Roman Catholicism

[Lady Crosstalk]

Funny that NONE of your Protestant Fathers believed in this fallacy. WHY is that??

Tell me - why is it that this only became fashionable after John Nelson Darby invented it in England in the 1830's?? Was everybody else in history wrong - including your Protestant Fathers??
Where was this teaching before Darby??

Glad you asked, BoL. The History of the Pre-trib Rapture

 

[BreadOfLife]

Glad you asked BoL. The History of the Pre-trib Rapture

This article by “Dr.” Keith Sherlin is laughable at best.

He starts by listing THIRTEEN Early Church Fathers as “agreeing” with his position yet gives NONE of their actual writings as evidence for this manure.

Funny how this article make claims for some of the people it speaks of – like “Brother Colcino” in the 14th century and what he supposedly taught and believed in – but lists NO PRIMARY SOURCES. In other words – it’s hearsay.

In another case, he writes:
1. Joseph Mede (1627): Clavis Apocalyptica
Some believe that he in this work made a distinction between the rapture of the saints in contrast to the second of Christ to earth.

“SOME believe”?? What kind of evidence is this??
This is manipulation at its worst . . .

The following is another example of dishonest writing in this article:
2. Increase Mather (1639-1723)
Increase Mather was a pastor, scholar, and was the first President of Harvard College. Paul Boyer has noted that this Puritan scholar proved "that the saints would be caught up into the air beforehand, thereby escaping the final conflagration." This teaching from Mather was an early formulation of the rapture doctrine it seems.

Ummmmmm, we ALL believe this.
This is what happens at the END of the world. This isn’t talking about a “Pre-Trib Rapture”.

NONE of us expects to be in the midst of the final conflagration.

Had this paper been submitted in an actual university setting – he would have received an “F” for incomplete references and manipulating what little information he did have.

The plain fact of the matter is that this “Pre-Trib Rapture” nonsense was NEVER a teaching of the historic Christian faith. This is why NONE of your Protestant Fathers taught it.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

This article by “Dr.” Keith Sherlin is laughable at best.

I don't know why you put Dr. in quotes. Sherlin's credentials seem to be in order. He has a D.D. and is entitled to use the designation "Dr." In addition, he is a candidate for a Th.D. He might already have it by now. Why must you mock and belittle everyone with whom you disagree? Hardly Irenic of you.

He starts by listing THIRTEEN Early Church Fathers as “agreeing” with his position yet gives NONE of their actual writings as evidence for this manure.

If he did, I doubt whether you would accept it anyway. I have seen the writings of Morgan Edwards and know for a fact, that he believed in the Pre-Great-Trib Rapture, well in advance of Darby:

Edwards taught the following in 1744:

"...The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more- , because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s 'appearing in the air' (I Thessalonians. IV:17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will He and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for 'now the time is come that judgment must begin,' and that will be 'at the house of God' (I Peter IV:17) . . . (The spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized for clarity.)

Edwards clearly separates the rapture from the Second Coming of Christ by three and a half years. He uses modern pre-trib rapture verses, including 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and John 14:2, to describe the rapture.

This is what happens at the END of the world. This isn’t talking about a “Pre-Trib Rapture”.

And you know this how? Opinions differ. You have your opinions--others have theirs--see how nicely that works? The Apostle Paul said that having "divisions" was quite alright in 1 Corinthians 11:19

Had this paper been submitted in an actual university setting – he would have received an “F” for incomplete references and manipulating what little information he did have.

So? Christianity predates modern universities--who gave them the right to pass judgment on anything--especially the faithful? Modern universities are so full of atheists, who can believe anything they say? We know they are fools and liars. The faith got along for centuries before the RCC went the way of scholasticism--one of the worse things to have happened to "the faith once delivered to the saints". The Pharisees were very learned men for their day--didn't help them to recognize their own Messiah.

The plain fact of the matter is that this “Pre-Trib Rapture” nonsense was NEVER a teaching of the historic Christian faith. This is why NONE of your Protestant Fathers taught it.

Mmm--the Sadducees were likely reflecting a similar tone on the "nonsense" of the Resurrection and a coming Messiah before the First Advent. Unlike you with your "infallible pope" nonsense, I don't believe that the Reformers were infallible.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

There is this as well, BoL:

During a recent meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in late 2001 in Colorado Springs, Francis X. Gumerlock presented a paper entitled “Before Darby: Expanding the Historical Boundaries of Pretribulationism.” Gumerlock argues that Brother Dolcino and his sect, called the Apostolic Brethren, taught a pretribulation rapture around 1304 A.D.

Gumerlock’s research led him to conclude that the fourteenth-century text, “The History of Brother Dolcino,” demonstrates that some Christians in the Middle Ages held a view of the rapture that had basic elements of its pre-tribulation timing. These include a significant gap of time between the rapture of the saints – believing Christians – and their subsequent descent to earth during Christ’s Second Coming and the purpose of the rapture related to escaping end-time tribulation.


I (and many others) believe the best inference of Scripture is that the rapture will occur before the beginning of the Tribulation. The most important reason has to do with the issue of imminence. Over and over in Scripture we are told to watch for the appearing of the Lord. We are told “to be ready” (Matt. 24:44), “to be on the alert” (Matt. 24:42), “to be dressed in readiness” (Luke 12:35), and to “keep your lamps alight” (Luke 12:35). The persistent warnings intent is likely because nothing need happen before the coming of Christ for His Church (called the "doctrine of imminence"). Only the pre-Tribulation concept of the rapture allows for the imminence of the Lord. When the rapture is placed at any other point in time, the imminence of the Lord’s appearing is destroyed because other prophetic events must happen first. If the rapture is going to occur in mid-tribulation, then why should I live in the expectation that the Lord could appear at any moment? I would be looking instead for the rebuilding of the Temple, an Israeli/Antichrist peace treaty etc.

A key argument on behalf of a pre-trib rapture has to do with the promises of God to protect the Church from His wrath. The book of Revelation shows that the wrath of God Almighty and the Lamb will be poured out during the entire period of the tribulation. The Bible promises over and over that the Church will be delivered from God’s wrath. Romans 5:9 says that “we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him [Jesus].” 1 Thessalonians 1:10 states that we are waiting “for His Son from heaven…who will deliver us from the wrath to come.” The promise is repeated in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 – “God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't know why you put Dr. in quotes. Sherlin's credentials seem to be in order. He has a D.D. and is entitled to use the designation "Dr." In addition, he is a candidate for a Th.D. He might already have it by now. Why must you mock and belittle everyone with whom you disagree? Hardly Irenic of you.

If he did, I doubt whether you would accept it anyway. I have seen the writings of Morgan Edwards and know for a fact, that he believed in the Pre-Great-Trib Rapture, well in advance of Darby:

Edwards taught the following in 1744:
"...The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more- , because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s 'appearing in the air' (I Thessalonians. IV:17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will He and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for 'now the time is come that judgment must begin,' and that will be 'at the house of God' (I Peter IV:17) . . . (The spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized for clarity.)

Edwards clearly separates the rapture from the Second Coming of Christ by three and a half years. He uses modern pre-trib rapture verses, including 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and John 14:2, to describe the rapture.

And you know this how? Opinions differ. You have your opinions--others have theirs--see how nicely that works? The Apostle Paul said that having "divisions" was quite alright in 1 Corinthians 11:19

So? Christianity predates modern universities--who gave them the right to pass judgment on anything--especially the faithful? Modern universities are so full of atheists, who can believe anything they say? We know they are fools and liars. The faith got along for centuries before the RCC went the way of scholasticism--one of the worse things to have happened to "the faith once delivered to the saints". The Pharisees were very learned men for their day--didn't help them to recognize their own Messiah.

Mmm--the Sadducees were likely reflecting a similar tone on the "nonsense" of the Resurrection and a coming Messiah before the First Advent. Unlike you with your "infallible pope" nonsense, I don't believe that the Reformers were infallible.

It doesn't surprise me at ALL that you don't hold the teachings of your Protestant Fathers in any sort of esteem since you've all perverted THEIR perversions to the point where they're almost unrecognizable. This is the fruit of the perpetual splintering that s Protestantism.

As for "Dr." Sherlin having a D.D. - I haven't seen it. I only bring this up because one of the inventors of your perverse beliefs ALSO put a "DD" at the end of HIS name - yet there is NO record of his EVER having earned a degree.

The man was C.I. Scofield, who was a believer in Darby's “Premillennialist” position. He picked up on Darby’s teachings and taught this view in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible – although who had no formal training in theology. It was widely distributed in England and America – and many Protestants accepted this view without question ‐ as completely authoritative. Scofield, who later abandoned his wife and 2 daughters and married another woman, added the title “D.D.” (Doctor of Divinity) to his name –even though there is NO RECORD of his having earned a doctorate in Divinity.

Imagine that - an adulterer with NO education in Theology - yet he writes THE authoritative Protestant Study Bible of the 19th and Early 20th centuries.

As for factions and divisions - Paul warned AGAINST them in context (1 Cor. 3:1-9).

As to your perversions of Scripture - John 14:2 has NOTHING to do with a "Rapture" of ANY sort. It's about Christ preparing our place in Heaven.

As for Rom. 5:9 - this isn't talking about a "Rapture" - it's talking about God's JUDGEMENT.
SAME thing with 1 Thess. 1:10, which you cherry-picked instead of reading it in it's proper CONTEXT:

1 Thess. 1:8-10
Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

The "coming wrath" of God is His JUDGEMENT. THAT is what we are "rescued" from.
Finally - 1 Thess. 4:17 happens at the END of the world - and the Resurrection of the DEAD.
.
LEARN to rightly divide Scripture . . .

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

It doesn't surprise me at ALL that you don't hold the teachings of your Protestant Fathers in any sort of esteem since you've all perverted THEIR perversions to the point where they're almost unrecognizable. This is the fruit of the perpetual splintering that s Protestantism.

Unlike the tyrannical hierarchy at the top of your religion, my Baptist roots provide assurance that each Christian needs to determine, under the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27), what it is that the Bible is teaching. Some of your awful popes weren't even believers--why should THEY be able to determine the practice of the Christian faith? To be perfectly frank, you don't even seem like a believer yourself--merely a blind follower of a religion. I guess you are not allowed to think for yourself.

As for "Dr." Sherlin having a D.D. - I haven't seen it. I only bring this up because one of the inventors of your perverse beliefs ALSO put a "DD" at the end of HIS name - yet there is NO record of his EVER having earned a degree.

If you go on the "About" page, it lists his degrees/diplomas and which theological institutions. Only you judge them to be "perverse" beliefs because you are setting yourself up as a judge. Since you are big on academic credentials and spiritual authority--what are your academic credentials and who gave YOU the authority to make yourself the grand poobah? Did you ask your bishop, your cardinal, and the Pope?

The man was C.I. Scofield, who was a believer in Darby's “Premillennialist” position. He picked up on Darby’s teachings and taught this view in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible – although who had no formal training in theology.

So what? Neither did C.H. Spurgeon, yet he is considered to be one of the greatest Bible expositors ever. He had 10,000 volumes in his own personal library. Many thousands came to Christ under his ministry. What has the RCC to compare? Scofield does not represent my beliefs. I never adopted "Scofieldism". You struck out. Batter up!

It was widely distributed in England and America – and many Protestants accepted this view without question ‐ as completely authoritative.

Only an idiot would adopt any teaching "without question"--Protestants are not automatons like RCs are--according to you. Again, the only real teaching authority in the Church comes through the Holy Spirit. Wise people have judged Scofield by his "fruit"--that is why he is not very popular anymore. The Bible has plenty to say about leaders in the Church--do you want the references? (You are behind the times--better do your research!)

As for factions and divisions - Paul warned AGAINST them in context (1 Cor. 3:1-9).

He also acknowledged that there would be "divisions" in order that some would be "proved right". You are ignoring the 1 Cor. 11:19 passage--but then, you always ignore that which doesn't feed into your warped theology.

Your Roman hierarchy has a "theology of convenience" that feeds into the wielding of power. Let's hear you explain priestly celibacy, the Mary cults, the wearing of the scapular as a free ticket to heaven, the selling of indulgences, the "mortal sin" of eating meat on Friday (and then the dropping of it--did you let the souls of the meat-eaters out of hell when you dropped it?) I could go on and on but, I'm sure you will come up with a pat answer for each one as though it actually made sense. By the way, your "interpretation" of John 14:2 is inadequate.

As for Rom. 5:9 - this isn't talking about a "Rapture" - it's talking about God's JUDGEMENT.
SAME thing with 1 Thess. 1:10, which you cherry-picked instead of reading it in it's proper CONTEXT:

You have me mixed up with someone else--I NEVER said that Romans 5:9 was about the Rapture, nor did I say that 1 Thessalonians 1:10 was either--although I can imagine that someone else might.

LEARN

to rightly divide Scripture . . .

Take your own advice, please.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Unlike the tyrannical hierarchy at the top of your religion, my Baptist roots provide assurance that each Christian needs to determine, under the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27), what it is that the Bible is teaching. Some of your awful popes weren't even believers--why should THEY be able to determine the practice of the Christian faith? To be perfectly frank, you don't even seem like a believer yourself--merely a blind follower of a religion. I guess you are not allowed to think for yourself.

If you go on the "About" page, it lists his degrees/diplomas and which theological institutions. Only you judge them to be "perverse" beliefs because you are setting yourself up as a judge. Since you are big on academic credentials and spiritual authority--what are your academic credentials and who gave YOU the authority to make yourself the grand poobah? Did you ask your bishop, your cardinal, and the Pope?

So what? Neither did C.H. Spurgeon, yet he is considered to be one of the greatest Bible expositors ever. He had 10,000 volumes in his own personal library. Many thousands came to Christ under his ministry. What has the RCC to compare? Scofield does not represent my beliefs. I never adopted "Scofieldism". You struck out. Batter up!

Only an idiot would adopt any teaching "without question"--Protestants are not automatons like RCs are--according to you. Again, the only real teaching authority in the Church comes through the Holy Spirit. Wise people have judged Scofield by his "fruit"--that is why he is not very popular anymore. The Bible has plenty to say about leaders in the Church--do you want the references? (You are behind the times--better do your research!)


He also acknowledged that there would be "divisions" in order that some would be "proved right". You are ignoring the 1 Cor. 11:19 passage--but then, you always ignore that which doesn't feed into your warped theology.

Your Roman hierarchy has a "theology of convenience" that feeds into the wielding of power. Let's hear you explain priestly celibacy, the Mary cults, the wearing of the scapular as a free ticket to heaven, the selling of indulgences, the "mortal sin" of eating meat on Friday (and then the dropping of it--did you let the souls of the meat-eaters out of hell when you dropped it?) I could go on and on but, I'm sure you will come up with a pat answer for each one as though it actually made sense. By the way, your "interpretation" of John 14:2 is inadequate.

You have me mixed up with someone else--I NEVER said that Romans 5:9 was about the Rapture, nor did I say that 1 Thessalonians 1:10 was either--although I can imagine that someone else might.

Take your own advice, please.

Once again you make the false claim that the Holy Spirit is the "ONLY" Teacher.
This is nonsense.

Jesus Himself told His Apostles to teach all nations (Matt. 28:19). The CHURCH is our Teacher because the CHURCH has the guarantee from Christ Himself that it will be led to ALL truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15). The individual doesn't have this guarantee.

This is PRECISELY why YOU have the confusion of literally tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that they were "led" there by the Holy Spirit. God is NOT the author of this confusion - MAN is.

At the Last Supper - Jesus prayer fervently for the UNITY of His Body - His Church. He prayed that is remain ONE - as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23). All your Protestant Father did was obliterate that hope in favor of their own wills.

As for the likes of a Charles Spurgeon - I pray God has mercy on his soul for his perverse Calvinist teachings. Double Predestination is one of THE most blasphemous teachings within the realm of "Christianity." Limited Atonement isn't that far behind . . .

In post #364 - I listed SEVERAL essential differences among Protestants - and you ALL ignored them.
Here they are again . . .

- Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
- Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
- Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
- Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
- Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
- Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
- Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
- Some believe that most were predestined for hell, while others do not.
- Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
- Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
- Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on . . .

So, why don't YOU tell us which is the "correct" denomination?
And don't tell me that it must be a "Bible-believing" church because they ALL believe themselves to be "Bible-believing" churches. Be specific.

And if you can't tell me which one is right - tell me how this factionalism on essentials is "good" in the eyes of God . . .

 

[quietthinker]

The prospects is frightening - for Protestants.

Really!! Our planet houses an innumerable multitude of citizens from civilisations and empires long gone. I wonder whether these fall into the category of Protestants? If they do, surely they must have been protesting God's righteousness, his commitment to fairness (justice) and the willingness to lift the lowly. It must also include the systems which liberally used tortures to attempt to force the consciences of those who thought differently.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Once again you make the false claim that the Holy Spirit is the "ONLY" Teacher.
This is nonsense.

I SAID, He is the teaching AUTHORITY in the Church. ALL teachers in any church receive their ability to teach through Him. He is the sole determiner of whether He blesses their ministry to the Body or whether they have usurped it without His blessing.

This is PRECISELY why YOU have the confusion of literally tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that they were "led" there by the Holy Spirit. God is NOT the author of this confusion - MAN is.

I have already dealt with this in another post and your gross exaggeration of the number of Protestant divisions. Now try to convince me that there are not divisions in the RCC. Go ahead--try it.

At the Last Supper - Jesus prayer fervently for the UNITY of His Body - His Church. He prayed that is remain ONE - as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23).

There IS no division in His Body--His Bride. ALL who have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) are Christians, and we are in complete harmony with each other, under the power of His love. We are bought with Christ's Blood, taught by His Word and wrought by the continuing presence of His Holy Spirit.

As for the likes of a Charles Spurgeon - I pray God has mercy on his soul for his perverse Calvinist teachings. Double Predestination is one of THE most blasphemous teachings within the realm of "Christianity." Limited Atonement isn't that far behind . . .

Spurgeon wasn't much of a Calvinist--he was often accused of not being one at all. I on the other hand, detest Calvinism. You should remember that John Calvin was raised RC and that he learned his odious ways from the RCC. You struck out again. Batter up!

In post #364 - I listed SEVERAL essential differences among Protestants - and you ALL ignored them.
Here they are again . . .

- Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
- Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
- Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
- Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
- Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
- Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
- Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
- Some believe that most were predestined for hell, while others do not.
- Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
- Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
- Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on . . .

A convenient dodge so that you wouldn't have to answer my questions from my previous post to you. The Holy Spirit through the word that He inspired is the final determiner in all of those situations. I could answer what I believe on all of them, but what would that prove to YOU? On the other hand, I wanted to hear how you explained the issues I raised. You did not. I will assume you have no answer.

So, why don't YOU tell us which is the "correct" denomination?
And don't tell me that it must be a "Bible-believing" church because they ALL believe themselves to be "Bible-believing" churches. Be specific.

That's easy--there are no "correct" denominations, (and I am including the RCC as a "denomination"). We who are part of the Body are ALL imperfect vessels of the Holy Spirit (and some included in the "visible churches" do not have His indwelling presence at all--they are the "tares").

And if you can't tell me which one is right - tell me how this factionalism on essentials is "good" in the eyes of God . . .

The Apostle Paul answered that question in 1 Corinthians 11:19. False teaching is the source of division. Nevertheless, we struggle on. "Let God be true and every man a liar."

 

[tzcho2]

 

[tzcho2]

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Yes. John MacArthur is a great Bible expositor!

 

[brakelite]

Mark 2:27
“The Sabbath was made for MAN, not man for the Sabbath

I think you need to explain why a day made for the benefit of man had been replaced by a day that pagan Rome dedicated to the sun god.

And this is yet another example of your complete and total dishonesty.
You're used this picture before - and I had to correct you.

It is simply a photograph of a papal mass with other bishops as concelebrants. It is an incomplete photo because it doesn't show everybody else involved in the Mass. Doesn't even show ll of the altar servers.
In other words - it's just another dishonest, counterfeit attempt to paint a picture of something that doesn't exist.

Don't you ever get sick of being caught in lies??

It doesn't matter who or what else is missing from the picture. The imagery presented is sufficient for anyone who has a modicum of Biblical understanding to appreciate the blatant attempt to copy the throne room of God, albeit with obvious imperfections, beginning with the guy on the throne.

• great white throne, Revel 20:11
• two cherubims of gold on either end of the mercy seat Exodus 25:18
• four living creatures with the likeness of men Ezek.1:5 Revel.4:8

I am not lying and accusing everyone of lying who you disagree with is your only defense...oh, and to also accuse them of being "anti-Catholic", knowing full well that it is Catholicism, not individual catholics, that we oppose. After all, many of us were catholics at one stage of our lives until Christ shone His light into our hearts. So the reality is that you are the one lying.

Soooooo, Jesus, the "child" being born in Rev. 12:1-5 wasn't born of Mary??
The Gospels tell a different story. Rev. 12:1-5 is a reference to the prophecy in Gen 3:15.

The term "woman", throughout prophetic literature never referred to any individual woman, such as Mary. "Woman" was the church. The antipathy between the devil and the woman was between him and Mary...no, it was between him and the church...or God's people throughout all ages, beginning with the patriarchs, Israel, then the true church. Oh, and again you are lying in the sense that you are deliberately offering the suggestion that I am believing Jesus to be born of someone else other than Mary, as if I am contradicting the gospels. You know that to be a false representation of what I am saying.

As for the "Whore of Babylon" - MOST scholars agree that it is apostate Jerusalem.
WHO is Babylon?? Pagan Rome.
WHO got "into bed" with Pagan Rome against the Early Church?? Apostate Jerusalem.
WHO killed the prophets and persecuted the Early Church?? Apostate Jerusalem. She is "drunk on the blood" of God's holy ones (Rev. 17:6).
WHO sits on 7 Hills?? Jerusalem.

I couldn't care less as to what the majority of so-called scholars teach and believe. Why do you appoint one prophetic prophecy of a "woman" to an individual, Mary when it suits you, but another "woman" in prophecy to a city? God is consistent in His word and doesn't mix and match the symbolism in order to cause confusion...He gave us the prophecies with the specific intention that we understand them. Thus both women, first the pure then the whore, are churches, first the faithful then the apostate. Throughout history there have been 'the tale these two opposing "cities".' But even the cities, Babylon and Jerusalem, were symbolic of the spiritual condition of the people who lived under their reign. Israel as a people were upbraided often by the prophets for playing the harlot...being unfaithful to their Maker, their Husband. Read Hosea; poor guy had to live the symbol.
One more thing. Babylon the Great, mother of harlots and abominations of the earth is the whore. There is no whore that belongs to another entity called Babylon...they are one and the same. It is the whore whose name is "Mystery Babylon". And she has children...offshoot churches who also live as whores. Unfaithful to their Husband. And what, or who are they being unfaithful with? The kings of the earth. Unlawful relations with the rulers, the kings and queens and presidents of nations. Love for the world...being of the world instead of simple being in the world.
This is the sin of Babylon. Getting into bed as you put it, with the state power. And this is precisely what the Catholic church did throughout its history, beginning with those bishops and prelates of Rome who lusted after civil power when Constantine abandoned Rome giving it over to the Barbarians. For a while the bishops had to kow-tow to the Goths and a few other tribal rulers who invaded Rome but eventually, again through fornicating with such as Justinian, emperor of the eastern empire, he bishop became a pope...a pontiff (pagan Roman term) who used his relationship with the eastern empire to overcome her enemies, and gain political advantage.
Throughout medieval history this sordid practice continued as she gave dissidents and "heretics" over to the state power to be tortured and executed, then claiming "innocence" as if she had nothing to do with it. But indeed as John reveals, "in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth".

 

[farouk]

Yes. John MacArthur is a great Bible expositor!

I, too, appreciate John MacArthur because he seems to combine a view of dispensational distinctives as regards the church and Israel, while maintaining an emphasis on the sovereignty of God in the gospel.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Really!! Our planet houses an innumerable multitude of citizens from civilisations and empires long gone. I wonder whether these fall into the category of Protestants? If they do, surely they must have been protesting God's righteousness, his commitment to fairness (justice) and the willingness to lift the lowly. It must also include the systems which liberally used tortures to attempt to force the consciences of those who thought differently.

You'd have to include your Protestant Fathers in that category, who ALSO tortured and murdered countless Catholics - just for being Catholic.

Don't forget - History cannot be erased and there is PLENTY of blood on everybody's hands . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I SAID, He is the teaching AUTHORITY in the Church. ALL teachers in any church receive their ability to teach through Him. He is the sole determiner of whether He blesses their ministry to the Body or whether they have usurped it without His blessing.

I have already dealt with this in another post and your gross exaggeration of the number of Protestant divisions. Now try to convince me that there are not divisions in the RCC. Go ahead--try it.

There IS no division in His Body--His Bride. ALL who have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) are Christians, and we are in complete harmony with each other, under the power of His love. We are bought with Christ's Blood, taught by His Word and wrought by the continuing presence of His Holy Spirit.

Spurgeon wasn't much of a Calvinist--he was often accused of not being one at all. I on the other hand, detest Calvinism. You should remember that John Calvin was raised RC and that he learned his odious ways from the RCC. You struck out again. Batter up!

A convenient dodge so that you wouldn't have to answer my questions from my previous post to you. The Holy Spirit through the word that He inspired is the final determiner in all of those situations. I could answer what I believe on all of them, but what would that prove to YOU? On the other hand, I wanted to hear how you explained the issues I raised. You did not. I will assume you have no answer.

That's easy--there are no "correct" denominations, (and I am including the RCC as a "denomination"). We who are part of the Body are ALL imperfect vessels of the Holy Spirit (and some included in the "visible churches" do not have His indwelling presence at all--they are the "tares").

The Apostle Paul answered that question in 1 Corinthians 11:19. False teaching is the source of division. Nevertheless, we struggle on. "Let God be true and every man a liar."

Actually - you inferred that the Holy Spirit teaches each individual. Each individual is taught by Christ's CHURCH, which is guided by the Holy Spirit to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

As for the "gross exaggeration" of the numbers of splintered Protestant sects - I didn't give you a number. I gave you an approximation of "tens of thousands" - which is fair according to the PROTESTANT source - World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001), which claims 33,000. So, don't tell me there is "no division" within Protestantism. Protestantism, by definition IS division . . .

The Catholic Church doesn't have denominations or splinters - it's monolithic. You're trying to claim that dissident groups are part of the Catholic Church - they're NOT. For example, the "Polish Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", the "American Catholic Church", et al, are PROTESTANTS, not Catholics.

As for Charles Spurgeon NOT being a Calvinist, as YOU claim - that's NOT what Charles Spurgeon said:
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/charles-spurgeon-calvinist/

“It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.” —Charles Spurgeon

As for all of the different essential doctrines among the various Protestant denominations that I listed - you didn't even address ONE. Gee - I WONDER why that is??
Is it because there is "NO division" - or because there is nothing BUT division??

 

[BreadOfLife]

I think you need to explain why a day made for the benefit of man had been replaced by a day that pagan Rome dedicated to the sun god.

Soooooo, why don't YOU explain why the Sabbath falls on a day that the pagans created for their god of agriculture, Saturn.

This is idiotic. EVERY single day of the week is names for some pagan god - so WHY would Sunday be any different??

It doesn't matter who or what else is missing from the picture. The imagery presented is sufficient for anyone who has a modicum of Biblical understanding to appreciate the blatant attempt to copy the throne room of God, albeit with obvious imperfections, beginning with the guy on the throne.

• great white throne, Revel 20:11
• two cherubims of gold on either end of the mercy seat Exodus 25:18
• four living creatures with the likeness of men Ezek.1:5 Revel.4:8

I am not lying and accusing everyone of lying who you disagree with is your only defense...oh, and to also accuse them of being "anti-Catholic", knowing full well that it is Catholicism, not individual catholics, that we oppose. After all, many of us were catholics at one stage of our lives until Christ shone His light into our hearts. So the reality is that you are the one lying.

So, YOU'RE saying that partial truth, laced with dishonesty is okay??
THANK YOU for exposing your dishonesty . . .

It matters a great deal "who" or "what" is missing from the picture.
By YOUR logic, I can take ANY photo, edit it ANY way I want and level false accusations based on what I want you to see.

This is not only dishonest - it's idiotic - even for you . . .
No wonder you follow a FALSE Prophetess (Ellen G. White).

The term "woman", throughout prophetic literature never referred to any individual woman, such as Mary. "Woman" was the church. The antipathy between the devil and the woman was between him and Mary...no, it was between him and the church...or God's people throughout all ages, beginning with the patriarchs, Israel, then the true church. Oh, and again you are lying in the sense that you are deliberately offering the suggestion that I am believing Jesus to be born of someone else other than Mary, as if I am contradicting the gospels. You know that to be a false representation of what I am saying.

I couldn't care less as to what the majority of so-called scholars teach and believe. Why do you appoint one prophetic prophecy of a "woman" to an individual, Mary when it suits you, but another "woman" in prophecy to a city? God is consistent in His word and doesn't mix and match the symbolism in order to cause confusion...He gave us the prophecies with the specific intention that we understand them. Thus both women, first the pure then the whore, are churches, first the faithful then the apostate. Throughout history there have been 'the tale these two opposing "cities".' But even the cities, Babylon and Jerusalem, were symbolic of the spiritual condition of the people who lived under their reign. Israel as a people were upbraided often by the prophets for playing the harlot...being unfaithful to their Maker, their Husband. Read Hosea; poor guy had to live the symbol.
One more thing. Babylon the Great, mother of harlots and abominations of the earth is the whore. There is no whore that belongs to another entity called Babylon...they are one and the same. It is the whore whose name is "Mystery Babylon". And she has children...offshoot churches who also live as whores. Unfaithful to their Husband. And what, or who are they being unfaithful with? The kings of the earth. Unlawful relations with the rulers, the kings and queens and presidents of nations. Love for the world...being of the world instead of simple being in the world.
This is the sin of Babylon. Getting into bed as you put it, with the state power. And this is precisely what the Catholic church did throughout its history, beginning with those bishops and prelates of Rome who lusted after civil power when Constantine abandoned Rome giving it over to the Barbarians. For a while the bishops had to kow-tow to the Goths and a few other tribal rulers who invaded Rome but eventually, again through fornicating with such as Justinian, emperor of the eastern empire, he bishop became a pope...a pontiff (pagan Roman term) who used his relationship with the eastern empire to overcome her enemies, and gain political advantage.
Throughout medieval history this sordid practice continued as she gave dissidents and "heretics" over to the state power to be tortured and executed, then claiming "innocence" as if she had nothing to do with it. But indeed as John reveals, "in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth".

WRONG.

In Gen. 3:15, God spoke to Eve - the Mother of All the Living. He referred to her as the "Woman".
In John's Gospel, Jesus never refers to his Mother as "Mother" - but ALWAYS as "Woman" (John 2:4, 19:26).

Jesus defeats death on Calvary and fulfills the prophecy in Gen. 3:15 about the offspring of the woman. Mary is present at the foot of the cross while this is happening - and what does Jesus call her in John 19:26? He calls her “WOMAN”, because the prophecy about the head of the serpent being crushed in Genesis is taking place right there on Calvary.

Similarly, in Rev. 12:1, Mary is giving birth to the one "who will rule with a rod of iron" (Christ)
The serpent (Herod) is waiting to devour (kill) the child. The Woman is taken away for a time to a safe place (Egypt).
WHO wrote Revelation? JOHN.

Finally - Apostate Jerusalem is the ONLY entity that fits all of the criteria for the "Whore".
You and your false prophetess Ellen White can whine ALL day long about it being the Catholic Church - but in the end, the ONLY piece of the puzzle that fits is Apostate Jerusalem.

 

[amadeus]

Yes, perhaps for many but...I would not include Aspen in that as, he does have a heart for God and is a good reader/studier (sp?). I'm sure God will honor that as he seeks Him. Also, 2 protestant Church's I had attended in the past, were teaching erroneous interpretations so, it's not just Catholics. I do not believe in much of their beliefs but then, there are also some Catholics that do not necessarily agree with ALL of their interps. Look at @amadeus for instance, he's a denomination all his own I don't think I would 100% agree with ANY denom. non-denom. Just have discernment and a right heart with God, and His Word IMHO ♥

You are correct, Nancy. For years I belonged first the Catholic Church and then to the Oneness and then to an almost unknown group until about 6 months ago. Even though I regularly attended two different congregations of this last one since 1987 I never found anyone who agreed with me on every point. However I learned to stop arguing so much years ago. I really have missed having a regular place to attend but the new pastor knows who I am and to attend there now would appear to be in effect going against my old displaced pastor.

I attended the last ones for all those years because supposedly they tolerated disagreement. The toleration of the new "powers that be" falls a bit short on that score. I am visiting other assemblies of various denominations now, but I will probably never fully belong to another one. I could be wrong on this because God is still working in me and talking to me. Praise His name.

 

[Nancy]

You are correct, Nancy. For years I belonged first the Catholic Church and then to the Oneness and then to an almost unknown group until about 6 months ago. Even though I regularly attended two different congregations of this last one since 1987 I never found anyone who agreed with me on every point. However I learned to stop arguing so much years ago. I really have missed having a regular place to attend but the new pastor knows who I am and to attend there now would appear to be in effect going against my old displaced pastor.

I attended the last ones for all those years because supposedly they tolerated disagreement. The toleration of the new "powers that be" falls a bit short on that score. I am visiting other assemblies of various denominations now, but I will probably never fully belong to another one. I could be wrong on this because God is still working in me and talking to me. Praise His name.

So good when God answers prayer ♥. I am so glad to see you on here, am catching up so, I will get to your prayer thread soon.
I must say that this forum is my congregation even more so than my brick and mortar one.
I think we shall call you a Christian mutt? Hahaha...we all are, really as nobody 100% believes everything in the same way.
In Him Always!
nancy

 

[amadeus]

So good when God answers prayer ♥. I am so glad to see you on here, am catching up so, I will get to your prayer thread soon.
I must say that this forum is my congregation even more so than my brick and mortar one.
I think we shall call you a Christian mutt? Hahaha...we all are, really as nobody 100% believes everything in the same way.
In Him Always!
nancy

Yes we all have differences, but some become very insistent that we need to change our beliefs to their more perfect beliefs.
By all means let me be a "Christian mutt" or as the psalm says it...

"For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness." Psalm 84:10