"Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Faith" - Has 500 Years Taught Us Nothing?

[GodsGrace]

Time for a grammar lesson . . .

Whereas “believe” is a verb – “BELIEF” is a noun. NEITHER of these words can be equated with Biblical FAITH. As I stated before – James makes it adamantly clear that these two things are NOT the same.

He even goes so far as to say that if you think they are – then you’re NO better off than the demons . . .

No comment.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have NEVER called you a "Liar" - so stop lying.

You just did, again!

This is my last post to you.
Please don't reply to this.
The only reply I would expect is one showing where I lied...
Grammar lesson:
One who lies is a liar.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No comment.

I'm not surprised . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You just did, again!

This is my last post to you.
Please don't reply to this.
The only reply I would expect is one showing where I lied...
Grammar lesson:
One who lies is a liar.

I would bet that you've been drunk at least ONE time in your life.
I know I have.

I wouldn't consider EITHER of us a "Drunk" for that.
Same goes for lying or gluttony, etc . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

I would bet that you've been drunk at least ONE time in your life.
I know I have.

I wouldn't consider EITHER of us a "Drunk" for that.
Same goes for lying or gluttony, etc . . .

Never been drunk. Not even once.
Nothing more to say to you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Never been drunk. Not even once.
Nothing more to say to you.

You missed the whole point.
You've definitely overeaten at least once in your life but that doesn't make you a glutton, either . . .

 

[Dave L]

This statement reflects your ignorance about the matter. The Millennium is a PRELUDE to the eternal Kingdom of God on earth under Christ. But since the Millennium is also under Christ, it is far from "putrid".

The fact is that you have a very superficial knowledge about Bible prophecy but rather than get down to some serious study, you continue to bestow your pearls of *wisdom* to mislead others.

The millennium is a false doctrine. The kingdom spans the entire New Covenant era, is spiritual, comes not with observation, is not of this world. And only the born again can see it or inherit it. On the last day, the kingdom enters the New Heavens and earth where we live with Christ forever.

You add to Revelation making the kingdom physical and of this world.

 

[brakelite]

NOT simply a knowing about Him as the demons do.

Not being picky here, but I think the demons know Jesus better than most. After all, it was Jesus who threw them out of heaven to begin with. The demons recognised Jesus when he came. "Have you come to torment us before our time?"

the Protestant Beast is worse than the Catholic one imo in the same way a potus is worse than

Worse also because they purportedly believe in freedom of conscience.

is there an objective definition for "faith in God?"

Faith in God, at least to me, means faith or trust in what he says. If you don't believe what he says, it can hardly be said that you have faith.

People called the bishops of the five important geographical areas of Christianity Papa from the beginning. Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch.

Add to that the Metropolitan of Asia based in Baghdad... Had 1000s of bishops under him and entire kingdoms which had converted to Christianity until Tamerlane. The Roman bishop who claimed Universal dominion and authority couldn't convince them to submit. So they became"heretics", similar to the Celtic church and the Albigenses and Waldenses.

They've achieved some sort of balance between socialism and people's rights. Don't know enough about that either...Most countries that practice some sort of socialism tend to be poor.

Taxes though are horrendously high, so they do pay for it all in the long run.

Peter says the universe will explode (Big Bang?) and the New Heavens and Earth will replace it.

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:10–13) (KJV 1900)

As I understand, we will be in heaven with only the wicked left behind when this happens.

No. That happens at the end of the millennium after the new Jerusalem is surrounded by the redirected wicked. That destruction is their sentence.

 

[brakelite]

How does their appearing a second time for judgement make the condemnation match the sin?

I'm sorry but I'm so ignorant of this subject.
If a person is destined for the hot place and they get judged immediately upon death as Paul taught, and Jesus, then why judge them again at this White Throne Judgement place that I don't even agree with....but most Protestants do.

Not quite. None taught that anyone goes to a judgement immediately at death. That it comes after death certainly. But Jesus taught of two resurrections. Resurrection of life and the resurrection of damnation. Separated by 1000 years. Our judgement, (judgement begins with the house of God) is taking place now. When Jesus comes judgement has finished, for the sheep and goats are already divided. We will then be rewarded according to our works. That is the first resurrection. The second resurrection is of the wicked. All the wicked from throughout history are raised to receive the sentence of the judgement already passed.

 

[brakelite]

ONE more time:
When YOU guys stop lying, I'll disappear.

It's THAT simple - so try to exercise some self-control . . .

I don't want you to go BOL. I want you to stop accusing everyone of lying simply because they disagree with you or your church. And there aren't that many here lying about your church. If any. There may be some who don't understand the depths of Satan, but they are just mistaken. Not lying. None are intentionally trying to mislead others regarding the principles behind the papacy. Nor are they intentionally trying to mislead anyone regarding the history of the papacy. Current or past. They just read different history books I guess. The decision to be made is to decide who are the more reliable historians. Are we lying concerning indulgences? Praying to the dead for the dead? The church being the final authority on faith and practice because it is the church that decided ultimately what scripture means?
Now I know you defend the Catholic practice of praying to statues because they representa real person right? So in your mind it isn't worshipping a statue, but the person the statue represents. But is that still not idolatry? I could go on I guess but we are getting off topic.

 

[brakelite]

Being a “good” Catholic has NOTHING to do with having holy water in your home or going to midnight Mass or praying the Rosary.
A good Catholic is one who is faithful to Christ and does the Father’s will.

Mmmm. Amazing the number of people I have met who were good Catholics, but are now good protestants.

 

[Hidden In Him]

So when does the following take place....,
KJV Revelation 6
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Or this....
KJV 2 Peter 3
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

We need to agree that there are yet two comings or advents of Christ. The first to take His bride to be presented to His Father. The second to take his bride to the promised home of a new earth, where the Father shall reign forever.
The details, such as those texts from Zechariah and Isaiah and Peter, need to placed in the context of those two great events. Now like when Jesus mixed two events together in prophecy, the destruction of Jerusalem and his second coming, so also there are two events mixed in some prophecies regarding the millennium... We need to discern which ends of the millennium we are talking about. Sometimes we cannot fit every detail into its correct context, because we haven't been there yet. Most of prophecy is given to us that we may be clairvoyants regarding the future. Jesus said himself regarding some prophecy that "when these things come to pass, you will know". Much of prophecy is confirmed by past history... We cannot 'prove' our eschatological beliefs by projecting what prophecy may or not mean for the future. Doesn't mean we may not have a very good idea regarding what is to come re the big picture, like the nature of the millennium, but the details....
For example. The early church agreed, and even prayed that pagan Rome would continue in power despite the persecutions that came from her. They were heeding Paul's warning that after he was gone, the power that held back the Antichrist, the son of perdition, would be raised to power. They saw the big picture. They recognised over the ensuing centuries the collapse of Rome and the encroaching barbarian hordes that took over. They knew Antichrist was next, but did not know more did they recognise it when he came. That was left up to later reformers who when studying the prophecies and comparing them with past history, all recognised the papacy as the Antichrist. So with some deals about the future .
Some things we don't see clearly. But we see the big picture... Unless of course our entire prophetic hermeneutic had been changed from historicism to futurism...

Sorry about the late response. I'm getting a little swamped lately.

I read your post. So you are saying that Zechariah 14:16 is to be interpreted as happening late in the millennium? You must since you seem to think most of the millennium will be spent with the world being a wasteland.

 

[farouk]

Amid ceremonies last year marking the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, one of Protestantism’s leading branches has officially said it now agrees with the Vatican on the main issue at the root of its split from the Roman Catholic Church half a millennium ago. Thus, the signing of the "Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Faith" by Catholics and Protestants:

Together we confess: "BY GRACE ALONE, IN CHRIST'S SAVING WORK and not because of any merit on our part,” its key passage said, “we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works."​

The Protestant world rejoiced. But, ignorance and the desire to set aside doctrine is the reason why so many Protestants are blind to the fact that if there ever was an example of diabolical deception from the pits of hell, it is the above JDDJ statement.

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

I. "BY GRACE ALONE" IS NOT THE SAME AS "BY FAITH ALONE"​

IF YOU'RE A PROTESTANT...​

...what is "grace" and from where is it obtained? Grace is God's forgiveness for our sin and empowerment to live the Christian life, which is made possible ALONE by the atoning death of Jesus on the Cross. It's obtained ALONE through the sinner's exercise of Jesus' faith (Revelation 14:12), of which God has dealt to every man a measure (Romans 12:3). The Protestant looks to God to supply everything:

"For by grace are you saved through faith, and that (both grace and faith) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

IF YOU'RE A CATHOLIC...​

...what is "grace" and from where is it obtained? Grace is deliverance from Purgatory made possible ALONE by the "merit" of the good works of Mary, Jesus, the saints, etc., and is obtained ALONE through the pope and the priesthood through the granting of an indulgence. Grace is obtained through the church ALONE by faith in the "works of Jesus". What "works"? Read on:

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

II. "IN CHRIST'S SAVING WORK..." IS NOT THE SAME AS "IN CHRIST'S ATONING SACRIFICE"​

IF YOU'RE A PROTESTANT...​

...Christ's atoning death and resurrection is ALONE the means by which God is able to pardon sinners, for His divine justice demands death to the sinner, and by the shedding of Christ's precious blood ALONE God can now be both Just for condemning the unjust and also the Justifier of them who by faith repent and claim His promise that He will make them just.

IF YOU'RE A CATHOLIC...​

...it is the life and the works of Christ prior to Calvary which ALONE is important, for two reasons:

1) Christ's life of "good works" is what prompted God to arbitrarily grant the power to the catholic priesthood to forgive sins apart from the need for any atoning sacrifice and anyone seeking forgiveness need only go to the priesthood and confess their sin, and...

2) Christ's life of "good works", along with those of Mary and the saints, provides a bottomless "bucket of merit" from which the grace for deliverance from Purgatory that the priesthood grants to the faithful stems.
According to Catholicism, God has granted forgiveness for the sins of the faithful through the priesthood, but the faithful are still required to pay for those sins - in Purgatory - because Catholicism teaches Christ never paid the penalty for the sins of the faithful and that His death was an act of love, not payment.

"With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from Hell, of making them worthy of Paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution...The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it." - St. Peter Damian.​

From the online Catholic Courier:
"One theory, sometimes referred to as "substitution," "satisfaction" or "ransom" theology, was championed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. He believed that Christ's sacrificial death was necessary in order to liberate humanity from sin and restore communion with the Father, that the blood of Jesus was "payment" to God for human sin. (The manner of Christ's death reflected Old Testament sacrifices, where a lamb was burnt in offering and then later consumed by the worshippers.) ​

(By this, St. Anselm was a true Protestant in the making!)

"Anselm's theology prevailed, even though it was challenged by scholars such as Peter Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm, who insisted that Christ's death on the cross had been an act of love, not payment. Even St. Augustine, 700 years before, had reservations and asked in his De Trinitate: "Is it necessary to think that being God, the Father was angry with us, saw his son die for us and thus abated his anger against us?​

(Can an institution which has historically denied the most central doctrine of our Creator - "without the shedding of blood there is no remission" - really trace its roots all the way back to the time when our Creator was made flesh?)

"A fair number of modern-day scholars, too, find the satisfaction theology (that Jesus had to shed His blood to atone for our sins) bothersome because of the way it images God. What kind of loving God, they argue, would demand such horrific suffering from his own Son in order to secure divine justice?​

(To exoterics, the objection is for how "Blood Atonement" makes God appear to them as unloving, but to esoteric papists, it has to do with robbing Lucifer of the opportunity to worshiped as god, which these Luciferian Antichrists cannot abide. Should Protestants be part of any joint declaration with an institution which to this day yet denies the centrality and integrality of Jesus' blood atonement for sin?)

"What seems to me a reasonable explanation is this: God decided to send Jesus to live among us, to be fully human so that he could teach us and show us the ways of the Lord. Once he became human, death was inevitable; and because his teaching challenged both the religious and secular authorities of his day, a violent death was likely."
​

How can Protestantism endeavor to participate in anything "joint" with Catholicism when Catholicism has never changed its historic position on this and other things like infant baptism, the Immaculate Conception, Christ alone as Mediator, etc.? How can the Protestant world rejoice today, as if the monumental blasphemies of 500 years ago that divided us are now irrelevant? Only through monumental ignorance. Please get educated:

It just reminds me of politicians when people - meaning something rather different from each other if the Scriptures have anything to do with the matter - claim to be in agreement, leaving aside that what words mean to some people mean something a lot different to others.

It's a bit like the Iowa caucus: it's all about pushing forward aspirant leaders; real policy as opposed to the sound bites will likely emerge only later.

 

[Enoch111]

You must since you seem to think most of the millennium will be spent with the world being a wasteland.

Since we really do not have specific details about many aspects of life during the Millennium, and how nature will be restored and everything will blossom and flourish, it would be pure speculation to claim that everything would be a wasteland. Can anything be a wasteland when God is right there?

 

[brakelite]

Sorry about the late response. I'm getting a little swamped lately.

I read your post. So you are saying that Zechariah 14:16 is to be interpreted as happening late in the millennium? You must since you seem to think most of the millennium will be spent with the world being a wasteland.

Exactly. There are numerous verses in scripture that describe the earth... That is the entire planet as reverting to what it once was before creation...an abussos... Wherein the is no man.

 

[Phoneman777]

P,

People called the bishops of the five important geographical areas of Christianity Papa from the beginning. Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch.
It was to distinguish them from all the other bishops, of which each area had one as the head of the priests of that area.

I've also never heard it taught that Protestantism was to unveil the Pope as the anti-Christ...could you post something about this from a reliable source? I don't know much about the reformation. I thought it was about teaching people how they are really saved, not to depend on a church but on God, the incorrect practices of catholicism.

Just Google "Historicism".

Historicism was and is the eschatological interpretation of the Protestant Reformation - which central idea is that the papacy is the Antichrist beast of prophecy. Once Historicism became widely distributed it caused a mass exodus of catholics from the papacy, which led to the famous "Council of Trent" aka "the Counter-Reformation" in which the Jesuits were organized and two Jesuits were commissioned to find another interpretation of prophecy which would exonerate the papacy. And that is where the modern ideas about an Antichrist who came in the past (Jesuit Preterism) or which will come in the future during the "last seven years of tribulation Antichrist" (Jesuit Futurism).

Since the time of Luther and for three hundred years following, EVERY single Protestant man, woman, child, infant, fetus, and zygote believed and taught that the papacy is the Antichrist. It is only in the last 100 years that a "last seven years of tribulation" Antichrist began to be taught instead.

Spurgeon:
"It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the Popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name."

John Wesley, Commentary on Revelation 13:
"The beast (the first beast of Revelation 13) is the Romish Papacy."

If you think the Antichrist has yet to come, you might as well join the catholic church because it's a Jesuit idea from Jesuit priest Luis Alcazar.

The Antichrist: Were the Protestant Reformers Correct?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Since we really do not have specific details about many aspects of life during the Millennium, and how nature will be restored and everything will blossom and flourish, it would be pure speculation to claim that everything would be a wasteland. Can anything be a wasteland when God is right there?

I think they believe the earth will be handed over to Satan during the millennium, whereas the saints will be in Heaven with God. But you would have to confirm that with them if it is indeed what they believe.

 

[brakelite]

Sorry about the late response. I'm getting a little swamped lately.

I read your post. So you are saying that Zechariah 14:16 is to be interpreted as happening late in the millennium? You must since you seem to think most of the millennium will be spent with the world being a wasteland.

Based on what we know or understand as to what takes place at the second coming, I see no other possibility. God's people are taken away. Those resurrected...glorified. Those remaining alive...changed and glorified.
The wicked who are alive are all destroyed by the glory of the appearing of Christ. Who else is left to populate anything that remains? Demons.
Nothing in scripture suggests even remotely that anything at that time is repaired, in fact, quite the opposite. The dead bodies are left as "dung upon the ground, they will not be gathered , buried, nor lamented"... "All the cities of the earth are broken down"..."there is no man left"...
Islands have disappeared. Mountain chains have fallen. Great plains are riven with chasms. The seas are blood...the fountains of waters polluted...the land uninhabitable. There is no word anywhere that any of the damage, the death, and chaos the plagues and final wars and the second coming inflicted on this lost planet was healed...the remnants of that destruction is to be fully and completely cleansed and swept away, including the resurrected wicked, the fallen angels and the devil, at the end of the millennium after they desperately attack the New Jerusalem.
There is no way any of the above, which does take place, can be fitted into any other time frame.

 

[epostle]

Good catholics know very little about the bible and are just starting to learn (compared to Protestants).

And, they're rather nice persons.

Generally speaking, Protestants use the Bible for study, Catholics use the Bible in worship. (liturgy)
Just because one style of use is different does not make the other wrong.

I don't think BoL properly represents catholicism and I've been telling him this since I got here. Well, actually, I've given up. I can understand his frustration because catholicism is so badly represented here, but that does not give anyone the excuse to be so uncivil. I'm more than secure in the fact that if his priest or bishop knew how he acts, they would be very upset indeed.

Don't lie or misrepresent and BoL won't be "uncivil".

Jesus taught His disciples to love each other. I believe we here are all disciple of Jesus and even though we may disagree, we still should treat each other lovingly.

Keep that in mind when we are accused of Mary worship, works salvation, idolatry, paganism, and called papists, romanists...a long list of insults, misrepresentations, false charges and false histories but you say BoL is uncivil???

Have you noticed that almost all the posts on this board by Catholics are defensive???

BTW, I'm a former cathoic.

Practicing Catholics fall in love with the Church. I don't know what your story is.

 

[bbyrd009]

Faith in God, at least to me, means faith or trust in what he says. If you don't believe what he says, it can hardly be said that you have faith.

well...there are problems with that i guess though, even if it seems apparent?