Charles Spurgeon's Sanity Litmus Test (are you insane?)

[DPMartin]

I speak truth, sir. The Papacy claims to be MORE than just a stand-in. It is well known that Pope Leo XIII claimed that all Popes "hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty". No amount of Catholic apologist propaganda can ever change the fact that the entire institution is corrupt from the horn of its head to the sole of its goat feet.

whether it be corrupt or not isn't the issue is it? just about anything in the hands of man becomes corrupt. but one can get on any catholic web site and they will tell you, or the Vatican web site and it will tell and most well versed Catholics and devote Catholics will tell you and argue with anyone willing the the Pope walks in the shoes of the fisherman meaning Peters place and position nothing about the Lord place or position. I know I was raised catholic.

and like most liars and deceivers you use all of nine words to interpret over 1500 years of history. that statement simply means in their own view of the church's purpose is to sustain the world from falling so easily, of which it would without God's influence in it. and the church's influence in the world has kept the wolf from the door and devouring every innocent soul, despite the church's sins. you do know Ham exposed Noah's nakedness and Noah cursed Ham and God made sure that curse came true didn't He? the Lord has no affections for those who show another's nakedness.

 

[Phoneman777]

P.S.

Forgot to mention that many invent or preach different ideas and theories.
This does not mean that it's the OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic Church.

Luckily for the CC it does have a magesterium that holds its doctrine together.
I sometimes wish we had something similar due to all the different doctrine we're able to come up with.

The truth is that the Pope himself commissioned the Jesuits to produce an alternative interpretation of Bible prophecy, one which would serve to clear the Papacy of all charges that it was the Antichrist. The pope's word is final in Catholicism: "The pope has the power to change times, abrogate laws, and dispense with all things, EVEN THE PRECEPTS OF CHRIST." -Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary.

Unfortunately, Protestants today are largely unacquainted with the Biblical reasons for why the Protestant Reformation fingered Papal Rome as Antichrist, preferring to accept that it had no more to do with than just animosity for the one against the other. But, that is simply not the case. Any website on "HISTORICISM" or "HISTORICALISM" will exhaustively reveal these reasons. Yet, today prophecy teachers like Baxter, Hagee, Van Impe, and everyone else who put in their 2 cents are all teaching Ribera's Jesuit Futurism aka "Left Behind theology" and is why so many today scoff at the Historicist views that defined Protestantism up until around the end of the 19th century.

 

[Phoneman777]

whether it be corrupt or not isn't the issue is it? just about anything in the hands of man becomes corrupt. but one can get on any catholic web site and they will tell you, or the Vatican web site and it will tell and most well versed Catholics and devote Catholics will tell you and argue with anyone willing the the Pope walks in the shoes of the fisherman meaning Peters place and position nothing about the Lord place or position. I know I was raised catholic.

and like most liars and deceivers you use all of nine words to interpret over 1500 years of history. that statement simply means in their own view of the church's purpose is to sustain the world from falling so easily, of which it would without God's influence in it. and the church's influence in the world has kept the wolf from the door and devouring every innocent soul, despite the church's sins. you do know Ham exposed Noah's nakedness and Noah cursed Ham and God made sure that curse came true didn't He? the Lord has no affections for those who show another's nakedness.

Friend, I speak no lies, it is the father of lies which speaks lies through his agency the Papacy. The entire institution has been and is corrupt from the tippy top of St Peter's Basilica to the cold stones of the monastery floors. That's why Luther, Calvin, Foxe, and everyone else had sense enough to flee from that synagogue of Satan when by God's grace the Light of Protestant truth shone unto them. Your failure to do so reveals that you have no faith in God, no confidence in His Word, because His Word says there is ONE MEDIATOR, Jesus, and yet you cling to an institution which promotes Mary as Mediatrix based on the "evidence" of Marian apparitions as legit revelation from God, when they are nothing more than demonic, deceptive "strong delusions" sent to those like you who "believe not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:12 KJV

 

[Phoneman777]

There are enough Prot v Catholic Threads on this site already...we don't need another one!!
We are working to come together...not in being more decisive.
What are you trying to prove that is worth anything edifying or of blessing?
I hope that you have this thread all to your self.

There is ZERO Biblical precedent for your "come together/work together" brand of Ecumenicalism. To the contrary, the Bible teaches the exact opposite with passages like "come out from among them and be ye seperate"; "can two walk together unless they be agreed?"; "come out of Babylon My people"; "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them"; etc.

What are you doing to help a fellow Catholic Christian come out of this blasphemous synagogue of Satan? Are you content to let them trust in demons who impersonate Mary and other dead Christians like apostles Peter and Paul? Your own Bible condemns all those who fail to sound the warning to their neighbors trapped in error as full of hate in Leviticus 19:17 KJV - "Hate not thy brother in thine own heart; thou shalt in any wise REBUKE thy brother and not suffer sin upon him." Got it? To heed your counsel to "just love everyone" and "go along and get along" is in the sight of God not love but HATE.

 

[Helen]

@Phoneman777 ...As far as I am concerned you are an obsessive ranter. There are much worse things going on in the world than Catholics ...MUCH.
Get a grip and listen to the Lord. This is not His agenda that you think you are posting.
40 years ago I thought the things that you are obsessed with were important.
Then I grew up ....you should try it!

 

[mjrhealth]

@Phoneman777 ...As far as I am concerned you are an obsessive ranter. There are much worse things going on in the world than Catholics ...MUCH.
Get a grip and listen to the Lord. This is not His agenda that you think you are posting.
40 years ago I thought the things that you are obsessed with were important.
Then I grew up ....you should try it!

Some fail to understand all mens religions are an abomination, not one of them is from God, yet they all seek to justify there own. I am teh way the truth and teh life, He said, but still men trying to find another way.
As already said, enough is enough. We are supposed to be glorifying God yet all men do is promote there agendas.

 

[Stranger]

Hi Mary,


I almost see this happening today with the HyperGrace and WoF movement.

How can 'grace' not be hyper?

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

How can 'grace' not be hyper?

Stranger

Grace is grace.
God's grace is sufficient.
It does not need to be Hyper.

Why? Are You a hyper-grace believer?

 

[GodsGrace]

The truth is that the Pope himself commissioned the Jesuits to produce an alternative interpretation of Bible prophecy, one which would serve to clear the Papacy of all charges that it was the Antichrist. The pope's word is final in Catholicism: "The pope has the power to change times, abrogate laws, and dispense with all things, EVEN THE PRECEPTS OF CHRIST." -Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary.

Unfortunately, Protestants today are largely unacquainted with the Biblical reasons for why the Protestant Reformation fingered Papal Rome as Antichrist, preferring to accept that it had no more to do with than just animosity for the one against the other. But, that is simply not the case. Any website on "HISTORICISM" or "HISTORICALISM" will exhaustively reveal these reasons. Yet, today prophecy teachers like Baxter, Hagee, Van Impe, and everyone else who put in their 2 cents are all teaching Ribera's Jesuit Futurism aka "Left Behind theology" and is why so many today scoff at the Historicist views that defined Protestantism up until around the end of the 19th century.

I'm not Catholic and do not like being put in the position to defend the CC.
I will say, however, that the Pope has no such power as you ascertain above.

There is a magesterium to which any change in Catholicism must agree.
It consists of the Pope and Bishops which are titled with Cardinal.
They must be in full Agreement before the Pope can make any statement which MUST be, at that point, ex-cathedra. This is not an easy mission to accomplish.

On another post you said that Jesus said to come out from them.
He meant the secular world, of course. He DID NOT mean Catholicism,
which is the ONLY Church that can trace its roots to the Apostles.

Since you know so much about history, you must know that his is correct.
The Orthodox shism in the year 1,000 AD and Protestantism schisms at the year 1,500 AD. The CC remains in tact.

Stop trying to save people who are already saved and if your mission is to save that which is lost, try the secular world --- it is truly lost.
(which is what Jesus meant, anyway)

 

[tabletalk]

I'm not Catholic and do not like being put in the position to defend the CC.
I will say, however, that the Pope has no such power as you ascertain above.

There is a magesterium to which any change in Catholicism must agree.
It consists of the Pope and Bishops which are titled with Cardinal.
They must be in full Agreement before the Pope can make any statement which MUST be, at that point, ex-cathedra. This is not an easy mission to accomplish.

On another post you said that Jesus said to come out from them.
He meant the secular world, of course. He DID NOT mean Catholicism,
which is the ONLY Church that can trace its roots to the Apostles.

Since you know so much about history, you must know that his is correct.
The Orthodox shism in the year 1,000 AD and Protestantism schisms at the year 1,500 AD. The CC remains in tact.

Stop trying to save people who are already saved and if your mission is to save that which is lost, try the secular world --- it is truly lost.
(which is what Jesus meant, anyway)

Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, vested uniquely in the Pope and the Bishops.
Some Cardinals are Bishops: "The fact that some bishops and archbishops are called cardinals is an entirely separate matter. There is nothing contradictory about a cleric being a bishop and a cardinal at the same time, because the two concepts are theologically different." (from Catholicexchange.com)
Also, I think the Pope can declare ex-cathedra by himself, without full agreement of the Bishops.
And, another example of an "infallible" declaration is canonization of a saint: "Catholic theologians in general hold that the canonization of a saint by a pope is infallible teaching that the person canonized is definitely in heaven with God." (from Wikipedia)

 

[Stranger]

Grace is grace.
God's grace is sufficient.
It does not need to be Hyper.

Why? Are You a hyper-grace believer?

I'm sure you would call me a hyper-grace believer. But, my question was sincere. How is grace not hyper?

I don't call myself a hyper-grace believer. Just grace.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary,

I agree with what you've said above although I am Protestant in my theology and doctrine. No Church has everything 100% biblically correct, or at least what I can see as biblically correct after studying both church's theology and doctrine, I am very torn but feel the Protestant view is closer to what Jesus might have wanted, but that also is being changed too much.

I read thru the CCC but there are many paragraphs regarding this.
I once asked a priest if Catholic believe in the rapture and he replied No.
It does seem very clear from scripture. He explained that it only means that one will be saved, and one will not.

Could you capsulize what the Catholic Church believes regarding the end times?
I know that the belief is that Jesus will come at the end and that there will be an Anti-Christ. I should say THE anti-Christ who will be a man that will promise peace, or unity, but at the price of apostacy.

I almost see this happening today with the HyperGrace and WoF movement.

Please confirm.

Hi,

You have me a bit confused. You state that "no church has everything 100% biblically correct" and then go on to state "at least what I can see as biblically correct". Does that not make you the arbitrator of what is 'biblically correct'?

How is "the Protestant view closer to what Jesus might have wanted" when there are thousands of different Protestant denominations and multiple interpretations of scripture with all of those interoperations being The Truth? Is that what Jesus really wanted? Division?

I had to do some research but it appears The Catholic Church teaching on The Rapture aligns with the amillennialists. The current rapture doctrine (think Left Behind book series) taught by Protestants was never taught or even discussed prior to the 1830’s. It is a recent invention/tradition for Christians.

The Hyper Grace and WoF teachings are not based on the fullness of scripture. They have some truths to them but not the fullness of truth.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm sure you would call me a hyper-grace believer. But, my question was sincere. How is grace not hyper?

I don't call myself a hyper-grace believer. Just grace.

Stranger

I don't know if we're discussing the same concept.
I am NOT a hyper-grace believer.
Hyper grace is a movement within the Christian Church.
Hyper grace believes that no work is necessary from believers because Jesus has already done everything and there's nothing left for us to do BUT BELIEVE.

Hyper gracers go as far as to say that God is insulted by our works that are as dirty rags to Him.

They also believe that it's not necessary to ask for forgiveness for sins because Jesus took care of all sins on the cross: Past, present and future.

If you believe the above, you're a hyper-gracer.

Everyone believes in the grace of God.
THAT is nothing new.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi,

You have me a bit confused. You state that "no church has everything 100% biblically correct" and then go on to state "at least what I can see as biblically correct". Does that not make you the arbitrator of what is 'biblically correct'?

How is "the Protestant view closer to what Jesus might have wanted" when there are thousands of different Protestant denominations and multiple interpretations of scripture with all of those interoperations being The Truth? Is that what Jesus really wanted? Division?

I had to do some research but it appears The Catholic Church teaching on The Rapture aligns with the amillennialists. The current rapture doctrine (think Left Behind book series) taught by Protestants was never taught or even discussed prior to the 1830’s. It is a recent invention/tradition for Christians.

The Hyper Grace and WoF teachings are not based on the fullness of scripture. They have some truths to them but not the fullness of truth.

Respectfully, Mary

Hi Mary,

I say as far as what I can see as being biblically correct because, yes, I do feel that I have to feel comfortable in a Church and agree with at least 90% of its doctrine.
For instance, I would NOT attend a WoF Church because it goes against what I believe. We all believe we have the truth. Don't you believe you have the truth?
As far as is possible...what I'm saying is that no Church has the Whole truth, including the CC.

I agree wholeheartedly that Jesus would not have wanted His original Church, the CC, to be splintered into thousands of denominations. This might not have occured if the CC had remained true to its spirituality and not gotten involved in doctrine that is not Christian and had not gotten involved in politics. I believe this was a big mistake that did have to be fixed --- but it seems the cure was just as bad.

I don't know what an ammil. is. I don't know about eschatology and I'm really not too interested in Learning about it. Every day the end comes for someone.
I live as if the end times were Tomorrow, to the best of my feable ability, and that's all I care to know. I know that the CC does NOT believe in the rapture - I think I've said this.

The WoF and hypergrace movements have just enough truth in them to make what they say sound good. But they are far removed from traditional Christianity.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary,

I say as far as what I can see as being biblically correct because, yes, I do feel that I have to feel comfortable in a Church and agree with at least 90% of its doctrine.
For instance, I would NOT attend a WoF Church because it goes against what I believe. We all believe we have the truth. Don't you believe you have the truth?
As far as is possible...what I'm saying is that no Church has the Whole truth, including the CC.

I agree wholeheartedly that Jesus would not have wanted His original Church, the CC, to be splintered into thousands of denominations. This might not have occured if the CC had remained true to its spirituality and not gotten involved in doctrine that is not Christian and had not gotten involved in politics. I believe this was a big mistake that did have to be fixed --- but it seems the cure was just as bad.

I don't know what an ammil. is. I don't know about eschatology and I'm really not too interested in Learning about it. Every day the end comes for someone.
I live as if the end times were Tomorrow, to the best of my feable ability, and that's all I care to know. I know that the CC does NOT believe in the rapture - I think I've said this.

The WoF and hypergrace movements have just enough truth in them to make what they say sound good. But they are far removed from traditional Christianity.

Dear GodsGrace,

My point is if YOU have to "agree with at least 90% of it's (a churches) doctrine" and YOU also believe that "no church has everything 100% biblically correct" and you are basing that belief on what YOU "can see as biblically correct" that means that only YOU know what good doctrine is and what is biblically correct. How do YOU know what is biblically correct? How do you KNOW what is biblically correct? How do you know what is biblically CORRECT? Are you the arbitrator of what is biblically correct?

I do not believe I have the truth. I believe what scripture says. I believe the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, not me. I believe in a Church with authority and that we should take our differences to that Church to settle our differences. The Church decides who is right and who is to be treated like a pagan or tax collector.

I also live as if the end times were tomorrow. Rapture or no rapture, it doesn't matter to me.

Love, Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Dear GodsGrace,

My point is if YOU have to "agree with at least 90% of it's (a churches) doctrine" and YOU also believe that "no church has everything 100% biblically correct" and you are basing that belief on what YOU "can see as biblically correct" that means that only YOU know what good doctrine is and what is biblically correct. How do YOU know what is biblically correct? How do you KNOW what is biblically correct? How do you know what is biblically CORRECT? Are you the arbitrator of what is biblically correct?

I do not believe I have the truth. I believe what scripture says. I believe the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, not me. I believe in a Church with authority and that we should take our differences to that Church to settle our differences. The Church decides who is right and who is to be treated like a pagan or tax collector.

I also live as if the end times were tomorrow. Rapture or no rapture, it doesn't matter to me.

Love, Mary

I agree!
I am sola scriptura
NOT
solo scriptura.

I was taught by the Catholic Church, where I've also taught,
and also by a Nazarene Church.

I DO NOT believe anyone should read the bible on their own and come up with their own understanding.

Some of it, though, does have to be our understanding.
For instance: John 3:5

I was taught by the CC that water refers to baptism.
I can see that.
However, as I read it over and over, I see that water could refer to physical Birth.
Nicodemus even asks Jesus how a grown person could go back into the womb.

Catholics are often accused of "checking their brain at the door".
I have friends that are able to accept everything the CC teaches. I envy them.
Then again, I have priest friends that are not very traditional in their beliefs.
What to do?
We still have a brain that thinks...

 

[Stranger]

I don't know if we're discussing the same concept.
I am NOT a hyper-grace believer.
Hyper grace is a movement within the Christian Church.
Hyper grace believes that no work is necessary from believers because Jesus has already done everything and there's nothing left for us to do BUT BELIEVE.

Hyper gracers go as far as to say that God is insulted by our works that are as dirty rags to Him.

They also believe that it's not necessary to ask for forgiveness for sins because Jesus took care of all sins on the cross: Past, present and future.

If you believe the above, you're a hyper-gracer.

Everyone believes in the grace of God.
THAT is nothing new.

In order to be saved, or born-again, I agree Jesus has done it all, and it only remains for us to believe to be saved.

We have works to do as believers afterwards, yes. But before we are saved, all our works, even good works, as far as lending anything to our being born-again, are as filthy rags. This I believe.

Jesus did take care of all sin on the Cross. Past, present, and future. He paid for it all. Because He paid for them all, then He can forgive. But we are required to ask for forgiveness (1 John 1:9) He doesn't have to forgive them. He can bring judgement against us instead.

I know 'everyone' says they believe in grace. And many do. But it has been my experience that what many call grace is another form of law.

So, I am not familiar with any movement called 'hyper-gracer'. But, I do believe grace is hyper. It is contrary to our normal way of dealing with people or anything. So, it seems so contrary to the way we think God should react to us.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

I agree!
I am sola scriptura
NOT
solo scriptura.

I was taught by the Catholic Church, where I've also taught,
and also by a Nazarene Church.

I DO NOT believe anyone should read the bible on their own and come up with their own understanding.

Some of it, though, does have to be our understanding.
For instance: John 3:5

I was taught by the CC that water refers to baptism.
I can see that.
However, as I read it over and over, I see that water could refer to physical Birth.
Nicodemus even asks Jesus how a grown person could go back into the womb.

Catholics are often accused of "checking their brain at the door".
I have friends that are able to accept everything the CC teaches. I envy them.
Then again, I have priest friends that are not very traditional in their beliefs.
What to do?
We still have a brain that thinks...

Hi GG,

If we look at the fullness of scripture and read what John1 (and Matthew) said about Jesus baptism we see that Jesus was baptized in water and the Spirit came upon Him.

Later, in John3:5 , Jesus references his baptism in water and the Spirit descending on Him. Nicodemus seems confused or maybe didn't know about Jesus baptism and asks Jesus about being born again or going back in the womb. Jesus then basically sarcastically says to Nicodemus Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

Nicodemus thought Jesus was speaking of a physical birth. Jesus corrected Nicodemus false belief that water referred to physical Birth.

Why is your "brain that thinks" correct in it's interpretation of scripture and deciding what Church doctrine should be? Are you saying the men of the Catholic Church's brain is dumber than yours?

Curious Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

In order to be saved, or born-again, I agree Jesus has done it all, and it only remains for us to believe to be saved.

We have works to do as believers afterwards, yes. But before we are saved, all our works, even good works, as far as lending anything to our being born-again, are as filthy rags. This I believe.

Jesus did take care of all sin on the Cross. Past, present, and future. He paid for it all. Because He paid for them all, then He can forgive. But we are required to ask for forgiveness (1 John 1:9) He doesn't have to forgive them. He can bring judgement against us instead.

I know 'everyone' says they believe in grace. And many do. But it has been my experience that what many call grace is another form of law.

So, I am not familiar with any movement called 'hyper-gracer'. But, I do believe grace is hyper. It is contrary to our normal way of dealing with people or anything. So, it seems so contrary to the way we think God should react to us.

Stranger

It seems to me that we agree.
And if we do, I'd suggest you DO NOT tell people you are hyper-grace because it means something very specific.

I've been called a pharisee and told I don't believe in grace because I believe what you've stated above.

We can do nothing to save ourselves...
but once saved, we are required to do as Jesus commanded.

You'll be told that His commands are not for US but only for the Jews.
You'll be told that "works" are a bad word and we are not required to do ANYTHING.

It's a very interesting concept. Some use the term "easy believism" because they make believing so easy --- doing NOTHING is easy!

Well. Consider youself warned if you come across one.
!

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

If we look at the fullness of scripture and read what John1 (and Matthew) said about Jesus baptism we see that Jesus was baptized in water and the Spirit came upon Him.

Later, in John3:5 , Jesus references his baptism in water and the Spirit descending on Him. Nicodemus seems confused or maybe didn't know about Jesus baptism and asks Jesus about being born again or going back in the womb. Jesus then basically sarcastically says to Nicodemus Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

Nicodemus thought Jesus was speaking of a physical birth. Jesus corrected Nicodemus false belief that water referred to physical Birth.

Why is your "brain that thinks" correct in it's interpretation of scripture and deciding what Church doctrine should be? Are you saying the men of the Catholic Church's brain is dumber than yours?

Curious Mary

You've misunderstood me.
To such a degree that it might be better to end this conversation.
I accept full responsibility...

The answer to your last question is NO.
You might be right about Nicodemus. I Always believed N was referring to being born again and Jesus was answering him about being born again NOT water baptism.

There are theologians that believe either way.

Blessings