A Blood-Soaked Path Through History

[brakelite]

The Seventh Day Adventist church has been vilified for its interpretation of scripture regarding prophecy, in particular the day/year principle where for every prophetic day, one year is meant. This principle is found to be most accurate in several places, the most profound as you would be aware being Daniel 9:24 which speaks of the 70 'weeks', which is meant as 490 years. But another equally accurate number is found also in Daniel, as well as Revelation. The 1260 days...42 months...times, time, and half a time.

This has two distinct applications, being the same time period, for two separate peoples. The oppressor, (Daniel 7:25; Revel.13:5; ) and the oppressed. (Revel. 11:3; 12:6,14). So what has this to do with the topic currently under discussion?

Papal Primacy
What is the real issue involved with the prophetic 1260 years and the topic under present discussion? The real issue is papal primacy.

Papal Primacy is what the Papacy wants. She wants back what she had during those 1260 years.

What is Papal Primacy?
First Papal Primacy is not:
Popularity
It is not being the top civil or political leader in a country.
It is not even whether everyone always accepts that primacy or not

Papal Primacy during the 1260 years was being recognized BY LAW, to be the supreme teaching authority. It was recognizing that the papacy had the legal right to persecute and eradicate all whom she defined as heritics. Papal power resided in her stance of having the very keys over who would enjoy eternal life, or suffer the wrath of God. A faulty application of Matt. 16:19's "bind and loose" was used to give the papacy power to intimidate even powerful kings into obedience in executing their agendas.

The issue isn't whether people liked it or not-- many didn't. The issue isn't whether the papacy suffered weak points during those years. We know there were even times when there were several "popes" fighting for the position. The issue is an entire era, covering 1260 years when papal primacy was established by law. This is highly significant when considering Revelation 13 and a future ecumenical global religion enforcing, by law, her dogmas and doctrines, even under pain of death. The 1260 years past, beginning with Justinian's code of law, and ending with Napoleon's code of law. 538AD to 1798AD. 1260 years.

The issue is papal primacy and the authority to enforce that primacy by civil law and with the use of civil power. The papacy is not satisfied to be "one of the body" of Christian churches. NO, NO, NEVER!

She must be the leader, and controller---
THROUGH LEGISLATION
AND SHE HAS MADE THIS VERY PLAIN

In an official four page "note" after the release of the Vatican Declaration Dominus Deus which reaffirmed the Papal position of Primacy by Pope John Paul II, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, (later Pope Benedict 16th) who was the "Prefect" of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (Note: that means he was head of the re-established and renamed Office of the Inquisition) stated:

"when the expression 'sister churches' is used in the proper sense, the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not (meant to be) sister but MOTHER of all particular churches. This is not merely a question of terminology, but above all of respecting a basic truth of the Catholic faith: that of the unicity of the Church of Jesus Christ."


Rev. 17 jumps to mind--
Mystery Babylon, the mother.....
This is the primacy that lead to the 1260 years of papal persecution, when that primacy using the power of the state (the kings) to force people into compliance.

Otto Gierke, speaking of Pope Gregory VII (Pope from 1073-1085)
writes in "Political Theories of the Middle Ages", p.11-12


"If mankind be only one, and if there can be but one State that comprises all mankind, that State can be no other than the Church that God Himself has founded, and all temporal lordship can be valid only in so far as it is part and parcel of the Church. Therefore the Church, being the one true State, has received by a mandate from God the plenitude of all spiritual and temporal powers, they being integral parts of One Might. The Head of this all embracing State is Christ. BUT, as the Unity of Mankind is to be realized already in this world, His celestial kingship must have a terrestrial presentment. As Christ's Vice-Regent, the earthly Head of the Church is the one and only Head of all Mankind. The Pope is the wielder of what is in principle an Empire (principatus) over the Community of Mortals. He is their Priest and their King; their spiritual and temporal Monarch; their Lawgiver and judge in all causes supreme.

Gregory VII (Pope from 1073-1085) was probably the first pope to claim UNIVERSAL jurisdiction, he issued his Dictatus Papae, containing twenty-seven propositions about the powers of the pope, which declared he was over kings and emperors. ( See "Lives of the Popes, by Richard McBrien, page 186 ) But we see popes crowning and anointing kings and emperors well before that time. Stephen IV anointed and crowned Louis as successor to Charlemagne in 816. Leo III was the pope who crowned Charlemagne.
As early as 492 Pope Gelasius claimed the title "Vicar of Christ".
According to Richard McBrien in "Lives of the Popes" p. 80-81 Gelasius I, (pope from 492-496) Wrote a series of letters which read more like legal briefs in defence of papal primacy by appealing to the theory of "two powers" or "two swords" (the spiritual and the temporal) each power has its own sphere BUT the spiritual power is superior to the temporal. ( One is reminded of Revelation again where the concept of sword of the state being subservient to the dictate of the church is prophetically pictured as the whore riding the beast... The church holding the reigns of political power... Which has been the hallmark of history for that 1260 years and current events with the popes again fostering intimate relations with the government's of the world.)

Even earlier, Pope Leo the Great (r. 440-461) was promoting the right to primacy and asserting that Peter, above all the disciples was given this right.

In a letter to the Bishop of Vienna (according "The Faith of the Early Fathers" (FEF), 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3, p. 269 Pope Leo wrote:


"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be pre-eminent over the others . . . the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head." (Quote also found in Tract: The Authority of the Pope: Part II, Catholic Answers)
So early on we see the papal authority asserting it's sovereignty over spiritual power, of which it claimed to be the head. The civil leaders were merely the police department of the Church to be used to further it's aims. With the fall of the western Roman Empire, the church took over the vacated prerogatives of that position. The introduction into law Justinian's code in 533AD and its establishment of Justinian's law in Rome in 538 legally declared the Pope as the "head of all churches". (It was the ousting of the Goths from Rome in 538 by Justinian's army that first gave the pope of that time the power to govern in religious and civil matters.) Napoleon's law written in 1793 and enacted in Rome 1798, reversed this. (Epostle spoke of the 1798 capture of the pope above. Besides dieing in exile, the papal states were confiscated, and the college of Cardinals disbanded. After exactly 1260 years, papal civil power ceased. This was the mortal head wound of the beast. Today that wound is being healed, and soon we shall see a full recovery of papal supremacy as in the dark ages... Only on a global scale.)
Revelation reveals the beast will be granted, for a short time, global dominion, which will afford him the opportunity to legislate and enforce one particular doctrine he favours above all others. Sunday sacredness.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So the Lutherans now have the magic to turn bread into human flesh and wine into human blood?

No - why would you make that claim??
They have no valid Apostolic Succession.

 

[epostle1]

Im anti Pope, and Roman Catholic heretical teaching, I don't hate the rank and file Roman Catholic, who is enslaved to the system,

I am not a slave. You are a slave to lies and falsehoods. You assert "heretical teaching" but have your own definition of heresy and you have not proven any heretical teaching. Like phony man, you can't just take one item for discussion. Cluster bombing, hate speech and fundie polemics is not proof, its propaganda.

"So the Lutherans now have the magic to turn bread into human flesh and wine into human blood?

Any idiot can see that is not what was said. Do you twist and distort scripture the same as you twist and distort peoples posts?

 

[Truth]

Good stuff, Bygrace!

I really didn't want to respond to this thread and give it more publicity. But after reading your comnents, II'd like to share another thought.

There is no doubt the inquisition happened. It was terrible. There was a counter inquisition by protestants and it too was terrible.

Then there is this:

List of apologies made by Pope John Paul II - Wikipedia

The above link describes the various apologies made by Pope John Paul II. It includes the inquisition and many other things the Catholic Church found itself involved in.
That being said... It happened and an apology was given.

So what now? What do we do about something that for the most part is centuries passed and an apology was given, and thus forgiveness was asked for? What else is the Catholic Church supposed to do? Not to mention that Pope John Paul, pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger... Who is mention in the article and has also been accused of a dubious past) as well as BoL, Epostle1, Kelpha and every other Catholic had nothing to do with it! I don't expect any of them to apologize for it because they didn't do it and their spokesman issued an apology 20 years ago.

About the only thing I can fault them for is not pointing to that more often. But they shouldn't have to.

Matthew 6:14-15 KJV
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: [15] But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Should we forget the history? Of course not. But there are certain facts:

1. It is no longer happening.
2. It was apologized for and I assume they seek forgiveness
3. Today's Catholics from their pulpits to the Pope had nothing to do with it.
4. That bit from Matt 6 applies to you as the forgiver and to them who long ago asked.

So, what are you going to do? Forgive or keep bringing it up when they did what was necessary to rid themselves of that sin?

Here is a gift to Catholics: there actually was a counter inquisition and plenty of backlash that was just as bloody. It even happened on North American soil. Possibly in the United States. Has there been an apology for that? I mean... There may have been. I just can't find the right key words to plug into google to find it!

Bottom line: History is in the past and today's Catholic should not be held responsible for something they had no part in. Especially when they asked for forgiveness.

YES I AGREE, like it was our fault about Slavery, 200 yrs ago. people of today had nothing to do with the past, as said, just water under the Bridge. We all have our Guilt-?????????????????

 

[Truth7t7]

I am not a slave. You are a slave to lies and falsehoods. You assert "heretical teaching" but have your own definition of heresy and you have not proven any heretical teaching. Like phony man, you can't just take one item for discussion. Cluster bombing, hate speech and fundie polemics is not proof, its propaganda.
Any idiot can see that is not what was said. Do you twist and distort scripture the same as you twist and distort peoples posts?

Carm

A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church

Following is a summarized paragraph with references found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) of many of the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. How do we know they are false? By comparing Scripture with what is taught.

-----------------------

1.)The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105)
2.) Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035)
3.) Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100)
4.)The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034)
5.)The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846)
6.)Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82)
7.)Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080 2068)
8.)Full benefit of Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3)
9.)Grace can be merited (CCC 2010 CCC 2027)
10.)The merit of Mary and the Saints can be applied to Catholics and others (1477) 11.)Penance is necessary for salvation (CCC 980)
12.)Purgatory (CCC 1031 CCC 1475)
13.)Indulgences (CCC 1471 CCC 1478 CCC 1498 CCC 1472)
15.)Mary is Mediatrix (CCC 969)
16.) Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation (CCC 969)
17.)Mary delivers souls from death (CCC 966)
18.)Prayer to the saints (CCC 2677)
19.)The Communion elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (CCC 1374 CCC 1376).

 

[epostle1]

Thaty's

Carm

A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church

Following is a summarized paragraph with references found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) of many of the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. How do we know they are false? By comparing Scripture with what is taught.

-----------------------

1.)The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105)
2.) Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035)
3.) Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100)
4.)The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034)
5.)The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846)
6.)Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82)
7.)Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080 2068)
8.)Full benefit of Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3)
9.)Grace can be merited (CCC 2010 CCC 2027)
10.)The merit of Mary and the Saints can be applied to Catholics and others (1477) 11.)Penance is necessary for salvation (CCC 980)
12.)Purgatory (CCC 1031 CCC 1475)
13.)Indulgences (CCC 1471 CCC 1478 CCC 1498 CCC 1472)
15.)Mary is Mediatrix (CCC 969)
16.) Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation (CCC 969)
17.)Mary delivers souls from death (CCC 966)
18.)Prayer to the saints (CCC 2677)
19.)The Communion elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (CCC 1374 CCC 1376).

That is a rant, not a request for information. I don't reply to rants. I've debated Matt Slick on his CARM forum and found to be the most dishonest anti-Catholic on the 'net. Effectively refute him and he deletes your post, and severeal others have had the same complaint.

“If You Died Tonight”: Debate w Matt Slick of CARM

[5-20-03 at CARM] I consider official roman catholic doctrine to be apostate and Roman Catholics to be the objects of evangelism.

Now, I realize that some RC’s may be saved, that they believe they are Christian, etc. Maybe you are. Maybe I am wrong about Catholicism. Maybe you are right and I’m lost. But, I don’t see the infusion of grace into a believer that enables him to do good works by which he can then be saved. I don’t see penance to achieve forgiveness of sins. I don’t see praying to Mary. I don’t see purgatory. I don’t see bowing to the pope. I don’t see maintaining your salvation by what you do….

I am only able to be subject to what I believe the word of God says. . . .

–just like mormons… they say they believe in Jesus, too… and add works to their salvation. They also attack and ask where “I” get the authority, etc. Look at the Bible and see if praying to mary is there, penance, indulgences, purgatory, keeping salvation by works, etc… Not there.

. . . the mormons talk about keeping salvation by their works…

. . . –oh, so there are TWO mediators?

. . . [purgatory] is an apostate doctrine of the RC.

I am pro Jesus, pro Bible. Anti mans-doctrines.

[5-21-03 at CARM] Also, I do NOT consider RC doctrine to be Christian. I consider the catholic church to be apostate.

Now, I mean no offense by that, as hard as it may be not to be offended by what I said, but that is how I feel about it.

I see the RCC to be no different than cults that teach unbiblical doctrines, and works righteousness.

I’ve studied cults and the Bible far far too much to ever become an RC. It just won’t happen. No way I will bow to a pope, pray to mary, do penance, believe in purgatory, indulgences, etc… no way.

I’d be glad to debate RC’s on this on paltalk sometime.

If you are pro Bible, then why do you pray to mary, believe in penance, indulgences, purgatory, etc.?

[Matt started a new thread on the Catholic board of CARM, entitled “To Armstrong” (obviously a challenge to me in some sense, or an inquiry, at the least). It consisted of but a few lines, and I responded:

If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.

First of all, I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that God ever acts like this (if I have overlooked it, you can educate me; the Bible’s a big book — the book of Job would seem to present a quite different perspective), so this is simply one of many Protestant catch-phrases or slogans or evangelistic techniques which cannot be found in the Bible (as far as that goes). I’m not saying it’s Unbiblical; just not the sort of thing that one can find there, by example.

Going to heaven and being saved or damned is not a trite affair like a TV quiz show or something. One will either be saved or not, and they will know that instantly when they stand before God. There will be no arguing with God (Job 40:1-2; cf. 42:3). They will know truth and know why they missed the mark. People who are damned may try to foolishly plead their case, I suppose, as in Matthew 25. But Jesus simply declares and sends them away to their fate. He doesn’t stand there like Bob Barker and ask them questions — not in the sense of this Protestant catch-phrase, anyway.

That said, Catholics believe in sola gratia as much as Protestants do. You ought to know this, but it appears that you do not.

 

[epostle1]

Would you mention your prayers to Mary, your indulgences, your works, your sincerity, or what?

This is covered in my above answer. Each of those matters must be discussed individually, given the abominable ignorance that many Protestants have concerning them. Suffice it to say that we do not accept the unbiblical, damnable notion of “works-salvation.” Catholics are neither Pelagians nor semi-Pelagians. And you ought to know that, too. But (by the looks of it) you do not. Join the crowd.

[Matt writing about me] I do not know if he is a Christian or not and if he told me he had to do good works in order to be justified before God, I’d say he was NOT a Christian. I won’t budge on this.

But, since I don’t know what his position is, I can’t say.

***

You didn’t answer my question. Instead, you blurred the issue with prose. I am waiting.

I answered in four different ways:

1. I said Catholics believed in sola gratia.

2. I said that we are not Pelagians.

3. I said we don’t believe in works-salvation

4. Furthermore, I denied that the hypothetical situation would even take place (thus questioning why you put it in those terms), judging by the biblical teachings. I will be silent when I am before God, on Judgment Day, and I’ll already know in an instant if I am damned or saved, and there is no arguing with God and no nonsense or prideful self-delusions any longer at that frightful, awesome hour.

So I answered thoroughly, and in answering I was also making the point that in your very asking of the question, you show that you only dimly understand Catholic soteriology, if at all, which is a prior, presuppositional issue that has to be dealt with before you start asking cliched questions of Catholic (and former evangelical Protestant) apologists such as myself (who know better than some nominal, under-catechized “cultural Catholic” in a pub at 1:30 on Saturday night).

You just didn’t hear me, and so come back with a one-line semi-insulting repetition. If you want to learn about the Catholic position on faith and works, grace, salvation, merit, etc., go read my papers or find some other similar ones to read, or get the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s time you learned, as you are in an influential position. But in any event I answered. Catholics also believe in the predestination of the elect. Did you know that?

Protestantism did not “descend” from the CC [Catholic Church]. God called his elect out of the CC as He calls them out of the world and into the TRUE church, the Body of Christ.

No you didn’t [answer my original question]. By the way, you don’t know what I know. I often ask questions simply to see where an individual is.

It is correct that I don’t know what you know. But I know what you don’t know (or at least get a good indication of same), if you say things that illustrate that you don’t know something (in this case, Catholic theology).

Don’t assume too much or too little.

With your cliches and short answers, it is difficult not to, because there is so little content.

So far, you’ve shown yourself to be evasive, a bit pedantic in your writing, and you can’t seem to answer a simple question.

Do I need to define sola gratia, Pelagianism (which we do not believe), and works-salvation (which we do not believe) for you? What is it about “grace” that you don’t understand? Catholics agree with Grace Alone. Now, it is a simple matter of logical deduction to figure out from that how I would answer God if He were to ask the question you pose.

Now, we protestants have an answer to the question, a simple question.

Of course: “I’m saved by Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, by His blood, shed on the cross for me, when He atoned for the sins of the whole world* and redeemed sinners — totally by His grace and no conceivable work of my own” (and perhaps proceed to quote John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 –never 2:10). Now, if you could figure out that Catholics agree with you wholeheartedly on this, we would get somewhere.

[*NOTE: Matt, as a Calvinist, believes in limited atonement, so he would say that Jesus died and atoned only for the elect, not the whole world. I noticed this “mistake” later. Many Protestants, however — called Arminians — , would agree with the Catholic position of universal atonement]

Since you won’t answer it,

I just did. Since I used the Protestant lingo maybe you’ll understand it this time. My previous three answers asserted exactly the same thing:

1. We oppose Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism (therefore man can do nothing whatsoever to save himself).

2. We oppose works-salvation (ditto).

3. We adhere to sola gratia (grace alone and not works save one).

What is to not understand in all that? I assumed that I was talking to an apologist who didn’t have to have all these things spelled out, lest I get accused of refusing to answer.

rather, you bury it in prose and argumentation, I’ll consider our conversations ended since you will, I am sure, continue in the same vain [sic] if I were to pose other questions to you and I do not want to become entangled in the mire of hairsplitting.

I predicted this very response from you to my wife at dinner tonight, that you wouldn’t want to engage in dialogue and would find some way to blame me for your reluctance and unwillingness, so my prophecy proved to be true. I’ve seen it a million times from Protestant apologists. You can always prove me wrong, of course. I’d be delighted to take you up on it. And the reason is not anything particularly noteworthy in me, but because Catholicism is true, or at the very least, Christian (the very issue at hand). It’s much easier to defend truth than non-truth. The latter takes far more work, and I don’t blame you for wishing to avoid such work, because it is a lost cause and fruitless. I just get tired of the subterfuge and rationalizations people use for the purpose of avoiding a debate that they know they can’t win.

My answer to Matt’s initial question was precisely designed to deal with the fact that he is already mistaken as to the nature of Catholic soteriology. Then I proceeded to deny that we believe what he thinks we believe, by asserting that we are not Pelagians, and don’t believe in works-salvation, and believe in Grace Alone. And that, in turn would cause a Catholic to answer pretty much how the Protestant would.

 

[epostle1]

[5-22-03] Are catholics saved by their works is THE question!

From what I understand of Catholic soteriology, justification is by grace AND their works. In other words, official roman catholic doctrine DENIES justification by grace thru faith ALONE!

Mr. Armstrong, I assume, knows this and chose his words carefully to appear within the scope of orthodoxy while still maintaining the heresy of works-salvation.

We are justified by faith, not by faith AND something we do. That is it.

We do good works BECAUSE we are saved, not to get saved or stay saved… the distinction between justification and sanctification in Catholicism is not only blurred, it is castrated.

My examination of the cults has led me to learn that they ALL require some works to be saved. The CC is apostate since it also requires our obedience to works in order to be saved.

To me, this is flat out heresy, from the pit.

I consider catholicism to be one of the major sources for the damning of souls.

Now, what I said is very serious and I definitely believe it. If I am wrong about catholic soteriology, I’d love to see the documentation from official roman catholic sources to the contrary.

From what I read of CC theology, I am damned to hell for believing in justification by faith…. all the cults, also deny justification by faith.

Yet, the scriptures declare we are justified by faith.

Which should I believe? easy. The Lord I will serve, not the teachings of man, or a “true church”.

What I was trying to get across [in my initial replies] was that the very situation was implausible to me, and couldn’t be backed up by biblical example (I don’t recall God acting like this anywhere in the Bible, and nothing Matt offered in reply disabused me of the notion at all), and so I wondered aloud why Matt asked the question in the first place?

Again, in strictly logical terms, the conclusions now being drawn about Catholics’ assurance of salvation or lack thereof, from my comments, do not follow. The two propositions are:

1. One knows with absolute certainty in heaven on Judgment Day whether they are saved or damned, and God will not question them like a TV quiz show host or certain Protestant evangelists who too often resemble carnival barkers or used car salesmen in the subtlety of their approach.

I affirmed this in my responses.

2. One knows with absolute certainty on earth whether they are saved or damned.

I said nothing whatsoever about this. Other Catholics can answer, or go to my website (or the relevant papers linked below) and you’ll assuredly get an explanation of our view. To illustrate and drive home my point, let me give a few analogous examples:

1. I have absolute assurance of my marriage after my wedding ceremony and the pronouncement by the clergyman.

2. I have absolute assurance of my marriage when I propose to my future wife and she accepts.

You tell me if you see any difference between the two scenarios and if one is more certain than the other, and whether #1 logically suggests that #2 is a case of the equivalent amount of certainty or assurance.

1. I have absolute assurance of my pardon by the Governor from my jail sentence when I walk out of the door of the jail free to go wherever I want and do as I please.

2. I have absolute assurance of my pardon by the Governor from my jail sentence when I hear news of his pardon, which was announced a month before it was to actually occur.

Is #2 as “certain” as #1? Can someone absolutely know the future (barring a direct private revelation from God or an angel appearing and suchlike)? The person might die before the pardon date arrives — therefore he wouldn’t have been absolutely sure of the pardon-in-actuality because in fact it never occurred, and never would or could occur. He died before it could. Further evidence of guilt in the crime for which he was convicted, or another crime might come to light. Or the Governor could change his mind for some reason. All of this proves (I think, clearly) that the “assurance” of #2 is considerably less “certain” than that of #1.

I know the Calvinist perseverance and Baptist assurance replies up and down. I’m not dealing with them here per se; I’m dealing with the logic of “absolute assurance” (and also the illogical assumptions drawn from my earlier remarks). To me it is obvious, but anyone can draw their own conclusions from the above examples of analogy.

At the Final Judgment God doesn’t wrangle with people (and people don’t argue with God — just as with any earthly judge); He simply declares judgment, which is precisely what happens in Matthew 25. He doesn’t ask them questions about their eschatological fate in heaven or hell. This is true in Matthew 25 and also suggested at the end of Job (which I also cited).

What I called a “game show” was God asking them questions about something they already know (because there are no longer any self-delusional games when one stands before God, as I think most Christians would agree; see, e.g., Isaiah’s response in Isaiah 6:1-6). I wasn’t discussing what was in the Bible, but precisely what isn’t in it, as far as I could tell.

God (as far as we know from revelation) doesn’t inquire of the person on Judgment Day, “why should I let you into heaven?” Lastly, while one may know he is damned, all the particular reasons may not be known, as indicated in Matthew 25, and God could explain that. But I wasn’t dealing with that question in my reply; I only asserted that God didn’t talk (based on biblical revelation) in the manner that Matt’s familiar evangelical slogan and lingo would have Him talk.

I never described anything actually in the Bible as a “game show,” but the sloganistic evangelistic caricatures of what happens at Judgment (which have not been shown to be in the Bible) as a “game show.” All we learn is that He declares and records earthly deeds and damnation or salvation: precisely as I argued: God declares, He doesn’t act like a game show host! — talking back and forth with the sinner, as if salvation were the equivalent of negotiations at a vegetable market.

 

[epostle1]

I find it extremely interesting that in both passages our Protestant friends cite to us concerning judgment we hear not a single word about the “faith alone” which is all that Matt can talk about in the context of judgment. Why is this, if in fact, faith alone is the sole criteria of salvation or damnation? Wouldn’t that seem to be, prima facie, a bit strange and unexpected from an evangelical viewpoint? If Jesus had attended a good evangelical seminary and gotten up to speed on His soteriology, the passage no doubt would have been considerably shorter:

But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Then He will also say to those on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for you did not believe in Me with Faith Alone.” These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous who believed with Faith Alone into eternal life.

And:

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to whether they had Faith Alone.And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to whether they had Faith Alone.

Instead, we hear all this useless talk about works, as if they had anything to do with salvation! Doesn’t Jesus know that works have no connection to faith whatsoever, and that sanctification and justification are entirely separated in good, orthodox evangelical or Calvinist theology?

Maybe our Lord Jesus attended a liberal synagogue, influenced by heretical Romish ideas. Why does Jesus keep talking about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, inviting in strangers, clothing the naked, visiting prisoners, and being judged “according to their deeds”? What in the world do all these “works” have to do with salvation? Why doesn’t Jesus talk about Faith Alone??!! Something is seriously wrong here. Perhaps all those Pelagian, idolatrous Catholic monks who transcribed the Bible changed it in the Middle Ages.

Seriously, though, what is in the Bible is the following declaration against faith alone:

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? (James 2:14; RSV)

So faith itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:17; cf. 2:20, 2:26)

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

Why, then?, does Matt assert:

We are justified by faith, not by faith AND something we do. That is it.

From what I understand of Catholic soteriology, justification is by grace AND their works. In other words, official roman catholic doctrine DENIES justification by grace thru faith ALONE!

Indeed, just as James does above. Despite all this overwhelming biblical data, Matt insists on speaking only of faith at the Judgment, to the complete exclusion of works (most contrary to the biblical record of what actually happens, whenever judgment is described):

If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? . . . Would you mention . . . your works, . . . ?

Now, I may not personally mention my works, but the striking point here is that God certainly does mention works, and works alone, as at least one reason (if not the sole one) for someone’s salvation, in the same exact passages we have been presented for supposed confirmation of Matt’s slogan, which expressly questions any role for works whatsoever. Catholics do not believe in “works-salvation.” Works do not save anyone. This is Catholic teaching. But works are neither absolutely separated from faith nor from salvation. This is a different concept. And we clearly see that in the passages above.

Biblically speaking (at least from the above passages, if nothing else), the exact opposite of what Matt asserts is true: if God asked me Matt’s question (assuming for the moment that God acts like this), and I replied by recounting repeated acts of charity and mercy that I had done: feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, inviting in strangers, clothing the naked, visiting prisoners, and various other “deeds” of mine, I would be doing nothing other than what Jesus Himself does when He describes why a person is saved (at the very least part of the reason why, but the only one given in these passages — which is my immediate point).

***

As a result of this encounter, I started to look up passages in Scripture having to do with judgment day. I found fifty. Of these, not a single one stated that faith alone was the reason we were saved. None even mentioned faith, excepting one (Rev 21:8), which included faith (but not faith alone) along with works. See my paper:

Final Judgment & WORKS (Not Faith Alone): 50 Passages
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/01/died-tonight-debate-w-matt-slick-carm.html

 

[epostle1]

My response would have been much longer had I explained all 19 of truth7t7's misrepresentations. No one would read that much text just as not many would read my reply to truth7t7. He knows it, but he got his cowardly digs in just the same.

 

[Triumph1300]

No one would read that much text

You think people still read your posts?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Any idiot can see that is not what was said. Do you twist and distort scripture the same as you twist and distort peoples posts?

Any idiot can see that is implied. Must be implied. It's another of the falsehoods comprising the fibre and body of the totality of Roman Catholic Christianity. Irony is there as on this day in this moment in human history IS NO CHRISTIAN CHURCH WHICH IS NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC in fibre, substance and DOCTRINE.
There is though the world's difference, as you have said, between '~the rank and file Roman Catholic~' or Christian, '~who is enslaved to the system~', WHO PAYS, THE MONEY, to sustain and enrich and empower the 'system' / 'regime' consisting of the informed, knowledgeable and EDUCATED AND TRAINED sergeants, majors, colonels, generals, field marshals and kings and archbishops and priests and pastors and prelates and POPES WHO IN, THE MONEY! "Money is the god of this world" -- money, and lording over and exploiting the lower ranking for sadistic religious hedonism.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn

Control one's thoughts and find his heart; control his heart and find his pocket, and find what you're after - control.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Bottom line: History is in the past and today's Catholic should not be held responsible for something they had no part in. Especially when they asked for forgiveness.

The fallacy in this is to think human forgiveness makes right what is wrong. Then, to assume human nature now is any different than thousand years ago.
If the same FAVOURABLE OPPORTUNITY arrives, humankind and the church will DO THE SAME OVER AGAIN AND WORSE THAN BEFORE.

 

[Phoneman777]

I was going to respond to this moronic thread - but it is already being well-policed by my non-Catholic friends here.

This kind of ridiculous nonsense is the kind of drivel that has caused so much division within the Body of Christ over the centuries - especially when so much of it is pure fiction . . .

Dead Bread, once again, you confuse reality with "fiction" due to your sad devotion to what the Bible has identified as the Antichrist of prophecy. There are thousands of good Catholics who have come to an understanding of why for over 300 years Protestants taught exclusively that this is so, and have renounced their allegiance to Mystery, Babylon the Great, the MOTHER CHURCH of harlots, and have come to a knowledge of a grace-saving relationship with Jesus Christ (which relationship pope Frannie says is "dangerous"). You would do well to do the same, I think.

 

[Phoneman777]

When Catholics Are On The Forum Preaching Roman Catholicism Represents The One True Holy Apostolic Church?

They Need To Be Reminded Of The Christian Blood Shed Throughout The Centuries At The Hands Or Roman Catholisism.

Amen! For non-Catholics to tolerate pro-RCC threads and posts which promote the idea that Peter was the first pope, that the RCC traces its roots back to apostolic times, that there is virtue in the "dead bread" of the Eucharist, etc., but get bent out of shape when someone posts simple matters of history that expose the RCC for what it is, is just pure asininity on their part.

 

[Phoneman777]

The fallacy in this is to think human forgiveness makes right what is wrong. Then, to assume human nature now is any different than thousand years ago.
If the same FAVOURABLE OPPORTUNITY arrives, humankind and the church will DO THE SAME OVER AGAIN AND WORSE THAN BEFORE.

Especially when the RCC'S leadership openly acknowledges this position which has remained unchanged since its satanic inception:

"The Catholic Church is a respecter of conscience and liberty...Nevertheless, when confronted by heresy SHE HAS RECOURSE TO FORCE, TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, TO TORTURE...SHE LIT IN ITALY...THE FUNERAL PILES OF THE INQUISTION."

 

[Triumph1300]

South American Bishops:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...fer-resign-sex-abuse-scandal-catholic-church/

 

[Phoneman777]

A very questionable statement as all the listed atrocities do not show any estimate of how many died. Set against these accusations the known killing of 6 million jews by hitler, or the estimated greater killing by stalin which range from 10 to 50 million the claims against the rcc are seen to be inconsquecial.

You do realize that Hitler's campaign of atrocity is measured in a handful of years, while the atrocities of the Papacy are measured in centuries -- THIRTEEN CENTURIES to be exact -- right?

 

[FHII]

The fallacy in this is to think human forgiveness makes right what is wrong. Then, to assume human nature now is any different than thousand years ago.
If the same FAVOURABLE OPPORTUNITY arrives, humankind and the church will DO THE SAME OVER AGAIN AND WORSE THAN BEFORE.

If I were to take that line of thinking then I would have to conclude that asking forgiveness and forgiving are both a waste to time. Yet Jesus said to do it.

If the inquisition were a recent event, yes I too would expect them to correct it. But what exactly could they do? Since, as you pointed out, it was a thousand years ago (500 to 1000) it doesn't seem reasonable to hold today's Catholic Church responsible for something not even their great grandfathers had anything to with.

As for human nature not changing: you may be right. But if you are it still doesn't seem reasonable not to forgive.

The thing is I don't believe you are correct. People and mankind do possess the ability to learn from their mistakes. Would the Catholic Church? I don't know... I would like to think so.