what is meant by captivity.
“What more, if David was not affected by the blood curse of Jeconiah, then why wasn’t he seated on the throne of David?”
No clue what you meant by that. Perhaps a typo? Why wasn’t David seated on the throne of David?
Who is Zerubabel descended from?
Did he sit on the throne?
Perry, your earlier post is missing in the feed. Did it end up in moderation (if you quote more than one scripture or put in more than one link the post gets caught in moderation.
That’s why I misspell the scripture book or abbreviate it in an odd way…
You can tell if it’s in moderation if there is a yellow note at the top of the post. It still shows up in your browser.
Thanks, Perry. I’ve long wondered where the tradition came from. Ironic that it came from medieval Catholicism given that those who need the argument are usually the ones who are the most anti-Catholic.
I was wondering the same thing this morning when I did a quick comparison of the two genealogies and noticed that they were both from Joseph. I also see that one genealogy has women in it. I know that it is possible to be descended from a common ancestor by multiple paths. I am descended like 99% of all people of English descent, from a particular English king. In fact, I am descended on several path from the same person some by women in the path.
Thanks Doug, I apprciate the grace. It’s late or early depending on when one went to bed.
The conditional promise was made to David concerning Solomon and his bloodline. David, as we know did sit on the throne. His son, Solomon inherited the throne, but disobeyed the Lord in multiple ways. The kingdom was split and eventually led into captivity.
“When God announced His curse on Jeconiah and his descendants, He removed him as the signet on His right hand. Jeremiah 22:24 states, “As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence.” According to Haggai 2:23 the Messiah, who is called Zerubbabel, was made as the signet. As a result, the LORD God has closed the doors on anyone with an earthly father who would claim the throne of David. The only one who would qualify is Jesus of Nazareth, God’s only-begotten Son. Zerubbabel provides the clear genealogical pathway to the Messiah even though he is subject to the curse of his grandfather. Only God’s Son, Jesus of Nazareth, born of a virgin, can justifiably lay claim to the throne of David as Israel’s King Messiah.”
“Joseph was also disqualified. Most importantly, if Jesus were the biological offspring of Joseph, He would also be declared ineligible to claim the throne of David because He would fall under the very same curse.
I am too tired right now, Doug to do this with my own words, so I am drawing from an essay done by Lightfoot. But the last note I would like to make is this:
Since David was a direct descendent of the throne, why wasn’t he sitting on the throne and why didn’t the Pharisees and Saducee recognize this. Instead, they only recognize Jesus as being the son of a Nazarene carpenter—and what good can come out of Nazarene. You see even they recognized that that line of the throne was under the curse and did not recognize any one as being their king. The one that they had was Roman appointed, just as the high priest was.
Interesting to some, but for the Jews that comes to Christ, they are blown away by this when they trace back and realize how this all works. Unfortunately, too few Christians study and or teach this so that more can come to know the Messiah they have been waiting for, for such a long, long time.
Thanks Doug, I apprciate the grace. It’s late or early depending on when one went to bed.
The conditional promise was made to David concerning Solomon and his bloodline. David, as we know did sit on the throne. His son, Solomon inherited the throne, but disobeyed the Lord in multiple ways. The kingdom was split and eventually led into captivity.
“When God announced His curse on Jeconiah and his descendants, He removed him as the signet on His right hand. Jeremiah [chapter] 22:24 states, “As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence.” According to Haggai, [Chapter] 2:23 the Messiah, who is called Zerubbabel, was made as the signet. As a result, the LORD God has closed the doors on anyone with an earthly father who would claim the throne of David. The only one who would qualify is Jesus of Nazareth, God’s only-begotten Son. Zerubbabel provides the clear genealogical pathway to the Messiah even though he is subject to the curse of his grandfather. Only God’s Son, Jesus of Nazareth, born of a virgin, can justifiably lay claim to the throne of David as Israel’s King Messiah.”
“Joseph was also disqualified. Most importantly, if Jesus were the biological offspring of Joseph, He would also be declared ineligible to claim the throne of David because He would fall under the very same curse.
http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/rrj_curse_of_jeconiah.html
I am too tired right now, Doug to do this with my own words, so I am drawing from an essay done by Lightfoot. But the last note I would like to make is this:
Since David was a direct descendent of the throne, why wasn’t he sitting on the throne and why didn’t the Pharisees and Saducee recognize this. Instead, they only recognize Jesus as being the son of a Nazarene carpenter—and what good can come out of Nazarene. You see even they recognized that that line of the throne was under the curse and did not recognize any one as being their king. The one that they had was Roman appointed, just as the high priest was.
Interesting to some, but for the Jews that comes to Christ, they are blown away by this when they trace back and realize how this all works. Unfortunately, too few Christians study and or teach this so that more can come to know the Messiah they have been waiting for, for such a long, long time.
After, this I am going to sit out for awhile as I need to put my attention on other matters.
Perry,
Both geneology is of Jesus. One being of his adopted father, Joseph and the other being of his mother, who is Mary. Jewish tradition does not place her name of it, however, it has her father’s name instead. From there we can trace her lineage back to Nathan, David and Bathsheba, second son (I believe). As we know God did not always choose the firstborn or the second born to carry on the torch, so to speak. He chose Solomon for this one and Nathan to accomplish the unconditional promise (David’s seed without the curse).
Sorry, I did not make this clearer—it’s late and I did want to get this in before signing off.
Who is Zerubabel descended from?
Did he sit on the throne?
The opinion that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary was unknown to Christian antiquity. In the fifteenth century it was first propounded by Latin divines to do honour (as they supposed) to the Blessed Virgin. It was first broached by Annius of Viterbo, a.d. 1502. Christian antiquity is agreed that:—
1. Both genealogies are those of Joseph.
2. That Joseph was the son of Jacob or of Heli, either by adoption, or because Jacob and Heli were either own brothers or half-brothers; so that,—
3. On the death of one of the brothers, without issue, the surviving brother married his widow, who became the mother of Joseph by this marriage; so that Joseph was reckoned the son of Jacob and the son of Heli.1146
4. Joseph and Mary were of the same lineage, but the Hebrews did not reckon descent from the side of the woman. For them St. Luke’s genealogy is the sufficient register of Christ’s royal descent and official claim. St. Luke gives his personal pedigree, ascending to Adam, and identifying Him with the whole human race.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.v.vii.html
Uriah,
I asked why you think one is of Mary and you respond by saying one is of Mary. I can’t see how that is a reason for thinking one is from Mary. Where does the text say or imply one is from Mary? Secondly, this wasn’t even begun to cross people’s minds until the High Middle Ages and was created in the 16th century to give more honor to Mary. It was then picked up by Protestants and passed down as a tradition. But it is not in the text nor derivable from the text and it wasn’t the earlierst belief or the longest belief of Christians.
So again, why think one is of Mary?
The quote Perry put up was written by Protestant Church historian Phillip Schaff….
Alex, I think Perry has a post earlier caught up in moderation. Could you clear it?
Doug and Perry, You need to look at the end of the geneology in Matthew ending with Jacob as being the father of Jospeph who is the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born.
Then look at the beginning of the geneology in Luke: Joseph father is now named Heli.
Heli was the name of Mary’s father. Traditionally, the daughter had to marry a man from her from father’s tribe to keep her inheritance as the daughter of a man who did not have a son. The son in law (Joseph) would in turn inherit the wife’s father. For if Mary had died then all that had belonged to her father would go to Joseph, thus keep it in the tribe of Judah. Joseph could not inherit this without Mary being the heir to her father’s name and property. There children would then inherit both of their parents tribe and lineages. If this was not so, then Mary’s father’s lineage would be no more. Because, it is from the mother the child is identified by being Jew and it is by the father that places them in the respective tribe,which is very important when it comes to being not just Jew, but also of a tribe.
Sorry, it frustrates me having to explain and which these thingswould be taught better so that there would be more understanding between Chritians gentiles and Jews.
Ur wrote – “You need to look at the end of the geneology in Matthew ending with Jacob as being the father of Jospeph who is the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born. Then look at the beginning of the geneology in Luke: Joseph father is now named Heli. ”
Did you read Perry’s post with the quote from Schaff?
“Heli was the name of Mary’s father.”
To paraphrase Perry, “I asked why you think Mary’s father is Heli and you respond by saying Mary’s father is Heli”. Does nothing to deal with the question.
Did you grasp the point being made – you are teaching a Roman Catholic innovation which was invented to give more honor to Mary. Sounds like you are the closet Catholic here.
Ur – “Sorry, it frustrates me having to explain and which these thingswould be taught better so that there would be more understanding between Chritians gentiles and Jews.”
I doubt any knowledgeable Jew would have an issue with the view that Joseph has two fathers, one biological and one from a Levirite marriage. Again, I suggest you read what Perry wrote and stop promoting your Catholic doctrines here.
2 geneology:
Matthew = Josheph/Jacob= Solomon (curse) throne conditional
Luke = Mary/Heli – Nathan (seed of David) = bloodline = unconditional
Kingdom=God’s Kingdom seated upon the throne of David = New Jerusalem
David kingdom was built upon the promise of the coming Messiah, who told us that His “Kingdom” is not of this world but would one day sit on the throne that David occupied in Jerusalem. A new Jerusalem spanning the heaven and the earth, according to Revelation and cross referencing scriptures—you have to search out on your own.
That should keep you going for awhile.
Matthew. chap 1 says that “Jacob was the father of Joseph”
Luke. chap 3 says that “Joseph, the son of Eli”
Nothing about Mary in either passage. You have to import the Roman Catholic idea from the medieval ages into the passage, along with their desire to find an increased place in Scripture for Mary, into the passage. Sounds like you are participating in the Catholic and Anglican agenda to pervert the gospel.
Ur –
Why do you cling to your Roman Catholic doctrine?
ROTFLOL — scripture alone
Have no idea whatsoever what the catholic church teaches on this. Not a clue — that’s what you do, go bark up another tree. But please search the scripture above all things. First, last, and always.
Sitll laughing out loud.
Ur “Have no idea whatsoever what the catholic church teaches on this. Not a clue — that’s what you do, go bark up another tree. But please search the scripture above all things. First, last, and always. ”
Matthew. chap 1 says that “Jacob was the father of Joseph”
Luke. chap 3 says that “Joseph, the son of Eli”
The Catholic Church, who Ur defends, says otherwise.
Doug
“Why do you cling to your Roman Catholic doctrine? Has nothing to do with Catholicism, this has to do with the laws of Judaism.
Why are you unteachable? Obviously, you know little of Judaism. Neither does, Perry apparently. You cannot have 2 fathers in your lineage. What more the woman’s lineage is traced through her father, but her name would never be mentioned. In Mary’s case, her father did not have a son, therefore, she inherited it and it was then possible to through her marriage to have her husband’s name attached to her lineage (via her father’s name). of her son who now bears the lineage of both her father and the lineage of her husband who she married of the same tribe as her father.
Some people had more than one wife, but even then the child only had 2 lineage–one from the mother and one from the father, not from the rest of the wives that the father married. Mary bloodline is derived from her father that goes back to Nathan thus fulfilling the prophecy, He would be of King David seed.
I would expect some to grapple with the idea of kingdom vs Kingdom. Try to keep in mind that David was given a kingdom. Not because that is what God what the people to have, but because the people cried out for a king. Not knowing all the time that they already had a King. And really, when it all come crashing down, whose throne was David sitting on, all along except that which was given to him by God in the first place.
“Why are you unteachable? Obviously, you know little of Judaism. Neither does, Perry apparently. You cannot have 2 fathers in your lineage.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage#Judaism
Ur wrote – “Why are you unteachable? Obviously, you know little of Judaism. Neither does, Perry apparently. You cannot have 2 fathers in your lineage.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage#Judaism
By the way, let’s get something really clear here. I am not RCC in any way, shape, or form. I am a completed Jew. I was raised up in the Catholic church, but left just short of becoming an adult.
So although I knew the catechism, I was not into doctrinal teachings and all the ritualistic symbolism. It was enough for me to know when I open up the Bible that there was such a person, named Jesus who died for my sins and who is the only mediator and propitiation for my sins, alone. I never looked back since except to study their religion and how they truely lost their way in spite of those who gave their lives to love them enough to speak the truth to them.
Nothing personal, just the way its is. So, like I said you are going to have to grapple with this one—-I really don’t care to continue on as anyone can check this out and decide for themselves. If this is also what RCC teaches, great—I for one wouldn’t know. I know more about Judaism and that perhaps gives me a vantage point that does not come so easily from that who do not have that to draw upon from their own heritage and blood.
Uriah,
The text doesn’t say Heli or anyone else is an ancestor of Mary. Mary isn’t mentioned in either Gospel geneaologies. As I noted before, this was invented by Catholic theologians wishing to give more honor to Mary. it has been maintained by popular Protestants on the assumption that one is of Mary, though the Bible never says this, as a tradition and nothing else.
In short, you don’t have to be Catholic to be the recipient of Catholic traditions as many popular Protestants are. The same goes with Messianic Jews, which are a recent Protestant evolution.
Ur – “What more the woman’s lineage is traced through her father, but her name would never be mentioned.”
The Scripture seems pretty clear:
Both say the father of Joseph.
If you actually read the genealogies you’d see that one of them does name women so the claim that “a mother’s name wouldn’t be mentioned” is easily shown to be spurious. Mother’s names were mentioned in Jewish genealogies.
“…Which was [the son] of Joanna, which was [the son] of Rhesa…”
If you’re gonna make up supposed Jewish traditions can’t you do a little better and invent some not so easily refuted?
You sure do cling to your Roman Catholic traditions here.
uriah,
By Judaism, do you mean the creation of the last remaining Rabbi from the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD or do you mean pre-70 AD Judaism? Many Messianic Jews confuse Talmudic Judaism with pre-70 AD Judaism importing beleifs, scriptural glosses and traditions from the Talmudic traditions as if they represented pre-70 AD Judaism as a whole. They don’t. So you would need to demonstrate your theory about lineage keeping from non-Talmudic sources for your claims to stick.
Ur wrote “I am not RCC in any way, shape, or form. ”
Except in doctrine…
“I was raised up in the Catholic church”
Sounds like where you picked this idea up.
” I know more about Judaism and that perhaps gives me a vantage point that does not come so easily from that who do not have that to draw upon from their own heritage and blood.”
Not sure where that comes from if you were born Catholic. Perhaps you attend a Messianic Jewish church. If so you are probably deeply steeped in Dispensationalism since that movement is highly dependent up Dispensationist theology. I attended one for several years until I found out most of them are pretenders. That would fit with what you are saying here since you seem to be just making these Jewish traditions up as you go.
Your quote is not the same as having 2 lineages by 2 different fathers. You just don’t get it. In fact, LOL, your quote proves my point exactly.
The child assumes one father, not both. Hello!!!!!
Perry, he claims to not know anything about whether or not a particular thing is Catholic but at the same time be an expert and a watchman against Catholicism. He claims to have studied these matters and yet knows nothing about them.
He claims to have been raised a Catholic yet has inside knowledge (so he claims) on Judaism.
Personally, I don’t think knowledge of Judaism could come because someone has Jewish genes in their body. I think it would take study. I am curious if he will name any sources of just keep making it up as he goes. I’d expect some copy/paste next from a Dispensational Messianic Jewish website with some supposed tradition…
The geneology is that of Jesus through his adopted Father as noted in Matthew.
The geneology is not of a woman, it is of Jesus.
In Luke, it names Heli as his father as a way of telling us that it is Mary that has inherited her father’s estate and it is by marriage that the children would then trace their mother’s lineage through either the grandfather or the husband of their mother in the case of adoption by a husband.
Otherwise, if Mary had not inherited her father’s estate, the children would simply trace their mother’s lineage through the grandfathes name. So in Joseph’s case, he also became the son of Mary’s father due to the law of inheritance. Look back on Moses when the daughters came to have him change the law to enable them to inherit their father’s property. In order to keep it in the tribe, they had to marry somone of the same tribe that their father was from, thus the son in law would then be like a kinsman redeemer in the sense that they also became a son.
Ur “Your quote is not the same as having 2 lineages by 2 different fathers”
Actually it does quite nicely. If you read the quote Perry posted, you would have seen:
You see, if someone is adopted then they have their genetic origin (biological father) and their legal father (not biological but receives the inheritance).
It’s really not that complicated, Ur, but it will require you to renounce the teachings you learned while you were a Catholic and that you still stubbornly hang onto.
It is because Mary’s father did not have a son that it was important to be able to pass on his name through his daughter by then marrying someone of the same tribe.
Sort of like what you were quoting in that the children born from a remarried woman of the relative of the dead husband. Each tribe member is related more directly than marrying someone of a different tribe. What more, promises, covenants, property, and rolees ascribed throughout Judaic history was and is very important. So when a daughter inherits because there is no son to do so, by marrying someone of the same tribe, it insures that the father or that tribe legacy lives on through the son of that tribe whom the daughter has married. I hope this isn’t too confusing to you.
Ur wrote “In Luke, it names Heli as his father as a way of telling us that it is Mary that has inherited her father’s estate and it is by marriage that the children would then trace their mother’s lineage through either the grandfather or the husband of their mother in the case of adoption by a husband.”
Ever hear of the fallacy of begging the question or circular reasoning ‘cuz you are really good at it. So far you’ve offered no proof other than an imagined (and easily shown to be false) Jewish practice of not naming mothers in Jewish genealogies.
Now again you assume what you are attempting to prove without any evidence to make your case. You can keep making arguments about why the Gospel doesn’t mean what it so clearly says, but the only basis you really have is that your view is backed by Catholic traditions.
Ur “It is because Mary’s father did not have a son that it was important to be able to pass on his name through his daughter by then marrying someone of the same tribe. ”
Imaginative, but not in the Bible. Oh, don’t get me wrong. That may be a tradition in the Bible, but there’s no evidence in the text that Mary is the one related to Heli. After all it says:
Doug,
Ur “Your quote is not the same as having 2 lineages by 2 different fathers”
Actually it does quite nicely. If you read the quote Perry posted, you would have seen:
2. That Joseph was the son of Jacob or of Heli, either by adoption, or because Jacob and Heli were either own brothers or half-brothers…
Nicely, because you don’t want to move out of the box. But not appropriate because a person can only have one lineage and in that lineage, have one named, father. You want to say that Joseph had 2 lineages. Which by Jewish law, this cannot be. Either he is adopted and his adopted father is his father or he is not his father. What more if a near relative has married widow and bears children, the child still can have only one lineage with one named father.
In the case of Heli, it is by marriage that Joseph has assumed the legacy of Heli.
Thus Jesus geneology is given through Joseph having married a woman who inherited her father’s name and estate, but able to retain them as a result of married someone of her father’s own tribe. If she had not done this, then her father’s legacy and tribe would have been lost forever by marrying someone of a different tribe. That is why the law was made and that is why Joseph can call Heli his father as well.
Ur – “Nicely, because you don’t want to move out of the box.”
True, I choose to remain within the bounds of Scripture.
Doug wrote: “you insisted you were on a mission to correct false teaching as you saw it in the Catholic Church”
I haven’t been following this, since I’ve been away, but, I’m not going to read over 200 some new posts to try and catch up and figure out what’s going on. But the fact that Doug hasn’t yet admitted there is even one false teaching in the Catholic establishment, discredits him no matter what he says about anything else. That discredits him since, compared to the Catholic establishment, Calvary Chapel is very small potatoes and is not even a blip on the radar compared to the influence of the Catholic establishment. Doug attempts to be quite the internet warrior, but that’s about as far as it goes.
Doug did say that he would be visiting the local Catholic assembly this weekend, so I look forward to hearing from him how things went as far as him confessing all his sins to his priest, and how things will go with Doug as he eats the eucharist in the hope that it might one day get him into heaven after many years in purgatory that might be lessened by prayers and lit candles done by his other fellow catholics. And I look forward to Doug telling us how the traditions of the Catholic establishment that are exalted to the level of (and above) Scripture, enlightened him this week. And most of all, I look forward to Doug telling us how his prayers to Mary went.
Andy wrote “I haven’t been following this, since I’ve been away,”
And you sure have missed a lot.
Since you were away Hannah declared she holds the same doctrine as the JWs when it comes to Jesus’ relationship to Mary (Mary was a surrogate mom not genetically related to Jesus, she says).
Ur has been defending the Roman Catholic innovation that the genealogies are of Mary and Joseph, not of Joseph as the Scriptures clearly state.
Now if you want to join the fray and defend either the Roman Catholic position or the JW position, you are free to step up.
The fact is you guys said you wanted to discuss Roman Catholic theology here. Alex said it was OK so I thought, hey, why not see what THEY believe? After all, if they are trying to defeat the Roman Catholics, why not learn what they believe.
“Doug did say that he would be visiting the local Catholic assembly this weekend”
Still considering it. Depends upon if it’s too cold or not. I dunno for sure since Ur started defending his Roman Catholic views it’s gotten less attractive to me.
Ur wrote – “Thus Jesus geneology is given through Joseph having married a woman who inherited her father’s name and estate, but able to retain them as a result of married someone of her father’s own tribe. If she had not done this, then her father’s legacy and tribe would have been lost forever by marrying someone of a different tribe. That is why the law was made and that is why Joseph can call Heli his father as well.”
That would be nice if Joseph actually ever did call Heli his father, but outside of the RCC I can’t find such an idea. It’s certainly not in the Bible.
Doug, you may as well outwardly join the Catholic establishment, since you are a catholic man already anyway. Let’s talk about Mary as your intercessor, and the eucharist host as your dice-roll for entrance to heaven. Please tell me how your priest responded with penance prayers and works, to wash away your dirty thoughts from this week.
Sorry, you not able to wrap your head around this. Wish you could and hope one day you will be able to do so, as it opens the floodgates of understanding prophecy filled and to be fulfilled as well as open up the floodgate for the Jewish people to accept and to know the Messiah. What more, it illuminates who Jesus is and why God chose Mary and Joseph as his parents other than just a nice story with her being submitted God’s will and Joseph being a nice guy from the tribe of Judah whose lineage is cursed and cannot explain why no one set on the throne from this lineage after they came back from being in captivity.
It also puts in perspective of what Jesus constantly told us about the Kingdom to come.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_dynasty_in_Bible_prophecy
Here’s a synopsis of the arguments we have been discussing. It is from wikipedia with references. Yeah, I know its not what we would consider to be a scholarly work, but it is a tool that anyone can use to begin their study on what we have been going back and forth on. I scanned it over and it has the all the basics—so rather than to go back and forth on this one can read through this and go from there. Shalom, in Jesus.
Doug if you want to practice your apologetics, they would love to have you over at the carm.org site. I think you would thoroughly enjoy yourself there. I don’t have the time to do this with you here, no do I have the inclination. You have shared with us what school of though you endorse, that’s good enough for me to know where you are coming from and why you say some of the things that you do.
We are not going to agree on much for the stated reason I mention quite awhile back. We can however, agree on the essential of Christianity and I think for the good of those who have been harmed by CC, we need to leave it right there.
It also puts in perspective of what Jesus constantly told us about the Kingdom to come.
Andy—he really is, isn’t he. I wonder if Perry is as well. Because I certainly have never heard this being a catholic teaching. Nor did I hear of Chuch Missler teaching it, but then again, Chuck Missler isn’t RCC.
Hard to tell what’s Doug’s trip is as he does not answer any questions put directly to him, but rather appears to be at minimum enjoy being contentious, evasive, and ever holding his cards closely. Too bad, because agrument for argument sake is not of the Lord.
Andy, may I invite you to have a nice day—-there is life beyond RCC.
Ur, you also have a great day. You are correct that there is life beyond the RCC, except for those ensnared by the RCC, which dominates the person’s whole life.
Doug’s style of verbal volleying that some do, might be something to pass time with, as you have a few cookies sitting at the computer. But it’s not the way to find truth, obviously.
Ur – “Hard to tell what’s Doug’s trip is as he does not answer any questions put directly to him”
Ur, why the misdirection? Here’s the questions you are skirting…
Who is Zerubabel descended from?
Did he sit on the throne?
Andy,
You seem unable to distinguish between two things. Thinking that someone gives bad arguments against Catholicism is not the same thinking that Catholicism is therefore true. That would commit a fallacy of ignorance.
All Doug and I have maintained (if my longer comments which respond to you and Hannah’s Nestorianism and Apollinarianism ever get out of moderation that is) is that the arguments you give are bad arguments. They are bad arguments because they misrepresent Catholic theology or becuse they evaluate Catholic teachings on the assumption of the truth of Protestant claims.
I am going to repost in parts what can’t seem to make it thru moderation.
Here is a general rejoinder to some of the anti-Catholic nonsense here.
First if you haven’t spent time studying Catholic theology from its own sources, you probably know not of what you speak. Reading works by Protestants is no more a fair or accurate way to get a sense of Catholicism than studying Protestantism from Catholic critiques. Do unto others.
If he priesthood is over, then someone needs to tell Paul because he uses the language of “priesting” the Gospel in Romans 15.
And Hebrews 13 speaks of the church having an “altar” from which its members eat sacrifices from.
It is false to say that Jesus is killed every time the Eucharist is offered on the altar. Jesus’ body and blood are presented and the church participates in the once for all offering made spiritually present at that moment. There is no killing going on.
If someone thinks that the use of secondary means like oh, people, books and rites implies that Jesus is not sufficient for salvation, then they should throw away their bible, and renounce their baptism, not to mention burn the book of Acts. People got healed by touching items the Apostles had touched not to mention regularly received the Spirit by the laying on of hands.
Not only James 2 but Matt (25) indicate that human acts play a role in our judgment and hence our standing. James is quite clear that as the soul makes the body alive, so works make faith genuine. They don’t manifest it, they complete it.
1 Cor 13 says that it is love and not faith alone that produces saving faith. Sola Fide excludes Love and Hope from contributing to justification, which seems at odds with 1 Cor (13). In any case any human effort in Catholic theology that increases our justification are human acts that are moved prior by grace so all ultimate credit goes to God. This is why Augustine says, God crowns his own merits in us.
Trent never says that salvation by faith is anathema. Trent teaches that salvation by faith alone, namely that faith of itself is worthless but acts as a conduit for the transfer of extrinsic moral credit, is anathema. Trent explicitly teaches justification by faith, just not faith alone.
Of course most popular protestant bodies don’t believe in faith alone either, because the Reformation doctrine entails the belief that regeneration comes before faith and God picks who gets faith (predestination). If you believe first of your own “free will” as far as the Reformers are concerned, that is works salvation too. Just read Luther’s Bondage of the Will. The primary issue of the Reformation was whether men could move themselves to faith or not, not Mary, the saints or any other issue. Luther says as much.
Catholic traditions had better at least in some cases be equal to the bible since what books ended up being the bible is part of tradition. If not, then the bible is just a book collected and selected by fallible men. Second, some traditions in Catholicism are equal in authority to the Bible, but only the Bible is inspired. This is upheld in De Verbum in Vatican 2 among other documents of the Catholic Magisterium.
I dare say the persons speaking of the “true Jesus” probably have little to any familiarity with a proper Christology (Chalcedonianism) or could articulate it or defend it. Does Jesus have two minds or one? Does Jesus have a human soul or no? Does Jesus have two wills or one will? Was Jesus ignorant? Did God suffer when Jesus suffered on the cross or did a body suffer and God just watched? So please, show some humility when talking about the “true Jesus.”
Priestly celibacy is a rule, not a doctrine and so can be changed at any time. And it is a rule for only a few of the churches within the Catholic church, namely the Latin Rite, which is the largest. Eastern Rite Catholic clergy can be married and many are. The Catholic church is made up of over 20 different churches or rites. Only some have celibacy.
And while it is quite true that Catholicism anathematizes Protestant doctrine, the conditions for eternal punishment for individual Protestants depends on a whole mess of factors, not the least of which is whether they fully understand what it is they reject and what it is they maintain. So it isn’t some carte blanche assurance or teaching that all Protestants are cosmic toast. Besides, Protestant have been condemning Catholics to hell and as pagans for the last five centuries as well.
If the gospel of grace amounts to the Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide, then most Protestants, including CC do not have the gospel of grace. Added to this, no one did either prior to the Reformation since no one taught justification by faith alone prior to the Reformation. (Someone call Salt Lake City!!) This is conceded by Protestant historians such as McGrath in his work on the history of Justification, Iustitia Dei.
Second, if you do not believe that God unconditionally predestines some people to salvation, then according to the Reformers, you have a false gospel too since that is an essential part of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide.
Romans 4 teaches that Abraham only had the virtue of faith and it was on that basis he was justified. It doesn’t teach that he didn’t later or couldn’t ever have other virtues like love and hope that built on that basis. Saying you only have faith as a basis for being declared just at the start does not mean that it is the only basis all the way through one’s life. In this way Abraham’s later actions became part of his initial faith, which is why James says he wasn’t justified by faith alone.
And btw, I am not Catholic either.
It is quite true that the Catholic church teaches that there is no salvation outside of her. But two things should be kept in mind. This was expressed long before the Reformation when there were three categories of people generally speaking-pagans, Christians and Jews. And the only Christians were members of the Catholic church. Secondly, Catholicism teaches that membership in the Catholic church isn’t defined exactly by where one goes or doesn’t go to church on Sunday. Many Protestants are Catholics without knowing it since they were so baptized and God doesn’t instantaneously let people know that they have received grace, what grace they have received or where they ought to go to have the fullness thereof.
As far as giving up rules and regulations, popular Protestants have plenty of rules of their own making. Pot meet kettle. Second, take a long hard look at what Protestants have done with their supposed “freedom.” Usually watching about ten minutes of TBN will be sufficient. When people complain about a lack of freedom it is because they wish to be the master. Chuck Smith is a perfect example along with dozens upon dozens of others.
As far as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, well one may not think it is biblical, but Protestants and Catholics do not even agree on what books should be considered biblical, let alone how to go about interpreting them. Secondly, Catholicism doesn’t teach that all doctrines have to be derived from the biblical text so holding them to standards that they do not admit and are in dispute is the fallacy of question begging at the least.
Intercession and mediation in Catholic theology, let alone Paul, are not the same. Catholicism affirms one principled mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. Like Paul, they teach that intercession is possible by others through the one mediator. Language about Mary being co-mediatrix is understood in a derivative sense, that is Mary because of her participation in the Incarnation of Christ and her transformation because of it participates in Christ’s mediating work in terms of dispensing graces, not in terms of originating them. Think what you like, but Catholic theologians aren’t stupid. They would never have framed their doctrinal statements to be so easily overturned. If you think they are, well, you just haven’t done the requisite work to understand it.
Popes don’t put out new revelation. Catholicism affirms a closed canon in terms of general revelation. Private revelations are not binding on Catholics for assent.
Mary doesn’t ascend, she is assumed in the doctrine of the assumption. She is taken up by Jesus, she doesn’t get there by herself. To portray Catholic theology in this way is not only unfair but attacks a view they do not teach.
To say that Mary is the Mother of Jesus but not the Mother of God, is the fifth century heresy of Nestorianism, which posits two subjects or persons in Christ under a single outward manifestation-the man and the Logos under the single form of “Christ”. By contrast the bible and the early church councils clearly and fully teach that Mary bears the one divine person of the Eternal Son and not some human person conjoined to the Son. To take Theotokos (God bearer) or Mater Theos (Mother of God) as meaning that God has a source of his being in a woman is just to show that one has no idea what those titles mean or were intended to articulate. In this way Romaphobes go so far out of their way to say Rome is wrong and end up denying the true Jesus. The tittles in question were accepted by all of the Reformers so it just isn’t an issue between Protestants and Catholics.
The ovum had better be from Mary, otherwise Jesus is not her offspring. This surrogacy theory that Hannah is proffering is nothing less than Nestorianism or Apollinarianism, which all of Classical Protestantism rejected for the last five hundred years. This is what happens when people rely on their own understanding and let their desire to be right get the best of them. Hannah should stop talking before she utters more blasphemies. Jesus doesn’t go through Mary as water does a pipe, as Nestorius taught. Go read the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon which all the Reformers upheld.
As far as women not having seeds, well seed in the scripture often refers to offspring or descendant. The divine person of the Son is Mary’s offspring in his incarnation. She bears this person and no other. If he isn’t then someone else died on the Cross, namely just a man. Good luck with that. The Christian faith affirms, God was born. God sucked at the breast. God pooped and God suffered and died for our sins. This is foolishness to Greeks and a stumbling block to Jews (and Muslims).
As far as how Mary can be sinless and still need a Savior, here is an idea. Why not make oneself familiar with the arguments given in the primary sources to find out? The requisite source is John Duns Scotus, otherwise known as the Subtle Doctor. Scotus argues that there are two ways one can be saved. First by rescue and second by prevention. Mary is saved by Christ by preventing her from being tainted by original sin. In this way Christ is still her savior because she was full of his grace. Read Ps 45, no one else (mere human) is spoken of in the Scriptures in this way except Mary alone which is all the more relevant since Christ gets his flesh from her body. They flesh of flesh and bone of bone, which is why the early Christians (2nd Century) called Mary the Second Eve. That would be 200 years before the canon of the bible was established mind you and at least fifty years before any named copies of the Gospels show up.
If Rome is a Whore, then that makes Protestants her bastard children. And that is just fine as far as the Orthodox are concerned.
As far as Hannah’s claim that one of the genealogies in the Gospels is that of Mary, well get ready for some irony. That view was a medieval invention designed to give more honor to Mary. Up until about the 12th century or so and continuing in the East, the belief going back at least to Julius Africanus in the 2nd/3rd century (which is the earliest source) was that both genealogies are of Joseph, who’s father was the product of a Levitical marriage (a brother or cousin dies without providing an heir and so a male relative marries the widow and provides an offspring and so the child has legally two genealogies). Henry Morris is simply not a church historian and it shows.
The use of Heb 10:5 is somewhat humorous since the text the author of Hebrews uses is the LXX, not the Hebrew. The Hebrew text is about the digging out of ears. The preparation of the body is a reference to the forming of the body in the womb, not some pre-existing body coming to be placed in Mary’s womb. The latter is just the plain old heresy of Apollinarianism, which again, all of the Reformers condemned as heretical.
There is no such thing as a “sin nature” nor does the bible speak of it. The Bible speaks of the flesh, sarx which generally denotes moral corruption and mortality. But all natures are created and sustained by God and evil has no substantial existence anymore than blindness does. To speak of a “sin nature” is just plain old Gnosticism. The lack of something Is not some stuff. Besides, if human choices could change the image of God, then human choices could thwart God’s will for human nature to be the way he willed it. Take that Calvinists!!! lol
As far as Apostolic Succession goes, no, CC does not embrace it. The doctrine of Apostolic succession is not a thesis about ongoing revelation. It is a claim that a portion of the Apostles ministry and authority is handed on to their successors by the laying on of hands so that the ministry of Jesus begun in them continues and that there is a threefold order of ministers, bishops, presbyters and deacons, with the first alone having the power and right to ordain. Try reading the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (died 107 AD). Oh yeah, he was ordained by the Apostles Peter AND Paul and dies as a martyr in the Roman circus.
The irony about citing MacArthur on salvation is that MacArthurs Lordship position just is that of Trent, that other virtues and human acts form or complete faith. I remember when I was talking with Horton back in the early 90’s about this during the Lordship controversy and he explicitly said so. MacArthur is a closet Tridentine Catholic on justification and rejects Sola Fide and he doesn’t even know it. Listening to MacArthur talk about Catholic theology is like listening to Bryson on Calvinism.
As to how Catholics arrive at the assumption of Mary, well Scripture doesn’t say much about Mary’s death or most of the Apostles for that matter. Much of that information is derived from the testimony of Christians in the first four hundred years of Christianity or so. But since Catholics don’t think that all their doctrines have to come from the bible, that isn’t a problem for them that it isn’t in scripture.
People who think they know it all are especially annoying to those of us who do.
Perry wrote “Popes don’t put out new revelation. Catholicism affirms a closed canon in terms of general revelation. Private revelations are not binding on Catholics for assent.”
When they speak ex cathedra (from the throne) isn’t that consider as “authoritative”?
Perry wrote: “If Rome is a Whore, then that makes Protestants her bastard children. And that is just fine as far as the Orthodox are concerned.”
And even better for those of us that know that all three categories are useless. It is Jesus that matters, not man-made labels. Go off on your labels all you want, I will reject them always, as I always have.
Sorry friend.
Andy,
If all three are usless, then you must be a non-Christian. Second, your theological position as articulated is distinctly Protestant or at least is trying to be.
Here is the problem for you. You don’t get to Jesus apart from secondary means, books, people and such tell you about him. The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. Men choose thos books, translated them, preserved them and interpreted them. Just becuse you reject labels doesn’t mean you don’t fall under them. It just means you suffer from Freudian Denial.
Perry,
The first Christians weren’t in any of those man-made categories. So I don’t want to be in any of them either. I reject your man-made nomenclature, your man-made doctrines and labels, and your assertions across the board.
The Bible is from God. I didn’t get it from any of your labels. I got it from Him, and I got His Holy Spirit from Him, and so I reject all your labels and assertions.
The Lord didn’t tell me to reform Catholicism. He told me to believe His Word. And that I do.
Doug,
Ex Cathedra statements and statements by the ordinary Magisterium are also infallible, but they are not inspired and so not revelation. They are incapable of being wrong, but they do not reveal any teachings not in the depost if faith in tradition (which includes scripture) either explicitly or implicity. I am not saying I agree with it, but that is the idea.
Andy,
There is no inference from, man made, to false. Second, you confuse the inventing of a TERM with an inventing of an idea. No theological tradition thinks that their teachings were invented by them, but they all claim they go back to God. So noting that the term is invented or coined to pick out or refer to their position doesn’t prove that their teachings are man made. Further, just because you eschew all labels doesn’t mean yourposition isn’t man made. In fact it is. You made it by your fallible interpretation of the Bible.
You claim I’ve made assertions, but I have actually made arguments. Learn what an argument is and then engage them.
The bible may be from God as far as being inspired, but what books ended up in the Bible was decided by men, sometime in the late fourth century at the Synods of Rome in 382 and Carthage in 397 and then ratified at Trullo and then 2nd Nicea in 787. And oh, it included books your bible removed by Protestant men btw, leaves out.
The Bible didn’t land on your porch from the sky. You bought it from a publisher or someone bought it for you. So again, you depend on men for the bible in more ways than one.
You believe your interpretation of his word, which not only can be, but is, as I showed above, wrong. Don’t confuse your interpretation with God’s Word.
Perry,
Pardon me, I just can’t stop grinning.
How do you know all those dates and assertions you just stated? Someone told you that from a book. Were you there? No. So you have to trust some author of a book.
I don’t trust them. You can if you want to. But I don’t trust any of them.
I trust the Bible, and I don’t believe it came from where you believe it did. So we will never agree.
You will eventually give up on a person like me, due to your most superior intellect I’m sure.
Andy,
Yes, I learned them from books, and the actual documents themselves. These are called PRIMARY sources. Do you propose any other way to know about history? do you have a time travel device the rest of us don’t know about?
If you do not trust any human author, then you can’t know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All of those names were transmitted by church tradition. There are not any manuscripts of those Gospel texts prior to 200-250 AD with those designations on them. And that is just one example. So you have better trust Polycrap, Ireneaus and Justin Martyr otherwise the Bble itself is untrustworthy.
The fact is, Christians had no fixed bible until hundreds of years later. Most Christians agreed on the gospels, but not all of them did. most agreed on many of the Pauline Epistles but not all of them did and most didn’t agree on everything from Hebrews to Revelation until the Fifth century or so. That is just reality.
And then we can talk about translations and variant manuscript readings. Men decided between which manuscript was authentic or probably so and which weren’t. Men decided how to translate from hebrew and greek into English. Even if you could read those langauges yourself, you learned from men and you are a man doing the translating. We aren’t supposedly to trust men, but you seem to have an easy time trusting yourself over everyone else. There is a word for that.
And your snottyness doesn’t help your case any. Follow the bible and treat people with some respect.
Perry,
I don’t propose to know anything about so-called “history”. I only know this: The Bible says that it is the Word of God. So I trust the Lord. He gave me His Word.
I don’t have to do anything you say, or believe anything you assert.
The Lord led me to His Word, not to man-made “history lessons” which are all unprovable. Call them primary sources if you want, they were written by men, and you can’t prove they are primary. And even if they were, that still doesn’t prove them to be true.
But the Word of God is true.
The Word is from the Lord, not from man, and no man or council decided what you assert. You believe a book. I believe The Book.
Andy,
Some books of the bible refer to writings as the Word of God, but the Bible itself doesn’t tell you a complete list of what works are the Word of God. So that isn’t going to work. There is no inspired list of inspired books.
Nope, you don’t have to be rational or be moved by logic. That is your choice. God lets you be free to believe silly things, heretical things and false things. I am not sure how we gte from that, to, I am wrong.
if you think that historical facts are unprovable, then you must think the existence of Jesus, the Apostles and the Resurrection are all unproveable. Thanks for giving the atheist exactly what he wants. You’ve just capitulated that Christianity is unreasonable and without a foundation. Thats called Fideism. Congrats, you’re a fideist.
Sure, I noted two councils that picked which books should be in the bible, Carthage in 397 and Rome in 382. Jews before them have various lists for which books they accepted as inspired and which they rejected. Last I checked, Jews were men too.
Perry,
Last time, since I won’t allow you to frame the discussion. The Lord led me to believe His Word. I’m all set with that. If you need to believe man’s “history”, that is your business. I don’t believe it, and never will. Until you prove that your history books are 100% infallible, they are useless in this discussion. And I now conclude this discussion, because the foundation doesn’t make sense. If the foundation is not Scripture alone, then I’m not interested in the discussion anyway. Good day to you.
Andy,
Suppose someone doesn’t think say Ruth is part of the bible, and you say it is. How is one to know if it is or isn’t?
Andy,
Since you have decided to depart. Scripture may be infallible, but your interpretations of it aren’t. if men aren’t relaible then neither are you. In which case no one should accept your judgments about anything, including what the Bible teaches.
“The first Christians weren’t in any of those man-made categories. So I don’t want to be in any of them either.”
Actually, they were in several categories; Jews, Gentiles, Converts who were raised Gentile converted to the Jewish faith and then became Jewish Convert Christians.
Categories have always been around.
, 2. IT IS Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans, as the religion which he introduced makes clear even unto this day. It is evident that this is the religion that is followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity; that is, according to the apostolic discipline and the evangelic doctrine, we shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.
We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment (28 February 380).
I was taught that Leo the Great was the first pope but the Theodosian Code shows that in the 4th century not the 5th century the bishop of Rome was the first among equals. Not certian about the BIshop of Rome influence, Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corthians that according to Eusebius was read in their church for some years. Its true that the genology is Joseph according to church historian Eusebius.
Constantine was a complex figure and he did give money to the churches. Many think now that he saw something in the sky since there was some astromical events. Constantine was like early Jews sometimes it took him time to break away from Sol Invictus and become more of a believer in the Christian faith. Maybe, it was too worldly and could be cruel but he got rid of cruxifcation and bannned animal sacfricee whichh was at the heart of the old pagan religion. He was bapitized late which was common in the 4th century. Ambrose of Milan was another figure of the 4th century bapitized late. I visited Italy in 1992 and saw the church that Ambrose bapitized Augustine. Big fan of Roman history since age 12 when I saw a picture of the assination of Julius Caesar.
“Who is Zerubabel descended from?” David
“Did he sit on the throne?” No, he never did.
Does that mean he wasn”t king. No, it just means that he fulfilled the prophecy. That no one would sit upon the throne in Israel (Jerusalem) after Zedikiah. Jeremiah, Chapter 22:30. And no one has to this day.
Zedikiah (sp) was the last king to sit on the throne of David in Israel.
Through Joseph, Jesus had the legal right to the throne.
A person cannot have more than one genealogy naming the father. There would be no purpose whatsoever, for Jospeh to have 2 genealogy via a father—what more, either one would be null and void and the one would be the legitmate genealogy. But to have 2 with a different father, named can only indicate the one mentioned in Luke is by marriage to Mary and that Heli is her father, instead.
If this curse was not in effect, then why didn’t the priests and scribe recognize Joseph as being their king?
Through Mary, Jesus biological connection was traced back to Nathan who is the seed of David.
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/the-genealogy-of-jesus-genealogical-difficulties-in-matthew-and-luke/
http://www.rondaniel.com/library/14-2Chronicles/2Chronicles3601.pdf
Andy——don’t let it get to you—-they are using this site to justify and to promote catholic teachings to essentially accocmplish what Geisler means to do. To bridge the gap between Evangelicals and Catholic.
Unfortunately, they do not have the heart of Christ in their approach but rather use a style of argument that is meant to confuse and to turn the table to then be able to present those things that would enable them proselytize.
The deal with translation is that no matter who translate these letters, if they are genuine articles form the said authors of scripture, then they stand for themselves, apart from any canonical process or liturgical interpretations.
The letters that were written by Paul, Peter, John, etc stand true, by themselves. As for the veracity of their written works, the RCC has taken liberty to build upon them, rather than to abide in them. You are absolutely correct in what you say—–Papacy authority is null and void in the eyes of the Lord. It is a different gospel and one that would place a person under an authority that is not of the Lord.
So as much as possible, let’s not give them any more air time to blow their smoke. They are interested in anything other than to hear themselves spout what they believe can be won by scholasticism was born, breeded and seated upon the false teachings of RCC. And so in their pride they cannot see beyond themselves. They cannot trust scripture alone and they certainly cannot be taught of the Holy Spirit outside the filtering done by Papal authority.
You and Hannah did a fine job in bringing these things to the light.
Moderator, have comment waiting due to website address citing. Please clear. Thanks.
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/the-genealogy-of-jesus-genealogical-difficulties-in-matthew-and-luke/
http://www.rondaniel.com/library/14-2Chronicles/2Chronicles3601.pdf
Andy,
A common way to dismiss the truth is to shoot the messenger. They did this with Jesus and so they will also attempt to find an opening to do it with you, as well. However, if we focus upon Scripture rather than the intellectualization of philosophical and extraneous arguments, we can see more clearly the scripture as it stands. The question last posed to me asked:
“Who is Zerubabel descended from?” David
“Did he sit on the throne?” No, he never did.
Does that mean he wasn”t king. No, it just means that he fulfilled the prophecy. That no one would sit upon the throne in Israel (Jerusalem) after Zedikiah. Jeremiah, Chapter 22:30. And no one has to this day.
Zedikiah (sp) was the last king to sit on the throne of David in Israel.
No sits on the throne of David as of this day. Jesus told us that His Kingdom has yet to be stablished and when it is, He will sit upon the throne given to David, by God. But for now, He sits at the right hand of the Father. Waitng upon the time that He will come and established that Kingdom, upon earth and whose throne is that which was given to David located in Jerusalem. Thus, the promises were fulfilled, both legally and biologically and can be confirmed by the genealogy of Jesus through His adopted father and the bloodline of His (biological) mother. If it was not so, scripture would not have revealed this to us.
Through Joseph, Jesus had the legal right to the throne.
A person cannot have more than one genealogy naming the father. There would be no purpose whatsoever, for Jospeh to have 2 genealogy via a father—what more, either one would be null and void and the one would be the legitmate genealogy. But to have 2 with a different father, named can only indicate the one mentioned in Luke is by marriage to Mary and that Heli is her father, instead.
If this curse was not in effect, then why didn’t the priests and scribe recognize Joseph as being their king?
Through Mary, Jesus biological connection was traced back to Nathan who is the seed of David.
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/the-genealogy-of-jesus-genealogical-difficulties-in-matthew-and-luke/
Andy——don’t let it get to you—-they are using this site to justify and to promote catholic teachings to essentially accocmplish what Geisler means to do. To bridge the gap between Evangelicals and Catholic.
Unfortunately, they do not have the heart of Christ in their approach but rather use a style of argument that is meant to confuse and to turn the table to then be able to present those things that would enable them proselytize.
The deal with translation is that no matter who translate these letters, if they are genuine articles form the said authors of scripture, then they stand for themselves, apart from any canonical process or liturgical interpretations.
The letters that were written by Paul, Peter, John, etc stand true, by themselves. As for the veracity of their written works, the RCC has taken liberty to build upon them, rather than to abide in them. You are absolutely correct in what you say—–Papacy authority is null and void in the eyes of the Lord. It is a different gospel and one that would place a person under an authority that is not of the Lord.
So as much as possible, let’s not give them any more air time to blow their smoke. They are interested in anything other than to hear themselves spout what they believe can be won by scholasticism was born, breeded and seated upon the false teachings of RCC. And so in their pride they cannot see beyond themselves. They cannot trust scripture alone and they certainly cannot be taught of the Holy Spirit outside the filtering done by Papal authority.
You and Hannah did a fine job in bringing these things to the light. What strikes me throughout the course of this exchange is that a JW would expose the truth of RCC teachings and how they have erred in their doctrines and assumed unscriptural authority over the church of true believers. We, who worship the true Jesus ought to know these things as well, so that we would not be drawn away to adopt that which is not of the Lord.. Nevertheless, God used her to expose that which need to be known about Geisler and those who seeks to promote him and false teachings that would place the papacy above scriptural truths.
Uriah-
I won’t really entertain an argument with you.
You are doing the same to me as they are doing to you but for some reason you don’t see when you bait another. I’m not surprised because you have always been right behind me waiting to attack me.
If you want to keep calling me a JW that is your right.
I never denied that Jesus came in the flesh or that Mary is His mother.,
Apparently you will not read the article I posted written by a Christian MD which explains my position.
I spoke to my gynecologist many years ago and asked him if the mothers blood passed the placenta and he said it did not.
The Virgin shall conceive. By what means she conceives is not important to me.
I do not believe Jesus is a Spirit without flesh as someone else accused me of.
How did Mary give birth to Jesus if he is not flesh?
I attempted to tie in the RCC teaching of Marys sinless birth, because it relates to the subject of Marys blood needing to be sinless to “create” a sinless child/man.
I see very little patience in the interaction of this subject and the “thinking through’ all this.
It started out with my exposing false teachings of the RCC, and Doug needed to take the focus off that and switch it on to me. And you followed suit.
I am willing to acknowledge that God could use any means possible on Jesus’ “creation”(since he has existed “in the beginning” (You see-one has to carefully choose every word, because someone will be right behind them ready to attack—and this is Christian love??)and there are s me mysteries I cant in my human limited mind “figure out”. Do you profess to know everything?
I have always understood that the “seed” is from the man (sperm), so the terminology of “seed” in Genesis has led me to believe that God planted this “seed” in Mary and that she was His mother whether it was her egg or God planted an embryo in her.
I have no idea what the JW teaches about this. If this is what they teach, I am unaware.
To continue to accuse me of being a JW is ridiculous, and evil.
In fact, this entire thread to me has turned evil.
there is no reasoning here-just agendas.
If I am wrong that it is indeed Marys egg that was somehow fertilized by God, then He will let me know when I get to heaven. In your mind, I am damned to hell and a heretic.
There is no reason to continue to contribute to a place where there is so little love and so much hate, and worse than that pride.
Uriah, you are not God, and you don’t get to tell me what I am.
Thats about all I want to say.
Better to spend my time more wisely.
One last comment.
I never denied that Jesus is God.
I do not believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel either.
I think your attack (and Doug’s) against me is misdirected and evil.
No further conversation on my end.
Jesus’ Birth
The Watchtower Society teaches that Michael the archangel disappeared from heaven and was conceived miraculously by (the Virgin) Mary. “Since actual conception took place, it appears that Jehovah God caused an ovum or egg cell in Mary’s womb to become fertile, accomplishing this by the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to the earth” (Aid, p. 920).
“Marvelously, Jehovah transferred the life-force and the personality pattern of his first-born heavenly Son to the womb of Mary. God’s own active force, his holy spirit, safeguarded the development of the child in Mary’s womb so that what was born was a perfect human” (Reasoning, p. 255).
Christians concur with the Watchtower Society’s belief in the miraculous, virgin birth (conception) of Jesus Christ. However, in addition to the unscriptural notions of Jesus’ preexistence as Michael, a major disagreement by Christians relates to the Watchtower Society’s depersonalization of the Holy Spirit. The Watchtower Society also contends that they have determined the exact dates for Jesus’ birth, baptism, and death. “Jesus was evidently born in the month of Ethanium (September-October) of the year 2 B.C.E. (Before the Common Era), was baptized about the same time of the year in 29 C.E. (Common Era), and died about 3 p.m. on Friday, the fourteenth day of the spring month of Nisan (March- April), 33 C.E.” (Aid, p. 920).
Uriah read Eusebius on the genealogies its not Mary. The ancients were different than us they would sometimes shows lines from the Husband only. In fact Paul Maier a Lutheran wrote an update on Eusebius he is not unfriendly with evangelicals. He agrees with Eusebius.
Alex-
I want to say this as lovingly as possible.
Please read your #55 on “open blogging” on PxP and ask youself if you have done that here.
I will continue to pray for you and for your family.
When I found this blog 2 1/2 yrs ago, it was a place for me to find solice from my own abuse.
I will continue to pray for your situation.
My prayers have always been for you to be reconciled to your parents and for complete restoration. That will continue to be my prayers. Peace be with you.
Hannah
Well, the Megiddo church might be the oldest church late 4th or early 5th or some say the house church of Duras. In Megiddo there is a table for communion not the altar yet. All early church bodies even those outside of the early Catholic church were liturgial. The phrase in Isiash 6 Holy holy is the Lord Almightly the Earth and heavens are filled with your Glory is mention in the First letter of Clement of Rome which might be late First Century and that phrase is in very early liturgial forms like the one of St James.
I mean late 3rd or early 4th century,excuse me an error.
Let’s take an issue like abortion its not mention in the Bible, yet most Evangelicals opposed it because of early church writings that they don’t believe in like the Didache There is a traditon in Jewish wrtings against it in Philo or Josephius that usses an old testement passage where a man strikes a woman with child and causes a miscarrage they are punished. Maybe, protestants that it from the Philo or Josephius agrument. Eastern Orthodox are opposed to abortion but not as steadfast as Catholics because St Basil and other St’s opposed but Byzantine law codes like the Justinian allow abortion for the first 40 days or the Basil emperor code where if the mothre’s life is in danger then abortion is ok but Basil still had a harash punishment of whipping.
Well, actually I think Roman Catholics have better agruments in early Chirstianity but as mention some of the developments in the middle ages and later I don’t agree with.
Ur ‘“Who is Zerubabbel descended from?” David’
Sure, but we both know you understood the question I was asking…
1 Chrn ch 3 v16-19 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.
And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son, Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. And the sons of Pedaiah [were], Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister:
Let me see if I have this right…
Jeconiah is the father of Pedaiah.
Pedaiah or Salathiel is the father of Zerubabbel.
Either way that must mean that Zerubabbel is the grandson of Jeconiah.
Ur – ‘“Did he sit on the throne?” No, he never did.’
Let’s see if what Ur says comports with Scripture…
Haggi. ch 2 v 23 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.
Uh, oh. “make thee as as signet”. Sounds an awful lot like the grandson of Jeconiah was made the king by the same God who put the so-called “blood curse” on his grandfather…
Ur – “Does that mean he wasn”t king. No, it just means that he fulfilled the prophecy. That no one would sit upon the throne in Israel (Jerusalem) after Zedikiah. Jeremiah, Chapter 22:30. And no one has to this day. ”
Interesting so when God made him King, he wasn’t sitting on the throne but was just king without a throne? Doesn’t sound like much of a distinction. Nor does it sound like your interpretation of the prophecy could possibly be true since there was a king descended from Jeconiah.
No wonder the Gospel writer had no problem listing Jeconiah in the genealogy. If God didn’t have a problem with Jeconiah’s grandsone being king and his descendents after that, they shouldn’t either. And we don’t either.
Let’s try the same questions again in a slightly different form.
1 – Was Zerubabbel the grandson of Jeconiah?
2 – Did Zerubabbel rule as King over the people?
If you remember the curse it had two parts (really just one but you’ve changed it into two parts so…)
Jer. ch 22 v 30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
No descendent of Zechoniah would rule any more in Judah, is the way you read this, right?
Yet, Zerubabbel ruled in Judah…. Either it wasn’t a permanent curse or Scripture is false.
I know which one I believe…
Hannah “I never denied that Jesus came in the flesh or that Mary is His mother.,”
Half true, you “never denied that Jesus came in the flesh” at least not directly.
In #206 you wrote:
No comment required since your position speaks for itself. Mary isn’t the mother of Jesus – just the vessel that carried the embryo.
Hannah – “By what means she conceives is not important to me.”
Untrue. Your argument that Mary isn’t the Mother of God requires that her egg not be used and she not be the biological parent of Jesus.
Hannah – “I attempted to tie in the RCC teaching of Marys sinless birth, because it relates to the subject of Marys blood needing to be sinless to “create” a sinless child/man. ”
I realize you take your position that Mary was a surrogate for the purpose of refuting Mary as the Mother of God but you’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
This is in regards to your claim (in #344)
Hannah – “Jesus is not LORD. Thats Yahweh. He is Lord.”
Hannah – “I have no idea what the JW teaches about this. If this is what they teach, I am unaware.”
That is why I posted the link on what JWs believe (in #357):
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/527-is-jesus-jehovah
Didn’t you read the link I posted? You don’t need to be unaware of where your teaching originated.
Hannah, you wrote posts 22, 33, 38, 40, 41, 42, 86, 104, 105, 106, 107 against Catholics and from what I can see there are no Catholics here.
I asked (#47, 55) why this thread had become one that was bashing Catholic teaching instead of concentrating on Calvary Chapel and you, Andy and Ur just wouldn’t stop… Alex said it was OK, so the thread continued askew on the subject of Catholicism.
After that you made your series of points and I thought I’d get you to defend what you are teaching. I started at the first point where you denied that Mary is the Mother of God and we’ve been stuck there ever since we found out what you actually believe.
So you had the stomach to criticize the faith of people who aren’t even here to defend their views, but now you won’t stick around to defend your own beliefs by people who are in the same camp as you are?
Good point form Sue about Protestants and many Catholics and Orthodox point to Calvin where in Geneva he had Servius put to death and had 80 witches burn. people burn for witchcraft was mainly Protestants not Catholics.
Chuck Smith is a more immoral verison of Montanius. The Montanians were extreme in the morality issues which Calvary isn’t. Constant fastings, read Tertullian who became one.
. The Greek Orthodox sure was far more peaceful than this. But then again, they did not have the money nor the funding that came from Constantine. Rome was the center of the universe, so it was RCC that had the resources and power to dictate pretty much whatever they wanted in order to maintain “ecclesiactical” control over those without any power or say so. What are you talking about ,Constantine founded Constantinople or New Rome, the Eastern Orthodox came from the Eastern Empire which Constantine funded. Under Constantine reign’s, the Empire was not divded. In the rest of the 4th century there was a divison between theEast and the West. The last time the Roman Empire did not have two rulers was Theodosius the First, and when he died his sons Honorius in the West and Aracadius in the East until 473 the last year of an emperor in the west.
Hannah
I asked you twice if you were a Jehovah Witness. I also ask if you believed in the trinity. I grew even more concerned when you denied that Jesus was fully man born from the seed of Mary (meaning her descendent).
You did not deny that you were a JW. And based on your answers concerning Mary being the mother of Jesus who is God, the second person of the trinity, as well as, his mother by her seed (bloodline/human descendent), of course I should be asking you this directly. At the same time, it still does not negate the truth of what you exposed concerning the RCC. And that is what Doug did not want to focus upon. Instead, as you stated, he caught this and went with it because it derailed everything being brought out concerning the RCC.
I have tried to be sensitve with you Hannah and at the same time direct in calling you out to give a clear answer. I do humbling apologize if I have heard something that you did not admit to being a JW. Then again, my concern has not been abated, as it does draw a line in the sand in what constitute being of the Christian faith. The only other group that i can call off hand is the belief that those who are called “Jesus Only” who believes that Jesus is God, and the H.S. and the Father are manifestations of God, not distinct persons of the Godhead. But that’s not what I heard or read you to state, particularly when you got caught up in the LORD vs Lord bit—that is clearly JW language, as Doug pointed out.
Now Hannah, I can see that your feelings are hurt, but do you think if I was out to get you, I would have given you much credit for exposing Doug and the Catholic dogma he kept dodging. Hannah, I am not out to get you—-so please just because Doug has managed to spread his malarky all over this thread yet run circles around the truth while being abusive, rude, and caught up in his own arrogance and intellectualism, don’t strike against me either—okay.
You’re right, I am not God—I can only go on what you did not deny. And once again, you did a tremendous job in exposing Doug for what he is. A man who cannot understand scripture without the filtering through papal authority first. His argument are all to common is what and how they gather the weak and vulnerable who are hurting and are looking for solance and healing. Unfortunately, it much like what the Moses Model does as well.
I’ve read posts by Doug, his site, and some old stuff of his, as well as about 2 or 3 years worth of Hannah’s posts, plus Uriah’s+ of late.
You are all on the same team.
No one communicates without miscommunication or legitimate disagreement somewhere. I’ve read each of you missing the point of the other, it’s common.
Alex, thanks again for the update on the lawsuit. The countdown begins again. 16 days …
Re: my own 514
By “on the same team” I mean you all agree that corruption should be called out.
As for your “beliefs”, they are all within the pale of orthodoxy … with the exception of what I suspect is either misunderstanding, or poor communication, but no heresy that is intended or totally derailing of one’s faith.
Counting down with you as well, Alex. I know you will be drained, but please don’t make us wait 3 days for an update. At least a quick note, with full coverage at a later time. To come alongside and lend support, I have taken the liberty of writing two possible post-hearing posts for your convenience, which you have my permission to cut and paste:
or
;-(
Grateful, thanks for the feedback. Appreciate the banner of peace being waved.
I heart scheck—love the simplicity of your posts.
Hitting the like button for Sheck’s 517!
Uriah, I love a real debate, hashing out of ideas, and honest give and take in our search for truth and for our ideas to be tested and challenged. I’m just aware of that fine line that distracts. Now we can all sing Kum Bai Ya!
Grateful—-LOL
Fact Checker: Pertaining to the usage of “seed” Nehemiah, Chapter 8:61
(KJV) And these were they which went up also from Telmelah, Telheresha, Cherub, Addon and family.; but they could not shew their father’s house, “nor their seed,” whether they were of Israel.
It was through the seed of Mary that Jesus fulfilled the unconditional promise God made to David:
““And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:” Acts, Chapter 13:22-23
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/the-genealogy-of-jesus-genealogical-difficulties-in-matthew-and-luke/
Book of Ezra, after the letter was sent to King Darius to contest the building of the temple in Jerusalem while Zerubabbel was made governor (under King Darius of Persia) the buidling was stopped. Governor is not anything in the way of being a King. What more they were still considered to be in captivity under the rule of a foreign country. After some years passed, King Artexerses of Persia then selected Ezra, the priest to oversee things in Israel and the territory around it. No mentioned of Zerrubabbel since the building stopped. No mentioned of any King from the line of David ever taking sitting on the throne since Zedekiah.
Kum Bai Ya, my Lord, Kum Bai Ya
Primary Source: God’s Holy Spirit
Secondary Source: His Word—-the Bible
First, Last, and Always—-Amen!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_Zelophehad
The B I B L E, that’s the book for me–
I stand upon the word of God—-the B I B L E
He said it, I believe it, that settles it for me.
Come ye forth, all ye People, clap your hands to the Name of the Lord.
“And once again, you did a tremendous job in exposing Doug for what he is. A man who cannot understand scripture without the filtering through papal authority first.”
LOL.
Uriah, Perry asked:
I guess I must have missed where you answered the question. Or perhaps you are just content to pretend that you answered it? You keep presuming it, but you’ve not yet proven it.
The B I B L E? What does it say?
Matthew. chap 1 says that “Jacob was the father of Joseph”
Luke. chap 3 says that “Joseph, the son of Eli”
Ur, I do remember you trying and failing with some arguments like “Women aren’t named in genealogies”, etc. I hope you can come up with some argument that actually stands up. Maybe you can? Anything is possible, I suppose.