Papist "Bastards"
Bro Frank
Clavin is correct.
"Now it is even so likewise at this day
concerning the Papists: for they are not
strangers from the church, but they are
as bastard children. They will say also
that they have antiquity on their side,
and they went before us: and we see how
they trust in their succession which
they have from the Apostles (as they say:)
that at all times there have been Bishops
and prelates in their church, and that
hereupon a man might certainly conclude,
that the title of the church belongeth to
them. And yet for all this they are but
bastards as Ismael was, forasmuch as they
were not begotten by the gospel as we have
heard, which is the seed of freedom: but
have corrupted themselves..." John Calvin
--
Frank
John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said unto him,
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man
be born when he is old? Can he enter the second
time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That
which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel
not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
stsva
Frank" <BroF...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>**Please keep in mind the era in which this was written** Yes,
I do believe
>Clavin is correct.
>
>"Now it is even so likewise at this day
>concerning the Papists: for they are not
>strangers from the church, but they are
>as bastard children. They will say also
>that they have antiquity on their side,
>and they went before us: and we see how
>they trust in their succession which
>they have from the Apostles (as they say:)
>that at all times there have been Bishops
>and prelates in their church, and that
>hereupon a man might certainly conclude,
>that the title of the church belongeth to
>them. And yet for all this they are but
>bastards as Ismael was, forasmuch as they
>were not begotten by the gospel as we have
>heard, which is the seed of freedom: but
>have corrupted themselves..." John Calvin
>
Pretty strong words considering that we are all children only by
adoption, not by birth.
>--
>Frank
>
>John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said unto him,
>Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
>be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
>God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man
>be born when he is old? Can he enter the second
>time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus
>answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
>except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
>he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That
>which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
>which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel
>not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
>
>
>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bro Frank
> >And yet for all this they are but
> >bastards as Ismael was, forasmuch as they
> >were not begotten by the gospel as we have
> >heard, which is the seed of freedom: but
> >have corrupted themselves..." John Calvin
> Pretty strong words considering that we are all children only by
> adoption, not by birth.
"strong words" indeed ! But accurate...
Keep in mind that the RCC at the time granted indulgences to people that
gave the right amount of $$ for all sorts of sins/crimes, incest &
pedophilia being just a couple.
stsva
Frank" <BroF...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>"stsva" <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message:
>
>> >And yet for all this they are but
>> >bastards as Ismael was, forasmuch as they
>> >were not begotten by the gospel as we have
>> >heard, which is the seed of freedom: but
>> >have corrupted themselves..." John Calvin
>
>
>> Pretty strong words considering that we are all children only
by
>> adoption, not by birth.
>
>
>"strong words" indeed ! But accurate...
>
>Keep in mind that the RCC at the time granted indulgences to
people that
>gave the right amount of $$ for all sorts of sins/crimes,
incest &
>pedophilia being just a couple.
>
Two points: 1) An indulgence does not give forgiveness of
sins, it deals rather with the "temporal consequences" of sin;
2) The selling of indulgences was condemned by the Catholic
Church at the Council of Trent.
>--
>Frank
>
>John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said unto him,
>Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
>be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
>God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man
>be born when he is old? Can he enter the second
>time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus
>answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
>except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
>he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That
>which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
>which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel
>not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Raul Goulden
"stsva" <
> 2) The selling of indulgences was condemned by the Catholic
> Church at the Council of Trent.
Sorry pal, people pay nuns to pray their loved ones out of
purgatory all the time.
Deception is rome's game.
RG
Micah Burke
> sins, it deals rather with the "temporal consequences" of sin;
> Church at the Council of Trent.
So much for infallibility...
Juggernaut
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JkUZ4.17798$XX4.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Huh? Do you even know what infalliblity means???
>
>
Juggernaut
Raul Goulden <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in message
news:WiUZ4.231$Gb7....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "stsva" <
> > 2) The selling of indulgences was condemned by the Catholic
> > Church at the Council of Trent.
>
> purgatory all the time.
Would you like to offer any proof for that assertion?
Micah Burke
> > > sins, it deals rather with the "temporal consequences" of sin;
> > > Church at the Council of Trent.
> >
>
> Huh? Do you even know what infalliblity means???
in搭al損i搓le (n-fl-bl)
adj.
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of
information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or
morals.
Juggernaut
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Ah, assuming the definition "incapable of error in expounding doctrine", how
can you claim "so much for infallibility" by the two points that he made
above?
>
>
>
>
>
Micah Burke
> > >
> > > Huh? Do you even know what infalliblity means???
> >
> > in搭al損i搓le (n-fl-bl)
> > adj.
> >
> > Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of
> > information.
> > Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible
rule.
> > Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on
faith
> or
> > morals.
>
> Ah, assuming the definition "incapable of error in expounding doctrine",
how
> can you claim "so much for infallibility" by the two points that he made
> above?
Doctrine, faith, or morals... not JUST doctrine, even then
prior to the council of trent, were indulgences allowed?
If so, why the reversal in teaching?
Perhaps the church had enough cash???
The DataRat
"An indulgence does not give
forgiveness of sins, it deals rather
with the 'temporal consequences'
of sin"
First, you have to deal with the
fact that there is no basis in
Scripture for this assertion.
Next, that there is no proof in
experience for the assertion.
Finally, there is the contradiction
that Romanists believe indulgences
affect souls in purgatory. Since
purgatory (itself a contra-Biblical
doctrine !) supposedly occurs after
death, then indulgences do claim
relief from more than "temporal
consequences of sin" !
The DataRat
Michael Burton
It seems, my dear The DataRat friend, that even the protestant churches
are back in the indulgences game. Only this time, they are not charging
for them, they are giving them away free to selected parties with the
correct political but Biblically Illiterate connections. (or correct
political with the twist of satan's Biblical purposeful il-literacy)
Apparently, the Great Protestant Reformation may be in need itself of a
Great Reformation. Several once mainline churches are sideling themselves
by defining certin sins of fundie athiestic political advocation as
acceptable alternative lifestyles in complete rebellion to God and the
Word of Christ. And in the process, even so bold as to bring false
witness against our Lord, Jesus Christ Himself as if He is supportive of
such lawlessness and transgression of the law, which is the very
defination of sin. Sodom and Gomorrah were not this boldly anti-Christ.
Such accusations and false witness against Christ by the fundie athiests
disguised as prostestant Christians would imply that Jesus Himself broke
the Law, which would not make Him an acceptable Passover Lamb, and render
the entire Word of God from Genesis to Revelation of no effect to anyone.
I believe that Christ found the Pharisees guilty of the exact same sin in
His day.
On second thought, this may be worse than the Romanists were when they
were selling indulgences.
Since most of the fundie athiests disguised as prostestant Christians
preach the gospel of fairness all sugar coated with Christian sounding
words covering a heart of darkness, now that one special interest group's
sins is re-imaged as an acceptable alternative lifestye, it will only be
fair, of course, to re-image other sins as acceptable alternative
lifestyles. Fair is fair in the world of darkness without the justice and
love of God.
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
The DataRat
"...even the protestant churches
are back in the indulgences game"
The term "protestant" has become
so diluted as to be rendered
meaningless.
Even in the 16th. Century, Anabaptists
were considered "protestants" when
-like the Romanists- they weren't even
Christians.
The UPC (United Pentecostal Church)
and the PCA (Presbyterian Church in
America) are ~both~ "protestant".
What does one even remotely have to
do with the other ?
Or, what does the UU (Unitarian-
Universalist) church have in common
with, say, the URC-NA (United Reformed
Church, North America), although both
are "protestant" ?
No, "protestant" ...much like "evangelical"...
has been so widely and indiscriminately
applied as to have lost all real meaning.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Only this time, they are not charging
for them, they are giving them away
free to selected parties with the correct
political but Biblically Illiterate connections"
Perhaps you could elaborate. Bro. Rat
has no idea what you're referencing.
"Apparently, the Great Protestant Reformation
may be in need itself of a Great Reformation"
THAT was recognized from the start !
As Raul pointed-out recently, ALL churches
becomes corrupt sooner or later.
Constant reformation was a recognized
doctrine of the Christian Reformation.
Semper Reformata !
The DataRat
Christ's Disciple
stsva <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <R0zZ4.7966$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>, "Bro
> Frank" <BroF...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >"stsva" <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message:
> >
> >> >And yet for all this they are but
> >> >bastards as Ismael was, forasmuch as they
> >> >were not begotten by the gospel as we have
> >> >heard, which is the seed of freedom: but
> >> >have corrupted themselves..." John Calvin
> >
> >
> >> Pretty strong words considering that we are all children only
> >>by adoption, not by birth.
> >
> >"strong words" indeed ! But accurate...
> >
> >Keep in mind that the RCC at the time granted indulgences to
> people that gave the right amount of $$ for all sorts of sins/crimes,
> incest & pedophilia being just a couple.
>
> Two points: 1) An indulgence does not give forgiveness of
> sins, it deals rather with the "temporal consequences" of sin;
> 2) The selling of indulgences was condemned by the Catholic
> Church at the Council of Trent.
Lets take another History lesson.
In the end of the 10 century, Benedict VI. was murdered by the son of a
previous popes concubine (Theodora).
This son's party elected a successor (Boniface VII ) another faction elected
Benedict VII ) and a third elected John XIV.
There where thus THREE popes at the same time, BonifaceVII. murdered John
XIV, aand the three popes where reduced to two.
Boniface VII. then fled to Constantinople, which left Benedict VII. master
of the situation.
But he died and John XV. was elected in his place. He also soon died, and
Gregory V. was appointed, but he was no sooner elected, then he was driven
from Rome by a faction which appointed a pope of their own--John XVI.
John XV. fled for protection to the German Emperor, Otho III. who returned
with an army, and, arresting John XVI.ordered his eyes to be put out, his
nose cut off, and then to be thrown alive from the top of Castle of St.
Angelo.
Then through the 'Dark ages', Bastard Pope's, Bastard Children
born to their Nuns,
Popes killing and murdering each other, (at one time ...see above....
there where three Popes fighting it out...."Letting brotherly love
continue" no doubt)
The scandalous 'paying for forgivness of sins'
Forbidden to read the Bible,and burnt & fried alive at the stake (what
depths of inhumanity). All with the 'authority of God's name'. Do their
supporters call that
the "Love of Christ"?.
Today, in that wonderful 'CHURCH' it contains and supports evil Pediaphile
Priests,
covered-up for years, Worldwide, bouncing such evil pediaphiles from one
part of the country to the next, to carry on their vile activities. What
kind
of contemptuous irresponsibility is that? Such are the outrages of the
great Ant-christ.
Corruption and gross immorality gone crazy. Financial fraudulent ripoffs
and suicides, Mafia attachments. You name it, you will probably find it.
All
in "Babylon" that "Great Whore".
Which thank God, Christ will destroy in "One Day" on his Return.
"Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and
famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord
God who
judgeth her." Rev 18:8 (KJV)
"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth." Rev 17:9 (KJV)
[ ROME ]
So speak up you Romanish cohorts and protest at how nasty and horrible
and condemnatory the Scriptures are about this cursed RCC hated by God, and
ready and primed for its total destruction on the Lord's Return....Study
the
Revelation and read about its coming annihilation.
Catholics are not part of, or even "In Christ", for they refuse his baptism
[to be "Buried with him in baptism" and to be "Born of water"] for their man
induced "Tradition" and heresy of 'sprinkling' unbelieving 'babes in
arms' yet pretending it is an authentic 1st century immersion.
The Greek word Baptizo means actual immersion in water, not just a
man-conceived sprinkling.
BAPTIZED:
Strong's Greek Number 0907
Greek word: baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
To immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) To overwhem.
So any who are not fully immersed in water have no part with Christ as they
refuse to follow his example.
"And straightway coming up OUT of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and
the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased." Mark 1:10-11 (KJV)
"And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into
the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord
caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way
rejoicing."
Acts 8:38-39 (KJV)
Further evils of the RRC.... "For all nations have drunk of the wine of the
wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed
fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through
the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people,
that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her
plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her
iniquities.
6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according
to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much
torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and
am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. [That's the description of RRC through
the ages all right.]
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and
famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord
God who judgeth her.
Rev 18:3-8 (KJV)
As Jesus himself stated
"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind
lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Matt 15:14 (KJV)
Sincerely.
Christ's Disciple...
The DataRat
"BAPTIZED:
Strong's Greek Number 0907
Greek word: baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
To immerse, to submerge (of
vessels sunk) To overwhelm."
Actually, the ENTIRE Strong's
on baptizo looks like this:
907 baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
from a derivative of 911; TDNT -
1:529,92; verb
AV - baptize (76), wash 2, baptist
1, baptized + 2258 1; 80
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse,
to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging,
to wash, to make clean with water, to
wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Therefore, baptizo can reference
"to wash" or "make clean with water"
in addition to "immerse" (according
to Strong).
The word baptizo itself was derived
from bapto. Bapto refers to a dyer
"dipping" cloth in a vat of dye (Zodhiates'
NT Lexicon).
Kohlenberger's also concurs with
Strong's that baptizo can mean "wash"
( Greek-English Concordance to the
New Testament, also Hebrew-Greek
Key Study Bible ).
Baptism is actually with the Holy Spirit
rather than with H20 (John 1:33, Acts
11:16, 1 Corinthians 12:13). Water
being only a sign and a seal of THAT.
Thus, Strong's third definition for baptizo
is probably the most applicable:
3) to overwhelm
The Spirit of God overwhelming the
spirit of sin, self, and Satan, in the life
of the Elect !
The DataRat
cqabug
out there who can put in his 2 cents worth? The more diverse the
interpretation of the Scriptures, the better? Keep it going, guys. You
can outdo the Holy Spirit, eh?
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration
which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path
of Christendom - that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple
to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at
which one stands." (G. K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy)
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote in article
<3938C898...@home.com>...
>
>
> "BAPTIZED:
> Strong's Greek Number 0907
> Greek word: baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
> To immerse, to submerge (of
> vessels sunk) To overwhelm."
>
>
>
> Actually, the ENTIRE Strong's
> on baptizo looks like this:
>
> 907 baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
>
> from a derivative of 911; TDNT -
> 1:529,92; verb
>
> AV - baptize (76), wash 2, baptist
> 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80
>
> 1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse,
> to submerge (of vessels sunk)
Michael Burton
In article <393895F4...@home.com>, The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote:
> "Only this time, they are not charging
> for them, they are giving them away
> free to selected parties with the correct
> political but Biblically Illiterate connections"
>
>
> Perhaps you could elaborate. Bro. Rat
> has no idea what you're referencing.
Sorry, was referring to the following:
Perhaps PC(uSA) members need to submit new ovatures to the General
Assembly coming up tocomplete the legalism so that any sin is legally
defined as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, after all, its only fair.
why should one radical political position be granted indulgences while
other less radical
political positions be denied? Once we rebell against a standard of
Scripture, there is not reason not to rebell against another law. For if
ye rebell against one, ye have rebelled against them all.
1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is
the transgression of the law.
1Samuel 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but
if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding
they hearkened not unto the voice of their Father, because the LORD would
slay them.
Jasmes 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil
of his brother, AND judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and
judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law,
but a judge.
Worded in Liberalize, of course, the edict only states that churches CAN conduct
the ceremony before God. But you can wll imaging what would happen if two
he-she's demanded to be "unionized" and the church refused, they would gear
up the legal system which can only have one possible judgement without
the standard of Scripture which is claimed to be the basis of faith
representing the real diversity of the denomination. Notwithstanding that
the carefully crafted "same sex union" has no Scriptural authority and is
merely therefore unlawful legalization, which our Lord condemned. It is
merely indulgences all dressed up in new wrappings.
You can bet that those who believe that a pastor is opposed to this development,
will find that pastor quickly perfoming one feigning sadness, after all,
what else can he do under the law?
Our Lord would say follow the Laws of God, not the laws of men. Nazi
murderers tried this same approach in their trials before men by stating
that they were only following the orders of the Furrer, what else could
they do? They were found guilty of murder before men because they
followed the legal but unlawful Nazi edicts, and guilty before the Throne
of God as well.
>
>
>
>
> "Apparently, the Great Protestant Reformation
> may be in need itself of a Great Reformation"
>
>
> THAT was recognized from the start !
>
> As Raul pointed-out recently, ALL churches
> becomes corrupt sooner or later.
>
> Constant reformation was a recognized
> doctrine of the Christian Reformation.
But we seem to be Deforming at a rapid pace. What did the original vision
look like at this point? Disolving one denomination and creating
another? Home churches? Meeting in the catecombs?
>
>
> Semper Reformata !
Semper Reformata !
>
>
> The DataRat
--
The DataRat
"Sorry, was referring to the following"
Thanks for the clarification.
DR
mag...@my-deja.com
to remember that, throughout salvation/Biblical history, the "Heavenly
offices" (ie, God and all His "upstairs" entourage), have conferred
special authority on people in the same way that, in temporal/secular
society, delegated/designated individuals at the lower levels of, for
example, the executive branch of government exercise authority in the
top executive's name. This is the same idea behind the numerous verses
in both the new and old Testaments in which anyone who listens to and
obeys (or the exact opposite) those people given such delegated
authority by God listens to or obeys (or the exact opposite) he who
conferred/delegated that authority (ie, God). Even when God directed
Moses, for example to speak in His name, the response from the people
and even Pharaoh was basically along the lines of "who the hell do you
think you are telling us what (or what not) to do. We'll decide for
ourselves what's right (or wrong)." Isn't this the same attitude that
is exhibited toward Papal authority (ie, he who holds that office) by
those outside (and sometimes inside) the Church??? I've posted a web
page precisely on this subject at
http://www.eingedi.org/peter-2.html.
Incidentally, I was originally a Protestant but converted to
Catholicism back in 1990. My mother (converted two years later) and I
were probably the first people from any side of our family to do so
since, perhaps, the Reformation (no joke). Since then, I've been able
to understand much more than I ever did before that about who God and
Jesus are, and my relationship with them. This did not happen as a
result of a blind, misplaced faith in authority, but as a result of an
appeal to my intelligence as well as heart, in understanding how that
authority was meant to be exercised, and followed.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The DataRat
"Isn't this the same attitude that
is exhibited toward Papal authority"
No, it ISN'T.
The Pope is a false shepherd,
and the Church of Rome is ~not~
a true church.
To use your own OT analogy,
Romanism and Orthodoxism
represent prophets of Baal rather
than God's anointed.
Romanism ISN'T
Christian, it's pagan
idolatry !
The DataRat
Raul Goulden
> Even when God directed
> Moses, for example to speak in His name, the response from the people
> and even Pharaoh was basically along the lines of "who the hell do you
> think you are telling us what (or what not) to do. We'll decide for
> is exhibited toward Papal authority
No.
Moses told them to heed the word of God.
The pope tells people to heed the "traditions of men."
Good articles-
http://www.christiantruth.com/vaticanIanddevelopment.html
http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html
http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html
http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html
http://www.christiantruth.com/bahnsen.html
Michael Townsend
DataRat :
>The Pope is a false shepherd, and the Church of Rome is ~not~a true church.
True.
alias "csoupkid" :
>The [ roman-catholic ] church is the one Christ founded. Thanks for playing.
[ smile ]
In your opinion.
Now prove it from the Scriptures.
[ A totally impossible task ]
Michael Townsend
Truth Speaker
Michael Townsend <towns...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:39399dac...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Seik Heil / seik heil Seik Heil / seik heil
Seik Heil / seik heil Seik Heil / seik heil
Seik Heil / seik heil Seik Heil / seik heil
Seik Heil / seik heil Seik Heil / seik heil
Seik Heil / seik heil Seik Heil / seik heil
A pope assanination supporter
ą Pastor Dave ą
mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
>Worded in Liberalize, of course, the edict only states that churches CAN conduct
>the ceremony before God. But you can wll imaging what would happen if two
>he-she's demanded to be "unionized" and the church refused, they would gear
>up the legal system which can only have one possible judgement without
>the standard of Scripture which is claimed to be the basis of faith
>representing the real diversity of the denomination. Notwithstanding that
>the carefully crafted "same sex union" has no Scriptural authority and is
>merely therefore unlawful legalization, which our Lord condemned. It is
>merely indulgences all dressed up in new wrappings.
>
>You can bet that those who believe that a pastor is opposed to this development,
>will find that pastor quickly perfoming one feigning sadness, after all,
>what else can he do under the law?
He can obey God. I will NOT perform a same sex
union. Acts 5:29
--
In Christ,
Pastor Dave Raymond
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by
the word of God. - Romans 10:17
Disclaimer: My use of caps is not meant as shouting,
but only to emphasize, unless you see exclamation
marks after the sentence and then, more than one.
CB
skeetor wrote:
> "Christ's Disciple" <Jeff.H...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:8hadt9$jfd$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> >
> > stsva <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:0d99b13e...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
> > > In article <R0zZ4.7966$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>, "Bro
> > > Frank" <BroF...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >"stsva" <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message:
> > > >
> > > >> >And yet for all this they are but
> > > >> >bastards as Ismael was, forasmuch as they
> > > >> >were not begotten by the gospel as we have
> > > >> >heard, which is the seed of freedom: but
> > > >> >have corrupted themselves..." John Calvin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Pretty strong words considering that we are all children only
> > > >>by adoption, not by birth.
> > > >
> > > >"strong words" indeed ! But accurate...
> > > >
> > > >Keep in mind that the RCC at the time granted indulgences to
> > > people that gave the right amount of $$ for all sorts of sins/crimes,
> > > incest & pedophilia being just a couple.
> >
> > >
> > > Two points: 1) An indulgence does not give forgiveness of
> > > sins, it deals rather with the "temporal consequences" of sin;
> > > 2) The selling of indulgences was condemned by the Catholic
> > > Church at the Council of Trent.
> >
> > Lets take another History lesson.
> > In the end of the 10 century, Benedict VI. was murdered by the son of a
> > previous popes concubine (Theodora).
>
> (snip)
>
> If the catholic church has done it then I agree with it 100% and will defend
> it 100%
The rcc is guilty of murder and pedophilia.
Thanks for admitting your guilt.
--
Habakkuk 2:18 What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath
graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his
work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?
Christ's Disciple
appropriate.
Answers to Questions regarding *BAPTISM IN WATER.*
Question. What is the next step after believing the Gospel?
Answer. To be baptized in water. Mark 16:15, 16. Matthew 3:15-17
"And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it
becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus,
when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the WATER: and, lo, the
heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a
dove, and lighting upon him:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matt 3:15-17 (KJV)
Question. But was I not baptized in water when I was sprinkled as a child?
Answer. No, that cannot be, as true Baptism is by Immersion. The Greek word
for "Baptize" means [to dip, plunge, immerse, submerge.overwhelm]
Sprinkling does not fulfills any of these things.
Question. Is it therefore necessary for me to be baptized again?
Answer. Seeing that sprinkling is not a scriptural baptism, you have never
been baptized. Even if you had been immersed as a baby, or as an unsaved
adult, that would not suffice, as "repentance" and "believing" must precede
the "baptizing." Mark 16 :16 ; Acts 2 : 38; 8 : 36, 37.
Question.Were babies never baptized in the New Testament?
Answer. There is not a single Scripture to say they were. Only believers
were baptized. Matt. 28 : 19 (R.V.) Acts 8:12, 37.
Question. What other Scriptures prove that Baptism is by Immersion?
Answer.In order to baptize the Eunuch, Philip led him "into the Water" and
he came up "out of the Water" (Acts 8:38), which would only be necessary
where immersion was practised.
Also, John the Baptist baptized in a part of the River where there was "MUCH
WATER" (John 3 : 23). "Much water" is not required to sprinkle people!
Baptism is, moreover, likened to "burial." (Rom. 6 4). Such a figure can
only bear one interpretation, viz.' that of immersion. (See also "planting"
in Rom. 6 : 5).
Question. But surely Baptism is quite an optional matter?
Answer. The commands of Christ can never be regarded as optional. They are
obligatory upon His children. And baptism is a COMMAND OF CHRIST. Matt.
28:19, 20. It is vain to say we love Christ if we are unwilling to keep His
commandments, for obedience is a proof of our love. (See John 14 :15, 21,
23).
Moreover, Christ Himself set us an example in this matter (Matt. 3 : 13-15),
Indeed, "To fulfill all righteousness" or "all that is right" and we are to
"follow His steps." (1 Peter 2 : 21).
Question. Did the Apostles enforce Baptism upon new converts?
Answer. Yes, we read that Peter "Commanded" converts to be baptized. Acts
10: 48; 2 : 38.
Question. What is the purpose of Baptism?
Answer. It is an open confession of one's faith in Christ-and "'The answer
of a good conscience toward God." 1 Pet. 3:21.
It is the symbolical washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), although without
true faith it can be a vain ceremony (as in the case of Simon-Acts 8:13,
21-23), seeing it is the blood of Christ which really washes away sins, Rev.
1: 5.
Question. Does Baptism take the place of The New Birth?
Answer. No outward ceremony can supersede the New Birth.- See Gal. 6, 15.
The New Birth does not even synchronize with the act of Immersion, it must
always precede it. The "water" in John 3 : 5 is symbolical of the "Word."
Eph. 5: 25, 26. We are born again of the Word of God. l Pet.1:23; Jam.1:18 ;
l Cor. 4:15.
Question. What Teaching is connected with Baptism?
Answer. In the first place, Baptism is a figure of death. Rom.6: 3, 5, 6, 8.
Now Christ, as our Representative, endured the actual baptism of death for
us. Luke 12: 50.
We acknowledge in Baptism that we deserve to die, being sinners; thus we die
with Christ symbolically. Rom. 6: 3.
Having died, we are "Buried with Christ in baptism". indicating that the
old life which was put to death with Christ is never to be seen again.
Question. Does Baptism teach anything else?
Answer. Yes, having been identified with Christ in His death, we are also
identified with Him in His resurrection. Rom.6:4,5,8. CoI.2:12.
Therefore, we are .raised out of death into a new life with Christ. Gal. 2 :
20.
Being new creatures we are to live Christ-like lives. Gal. 3: 27.
Henceforth we are to walk in "newness of life." Rom. 6: 4.
Question. But what if I do not feel all this after being baptized?
Answer. We are to live by faith, not by feelings. Faith reckons it is so.
See Rom. 6 :11.
Being "risen with Christ" (Col. 3 1), we are to "seek those things which are
above." We are to "set our affection on things above, not on things on the
earth."
Question. Ought I to be baptized in the name of some particular Church?
Answer, We are not baptized into the name of any Church, or any great
Preacher. Baptism is "into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit." Matt. 28:19. R.V. We are not to be disciples of men, however great
they may be, but followers of Christ.
Question. Who should baptize a believer?
Answer. According to the New Testament, baptism was performed by any
minister of the Church/Ecclesia (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 1: 14-17; Acts 8 : 12,
36), or by any fellow-believer. (Acts 9 :17, 18).
And one final question, After having been baptized, what should follow next?
Answer. A life totally dedicated to Jesus, striving to obey all of his
commandments, including all Apostolic doctrines and teachings either till
you die or He
comes again.
Here are other Bible references to baptism:
Acts 22:16, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins..." Here is
evidence baptism washes away sins (God cleanses at the act of baptism).
Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized..."
A command is something where the choice is not yours (except to disobey the
command).
Here is a clear case showing baptism is absolutely essential to salvation.
Acts 2:38, "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins..."
Consider this. Peter had just preached a sermon about Jesus to Jews who had
days before rejected him and consented to his death. Upon hearing Peter's
sermon they now believed he was the Son of God. At this point of their
belief they asked Peter and the other apostles, "what shall we do?"
Now they were obviously believers at the point immediately before they asked
the question. If they were not then believers, they would not have even
asked the question. But after they believed, they asked what else to do.
Peter gave them TWO MORE THINGS to DO. Repent and be baptized. Why?
"For the remission of sins." Can one be saved without remission of sins?
NO! We get remission of sins after we believe and upon repentance and
baptism (immersion in water).
The great commission? Read John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he
gave his onlybegotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish
but have everlasting life."
This is commonly used by the "faith only" people to
prove faith is all one needs. Look, however at verse 5 in the same chapter.
Just before Jesus spoke of belief, he also said, "except a man be born of
WATER and of the Spitit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God."
Now here is something Jesus said was required before one can enter the
kingdom of God.
What? Being born of water and of the Spirit. Jesus obviously was referring
to water baptism, and he obviously had not forgotten this when he spoke as
in
3:16. The faith in the Great Commission is an ACTIVE and OBEDIENT faith in
which one will obey the form of doctrine Christ gave us including baptism.
Read Romans 6:17-18. Christians here had obeyed from the heart the "form of
doctrine" which was delivered. Just prior to that (verses 3-4) Paul
referrred to being buried with Christ in baptism. A few moments later he
referred to
this as a "form of doctrine" to be obeyed.
Yes, baptism is just as much a part of our salvation as is belief,
repentance, confession, grace, obedience.
Then and then only, could a 'Sprinkleist' after a true belief and a full
immersion call himself a Christian....But any refusing to be properly
immersed, then such are still in an "Unwashed" state and still in their
sins....
Christ sadly is of no value to you.
Sincerely Jeff...
Christ's Disciple
THOUGH in most things perfection is unattainable, it is best to aim at it.
Those who aim at it and persevere will come much nearer to it than those
whose laziness and despondency make them give it up as unattainable.
skeetor
"Christ's Disciple" <Jeff.H...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8hadt9$jfd$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
>
> news:0d99b13e...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
> > In article <R0zZ4.7966$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>, "Bro
> > Frank" <BroF...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > >"stsva" <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message:
> > >
> > >> >And yet for all this they are but
> > >> >bastards as Ismael was, forasmuch as they
> > >> >were not begotten by the gospel as we have
> > >> >heard, which is the seed of freedom: but
> > >> >have corrupted themselves..." John Calvin
> > >
> > >
> > >> Pretty strong words considering that we are all children only
> > >>by adoption, not by birth.
> > >
> > >"strong words" indeed ! But accurate...
> > >
> > >Keep in mind that the RCC at the time granted indulgences to
> > people that gave the right amount of $$ for all sorts of sins/crimes,
> > incest & pedophilia being just a couple.
>
> >
> > Two points: 1) An indulgence does not give forgiveness of
> > sins, it deals rather with the "temporal consequences" of sin;
> > 2) The selling of indulgences was condemned by the Catholic
> > Church at the Council of Trent.
>
> Lets take another History lesson.
> In the end of the 10 century, Benedict VI. was murdered by the son of a
> previous popes concubine (Theodora).
(snip)
skeetor
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7B266CC7C13E1FDE.91920458...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
> skeetor wrote:
>
> > "Christ's Disciple" <Jeff.H...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:8hadt9$jfd$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > >
> >
> > If the catholic church has done it then I agree with it 100% and will
defend
> > it 100%
>
> Thanks for admitting your guilt.
I am guilty of putting my faith in the one true church who follows the
teachings of the one true God, his son, and the Holy Spirit. God kills
people every day, it isn't a sin and neither is anything done by the church.
V1_0
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote:
> To use your own OT analogy,
> Romanism and Orthodoxism
> represent prophets of Baal rather
> than God's anointed.
>
The religion that you label as "Orthodoxism" is actually called
Orthodoxy. I'm not sure why you have lumped the Orthodox and Roman
Catholic churches together under the issue of the Pope - I thought that
you knew a bit more about it than you are displaying here.
The Roman Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church in 1054 A.D.
when the Roman Church decided to accept a Pope as spiritual and
administrative head of the church. The Orthodox believe that Jesus is
the head of the Church both in heaven and on earth, and that the
position of Pope (in the Roman Catholic usage) is an incorrect theology.
-V
CB
skeetor wrote:
> "CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7B266CC7C13E1FDE.91920458...@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> >
> > skeetor wrote:
> >
> > > "Christ's Disciple" <Jeff.H...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8hadt9$jfd$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > If the catholic church has done it then I agree with it 100% and will
> defend
> > > it 100%
> >
> > The rcc is guilty of murder and pedophilia.
> > Thanks for admitting your guilt.
>
> I am guilty of putting my faith in the one true church who follows the
> teachings of the one true God, his son, and the Holy Spirit. God kills
> people every day, it isn't a sin and neither is anything done by the church.
Your heresy is noted.
Just plead ignorance on judgment day.
bam
CB <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Just plead ignorance on judgment day.
Ol' CB, pilfering my lines again........
BAM
skeetor
>
>
> skeetor wrote:
>
> > "CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
news:7B266CC7C13E1FDE.91920458...@lp.airnews.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > skeetor wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Christ's Disciple" <Jeff.H...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8hadt9$jfd$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If the catholic church has done it then I agree with it 100% and
will
> > defend
> > > > it 100%
> > >
> > > The rcc is guilty of murder and pedophilia.
> > > Thanks for admitting your guilt.
> >
> > I am guilty of putting my faith in the one true church who follows the
> > teachings of the one true God, his son, and the Holy Spirit. God kills
> > people every day, it isn't a sin and neither is anything done by the
church.
>
> Your heresy is noted.
And your shameful ignorance is noted, for you know where the truth lies but
refuse to follow.
just plead misguided teachings on judgement day.
Ben mitts
>
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:25:23 -0400,
> mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
>
> >Worded in Liberalize, of course, the edict only states that churches CAN conduct
> >the ceremony before God. But you can wll imaging what would happen if two
> >he-she's demanded to be "unionized" and the church refused, they would gear
> >up the legal system which can only have one possible judgement without
> >the standard of Scripture which is claimed to be the basis of faith
> >representing the real diversity of the denomination. Notwithstanding that
> >the carefully crafted "same sex union" has no Scriptural authority and is
> >merely therefore unlawful legalization, which our Lord condemned. It is
> >merely indulgences all dressed up in new wrappings.
> >
> >You can bet that those who believe that a pastor is opposed to this development,
> >will find that pastor quickly perfoming one feigning sadness, after all,
> >what else can he do under the law?
>
> He can obey God. I will NOT perform a same sex
> union. Acts 5:29
Pastor Dave Raymond
Neither would I!
stsva
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Raul Goulden"
<presby...@charlotte.com> wrote:
>
>> Even when God directed
>> Moses, for example to speak in His name, the response from
the people
>> and even Pharaoh was basically along the lines of "who the
hell do you
>> think you are telling us what (or what not) to do. We'll
decide for
>> ourselves what's right (or wrong)." Isn't this the same
attitude that
>> is exhibited toward Papal authority
>
>No.
>Moses told them to heed the word of God.
>
>The pope tells people to heed the "traditions of men."
>
You are incorrect.
>Good articles-
>http://www.christiantruth.com/vaticanIanddevelopment.html
>http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html
>http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html
>http://www.christiantruth.com/solascriptura.html
>http://www.christiantruth.com/bahnsen.html
>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
stsva
they do not involve forgiveness of sins, and that the abuse of
indulgences was condemned by the Catholic Council of Trent in
the 16th century.
In article <8hadt9$jfd$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>, "Christ's
Scottty
>The religion that you label as "Orthodoxism" is actually called
>Orthodoxy. I'm not sure why you have lumped the Orthodox and Roman
>Catholic churches together under the issue of the Pope - I thought that
>you knew a bit more about it than you are displaying here.
In the heat of debate, things often get blurred. People find it
simpler to act as if there were only two views, and lump everything
into one or the other.
Plenty of Catholics who use the term "Protestant" to mean any
Christian who is not a Roman Catholic, and plenty of Calvinists who
regard all non-Calvinists as "Arminians".
>The Roman Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church in 1054 A.D.
I think they were de facto seperate well before that..
>when the Roman Church decided to accept a Pope as spiritual and
>administrative head of the church. The Orthodox believe that Jesus is
>the head of the Church both in heaven and on earth, and that the
>position of Pope (in the Roman Catholic usage) is an incorrect theology.
you mean the RCC's doctrine of the bishop of Rome being "head of the
whole church" only goes back 946 years?
I knew the idea had developed somehow in the middle ages, but I
tended to think it went back a bit before the 11th century
Mind you, didn't they only start claiming this "Papal Infallibilty"
thing even more recently still?
Juggernaut
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QrVZ4.18462$XX4.3...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> > > > > So much for infallibility...
> > > >
> > > > Huh? Do you even know what infalliblity means???
> > >
> > > in搭al損i搓le (n-fl-bl)
> > > adj.
> > >
> > > Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of
> > > information.
> > > Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible
> rule.
> > > Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on
> faith
> > or
> > > morals.
> >
> > Ah, assuming the definition "incapable of error in expounding doctrine",
> how
> > can you claim "so much for infallibility" by the two points that he made
> > above?
>
> Doctrine, faith, or morals... not JUST doctrine, even then
> prior to the council of trent, were indulgences allowed?
You need to read more accurately "doctrine on faith or morals". That means
all doctrine that is concerning faith or morals.
Indulgences have always been allowed and still are. Do you understand what
an indulgence really is?
>
> If so, why the reversal in teaching?
What "reversal" was that?
>
> Perhaps the church had enough cash???
Oh, you are not talking about indulgences in themselves, but the simony of
selling them. The Church has never taught that selling them was ok. In
fact, it calls it a sin of simony.
>
>
>
>
V1_0
sco...@KILL-SPAM.nis.za wrote:
> V1_0 <v1...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>The religion that you label as "Orthodoxism" is actually called
>>Orthodoxy. I'm not sure why you have lumped the Orthodox and Roman
>>Catholic churches together under the issue of the Pope - I thought
>>that you knew a bit more about it than you are displaying here.
>
> In the heat of debate, things often get blurred. People find it
> simpler to act as if there were only two views, and lump everything
> into one or the other.
DataRat quite deliberatly, and incorrectly, uses the term "Orthodoxism".
> Plenty of Catholics who use the term "Protestant" to mean any
> Christian who is not a Roman Catholic, and plenty of Calvinists who
> regard all non-Calvinists as "Arminians".
It becomes easier to seperate the "us" (or "me") from "them" when
people do so. It also makes for a better attack on the other group -
you can make it seem like they all share the same beliefs and an attack
on one belief becomes an attack on the whole lump.
>
> >The Roman Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church in 1054 A.D.
>
> I think they were de facto seperate well before that..
Relations waxed and waned. I think that most people take the time when
the pope "excommunicated" the Orthodox church for the time when the
split occured. Or the 5th crusade (sack of Constantinople). However,
the theology had started to drift before that.
>
>>when the Roman Church decided to accept a Pope as spiritual and
>>administrative head of the church. The Orthodox believe that Jesus is
>>the head of the Church both in heaven and on earth, and that the
>>position of Pope (in the Roman Catholic usage) is an incorrect
>>theology.
>
> you mean the RCC's doctrine of the bishop of Rome being "head of the
> whole church" only goes back 946 years?
> I knew the idea had developed somehow in the middle ages, but I
> tended to think it went back a bit before the 11th century
The administrative supremecy of the Pope on the Roman half of the
church might have went back futher. By the whole Church he was held in
honor - "first among equals" - but only in respect. He did have some
(small) administrative priviledges (such as calling for a Church
council to resolve some matter), but did not have the supremecy to
resolve the matter on his own and mandate it to the Church. As the
Pope attempted to exert more and more supremecy over the Church, the
disagreement grew.
>
> Mind you, didn't they only start claiming this "Papal Infallibilty"
> thing even more recently still?
>
Almost a natural outgrowth of the claim of supremecy. Again, this
didn't spring up full blown but grew. Even today there are Papal
maximists (who support the infallibility) and minimists (who don't like
it) in the Roman Catholic church.
Sharru-ken
"Christ's Disciple" <Jeff.H...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>stsva <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0d99b13e...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
>> In article <R0zZ4.7966$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>, "Bro
>> Frank" <BroF...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>> >"stsva" <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message:
>> >
>> >> >And yet for all this they are but
>> >> >bastards as Ismael was, forasmuch as they
>> >> >were not begotten by the gospel as we have
>> >> >heard, which is the seed of freedom: but
>> >> >have corrupted themselves..." John Calvin
>> >
>> >
>> >> Pretty strong words considering that we are all children
only
>> >>by adoption, not by birth.
>> >
>> >"strong words" indeed ! But accurate...
>> >
>> >Keep in mind that the RCC at the time granted indulgences to
>> people that gave the right amount of $$ for all sorts of
sins/crimes,
>> incest & pedophilia being just a couple.
Evidence? You supply it, we will see about dealing with it.
>
>>
>> Two points: 1) An indulgence does not give forgiveness of
>> sins, it deals rather with the "temporal consequences" of sin;
>> 2) The selling of indulgences was condemned by the Catholic
>> Church at the Council of Trent.
>
>Lets take another History lesson.
>In the end of the 10 century, Benedict VI. was murdered by the
son of a
>previous popes concubine (Theodora).
Being murdered is not a sin.
>
>This son's party elected a successor (Boniface VII ) another
faction elected
>Benedict VII ) and a third elected John XIV.
Benedict VII was not a valid Pope. This seems to be certain.
>
>There where thus THREE popes at the same time, BonifaceVII.
murdered John
>XIV, aand the three popes where reduced to two.
>
>Boniface VII. then fled to Constantinople, which left Benedict
VII. master
>of the situation.
>
>But he died and John XV. was elected in his place. He also soon
died, and
>Gregory V. was appointed, but he was no sooner elected, then he
was driven
>from Rome by a faction which appointed a pope of their own--
John XVI.
Gregory V was a lawful Pope, whereas John XVI was not. Once a
Pope has been lawfully elected, his "competitors" can be
ignored. A parallel from U.S. History: Lincoln was President, so
Jefferson Davis was not, even though Davis was Predient of the
Confederacy when Lincoln was President of the Union. Davis was
President of the Confederacy *in fact* - but not *in law*. To
use the language applied to the "competitors" of the Roman Pope
during the period of three Popes (1410 to 1415), he was
President "in his obedience". The parallel is not altogether
perfect, but it has some value.
Most antipopes have been undoubtedly so. Some few are of
uncertain status, so the details of the political history and
the ecclesiastical law of the times have to be taken into
account.
>John XV. fled for protection to the German Emperor, Otho III.
who returned
>with an army, and, arresting John XVI.ordered his eyes to be
put out, his
>nose cut off, and then to be thrown alive from the top of
Castle of St.
>Angelo.
He was horribly mutilated, but not killed. FWIW, penalties for
certain crimes were much more severe than now they are, at
various times, in various ways. We cannot apply the relatively
comfortable conditionds of our own time - conditions found in
some countries, and not in others - to the distant past.
Electrocution IMO is a punishment of equal barbarity. So let's
not be quick to condemn tose who lived in a less stable society
than ours.
>Then through the 'Dark ages', Bastard Pope's, Bastard Children
> born to their Nuns,
>
> Popes killing and murdering each other, (at one time ...see
above....
> there where three Popes fighting it out...."Letting brotherly
love
> continue" no doubt)
So, why not the mention the evidence for "brotherly love"? There
is plenty of it. You are focusing on the last 25 or so years of
the 10th century, in a single city - and making your account of
the period 974 to 1000 in Rome, do duty for several centuries
and many countries. This is about as reasonable as judging the
whole of U.S. history by the more murderous activities of the
KKK. In other words, you are extrapolating from too little
evidence. Supose that an archaeologist in 1000 year's time dug
up the crime reports for Washington in the period 1965 to 1995,
and applied his findings to all the USA from 1783 to 2000. He
would have a very skewed idea of USA history. Yet this method is
adopted by some critics of the Papacy.
>
>The scandalous 'paying for forgivness of sins'
Evidence? What is *your* understanding of the doctrine of
indulgences?
> Forbidden to read the Bible,
Especially by Protestants. Catholics in Protestant England were
not allowed Catholic books, including the Bible. One printer was
put in the pillory when his press was discovered. I forgot to
mention that he was nailed into it by one ear. Humane? Calvin
attacked the Bible translation of Sebastian Castellio - who was
a Protestant. Protestantism was not concerned with the Bible
pure and simple - Lutherans were allowed Lutheran Bibles,
Calvinists were allowed Calvinist Bibles.
BTW, the first German and Italian printed Bibles were printed in
1466 and 1471 respectively, by Catholics. The first French Bible
was that of Guiart de Moulins, in 1280 or so. In manuscript. It
was not repressed. In a letter of 1199, Pope Innocent III, while
rejecting Waldensian translations, encouraged the study of
Scripture.
and burnt & fried alive at the stake (what
>depths of inhumanity).
Take this up with non-Catholics as well. In many cases, those
burned by Catholics were strangled previously. The Scottish
Calvinists burned witches (the last such burning was in 1722 or
1723, at Dornoch), the English hanged them.
All with the 'authority of God's name'. Do their
>supporters call that
>the "Love of Christ"?.
I think those who write that, should clean their own house
first. Then, they will have some credibility in accusing
Catholics. We are newver allowed to forget the sins, real or
supposed, of Catholics - but too many of the Church's critics
seem blissfully unaware that there are ugly things in their
history as well. Let them deal with these first- then they may
get a hearing from Catholics.
>
>Today, in that wonderful 'CHURCH' it contains and supports
evil Pediaphile
>Priests,
And there are no such ministers or pastors? Would it were so.
> covered-up for years, Worldwide, bouncing such evil
pediaphiles from one
>part of the country to the next, to carry on their vile
activities. What
>kind
> of contemptuous irresponsibility is that? Such are the
outrages of the
>great Ant-christ.
>
>Corruption and gross immorality gone crazy. Financial
fraudulent ripoffs
>and suicides, Mafia attachments. You name it, you will
probably find it.
>All
>in "Babylon" that "Great Whore".
>
>Which thank God, Christ will destroy in "One Day" on his Return.
Why do some Christians seem to look forward to the damnation of
their fellow-creatures with what looks like pleasure?
>"Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and
mourning, and
>famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong
is the Lord
>God who
>judgeth her." Rev 18:8 (KJV)
>
> "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are
seven
> mountains, on which the woman sitteth." Rev 17:9 (KJV)
> [ ROME ]
Pagan Rome - or, perhaps, Jerusalem before her fall.
>
> So speak up you Romanish cohorts and protest at how nasty and
horrible
>and condemnatory the Scriptures are about this cursed RCC
hated by God,
Scripture nowhere condemns the CC.
and
>ready and primed for its total destruction on the Lord's
Return....Study
>the
>Revelation and read about its coming annihilation.
But for this CC, you would not have this book in your Bible.
Rome made sure it was included.
>
>Catholics are not part of, or even "In Christ", for they
refuse his baptism
>[to be "Buried with him in baptism" and to be "Born of water"]
for their man
>induced "Tradition" and heresy of 'sprinkling' unbelieving
'babes in
>arms' yet pretending it is an authentic 1st century immersion.
>
>The Greek word Baptizo means actual immersion in water, not
just a
>man-conceived sprinkling.
>BAPTIZED:
>Strong's Greek Number 0907
>Greek word: baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
>To immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) To overwhem.
Total immersion would have been impossible for those who were
baptised at Pentecost in Acts 2. There was not the water.
Then why pick at our past to find evil? Christ did not go about,
digging up the sins of others, but instead forgave them. He did
denounce evil, certainly - but did not content Himself with
doing so. Be what you have decided to call yourself. And read
Zechariah 3.
Micah Burke
what
> an indulgence really is?
Do tell... after reading the Council of Trent, I am eager to hear...
Micah Burke
> >
>
> You are incorrect.
Explain then the practice of praying to Mary...
I've discussed it with others, and it comes down
to "sure, it's not specifically mentioned in the bible,
but it's tradition"...
Michel Guilmette
Ok it's like this: You ask Mary to pray for you and she does. No magic
or anything involved. She is still in the body of Christ and as such she
can pray for us. That's all there is to it. Believe it or not you will
not change a thing about it. BTW the Bible is also part of tradition.
--
MikeG
'Like the wheel of a cart is the mind of a fool;
his thoughts revolve in circles.'
Sirach 33:5
stsva
east.usenetserver.com>, "Micah Burke"
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The pope tells people to heed the "traditions of men."
>> >
>>
>> You are incorrect.
>
>Explain then the practice of praying to Mary...
>I've discussed it with others, and it comes down
>to "sure, it's not specifically mentioned in the bible,
>but it's tradition"...
>
>
It's not a "tradition of men," it's a recognition of the reality
of the Communion of Saints.
Juggernaut
"An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of
binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of
individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of
Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of
the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just
to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and
charity" (CCC 1478).
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%wX_4.15899$Gj5.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Juggernaut
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >The pope tells people to heed the "traditions of men."
> > >
> >
> > You are incorrect.
>
> Explain then the practice of praying to Mary...
> I've discussed it with others, and it comes down
> to "sure, it's not specifically mentioned in the bible,
> but it's tradition"...
Well, apparently it must be a tradition of God, just like the canon of
Scripture is not mentioned in the Bible, but it's a tradition.
>
>
Micah Burke
of
> binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of
> individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of
> Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission
of
> the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just
> to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance,
and
> charity" (CCC 1478).
Strange, the bible says that prayer does that...
Micah Burke
> > I've discussed it with others, and it comes down
> > to "sure, it's not specifically mentioned in the bible,
> > but it's tradition"...
>
> or anything involved. She is still in the body of Christ and as such she
> can pray for us. That's all there is to it. Believe it or not you will
> not change a thing about it. BTW the Bible is also part of tradition.
The bible is the inspired word of God... in that book, there is no mention
of praying to folks who have physically died.
Juggernaut
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
And prayers are part of indulgences.
I'm curious, though, where does the bible say what you said it says?
>
>
stsva
There is mention of "baptism for the dead." What's that all
about?
Juggernaut
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Explain then the practice of praying to Mary...
> > > I've discussed it with others, and it comes down
> > > to "sure, it's not specifically mentioned in the bible,
> > > but it's tradition"...
> >
> > Ok it's like this: You ask Mary to pray for you and she does. No magic
> > or anything involved. She is still in the body of Christ and as such she
> > can pray for us. That's all there is to it. Believe it or not you will
> > not change a thing about it. BTW the Bible is also part of tradition.
>
> The bible is the inspired word of God... in that book, there is no mention
> of praying to folks who have physically died.
How do you know what is inspired and what is not inspired?
>
>
Gerry Palo
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Explain then the practice of praying to Mary...
>> > I've discussed it with others, and it comes down
>> > to "sure, it's not specifically mentioned in the bible,
>> > but it's tradition"...
>>
>> Ok it's like this: You ask Mary to pray for you and she does. No magic
>> or anything involved. She is still in the body of Christ and as such she
>> can pray for us. That's all there is to it. Believe it or not you will
>> not change a thing about it. BTW the Bible is also part of tradition.
>
>The bible is the inspired word of God... in that book, there is no mention
>of praying to folks who have physically died.
John himself tells us that there are many other things that Jesus did and
that if they were written down the world would not have room to contain
the books that would have to be written. I think you err when you assume
that if something is not mentioned in the Bible it does not exist or is
not true, or that God does not intend for us to learn from other sources
besides the Bible.
It is interesting that so many Christians who will only acknowledge the
existence of spiritual realities if they are spelled out (or implied) in
the Bible and deny anything they can't find there will yet acknowledge
that man can learn something about the world outside the Bible, but only
if it is a matter of the physical sense world. The Bible doesn't say
anything about Pittsburgh or DNA or Pteradactyls or Penicillin, but we
don't deny their existence. But if it is anything about the spiritual
world, no amount of human testimony will suffice. If it is not in the
Bible then it does not exist.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
Micah Burke
> that if they were written down the world would not have room to contain
> the books that would have to be written.
Therefore we pray to those who have died (physically)?
I think that's taking things too far. When scripture says not
to communicate with the dead, are we to assume that this
is those who died, unsaved, only? What if (and I believe it
does) this applies to those who died, physically, in Christ as
well?
Micah Burke
>
> And prayers are part of indulgences.
>
> I'm curious, though, where does the bible say what you said it says?
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins
and purify us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 2:1
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if
anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense
--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins,
and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
We confess our sins through prayer to God, asking him for
forgiveness for them.
Raul Goulden
> We confess our sins through prayer to God, asking him for
> forgiveness for them.
Sort of silly for God to go through all the trouble to
bless us with His perfect mediator when a sinful
man was capable all along.
Romanists, they sure do love those traditions of men.
If you ever want to read something funny, read a romanist
scholar on the history of auricular confession to a priest.
They have to ~really~ s-t-r-e-t-c-h credibility to find examples
in the early church. Really quite comical. RG
stsva
<data...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "The bible is the inspired word of
> God... in that book, there is no mention
> of praying to folks who have physically
> died"
>
>
>
> ( Deuteronomy 18:11 NASB )
>
The Deuteronomy passage relates to the practice of divination or
necromancy, and has nothing to do with the practice of
requesting those who are physically dead but alive in Christ to
pray for us.
> THAT, and "the dead do not know anything"
> of earthly matters ( Ecclesiastes 9:5 NASB ).
>
Again, this was before Christ's death and resurrection;
Christians who are physically dead are nevertheless alive in
Christ, for He has conquered death.
> Romanism ISN'T
> Christian, it's Pagan
> Superstitions !
>
Catholicism, however, is most definitely Christian.
> The DataRat
stsva
Perhaps because, in the early church, you had to get up in front
of everyone and confess your sins to the entire congregation,
instead of just to the priest?
The DataRat
"The bible is the inspired word of
God... in that book, there is no mention
of praying to folks who have physically
died"
Indeed, doing so is expressly prohibited !
( Deuteronomy 18:11 NASB )
THAT, and "the dead do not know anything"
of earthly matters ( Ecclesiastes 9:5 NASB ).
Romanism ISN'T
Christian, it's Pagan
Superstitions !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"What if (and I believe it does) this applies
to those who died, physically, in Christ as
well?"
Saul was killed by the Lord for calling upon
a dead Samuel. (1 Chronicles 10:13)
Samuel was a Prophet of God, and -hence-
in Christ.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"The Deuteronomy passage relates
to the practice of divination or necromancy"
Try reading the verse rather than
reading into:
"or one who calls up the dead" (NASB)
Period.
The DataRat
Hansss
> a dead Samuel. (1 Chronicles 10:13)
One claim of the bible is that the Lord killed Saul. Samuel reports 3 different
stories.
1 Samuel 31:4-5 Saul took his own sword, and fell upon it. And when his
armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword, and died with
him.
2 Samuel 1:9-10 'I am an Amalekite.' And [Saul] said to me, `Stand beside me
and slay me; for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers.' So I
stood beside him, and slew him,
2 Samuel 21:12 David went and took the bones of Saul...from the men of
Jabeshgilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Bethshan, where the
Philistines had hanged them, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa;
Hans-Michael
http://members.aol.com/hansss/bible-stuff.html
"Cool Bible stuff in 20 different languages!"
The DataRat
"Again, this was before Christ's death
and resurrection; Christians who are
physically dead are nevertheless alive
in Christ, for He has conquered death"
Christians who died before Christ's
resurrection were physically dead and
nevertheless alive in Christ.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 was never rescinded
in the New Testament !
OT saints in heaven couldn't hear
earthly prayers, and neither can NT
saints. God mercifully spares them
listening to Romanist heresies !
The DataRat
atheists, & satanists @reone&thesame.com Alan W. Craft
>> >The pope tells people to heed the "traditions of men."
>> >
>>
>> You are incorrect.
>
>Explain then the practice of praying to Mary...
>I've discussed it with others, and it comes down
>to "sure, it's not specifically mentioned in the bible,
>but it's tradition"...
The Pharisees were NOT Roman Catholic, and...
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the
traditions which you were taught by us, either by
WORD OF MOUTH or BY LETTER."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Now, run along...
...there's a good Prottie.
Alan
The DataRat
"That, however, is not what is
involved in requesting the saints,
who are in Heaven, to pray for us"
Nice rationalization, but the "saints"
in heaven have died on earth.
The verse in question makes no
qualification only for NBA betting.
It is a flat-out unequivocal injunction
against calling on the dead.
But, hey, when did Holy Scripture
ever affect Romanist theology ?
Romanism ISN'T
Christ, It's Pagan
Superstition !
The DataRat
stsva
And Catholics do not "call up the dead," period. If, for
example, a Catholic prayed to a saint to reveal the winner of
the NBA championship so that the Catholic could place a bet,
that would clearly be a violation of Deuteronomy. That,
however, is not what is involved in requesting the saints, who
are in Heaven, to pray for us.
>
> The DataRat
Gerry Palo
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "The bible is the inspired word of
> God... in that book, there is no mention
> of praying to folks who have physically
> died"
>
>
>
> Indeed, doing so is expressly prohibited !
> ( Deuteronomy 18:11 NASB )
>
> THAT, and "the dead do not know anything"
> of earthly matters ( Ecclesiastes 9:5 NASB ).
Yes, and that is why when we pray we must lift our thinking and feeling
up from earthly matters to the spiritual, to that which we have shared
and can share with them that is free from the earthly. The incident in
Chronicles was the reverse, trying to draw down the deceased into the
earthly realm, and that for selfish purposes.
Raul Goulden
> of everyone and confess your sins to the entire congregation,
> instead of just to the priest?
Read a little on jewish confession.
Private sins were never to be displayed publically,
this is the equivelent of flaunting your rebellion.
There is a place for public confession of sin but most
sins don't fit that bill.
RG
stsva
And Calvinist babble, perhaps? ;-)
More seriously, the Bible documents a change in situation
following Christ's resurrection. I believe that the Old
Testament saints are saved through Christ, but I also believe
that their situation changed following His death and
resurrection. His descent to preach to the dead souls (1 Peter
3:19) is one factor to consider, along with the emergence of the
dead from their tombs documented in Matthew 27:52-53. The
presence of the Elders in Heaven presenting the prayers of the
saints (Revelation 5:8) is another factor to consider. In
addition, Paul tells us that it is better to die and be with
Christ (implying that this occurs immediately, without having to
wait for the general resurrection of the dead), rather than
remain alive on earth (2 Corinthians 4:8). All of this
convinces me that it is quite Biblical to believe in the living
awareness in Heaven of "dead" Christian saints.
Gerry Palo
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> John himself tells us that there are many other things that Jesus did and
>> that if they were written down the world would not have room to contain
>> the books that would have to be written.
>
>Therefore we pray to those who have died (physically)?
Not to them, for them. We pray and commune with them because we and they
live, only we are in the body and they are not.
>I think that's taking things too far. When scripture says not
>to communicate with the dead, are we to assume that this
>is those who died, unsaved, only? What if (and I believe it
>does) this applies to those who died, physically, in Christ as
>well?
This has nothing to do with the mediumship with which the author of the
books of Samuel was concerned. Not only is it a mistake to confuse that
kind of activity with Christian prayer for the dead, in those days
Christ's resurrection and victory over death still lay in the future.
And no, I believe that we can also comfort those who have not died in
Christ. It is only the failure of the human mind to grasp the reality of
Christ's victory over death that makes them believe that death closes the
door on his possibility for saving them or on us to comfort them.
Gerry Palo
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "What if (and I believe it does) this applies
> to those who died, physically, in Christ as
> well?"
>
>
>
> a dead Samuel. (1 Chronicles 10:13)
> in Christ.
This has nothing to do with Christian prayers for the dead. We are not
talking about conjuring up spirits.
Raul Goulden
"stsva" <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:16601163...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com...
> In article <8Wc%4.73$t13.2671@bgtnsc06-
> front
> >> of everyone and confess your sins to the entire congregation,
> >> instead of just to the priest?
> >
> >Read a little on jewish confession.
>
The first Christians were just jews that believed
Jesus was the Christ. Anyone that misses this
point must think the entire OT was written for the
fun of it.
Micah Burke
> > a dead Samuel. (1 Chronicles 10:13)
> > Samuel was a Prophet of God, and -hence-
> > in Christ.
>
> This has nothing to do with Christian prayers for the dead. We are not
> talking about conjuring up spirits.
Not FOR the dead, TO the dead... that's a major
whopping difference.
Isaiah 8:19
When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter,
should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of
the living?
bam
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote
> Indeed, doing so is expressly prohibited !
> ( Deuteronomy 18:11 NASB )
>
> THAT, and "the dead do not know anything"
> of earthly matters ( Ecclesiastes 9:5 NASB ).
>
Another theological pipsqueak. Ratso does not realize that things changed
after the Resurrection.
BAM
stsva
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Raul Goulden"
<presby...@charlotte.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps because, in the early church, you had to get up in
front
>> of everyone and confess your sins to the entire congregation,
>> instead of just to the priest?
>
>Read a little on jewish confession.
I thought that we were talking about Christian confession.
>Private sins were never to be displayed publically,
>this is the equivelent of flaunting your rebellion.
>There is a place for public confession of sin but most
>sins don't fit that bill.
>
>RG
>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Raul Goulden
> BAM wrote
> Ratso the Calvinist, lives by faith alone;
Romans 1:17
The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:11
The just shall live by faith
Heb. 10:38
Now the just shall live by faith:
Looks to me like "Ratso" has made a good move!
RG
bam
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote
> OT saints in heaven couldn't hear
> earthly prayers, and neither can NT
> saints. God mercifully spares them
> listening to Romanist heresies !
Ratso the Calvinist, lives by faith alone; no hope, no charity.
According to Ratso, man has two options: Presumption or Despair - both sins.
BAM
Gerry Palo
stsva <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <8Wc%4.73$t13.2671@bgtnsc06-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Raul Goulden"
><presby...@charlotte.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps because, in the early church, you had to get up in
>front
>>> of everyone and confess your sins to the entire congregation,
>>> instead of just to the priest?
>>
>>Read a little on jewish confession.
>
>I thought that we were talking about Christian confession.
Why should that part of it change? And when do Christians (non-Catholic)
make public confessions of their sins before the entire congregation? In
the Protestant equivalent of the Kyrie, the congregation makes a general
confession and then there is a moment of silence where each one is
supposed, in about five seconds, to recount all his sins of ommission and
commission. I think in communist countries and in American group therapy
and encounter groups it is customary for an individual to sit in a circle
of peers and superiors and make detailed public confession of his
faults. Maybe that is what you would like to see by way of Christian
confession?
>
>>Private sins were never to be displayed publically,
>>this is the equivelent of flaunting your rebellion.
>>There is a place for public confession of sin but most
>>sins don't fit that bill.
And not even personally to the confessor. That is why confession is done
as a sacramental rite. The confessor is not receiving the confession as a
personal individual, but as a "called and ordained servant of the Word",
and he wears vestments to underscore the fact (and of course it is done
in a confessional to emphasize that something higher, namely Christ
himself, is present.
Darel Finkbeiner
> > BAM wrote
> > Ratso the Calvinist, lives by faith alone;
>
> Romans 1:17
> The just shall live by faith.
>
> Galatians 3:11
> The just shall live by faith
>
> Heb. 10:38
> Now the just shall live by faith:
>
> Looks to me like "Ratso" has made a good move!
>
> RG
hah, quite right, Ratso may be many unlikeable things and hold many
"interesting" philosophies, but claiming that the righteous will live by
faith alone is not one of them. I will say that DR is right about half
the time. And walking by faith is so fundamental to every part of
scripture from the beginning to the end that one cannot hope to
contradict it! Only by the most twisting and sophisticated (look that
word up if you think you know what it means) of lexical acrobatics can
anyone read scripture and walk away saying... "Faith alone? Didn't see
it."
If you don't start with faith, continue in faith and end in faith, you
aren't saved. No matter what. Period. If you fall into a sin you are
not disqualified, because if you have faith you will return to the right
path. If you do not have faith you can do all the other things and
still never make it. People say "faith alone" is a trap.
Bah!
Paul landed an H-bomb on that argument! In fact, he came to that same
accusation that the ones here shake in our face.. "So you can just go on
sinning? No consequences, right?!" But what does Paul say? "God
forbid! *Because* we live by faith, we are dead to sin and will *live
in it* no longer!" (that's a paraphrase), Romans, and indeed the rest
of his letters, teach that what we do in our lives as Christians
*springs from* our faith. It is caused by our faith. It comes because
of our faith. That faith saves us. That baptism of the spirit saves
us. "This hope that also saves you". He used so many different phrases
to drive home the same point. FAITH. Hebrews has a whole chapter
devoted to how wonderful faith is. Our father is Abraham, same as all
the others who will go to heaven, yet how did he do it? Was it by
working at it? When he failed did God disown him? None of these. He
had faith, and it was "counted as righteousness". We have this same
salvation. By faith. All of it, salvation, works, goodness, all of it
comes by faith. Only faith. Nothing more. Our salvation works because
of faith. Christ works in us because of faith. Without faith
everything we do is in vain! All of our striving is for nothing without
this "hope", this "love", this "faith".
whew, sorry. I think faith is cool.
The DataRat
"We are not talking about
conjuring up spirits"
That's EXACTLY what you
are doing praying to dead
people !
The DataRat
Raul Goulden
> as a sacramental rite. The confessor is not receiving the confession as a
> personal individual, but as a "called and ordained servant of the Word",
> and he wears vestments to underscore the fact (and of course it is done
> in a confessional to emphasize that something higher, namely Christ
Traditions of men unsupported by the bible and early church practice.
RG
S.T. Stevenson
termed "Palestinian Christianity," which was predominantly Jewish, largely
disappeared following the Jewish wars around A.D. 70 and the first or second
decade of the second century.
--
S.T. Stevenson
1st...@home.com
(omit numerals to use)
"Raul Goulden" <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in message
news:1yd%4.1$ee3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "stsva" <stsvaN...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:16601163...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com...
> > In article <8Wc%4.73$t13.2671@bgtnsc06-
> > news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Raul Goulden"
> > <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote:
> > >> Perhaps because, in the early church, you had to get up in
> > front
> > >> of everyone and confess your sins to the entire congregation,
> > >> instead of just to the priest?
> > >
> > >Read a little on jewish confession.
> >
> > I thought that we were talking about Christian confession.
>
> The first Christians were just jews that believed
> Jesus was the Christ. Anyone that misses this
> point must think the entire OT was written for the
> fun of it.
>
> > >Private sins were never to be displayed publically,
> > >this is the equivelent of flaunting your rebellion.
> > >There is a place for public confession of sin but most
> > >sins don't fit that bill.
> > >RG
>
>
>
>
cqabug
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration
which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path
of Christendom - that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple
to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at
which one stands." (G. K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy)
Raul Goulden <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in article
<lVa%4.6233$vc5.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
S.T. Stevenson
news:6Pe%4.46$7d7....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Don't you mean Jewish practice?
> RG
>
>
>
>
Micah Burke
PBarker
> "The bible is the inspired word of
> God... in that book, there is no mention
> of praying to folks who have physically
> died"
+ Nor is there mention of polio, the internet or space travel.
> Indeed, doing so is expressly prohibited !
> ( Deuteronomy 18:11 NASB )
+ Perhaps you should read this yourself one time.
+ It speaks of fortune tellers, soothsayers, charmers, diviners, casters of
spells, ghosts, etc...
> THAT, and "the dead do not know anything"
> of earthly matters ( Ecclesiastes 9:5 NASB ).
+ Read this one again also, Rat.
+ This passage says that a live dog is better than a dead lion. For all
those who have dies, love and hatred and rivalry have long perished.
+ Both these passages were written long before Jesus Christ came to earth.
Long before he suffered, died, and was buried for the original sins of man.
The gates of heaven were closed until Jesus Christ came to earth. If you
are a true Christian, I don't need to go into everything that has been
opened up to us since Jesus was crucified....
>
> Romanism ISN'T
> Christian, it's Pagan
> Superstitions !
+ <YAWN!>
atheists, & satanists @reone&thesame.com Alan W. Craft
They're not dead, and God has said
that He is the God of the living, and not of
the dead, rat.
Alan
Bob
> Goangod
>
> "Jesus came to found a church, not write a book"
> "The bible came from the church, the church did not come from the bible.
> Christianity existed over 300 years without one single Bible Christian."
> RCC - The ONE TRUE CHURCH
>
The RCC was founded in 1054 when it broke away from the true church. When
is Rome going to repent?
bob
Bruce LaMore
Bob wrote:
LOL!!!
Peace,
Bruce
S.T. Stevenson
then what am I?
"Darel Finkbeiner" <myt...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:393D69BD...@mailandnews.com...
S.T. Stevenson
exception of some of the "Satanists") believe in consulting the dead.
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8Zf%4.31400$Gj5.5...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
S.T. Stevenson
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
news:393D7563...@home.com...
>
>
> "We are not talking about
> conjuring up spirits"
>
>
>
> That's EXACTLY what you
> are doing praying to dead
> people !
>
>
> The DataRat
>
>
>
>
S.T. Stevenson
>
>
> "That, however, is not what is
> involved in requesting the saints,
> who are in Heaven, to pray for us"
>
>
>
> Nice rationalization, but the "saints"
> in heaven have died on earth.
>
> The verse in question makes no
> qualification only for NBA betting.
> It is a flat-out unequivocal injunction
> against calling on the dead.
>
Yeah, calling on the dead to foretell the future, like I said.
> But, hey, when did Holy Scripture
> ever affect Romanist theology ?
>
I don't know about "Romanist" theology, but Holy Scripture is essential to
Catholic theology.
>
> Romanism ISN'T
> Christ, It's Pagan
> Superstition !
>
> The DataRat
>
>
>
>
>
cqabug
compiled by the Catholic Bishops?
--
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Carlque
"To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration
which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path
of Christendom - that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple
to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at
which one stands." (G. K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy)
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in article
<kK9%4.25995$Gj5.4...@news-east.usenetserver.com>...
> > > Explain then the practice of praying to Mary...
> > > I've discussed it with others, and it comes down
> > > to "sure, it's not specifically mentioned in the bible,
> > > but it's tradition"...
> >
> > Ok it's like this: You ask Mary to pray for you and she does. No magic
> > or anything involved. She is still in the body of Christ and as such
she
> > can pray for us. That's all there is to it. Believe it or not you will
> > not change a thing about it. BTW the Bible is also part of tradition.
>
> The bible is the inspired word of God... in that book, there is no
mention
> of praying to folks who have physically died.
>
>
>
cqabug
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote in article
<3939903F...@home.com>...
>
>
> "Isn't this the same attitude that
> is exhibited toward Papal authority"
>
>
>
> No, it ISN'T.
>
> The Pope is a false shepherd,
> and the Church of Rome is ~not~
> a true church.
>
> To use your own OT analogy,
> Romanism and Orthodoxism
> represent prophets of Baal rather
> than God's anointed.
>
>
> Romanism ISN'T
> Christian, it's pagan
> idolatry !
>
> The DataRat
>
And you are not the idolator of Calvin, the instrument of satan?
Nigel Freitas
Don't you know that the DataRat is right????????
Only people who believe exactly what DataRat says, who go to his Calvinist
church, who share the same twisted, myopic, narrow minded (and rather pathetic,
i might add) view of scriptures will be saved!!!
Question for the Rat.......
Have you ever looked at a woman and thought how good looking she was?
Have you ever masturbated before?
Then "If your eye causes you to sin pluck it out, if your hand causes you to
sin, cut it off"
Chop chop DataRat
There should be a large number of Protties and literalists missing hands and
eyes out there ;-)
Goangod
"Jesus came to found a church, not write a book"
"The bible came from the church, the church did not come from the bible.
Christianity existed over 300 years without one single Bible Christian."
RCC - The ONE TRUE CHURCH
bam
Bob <prcd...@gwtc.net> wrote
> The RCC was founded in 1054 when it broke away from the true church. When
> is Rome going to repent?
> bob
Yeah, like the North America broke off from Long Island.
BAM
bam
Can we pray to angels, by the way, oh Dean of Pipsqueak Theological
Seminary?
BAM
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
bam
in your private, unauthorized Bible?
BAM
Raul Goulden <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in message
news:tCd%4.5$ee3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
bam
S.T. Stevenson <1st...@home.com (drop numerals to use)> wrote in message
news:cqg%4.237061$Tn4.2...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> And if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love,
> then what am I?
A Ratso, I guess. Cacophony.
BAM