Legs of Iron, part 2

The Scriptures Identify the Transition from Legs to Feet
The Scriptures identify the transition from Legs to Feet

Last week, we began a discussion on the date of authorship of the book of Revelation, highlighting the angel’s discussion with John regarding the “scarlet coloured beast … having seven heads and ten horns” (Revelation 17:3). That seven-headed, ten-horned beast is a figure used repeatedly in Revelation (Revelation 12:3, 13:1, 17:3), and shows the significant symbolic unity the book shares with Daniel’s prophecies in Daniel 7. The Four Beasts of Daniel 7 together have seven heads and ten horns (1 Lion Head, 1 Bear Head, 4 Leopard Heads, 1 Beast Head with 10 horns upon it). Whatever the differences that exist between the “red dragon” (Revelation 12:3), sea beast (Revelation 13:1) and the “scarlet coloured beast” (Revelation 17:3), they are unified in their symbolic relationship to Daniel 7. Because the beasts of Daniel 7 share a strong chronological unity with Gold, Silver, Brass and Iron kingdoms of Daniel 2, we can also draw on that chronological unity to understand the date of John’s vision. 

It is clear from Revelation that John uses Danielic imagery to convey chronological order and to establish timelines. Crowns, or lack of crowns, on the beasts of Revelation 12:3, 13:1 and17:3 indicate eschatological periods from which to establish chronological significance. In Revelation 12:3, the red dragon has “seven crowns upon his heads,” which indicates that we are looking at a period during which the four empires ruled the earth. The dragon is depicted casting “the third part of the stars of heaven” down to earth. The last time this specific imagery was used, it was to describe the activity of the antagonist of Daniel 8 under the “Leopard” or “Brass” period of Greek rule:

“And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.” (Daniel 8:10)

The dragon is also depicted awaiting the birth of the “man-child” to devour him (Revelation 12:4) which is resonant of Herod’s attempt to murder the Child during the Roman empire (Matthew 2:1-8). Thus, in the introduction to Revelation 12 we see depicted two distinct events from the Greek and Roman periods preceding Christ’s ministry.

In Revelation 13:1, the sea beast has “upon his horns ten crowns,” which suggests that we are looking at a period when the beast is arisen, the ten kings are ruling the earth “and give their kingdom unto the beast” (Revelation 17:17). Clearly in Revelation 13 we see depicted a period after the fragmentation of the Roman empire into “toes” (Daniel 2:42) or “horns” (Daniel 7:7).

In Revelation 17, neither heads nor horns have crowns upon them, indicating that it is a period after Revelation 12:1-4, but before the ten horns have arisen (i.e., “the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet” (Revelation 17:12)). The “scarlet coloured beast” depicted in Revelation 17:3 is clearly chronologically between the dragon of Revelation 12:3 and the sea beast of Revelation 13:1. The angelic narrator is  using Danielic imagery to establish a timeline or a chronology and to convey it to us.

The angelic narrator does this again when speaking of the beast which “was, and is not; and shall ascend” (Revelation 17:8). The phrase is at its core a Danielic description. This becomes clear in the analysis of the two judicial movements of Daniel 2:34-35.

In our series of articles, The Fifth Empire, we showed the necessity and benefit of harmonizing Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, particularly in regard to the judgment against the fourth empire. When the two chapters are harmonized, what initially appears as a single strike of the stone against the Feet of the statue actually resolves into two separate judgments. The first judgment is against the Iron & Clay feet alone, and the second judgment is against all the materials together. When the stone first struck the statue, it “smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces” (Daniel 2:34). We note for emphasis that in Daniel 2:34, the Iron & Clay are not destroyed. They are merely broken. Here it is evident that in the breaking of the feet the Toes are formed, for the Toes are not mentioned until after the impact, and the Toes explicitly signify that the fourth empire is “broken” (Daniel 2:40). The fourth empire was not broken until it was struck by the Stone. That is the first impact. Then, after the feet were broken to pieces, “the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold” are “broken to pieces together” and became “like the chaff” and disappeared entirely (Daniel 2:35). That is the second.

The necessity of harmonizing Daniel 2 and 7 in order that the two judicial movement may emerge, is seen by the fact that in chapter 2, after judgment against the Fourth Empire, the preceding empires of Brass, Silver and Gold are eventually destroyed, and “the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them” (Daniel 2:35), but in Daniel 7, after the judgment against the Fourth Empire, the preceding empires are not destroyed but are allowed to remain:

“I beheld even till the [fourth] beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.  As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” (Daniel 7:11-12)

There must therefore be a period in Daniel 2—between the first (v. 34) and second (v. 35) strikes of the Stone—when the Gold, Silver, and Brass are allowed to continue. Thus, Daniel 2:34-35 cannot and does not depict a single swift judicial act. It depicts two.

In their failure to harmonize Daniel 2 with Daniel 7, the writers of the Early Church delivered an inconsistent testimony on the meaning of the strike of the Stone. Did the Stone figure Jesus’ first advent? Or did it figure His second? Justin Martyr thought the Stone signified Jesus’ first advent (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 32, 34 & 36). Irenæus thought the stone signified Jesus’ first advent, but that the destruction of the preceding empires would occur at His second (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 26, paragraph 2). Hippolytus thought the Stone signified Jesus’ second advent, when it would strike the Toes of the Statue, and Antichrist with them:

“After this, then, what remains, beloved, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which part shall be of iron and part of clay mixed together?  … And after him [Antichrist] it remains that the stone shall come from heaven which smote the image and shivered it, and subverted all the kingdoms, and gave the kingdom to the saints of the Most High. This became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” (Hippolytus, Fragments, On Daniel, Second Fragment, paragraph 2)

We believe the inconsistent testimony of the Early Church on this passage may be traced to the fact that chapters 2 and 7 were not properly harmonized. If they are not harmonized, the two judicial movements appear to be only one, and it is therefore difficult to tell when that one judgment by the Stone occurs. Because of that it is difficult to tell what the impact upon the Feet of the statue actually signifies.

When the two chapters are harmonized, four very important aspects of the visions emerge. First, there is a judgment against the fourth empire during the period of the Iron & Clay feet, and that judgment forms the Toes (Daniel 2:34); second, Antichrist must emerge from among the Iron & Clay Toes of the Fourth Empire, for he emerges from among the Horns of the Fourth Beast (Daniel 7:8); third, Antichrist arises before the judgment against the fourth empire is complete, for Daniel watched the Little Horn until the fourth beast’s “body” is “given to the burning flame” (Daniel 7:11); and fourth, Antichrist and the remaining horns survive and live beyond that first judgment against the fourth beast to face a later judgment of their own (Daniel 2:35, Daniel 7:26, Revelation 17:17).

We know Antichrist survives the judgment against the fourth empire because the preceding beasts’ lives “were prolonged” after that judgment (Daniel 7:12), and they were prolonged in the form of the Antichrist Little Horn, for that Little Horn of Daniel 7 is the sea beast of Revelation 13, which is comprised of the three preceding empires. It is in the Little Horn that their lives are prolonged. This can be seen in a comparison of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13:

The Little Horn is the Beast of Revelation 13, and embodiment of the Three Preceding Empires
The Little Horn is the Beast of Revelation 13, and the embodiment of the Three Preceding Empires

We believe the harmonization of Daniel 2 and 7 is extremely important to our understanding of the chronology revealed in Revelation 17 because of how the Little Horn is characterized here. The Little Horn, while rising from the Fourth Beast,  is a representation of three other empires that have come and gone. The Lion, the Leopard and the Bear—or the Gold, the Silver and the Brass—have long since “had their dominion taken away” (Daniel 7:12), and in that sense they are in the past relative to the chronological position of Rome in the eschatological sequence. They were in existence but are not in existence any more.

But the fact that “their lives were prolonged for a season and time” (Daniel 7:12) in the form of the Little Horn which emerges after the Iron Legs, also means that in another sense those three empires are in the future relative to the chronological position of Rome in the eschatological sequence. They are not in existence for most of the period of the Roman Empire, but they will be.

We may say therefore that Antichrist is the embodiment of the Lion, the Bear and the Leopard which were before Rome (Daniel 7:12, Revelation 13:2), and also that the Antichrist is in fact Roman in essence for he “is of the seven” (Revelation 17:11) and “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7), and finally, that the Antichrist would later endure as a post-Roman manifestation of the preceding empires (Daniel 7:12). The Beast of Revelation 17 with its seven heads and ten horns may therefore be said in some way to encompass all of these different chronological manifestations. It “was” in the sense that the Lion, the Leopard the Bear are past, it “is” in the sense that it is “of the seven,” and it will be in the sense that it is an “eighth” (Revelation 17:11), and through him the Lion, the Leopard the Bear will be granted an extension of life after the judgment against the Fourth Beast.

Thus we have a conveniently pithy formula by which the chronography of Antichrist may be expressed, but it is only accurate during a specific period in history—the beast that was, is not, yet is, and shall come, and shall go to perdition:

“The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition … the beast that was, and is not, and yet is” (Revelation 17:8).

“the beast that was, and is not … and goeth into perdition” (Revelation 17:11)

That description—”the beast that was, and is not, and yet is”—as can be seen, is an essentially Danielic expression. It summarizes Daniel’s portrayal of the Little Horn of Daniel 7, for it originates from Rome, but arises after Rome, and is constituted of the empires that preceded Rome. That it is indeed Antichrist that is in view when the angel speaks of the beast’s past and future manifestations may be understood by the consistent descriptions the angelic narrator assigns to each:

“and all the world wondered after the beast. … and they worshipped the beast, … And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life…” (Revelation 13:3-8)

“…they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” (Revelation 17:8)

We highlight the cryptic phrase, “was, and is not, and yet is” to emphasize the Danielic significance of the narrator’s timeline. Twice now in Revelation 17, the angelic narrator has offered to us a chronological timestamp of the vision which places the writing of Revelation in relation to its future and its past. Of the “seven kings” of the current kingdom, five are past, one is present, one is future (Revelation 17:17). Of the beast, we can say that it was, is not, yet will be, yet in some way now is (Revelation 17:8). To these two we may add the fact which we pointed out at the beginning: the beast of Revelation 17:3 is chronologically between the dragon of Revelation 12:3 and the sea beast of Revelation 13:1. Surely by these three chronological cues, the angel is telling us something about when John received his vision, for his vision is constantly being described between two discernible events or timeframes. Notably, the angel is using Danielic imagery to convey the information to us.

On that note, we will conclude this week by returning briefly to the timeline depicted in Daniel 2. Of the four empires depicted, the fourth gets the most detailed attention and its timeline is subdivided into three segments. The Iron period indicates the time when the fourth empire is “strong as iron” (Daniel 2:40). The Iron mixed with Clay indicates when the fourth “kingdom shall be divided” (Daniel 2:41). The Toes indicate when “the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken” (Daniel 2:42). Since Revelation was written during the Roman Empire it must have been written during one of those three periods. We can rule out at least one period because the vision takes place when the ten Toes or ten Kings “have received no kingdom as yet” (Revelation 17:12). We can therefore rule out the period of the Toes or Horns. That leaves only two Danielic periods as candidates during the Fourth Empire for the time period of John’s vision—the period of the Iron Legs and the period of the Iron & Clay Feet.

The vision was provided to John because “the time is at hand” (Revelation 1:3). An eschatologically significant transition was about to occur. John was either writing during the period of the Legs when the period of the Feet was just about to begin; or he was writing during the period of the Feet when the period of the Toes was just about to begin. The “seven kings” of Revelation 17:10 are either kings of the Iron period or kings of the Iron & Clay period. What we will show next week is that John received his vision because the period of the Iron & Clay Feet was about to begin, and thus he must have been writing in the period of the Iron Legs. The “time” that was “at hand” was the transition from Legs to Feet. Only then would the stone smite the Statue and break the Fourth Empire to pieces.

271 thoughts on “Legs of Iron, part 2”

  1. Tim, what do you mean antichrist was the embodiment of the previous empires? Culmination in combined power? Incidentally, this presentation is compelling from scripture. Send a tweet to the 2nd reformation lol. God bless k

    1. Kevin,

      When I say antichrist is the embodiment of the previous empires, I am deferring to John’s characterization of Antichrist in Revelation 13 in which the Beast is constituted of the preceding empires (Lion, Bear and Leopard). The sea beast of Revelation 13 is clearly an amalgamation of the three beasts of Daniel 7 which were allowed an extension of life (Daniel 7:12).

      This could be worked out in greater detail, of course, but it seems to me that Roman Catholicism has adopted as normative the blasphemous and idolatrous practices of those empires. The Jews learned from the Babylonians to worship the Queen of Heaven; from the Persians, Zoroastrianism; from the Greeks, philosophy and “after the rudiments of the world”. From these proceed the worship of Mary, worship of representations of God, and transubstanatiation, etc…

      Zoroastrianism, by way of example, justifies the worship of the created thing as a valid way of worshiping the creator. As the wiki page on Zoroastrianism right explains, “Zoroastrians themselves note that ethereal spirit and physical manifestation are not separable, and that a reverence of any of Ahura Mazda’s creations is ultimately a worship of the Creator.” From the History of Zoroastrianism:

      “In common with the Vedas, the Avestan texts deify the ritual implements, textual passages of the scriptures, and other like objects. The expressions of invocation and sacrifice applied to them are the same as those used in honour of Ahura Mazda, the Amesha Spentas, and the Yazatas. The following are the objects that come in for a share of invocation in the ritual: Haoma, Aesma or the wood for the fire altar, Baresman or the sacred twigs, Zaothra or libations, one’s own soul and Fravashi, the Gathas, the chapters of the Yasna Haptanghaiti, metres, lines, words of the chapters of the Haptanghaiti, intellect, conscience, knowledge, and even sleep. Thus the creator and his creature, angel and man, ceremonial implements and scriptural texts are all alike made the objects of adoration and praise.” (History of Zoroastrianism by Maneckji Nusservanji Dhalla (New York: Oxford University Press, 1938) p. 195).

      This same justification of images is recapitulated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 2132):

      “The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is. “

      Paul’s reference to “the rudiments of the world” in Colossians 2:8 is also interesting, as it means, “any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal”. Aquinas used Aristotle’s idea of motion and the prime mover in order to develop an argument for the existence of God.

      Certainly, Roman Catholicism is an extension of life for the three pagan empires that preceded the Roman Empire.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      1. Tim, thanks, this is why I ask the question. Because you do my homework for me. I get more info out of that post then if I studied for 5 years. Just a note, I used to compete in chess tornaments and almost made it to expert. Guys used to say, you never study. But I would walk up to higher rated players and ask questions at the board ad nauseum. I cant tell you how much I learned about openings and end games by letting someone do my homework for me ( asking questions and observing). Why would I pay for seminary classes, when I can come here and get church history, eschatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, etc. If someone hasnt told you lately publicly. You are a friend, a man of high character, extremely well informed in scripture and church history. As I am comparing your position to other historical positions, I find the 2 judgments not only plausable, but biblical. In any discipline, nothing can substitute for putting the time in. Whether your position is ultimately correct, will not be for lack of detail, great knowledge of church history and scripture, much study over years. I agree with Gus, unless I can be convinced of scripture against your position, i am compelled by sola scriptura to believe it. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions brother. K

      2. TIM–
        You said: “This same justification of images is recapitulated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church ”

        How do you explain that “Thus the creator and his creature, angel and man, ceremonial implements and scriptural texts are all alike made the objects of adoration and praise.”
        is recapitulated with
        “The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone.” ?

        Zoroastrianism says all are alike made the objects of adoration and praise and the Catechism says adoration is due to God alone.

        Did any other readers of this blog catch this one, too?

        CCC: “Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate.”

        Where’s the “God incarnate” counterpart in the counterfeit Zoroastrianism that the Catechism recapitulates?

          1. TIM–
            Concerning the legs of iron, there are two of them.
            That could mean “division” such as Roman Republic and Roman Empire. It could also mean the division of the Western and Eastern Empires–Rome and Constantinople. The number “2” also means “witness and support”. Daniel, and much of the Scriptures, use numbers to signify not so much quantity but ideas. Two legs of iron could indicate solidness and strength, which Daniel describes in the beast of chap 7:7. Verse 7 also says there are ten horns. Ten signifies completion in human(civil) government and law. Makes sense that the iron legs and fourth beast would have strength of civil government and law.
            Let’s see how that applies to verse 8:
            You said:
            “I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” (Daniel 7:8)
            The traditional interpretation is well nigh universal: the Roman empire is prophesied to be fragmented ten ways, and three of those ten fragments would be displaced by antichrist. Most Christians today hold to that tradition, and many still await that ten-way division, cautiously but confidently anticipating the rise of a future antichrist to rule the world, removing three “horns” in the process, and then reigning over the remaining seven.”
            The number “1” signifies absolute singleness or absolute power. The number “3” signifies completeness or unity.
            Ten horns + one horn – 3 horns = 8 horns.
            The number “8” signifies beginning anew or change or a new order of things.
            Thus, the strength of Roman civil government was changed by the absolute power of one Emperor who removed it’s unity, thus fracturing and weakening it to the point it could be under his total control.

            You also said: “But we do not hold to that tradition, and the reason for this is quite simple: there are fourteen, not eleven, horns in Daniel’s vision.
            At this point we invite our readers to return to Daniel chapter 7, and read it closely, noticing three things:
            1) Each of the first four empires is described in its final, not its initial, configuration;
            2) Daniel never says that “the first horns” were ten in number; and
            3) Daniel never says that “three of the ten” horns were removed.
            Based on the text, therefore, we suggest to our readers that the expectation of a ten-way division of the fourth empire is but a tradition, and prophecy does not bow to tradition. The Roman Empire was to be divided 13 ways, and that is precisely what Daniel had foreseen.”

            It is an interesting suggestion. But it has a few problems.
            “1) Each of the first four empires is described in its final, not its initial, configuration;”
            Yes there are four empires (the number “4” signifies earthly or worldly), suggesting civil governments. It fits, especially if the fourth empire is described with ten horns which signifies civil governments. These empires are described this way before the change.

            “2) Daniel never says that “the first horns” were ten in number”
            To be fair, Daniel never says that “the first horns” were thirteen in number either.

            “3) Daniel never says that “three of the ten” horns were removed”
            But what he actually said was that three “of the first” horns were removed–horns that were first described in the previous verse as ten in number.

            “prophecy does not bow to tradition”
            Yes, and scripture bears witness to the prophecy.
            Thirteen signifies nothing except for maybe imperfection or bad luck. And “13” is never even alluded to in scripture by Daniel.
            I suggest that Daniel’s numbers work, yours don’t.

          2. Bob,

            I can’t do much with your numerological guesswork. 2 could mean strength (“two are better than one” (Ecclesiastes 4:9). 2 could mean weakness (“a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12)). It could mean marriage. It could mean adultery. 2 could mean a lot of things. In fact, every aspect of the dream could have meant all sorts of various and contradictory things, which is why Nebuchadnezzar could not understand the dream.

            You wrote, citing my three points:

            It is an interesting suggestion. But it has a few problems.
            “1) Each of the first four empires is described in its final, not its initial, configuration;”
            Yes there are four empires (the number “4” signifies earthly or worldly), suggesting civil governments. It fits, especially if the fourth empire is described with ten horns which signifies civil governments. These empires are described this way before the change.

            4 could also mean heavenly, as in the four winds of heaven or the four beasts in the throne room. Can’t help you with the numerology unless the author actually assigns a meaning to a number. Without Daniel’s interpretation, Nebuchadnezzar was left guessing, just as you are. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “before the change.” Change to what?

            You continued:

            “2) Daniel never says that “the first horns” were ten in number”
            To be fair, Daniel never says that “the first horns” were thirteen in number either.

            Of course. The fact that Daniel does not specify the number of the first horns at all is precisely my point. How many “first horns” were there? Daniel does not say. He says the Beast had ten horns, but doesn’t say the Beast started with ten horns. Just like the Leopard didn’t start with four heads. But it ended up with four heads.

            “3) Daniel never says that “three of the ten” horns were removed”
            But what he actually said was that three “of the first” horns were removed–horns that were first described in the previous verse as ten in number.

            You have simply assumed that which was to be proved. Daniel never says the first horns were ten in number, a point you have already stipulated. If Daniel does not say the “first horns” were ten in number, then how many “first horns” were there? Your answer reduces to “Daniel does not say the first horns were ten in number, but we know the first horns were ten in number by the fact that Daniel tells us so.” Where does he tell us that the “first horns” were ten in number?

            What it comes down to is that there were ten horns described in Daniel 7. Three of the first horns fell, were uprooted, were subdued, etc… And yet in Revelation 17 there are still ten horns to rally to the cause of antichrist. How can that be? How can there be ten left if three of the ten were uprooted? Your failure to harmonize Daniel 7 with Revelation 12, 13 and 17 is the cause of the inconsistency of your interpretation.

            On December 6, 2015, you wrote,

            “Why do you think “subdued” or “plucked out by the roots” means destroyed??? That seems to be what you are implying, not me.”

            But on February 26, 2015, you wrote,

            “So instead of “there were thirteen horns before the little horn came upon the scene”, it is rendered as “three of those ten horns were set before him and he destroyed them“.”

            Your wavering and inconsistent interpretation is caused by the fact that you think there ought to be 7 of the ten left over after antichrist uproots three, but the Scriptures testify that there are ten left over after antichrist uproots three.

            Why are there still ten at the end if Antichrist destroyed three of the ten, as you yourself say? The answer is simple. There were 13 to begin with.

            You concluded,

            “Thirteen signifies nothing except for maybe imperfection or bad luck.”

            Is that why the children of Aaron had 13 cities (Josh 21:19), or why the Lord prescribed thirteen young bullocks as a sweet smelling sacrifice? (Numbers 29:13). Thirteen could mean any number of contradictory things.

            And “13” is never even alluded to in scripture by Daniel.”

            Daniel also never mentions the Leopard’s first head. How can you know there was ever a unified Greece under a single king if Daniel 7 says there were four heads on the Leopard? Does that mean Alexander the Great never ruled Greece?

            Thanks,

            Tim

          3. TIM–
            You said: “On December 6, 2015, you wrote,
            “Why do you think “subdued” or “plucked out by the roots” means destroyed??? That seems to be what you are implying, not me.”
            But on February 26, 2015, you wrote,
            “So instead of “there were thirteen horns before the little horn came upon the scene”, it is rendered as “three of those ten horns were set before him and he destroyed them“.”
            Your wavering and inconsistent interpretation is caused by the fact that you think there ought to be 7 of the ten left over after antichrist uproots three, but the Scriptures testify that there are ten left over after antichrist uproots three.
            Why are there still ten at the end if Antichrist destroyed three of the ten, as you yourself say? The answer is simple. There were 13 to begin with. ”

            I’m not wavering. If you will look at the quotation marks, I was quoting your implication, not mine.

          4. I don’t understand your position, Bob. Is it your position that the Little Horn destroyed three of the ten horns?

            Thanks,

            Tim

          5. Thanks. I know that is your position now. It has not always been. If you revisit the Fifth Empire, Part 1, in the comment section, you and I were talking about what “before” means in Daniel 7:8, “before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.” I took the position that “before” means chronologically prior to, and I said,

            “If three had been removed “before” (literally before, in front of) the Little Horn, then the Fourth Beast should have Ten remaining, and the Little Horn should come up among Ten.”

            But you took the position that “before” instead is to be understood as “physically in the presence of” and you wrote, and so you rejected my position that ““there were thirteen horns before the little horn came upon the scene” and provided what you believed to be a better rendering:

            “But that is not how the word “before” is used here. It is not used as in “previously” but in as “present at hand”:
            “I look at all these things that are set before(laid in front of) me.” Or “He knelt before the king.” That is how the Hebrew lexicon defines it (qodam–Aramaic), and examples of that usage is in Ezra and all through the book of Daniel.

            So instead of “there were thirteen horns before the little horn came upon the scene”, it is rendered as “three of those ten horns were set before him and he destroyed them”.

            Those were your words, not mine.

            You may note that we were not at the time disputing what the Little Horn did to the three horns. We were simply discussing the meaning of the word “before.” Nowhere in my articles have I said the Little Horn “destroyed” the three horns. That was your wording.

            Or, perhaps I have just misunderstood you. In any case, on the surface, it sure looks like in February you thought the Little Horn destroyed the three horns that “were set before him,” and by December you changed your position such that you no longer believe the Little Horn destroyed them. Or possibly the two comments I am comparing were written by two different Bobs.

            Thanks,

            Tim

          6. Y’know, Tim. It is really fun sparring with you. I await in great anticipation for your responses, and you never disappoint me with your enjoyable stuff. (Except with the blowoff response of “Sure, Bob. :)”. But then again I just recently sent that back to you. )

            Anyway, you said: “So instead of “there were thirteen horns before the little horn came upon the scene”, it is rendered as “three of those ten horns were set before him and he destroyed them”.
            Those were your words, not mine.
            You may note that we were not at the time disputing what the Little Horn did to the three horns. We were simply discussing the meaning of the word “before.” Nowhere in my articles have I said the Little Horn “destroyed” the three horns. That was your wording.
            Or, perhaps I have just misunderstood you.”

            Perhaps. As you noted in the train of thought, we were not discussing “the destruction of the three horns”. We were discussing the meaning of the word “before”.
            In that context, I was merely restating your quote with that in mind–thus the quotation marks.

            But on the idea of “destruction”, your theory of the two judgements has a snag. Notice in Daniel 2:39 “After you there will arise another kingdom inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth. 40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces.”

            If I am reading this right, the fourth kingdom “destroys” the preceding kingdoms. You don’t suppose “destroys” is not a good word to use there either?

          7. Bob, you wrote,

            “In that context, I was merely restating your quote with that in mind–thus the quotation marks.”

            Of course you were. 😉 If only there had been such a quote for you to restate. There wasn’t one. Not in that conversation. The readers may go back to the conversation to see if what you say is true.

            You observed,

            “But on the idea of “destruction”, your theory of the two judgements has a snag.”

            I don’t understand where the snag is. The kingdom of iron breaks the preceding empires in pieces (Daniel 2:40). The stone strikes the Iron & Clay feet, breaking them into pieces (Daniel 2:34). From the pieces arises Antichrist through which the preceding empires are granted a prolongation of life (Daniel 7:12; Revelation 13:3), and then, the Stone strikes all the empires together and grinds them to dust such that there is no place found for them on earth (Daniel 2:35).

            Two judgments by the stone. One against the Fourth Empire during the fourth empire, and one against antichrist, the embodiment of the preceding empires, at the end (Daniel 2:35, Daniel 7:26-27).

            Thanks,

            Tim

          8. TIM–
            You said: “Of course you were. 😉 If only there had been such a quote for you to restate. There wasn’t one. Not in that conversation. The readers may go back to the conversation to see if what you say is true.”

            Notice in my original quote I said “Ten emperors rule, an eleventh one comes up and defeats three of those emperors.”
            And that is what I used in that conversation until I misspoke and used destroyed instead of defeated. Yes, that was my mistake. I’m glad you shoved it down my throat. 😉

            However, your take on “uproot” seems to imply “destroy” because you feel that the 3 horns uprooted cannot come back to burn the body of the beast, correct?
            That is what I meant when I said:
            “Why do you think “subdued” or “plucked out by the roots” means destroyed??? That seems to be what you are implying, not me.”

    2. For those readers of Tim’s interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, there is something you should know.

      “The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the late 5th century. Romulus Augustulus is often considered to be the last emperor of the west after his forced abdication in 476, although Julius Nepos maintained a claim to the title until his death in 480. Meanwhile, in the east, emperors continued to rule from Constantinople (“New Rome”); these are referred to in modern scholarship as “Byzantine emperor” but they used no such title and called themselves “Roman Emperor” (βασιλεύς Ῥωμαίων). Constantine XI was the last Byzantine Roman emperor in Constantinople, dying in the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453.
      Due to the cultural rupture of the Turkish conquest, most western historians treat Constantine XI as the last meaningful claimant to the title Roman Emperor, although from this date Ottoman rulers were titled “Caesar of Rome” (Turkish: Kayser-i Rum) until the Ottoman Empire ended in 1922. A Byzantine group of claimant Roman Emperors existed in the Empire of Trebizond until its conquest by the Ottomans in 1461. In western Europe the title of Roman Emperor was revived by Germanic rulers, the “Holy Roman Emperors”, in 800, and was used until 1806.”

      Tim’s historist view of the Fourth Beast in Daniel does not match what actually happened in history. History is clear that the Roman Empire did not end with the fall of Rome.

      1. Bob,

        You’ve lost me on this:

        “History is clear that the Roman Empire did not end with the fall of Rome.”

        I don’t understand how that is inconsistent with with my historicist views. Can you elaborate?

        Thanks,

        Tim

        1. The Roman Empire kept it’s dominion many centuries past the “rise of Roman Catholicism” when you claim that dominion was handed over to the anti-Christ. It clearly did not happen the way you say.

  2. Tim,
    I assume that Antichrist is the embodiment of previous empires because Roman Catholicism contains religious elements of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece. I do not mention Rome because, arising out of that empire it makes sense that Roman paganism would be incorporated into Roman Catholicism. If this is true this is amply demonstrated in Hislop’s “Two Babylon’s”.

    If i am correct, we should find pagan origins for their soteriology and sacramentology. For example, one of the babylonian goddesses was called the “Queen of Heaven.” Remind you of anyone? It would be fascinating to ferret out the Greek religious influence. Of course the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is pagan in origin. I am fairly familiar with the Greek mystery religions and the pantheon, as well as the Roman religions. I know that in both ancestor worship played a part, including familial votive offerings. Prayers for and to the dead? Also there is a strong element of Matriarchalism in both. The goddesses of war (Diana) and love (Venus), after whom came the designation “venereal” when referring to sexually transmitted diseases. (They were at one time considered “gifts” from the goddess.) Yahweh worship was STRONGLY patriarchal, allowing for few feminine elements in the deity. There is a hint of them when talking about Yahweh being nurturing, and sometimes they are associated with the Spirit. For instance in the “bath Qu’ol” [the “daughter of the voice”] when referring to prophecy and inspiration. The only other greek element that i can think of is the demi-gods, or heroes who were semi-divine. Demi-gods like Heracles (son of Hera) or Perseus (son of Zeus) were half human and half divine. It would be interesting to see if the development of the doctrine of sainthood is genetically associated with that.

    Gus

    1. DR. Gus–
      You said: “The only other greek element that i can think of is the demi-gods, or heroes who were semi-divine. Demi-gods like Heracles (son of Hera) or Perseus (son of Zeus) were half human and half divine. ”

      I have read in the gospels that there was this Jesus guy who Yahweh the Creator God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was his father and His mother was the lowly human Mary. But the difference is that He is not considered half human and half divine.
      Nay. Instead, He is considered fully God and fully man–the Son of God and the Son of Man at the same time–God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. He was begotten, not created; one in being (consubstantial) with the Father the Creator. And through Him, (the Son–aleph-tav, alpha-omega) all things were created.

      Sounds a lot more far fetched than what the Greeks ever came up with. And the Jews, the direct descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still don’t believe it. Go figger.

  3. Gus, I think you answered my question to Tim. That antichrist is the culmination of all those empires incirporating things from each. You did a good job definibg those things. I would love to hear Tim chime in too. I pray Roman Catholics are following this as Tim has layed it out. It seems to be Tim has made a rock solid case for 2 judgments, and therefore it changes everything. One would have to be deluded to conclude anyone else but Romanism as the house of Antichrist. Ciao frattello. Dio Ti benedica

  4. Tim, would you be willing to identify for me and address in a post the differences in your position and that of the second reformation. And then, can you address why exactly the WCF left it opened ended. Is it because they could not say that their position is an inhrrent position? From what I have gleaned it would be the following. 1. The date of the rise of Roman Catholicism as antichrist. 2. The date of Revelations 1 ” the things which will soon take place” 3. The extent of Christ’s current reign, whether it included civil control. 4. One strike of the stone versus 2 judgments. 5. Who receieved the earthly kingdom from the Roman Empire. I went back through all the arguments that supposedly these covenanters have made on this site versus your position from scripture. I couldnt find any. All I could find is allot of whining about you realizing the importance of challenging time tested positions. My guess is you probably understand these positions against yours far better than others here, and I was wondering if you could flesh it out? If you are opposed to doing this, no problem. God bless K

    1. Hey K–
      I cant answer for Tim, but i will chime in my 2 cents worth. The 2nd Reformation is centred around the Solemn League and National Covenant. The Steelites, are a sect that i dealt with a long time ago, and their basic postulates are as follows:
      1. The SL and NC is of perpetual and binding authority to all christians and churches that originate from or descend from one of the three kingdoms: England, Scotland and Ireland.
      2. Those churches or christians who do not acknowledge this are backslidden.
      3. Repentance is required to correct this declension, and can only be accomplished by joining a 2nd Reformation Covenanter sect, or by starting one or by leaving any declined church and joining one.
      4. All those who refuse to acknowledge this are idolaters and should be separated from.
      5. The characteristics of a 2nd reformation work are as follows:
      a. Purity of worship defined as no musical instruments in worship.
      b. Singing of only the canonical psalms and metrically.
      c. Strict adherence to the fourth commandment. Therefore Sabbath-keeping is and must be meticulous. Scottish churches have been known to discipline members that rode public transit on the Sunday Sabbath.
      d. The Covenant rights of King Jesus. MANY covenanters would call Walt’s church, the REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA, apostate or at least backslidden because they allow their members to vote for and take civil office. Historically the RPCNA believed that the Declaration was a betrayal of King Jesus and forbade participation in civil polity. The RPCNA reversed its stance in the late 19th or early 20th century. The Steelites, named after Daniel Steel, a 2nd reformation figure of the 18th century offer a very strict interpretation of the 2nd Reformation and would consider the RPCNA apostate. When I helped some Christians get away from their influence, in the Alberta area, they were being bound by secret oaths, and being excommunicated for disagreeing with the only properly and duly constituted judicature [session] in the province of Alberta. I simply and bluntly characterized then as a cult. The Steelites helped to destroy families.
      e. Because of the binding nature of the Solemn league and national covenant, civil judicatures are required to uphold both tables of law. This implies civil penalties for all heretics and idolaters, AND the suppression by coercion and violence of any Christians who would disagree with a duly constituted national denomination (church). They would imprison presbyterians that disagree with the pronouncements of their Synods.

      Thats all i can remember. I have a lot of respect for both 1st and 2nd reformation, but I cannot subscribe to many of their articles. I do not believe in their version of the regulative principle, and believe that both hymns and musical instruments are permissable in worship. I am not Sabbatarian, though i would never offend a brother by using my liberty in his presence, if he was a strict sabbatarian. I do not believe that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to uphold both tables of the law, only the 2nd. I do not believe in establishmentarianism as it pertains to a particular denomination, but do believe that Protestant Christianity ought to be recognized as the state religion, but with no civil sanctions attached to those who disagree. I do not believe that the civil magistrate has the right to call a synod. They believe in the original WS I believe in the revised version where all elements of establishmentarianism are purged. I do not believe that the solemn league and national covenant are of binding authority perpetually, and even if it were only voluntarily so.

      2nd reformation types are given to extreme legalism. And i do not mean by this, observance of the law. EVERY Christian ought to observe the law. That is why my family and i do not celebrate Christmas or allow pictures of the christ in my house. What i mean is that they tend to substitute a flurry of 2nd reformation opinions for charitable dealings with others. When challenged they will quote the WCF NOT the bible. They have many pharisaical attitudes, but are not Pharisees. They are constantly at war with other 2nd reformation descended denominations which may disagree with them, because they’re interpretation of 2nd reformation sources are either too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Though i was never fully covenanter (lower case) I was very attracted to it, and struggled with it for a long time. But i finally came to the conclusion that it was fundamentally wrong. The WS Westminster Standards, though the acme of Protestant Calvinistic Christianity are in error in numerous places. Must we believe ALL that they say, to be Reformed? If the answer is yes, then everyone other than a covenanter is going to hell. (The Protestant Reformed Church is the 3 forms version of the covenanters. Anyone who tries to amend the Three Forms, according to them, is tampering with the Word of God). These groups all have in common legalism and a strong tendency to see subordinate standards as EQUAL to infallible Scripture. THEY INTERPRET ALL SCRIPTURE THROUGH THE LENS OF THE CONFESSION. It is understandable why, and it is a natural tendency to do so, when you have to depend on english translations of Scripture, rather than be able to go back to the Greek and Hebrew. Psychologically, covenanter positions provide psychological certainty in an age where everyone is a Christian and anything goes. BUT their dangerous tendencies towards abuse, cultish behaviour, the exaltation of men’s writings, and their sectarian spirit–everyone is wrong but me–tends to leave them unhinged if they are not careful. That’s Walt. The 2nd Reformation, like the 1st is very godly in that it was composed of genuinely godly men who attempted to be true to scripture—AS THEY UNDERSTOOD IT AND ACCORDING TO THE KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME. For instance John Owen could not know that the Masoretic vowel points were not inspired by God, and spent an entire book, Biblical Theology, trying to prove it. They knew little of 2nd Temple Judaism, Nag Hammadi, the Gnostics and other current archaelogical finds. To pyschologically attribute to men who wrote in the 1600s near infallibility is the mark of an aberrant movement. Ask a 7th Day Adventist whether they would criticise Ellen G White the prophetess.

      As far as eschatology goes, historicism DEFINED AS THE SYSTEM 2ND REFORMATION WRITERS CREATED AND REFINED, is very precious for them, because they see themselves in an eschatological war defending the crown rights of King Jesus. That is why there is the antipathy to Futurism, Peterism, etc. They are enemies of Roman Catholicism, but by their behavior do more harm than good, as you recently saw, when Walt mocked me for rebuking that woman that i called a whore. It did not matter to him that I was trying to win a Romanist and that this was merely an anecdote. He thereby gave cause for a Romanist to see the dissension in our own ranks, and therefore dismiss our positions. “How can they teach me about the Gospel when they cant even love each other?” Historicism can only be defined as they see it, they are not open to any innovations, and 2nd reformation writers act as a defacto magisterium. I can hear the howls of protest right now! My contention is this: Even IF your brother is in sin, you act compassionately, humbly and teachably even if you are right and he is wrong. You show the spirit of Christ to go along with the word of Christ.

      Finally one more insight. 2nd reformation types can be unregenerated. Religion takes the place of humble submission to King Jesus. Recently i met an RPCNA pastor who refused to apologize publicly to his congregation for making a public and heretical statement. I also have proof of a RPCNA presbyter intentionally lying and slandering. A friend of mine who led some people out of an RPCNA church received a letter from the clerk of Presbytery that read like a letter from a bishop threatening a man trying to leave Romanism. 2nd Reformation types put GREAT stock in the visible church, so much so that an elder can be PROUD of being a strict sabbatarian and hating the pastor’s guts and still expect to be received by Christ. I dont know whether he was or was not, all i know is that ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, he did not have a credible profession of faith. I agree with the reformers, to lack a credible profession of faith, is to lack assurance of salvation, and to lack assurance of salvation, is to lack assurance of heaven. And that is a very dangerous position to be in. That is why I quoted SCRIPTURE, not the opinions of other men, when I fairly explicitly stated that Walt does not have a credible profession of faith. Titus 3:9-11 should never apply to a child of God. Pray for Walt, and his advisers. I fear that if we could see into the invisible we would see that Walt, who may be very sincere, is surrounded by wolves. Men, who like the Pharisees lay burdens that are impossible to bear and dont life a finger to help. I have had those kind of people in my life, and they ruined me.

      Sincerely,
      Gus
      simul peccator et iustator

      1. Gus, this is an amazing post. I couldnt be more in agreement. I have been accused of being patronizing, but I must say I find myself agreeing with much of what Tim has said, and yourself. It would be mistake for CK or Bob to dismiss your candor and forthrightness about the truth of the Roman mass and Eucharist as being efficacious and the body of Christ because of Walt’s accusing you. I share your same position that Roman Catholics, no matter their level of sincerity, worship an idol and earn increases of their salvation at the altar. They offer not only themselves but Christ again for their sins. They wont let Him off the cross. And you can be sincere, but sincerely wrong. Rome teaches a sacrament is merit for the strong instead of grace for the weak thru faith alone in Christ alone. Hanging on to a misinterpretation of John 6, and James 2, and not understanding the utter violation of acumulating the grace and justice necessary for salvation thru the sacramental treadmill of Rome is a grave error. ” the righteous shall live by faith” He calls us righteous and says our life comes by faith. My favorite verse is Romans 5:10, often overlooked, that says we will be saved by His life. Anyway, you are a kind brother to take the time to explain all these things. Thanks Gus.

        1. DR. GUS–
          I agree with Kevin. What an amazing post.

          You said: “They are enemies of Roman Catholicism, but by their behavior do more harm than good, as you recently saw, when Walt mocked me for rebuking that woman that i called a whore. It did not matter to him that I was trying to win a Romanist and that this was merely an anecdote. He thereby gave cause for a Romanist to see the dissension in our own ranks, and therefore dismiss our positions. “How can they teach me about the Gospel when they cant even love each other?”

          Yes. I did feel somewhat justified in my feelings being on the blunt end of your stick myself. Instead of feeling put down personally, I realized that you treat everyone that way. What a relief! You remind me of Gunney Hartman in Full Metal Jacket–best drill sergeant ever.

          You said: My contention is this: Even IF your brother is in sin, you act compassionately, humbly and teachably even if you are right and he is wrong. You show the spirit of Christ to go along with the word of Christ.”

          Hmmmm. Ok. Let’s recap:
          You said: “She was about to embark not only on adultery, but put her husband through an excruciating and painful experience that could destroy him. So i did the only thing i could to try and save him. I asked her is he an adulterer, an abuser, does he beat her? And she said no. Then i said, “well, then you are a whore” Blunt. She left. A few weeks later she literally ran into my office just long enough to say “And I am not a whore”! Then she ran out. That was her way of dealing with the weight of what i said–hit and run.”

          I don’t know what it is like in your neck of the woods, but any woman around here is really offended by being called a whore. They rank it right up there with b-tch, sl-t and c-nt. And you call HER a hit and run! It’s no wonder she ran out and never looked back.

          I don’t doubt your ability as a religious teacher. You appear to be very well studied. But for a doctor, your bedside manner sure could use some work. Ever watch “House” on TV?

          –Bob

    2. Thanks, Kevin. What you are asking for (i.e., to “flesh it out”) is what I am attempting to do weekly. I doubt I could do it much faster or much frequently. At some point I’ll probably post a summary, but I don’t have very much free time.

      Thanks,

      Tim

      1. Tim, my wife told me today that I ramble on and ask to many questions as a pest. She said please apologize to Tim for having to put up with it. . So I had to pass it on to you in the spirit of marital unity. K

  5. Bob—
    You said—–
    ———————————————————-
    Author: BOB
    Comment:
    DR. GUS–
    I agree with Kevin. What an amazing post.

    You said: “They are enemies of Roman Catholicism, but by their behavior do more harm than good, as you recently saw, when Walt mocked me for rebuking that woman that i called a whore. It did not matter to him that I was trying to win a Romanist and that this was merely an anecdote. He thereby gave cause for a Romanist to see the dissension in our own ranks, and therefore dismiss our positions. “How can they teach me about the Gospel when they cant even love each other?”

    Yes. I did feel somewhat justified in my feelings being on the blunt end of your stick myself. Instead of feeling put down personally, I realized that you treat everyone that way. What a relief! You remind me of Gunney Hartman in Full Metal Jacket–best drill sergeant ever.

    You said: My contention is this: Even IF your brother is in sin, you act compassionately, humbly and teachably even if you are right and he is wrong. You show the spirit of Christ to go along with the word of Christ.”

    Hmmmm. Ok. Let’s recap:
    You said: “She was about to embark not only on adultery, but put her husband through an excruciating and painful experience that could destroy him. So i did the only thing i could to try and save him. I asked her is he an adulterer, an abuser, does he beat her? And she said no. Then i said, “well, then you are a whore” Blunt. She left. A few weeks later she literally ran into my office just long enough to say “And I am not a whore”! Then she ran out. That was her way of dealing with the weight of what i said–hit and run.”

    I don’t know what it is like in your neck of the woods, but any woman around here is really offended by being called a whore. They rank it right up there with b-tch, sl-t and c-nt. And you call HER a hit and run! It’s no wonder she ran out and never looked back.

    I don’t doubt your ability as a religious teacher. You appear to be very well studied. But for a doctor, your bedside manner sure could use some work. Ever watch “House” on TV?

    –Bob
    —————————————————–
    1. If you dont want to hear it tell me to shutup. Guess what? I wont talk to you again, all you have to do is request.
    2. The problem with you Bob is that you have more sympathy for the criminal than the victim. In my region 3 men have killed themselves because of what their wives unbiblically did to them. I was almost put in jail because i could not afford to pay child support for my 24 year old daughter. Yes, 24 yrs old. You have no idea what Canada is like. A friend of mine came home and found another man having sex with his wife. He got angry. She wanted custody, child support and alimony so she accused him of sexual molestation. He was escorted out of his home by two armed cops–allegations unproven. He was told he could see his daughter again if he went and saw a psychiatrist for anger therapy–at his own expense. The psychiatrist was $500.00 an hour. He never saw his daughter again. He was a trucker and was reduced to keeping a mere 30-50% of his income which was garnisheed at source. He fell behind so they took 90% of his income. He could only afford to sleep in his truck–they did not care. He fought for 10 years to see his daughter. Then exhausted, broke and bleeding he gave up. The last I heard he was living in the backyard of a friend, he was not working, and he dare not take a job or they would come after him again. He never again got to see his daughter. THIS IS WHAT DIVORCE IS IN CANADA–ITS A DEATH SENTENCE.
    3. There was nothing hit and run about what i did. She was not a church member, she just on a lark decided to come in off the street, and i knew i would probably never see her again. Tell me Bob, when you see a stranger about to rape a little girl do you worry about the rapist’s feelings?
    4. What you so conveniently ignore, because it doesnt fit your narrative, is that i would have done anything to help her. She did not want help, she wanted affirmation that screwing her husband over was the “spiritual thing” to do.
    5. I offered to do anything to help you, but you are too busy feeling justified in rejecting my claims against your religion because my behaviour does not suit your sensibilities. Do you really think the not-bread Jesus in heaven, the one who is crucified only once, will accept your excuse, that you did not believe because Gus was nasty? I wonder what you would have thought if you had been at the temple and seen “gentle Jesus meek and mild” overturn the tables, scatter the animals and beat the moneychangers with a whip? It betrays what you really believe. You believe in the merit of your own works. I am a sinner, and I may have been overly rough, but i have met far too many mealy mouthed Catholics and Protestants who say “I love Jesus, I love you” while they plunge the knife in your back. Love is not talk, love is action. I loved her, by telling her an urgent truth, and would have done more if she had asked for it. Would you?

    Gus

    1. DR. GUS–
      You said: “1. If you dont want to hear it tell me to shutup. Guess what? I wont talk to you again, all you have to do is request.”

      No way! If I can dish it out, I can take it. I am just noting that you play hard ball.

      You also said: ” 2. The problem with you Bob is that you have more sympathy for the criminal than the victim. In my region 3 men have killed themselves because of what their wives unbiblically did to them… I was almost put in jail because i could not afford to pay …You have no idea what Canada is like. A friend of mine came home and found… He never again got to see his daughter. THIS IS WHAT DIVORCE IS IN CANADA–ITS A DEATH SENTENCE.”

      God hates divorce. I guess he hates it worse in Canada than here. I don’t know if that’s bad or good. My wife and I vowed to each other till death do us part, forsaking all others. We agreed that divorce is not an option–period. That was 33 years ago and we have still kept our promise to each other. I would imagine it has saved us a lot of anguish.

      And you said: ” 3. There was nothing hit and run about what i did. She was not a church member, she just on a lark decided to come in off the street, and i knew i would probably never see her again.”

      Well, I guess that makes you feel justified. Good for you.

      And you said: “Tell me Bob, when you see a stranger about to rape a little girl do you worry about the rapist’s feelings?”

      I would probably draw my 44 magnum, point it at his head, and tell the guy “Go ahead. Make my day!” You see, we have the right to bear arms here in the U.S. What can stop and armed bad guy in his tracks? An armed good guy!

      And you said: “4. What you so conveniently ignore, because it doesnt fit your narrative, is that i would have done anything to help her. She did not want help, she wanted affirmation that screwing her husband over was the “spiritual thing” to do.”

      So, because you thought you would never see her again, you decided to call her a whore instead. Nice goin’ there, Doc.

      And you said: “5. I offered to do anything to help you, but you are too busy feeling justified in rejecting my claims against your religion because my behaviour does not suit your sensibilities.”

      Just because you claim it doesn’t make it true. Now, where did I hear that before……oh yeah–from YOU.

      And you said: “Do you really think the not-bread Jesus in heaven, the one who is crucified only once, will accept your excuse, that you did not believe because Gus was nasty? I wonder what you would have thought if you had been at the temple and seen “gentle Jesus meek and mild” overturn the tables, scatter the animals and beat the moneychangers with a whip? It betrays what you really believe. You believe in the merit of your own works. I am a sinner, and I may have been overly rough (ya think?), but i have met far too many mealy mouthed Catholics and Protestants who say “I love Jesus, I love you” while they plunge the knife in your back. Love is not talk, love is action. I loved her, by telling her an urgent truth, and would have done more if she had asked for it. Would you?”

      I certainly would not have called her a whore. I know better. There is virtue in tactfulness. Y’know, the bible doesn’t say, but do you think Jesus’ actions at the Temple that day made the money changers pack up and leave for good, or did it just make them mad at him? That crowd in front of Pilate that day sure was upset at Jesus for some reason. They wanted Him executed. Of course, if Jesus hadn’t been crucified, then the rest of us wouldn’t have been saved. He did say as He was dying on the Cross, “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do.”

      The Lord works in mysterious ways. Maybe God sent that gal to someone down the street who was more tactful. Maybe not.

      –Bob

  6. ” you believe the merit of your own works, Im a sinner.” and there lies the difference between having the Spirit and not having the Spirit. The Holy Spirit convicts men of sin, and leads men in the knowledge of the truth. Catholics run around calling each other “devout.” Unless they come as a child, Jesus saidv, having acieved nothing of virtue or value, unless they deny their goodness and believe the gospel of scripture, there is no hope. Paul counted all his righteouness as dung. His righteouness. ” not having a righteous of my own” Catholics, the gospel isnt ” go out and do your part” its Jesus lived the lawvin our place and fulfilled all righteouness. The rich young ruler tried to bring his righteouness, thinking he lacked one thing, and Jesus said you cant come. With man its impossible, but with God all things are possible. K

  7. KEVIN–
    You said: “With man its impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

    The key word here is “with”.

    Amen, brother!

    1. Except for Jesus becoming present in the Eucharist, saints in heaven hearing our prayers, the gates of hell not prevailing against His church, and Kevin making use of paragraphs 😜

  8. Tim, I found a quote today from an old blog supporter and 2nd reformation guy that I agree with, ” Do you know if anyone else believes what you do on eschatology. Now that it is a matter of public record, and your position is being developed online, I wonder if there are other writings who hold views. If not, you could be the source of one new interpretation of historism that men will look back upon in the future as the source of this teaching.” 2 strikes of the stone instead of 1, that changes everything. God bless k

  9. Tim, do you agree that ” and another shall arise after them” and he shall put down 3 kings. It does not say he shall put down 3 of the previous 10, but 3 other kings. Do I read this correctly?

  10. Dan 7:7″… It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.
    8 While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it…”

    The phrase “of the first” modifies the word “horns”. In the previous verse, the word “ten” modifies the word “horns”.
    So the phrase “of the first” refers to the horns mentioned before in the previous verse described as ten in number. That is basic language usage. And it’s no different in the original Aramaic.

  11. I could care less if a saint in heaven hears my prayers. I pray to God alone. Praying to anyone else , especially his mother would wound my savior. What Catholics dont understand about the Reformed, is we give ALL the glory to God. He saved us, no one else is capable . The Reformed are well aware Roman Catholics love saints, bread, themselves, and physical church instead of the Jesus of bible. To God alone be the glory, sola Chritus, sola grazia, sola fide, sola scrptura, sola goria. To God be the glory. One must understand his utter bankrupcy spiritually and sinfulness to understand it is a trustworthy statement that Christ came into the world to save sinners of who I AM foremost. God bless k

    1. Kevin,

      Pray does not exclusively mean “worship”. You know this of course but continue to bear false witness, by pretending you don’t know what we believe and continually misrepresenting Catholicism. Your inability to make an effort to stop implies your faith is weak which means you are not as righteous as you think and not one of them elect types. You act more like you are in Cain’s camp.

      Pointing out my supposed idolatry does not change who “you” are or your lack of desire to bend your will to follow God’s command.

      If truth is on your side you don’t need to misrepresent other beliefs.

      1. Hi CK, I dont intend to engage you or Bob here. Praying to any other than God alone is indeed idolatry. I would remind you that you are on a blog here that ” continually misrepresents Catholicism” according to Catholics. We have another word for it, God’s truth. The Author of this blog has built a blog around warning Catholics they are in the system of antichrst. We believe Catholics are in a false system of works righteousness and idolatry that will send them to hell , that shouldnt be a surprise to you. Tim has consistently qouted God calling people out of that system Revelations 18:4. So, my advise is not to take it personally, but to consider the claims. Roman Catholicism isnt another denomination, its a different religion. And the author of this blog has proven that unequivocally. The gospel isnt ” go out and do your part” , it is Christ lived the law in our place, fulfilled all righteouness and offers it to us as a free gift by faith. Catholics merit the merit of Christ, Christians believe Christ’s merits are applied to us thru faith alone. In the end thank you for continually acuse me of ” misrepresenting the Catholic church, it confirms to me Im a fool for Christ. Happy New year. K

          1. Its not about joining a church, its about believing the gospel of scripture. Rome confused law and gospel, and saw the gospel as enabling a person to become righteous by obedience that which is compensation for their lack. Not realizing that the law requires perfection. So they saw Jesus as a gentler, kinder Moses with an easier law, requiring only love and surrender, as if loving neighbor and God with all our heart was not some great task. But the Reformers knew that the law and Gospel were distinct. The law was from nature written on our heart, it could not save and only could convict us of sin and drive us to the gospel where we find the good news, unconditional acceptance in Christ, assurance of salvation, perfect righteouness, knowing nothing we do, or nothing the Spirit does in us in sanctification can save us. Justification by faith alone is really justification by Christ alone. The Catholic church teaches the opposite of this. Aquinas said that a man is predestined to glory according to his merit in some way instead of just the goodness of God. Its gospel is worthiness of merit. And thats confalting law and gospel, something that always was the corruption of faith as this semi pelagianism raised its ugly head in the church. Someone who believes in the grace of scripture, demerited favor, can never stay in the meritocracy of Roman Catholicism. Christians look at the law and its requirement of perfection, we see our utter sinfulness and inability to obey it perfectly, and we run to the gospel of scripture where we are freely accepted in Christ, friends of God, with the oath and promise of eternal life. Romans 8 says ” Who can bring a charge against God’s elect, it is God who justifies. No one. In 1 John it says ” by this we have overcome the world” our faith. Roman Catholics must realize when they stand before God someday, it will do them no good to say, but I was a member of the Christ’s true church, having believed a false gospel. K

      2. Huh CK–
        According to Romanism (I am a Catholic [universal]) not q Romanist, do you or do you not adore the host? If you bow your head when the Eucharist is lifted up in procession, as the priest and altar boys walk by, you are worshipping. Cmon stop the nonsense. There is no difference between latreia and idolatreia, and anyone who tells you there is, is lying or ignorant. Making up an ecclesiastical latin term because of the imaginary difference between the 2 is not just misrepresentation it is deception.

        So when Kevin accuses Romanists of idolatry it is because it is simply defined as the veneration that is supposed to be uniquely reserved for the persons of the Trinity. When you pray to Mary, the saints, or the angels its idolatry. To go a step further, praying to dead people who cant hear you is occultism as Tim has proven over and over.

        Disagreeing with us is OK, but to accuse Kevin of intellectual dishonesty when your own tradition invents an imaginary category of veneration is a bit rich.

        Gus

  12. ” for the one who joins himself to the Lord is one SPIRIT with Him” The efficacy of our salvation isnt in bread, it is in union with Christ thru the Holy Spirit . ” The righteous shall live by faith” Paul quotes this scripture and says true believers ARE righteous and LIVE by faith. Roman Catholics are failing kidney patients in need of a transfusion. But man does not live by bread alone, but every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Peter Vemigli said faith is the constant and firm assent of the soul to the Word of God. Faith alone in Christ alone. Unless a Roman Catholic repents of the efficacy of the Roman Eucharist, you he will not see the kingdom. God bless k

  13. CK, one more thing, we don’t go to the Lord’s supper to be forgiven, we go to to thank Him and praise Him for a forgiveness we already possess. Big difference. Yes we confess our sins, but we are ALREADY forgiven for those sins. When I tell somebody that trusts Christ alone for their salvation that they are forgiven, it is a statement about something already true in heaven, the declaration doesn’t make it true. K

  14. KEVIN–
    You said: “Hi CK, I dont intend to engage you or Bob here.”
    So it must be by accident.
    Apology accepted. Go and sin no more.

    Hmmmm……that sounds familiar.
    Oh yeah. That was what Jesus told the adultress to do instead of just have faith alone:
    John 8:11 … And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    And he said the same thing to the infirmed man at the pool:
    John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

    But then, I just read the bible and that is what it says to me.
    SOLA SCRIPTURA!

    1. KEVIN–
      You said: “The righteous shall live by faith” Paul quotes this scripture and says true believers ARE righteous and LIVE by faith.”

      It’s not works righteousness but righteousness works.
      It’s not faith and works but works and faith.

      AMEN Brother!

    2. 6 A scoffer seeks wisdom and does not find it, But knowledge is easy to him who understands. 7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
      8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, But the folly of fools is deceit. 9 Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is favor. (Prov. 14:6-9 NKJ)

      Maybe the virgin Mary will help…ave Maria!

      Gus

      1. Hi Gus, Urisinus said comprehending the distinction between law and gospel is the sum of all the scriptures. Spurgeon said those who mix the law and the gospel corrupt faith at its core and corrupt pure religion. No conscience can rest if it does not understand the goodness, mercy, and acceptance found in the gospel. As you know the law can only corrupt, convict, and bring desperation to the soul of our utter inability to keep the law perfectly. Rome conflated the 2 so much, tauting Jesus as a kinder gentler Moses with an easier law, requiring only love and willfull surrender. Calvin said, as if loving God and neighbor with all one’s heart is some attainable task. Gus, if you notice from CK’s comments to me ” being one of those elect types” Roman Catholics hate election just like the self righteouness jews. Remember when Jesus was teaching in the synagog and the jews were so enamored with His teaching until he did what seemed to be a peculiar thing. He closed the book and told a story about God sent a prophet to 1 widow and 1 leper during a 3 year draught, passing over 3000 widows and many lepers, only saving those 2. When Jesus finished, the scripture says the jews were insensed and furious with Him. Catholics are the same, they hate election, being convinced of their own righteouness they think assurance and election is unfair, unearned and cheating. Rome saw the gospel as a believer being enabled by obedience to merit the graces and justice necessary for salvation, not understanding the law requires perfection Galatians 3:10. Notice this that CK said to me ” your lack to bend the knee and obey God’s command” Gus, Catholics see our unwillingness to bow the knee to their church, their pope, their bread god, as an unwillingness to bend the knee to God and obey Him, not knowing that obedience to God is to not bow to the Roman bread idol. Gus, one of the main reasons for the reformation was pastoral. They wanted to return assurance back to the laity who had all the rubbish piled on the cross, selling forgiveness, shaken souls. The scripture calls the gospel good news. Paul says rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice. We sing the amen that He is risen, our sins forgiven. I remember distinctly when Tim shared his testimony, he told the story in his bible church when he realized that Christ took his place and that all his sins were forgiven. We must help Catholics to understand that as Beza said, the law should cause us to suffer over our righteouness and joy for the gospel. My wife and I have made it our call to bring the gospel to Roman Catholics so that they deny their goodness and idolatry and believe the gospel of scripture which is the only thing that can free a soul. The gospel of antichrist, gracious merit, worthiness of merit, is false and cannot save them. God bless. K

        1. Caro Kevin,
          I must admit they wear me down. Bob and Ck are arrogant, smarmy and act tough. Of course i cannot get them to see that “acting tough” does not impress me, and certainly wont impress God. They just dont get it–and cant. The Roman “church” will forever be John Tetzel saying “the souls of your loved ones will fly out of purgatory when the coin hits the bottom of the box”. The difference between us and them? He said that with the supreme pontiff’s blessing and authorization. That was the pope speaking! Jesus convicted the pharisees of sin, and all it did was enrage them. Why because nothing makes a sinner angrier than trying to separate him from his reason to be proud. ALL of the reformers, including Luther, were sinners–he was an antisemite. But i can accept what he said and reject what he did, because he is not my pope.

          In a proper understanding of the covenant, you are as guilty as the person who represents you. When a president goes to war the citizens are killed, and when a husband is imprisoned the family is punished. When a pastor becomes a heretic every member who refuses to disassociate themselves from his efforts is guilty of promoting them. The early church understood this and Diotrephes’ members acted against him and suffered excommunication:
          9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.
          10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. (3 Jn. 1:9-10 NKJ)
          Not only that, but to receive a heretic is to participate in his sins:
          10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. (2 Jn. 1:10-11 NKJ)

          This is why it is a sin to be a Romanist, and a sin to stay in a congregation or denomination that has descended into apostasy. He who acquiesces to apostasy in the visible church, is not a member of the invisible church. And to your point, it is membership in the invisible church that guarantees salvation.

          So, the pope sent Tetzel, Rome has never repented of doing that, you are a Romanist, therefore you agree with the pope’s sending of Tetzel, therefore you are guilty of blasphemy, with the pope and Tetzel. The logic is irrefutable. The Pope sent the Jesuits, Rome has never repented of doing that, you are a Romanist, therefore you agree with the Jesuits torturing and killing Protestants, therefore you are guilty of murder with the pope and the Jesuits. The Pope sends the priest, the priest crucifies Christ again at every mass, Rome has never repented of that, you are a Romanist, therefore you agree with the priest’s crucifying Christ…again…again…and again:

          26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.”
          31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:26-31 NKJ)

          4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
          6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. 7 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but if it bears thorns and briars, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned. (Heb. 6:4-8 NKJ)

          What we often forget is that Romanists are Gentile judaizers. When Luther calls for the murder of Jews, or the Genevans kill Servetus, or other so-called Protestants engage in atrocities in the name of religion, they are not SENT by any central authority. Therefore, they represent no one but themselves. I can and do reject them without rejecting Protestantism. Because any thing that is done without the authority of my representative is to be rejected. Notice how in John 3, Diotrephes rejection of the apostle John, means the apostle’s rejection of him. Who is my authority? Jesus Christ alone. How do I know what he commands, permits and forbids? The bible alone. In what way am I to submit to Him? By faith alone. On what grounds am I to approach him? By grace alone. And for whom am i to live? The glory of God alone.

          Election, etc., are never to be an excuse for staying in sin, every sin is excused in Romanism by saying, “the pope says it is ok”. The reformation is a movement of repentant sinners. Romanism is a movement of unrepentant sinners. That is what we are dealing with.

          Gus

          1. “I must admit they wear me down. Bob and Ck are arrogant, smarmy and act tough. Of course i cannot get them to see that “acting tough” does not impress me, and certainly wont impress God. They just dont get it–and cant.”

            Fascinating. That’s kinda what I thought about you two as well.
            So that makes two of us.

            Bob

  15. CK–
    You typed “if I cahnge my ways and join your church I will see the His kingdom? Sounds like salvation works to me!”

    Are you using a cell phone too? I love it!

    1. CK–
      I don’t know where you’re from, but the RCC services I have witnessed don’t resemble anything Kevin and Dr. Gus or Tim describe. The Lutheran services I’ve attended are nearly identical and the Methodist communion service is the same. We don’t serve death cookies or worship a bread God either. You don’t think maybe they are scoffers, do you?
      And isn’t it proper etiquette for Canadians to bow before their Queen? I figure they know they are not worshipping the Queen when they do, right?

      1. Bob—
        never been in Canada I see. Hardly anybody bows to the queen anymore. I havent stood for the canadian anthem for years—not that i ever hear it.
        The fact that Lutheran services are like RC doesnt surprise me considering that ELCA is reconciling to Rome. They are not “death cookies” unless you choke on it as it goes down. And I think its absolutely lovely the way you respond to my analysis concerning latreia and idolatreia with abusive ad hominems, genetic fallacies, unsubstantial rhetoric, and a complete abuse of the logic. So the question still stands: Do you approve of the papal bulls that authorized the Jesuit persecution of protestants. If you do you are just as guilty. Its unfortunate that you do not know as much about the official standards of your cult as I do.

        Tridentine standards:
        Three Mysteries of the Eucharist

        We must now return to an explanation of those truths concerning the Eucharist about which the faithful are on no account to be left in ignorance. Pastors, aware of the warning of the Apostle that those who discern not the body of the Lord are guilty of a most grave crime,38 should first of all impress on the minds of the faithful the necessity of detaching, as much as possible, their mind and understanding from the dominion of the senses; for if they believe that this Sacrament contains only what the senses disclose, they will of necessity fall into enormous impiety. Consulting the sight, the touch, the smell, the taste and finding nothing but the appearances of bread and wine, they will naturally judge that this Sacrament contains nothing more than bread and wine. Their minds, therefore, are as much as possible to be withdrawn from subjection to the senses and excited to the contemplation of the stupendous might and power of God.

        The Catholic Church firmly believes and professes that in this Sacrament the words of consecration accomplish three wondrous and admirable effects.

        The first is that the true body of Christ the Lord, the same that was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this Sacrament.

        The second, however repugnant it may appear to the senses, is that none of the substance of the elements remains in the Sacrament.

        The third, which may be deduced from the two preceding, although the words of consecration themselves clearly express it, is that the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we can see, but they inhere in no substance, and exist independently of any; for the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine.

        The bread and wine BECOME CHRIST. It is NOT bread even though it looks like bread and tastes like bread. It is NOT wine, it is blood. Christ is god. Therefore it is a “bread god” for immediately after consecration it BECOMES GOD. Have you got the balls to ask your priest? And while youre at it, ask him why the ground has to be consecrated if the host falls to the ground, and why the “blood” isnt given to the laity. Hint: you might spill a drop.

        note the following:
        Meaning of the Real Presence

        CHRIST WHOLE AND ENTIRE IS PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST

        Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. He should point out that the word Christ designates the God-man, that is to say, one Person in whom are united the divine and human natures; that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both, and whatever is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood, – all of which must be believed to be in this Sacrament. In heaven the whole humanity is united to the Divinity in one hypostasis, or Person; hence it would be impious, to suppose that the body of Christ, which is contained in the Sacrament, is separated from His Divinity.

        PRESENCE IN VIRTUE OF THE SACRAMENT AND IN

        VIRTUE OF CONCOMITANCE

        Pastors, however, should not fail to observe that in this Sacrament not all these things are contained after the same manner, or by the same power. Some things, we say, are present in virtue of the consecration; for as the words of consecration effect what they signify, sacred writers usually say that whatever the form expresses, is contained in the Sacrament by virtue of the Sacrament. Hence, could we suppose any one thing to be entirely separated from the rest, the Sacrament, they teach, would be found to contain solely what the form expresses and nothing more.

        On the other hand, some things are contained in the Sacrament because they are united to those which are expressed in the form. For instance, the words This is my body, which comprise the form used to consecrate the bread, signify the body of the Lord, and hence the body itself of Christ the Lord is contained in the Eucharist by virtue of the Sacrament. Since, however, to Christ’s body are united His blood, His soul, and His Divinity, all of these also must be found to coexist in the Sacrament; not, however, by virtue of the consecration, but by virtue of the union that subsists between them and His body. All these are said to be in the Eucharist by virtue of concomitance. Hence it is clear that Christ, whole and entire, is contained in the Sacrament; for when two things are actually united, where one is, the other must also be.

        CHRIST WHOLE AND ENTIRE PRESENT UNDER EACH SPECIES

        Hence it also follows that Christ is so contained, whole and entire, under either species, that, as under the species of bread are contained not only the body, but also the blood and Christ entire; so in like manner, under the species of wine are truly contained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entire.

        But although these are matters on which the faithful cannot entertain a doubt, it was nevertheless wisely ordained that two distinct consecrations should take place. First, because they represent in a more lively manner the Passion of our Lord, in which His blood was separated from His body; and hence in the form of consecration we commemorate the shedding of His blood. Secondly, since the Sacrament is to be used by us as the food and nourishment of our souls, it was most appropriate that it should be instituted as food and drink, two things which obviously constitute the complete sustenance of the (human) body.

        CHRIST WHOLE AND ENTIRE PRESENT IN EVERY

        PART OF EACH SPECIES

        Nor should it be forgotten that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each Portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each.51

        This is also an obvious inference from the narrative of the Evangelists. It is not to be supposed that our Lord consecrated the bread used at the Last Supper in separate parts, applying the form particularly to each, but that all the bread then used for the sacred mysteries was consecrated at the same time and with the same form, and in a quantity sufficient for all the Apostles. That the consecration of the chalice was performed in this manner, is clear from these words of the Savior : Take and divide it among you.52 *

        What has hitherto been said is intended to enable pastors to show that the true body and blood of Christ are contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

        The Mystery of Transubstantiation

        The next point to be explained is that the substance of the bread and wine does not continue to exist in the Sacrament after consecration. This truth, although well calculated to excite our profound admiration, is yet a necessary consequence from what has been already established.
        TRANSUBSTANTIATION A TOTAL CONVERSION

        This conversion, then, is so effected that the whole substance of the bread is changed by the power of God into the whole substance of the body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of His blood, and this, without any change in our Lord Himself. He is neither begotten, nor changed, not increased, but remains entire in His substance.

        This sublime mystery St. Ambrose thus declares: You see how efficacious are the words of Christ. If the word of the Lord Jesus is so powerful as to summon into existence that which did not exist, namely the world, how much more powerful is His word to change into something else that which already has existence?*

        Many other ancient and most authoritative Fathers have written to the same effect. We faithfully confess, says St. Augustine, that before consecration it is bread and wine, the product of nature; but after consecration it is the body and blood of Christ, consecrated by the blessing.63 The body, says Damascene, is truly united to the Divinity, that body which was derived from the virgin; not that the body thus derived descends from heaven, but that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ.64

        This admirable change, as the Council of Trent teaches, the Holy Catholic Church most appropriately expresses by the word transubstantiation.65 Since natural changes are rightly called transformations, because they involve a change of form; so likewise our predecessors in the faith wisely and appropriately introduced the term transubstantiation, in order to signify that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole substance of one thing passes into the whole substance of another.

        According to the admonition so frequently repeated by the holy Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished against curious searching into the manner in which this change is effected. It defies the powers of conception; nor can we find any example of it in natural transmutations, or even in the very work of creation. That such a change takes place must be recognized by faith; how it takes place we must not curiously inquire.

        No less of caution should be observed by pastors in explaining the mysterious manner in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread. Indeed, discussions of this kind should scarcely ever be entered upon. Should Christian charity, however, require a departure from this rule, the pastor should remember first of all to prepare and fortify his hearers by reminding them that no word shall be impossible with God.66 *

        A CONSEQUENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION

        The pastor should next teach that our Lord is not in the Sacrament as in a place. Place regards things only inasmuch as they have magnitude. Now we do not say that Christ is in the Sacrament inasmuch as He is great or small, terms which belong to quantity, but inasmuch as He is a substance. The substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, not into magnitude or quantity; and substance, it will be acknowledged by all, is contained in a small as well as in a large space. The substance of air, for instance, and its entire nature must be present under a small as well as a large quantity, and likewise the entire nature of water must be present no less in a glass than in a river. Since, then, the body of our Lord succeeds to the substance of the bread, we must confess it to be in the Sacrament after the same manner as the substance of the bread was before consecration; whether the substance of the bread was present in greater or less quantity is a matter of entire indifference.*

        The Mystery of the Accidents without a Subject.

        Study your catholic catechism better!
        observe the following:

        Jesus waits for us in this Sacrament of Love
        �In the sacred Host, He is present, the true treasure, always waiting for us.
        Only by adoring this Presence do we learn how to receive Him properly.�

        O SACRAMENT MOST HOLY, O SACRAMENT DIVINE, ALL PRAISE AND ALL THANKSGIVING BE EVERY MOMENT THINE
        The Blessed Sacrament
        is exposed in a Monstrance

        What is Eucharistic Adoration?

        Understood simply, Eucharistic Adoration is adoring or honouring the Eucharistic Presence of Christ. In a deeper sense, it involves “the contemplation of the Mystery of Christ truly present before us”.

        During Eucharistic Adoration, we “watch and wait”, we remain “silent” in His Presence and open ourselves to His Graces which flow from the Eucharist … By worshiping the Eucharistic Jesus, we become what God wants us to be! Like a magnet, The Lord draws us to Himself and gently transforms us.

        In its fullest essence … Eucharistic Adoration is “God and Man reaching out for each other, at the same time!”

        The Eucharist is: Jesus truly present – Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity!

        At the moment of Consecration, during the Mass, the “gifts” of bread and wine are transformed (transubstantiated) into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, at the Altar. This means that they are not only spiritually transformed, but rather are actually (substantially) transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The elements retain the appearance of bread and wine, but are indeed the actual Body and Blood of Christ. This is what is meant by Real Presence: the actual, physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

        Christ instituted this Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in order to remain with mankind until the end of time (Jn. 14:18).

        The ( reserved ) Blessed Sacrament serves as a focal point of devotion.

        Because, as Catholics, we believe that Christ is truly and substantially present in the Eucharist, the Blessed Sacrament is given the same adoration and devotion that is accorded to Christ.

        At the beginning of the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, a priest or deacon removes the sacred host from the tabernacle and places it in the Monstrance on the Altar for adoration by the faithful. “Monstrance” is the vessel used in the Church to display the consecrated Eucharistic Host, during Eucharistic adoration or benediction. The word monstrance comes from the Latin word monstrare, meaning “to expose”. It is known in Latin as an Ostensorium. When a consecrated host is placed in the monstrance, It is said to be a solemn exposition.

        When the Monstrance contains the Sacred Host, the priest does not touch it with his bare hands, but instead, holds it with a humeral veil, a wide band of cloth that covers his shoulders (humera) and has pleats on the inside in which he places his hands.

        At all other times, the reserved Sacrament is kept locked in the Tabernacle, so that the faithful may pray in the presence of the Sacrament.

        “Perpetual Adoration” is Eucharistic Adoration round the clock (that is, twenty-four hours a day). A “Holy Hour” is “Eucharistic Adoration of Reparation” which lasts for about an hour.

        Adoration ceremonies traditionally include Scripture readings, hymns, prayers and time for silent adoration.

        Eucharistic exposition and benediction is a complete liturgical service.

        Eucharistic exposition and benediction is a complete liturgical service in its own right and is to be celebrated as such. Eucharistic exposition and benediction are no longer considered devotions, but rather are a part of the Church’s official liturgy.

        This liturgy is designed to “acknowledge Christ’s marvelous presence in the Sacrament and invites us to the spiritual union with Him that culminates in sacramental communion.” (Order for Solemn Exposition of the Holy Eucharist, number 7). In the past, benediction was sometimes added on to the end of another service or devotion, this is no longer done.

        O SACRAMENT MOST HOLY, O SACRAMENT DIVINE, ALL PRAISE AND ALL THANKSGIVING BE EVERY MOMENT THINE
        The Most Holy Sacrament is kept in a
        Tabernacle for the devotion of the faithful

        “Could you not watch one hour with Me?”

        Jesus waits for us in the Blessed Sacrament. He waits for our little Acts of faith, adoration, love, thanksgiving, repentance, reparation and charity that we can offer Him as we contemplate — His Divine Majesty — in the Blessed Sacrament.

        St. Alphonsus Liguori wrote: �Of all devotions, that of adoring Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is the greatest after the Sacraments, the one dearest to God and the one most helpful to us�. The Eucharist is a priceless treasure: By not only celebrating the Eucharist, but also by praying before It outside of Mass, we are enabled to make contact with the very wellsprings of Grace …”

        Pope John Paul II in one of his homilies said, �It is pleasant to spend time with Him, to lie close to His breast like the Beloved Disciple (cf. Jn 13:25) and to feel the infinite love present in His heart … If, in our time Christians must be distinguished by the �art of prayer�, how can we not feel a renewed need to spend time in spiritual conversation, in silent adoration, in heartfelt love before Christ present in the Most Holy Sacrament?�

        “The Lord is faithful to all His promises and loving toward all He has made.” (Ps 145:13)

        Day and night Jesus dwells in the Blessed Sacrament because of His Infinite love for us!

        Jesus gives us His body (to eat) so that He can nourish us, strengthen us and give us His own life ….. and lest we be blinded by His glory, He humbles Himself to come to us in the humble species of bread… “Behold I will be with you always even to the end of the world,” because “I have loved you with an everlasting love, and constant is My affection for you.” (Mt 28:20; Jer 31:3)

        How must we respond? ….Through our worship and recognition of Him in the Eucharist! He is calling us to faith, that we many come to Him in humility.

        “Come to Me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”

        Are you tired because of the burden of your duties, because of frustration due to unsuccessful projects, because many misunderstand you? Are you heavy laden with guilt from past sins? Are you trying to find hope and meaning in life? Do not lose heart! Abandon yourself to Jesus in this “Sacrament of Love”: He will refresh you!

        The more time you spend with Jesus, the more you will come away feeling renewed and healed. Miracles of conversion, peace, discovery of vocations, answers to prayers, physical healings, and many other wonderful things happen where and when the Lord Jesus is adored in the Blessed Sacrament. They are the “gifts” that point to the Almighty Giver and testify to His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament…

        Let us love being with the Lord! There we can speak with Him about everything. We can offer Him our petitions, our concerns, our troubles, our joys, our gratitude, our disappointments, our needs and our aspirations. Above all we can remember to pray: ‘Lord send laborers into Your harvest! Help me to be a good worker in Your vineyard!’

        When asked, “What would save the world?” … Mother Teresa replied: “My answer is prayer. What we need is for every parish to come before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament in holy hours of prayer.”

        “Remain in Me, as I remain in you.”

        We grow spiritually with each moment we spend with Jesus! Through our Adoration, Jesus calls us to a personal relationship (to become His friends and disciples), to “remain in Him” (Divine Intimacy), to “remain in His love” (Keep His commandments). He promises that all those who remain tightly bonded to Him, will bear much fruit and “their joy will be complete”. For without Him, we can do nothing.

        Through this “friendship”, we are inspired and strengthened to take on life’s challenges, to carry our daily cross with a new attitude, to become a “new creation” (more and more like Jesus).

        Through Eucharistic Adoration – we proclaim Jesus to the World.

        Eucharistic Adoration is an affirmation of our faith. Through this vigil of prayer, we give witness to our belief that God is truly dwelling with His people.

        “Love one another as I have loved you.”
        Eucharistic Adoration helps build a community of love.

        The Eucharist is the Sacrament of unity, Jesus unifying His people. Through the personal love, that one shares with the Saviour, one is more able to grasp the reality that we are the whole Body of Christ.

        Prayers as a community, especially intercessory prayers for the needs of the community and the World – help to build a “civilization of love” – to “transform the World”. The prayers that we say can draw the World and everybody in the World closer to Christ and to God the Father for His blessing.

        A Vision for Visions…

        Let us take a closer look at the sacred vessel, the Monstrance, that houses the Body, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. The Monstrance draws all eyes to the Sacred Host that is seemingly surrounded by rays, like the sun.

        Similarly, we each are called to be a “Living Monstrance”, radiating the presence of the Lord Who dwells in us.

        The Monstrance is surmounted by a Cross … what does this tell us?

        Let us look at Jesus in the Monstrance, Who humbles Himself to come before us as a piece of bread. Let us reflect on our own life’s situations that call us to humility. Are we humble, as God wants us to be, to bear our Crosses daily? Other virtues such as patience, temperance, self-control and piety will soon follow.

        A Taste of Heaven awaits us in Eucharistic Adoration!

        Indeed, Earth is joined to Heaven each time we are united with the Saints and Angels in extolling God, Who, in worship we see, if not with the sight of eyes, then with the eyes of faith.

        We are called to abide in the Eucharistic Presence of our Lord, like the Saints and Angels do in Heaven, as they behold the glory of God and sing His praise! The Saints and Angels wait upon the Lord and do His Will in all things. Their presence magnifies the Lord. They also intercede (for us) before the Lord.

        When we look upon the Sacred Host, we look at Jesus, the Son of God. Do we see Him in all His glory and majesty? Do our lips proclaim His praise? Do our souls magnify the Lord – making Him clearer, more in focus, and larger to others around us? Do we place the needs of others before Him? Are we open to the Will of God and strive for perfection in our spiritual lives so that we, too, may one day join the company of Saints in Heaven?

        It is at this moment when we are most intimately in communion with God that we experience a taste of Heaven, a foreshadowing of what it will be like, when, by God’s grace, we enter into everlasting life. “Indeed, this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks upon the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life. Him I will raise up on the last day.” (Jn 6:40)

        We Grow in Love for Jesus with Every Encounter.

        In John 21:16, Jesus asks Peter the question that will determine his whole life: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Jesus is asking each of us the same question: do you love me? Those of us who have an experience of love, know, that true love sets no conditions; it simply loves and yet it must be nurtured and nourished by intimacy, closeness or regular contact.

        It is the same with time spent in divine intimacy with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. How can our encounters with the Lord not cause us to fall more and more in love with Him? As we yield to such love, it will prompt hunger for Scripture and the Sacraments as we seek to know and experience Him on a deeper level. It will make us remember Him throughout the day, inspire us to do little things “just for Him” and try and make ourselves more attractive to Him by lives of purity and holiness. And yet, we should not feel discouraged if we cannot love Him fully because Jesus assures us that He will always love us with a love that surpasses all.

        “O God, You are my God — for You I long!”

        In Psalm 63, the Psalmist longs for divine life, which is based on a close relationship with God. The Psalm most beautifully expresses the intimate relationship between God and the one who worships Him in His holy Temple.

        Such must be OUR love and total self-giving to Jesus, exposed on the Altar, for our sake!

        “O God, You are my God — for You I long! For You my body yearns; for You my soul thirsts, like a land parched, lifeless, and without water. So I look to You in the Sanctuary to see Your power and glory. For Your love is better than life; my lips offer You worship! I will bless You as long as I live; I will lift up my hands, calling on Your name. My soul shall savor the rich banquet of praise, with joyous lips my mouth shall honor You!”

        Jesus asks for so little…. Yet, He gives so much!

        “This – The Eucharist – the whole Christ” is His gift to all. Whether we are young or old, sick or healthy, poor or rich, only by regularly partaking in the sacrifice of the Holy Mass and Eucharistic Adoration, can we reap immense spiritual and temporal blessings in our lives!

        The Blessed Sacrament is the LIVING FOUNTAIN OF LIFE where we drink in the love of Christ Who alone quenches our thirst.

        Thus, our time spent with our Beloved Saviour in Adoration, can become the most profound, meaningful, joyful, peaceful and healing experience we could ever encounter!

        May our adoration never cease!
        _________________________________________________
        So what am i too conclude about you two as you go on, and on, and on. I can only conclude 1 of 2 things. You are either incredibly ignorant about the teaching of your own church. You avoid the consequences of logic like the plague. OR you are intentionally misleading others. I can go on the internet on thousands of sites, where the Roman doctrine is proudly announced. You would be condemned by your own bishops for saying you do not worship the “bread god”. Of course they would fancy it up by saying “the eucharistic presence” “the eucharistic mystery” etc.

        When you bow before a judge you are honoring the office. When you bow before bread its because you believe it is jesus christ.

        Gus

        1. Gus, I think you should know both Bob and CK are devout Catholics. Bob poses as a methodist but isnt. CK is one of her many blog names. She was my wifes best friend and maid of honor in our wedding. She is a cradle Catholic and is not acting out of ignorance. She believes every word of Roman doctrine. I believe Bob knows CK, but its just my opinion. CK’s beef with me is personal after I gave them my paper condemning Roman Catholic doctrine. I will not say anymore. I have made a commitment not to address them here. But as you proceed I thought you should have some background. God bless k

          1. Kevin! I’m not a she and I’m not your wife’s ex-friend. I’ve told you this many times! You are so paranoid. Didn’t you also think I was BOB at one time? My beef with you started when you were extremely rude to your ex-wife’s friend at CCC. I don’t appreciate men being jerks to women. Call me old fashioned. I know nothing else about you other than how you present yourself online.

            BOB we don’t know each other, but I do live in Texas (I thought you were from East Texas). I live north of Dallas (Frisco).

        2. Dr. Gus – If the Eucharist is not the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ then I would be committing idolatry and would promptly leave the Catholic Church.

          I happen to take Jesus at His word even though it’s a “hard saying”.

  16. Trent–

    The second, however repugnant it may appear to the senses, is that none of the substance of the elements remains in the Sacrament.

    —Canon VI. If any one shall say, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the
    only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with even the worship external of latria,
    and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive celebration, nor to be
    solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and
    custom of the holy Church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be
    worshipped, and that the worshippers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema

    The english translation of the anathemas can be found here:
    http://heritagebiblechurch.com/PDFs/Facts/Trent.pdf

    Gus
    Give me the name of your priest so that i can report that you do NOT worship the host.

    1. Y’know Gus, I detect no evidence of idolatry in the description of the Catholic Eucharist you just gave:
      idolatry
      noun | idol·a·try | \-trē\
      1 : the worship of a picture or object as a god

      If Christ said “This is My Body and This is My Blood”, then I should believe it whether I understand how that happens or not. The Catholics say transubstantiation. Great. I do not have the knowledge to dispute it as they have defined it. I agree with John Wesley. He proclaims the Body and Blood is present, but he does not define how. It’s just a mystery. That’s good enough for me. I do not have to know the exact temporal or eternal properties to believe. And neither does a child. A miracle is something that defies explanation.
      Do you think it is impossible for Jesus to make present His Body and His Blood in the elements of the sacrament? I don’t.
      Why would He say so if He doesn’t?

  17. Gus, ” It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” can it be any clearer brother. I mean he basically tells them knock off the carnality. But Romanists love their carnal doctrines. Here is what Paul said ” the one who joins himself to the Lord is one SPIRIT with Him. We are incorporated into His body through the SPIRIT not the flesh. They lust for that wafer, they got to get it to live, dying kidney patients. Amazing. Here is what John said ” by this we overcome the world, our faith. K

    1. The flesh profits nothing. That’s a weird think for Jesus to say after commanding his disciples to eat His flesh.

      Either Jesus flesh profits nothing or your interpretation is off. Couldn’t be any clearer.

      1. ” The flesh profits nothing, Thats a wierd thing to say” You deny He said it, I quoted it in verse 63 ” the words I speak are spirit, the FLESH profits nothing. ” what does the flesh profits nothing mean? No Catholic will ever answer that for me ? K ” for the one who joins himself to the Lord is one SPIRIT with Him” You can eat His flesh all day, your body is going to die. But if you eat the scroll of the Word by faith alone in Christ alone, now therein lies eternal lfe. Eating and drinking is simply coming and believing. Here is what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:16″ Therefore, we recognize no one according to the flesh, even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet we know Him in this way NO LONGER.” Repent of the carnal doctrines of Rome, its idolatries, its meritocracy, God is calling you out Revelations 18:4.

        1. Kevin said – You deny He said it, I quoted it in verse 63 ” the words I speak are spirit, the FLESH profits nothing. ” what does the flesh profits nothing mean? No Catholic will ever answer that for me ? K ”

          Me – If you really wanted a Catholic answer there are plenty of places to get one. So spare me the drama. Let me give it a shot.

          Jesus is saying that he speaking of things of the spirit and the disciples are thinking earthly and it profits nothing. That’s why He didn’t try to explain it any further. Jesus meant what He said and It was beyond the disciples and apostles grasp at that point in time.

          “If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?”
          ‭‭John‬ ‭3:12‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

          Kevin said – You can eat His flesh all day, your body is going to die. You sound like these guys-
          “The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?””
          ‭‭John‬ ‭6:52‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

          Me – I’ll go with Jesus
          “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
          ‭‭John‬ ‭6:54-55‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

          1. Or maybe it means what He says it means, that all the words He said are to be taken spiritually, not physically. Augustine said the same thing, that in John 6 we are not to invite a crime or vice by taking it literally, but it is to be taken spiritually by coming and believing. That it is the SPIRIT who gives life. And that Spirit brings true believers, the ones trusting in Christ’s righteouness alone to get them to heaven, to repentance and faith. Listen again to Paul, ” the one who joins himself to the Lord is one SPIRIT with Him” CK, if I am one Spirit with Christ in faith, if I posess all things pertaining to life and Godliness scripture says, and scripture tells me im COMPLETE in Christ, why would I believe in a church that tells me I must go to its mass over and over to earn more of God’s grace, or eat His literal flesh to be saved. And why would I ever ask Jesus mother for anything, or pray to a saint. You are in a false system. But you refuse to take seriously all the things Tm has provided here for you to understand. And thats ashame. Rome can only offer a system of death, the gospel pure and simple, one a child can understand is the antithesis of the Roman system, For the righteous shall LIVE by faith. Do you love Jesus and His gospel, if you do you will leave that church. I csn say nothing else to you. There are many on Tim’ s blog, including Tim, who have opened the scriptures and ridden the mercy train out of works righteousness to Zion. All the best. K

          2. ” you sound like these guys ” the jews quarleled among themselves saing ” How can this man give us His flesh to eat” exactly, you make my point for me. They took Him literally like a Roman Catholic and walked away in UNBELIEF. Physical/ litteral= unbelief, . Spiritual = eternal life. You get it yet. K

          3. Kevin said – you sound like these guys ” the jews quarleled among themselves saing ” How can this man give us His flesh to eat” exactly, you make my point for me. They took Him literally like a Roman Catholic and walked away in UNBELIEF. Physical/ litteral= unbelief, . Spiritual = eternal life. You get it yet. K

            Me – so they took Him literally and walked away. Jesus who wants all men to be saved didn’t bother explaining it more clearly and let them fall away from Him on a misunderstanding.

  18. CK , how would you know I was rude to my wife’s ex friend on CCC , you dont know who her ex friend is? But my wife’s ex friend did say 1000 times what you said to me in a earlier post, ” and Kevin making use of paragraphs. ” You once told me CK stands for Catholic Kevin. Lol It really stands for catholic Kevin, the one who believes jbfa, denies the idolatry of Mary, Jesus wafer, and the denies the worthiness of merit gospel. Blessings.

    1. Kevin I didn’t know your relationship with her at the time. I was just calling out your behavior. YOU filled in the blanks later.

      Dude! You mean to tell me that no else has ever pointed out the obvious fact that you type like you don’t know where the enter key is?

      Say it ain’t so!

  19. Longfellow the famous poet didnt use punctuation, he is famous. I have too much to say to stop and punctuate. But I did graduate magna cum laude from college if that helps. K

    1. That’s nice, but if you want people to take the time to read what you write, shouldn’t you take the time to make it easier to read what you have to say?

      Mediate on how patient the Blessed Mary was with God’s plan for her and pray for her kind of patience when you are writing.

  20. ” you also, as living stones, are being built up as a SPIRITUAL house, for a holy priesthood ( we are God’s cleras, clergy), to offer up SPIRITUAL sacrifices acceptable to God thru Jesus Christ. ” and he wo believes in Him will not be disappointed. But you are a CHOSEN race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own posession, so that you you may proclaim the excellencies of Him wo called you out of darkness into light. ” we are not to exalt men. Peter taught us this as he told a man who bowed to him to get up, that he was a fellow elder and man like him. . Believers are a royal priesthood, a spiritual house, chosen by God to offer Him spiritual sacrifices of thanksgiving and praise. He calls me his own posession, holy, and tells me I have been called out of darkness, out of the domain of darkness into the light. I firmly believe the early church as it progressed exalted bishops to such a level it drowned out the priesthood of believers. The bishop, who deserves the respect scripture calls for as he is faithful to the word of God, became too important in the church. Thats why you have those who exalt men acuse christians of ” bible only” or” independents. ” But they indict themselves as exalting men. Whether it is required submission to a pope, or required submission to Scottish reformers as if they spoke revelatory. Christians are God’s cleras, and are comanded to judge the church, doctrinal error, ” if someone comes to you and says I am the Christ, DONT believe him. ” The sense in 1 Corinthians is that Paul says judge me, judge for yourselves. The Bereans did just that. And here should be our first clue, when any man says we must submit to him to be saved, or we must submit to a group of men. A Catholic must believe that the pope is the vicar of the Son of God, but no sinful can make that haughty claim. There is only one vicar that proceedsvfrom the Father and the Son, the Spirit of God. K

  21. KEVIN–
    You said: ” you also, as living stones, are being built up as a SPIRITUAL house, for a holy priesthood ( we are God’s cleras, clergy), to offer up SPIRITUAL sacrifices acceptable to God thru Jesus Christ. ”

    It has just dawned on me that you do not grasp the difference between substance and accidents.
    Substance = spiritual
    Accidents = empirical or carnal

    You said: ” the words I speak are spirit, the FLESH profits nothing. ” what does the flesh profits nothing mean? No Catholic will ever answer that for me.”

    How about a Methodist? Read it this way:
    ” the words I speak are spirit (substance), the FLESH (ACCIDENTS) profits nothing. ”
    In the Eucharist, the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine are transformed into the SUBSTANCE of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because His words are SPIRIT and LIFE. The ACCIDENTS of the bread and wine remain and are not transformed because the FLESH profits nothing.

    That’s why the Roman Catholics call it TRANSUSTANTIATION:
    TRANS–SUBSTANCE.
    Trans- meaning a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin ( transcend; transfix); on this model, used with the meanings “across,” “beyond,” “through,” “changing thoroughly,” “transverse,” in combination with elements of any origin

    and coupled with

    Substance meaning the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; the “being” or essence.
    I’m a dumb ol’ Texas Methodist and even I can understand that definition.

    Now, if I am correct in my understanding of transubstantiation, I do not have the knowledge to dispute the Roman Catholic claim. That is their way of explaining it. Therefore, I cannot truthfully say otherwise except that it is a mystery to me and I cannot define how Christ works that miracle.

  22. 1st Aristotle 5:16. Big white dog, you cant have a big white without the dog. Substance cant be separated from accidents. It just hit me you dont understand substance and accidents.

  23. KEVIN–
    You said: “Substance cant be separated from accidents. It just hit me you dont understand substance and accidents.”

    Seems like you don’t understand miracles. “All things are possible with God.” Now where did I read that recently….oh yeah–from YOU!

    1. That’s rich coming from a Romanist. Aquinas would be very pleased with you. How do you define substance and accidents?
      NONSENSE! Aristotelian and Thomistic nonsense. You’re in way over your head. You cannot separate “ousia” or “hypostasis” from attributes. To say that you can have an essence without characteristics or attributes is the kind of inane stupidity that has led to transubstantiation, and the discrediting of all philosophy in the eyes of most intelligent people. Ontology influences epistemology and the separation of accidents from ousia has led to epistemological crisis, and so now we have Postmodernism. Postmodernism is the belief that language has no regulative content, and is incapable of giving any regulative content. All semaphores are ostensive, and denotative and connotative definitions are metaphysically nonsensical because talk of anything beyond sensibles violates the principle of observational falsifiability. There is an answer but I am not going to share it with you.

      Doctor Gus

      1. DR GUS–
        You said: “You’re in way over your head.”

        That’s why I said ” I do not have the knowledge to dispute the Roman Catholic claim. That is their way of explaining it. Therefore, I cannot truthfully say otherwise except that it is a mystery to me and I cannot define how Christ works that miracle.”

        You also said: “talk of anything beyond sensibles violates the principle of observational falsifiability. There is an answer but I am not going to share it with you.”

        Why? Because you think I’m a scoffer? It takes one to know one. I suppose your un-revealable answer will also explain the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection as well? Good luck keeping that secret.

        1. Actually it does explain the trinity incarnation and resurrection. But what do you need to know for, and why do you need to know? After all you have implicit faith that everything the church teaches you is true.

          Good luck on making it to heaven. As far as i know there are no simple-minded idiots there.

          Gus

          1. DR. GUS–
            You said: “Good luck on making it to heaven. As far as i know there are no simple-minded idiots there.”

            Really? So only the intelligent are allowed in. Where’s that in the bible?

  24. Bob–
    ___________________________________________
    Author: BOB
    Comment:
    For those readers of Tim’s interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, there is something you should know.

    “The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the late 5th century. Romulus Augustulus is often considered to be the last emperor of the west after his forced abdication in 476, although Julius Nepos maintained a claim to the title until his death in 480. Meanwhile, in the east, emperors continued to rule from Constantinople (“New Rome”); these are referred to in modern scholarship as “Byzantine emperor” but they used no such title and called themselves “Roman Emperor” (βασιλεύς Ῥωμαίων). Constantine XI was the last Byzantine Roman emperor in Constantinople, dying in the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453. Due to the cultural rupture of the Turkish conquest, most western historians treat Constantine XI as the last meaningful claimant to the title Roman Emperor, although from this date Ottoman rulers were titled “Caesar of Rome” (Turkish: Kayser-i Rum) until the Ottoman Empire ended in 1922. A Byzantine group of claimant Roman Emperors existed in the Empire of Trebizond until its conquest by the Ottomans in 1461. In western Europe the title of Roman Emperor was revived by Germanic rulers, the “Holy Roman Emperors”, in 800, and was used until 1806.”

    Tim’s historist view of the Fourth Beast in Daniel does not match what actually happened in history. History is clear that the Roman Empire did not end with the fall of Rome.
    __________________________________

    There’s no greater fool than the amateur who thinks he knows what he’s talking about. History is written by the winners. The above does not nullify Tim’s interpretation because Tim’s interpretation is an exegetical one, and not based on the ‘accidents” of history. After all, there’s the essence of history and then there’s the accidents. And Peter was the first Pope. By the way your first “pope” was married.

    Dr. Gus

    1. Dr Gus, and by the way their first ” pope” told a man who kneeled before him, to get up he was just a man and a fellow elder. Virginia slims, we’ve come a long way baby. K

      1. KEVIN–
        You said: “Virginia slims, we’ve come a long way baby.”

        And I’d walk a mile for a Camel, but I don’t smoke anymore.

    2. DR GUS–
      You said: “There’s no greater fool than the amateur History is written by the winners.”

      Yes there is. It’s the professional who thinks he knows what he’s talking about. So tell me, how does history look like when it’s written by losers?

      You also said: “The above does not nullify Tim’s interpretation because Tim’s interpretation is an exegetical one, and not based on the ‘accidents” of history. After all, there’s the essence of history and then there’s the accidents.”

      I thought the whole point of historicism is to match bible prophecy to what actually happened in history. My mistake. Maybe it’s just a matter of interpretation–winners or losers.

      You also said: “And Peter was the first Pope. By the way your first “pope” was married.”

      And I hope his children grew up to be humble and did not reject the faith of their father.

      1. It doesnt look like anything you would understand. Lets see the losers, Protestants burned at the stake, pregnant women ripped apart by the inquisition, Jews in spain forced to convert or be evicted by the Spaniards from their homes. The problem with you is that you have contempt for learning and intellectual honesty. You pride yourself on your ignorance. You are arrogantly ignorant. Rest assured your place at your final destination is assured.

        Gus

        1. DR. GUS–
          You said: “Rest assured your place at your final destination is assured.”

          So are the redundant allowed in, too?

        2. Dr Gus said – Lets see the losers, Protestants burned at the stake, pregnant women ripped apart by the inquisition, Jews in spain forced to convert or be evicted by the Spaniards from their homes. The problem with you is that you have contempt for learning and intellectual honesty. You pride yourself on your ignorance.

          Me – any religion that does any of those things can’t be the true religion. Goodbye Christianity!

          Oh, let me guess…you will somehow exempt Protestantism from this…

  25. Gus, ” I hope Peter’s children grew up and didnt reject the faith of his father ” I hope they didnt reject the Reformed faith either, I only hope they rejected the false gospel, history, idolatry, mystycism, superstition and gentile judaism of Roman Catholicism. K

  26. Gus, Aunt Tilly’s soul flying from purgatory when the coin hits the bottom of the coffer, when did that faith start? I often am amazed how cradle Roman Catholics can support a church that says you get to heaven by paying money to the church. I could never say that a church who sells Christ’s merits is the true church of Christ. Delusion of the highest order. K

    1. As far as i know they are STILL saying requiem masses for my dead dad. They haven’t asked me for more money yet. Maybe that’s why the irish used to bury their dead with coins on their eyes–to pay there way out of hell!

      Gus

      1. The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church. (refer to Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences Council of Trent)

        1. BOB, they all know this but they exempt themselves from the commandment not to bear false witness! It’s for the greater good. That’s why they are quick to point out horrors committed by Catholic leaders as proof that Catholicism is not true, but ignore Protestant crimes.

          1. CK, Catholicism is not true because it has 1. A false revelation and tradition in the magisterium. 2. It has a false power granted to that magisterium, papal curia. 3. It has a false priesthood. 4. Motivated by money ,it invented purgatory and the selling of Christ’s merits. 5. It teaches we participate in our salvation by our works. It exalts Mary to above Christ and even God. 6. It paticipates in the idolatry and sacrifice of the mass, denying Christ’s once sufficient atonement. 7. It requires submission to a mere sinner like ourselves as the head of the church and the Vicar of the Son of God. The bible says you shall know them by their fruits. Make no mistake ,Rome is the antichrist of scripture, a false christianity, apostate, a front for the kingdom of Satan. It has bewitched its people and the gullible world. Those who trust this system are in no sense christian, but idolators and lost in a system of works righteousness. These statements about the church you love and worship are not ” bearing false witness” but the truth from scripture. CK, realize, false religion always cries disunity and intolerance when confronted. Tim has pointed this out to me, the biggest lie perpetuated is that the early church was Roman Catholic, it was anything but. Rome’s novel doctrines can be easily seen at the end of the 4th century. The Roman bishops were always petulant, arrogant, always being rebuked by other bishops. And finally biblical prophecy arose Ponifus Maximus passed on to the pope and the rise of the Roman antichrist. Its own religion, and its own leader. You have followed after the beast and its image. And acusing Protestants of bearing false witness wont change these facts. K

  27. Gus, Article: Catholic church sells indulgences again. By Ed Brayden. Plenary, Partial. When a bishop is asked why, he says there is still sin in the world. All of sin wasnt payed for by Christ on the cross. Catholics have to burn off their temporal punishment. Partial indulgence doesnt eliminate all of it. Plenary takes care of the whole enchilada. Selling Christ’s merits. What a sick religion. K

  28. sigh___________
    Author: BOB
    Comment:
    DR. GUS–
    You said: “Good luck on making it to heaven. As far as i know there are no simple-minded idiots there.”

    Really? So only the intelligent are allowed in. Where’s that in the bible?
    Answer:
    6 A senseless man does not know, Nor does a fool understand this. 7 When the wicked spring up like grass, And when all the workers of iniquity flourish, It is that they may be destroyed forever. (Ps. 92:6-7 NKJ)

    Gus

    1. DR GUS–
      You said: “Answer:
      6 A senseless man does not know, Nor does a fool understand this. 7 When the wicked spring up like grass, And when all the workers of iniquity flourish, It is that they may be destroyed forever. (Ps. 92:6-7 NKJ)”

      SIGH——
      Nowhere in those verses does it say that only the intelligent are allowed into heaven. And it says nothing about barring the senseless man or fool from heaven. Those verses say that the wicked and workers of iniquity will be destroyed forever. But the senseless and foolish don’t see that because they see the wicked and workers of iniquity flourishing.

      It’s no wonder why you support Tim’s writings. You, too, try to make the bible say what it really doesn’t say.

        1. It sure doesn’t say anything about 13 kings nor does it say anything about a fifth empire. That is only your bogus conclusion to make it fit your agenda.

          1. Bob, you wrote,

            “It sure doesn’t say anything about 13 kings nor does it say anything about a fifth empire.”

            And you know this how?

          2. Sola Scriptura in action, where two or more people can read the same verses & “feel” they are right!

            All three of us should do what the scripture tell us to do when there’s a disagreement. Take it to the “invisible ” church! Well it doesn’t say invisible but we know the author implies it 😜

            If God could only make it visible so we could ask.

          3. CK,

            By “visible” Church I’m assuming you mean to refer to Roman Catholicism. Ok, let’s take it to Roman Catholicism.

            The problem is that Roman Catholicism has only “infallibly” interpreted five or six verses of Scripture. It is very likely that the verse about which we disagree is one that has not been interpreted infallibly. What then? What, for example, are two Roman Catholics to do who do not agree on what the Scriptures teach when Roman Catholicism cannot and does not help them? I mean, they’re already Roman Catholic, so shouldn’t they agree already?

            For example, sayeth Taylor Marshall, the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome (The Eternal City: Rome & the Origins of Catholic Christianity, Kindle Edition).

            But sayeth the US Conference of Catholic Bishops,

            “… the four succeeding world kingdoms [are] Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Greek …”

            What should Marshall and the USCCB do? Should the USCCB submit to Marshall? Marshall to the USCCB? In what way is the problem “solved” by going to the “visible Church”?

            Thanks,

            Tim

      1. Gus, A Roman Catholic saying that we make the bible say what it doesnt say. I love that. Thats better than the National championship game tonight. The church that makes the bible say what it doesnt say telling Protestants that. Wow. K

  29. Bob—
    Author: BOB
    Comment:
    DR. GUS–
    You said: “Rest assured your place at your final destination is assured.”

    So are the redundant allowed in, too?
    ———————————————
    God is redundant. He repeats and repeats and repeats so your heart will become harder and harder so that you will mock more and more so that he can judge harsher…harsher…harshest!

    Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
    2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
    4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: (Rom. 2:1-6 NKJ)

  30. Bob
    —————————————
    Author: BOB
    Comment:
    The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences–but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church. (refer to Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences Council of Trent)
    ————————

    bullsh*t. Youre a liar.
    What are papal indulgences?
    Expert answer by James Hough CONFIDENCE VOTES 24.2K
    I am a Benedictine Oblate of Saint Vincent Archabbey, I teach RCIA and Catechism classes in my parish.
    Catholic Answer
    A papal indulgence is just an indulgence which has been granted by the Pope for the benefit of all the faithful. By the way, it is exactly the same thing now as it was five hundred years ago, except that there aren’t as many available for alms.

    from Radio Replies, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, 1942

    994. I have heard Catholics speak of indulgences for the souls in purgatory? What are indulgences?
    Do not mix up the ecclesiastical term indulgence with the modern idea of self-indulgence. An indulgence is not a permission to indulge in sin, but is a remission of punishment due to sin. Now in the early Christian Church certain sins were punished by long public penance, sometimes for days, at other times for years. But the Church was often indulgent, and loosed or freed Christians from all or part of their public penance, if they showed other good dispositions, or performed certain works of charity. The Church had that power in the name of God as surely as the state has the power in its own name to commute a sentence or even release a criminal altogether under certain circumstances. Christ said to the Church, “Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt. XVIII., 18. That the merits of Christ and of the Martyrs and Saints of the ages are at the disposal of the Church is also a consequence of the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints. And that power of commuting or even of remitting penances and expiations exists in the Church to-day, being exercised by the granting of indulgences.
    995. What do you mean by an indulgence, say, of forty days?
    An indulgence of forty days means that the Church liberates us from that amount of expiation of our sins which would be equal to a forty days’ public penance in the early Church. It does not mean forty days less purgatory. Such an indulgence is called a partial indulgence.
    997. Can indulgences be applied to the souls in purgatory?
    Yes, but by God alone. We can but ask Him to accept indulgences on their behalf. But we can certainly offer them with a definite conviction of their normal acceptance by God for those we love, even as we can share our goods in this life with more needy friends. This too is implied by the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

    http://www.the-pope.com/purg.html
    Specifically:

    In the Middle Ages abuses could and did take place when these papal grants were not used properly, especially when they were used by some ecclesiastics for financial gain. For example, among the good works which were indulgenced at that time was that of almsgiving for the poor. The money was given to the clerics, and unfortunately not all of it reached the poor. This abuse was corrected by St. Pius V back in 1567 when he cancelled all indulgences involving any fees or other money transactions. This decree of the Pope is strictly observed in the Church to this day.

    There was also the abuse of falsifying the indulgence grants. This occurred when some ecclesiastics, who had been empowered by the Pope to grant a partial indulgence of, let us say, 30 days, would announce falsely to the people that it was an indulgence of 300 days. They thus falsified the papal grant and multiplied the value of the indulgence with the hope of a greater financial profit. This abuse is not possible today because since Pope Paul VI’s revision of the practice of indulgences there is no longer any designation of days, months or years. The partial indulgence is simply called partial.

    There were also abuses by those receiving indulgences. For example, at one time certain privileged churches could be used by the faithful to receive a plenary indulgence “toties quoties”, that is, as often as they went into the church and said certain prayers they could receive a plenary indulgence. Some of the faithful abused this grant by entering and re-entering the church many times on the same day in order to gain many plenary indulgences each day. This abuse can no longer take place since Pope Paul VI’s revision of indulgences in 1967 when he declared that only one plenary indulgence may be acquired in the course of one day.

    Back in the sixteenth century the construction of churches, monasteries and hospitals was often made possible by the offerings of the faithful which were made at the time of receiving an indulgence. Unfortunately this sometimes gave the appearance of purchasing an indulgence when abuses occurred.

    In Martin Luther’s time, in the sixteenth century, there took place in some German cities and towns a preaching of an indulgence for the re-building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
    ——————-
    Romanism has in the past approved of the sale of indulgences. It corrected the most obvious abuses. Now they are not sold, its just that its a good idea to put in an offering when one is granted. Ya–sure!

    Now rome is not so crass as to demand money it is far more spiritual for it asserts that if an article of devotion is blessed by bishop or pontiff an indulgence can be gained. I wonder if any money changes hands, even indirectly for an article of devotion?
    ———-
    In the third edition of the Enchiridion which was approved by Pope John Paul II and published on May 18, 1986 there is an interesting addition which affects this writing. It is something completely new. In the first edition of the Enchiridion (1968) there is the grant of indulgences connected with the use of articles of devotion. This grant was worded thus: “The faithful, who devoutly use an article of devotion (crucifix or cross, rosary, scapular or medal) properly blessed by any priest, obtain a partial indulgence.” The third edition of the Enchiridion (1986) adds, after the words “properly blessed by any priest” the words “or a deacon.” From this we see that a deacon now has the power to bless those articles of devotion.

    Both editions of the Enchiridion have the following: “But if the article of devotion has been blessed by the Sovreign Pontiff or by any Bishop, the faithful, using it (devoutly) can also gain a plenary indulgence on the feast of the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, provided they also make a profession of faith according to any legitimate formula.”
    ———-
    http://www.papalblessedrosaries.com/
    http://www.ebay.com/gds/The-Sale-of-Religious-Items-Blessed-by-the-Pope-/10000000003814500/g.html

    8 “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9 “Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, 10 “nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food. 11 “Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. (Matt. 10:8-11 NKJ)

    18 And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! 21 “You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 “Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 “For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.” (Acts 8:18-23 NKJ)

    1. DR. GUS–
      You said: “bullsh*t. Youre a liar. What are papal indulgences?
      Expert answer by James Hough CONFIDENCE VOTES 24.2K….
      from Radio Replies, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, 1942
      994. I have heard Catholics speak of indulgences for the souls in purgatory? What are indulgences?
      Do not mix up the ecclesiastical term indulgence with the modern idea of self-indulgence. An indulgence is not a permission to indulge in sin, but is a remission of punishment due to sin….
      Unfortunately this sometimes gave the appearance of purchasing an indulgence when abuses occurred….
      In Martin Luther’s time, in the sixteenth century, there took place in some German cities and towns a preaching of an indulgence for the re-building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome….
      Romanism has in the past approved of the sale of indulgences. It corrected the most obvious abuses. Now they are not sold, its just that its a good idea to put in an offering when one is granted. Ya–sure!”

      There is nothing in what you quoted above that says the Roman Church approved of the selling of indulgences. You’re just a scoffer. Were there abuses? Sure. Peccability has never been denied.

      Dr. Gus, does your church sell weddings or is it just customary to pay the preacher for doing the service? Because it just might look to an outsider that your church sells weddings. You can try and explain it to them but they can still say
      “Ya–sure!”

  31. CK said
    ——
    Author: CK
    Comment:
    Dr Gus said – Lets see the losers, Protestants burned at the stake, pregnant women ripped apart by the inquisition, Jews in spain forced to convert or be evicted by the Spaniards from their homes. The problem with you is that you have contempt for learning and intellectual honesty. You pride yourself on your ignorance.

    Me – any religion that does any of those things can’t be the true religion. Goodbye Christianity!

    Oh, let me guess…you will somehow exempt Protestantism from this…
    ____
    Don’t prove how much of a jackass you are. Keep your mouth shut and keep me wondering.

    28 Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive. (Prov. 17:28 NKJ)

    NO protestant roman catholic Jew or muslim who does evil in the name of religion is excused. But name me one protestant, JUST ONE that with the approval of his pastor, put a pregnant woman on the rack and cut her in half. I can give you story after story after story documented in historical books. You know the ones written by the losers.

    St. Bartholemew’s Day Massacre, France August 22 1572 instigated by Roman preachers from their pulpits:
    At Bordeaux, at the instigation of a villainous monk, who used to urge the papists to slaughter in his sermons, two hundred and sixty-four were cruelly murdered; some of them senators. Another of the same pious fraternity produced a similar slaughter at Agendicum, in Maine, where the populace at the holy inquisitors’ satanical suggestion, ran upon the Protestants, slew them, plundered their houses, and pulled
    down their church. The duke of Guise, entering into Blois, suffered his soldiers to fly upon the spoil, and slay or drown all the Protestants they could find. In this they spared neither age nor sex; defiling the women, and then murdering them; from whence he went to Mere, and committed the same outrages for many days together. Here they found a minister named Cassebonius, and threw him into the river.
    ———————-
    http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Foxes%20Book%20of%20Martyrs.pdf. See especially Ch. 5 that recounts this gem of Roman piety—
    ———————————–
    At the head of these inquisitors was one Dominic, who had been canonized by the pope, in order to render
    his authority the more respectable. Dominic, and the other inquisitors, spread themselves into various Roman
    Catholic countries, and treated the Protestants with the utmost severity. In process of time, the pope, not
    finding these roving inquisitors so useful as he had imagined, resolved upon the establishment of fixed and
    regular courts of Inquisition. After the order for these regular courts, the first office of Inquisition was
    established in the city of Toulouse, and Dominic became the first regular inquisitor, as he had before been
    the first roving inquisitor.

    At the first time of torturing, six executioners entered, stripped him naked to his drawers, and laid him upon
    his back on a kind of stand, elevated a few feet from the floor. The operation commenced by putting an iron
    collar round his neck, and a ring to each foot, which fastened him to the stand. His limbs being thus stretched
    out, they wound two ropes round each thigh; which ropes being passed under the scaffold, through holes
    made for that purpose, were all drawn tight at the same instant of time, by four of the men, on a given signal.
    It is easy to conceive that the pains which immediately succeeded were intolerable; the ropes, which were of
    a small size, cut through the prisoner’s flesh to the bone, making the blood to gush out at eight different
    places thus bound at a time. As the prisoner persisted in not making any confession of what the inquisitors
    required, the ropes were drawn in this manner four times successively.
    The manner of inflicting the second torture was as follows: they forced his arms backwards so that the palms
    of his hands were turned outward behind him; when, by means of a rope that fastened them together at the
    wrists, and which was turned by an engine, they drew them by degrees nearer each other, in such a manner
    that the back of each hand touched, and stood exactly parallel to each other. In consequence of this violent
    contortion, both his shoulders became dislocated, and a considerable quantity of blood issued from his
    mouth. This torture was repeated thrice; after which he was again taken to the dungeon, and the surgeon set
    the dislocated bones.
    Two months after the second torture, the prisoner being a little recovered, was again ordered to the torture
    room, and there, for the last time, made to undergo another kind of punishment, which was inflicted twice
    without any intermission. The executioners fastened a thick iron chain round his body, which crossing at the
    breast, terminated at the wrists. They then placed him with his back against a thick board, at each extremity
    whereof was a pulley, through which there ran a rope that caught the end of the chain at his wrists. The
    executioner then, stretching the end of his rope by means of a roller, placed at a distance behind him, pressed
    or bruised his stomach in proportion as the ends of the chains were drawn tighter. They tortured him in this
    manner to such a degree, that his wrists, as well as his shoulders, were quite dislocated. They were, however,
    soon set by the surgeons; but the barbarians, not yet satisfied with this species of cruelty, made him
    immediately undergo the like torture a second time, which he sustained (though, if possible, attended with
    keener pains,) with equal constancy and resolution. After this, he was again remanded to the dungeon,
    attended by the surgeon to dress his bruises and adjust the part dislocated, and here he continued until their
    auto da fe, or jail delivery, when he was discharged, crippled and diseased for life.

    At Orleans, a thousand were slain of men, women, and children, and six thousand at Rouen
    “In the meantime, all the friends of Coligny were assassinated throughout Paris; men, women, and children
    were promiscuously slaughtered and every street was strewed with expiring bodies. Some priests, holding up
    a crucifix in one hand, and a dagger in the other, ran to the chiefs of the murderers, and strongly exhorted
    them to spare neither relations nor friends.
    At Anjou, they slew Albiacus, a minister; and many women were defiled and murdered there; among whom
    were two sisters, abused before their father, whom the assassins bound to a wall to see them, and then slew
    them and him.
    After this followed the burnings of the twenty-one men and women, whose intrepidity in suffering that horrid
    death was truly astonishing. The king’s near situation to the criminals rendered their dying groans very
    audible to him; he could not, however, be absent from this dreadful scene, as it is esteemed a religious one;
    and his coronation oath obliged him to give a sanction by his presence to all the acts of the tribunal.
    One of the monks who attended the cardinal, being naturally of a savage and cruel disposition, requested of
    him that he might shed some of the blood of these poor people with his own hands; when his request being
    granted, the barbarous man took a large sharp knife, and cut the throats of fourscore men, women, and
    children, with as little remorse as a butcher would have killed so many sheep. Every one of these bodies were
    then ordered to be quartered, the quarters placed upon stakes, and then fixed in different parts of the country,
    within a circuit of thirty miles.

    Sixty women were racked so violently, that the cords pierced their arms and legs close to the bone; when,
    being remanded to prison, their wounds mortified, and they died in the most miserable manner. Many others
    were put to death by various cruel means; and if any Roman Catholic, more compassionate than the rest,
    interceded for any of the reformed, he was immediately apprehended, and shared the same fate as a favorer
    of heretics.
    _______________________________________
    So your right any religion that does this cannot be true Christianity. Roman Catholicism does this therefore it cannot be true christianity. You said in that case “goodbye Christianity”.

    Your a person of your word right? You’re not a conniving lying scoundrel, a hypocrite who likes to troll sites for the malicious glee of corrupting people and lying to them. So i fully expect that tomorrow you will announce one of two things:
    a. Your an atheist.
    b. Your a protestant because no protestant has ever claimed the authority of jesus christ while he rapes women and makes their father watch. No Protestant has ever in the name of Jesus slit the throat of children.

    But wait a minute…somebody does do that the Roman church which drunk on the blood of martyrs and ISIS.

    No mercy to you. Go ahead scour the internet and dig up a protestant atrocity. One where it is acknowledged in the historical record that evil was done in the name of Christ. You’ll be looking a long time doofus because i doubt there are any. It took me 30 seconds of internet googling.

    Gus

    1. DR. GUS–
      You said: “I can give you story after story after story documented in historical books. You know the ones written by the losers.”
      But before you said: “History is written by the winners.”

      Really? Who’s lying now?

  32. CK said
    ——————————————-
    BOB, they all know this but they exempt themselves from the commandment not to bear false witness! It’s for the greater good. That’s why they are quick to point out horrors committed by Catholic leaders as proof that Catholicism is not true, but ignore Protestant crimes.
    ——————————-

    Give me proof of a protestant crime you mealy mouthed sanctimonious works posturing hypocrite! Proof you liar. Proof you hypocrite. Proof you troll. REMEMBER its got to be “I rape you in Jesus name” NOT some guy who called himself a protestant and raped somebody. NOT modern “protestant” churches who aren’t protestant–they dont believe in the bible, or the trinity, or the virgin birth. But they DO believe in abortion and homosexuality, and gender fluidity, etc. I mean real honest to goodness protestants from the same period as the inquisition who raped in the name of Jesus. After all you should be able to find ONE because the Inquisition was almost 800 years long.

    Its hilarious, a protestant might have lied, Romanists killed millions and WE ARE the hypocrites!

    http://www.answers.com/Q/How_long_did_the_Inquisition_last

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cullen-murphy/10-questions-about-the-inquisition_b_1224406.html

    Gus

    1. How about burning in Jesus name? Calvin (one of the ones who saved Chrisrianity) had his buddy Servetus burned alive! This is THE founder of your religion. How many people were imprisoned and tortured because they disagreed with him?

      Protestant churches had no problem burning heretics alive. How about the Catholic priest that did not convert in England? They were killed.

      Didn’t Luther (THE father of Protestantism) instigate violence resulting in thousands of death?

      This is off the top of my head. I know there’s much more. Remember these were the FOUNDERS of your religion! First generation!

    2. Dr Gus said – Its hilarious, a protestant might have lied, Romanists killed millions and WE ARE the hypocrites!

      Me – hmmmm. Tou got me. The greatest sins committed by true honest to goodness Protestant Fathers leaders were the occasional venial sins, removal of scripture from the bible, bound heaven to accept divorce, and condemned the most evil practice of witch burning (I’m still looking for written collaboration). What a love fest!

  33. ck says
    ________________________________________________
    Author: CK
    Comment:
    How about burning in Jesus name? Calvin (one of the ones who saved Chrisrianity) had his buddy Servetus burned alive! This is THE founder of your religion. How many people were imprisoned and tortured because they disagreed with him?

    Protestant churches had no problem burning heretics alive. How about the Catholic priest that did not convert in England? They were killed.

    Didn’t Luther (THE father of Protestantism) instigate violence resulting in thousands of death?

    This is off the top of my head. I know there’s much more. Remember these were the FOUNDERS of your religion! First generation!
    _________________________________
    Another lie told by the same hypocrite—you. You seem to be addicted to lying. I would not trust you with a dollar. Calvin tried to stop the burning of Servetus.

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/historical/burning_of_servetus.htm

    Aren’t you tired of lying?
    quote:
    Of course when it comes to the means to check these evils, he does not stand above his century, which in all communities with one accord attacked them with the heaviest penalties. One who errs in the knowledge of God is accountable to God alone. When man makes himself God’s avenger, our conscience revolts. Three hundred years ago people had not advanced this far — the most superior spirits in some ways are always subject to human frailty. Nevertheless, during a famous affair when a wretched individual, whose doctrine threatened the community, stood before the secular court of Geneva, one lonely voice in all of Europe was raised on behalf of the accused, demanding mitigation of the sentence of Servetus. It was the voice of Calvin.” unquote
    —————-
    The catholic priest was burned by the state. How did Luther instigate violence? Because he disagreed with the Romanists?!

    Not one single protestant ever burned a catholic in Jesus name. Romanists have killed tens of thousands in the name of the pope. Their blood is on your hands. When you go to hell, there is no purgatory, the eucharist wont save you, a requiem mass wont help you, and the saints wont hear your prayers. But there will be a special place reserved for people like you: mockers who with full knowledge of the evil of their religion mocked anyways. After your last breathe you will be screaming the name of Jesus, not Mary. You will be begging for mercy and there will be none. But there is still time to repent. Listen carefully! If something terrible happens to you, if you get cancer or die suddenly, it will be the judgement of God against your wicked character and religion. God will be patient with your lying only for so long. I will be praying, to Jesus for you and Bob. MAYBE you will wake up and repent of your lying ways.

    Gus

    1. WOW DR. GUS!
      You are starting to resemble Walt.

      Martin Luther urged German peasants to rebel, but he switched sides and then urged the Northern German princes to massacre the peasants. There is good reason for this change. Luther knew that the Northern German princes were protecting him, and for Luther to be accused of aiding and abetting the peasants would be fatal to him.

      King Henry VIII is responsible for the deaths of over 70,000 Catholics including hundreds of priests and Bishops. He had St. Thomas More executed in 1535. He even ordered the destruction of most of the uncorrupted bodies of saints in England. The only bodies that were not destroyed are the ones taken by Catholics and hidden from the persecutors.

      John Calvin, one of the Protestant reformers, viciously persecuted Catholics as heretics. He persecuted others as well, and had a rival critic, Michael Servetus, burned alive in October 1553.

      Queen Elizabeth I, had thousands of Catholics put to death in England. She ordered that Catholic Mary Queen of Scots be executed in 1587. She had thousands more killed in Ireland.

      Oliver Cromwell is responsible for starting the English civil war and the subsequent beheading of Catholic King Charles I, and for the killing of thousands of Catholics in that war of 1642-1649. Some Catholics were nailed to trees.

      Thousands of Catholics were murdered in Ireland by the English in the 19th century simply because they attended the Catholic Mass. The Protestant English redcoats were also responsible for confiscating the food from the Irish people and for leaving them only with potatoes which were blighted and unfit to eat. In the mid 19th century this caused the deaths by starvation of an estimated 1-1.5 million Irish Catholics, and the emigration of about 2 million more. It was a case of either leave the country or die of starvation.

      How many thousands of women were burned at the stake after witch trials, by Protestant witch hunters, over several centuries, and throughout Europe and America? It is estimated that 30,000 went to their deaths in Britain alone, and another 100,000 in Protestant Germany. Interestingly, the Protestant mind-set in those times was that if the woman survived the burning, she was considered not to be a witch. Now just how many innocent women, do you think, survived this horror?”

      It didn’t take me ten seconds to come up with this short synopsis.

      You might check to see if your pants are on fire.

    2. Gus said – there is no purgatory

      Me – Gus is you soul clean enough right now to enter heaven should you kick the bucket? (hopefully after you repent from bearing false witness).

      The process of being cleansed (doesn’t matter how long it takes or doesn’t take) is called purgatory. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so. You remind me of the atheist that says there’s no God because he says so.

      1. CK, the only sad thing, is you have been taught that your soul has to be clean to get into heaven. Look at yourself CK, can you ever be clean enough to get to heaven? This is a fatal error the medieval church made. Scripture says, in the day you eat you shall die. We are really, really bad. And He was good, and its hard to keep a good man down. He was raised for OUR justification Romans 4:25. Romans 4:16 says if a Roman Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. Notice that in 4:16 Paul says it is GUARANTEED to those who believe. He is called Abraham the believer, not Abraham the cooperator. CK, if our souls had to be clean to get to heaven, then why does Romans 4:5 says that God justifies a wicked man? CK, you obviously from your statements to Gus, are trusting the ” go out and do your part gospel” of Rome to be saved. Just remember, if you go down that road, the law says you have to be perfect. I heard a priest say ” we are all on a long journey to perfection” Well if he is on a long journey to perfection, that aint good news to rejoice about. How could the good news be, you are still at odds with God until you go to purgatory and work and burn off your temporal punishment. Is that something Paul is telling us to rejoice about. Whats sad, is you will spend you’re whole life going to the sacraments to get enough grace to get in, and will never accomplish it.” What profits a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul.” There is only one way in, you must repent of your goodness and trust in Christ alone, that means rejecting the lies of Roman Catholic doctrine that you are saved by accumulating inherent righteousness thru the sacraments of the new LAW. K

  34. BOB says–
    —————————————-
    Author: BOB
    Comment:
    Does the Salem Witch Trials ring any bells?
    ——————————–
    Lots of them. Too bad they were not Protestants or from the same era as the Inquisition. They were North American Puritans removed by several generations from their origins, England, as part of non-conformist Anglicanism. The original Puritans, also known as Pilgrims gave you Thanksgiving. The original Puritans who WERE Europeans did not kill anyone in the name of Jesus. And by the way, after the Salem Witch Trials they exonerated all the victims posthumously and erected a memorial as a perpetual reminder of their sin and their public repentance. They were children of the Protestants, and they erred. I said Protestants.

    Meanwhile, see if this rings any bells…
    http://boysofthecloth.com
    http://amazingdiscoveries.org/R-Reformation_Rome_crusade_slaughter

    Quote——
    Circa 1938 – 1945 Catholic dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Monsignor Tiso slaughter approximately six million Jews in Europe prior to and during World War 2.
    1941 – 1945 The Roman Catholic Ustashi in the fascist state of Croatia butcher up to one million Serbian Orthodox Christians. Roman Catholic killer squads are often led by Franciscan priests, monks, and friars. This genocide is choreographed by two Jesuit prelates: Aloysius Stepinac and Ivan Saric.
    —————————-
    So you have to dig almost 300 years to find children of the protestant who “pressed” not burned about 18 people and then publicly repented and put up a perpetual memorial. All i need to do is go back to 1938 to find MILLIONS killed by the Catholic Adolph Hitler. Or the 1 million Orthodox killed by death squads led by Franciscan priests, friars and monks. And lets not forget the 2 Jesuit prelates who planned it.

    Gus

    1. DR GUS–
      You said: “All i need to do is go back to 1938 to find MILLIONS killed by the Catholic Adolph Hitler. Or the 1 million Orthodox killed by death squads led by Franciscan priests, friars and monks. And lets not forget the 2 Jesuit prelates who planned it.”

      Yeah, I’m pretty sure there’s no Catholics in the KuKluxKlan.
      And the Northern Island Protestants were no better than Northern Ireland Catholics. Killing in the name of Christ is on both sides of the Reformation and you know it, Gus. There is room for prayer for all of us, even you.

    2. Dr Gus said – REMEMBER its got to be “I rape you in Jesus name” NOT some guy who called himself a protestant and raped somebody. NOT modern “protestant” churches who aren’t protestant–they dont believe in the bible, or the trinity, or the virgin birth.

      Me – In an effort to be fair, I gave you example of Protestant fathers which I thought you would agree are true Protestants. You come back with Hitler. I can’t think of of anyone other than a rabid anti-Catholic who would say Hitler was a practicing Catholic.

      Calling me a troll does not help your case or change history.

      You need to reflect on this verse:

      “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”
      ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:4-5‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

  35. Dr. Gus – are you saying witch hunting/burning ended after the Reformation in Protestant countries and didn’t flare up again until a few centuries later? Can you give me a round about year when it ended and when it started again?

    1. CK–
      Adolph Hitler may have been baptised Catholic but he rejected it and indorsed Aryanism. In fact, he wanted to eradicate religion from the Third Reich altogether, just like the Communists. To tell you how goofy Hitler was, the Master Race that he promoted was light skinned, blonde haired, and blue eyed High German. He himself was dark haired, brown eyed lower Austrian–an inferior race.

      1. A nut indeed. I never considered the irony that he was dark haired, but promoted the light skinned and blue eyed.

        You’ve added value to this conversation.

  36. Brother Gus, have you seen the movie What about Bob? Many tried and many failed. One psychologist after another was driven crazy trying to fix him. Really funny movie. Its the same with primo and secundo twins here. Many have tried. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 ” For this reason God will send a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false” They can believe no other. Its constant denial. They didnt sell indulgences, the Catholic church had nothing to do with the inquisition, merit really doesnt mean merit, it isnt idolatry, we dont worship Mary, you dont understand Catholic teaching. Apart from God lifting the veil and changing their heart, they will worship a church who they have been taught is Jesus Christ. How else can you explain someone who calls selling Christ’s merits, persecution, losing one’s salvation, earning God’s grace, and pedophilia, full communion. Bewitching indeed. But they both have been warned of their religion by many here, many times in love, and someday they will speak as Lazarus the rich man did. An d that is sad. Pray God changes their heart. K

  37. Kevin said—
    —————-
    Author: Kevin
    Comment:
    Gus, A Roman Catholic saying that we make the bible say what it doesnt say. I love that. Thats better than the National championship game tonight. The church that makes the bible say what it doesnt say telling Protestants that. Wow. K
    —————–
    I say, i am fairly certain that this is a reference to the exclusion of the apocrypha. These guys, or whatever they are, are consummate bullsh*t artists. With all the stuff I’ve caught them on, and all the direct challenges i have given them, they ignore them all and continue with their petty assaults. I have given them enough that they have hung themselves. Now all they are doing is stoking the fires of hell with their obstinacy. It would not surprise me if they live a long full and happy life and you, Tim and I die young. This is an age of apostasy and declension. God has sent them, and others like them to punish his church for declining from the truth. The muslims are present for the same purpose.

    Gus

  38. Author: CK
    Comment:
    Gus said – there is no purgatory

    Me – Gus is you soul clean enough right now to enter heaven should you kick the bucket? (hopefully after you repent from bearing false witness).

    The process of being cleansed (doesn’t matter how long it takes or doesn’t take) is called purgatory. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so. You remind me of the atheist that says there’s no God because he says so.
    _____________________________

    Yes, because I have the righteousness of Christ fully imputed to me because I simply believe. You on the other hand think you will enter heaven because you suffer meritoriously in purgative fires. There is no purgatory but there is a hell. I do not bear false testimony, Rev. 12:11. You bear false testimony for you kill Christ every week as you sacrifice him in the abomination of the mass. YOU are an abomination as you will shortly discover. For our lives are too short and our sins too enormous to ever merit heaven simply because we have suffered.

    Think about that.

    Gus

  39. ” Is your soul clean enough to enter heaven” No one in this life will be INHERENTLY righteous, and yet God declared Abraham righteous simply because he believed the promise. It would be wrong for Godvto declare us justified based on our inherent state in this life, yet He does. Why, because He counts the active and passive obedience ( His perfect life and payment for our sins) to our account. 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not say we become righteous, but ” the righteouness of God” in Him. A Catholic once told me when I asked them if they are justified; no, im being more justified everyday, i havent gotten there yet. Read Romans 5:10 and tell me by whose life will we be saved, ours or His? Hint, it says His. Frankly without purgatory Roman Catholicism would be a hard sell. You can never know you are saved, a mortal sin throwing you out again. Its a safety net where you go to sort things out, if you’ve been a devout Catholic. One thibg is clear, those the good works of those whobthink they can be inherently righteous to be justified, are stench in the nostrils of God. He will not treat kindly those who will not reject their goodness and trust in Christ’s righteouness alone. K

  40. CK–
    Purgatory simply does not fit the paradigm of sola fide and imputed righteousness. Why? Because sola scriptura and Reformation theology cannot allow it. Purgatory is only alluded to in the bible (1Co 3:15), so it can only exist as a conclusion in the mind of the protestant reader. So if sola fide and imputed righteousness are true( James 2:24,26), then purgatory is not needed.

      1. CK–
        You said: “Oh yeah. Don’t they also believe that we are predestined to heaven or hell and there’s nothing we can do about it?”

        Y’know, if they really believed that, they wouldn’t be wasting their time on us. They don’t practice what they preach.

      2. CK, Jesus was preaching in the synagog and when He finished the Jews were admiring His teaching. Then He diid something very peculiar. He closed the book and told a story from scripture, that God sent a prophet in a 3 year famine to one widow and one leper, passing over 3000 widows and many lepers. He saved 2. The Jews were incensed with Him when they heard this. Catholics react just like the Jews, they are so convinced of their goodness that they thought it was unfair for God to pass over so many. But true believers, who understand we are all worthy of hell because of the condition of our heart ( sinful), that the fact that God chooses some of his enemies and passes over others is mercy. The moral to Jesus story, God is sovereign. And those who have problems with God’s prerogative, sovereignty, and that He is unfair as they count unfairness, are unbelievers who are self deluded by their own goodness and that they can understand God. You hate election, and God’s sovereignty, because because it makes God responsible for salvation, and strips you of anything you can do to merit His grace. ” I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The fact that he chooses some instead of throwing all into hell is mercy. K

    1. Your kidding right?
      11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
      12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
      13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.
      14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
      15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:11-15 NKJ).

      A metaphor about your works being tested and tried is an allusion to purgatory?! In the case i got some swamp land in florida you might be interested in.

      Gus

      1. Dr Gus said – A metaphor about your works being tested and tried is an allusion to purgatory?! In the case i got some swamp land in florida you might be interested in.

        Me – should we ignore all metaphors? We should also throw in parables as they are make believe stories.

        So what do you think this metaphor is trying to teach us? It’s in the bible for a reason.

  41. Purgatory doesnt fit the Reformed pradign because we actually believe Jesus accomplished redemption at the cross. You remember the words It is finished.

    1. KEVIN–
      Do you remember these words?
      Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

  42. Tim does a great job on that verse, look it up here. It does not say he is doing that to merit increases of his salvation. What was lacking in Christ’s suffering was the preaching of the gospel, since Jesus was silent all the way to the cross. K

    1. “What was lacking in Christ’s suffering was the preaching of the gospel, since Jesus was silent all the way to the cross.”

      Why would preaching the gospel be considered lacking in His suffering? His silence was considered fulfilling of prophecy.

      Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

    2. Kevin said – What was lacking in Christ’s suffering was the preaching of the gospel, since Jesus was silent all the way to the cross. K

      Me – what? What was Christ preaching during His ministry? It wasn’t the gospel? He was also preaching the gospel all the way to the cross by SHOWING His love. One can preach the gospel without using words and Christ did that in the most perfect and profound way during His Passion.

      How can someone miss this?

  43. Paul’s present imprisonment Acts 28: 16, 30, also see introduction to Ephessians, background and setting. Paul was experiencing the persecution intented for Christ. In spite of His death on the cross, Christ’s enemies had not gotten their fill of inflicting injury on Him. So they turned their hatred on those who preached the gospel. It was in rhat sense Paul was making up what was lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Paul’s motivation for enduring suffering was to benefit and build Christ’s church. To the extent we suffer for preaching the gospel, we are doing the same thing. But this is not to be misconstrued with meritoriuoly finishing the part of the atonement that He failed to do. How do we know this? Redemption is finished, Jesus said so, that He accomplished ALL the Father gave Him. Also Paul is clear in Ephessians 2:8, none of salvation is from ourselves or our works. This would eliminate meritorious suffering. But that just one more lie Rome has laid on its people. Its the reason Catholics hate election, it goes against the meritorious suffering that they are taught gets them to heaven. K

  44. So why is Paul preaching the gospel to those who are already saved? Why is he preaching the gospel to those who cannot be saved by his preaching?

  45. Paul, preaches the gospel because that is what we are comanded to do. God asks us to throw the seed, He brings forth life. Ephessians 1 says , before time began, God chose us in Christ, to be holy and blameless before Him. He predestined us to adoption. These verses alone should cause you to walk from Rome. Romans 8 ” who can bring a charge against God’s ELECT, it is GOD who justifies.” And yet CK can say ” oh ya dont they believe that they are predestined to heaven or hell” or ” those elect types” ummm, hello, scripture says we were chosen before time began. Before any infused charity. Thats why Paul can say it does not depend on the man who runs or wills, but on God. In Reformed theology we call this monergism. All of salvation is a work of God, we are just living out the miracle. K

    1. Why should I walk away? I have simple faith, what else do I need? God will make sure I’m saved (or not) regarless of what I try to do. I’m helpless. By asking me to do turn away from this or that implies that my decisions play a role in my salvation. You claim to be a Calvinist but act like a Catholic.

  46. ” by asking me to turn away from this or that implies that my decisions play a role in my salvation.” Its better stated this way by God, not me ” come out from her my people Revelations 18:4, God is calling his people out of Antchrist. But you cannot come out of the Roman Catholic church unless you are ” His people” unless you are God’s elect. God’s elect cant stay in that communion, since it is against everything that the scripture teaches about the gospel. True believers will obey God and come out. I have a dear friend that I believe is a believer, a guy who I shared the gospel with 4 years ago and he was converted , who I met with today. 4 years ago I couldnt say one thing about the RC, but this week he is meeting with his priest with questions. I think this is his first step out of Rome. But certainly someone who ” believes every word of Roman Catholic doctrine is not elect, and will not come out. Those who Rome has convinced that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church. My friend actually told me today that he doesnt believe we are saved by our works, and he believes the sacraments are gifts. When i told him his church teaches sacraments are merit for the strong, he couldnt believe it. He did not know the mass is a efficacious sacrifice again for sins. Needless to say, he will have allot of questions for his priest. I explained to him today the oxymoron of the word Roman Catholic. Catholic meaning universal, Roman being specific. I explained that the early church was catholic, not Roman Catholic. And that Rome’s doctrines are foreign to scripture. I told him how we must judge the church by scripture, not vice versa. K

    1. Did you show him the verse where God wants all men to be saved and how your doctrine of double predestination says otherwise and is foreign to scripture? Did you point him to the verse that says baptism now saves you?

      Kevin we are not saved by works, works plays a role in our salvation. As you know, Catholics believe we are saved by grace alone thru faith, it’s an unmerited gift. That is your initial justification. Now you need to walk the walk. The difference is that we believe that sanctification is the same as justification. So when when one does works of mercy, obey His commandments sacrifice etc.. IN CHRIST we grow in sanctification i.e. we grow in justification. This keeps us spiritually in shape. If don’t do these things you risk losing your crown.

      This is how works plays in our salvation. That is why Jesus never says you must have simple faith to be saved but tells His followers things they must “do”. You need faith, but it must be faith working through love. Faith alone won’t get you there anymore than works of the law. You don’t believe me? Read what Jesus has to say.

    1. Kevin your response is why rarely try to engage you seriously. Had you read everything I’d written you’d know works does not play a role in our initial justification but plays a role in our sanctification.

      I believe you think works plays a role in your sanctification, do you not?

      1. CK, said ” our works dont play into our initial justificstion” thats the point, there is no salvation on the instalment plan. Justification in scripture is always past tense and final for true believers. Tim once told you that all our sins are forgiven, past, present, future. We dont go to the Lord’s supper to be forgiven. We go to thank God for a forgiveness we already posess. Yes we confess our sins, but those sins are akready forgiven. Ephessians 1″7 says we have redemption, not will have, but have it. For you to believe otherwise is to deny Christ’s gospel CK, its that simple K

        1. Kevin said – Justification in scripture is always past tense and final for true believers. Tim once told you that all our sins are forgiven, past, present, future.

          Scripture says –

          Romans 5:10: “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son [that is, we were saved], much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”

          Mark 13:13:”And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.”

          Rev. 2:26: “And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations.”

          Rev. 2:11: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” Rev. 3:5: “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angel.”

          Rev. 2:10: “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

          1. Rev. 2:26: “And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations.”

            ἔργον érgon, er’-gon; from a primary (but obsolete) ἔργω érgō (to work); toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication, an act:—deed, doing, labour, work.

            Oh, man! And to think I was just about convinced of becoming a Calvinist. I thought all we had to do was have faith alone until I studied the bible. Sola Scriptura!

      2. “Sanctify them in truth, your word is truth” Christians are sanctified thru God’s word in truth. Jesus prays that God would sanctify us. That is a far cry from ” I believe you think works play a role in your sanctification.” CK, I know what you are inferring in this statement. You are trying to infer that I participate in my salvation by by works. I don’t. As you can see from the verse I just quoted you, my sanctification is a result of God sanctifying me in truth. Im just living out the miracle. My works can be no more that what God prepared for me before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1 says we have been saved unto good works not because of them in any sense. Romans 5:10 says I will be saved by His life, not mine. Your church does not teach what scripture teaches. It says your character must be inserted into God’s work of grace. But Paul says differently in Philippians 3, that he counted ALL his righteousness as dung, his righteousness as dung, to be found in Him ( Christ) with a righteousness from faith, not his own. He puts all his righteousness in one column and Christ”s in another. My righteousness isn’t derived from His, it is His righteousness that has been imputed to me thru faith. This is why Paul can says God justifies the ungodly apart from works Romans 4:5. The Reformed position is faith is the ALONE instrument that receives Christ our justification and rests on Him alone for our salvation. Love is ALWAYS second in natural order, it stretches out to neighbor. Only faith can receive Christ and bring Him to the heart. Thats what saying we are justified by faith formed in Love is a denial of the gospel. K

        1. Kevin – it’s not your work I’m talking about. It’s work done IN CHRIST. So quit setting up straw men. I’m saying those verses are talking about works done IN CHRIST.

          1. All works are eliminated in justification including grace enabled works. Romans 4:5, 6, 7, 11:6. Romans 4:16 ” that is why it is by FATH, so that it might be in accordance with grace, so that the promise might be Guaranteed to all this of faith” So CK, next time you see your bishop god, tell him if he wants to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. Incidentally, if there is some final justification based on the life live like your wicked church teaches its people, then Paul could never say in 4:16 that the promise is GUARANTEED. If Roman Catholics want to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. We don’t participate in our salvation by our works. Paul says they are our reasonable service of worship. Those verses about persevering to the end etc. are descriptive of true faith, not prescriptive of salvation. Take this message to your priest, let me know what he thinks. K

  47. CK said ” we believe that sanctification is the same as justification.” I know, there was a reformation over this. Trent anathamatized the gospel. That is a problem for you personally. It will keep you out of heaven according to Paul ” if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace is NO longer grace.” Crystal clear, CK, you have no excuse to believe that you are saved by ” faith formed in love” To believe that is to not be under grace. Do you see why its so important to share the gospel with Roman Catholics. For those who regergitate Catholic doctrine, they must be warned as Paul does so eloquently in Romans 9:32-10:4, as he prayed for the Jews who believed in grace but wanted to mix it with works. Paul is crystal clear, the gentiles werent looking for salvation, but found it, because they found it by faith. And yet the Jews ( Catholics) didnt find it because they tried to attain righteouness by works in some way. Love is the highest expression of the law. The law requires perfection. You can see why Rome invented purgatory for those who can go and work things out, if you’ve been a good Catholic. But the tax collector who went home righteous, simply denied his goodness and believed in Christ. He went home righteous the scripture says. Final justification is always past tense for a true believer. K

    1. Do you take anything other than Paul as inspired? Try also reading the gospels. Your view makes Jesus say things that are not true.

      1. I take the whole of scripture as inspired. I have read the gospels many times . Lets see what Jesus says 5:24 ” Truly, Truly, I say to you, he who BELIEVES Him who sent me, HAS eternal life, and does NOT come into judgment, but HAS passed out of death into life.” Can it be any clearer, these are the words of the Lord. We are in a saved state, not a savable state where some final justification depends on ” formed in love” Here the Lord tells those trusting in Christ alone that they have redemption Ephessians 1:7, and have passed out of judgment and death into life . Yet your wicked church tells its people thay have to go to purgatory to work things out. Woe to the papists who have layed on its people burdens to much to bear. Those who would add one work to faith to be saved has corrupted Christ’s gospel. Luther said they have deluded their people and will not permit men to be saved. He was dead on. K

        1. CK–
          You said: “…your response is why rarely try to engage you seriously. Had you read everything…”

          And they accuse you of not listening. Sheesh!
          The Reformers anathematized the Catholics. The Counter-reformation anathematized the Reformers. And the great Christian civil war is still raging.

  48. Kevin quoted – Truly, Truly, I say to you, he who BELIEVES Him who sent me, HAS eternal life, and does NOT come into judgment, but HAS passed out of death into life.”

    Me – hmmm. Demons believe. Are you saying that demons did not come into judgement? Because James tells us otherwise. So maybe there’s more to it. Btw why did you ignore all the other verses where Jesus tells us all the things we must do?

  49. CK, listen to Paul about sanctification against Rome’s position. 1 Corinthians 1:30 ” By HIS doning you are in Christ who BECAME to us wisdom, righteouness, SANCTIFICATION and redemption. Notice CK, sanctification Paul talks about in the aorist past tense. Again, speaking to the rag tag Corinthians, he says ” to those who HAVE BEEN SANCTIFIED” Now, the writer of Hebrews 10:10 ” by this will we HAVE BEEN SANCTIFIED thru the offering of Jesus Christ ONCE AND FOR ALL. ” Salvation is all forensic in scripture, undergirded by justification, so much so that these Apostles speak of sanctification past tense. Snd notice our sanctification has already been accomplished thru one sacrifice once and for all. For Christians its all finished. For Catholics He cant get off the altar and the cross, an eternal victim. But the true church sings the amen. He is Risen. Our salvation, all of it is done. Im just living out the miracle. Thats ” full” communion. Scrioture says I am complete in Christ, having ALL things pertaining to life and Godliness. Since I posess eternal life in the fullest sense in Christ, the Lord’s supper can never be ” the work of the people” but a comemorattion of that great Friday that saved me. All the best CK, I hope you find the Christ of scripture. You just wont find Him in Roman Catholicism. I really hope you take advantage of a gifted former Catholic, who was in your shoes, and God called Him out of darkness to the light. Ill never forget what Tim said when asked by Jim if he ever looked back to Rome in gratfulness. He said, no man looks back across into a cemetery of dead men’s bones and says im grateful. Indeed . Its no mistake you are here. I hope you take advantage of Tim’s articles. No more to say. All the best. K

    1. Insightful article.

      Mr X is like Kevin boasting about Paul listing love behind faith and hope and missing that love is the greatest of all.

  50. “He said, no man looks back across into a cemetery of dead men’s bones and says im grateful.”

    Say that standing in a crowd in front of Arlington National Cemetery and see what happens.

    1. Well, if we’re going to quote me, let’s quote me accurately:

      “Looking back longingly and affectionately across the Tiber does not occur to us. It would be like coveting the burial plots of the deceased. The living do not seek their abode with the dead, and are not grateful to them for whitewashing the tombs to make them more appealing.”

      🙂

      Thanks,

      Tim

      1. Tim, thanks. Thats why I didn’t use quote marks. I should have gone and found your quote, but with my computer skills I would be looking for ages. I apologize for not getting it exact. K

  51. KEVIN–
    You said: :Love is ALWAYS second in natural order, it stretches out to neighbor.

    Not according to Paul:
    1Co 13:13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
    In fact, read all of chapter 13 to get the full gist of the “primacy” of love.

  52. Ummm, FAITH, hope, love. Where is faith in this order? Where is love? As I ssid. Tim has pointed out that when Jesus commends someone on their obedience, He says your FAITH has healed you. John says ” by this we have overcome the world, our FAITH. Luther said Rome robs from faith and gives to love what God only intended for faith. But Rome has an unbiblical defenition of faith called intelectual assent. Scripture teaches trusting of resting in Christ. Vermigli said it was the firm and constant assent of the soul to the Word of God. Love is always second in natural order, not less important, but it cannot function in justification. Thats why scripture never says we ate justified by love. And when Benedict says we are justified by faith formed in love, we are reminded that Roman Catholicism is not the true church. There isnt a virtue attached to faith that merits His acceptance. We are justified by Christ alone. And any smuggling of one’s character into God’s work of grace is a corruption of the gospel of Christ. We dont participate in our salvation by our works. K

    1. Kevin – Where is faith in this order? Where is love?

      Me – you are so focused on what order love is in the verse that you miss what Paul says about love.

      1Co 13:13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the GREATEST of these is love. Hmm he didn’t say faith is the greatest. As a matter of fact doesn’t he say one can have faith to move mountains but not love he has nothing?

      Btw, you are the only one that keeps bring up Rome. BOB and I point to the bible and you keep running to Rome.

      So going back to initial justification being a gift ( we both agree you can’t do anything to earn it), Scripture says you still have to run the race and not fall to be saved.

      Mark 13:13:”And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.”

      How does this verse line up your one time event theory? I listed several other verses earlier.

      1. HEY KEVIN–
        If it wasn’t for God’s love, you wouldn’t have any faith.
        Faith alone? Really?
        1Co 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

  53. ” Hmmm, he didnt say faith is the greatest.” Either did I. I said it is always 1st in natural order, as it is first in his list, neither of which you can nor did refute. He also said it alone justifies 5:1, 5:8 , and justification is always final, or he wouldnt be able to speak of it past tense and tell us it brings present tense peace. CK, you will never be able to find justification before God in scripture in instalments. The reason I bring up Rome is because you regergitate the position of Rome on justification ” initial justification”. We dont agree on justification. You believe it is sanctification, I believe scripture teaches it is distinguished from it, not separated from it. You said ” how does this line up with your one time event theory” so you are telking me that Jesus died more than once on the cross. Romans 4:25 says He was raised for our justification. You think that means Rome errected a conveyer belt. He should be raised in installments for our justification? Lol absurd. Think of the absurdity of your question. Let me let Paul answer you ” one time event “question Ephessians 1:7 ” In Him WE HAVE REDEMPTION, thru His blood the forgiveness of our sins” sounds pretty one time event to me CK. God doesnt need to do something 10 times, He got it right the 1st time. How do you stay in that synagog as they continue to re break His body a multi time event for your justification. Poor Jesus, Jesus, He just cant seem to get off the cross to save you. Must make you feel pretty good about helping His atonement huh? God bless k

    1. Kevin you wrote a lot but didn’t tell me how this verse fits your theology:

      Mark 13:13:”And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.”

      What is Mark trying to tell us?

      This is what I think as an analogy.

      You must be in the race to endure to the end. As long as you are in the race you have the opportunity to finish the race. If you give up the race you fall out of the race. Those that don’t enter the race have no chance to finish the race.

      In Christ,
      CK

      PS I don’t want to know what you think Rome teaches. If I want to know what they teach I can look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  54. The verse in Mark simply teaches that true faith endures. What it does not teach is ” worthiness of merit” Thats what Rome teaches, not what I think Rome teaches. Rome teaches their people they merit the merit of Christ. Perhaps you didnt know that. Lol Now that you do, are you willing to leave the meritocracy of Rome for the gospel of scripture? You said ” you must be in a race to endure to the end” then what happens when you die? Can you tell me what happens when you die CK? Thanks

    1. Kevin said –
      The verse in Mark simply teaches that true faith endures.

      Me – he who endures to the end shall be saved = true faith endures?

      It says nothing about true faith or fake faith.

      Mark 13:13:”And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.”

      1. CK, the work of the Holy Spirit in the human heart is never meritorious. The Spirit points to the merits of Christ alone as the ground for our acceptance before God. The Roman Catholic church doesnt teach that. For me to discuss the meaning of Mark 13:13 with you is not possible, because of the underpinnings of your doctrine. I appreciate your attempt to downplay our differences, butvtgey cant be. In the end, you are in the Roman Catholic church. It teaches that the gospel is ” go out and do your part” worthiness of merit” Trent uses terms like ” converted to their own justification” or ” as a reward to their merits and good works” or ” who truly merit eternal life” Now, for you these statements are compatible with justification. But we think scripture teaches this in fact disqualifies a person from salvation. Here is the bottom line, are Christ’s merits alone qualified to save me and how are they applied. Rome is really saying that Christ’s merits arent sufficient, that we must smuggle our chracter into God’s work of grace. Paul says we are justified by Christ’s merits alone applied thru faith alone. An alien righteouness, not belonging to us. . Paul says a righteouness not his own. No one disagrees that faith produces good works and an enduring life, but those works and that enduring life are not in any sense the ground for my acceptance before God. You cannot say that. Hope this helps. K

    2. Kevin said – You said ” you must be in a race to endure to the end” then what happens when you die? Can you tell me what happens when you die CK? Thanks

      Me – if you endure to the end you are saved.

        1. Only those who are saved experience purgatory. It’s simply a cleansing process one’s soul goes through in order to enter heaven. Nothing unclean enters heaven.

          1. ” its simply a cleansing process ” I have to commend you on ecumenical prowess. I have never engaged anyone smoother or better at softening and shifting meaning to fit with another paradigm. And your sincerity is comendible. Purgatory is a place where Catholics go to suffer and atone for their sins. ( venial, temporal) . It is tantanount to saying Christ’s suffering and atonement werent sufficient. God does not intend for me to suffer for my sins. Barrabas means son of a father, he was freed. Jesus, another Son of a Father was punished in his place. Jesus will say to me the day I die, the same thing he said to the theif, today you will be with me in paradise. K

  55. KEVIN–
    You said: “Rome teaches their people they merit the merit of Christ.”

    Tell me, Kevin, what is the merit of Christ and what did you do to receive it?

  56. Bob, its very simple, Romans 3:24-28 says ” we are justified as a GIFT by his grace” It includes no merit, condign, congruous etc. Its tantamount to saying we are justified by Christ’s merits ALONE. We do nothing to receive Christ’s merits. Even our repentance and faith are gifts of God. Trent rejected this and anathematized the gospel when it confused justification with sanctification. The word for justification is daikaiousinae. In no way can Paul have ever meant the condition of the state of affairs in one’s life at their death. For Trent justification was a recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward, but for Paul it was a declaration about someone who was utterly and intrinsically unqualified. Its as simple as that. K

  57. KEVIN–
    ” We do nothing to receive Christ’s merits.”

    Then it wouldn’t be a gift if there is no one to receive it. Gifts are to be received by one who “gives”. That is why it is called a “gift”. It has to be transferred from one to another.

  58. ” a gift has to be transfered from one to another” I think you got it. And faith is the instrument that God gives us to receive the teansfer of His righteouness to us. Wow, thats why we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Good job Bob. K

    1. Hmmm no. In your paradigm, God forces some to accept the gift and withholds it from others. All the while saying that He desires all men to be saved.

    2. KEVIN–
      You said: ” We do nothing to receive Christ’s merits.”
      And then you said:
      “And faith is the instrument that God gives us to receive the teansfer of His righteouness to us. Wow, thats why we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. ”

      That makes absolutely no sense. Which is it, do nothing or have faith? Or is having faith doing nothing?

  59. Kevin said – Purgatory is a place where Catholics go to suffer and atone for their sins. ( venial, temporal) . It is tantanount to saying Christ’s suffering and atonement werent sufficient. God does not intend for me to suffer for my sins.

    Me – if I want to know what Catholics believe I can read the catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). If you want tell me what Catholics believe feel free to quote CCC.

    We must be purified in order to enter heaven. We suffer because we are not in heaven yet and want to be.

    Jesus implies there are sins which will be forgiven in the age to come. The sins being forgiven in the period between this age and the age to come is purgatory.

    “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
    ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12:32‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

  60. Hi CK, ” we suffer because we arent in heaven yet and we want to be” Really ” who raised us up with Him, and seated us in THE HEAVENLY places with Christ Jesus. Now CK, if Ephessians 2: 6 tells me I have been seated in heaven in Christ now in the already/ not yet, why would I ever buy what Rome’s selling. There is time to get out CK. And you wonder why Tim says ” it would be like coveting burial plots of the deceased” looking back lovingly and affectionately across the tiber doesnt occur to us. ” CK you are in love with a cemetery for the dead, the spiritually dead. Why you would ever take that over the free gift of eternal life thru Jesus Christ, complete forgiveness of sins past, present, future, assurance, inheritance, redemption, adoption, sealed in the Spirit, seated in heaven. Done deal. No conditions. The reason believers persevere to the end is because God loses none of His. K

    1. Kevin, What sins are forgiven in the next age and what is the star of our souls during that time. Heaven? I think not.

      So what does Mathew 12:32 mean to you?

      1. CK, you have a great method of deflection by never answering my points but asking me questions. Answer Ephessians 2:6 which says Im already seated in heaven. Answer please. This isnt consistent with purgatory. What a surprise, you let somebody claim infalible tradition and you get something directly contrary to scripture. Is it any wonder that Jesus condemned traditions of men as nullifying the word of God. Lets review. The bible tells me Im seated NOW with Christ in rhe heavenlies. God doesnt seat sinful people in heaven with Him. But with (in) Christ I stand righteous. Now please square that scripture with the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Good luck. K

        1. “The bible tells me Im seated NOW with Christ in rhe heavenlies.”

          Wow! What’s it like being in two places at the same time?

          1. ” whats it like being in two places at one time.” Im surprised you dont know this, maybe you can ask cosmic transubstantiated Jesus, He can tell you. I mean Rome has no problem mixing the 2 natures against chalcedon. Maybe you or CK can tell Gus and I what it means to be seated in the heavenlies, citizens of heaven, redeemed, forgiven, tranfered to the kingdom of light. Then please tell us how that squares with being in sarlac for a thousand years working off your temporal punishment. Id love to here this. K

  61. CK says
    ————————————————-
    Author: CK
    Comment:
    Dr Gus said – A metaphor about your works being tested and tried is an allusion to purgatory?! In the case i got some swamp land in florida you might be interested in.

    Me – should we ignore all metaphors? We should also throw in parables as they are make believe stories.

    So what do you think this metaphor is trying to teach us? It’s in the bible for a reason.
    ——————————————
    Who cares. First exegesis demands what it doesnt mean. Tim does a good job of that on his blog. That’s the NEGATIVE burden of exegesis. You can be wrong in an infinite number of ways but you can right in only one way. Application is multitudinous, but meaning is singular.

    Then you try to determine what it does mean. That is the POSITIVE burden of exegesis. I KNOW it does not mean purgatory, so what does it mean. If it cannot mean literal purgative fires, and it is figurative speech, what does the fire represent? Look at the context, look at the greek, look at the vocabulary, look at the history of this kind of use of the Koine and determine the exegesis. Since as Romanists you’re always right, because mother church is infallible [vicarii filii et dei] I let you determine it. I just have my Bible. Maybe the Gospel of Mary will be helpful?
    Gus

    1. Dr Gus said – Who cares. First exegesis demands what it doesnt mean….I KNOW it does not mean purgatory,

      Me – ok. Angry much? Thats a good answer from someone who does not know and can’t come up with a good answer.

      Dr Gus said – . I just have my Bible.

      Me – which is why you don’t know. You need more than just the bible. Specially since it was compiled by those no good Romanists!

  62. ——————————-
    Author: BOB
    Comment:
    KEVIN–
    You said: “Rome teaches their people they merit the merit of Christ.”

    Tell me, Kevin, what is the merit of Christ and what did you do to receive it?
    ————————————

    NOTHING thats the whole difference between heaven and hell.

    Gus

  63. CK, you just told Gus that he needs more than a bible. You were telling me to stick to the bible and not tell you about RC teaching. Bow your telling Gus he needs something more. You didnt answer Ephessians 2:6 against purgatory, and I understand, because you dont have a good answer. Here are some other easy refutations of purgatory. In Philippians Paul says ” our citizenship is in heaven” and then listen to Colossians 1:13,14 ” For He rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son” Now CK if believers have already have been transfered to the kingdom of His son, why would we need purgatory. Listen to verse 14 ” in whom we HAVE redemption, the forgivenessof sins.” Do you undertstand the significance of these verses against the mass, indulgences, and purgatory. It says we have aready been transfered into Christ’s kingdom and been forgiven of all our sins. Yet you defend Rome against these passages that are perspicuous saying you need purgatorial cleansing. After reading this in God’s breathed word, how can you defend the sacrifice of the mass and cleansing in purgatory. Paul days we have redemption, we are forgiven, and we have been transfered to Christ’s kingdom. The papists missed the atonement is finished. Sad. K

    1. Kevin I will get to Ephesians. I work and have a family. I’m using just the bible with you. If this unsatisfactory, let me know.

      I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that he needs more than just the bible. He pointed out that he needs to know Ancient Greek, tradition etc.. To understand biblical verses. So no, you need more than just the bible.

    2. Kevin – You didnt answer Ephessians 2:6 against purgatory, and I understand, because you dont have a good answer.

      Me –
      “raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus,”
      ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:6‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

      I believe this verse. I explained what purgatory is and in not sure how this refutes purgatory.

      I could be salty like Dr. Gus and say “Who cares”. I know it doesn’t say what you think it says…. 😉

      1. I am not ‘being salty”–I assure you if I ever descend to insults you will know it. I am being stern. You are not interested in the truth, you are interested in debating, and have demonstrated that so many times its tedious. I still respond sometimes so that you dont get away with your obvious absurdities.

        I leave it to you to call us hypocrites, “salty” etc., and whatever other epithets you sprinkle to avoid answering monumental questions on exegesis. The “who cares” of the other post simply functions as an attempt to forestall a useless discussion. You keep me tied up with a long response, and summarily reject. It does not matter how much scripture Kevin, Tim or I quote, it contradicts your REAL authority–the visible and ROMAN Catholic church. That’s why you are NOT Christians and we are warning you of the hell that awaits you–if you dont repent. Every time you mock or ridicule or oppose us, it is not us you oppose, it is Christ, because we testify of the Christ of Scripture not tradition.

        Gus

  64. CK, ” I believe this verse” this is your retort. You have proven that you have no answer. Purgatory is a man made doctrine. Lets review. I gave you scripture that says Christians are presently redeemed, forgiven, seated in the heavenlies, transfered to the kingdom of the light of the Son and citizens of heaven. Meritorious suffering is a fruit of those who deny the sufficiency Christ’s atonement and those who believe a different gospel. Thanks for the discussion. K

    1. Kevin – this is what it says…

      “even when we were dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace you have been saved), raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.”
      ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:5-7‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

      They are spiritually alive IN Christ and as such are seated at the right hand of the Father IN Christ . Christians are part of the body of Christ. They won’t be actually in heaven until the ages to come. And they will not enter heaven unless they a 100% clean. NOTHING unclean enters heaven. Not even you.

      1. CK, you are struggling to defend Rome’s novel doctrine of purgatory and false gospel. Notice God can seat nothing unclean in the heavenlies, and yet true believers ( those trusting in their obedience in any way arent believers) are seated there. This fully supports scriptures teaching on the imputation of Christ’s righteouness ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 ” we become ” the righteous of God in Him “) to true believers. We are also told by scripture that we are citizens of heaven, completely forgiven, redeemed, and transfered into the kingdom of light His glorious Son. No purgatory for true believers. I submit to you what you think purgatory is will read hell, reserved for those who participate in their salvation by their works. K

        1. Kevin I can honestly say I have never heard a Protestant say the are right now in heaven seated at the right hand of the Father.

          So when you die your soul does not go to heaven because it’s already there and all you are waiting for is your body?

          Did Calvin interpret Ephisians 2:1-10 this way?

          Please don’t fill up the comment box with Roman teachings. I know Rome teaches.

          1. CK ,The fact that you as a papal worshiper have never heard a Protestant say that should tell me what? Think of the absurdity of being a citizen of heaven according to Paul in Philippians, and then having a RC defend purgatory. Thats like being a citizen of Indianapolis and telling someone that means you live in Scottsdale. If I am a citizen of heaven CK, why would I have to go to purgatory. Purgatory only fits the Roman Catholic meritocracy where Christ cant get off the cross, didnt accomplish your redemption on the cross, and where one believes they ” must be 100 % clean to be in heaven. That is a system where God helps you save yourself. Paul prayed for you in Romans 10:1. Dont confuse Roman Catholicism with the catholic church. Roman Catholic is an oxymoron. Have you read ” The rise of Roman Catholicism ” by Tim? He shows clearly the rise of this false religion and its idolatries and worthiness of merit gospel. K

      2. CK, put aside for one minute your axiom that everything taught by your church in doctrine is infallible, and let scripture inform you. The bible tells me Im already a citizen of heaven having been transfered to the kingdom of Christ. It tells me Im seated in heaven with Christ. It tells me the dead saints are longing to put on the glorious bodies, there souls being with Christ. And your church has invented a place where it could sell Christ’ merits to get people and their relatives out of this place. Rome got rich on the backs of those who were led to believe by the papist that they could buy forgiveness because their doctrine wont let them believe all their sins were forgiven as a frer gift. I’ll tell you a story about a friend. My wife and I attended a RC service with her a few years ago. She sat in the pugh with her brown scapular on thinking that would buy time off from temporal punishment and purgatory. My wife and I went home and our heart broke for her .She has a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge Romans 10:1-4. Sad, there she was thinking she had to wear that to get to heaven. We pray she will repent of her goodness and turn to Christ’s righteouness alone thru trusting in Him alone. If a soul had to be 100% clean to get in heaven, it would never happen. Because even in heaven you are a former sinner. Sad, millions of RC’s climbing the treadmill ladder to salvation, only to get to the top and find out its on the wrong wall. No wonder Paul wanted nothing to do with his own righteouness, because he knew he could only stand in Christ’s righteouness by faith alone. K

  65. KEVIN–

    You said: ” whats it like being in two places at one time.” Im surprised you dont know this, maybe you can ask cosmic transubstantiated Jesus, He can tell you.”

    Ok. I’m glad that you agree that transubstantiation in that light is biblical. That’s a start.

    And you said: “I mean Rome has no problem mixing the 2 natures against chalcedon.”

    They don’t.
    From the Catechism:
    464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man… The fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
    “Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
    We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.”
    468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that “there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity.” Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: “He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity.”
    469 The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother

    And you said: “Then please tell us how that squares with being in sarlac for a thousand years working off your temporal punishment. Id love to here this.”

    It doesn’t square. That is a figment of your imagination. Purgatory is a state of purging. Being in the spiritual realm, it is not bound by the space-time continuum, so it is not a place nor is it measured by time.
    From the Catechism:
    1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
    1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

    The biblical implications are:
    1Co 3:14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

    and

    1Pe 1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
    7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire,might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ

    1. You are not being tried by fire in this life, you are getting a foretaste of the fires to come in the next. And it wont be purgatory. REPENT

      Gus

  66. KEVIN–
    You said: “Purgatory is a man made doctrine.”

    So what? Sola scriptura and sola fide are man made but you don’t seem to have a problem with those.

    1. If they were man-made Kevin, Tim and myself would abandon them. That’s why we abandoned Romanism. Romanism’s doctrines are man-made, that’s why you should abandon them.

      Gus

  67. —————————————-
    Author: CK
    Comment:
    Dr Gus said – Who cares. First exegesis demands what it doesnt mean….I KNOW it does not mean purgatory,

    Me – ok. Angry much? Thats a good answer from someone who does not know and can’t come up with a good answer.

    Dr Gus said – . I just have my Bible.

    Me – which is why you don’t know. You need more than just the bible. Specially since it was compiled by those no good Romanists!
    ——————————–
    Are you always so angry and condescending? I did not know you could read my mind and prophesy my intention. I rise to the bait and engage you in discussion and you dont answer my challenges, I dont rise to the bait, and you accuse me of being ignorant.

    I KNOW WHAT 1 COR 3 MEANS. I read greek, I’ve studied the grammar and vocabulary and I know Paul’s intention. The Bible was NOT compiled by “no good Romanists” the bible was compiled by the Holy Spirit as he providentially led the believing church. The BELIEVING church–that’s why Maccabbees [sic] and the Gospel of Mary did not make it.

    Gus

    1. Dr Gus , I’m not angry at all, but is condescending to start an answer to what I felt was an important question with “who cares”. You’ve also called me an abomination.

      I don’t believe I’ve called you ignorant. It’s not my style. If I did or implied it I apologize. I didn’t think you knew the answer because you told me all the tools that were needed but didn’t really what it meant. Just what it didn’t.

      What was your challenge?

  68. CK
    —————————————–
    Author: CK
    Comment:
    With Sola Scriptura anything is possible. Funny!
    —————————————-
    With sola Scriptura only ONE thing is possible–your eternal condemnation as you continue to mock it.
    Gus

    1. If Sola Scriptura was the way you wouldn’t have thousands of denominations!

      I don’t know Ancient Greek so how do I know the translation is correct? Do I rely on you? How do I know you got it right but not the Anglican (insert any other denomination) that knows the Greek and history? Same goes with interpretation.

      The fact is most of the world (90 plus %) don’t have the education to do this. We all rely on other men to set up the foundation so we can run with it.

      You have an inspired book that needs to be interpreted. Something as simple as what does baptism do or not do can’t be agreed upon by everyone. This includes faithful Protestants.

      Tell me, what do you have that other God loving, educated Protestants that disagree with you don’t have?

      1. CK,

        You wrote, “We all rely on other men to set up the foundation so we can run with it.”

        But that doesn’t address the problem. Roman Catholicism has only infallibly interpreted six or seven verses of Scripture, and there isn’t even any agreement on which six or seven verses have been interpreted. In what way have other men set up the foundation so you can run with it? As I noted before, Taylor Marshall thinks the succession of empires in Daniel 7 mean one thing. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops thinks it means another. Both could go to the Magisterium for an answer, and the Magisterium wouldn’t tell them.

        So what is the benefit of the Magisterium on matters related to the meaning of any given text if the Magisterium has no answer for Marshall and the USCCB? In what way does it solve the “problem” of “sola scriptura” as you call it?

        Thanks,

        Tim

  69. CK
    —————————————————–
    Author: CK
    Comment:
    Dr Gus , I’m not angry at all, but is condescending to start an answer to what I felt was an important question with “who cares”. You’ve also called me an abomination.

    I don’t believe I’ve called you ignorant. It’s not my style. If I did or implied it I apologize. I didn’t think you knew the answer because you told me all the tools that were needed but didn’t really what it meant. Just what it didn’t.

    What was your challenge?
    ————————————–
    Calling you an abomination, is not a reference to your worth before God. You conveniently forget that I said, that i would do anything in my power to help you, or anyone else that would repent. That is hardly the expression of a hate filled man. I dont usually pledge my life and property to those I hate. The challenges is ongoing, and you and BOB are very artful at avoiding them. You mock me for only using my Bible, and then you mock Ken for NOT only using his bible. You’re an unrepentant sinner. You are closed to scripture, and therefore the holy Spirit. When you mock Sola Scriptura, and you have your little behind the scenes giggles with your cohort BOB you mock Christ, and therefore you are an abomination. As far as I can tell, and only God knows, there is no hope for you, because unlike Paul you do not blaspheme in ignorance. SO you are just storing up wrath. If we are right, then you are wrong. If you are wrong, you are going to hell. If you are going to hell there is therefore no purgatory. And you will be cursing for eternity the pope and church you trusted in. If we are right, you are an abomination, because you suppress the preaching of the truth with your ritual hypocrisy–yes, hypocrisy, you know what the Bible teaches, you just don’t believe it. Ritual because you think that the rote muttering of prayers, and the sign of the cross, and the weekly eating of bread “sanctified” by a man who is even more of an abomination than you are, gives you some purchase on God. Because bottom line, you think you are BUYING God’s favor. The challenges continue, you keep on ignoring and mocking, and therefore you keep piling up guilt. The only one who can expiate that is the Christ who died once for all. There is no God in the bread. Good Luck you’ll need it, because when you face God at your death, THERE WILL BE NO ARGUING.

    I believe you sincerely apologized. I accept it.

    Gus

    1. DR. GUS–
      You said all of this to CK:
      “Calling you an abomination, is not a reference to your worth before God.
      If we are right, then you are wrong. If you are wrong, you are going to hell.
      If we are right, you are an abomination.”

      So, going to hell is not a reference to your worth before God.
      Since when?

  70. Ck, open the phone book, thousands of denominations etc. Lol Any new arguments. You act like there was never error or problems in the NT church. Paul had to speed slap pope peter who was in error. And how did they decide the matter, All the Apostles and Elders. Not one pastor in one city. Evangelicals are amazingly united over the gospel. The Reformed confessions at the time of the Reformation and today, amazingly uniform. And one thing they all agree on you submit to antichrist. K

  71. CK
    ————————-
    Author: CK
    Comment:
    If Sola Scriptura was the way you wouldn’t have thousands of denominations!

    I don’t know Ancient Greek so how do I know the translation is correct? Do I rely on you? How do I know you got it right but not the Anglican (insert any other denomination) that knows the Greek and history? Same goes with interpretation.

    The fact is most of the world (90 plus %) don’t have the education to do this. We all rely on other men to set up the foundation so we can run with it.

    You have an inspired book that needs to be interpreted. Something as simple as what does baptism do or not do can’t be agreed upon by everyone. This includes faithful Protestants.

    Tell me, what do you have that other God loving, educated Protestants that disagree with you don’t have?
    ____________

    CK it does not logically follow that because there are thousands of protestant denominations then sola scriptura must be wrong. That is the fallacy of “asserting the consequent”. That is like saying, the ground is wet, therefore it must have rained.

    There are many reasons why there are thousands of denominations: 1. all church members are sinners and therefore are mistaken in their beliefs. 2. Some church members are not even Christians and do not believe the bible. 3. Some church members are not Christians, do not believe the Bible, and actively corrupt the teachings of their denomination. Example: Bishop Spong of the Episcopal church. 4. Some denominations exist because of power struggles, not differences on bible doctrines. 5. Some denominations exist because of peculiar distinctives, such as the old order Amish, Mennonites, etc.

    Therefore, sola scriptura, being what the Scripture teaches is the ideal that every believer must strive for. I am a student to my last breathe. Surely you must understand that with your saints being held up as ideal Catholics. What would you say if i said because so many catholics were/are corrupt you are in error? That is also “asserting the consequent”. I have never said that, but i have said, that sola scriptura condemns your religion, and as an ad hominem i have pointed to catholic history and practice. An “ad hominem” argument is perfectly legitimate as long as the basis of rejection of a thesis is based on sola scriptura.

    Gus

  72. DR GUS–

    Your reply to: “So what? Sola scriptura and sola fide are man made but you don’t seem to have a problem with those.”

    was

    “If they were man-made Kevin, Tim and myself would abandon them.”

    They are man-made. They are pure Reformation doctrines (Pillars of Protestantism) never taught by the Church (Roman or otherwise) before Martin Luther. I challenge you to find those doctrines defined in any verifiable documents or councils before then.

    Looks like you all need to abandon them, then. As for me, I’ll keep using Sola Scriptura because I think it is a tradition of men that is ok. It gives me freedom of interpretation just like it does you, unless, of course, your interpretation is guided by a specific discipline such as the Presbyterian tradition. Mine is guided by the Holy Spirit.

    1. Ill solve your problem, tradition is scripture. The deposit of faith is written scripture. In the words of my savior, why do you nullify the scriptures for the sake of your traditions. Biblical history should be instructive to you and CK, Jesus railed against tradition outside of scripture. They teach as doctrines the comandments of men. Roman Catholicism is a man made tradition. The Reformers rescued the Apostles and the early church from the hair splitting academics of Rome and the disassembled the eclessial machinery that was mostly human in orgin and content. K

    2. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I dont care if they were never taught by YOUR church, your church is a whore. I would be amazed if they were taught. My church, not that it matters is in the NT and Paul clearly taught every single one of them. So, I wont take you up on your bogus challenge. Keep mocking, and keep avoiding every argument, and every point of logic. Giggle, and laugh, and mock…all I see is the fires of hell getting brighter.

      Gus

  73. Gus, great post. In a sense they are trapped. When you have been told your whole life that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church and its sacramental system and submission to the pope, there is great fear with leaving. A clever system. Baptize them into the treadmill, tell them they now have sanctifying grace but they must then go earn increases of it all of your life. Then threaten them that to leave the church and commit mortal sin throws you out, to zero again. But so they are not completely disheartened, you invent purgatory where they will get a chance to straighten things out if they’ve been a good Catholic. And if your short some merits, we will impute from the treasury where the real special people earned so many. Of course there is no problem of imputation from the treasury, only with imputation of Christ’s merits. Gus, CK is here because she thinks she can coerce Reformed back to mother church. Thats the whole Roman sctick, recruit all schismatics back to corporate big mamma so in the end we all become one big corporate Eucharist. Jesus comes back as a Eucharist and we are all one big Jesus wafer. I jest, but Im not far off. What Catholics dont realize is that christians are individual members of the body thru the gospel with specific guftsvto carry on Christ’s mission. K

    1. KEVIN–
      You said: ” christians are individual members of the body thru the gospel with specific guftsvto carry on Christ’s mission.”

      I have no idea what that means.

  74. Roman Catholicism sees the church from a corporate view. It collapses the head into the body. Rome sees itself as the natural ( historical ) body of Christ. Thus Rome is Jesus Christ on earth as the pope and the Eucharist, Mary, the saints etc. all the grace flows down through, as his incarnation is being finished thru the acts of the church. But this is seriously flawed. This view was taken by Augustine and many others affected by the philosophy of the day. They got heaven and earth mixed up. The incarnation ascension parousia became an overealized ecclesiology. The church isnt the same as Jesus in the world. Churches arent extensions of incarnations. Churches dont connect us to God. Jesus comes to us in the gospel by His choosing, sometimes thats in the church and sometimes outside. The Spirit blows where and when He wills. The church isnt the Spirit’s regent, nor Christ’s. The church can imitate Christ, it can obey Him, carry on His mission, but it cant usurp His uniquely finished work as the agency of tedemption. In the End Roman Catholicism is a faulty view of the Trinity. K

  75. Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ . We are individual members of that body with individual gifts to carry out Christ’s mission. . Rome sees the church as the heirarchy, conduit of grace. Grace is a soul substance ( physical) that flows down the heirarchal ladder. The church calls itself the sacrament of salvation. So the grace oozes down the chain. Pope to Mary to special saints to laity etc. The Eucharist being the center. Catholics sets aside the redemptive model and replaces it with an ontological model where Christ’s incarnation is being completed thru the acts of the church. It denies a finished atonement that put sin away once and for all. The Catholic church frankly wont alow Him to be Lord and Savior. They reduce Him to something less that He is and deny the sufficiency of His one time atonement. Romans 1 says He was declared Son of God with power by the resurection of from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness. When He was justified, so were Christians, He being the first fruits. Judgment was moved up and we pass through in the righteouness of Christ. K

  76. Author: BOB
    Comment:
    DR. GUS–
    You said all of this to CK:
    “Calling you an abomination, is not a reference to your worth before God.
    If we are right, then you are wrong. If you are wrong, you are going to hell.
    If we are right, you are an abomination.”

    So, going to hell is not a reference to your worth before God.
    Since when
    ——————————————————–
    I find it difficult to believe that you are this obtuse intentionally. YOU ARE GOING TO HELL that has nothing to do with whether you are made in the image of God. Or do only people who are NOT made in the image of God go to hell? Its simple logic. The angelic doctor would box your ears.

    Gus

  77. Author: Kevin
    Comment:
    Paul uses church as a metaphor for the body of Christ . We are individual members of that body with individual gifts to carry out Christ’s mission. . Rome sees the church as the heirarchy, conduit of grace. Grace is a soul substance ( physical) that flows down the heirarchal ladder. The church calls itself the sacrament of salvation. So the grace oozes down the chain. Pope to Mary to special saints to laity etc. The Eucharist being the center. Catholics sets aside the redemptive model and replaces it with an ontological model where Christ’s incarnation is being completed thru the acts of the church. It denies a finished atonement that put sin away once and for all. The Catholic church frankly wont alow Him to be Lord and Savior. They reduce Him to something less that He is and deny the sufficiency of His one time atonement. Romans 1 says He was declared Son of God with power by the resurection of from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness. When He was justified, so were Christians, He being the first fruits. Judgment was moved up and we pass through in the righteouness of Christ. K
    ————————
    Good post Kevin, but to be precise it is a metaphysical model. Metaphysical because they believe that salvation is by a change of substance infused by grace. Infusion is romanism, imputation is Protestantism. But maybe that is what you meant but only used a different word from me.

    Gus

  78. Dr Gus, or Tim, Galatians 3: 21 says ” For if A law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteouness would indeed have been based on on law. ” He doesnt say the law, but A law, and then he says it would have been based on law. It seems to me he is infering any law when he says ” A law” or ” based on law” Catholics obviously miss the antithesis here between” hearing by faith ” and works in justification. Have either of you exegeted that verse. It seems to emphasize life cannot come thru law period. Of course we know thats his point but it seems this verse, if it says what I think it says, would help our RC friends here see the futility of being justified thru ” the sacraments of the new law. Thanks K

  79. KEVIN–
    You said: “Of course we know thats his point but it seems this verse, if it says what I think it says, would help our RC friends here see the futility of being justified thru ” the sacraments of the new law.”

    Sacraments are not law. They are Spirit.
    Lord’s Supper–
    As the people of God bless and thank God the Father and
    remember Jesus Christ the Son, they call upon the Holy Spirit
    a. to lift them into Christ’s presence;
    b. to accept their offering of bread and wine;
    c. to make breaking bread and sharing the cup a participation
    in the body and blood of Christ;
    d. to bind them with Christ and with one another;
    e. to unite them in communion with all the faithful in
    heaven and on earth;
    f. to nourish them with Christ’s body and blood that they
    may mature into the fullness of Christ;
    g. to keep them faithful as Christ’s body, representing Christ
    and doing God’s work in the world.

    Baptism–
    In Baptism, the Holy Spirit binds the Church in covenant to its
    Creator and Lord. The water of Baptism symbolizes the waters of Creation, of the Flood, and of the Exodus from Egypt. Thus, the water of Baptism links us to the goodness of God’s creation and to the grace of God’s covenants with Noah and Israel. Prophets of Israel, amidst the failure of their own generation to honor God’s covenant, called for justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream. (Amos 5:24) They envisioned a fresh expression of God’s grace and of creation’s goodness—a new covenant accompanied by the sprinkling of cleansing water. In his
    ministry, Jesus offered the gift of living water. So, Baptism is the sign and seal of God’s grace and covenant in Christ.
    –Presbyterian Book of Order, Ch. II The Elements of Christian Worship: W-2.4000 and W-2.3000

  80. ” sacraments of the new LAW ” arent law? Law is anything you DO. In Roman Catholicism you must DO the sacraments of the new LAW to be justified” The fact that they are spirit led or grace enabled is irelevant to Paul. He excludes ALL works, even grace enabled works from justification. Romans 4:5, 4:6,7. David. Galatians 3: 1-6. ) Paul puts all works in antithesis to hearing by faith in justification. K

  81. Dear Kevin,
    you asked the following
    ————————————
    Author: Kevin
    Comment:
    Dr Gus, or Tim, Galatians 3: 21 says ” For if A law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteouness would indeed have been based on on law. ” He doesnt say the law, but A law, and then he says it would have been based on law. It seems to me he is infering any law when he says ” A law” or ” based on law” Catholics obviously miss the antithesis here between” hearing by faith ” and works in justification. Have either of you exegeted that verse. It seems to emphasize life cannot come thru law period. Of course we know thats his point but it seems this verse, if it says what I think it says, would help our RC friends here see the futility of being justified thru ” the sacraments of the new law. Thanks K
    ——————–
    Here’s my answer, Tim can add his own. He did an excellent study of a related passage at:
    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=310

    Here’s the greek of Gal. 3:21
    21 ὁ οὖν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν [τοῦ θεοῦ]; μὴ γένοιτο. εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη· (Gal. 3:21 BGT)

    The ESV translation is:

    1 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. (Gal. 3:21 ESV)

    With Anarthrous Substantives. There is still another order.92 It is eivrh,nhn th.n evmh,n (Jo. 14:27). Here the substantive is indefinite and general, while the attribute makes a particular application. Cf. no,moj o` duna,menoj (Gal. 3:21). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 93) finds this idiom frequent in koinh,. So gunai/ka th.n euvgenesta,thn (I. G., XII, 7 N. 240, 13).

    Notice that being anarthrous the substantive “law” is indefinite and general while the attribute “power” [esv: life] makes a particular application. Our resulting understanding would be that legislation in general is powerless, that is why there is promise. Promise give life [gk. power] while law does not. If we add Rom. 8 to compare, we know that law [legislation] gives death. See also Rom. 7.

    In Augustin’s treatise on ” the merits and forgiveness of sins and on the baptism of infants”, Book 1, Chapter 12 he says:
    “Observe also what follows. Having said, “In which all have sinned,” he at once added, “For until the law, sin was in the world.”8 This means that sin could not be taken away even by the law, which entered that sin might the more abound,9 whether it be the law of nature, under which every man when arrived at years of discretion only proceeds to add his own sins to original sin, or that very law which Moses gave to the people. “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.10 But sin is not imputed where there is no law.”11 Now what means the phrase “is not imputed,” but “is ignored,” or “is not reckoned as sin?” Although the Lord God does not Himself regard it as if it had never been, since it is written: “As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law.”12

    Which is good exegesis. The antinomy is between ALL law [legislation] and promise [grace]. Grace with promise with faith is contrasted in the Pauline epistles with Law and obligation and works. Paul was not a proto Romanist

    Gus

    1. Gus, this is great. Thanks for taking the time. Dave Anders at Called to Communion tries to make a distinction in Romans 2 and 3 saying Paul is using different greek terms for the law. That works that come from the Spirit are different that works of the law. Can you opine on this. I think one ofvthe words is Daikaiousinae theou. Horton says in Galatians its not even so much the law Paul has in mind but hearing by faith versus works in justification? K

  82. KEVIN–
    You said: “The fact that they are spirit led or grace enabled is irelevant to Paul.”

    Really? Here’s what Paul said to the Corinthians that showed the relevance:
    2Co 3:5ff Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

    By the way, the Presbyterian Book of Order is an interesting read. Here is another thing I have found:

    W-2.1005 Enacted Prayer
    In the Old and New Testaments and through the ages, the people of God expressed prayer through actions as well as speech and song. So in worship,/strong> today it is appropriate
    a.
    to kneel, to bow, to stand, to lift hands in prayer,
    b. to dance, to clap, to embrace in joy and praise,
    c. to anoint and to lay hands in intercession and supplication,
    commissioning and ordination.

    You don’t suppose the Presbyterians thought they had the authority to break the rules of the early Church Counsels banning kneeling on Sunday, do you?

  83. Kevin—
    Author: Kevin
    Comment:
    ” sacraments of the new LAW ” arent law? Law is anything you DO. In Roman Catholicism you must DO the sacraments of the new LAW to be justified” The fact that they are spirit led or grace enabled is irelevant to Paul. He excludes ALL works, even grace enabled works from justification. Romans 4:5, 4:6,7. David. Galatians 3: 1-6. ) Paul puts all works in antithesis to hearing by faith in justification. K

    There is an almost fatal weakness in the understanding of most Protestants, and it has to do with sacraments. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. The real problem is covenant, of which i have done extensive study. Because they do not understand sacraments many fall for RC arguments and become Romanists, but many also fall for Anabaptist arguments and become Baptists. No disrespect intended. Covenant and sacraments is a huge issue and should not be argued unless well understood.

    So keeping that in mind i will give you a brief explanation. Sacraments have nothing to do with law. They have to do with covenant ratification. In baptism we are applying a symbol of the Holy Spirit to a baptizee because it is a sacrament of initiation. The Anabaptist argument that it has to do with the burial and resurrection of Christ, Rom. 6, is decidedly wrong headed. Rom. 6 has nothing to do with sacraments, and everything to do with spiritual union with Christ. It makes no sense to talk about imputation in Romans 5, Condemnation in Romans 7, justification in Romans 8 BUT sacraments in Romans 6. Especially considering that the entire theme of Romans 6 has to do with mortification of sin, or sanctification. WHAT does baptism have to do with sanctification. The typical Baptist interpretation of Rom. 6: 1-4 lends itself to legalism and confuses rather than clears up the whole issue of sacraments. Discount the bad exegesis of Rom. 6:1-4 and sacramentology becomes clear. They are not works, they are rituals which when it comes time to initiate the covenant (baptism) or renew the covenant (communion) are applied to those who are qualified, as visible symbols of an invisible grace, in order to make the existence of a covenant between God and his professing people visible. They separate us from the world, and are signs of the promise, and seals of grace. The ‘sealing’ aspect is particularly troubling to Baptists, because they cannot conceive that a grace would be sealed that is not yet given. Yet that is exactly what happens in circumcision where infants who CANNOT believe are circumcised, which is the Old Testament equivalent of baptism. Both circumcision and baptism symbolize entry into the visible covenant. The Lord’s Supper is a different kind of sacrament, for it renews a covenant relation, and therefore faith MUST exist before the communicant can be sealed by partaking of bread and wine. No where in the NT is it explicitly or implicitly taught that we must examine ourselves BEFORE we are baptized. We only need to make a profession of faith, as Simon Magus did in Acts 8:13. He was was later found by the apostle Peter (by revelation) to be disqualified for baptism, Acts 8:20-22. Baptists think of baptism as a memorial to symbolize the resurrection of christ, and Romanists think of it as obedience to the new law. It is a response in gratitude to the god who makes covenant. Col. 2:11, 12 is also misunderstood because it connects with circumcision thereby proving that baptism replaces circumcision, but is also connected with baptism. So baptists end up thinking that baptism means memorializing. No 2nd temple Jew or Christian proselyte, or pagan would ever think of baptism as the memorializing of a death burial and resurrection. Baptism in the ancient world meant union with the deity. Converts to Mithraism were baptized in bull’s blood
    __________________________________________
    Origins of Baptism
    by Robert R. Cargill
    Transcript
    I think it’s important for people to remember, especially Christians to remember, that baptism had already existed in a different form, or in a similar form, prior to what we know today as baptism. When John the Baptist is in the river baptizing people, people didn’t walk by and say, “What’s he doing? That’s a strange thing!” They knew what he was doing, he was baptizing; and this probably emerges from the idea of ritual immersion that existed in Judaism long before. We have evidence of ritual immersion going on prior to the advent of Christianity because we have mikva’ot (mikvehs) we have Jewish ritual immersion and this was for ritual purity. Before you could go worship, you would ritually immerse yourself and this wasn’t necessarily for hygiene or for cleanliness, it was for spiritual purity. You would make yourself pure so that you could go in the presence of the deity, you could worship, you could offer sacrifices. So, long before Christianity developed the idea of baptism, Jews had been practicing ritual immersion in the form of entering into a mikveh, immersing ones selves and then emerging from that purified.
    _______________________________________________
    Ritual immersion, and sprinkling, and pouring, meant ritual “sanctification” so you could enter into the presence of the deity, or in other words be united with deity. That’s what it means to be united with Christ visible. Of course, not everyone who is visibly united to Christ and his visible church, has faith. Visible union is no guarantee of invisible union and so they become to such people emblems of judgement. Heb 6: 1-8; 1 Cor. 11:27-30. Why would the threat of death and judgement be attached to sacraments if they were only ordinances [baptist talk] that memorialized death and resurrection, and being with Christ? The threat of death is attached to their abuse because they represent God’s New Covenant. This understanding gives no cover to the Romanists, because, though there is a new law in christ, they do NOT represent law but promise. And even though only in the case of baptism the symbol/promise can come before the believing they do not represent works BECAUSE whether baptism, or the Lord’s Supper if there is no believing there IS judgement. See Exo 4:24-26. Therefore, though covenantal believers from the Reformation baptize infants they do not believe in baptismal regeneration, neither do most give credence to presumptive regeneration. Read the biography of Hodge, and his mother talks of his conversion–even though he was baptised as an infant.

    Hope this helps.

    Gus

    1. “I think it’s important for people to remember, especially Christians to remember, that baptism had already existed in a different form, or in a similar form, prior to what we know today as baptism. When John the Baptist is in the river baptizing people, people didn’t walk by and say, “What’s he doing? That’s a strange thing!” They knew what he was doing, he was baptizing; and this probably emerges from the idea of ritual immersion that existed in Judaism long before. ”

      Me – Don’t know how Calvinists baptize, but this explains why you will read in scripture how some were baptized in Jesus name (to differentiate from other baptisms). Some churches not understanding the history will baptize in Jesus name but use the specific formula given by Jesus “n the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

      Interesting stuff Dr Gus.

  84. Kevin–
    Further, the Baptists of today developed from the Radical Reformation or the Anabaptists. They were so adamant that all the doctrine of Rome should be abandoned that some denied that christ had normal flesh.
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1990/issue28/2838.html

    Just like we do not reject all the teaching of Romanism [this is called the genetic fallacy] we do not reject all the teaching of anabaptists. They were way ahead of the Reformers when it came to the relation between church and state. But they applied their principle of separation from Rome so uniformly and consistently that they also taught–
    pacifism
    refusal of military service
    refusal to hold civil office
    refusal to take oath in a court of law
    http://www.patheos.com/Library/Anabaptist

    They also believed:
    ———————
    How radical was the radical Reformation? – after Munster no outbreak of anabaptist violence – most anabaptists pacifists, much of teaching an inward-looking mystical speculation. But authorities across Europe still convinced they posed a major threat to the order/stability of society. Was this an entirely artificial fear? Need to look at developed form of anabaptist thought (though need to be aware very great variety, no ‘orthodox’ version) Like the Protestants rejected teachings of Catholicism – system of priesthood and sacraments (anabaptists v. anticlerical) But equally rejected central Protestant idea of Justification by Faith Alone – reminder: in Luther’s thinking the ‘justified’ person remained a sinner – impossible to tell who was saved who was not (same with Calvin’s predestination) – known only to God – all inhabitants of state have to be included and disciplined within one church. Anabaptists took view that ‘saved’ person would be recognizable, would undergo sudden transformation in lives (like born-again Christians?) Anabaptist groups imposed strict moral standards on members. Implications of all this – linked to rejection of Infant Baptism – shocked other Christians (& embarrassed Protestants- where is infant baptism in Bible?) Baptism of adults testified to their transformation. More generally an over-riding principle of separation/exclusiveness – adult baptism reflects an opt-in principle that the godly, the ‘saints’, have to separate from the ungodly, not try to reform ungodly society (like Luther, Calvin) but withdraw from it. This had profound social and political implications: some thought they should only marry within the sect, do business with other believers; anabaptists did not believe state power should play any role in regulating or enforcing religion, and would not cooperate with it – eg would not undertake military obligations, refused to hold any kind of public office, would not swear oaths (oaths central to judicial proceedings, in many towns taking oath prerequisite of citizenship) From their point of view just wanted to be left alone, but from authority’s point of view undermining the very foundations early modern society built upon uniformity in religion, obedience to secular authority, series of mutual obligations linking all members of society. Therefore, not just their religious doctrine offensive (though it was) – anabaptists by definition anti-social. (though note interesting point made by Euan Cameron that some of this not so very different from the behaviour of, eg, Calvinist groups in France, separating themselves off into ‘gathered’ churches – difference here not so much one of visible behaviour as of attitudes and ultimate goals.)

    Excerpt from “EUROPEAN WORLD LECTURE: THE RADICAL REFORMATION”
    —————————————–
    Also
    http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/gilbert/15.html

  85. Kevin–
    ———————
    Author: Kevin
    Comment:
    Gus, this is great. Thanks for taking the time. Dave Anders at Called to Communion tries to make a distinction in Romans 2 and 3 saying Paul is using different greek terms for the law. That works that come from the Spirit are different that works of the law. Can you opine on this. I think one ofvthe words is Daikaiousinae theou. Horton says in Galatians its not even so much the law Paul has in mind but hearing by faith versus works in justification? K
    ————-
    That’s just plain silly. works ‘ergoi” are simply a designation for the result of effort. What the new testament condemns is salvation as the result of effort. It is given, whereas effort implies earned. Moreover the contrast betw. “the works of the flesh” and the “fruits of the Spirit” made by Paul did not sound strange to greek ears. “Works of the flesh” was ANYTHING THAT RESULTED FROM EFFORT. Therefore it was bad, and though everything noted we recognize as a sin, his contention is that anything done by human autonomy is a sin as can be seen in Rom . 2-3 where Paul condemns the Jews for their keeping the law superficially. They did “outward” good works but they were actually “works of the flesh” because the motive was pride.

    dikaiosune is “justification” or “innocence” by imputation. A man was considered “dikaios” [righteous] because he believed. Rom. 1:17. “the fruit of the Spirit” is the result of the Spirit’s presence or fruition in the life of the believer, evidenced outwardly. Such fruit, though visible were not considered works because works only come from flesh [the unregenerate] whereas fruit comes from the S(s)pirit [the regenerate].

    Hope this helps.

    Gus

    1. Gus, in Galatians 3 Paul says law is not faith. Thats why we say that Rome making sacraments works to justification and not sign and seals of grace is an abomination. Rome historically called the mass ” the work of the people” Catholics dont realize they are seeking to be accepted by God thru their efforts. Romans 9-32 -10:4. Christ is the end of the law for righteouness to all who believe. There is a virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance of God. K

  86. Gus, man, that was clear. I have struggled with vasolating between Zwingli’s view and Calvin. I have in the past thought infant baptism violated the regulative principle and that Reformed Presbyterians were hedging. But Im rethinking all this. Thanks so much. I know that the bastardization of the sacraments by Rome was a huge issue with the Reformers. Rome had made them merit for the strong instead of free grace for the weak in faith. You have given me much to think about. I just went to find Anders argument to me suporting Rome’s view on justification. He says, although Paul excludes works and works of law, he never excludes daikaiomata tou nomou from justification. He cites Romans 8: 1-4. Can you expound Gus.

    1. Kevin–
      Anders im not sure about but i can give you a heads up on Rom 8:1-4 esp. v. 4
      There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
      2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
      3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, (Rom. 8:1-3 ESV)
      4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom. 8:4 ESV)
      4 ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα. (Rom. 8:4 BGT)

      This is a reference to the moral precepts of the law, so would include the decalogue. That is, “regulation, requirement, commandment.” The “in order that” is a conclusion or thesis clause which points to the fact that what has been said fulfills the condition to render someone righteous according to the law because the demands of the Mosaic law are met. Therefore to understand v. 4 we must look at 8:1-3. All four verse make up one theme: the contrast between condemnation [guilt] and righteousness [innocence]. Innocence, or righteousness is understood as moral and inward conformity to the Mosaic law as the standard which determines who is acceptable to God.
      In verse 1 κατάκριμα (Rom. 8:1 BGT) or “condemnation” is a [κατάκριμα, ατος, τό] legal technical term for the result of judging, including both the sentence and its execution condemnation, sentence of doom, punishment . Please note, it is a legal term, and therefore frames the whole discussion that results. v. 1 is also a conclusion to Paul’s cry for help in Rom. 7. People who are united to Christ are innocent–that is the opposite of condemned. They have been tried and found “not guilty”. The entire discussion is forensic and penal. The problem that Paul is struggling with, which he develops through the whole first half of the book, how can we as sinners (Rom 3) whether Jews (Rom 2) or Gentiles (Rom 3) who are born with innate knowledge of God (Rom 1) and yet suppress it by ignoring it (Rom 1) meet the moral requirements of the Law which condemns us as worthy of the death penalty and yet live to serve God. God is a judge in the early part of Romans, of Gentile AND Jew and is not spoken of as Father until Romans 8. In verse 2 the “law of the Spirit of life” is contrasted with “the law of sin and death”. After a lot of study over the years I have concluded that Paul is in both cases talking about the Mosaic law. BUT what has changed is our relation to it. He specifies how that relation was changed in v. 3.
      3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, (Rom. 8:3 ESV)
      The same word “κατάκριμα ” is used but in the verbal form. It is an indicative aorist active 1st person singular. God judged, or found guilty sin “in the flesh”
      THEREFORE the whole discussion has nothing to do with internal and moral transformation but the application of alien righteousness to the sinner by legal means. Christ who was in weak flesh did what the law could not do. He judged it YET kept the guilty alive, whereas the law would have killed him. When the law of Moses is considered from the perspective of all human effort, no matter how apparently meritorious, it [human effort] fails to deliver from judgement because the flesh being weak [concupiscence] can never PERFECTLY obey at all times the Mosaic Law. BUT Christ could even though he was in the “likeness of sinful flesh” or copy of sinful flesh. So sin has been judged in such a way that the sinner does not die even though this is a demand of the Mosaic code. How can this be?
      v.4 because we are “in the Spirit”. We have been taken out of the realm of flesh , we are in Christ. So sin is judged and we are not, because we are NOT in the flesh but in the Spirit. How did we get there? THERE WAS A CHANGE OF RELATIONSHIP FROM GOD AS JUDGE TO GOD AS FATHER. THIS CHANGE OF RELATIONSHIP WAS BY BEING IN CHRIST–BECAUSE WE ARE UNITED TO HIM BY FAITH. Rom. 1:17. Therefore, v. 4 means that the death penalty demands of the Law are met because we are in Christ [united by faith] and therefore His death is ours, and his life is ours. None of this makes sense if the background is not imputation. REMEMBER this is all legal language not the language of internal moral transformation. How do we/they know we/they are in Christ? We conduct ourselves according to the new relation with God and his law, provided by the Spirit. We BELIEVE, therefore we have the Spirit, therefore we are innocent, therefore our flesh is dead [judged] Rom 6 reference to the old man. This is a principle being laid down and it is this:
      effort, merit, external and correct observance to the Mosaic law CANNOT justify us, BECAUSE The law is dead, but the Spirit brings life. Only in a new relation is the requirement of the law met in us who walk in the Spirit–because we believe.

      29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Rom. 2:29 ESV)
      3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2 Cor. 3:3 ESV)
      5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,
      6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
      7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
      8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
      9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. (2 Cor. 3:5-9 ESV)

      Paul’s argument is radical and his own life experience was part of the preparation for his being an apostle. Paul was a Jew of Jews much stricter in the keeping of the law than his contemporaries. Christ showed him that human effort, even if in outward conformity to the law, is always, even after conversion, antithetical to “living in the Spirit”. In fact striving to be conformed to the law is a work of the flesh. Then where is sanctification? Paul anticipated this:

      ESV Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
      2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
      3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
      4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
      5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
      6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
      7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.
      8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
      9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
      10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
      11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Rom. 6:1-11 ESV)

      He counters the charge of antinomianism by saying that to be dead to the law, and no longer enslaved to sin, we must be above the law, by being identified with Christ in his resurrection. Is the resurrected Christ subject to the law? Of course not, the law is meant for bad men.
      8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
      9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
      10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Tim. 1:8-10 ESV)

      Do you see now why it makes no sense [nonsense?] to insist that Paul is talking about baptism in Rom 6 because the whole point of the passage is that union with Christ unites us to Christ resurrected and therefore we are above sin. To continue in it, is a testimony against our union with Christ. If you sin willingly you testify that you are not “in the Spirit” but “in the flesh” and any attempt to establish a judicial sentence of innocence by effort [works] at anytime is a denial of being united to Christ and of having the Spirit. If you work you are in the flesh, and if you sin you are in the flesh. In this way Paul guards against antinomianism and legalism.

      Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
      2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
      3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
      4 Did you suffer so many things in vain– if indeed it was in vain?
      5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith– (Gal. 3:1-5 ESV)

      Works are always wrong, because we are all born into this world as members of the Roman antichrist church, attempting to establish our own righteousness by our efforts. Those who turn to Rome from evangelicalism have missed the essence of paul’s argument and have mistaken the visibility of the church for the power of the invisible. The visible ONLY represents, the power is in the invisible. What good did circumcision do the millions who died in the wilderness. Yet they had the good word of God, they had sacraments, they had miracles, they had a visible leader [Moses] who was infallible. Remind you of anybody?

      Hope this helps
      Gus

      1. Gus, Catholic apologists love the NPP and this is what they have do do to support their tridentine doctrine, separate out works of law form infused agape. They want to smuggle their character into God ‘s work of grace by making this distinction. K

      2. Gus, Im in complete agreement on Romans 8:1-4. I agree with Moo that it is Christ intended here who condemned sin in the flesh and fulfilled the law. Notice it says ” in us” not by us. The verb is passive. I agree with you the 1st verse controlls the context of the passage. Imputation, codemnation being forensic, a judgment of innocence. Paul could have said it this way ” there is now justification for those in Christ. Horton says Paul could have never intended with daikaiou, the state of affairs internally at the end of your life. The reason there is such an affinity for Rome’s apologists to the New perspective on paul is the whole get in by grace and stay in by works, and a final justification based on works. If you noticed, CK had no answer when I pointed out that scripture teaches we are guaranteed salvation Romans 4 :16, citizens of heaven Philippians, seated with Christ in the heavenlies Ephessians 2, and transfered to His glorious kingdom Colossians 1:14. In reutation of purgatory. These verses arent consistent with our inherent condition without imputation. Also 2 Corintians 5:21. Anders is an interesting cat. He believes that Jesus appointed successors to the apostles, even though his own church doesnt claim that. K

  87. Tim, Gus, I hate to be a pest. Anders says that Paul says daikaimota tou nomou circumcised on the heart justifies. He gives 2:13 and 8: 1-4 as an example. He says this is different than ergon nonou which is works of flesh or works of law that doesnt justify. But my contention with David in 4:6, 7 that his Spirit led works didnt justify, but faith alone. Have you guys seen Anders argument? Also Moo believes in 8:4 that it is Christ that fulfilled the law in us. Notice it says ” in us” and not ” by us” the verb is passive. I tried to make this argument against him. Can you guys give me your opinion if you have time ? K

  88. Kevin–
    So what is sanctification? Sanctification is conformity to the law by imputation, and conforming the mind to the requirements of the Law through the Spirit. It is always out of gratitude to a loving Father. The moment prayer, bible study, church attendance, becomes a matter of legal conformity it is a work of the flesh.

    Gus

    1. This is a great way to put sanctification Gus. Jesus said sanctificy them in truth, thy Word is truth. We can see how Rome’s worthiness of merit gospel is an abomination. In Rome, justification is a recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward, but for Paul it was a declaration about someone utterly and intrinsically unqualified. K

  89. Dr Gus you should consider a dialogue with Dr Anders at Called to Communion. I personally think most people get more out of discussions between two people who are educated on the topic and you certainly know your stuff even though we disagree on several points.

  90. CK, you disagree with certain points of Dr Gus. Do you disagree that Rome made sacraments works as Gus said ? The mass is historically called ” the work of the people” Do you agree with Rome? Do you agree with Gus that all effort is excluded in justification? Simple yes or no’s will do. Lets see if you will give direct answers. Thanks K

  91. DR GUS–
    I must have overlooked this response of yours.
    Anyway….

    You said: “That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I dont care if they were never taught by YOUR church, your church is a whore. I would be amazed if they were taught.”

    There you go, playing hardball again–calling people whores.
    My Methodist Church does teach those Protestant Pillars. But just like you and your Presbyterian Church, I don’t always agree with them.

    You also said: “My church, not that it matters is in the NT and Paul clearly taught every single one of them. So, I wont take you up on your bogus challenge.”

    Ooooops! Now you don’t want to play hardball anymore. Figgers.

    And you finally said: “Keep mocking, and keep avoiding every argument, and every point of logic. Giggle, and laugh, and mock…all I see is the fires of hell getting brighter.”

    Now that’s dumbest thing that I ever heard–avoiding every argument. I’m the one who starts them! If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Me