The American Spectator : Catholic Controversies

Text Size

Catholic Controversies

By G. Tracy Mehan, III on 9.20.11 @ 6:07AM

Intellectuals keep creating them. The public keeps spreading them. Now author Stephen Gabriel is sorting them out.

Catholic Controversies: Understanding Church Teachings and Events in History
By Stephen Gabriel
(Moorings Press, 512 pages, $19.95)

For reasons that are both understandable and regrettable, apologetics, the science of demonstrating the reasonableness of religious doctrine, is not often mentioned in public life these days. In part, this is due to the demands of charity and prudence, to avoid unnecessary and often acrimonious strife among religious denominations in a nation which has benefited from the political genius inherent in James Madison’s First Amendment.

But there is a certain intellectual laziness that has infected theological and religious discussion, driven by an easy-going relativism and an inability to sustain an argument through to its necessary conclusion, resulting from a general loss of faith in rational discourse — not just in theological circles, but in the public square at large.

Yet, beyond technical theological debate, there is the broader realm of popular, journalistic discussion of religious matters in American journalism that is, typically, driven by two overarching obsessions — sex and the Catholic Church. Of course, the sexual obsession will drive coverage of any religion that offers even the slightest resistance to the reigning zeitgeist which is somewhere to the left of “Whoopee!” on human sexuality and family issues. But there is a special kind of bile reserved for Roman Catholicism, given its staying power and consistent and sustained resistance to the demands of sexual liberation.

Moreover, the journalistic onslaught extends to many matters outside the sphere of sexuality and to other historical matters. Indeed, the battles over church history are often the most uninformed, suffering from a lack of historical conscience and a tendentious, biased use of history for political ends. The British historian Herbert Butterfield called this tendency The Whig Interpretation of History (1931). There is rarely any serious coverage given to the Catholic side of the argument that isn’t rather distorted or minimalist in terms of depth or understanding much less sympathy.

Fortunately, Catholics and sympathetic fellow travelers of all faiths now have a resource at hand in the form of a new collection of essays assembled and edited by Stephen Gabriel, an economist, father, and active layman. His new book, Catholic Controversies: Understanding Church Teachings and Events in History, provides a substantive, yet accessible, collection of essays by an impressive number of writers and authorities on selected topics, all of which are controversial and frequently in the press and media throughout the United States and Europe.

Catholic Controversies “is intended for anyone who wishes to dispel the many myths and misperceptions about the Catholic Church and its teachings that are promoted by university professors, the media and the uninformed,” says Gabriel in his Introduction to the book.

The book is divided into four parts covering 26 topics, all “hot-button” issues, each prefaced by Gabriel’s description of the matter at hand as well as citations to authoritative sources, including official Church documents. Brief, bulleted summaries of the articles are provided before the actual articles themselves.

The topics run the gamut from the most fundamental (“Can the Existence of God Be Proven?”) to the historical (“The Galileo Affair”). They cover the Crusades, women in the Church, and a range of matters impacting the human person and sexuality: contraception, abortion, stem cell research, cloning, and homosexuality.

Two of my favorite articles are one by Rabbi David Dalin on “Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust,” who, like the historian and Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert, defends the late pontiff against charges of being some kind of stooge for the Nazis, and another by Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State University, an expert on the study of global Christianity, entitled, “The Myth of the Pedophile Priest.” Jenkins does not whitewash any of the horrific crimes of any priests or the negligence of the hierarchy in handling the crisis. He does, however, review the current data and research to document that Catholic or other celibate clergy are no more likely to be involved in sexual misconduct than any other denomination or any non-clergy group.

Not all readers (even Catholic ones) will agree with every author or article compiled in Catholic Controversies. Still, taken as a whole, the book provides a useful corrective to the unrelieved anti-Catholicism of the age. Every fair-minded person of whatever denomination or none would benefit from reading Stephen Gabriel’s excellent volume. Buy it for your college-age son or daughter.

About the Author

G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (459) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 7:30AM

It sounds like an interesting read. However, it also sounds like information that's been covered in other well-written texts on Christian Apologetics.

Additionally, based on the topics presented, it doesn't really seem to touch on REAL hot-button issues relating to Catholicism and Christianity, namely how substantial portions of Catholic doctrine contradict scripture. Maybe that was too controversial?

JP| 9.20.11 @ 7:42AM

Doctor Right,
Why don't you read the book, take notes, and write a review of it from a Protestant perspective?

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 9:30AM

I can't; I'm not a Protestant, so that would be disingenuous.

Ryan| 9.20.11 @ 12:57PM

Define Protestant, and please show us how you aren't one. I have yet to see a convincing argument from you on the matter.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 1:54PM

That's because you see the world through Catholic-colored glasses.

In this world, Catholicism = Christianity, since Catholics believe that the Church Christ established was the the Catholic Church.

Therefore, it stands to reason that you think that anyone who refuses to "get in line", metaphorically speaking, with Catholicism but admits to a belief in Christ MUST therefore be a "Protestant", since they're essentially "protesting" against Catholicism.

Your logic is proper; however, your premise is flawed.

Catholicism was NOT the Church that Christ began.

Therefore, it is actually Catholicism that exists in opposition to Christ's Church. So in essence, Catholicism is also a "protestor".

I follow Christ and the Bible, as Christ and the Bible said to do.

I am a Christian. Period.

If you don't yet understand that, you probably never will.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:03PM

Well said, and thank you!!

Alan Brooks| 9.20.11 @ 9:12PM

But works still count; the Catholic Church has done great charity. Immediately after 9-11 they sprang into action to pitch in.
Don't be hypercritical.

Tony in Central PA| 9.20.11 @ 10:24PM

This post reminds me of a little nugget I painfully obtained sitting through a fundamentalist service a few weeks ago. The pastor was expounding on a Gospel story in which the people just weren't " getting " what Jesus was saying. He said ( and I quote ) " they ( the people ) needed to go home and get their Bibles out ". Well, that would've been a genuine miracle on their part considering those Bibles wouldn't appear for a few centuries.

mames| 9.20.11 @ 11:41PM

The Old Testament was fully codified and available at the time of Christ.

Tony in Central PA| 9.21.11 @ 8:35PM

I'd like to see an academic reference for that claim.
But as the pastor said, ' They needed to get out their Bibles ", which is some version of the OT and some version of the NT.

Ryan| 9.21.11 @ 8:10AM

What's interesting is that you are saying some of the exact same things that people who embrace the term "Protestant."

And you "protest" against Catholicism more than anyone here, with many of the same arguments that the original Protestants made.

Jack in Wi.| 9.22.11 @ 1:24AM

The Catholic Church hs given the world most of the foundations of Western thought and progress.
1. It has given us the idea of the universl brotherhood of all mankind.
2. It has given us the idea and practice of mass Charity to the poor.
3.The Bible itself comes from the Catholic Church. They were give the Authority from God to spread the good news. From that authority comes the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition.
4. The Church has given the world the Just War Theory as a way to try to stop and ameilorate conflict.
5. The Church has given the world the University and all the good that has done.
6. The Hospital is another Catholic Church invention.
7. Modern science comes from the Church's universities and monastaries.
8.The Church has brought us great theology, philosopy, art, music, and arcitecture.

The Catholic Church has outlived many thousands of civil goverments. It has survived thousands of persecutions and tens of millions of martyrs. It has beeen by far God's greatest gift to the world. Jesus founded the Church and He remains it's Head. The Pope is his earthly general manager.

Numerous heresies, Rabbinical Talmudic Judasim, Islam, 30,000 Protestant sects, the French Revolution, Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, and the new Neopaganism were all founded to destroy and and replace the Church. They have not, as yet succeeded

Mevadog| 9.20.11 @ 8:30AM

Doctor Right,
It was Fulton Sheen who stated "There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is of course, quite a different thing."

I highly recommend a reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to understand the Catholic Church's scriptural basis for each and everyone of its doctrines. Surprisingly, many sincere evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, once they honestly examine the ACTUAL beliefs espoused by the Catholic Church (as opposed to anti-Catholic polemic) embrace their Catholic brethren as genuine allies in the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 9:34AM

I don't hate the Catholic Church.

And I don't need to read anymore Catholic doctrine to understand Catholicism; I WAS a Catholic for 32 years.

And I don't think that Catholics aren't "reliable allies" on many important issues.

However...since Catholic Doctrine is often at odds with scripture, that "advancement" can only go so far.

Le Cracquere| 9.20.11 @ 9:51AM

I'm not a Catholic either, though as for the future ... who can say?
But I hope you don't take it as an insult when I say: being a Catholic for 32 years is not incompatible with ignorance of Catholic doctrine. I've known enough cradle Catholics to say that plenty of them could profit from investigating the Catechism, as well as books like Gabriel's.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 10:05AM

I understand what you're saying.

You'll just have to trust me when I tell you that I DO understand Catholic doctrine, and that understanding contributed to my no longer being a Catholic.

MA| 9.20.11 @ 1:33PM

Amen There. You might look into a good RCIA program as to how they teach catholic wanna be's now.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 1:55PM

???

What's "RCIA"???

Mike McLaren| 9.20.11 @ 4:01PM

Dr....you said trust me, because you are knowledgable of Catholic doctrine. But then you ask what's RCIA??? RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) is the program used at every Catholic parish in the country to introduce neophyte's to the teaching of the Church! Your lack of knowledge of this widely used process indeed causes me to be suspicious of your knowledge of the current day Catholic Church.
One more thing, you said you follow Christ and the bible. Let me ask you, how did Christians know how to worship and how to follow Christ before the new testament was assembled, because as Im sure you know it wasn't assembled until at least the third century. Well as you should know they learned from the early Church fathers who some of which learned from the apostles themselves. These fathers were teaching over nineteen hundred years ago the same thing that the Catholic Church is teaching today. You might also want to read the didache which scholars estimate was written in the mid to late first century( within several decades of Our Lords Assention). The didache also teaches the same thing as the current day Church teaches.

Quartermaster| 9.20.11 @ 5:30PM

Just because he didn't know what RCIA stood for doesn't mean he was a Roman Catholic. Perhaps he had nor reason to know what it meant.

Having read my copy of the Roman catholic Catechism, I know the RCC teaches much of what the early church taught. But it does not teach the same things as the Didache. Additionally, it teaches far more than that the early church would have rejected outright. The stuff that made Roman Catholicism what it is, is what makes it a pseudo-Christian cult today.

Fulton Sheen was wrong about the Christian world. We know what the RCC teaches and teh sources to learnt what it teaches were available during his time as well. I guess it was comforting to him to believe a falsehood.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 6:49PM

Quartermaster,
You're the one that believes the Confederate States were correct to secede to keep slavery. You are still fighting the Civil War,, And you think the RC is a cult....

Tony in Central PA| 9.20.11 @ 10:30PM

Really ? Be specific about " what the early Church would have rejected outright ".

mames| 9.20.11 @ 11:58PM

The Holy Roman Catholic (universal) church was in existence long before Christ. The Romans used a brilliant political solution to deal with the variety of religions in the empire. They simply enveloped the gods and religions of all the people in the empire especially those they had conquered so as to help all feel welcome. It took years before the Romans dragged Christianity into their fold and only after the faith had spread so much. The pagan notions of the Roman church crept into Christian teachings and it was centuries before the reformers put focus back on God's word as the sole source of Christian doctrine. The early church would have rejected other intercessors besides Christ, deification of Mary (likely an Isis or pagan notion), all gnostic ideas etc... The writings codified into the new testament circulated as they were written until around 70 AD when the last eye witness book was penned. The scripture Christ confirmed as God's Word was the then existing Old Testament from which He confirmed his Messiah/Christ authenticity.

Tony in Central PA| 9.21.11 @ 8:58PM

That thumbnail of history has a few pretty big errors.
- While its true the Romans valued order above all else and did try to fold other religions into their religious plurality, that didn't work out with orthodox Judaism or orthodox Christianity, hence the persecutions and the significance of the eventual Edict of Milan.
- The oft - repeated spectre of " creeping paganism " to explain Catholic doctrines, liturgy and sacraments simply does not square with anything from the Fathers of the Early Church.
- An intercessor is a believer, alive or departed, who prays for you. The Redeemer is Jesus the Christ who offers salvation. Don't confuse the two.
- Mary is a creature, not God. She was chosen and given glory by God for His own reason to accomplish the Incarnation. If the Catholic Church teaches Mary is somehow part of the Trinity, show me.
- I have no idea what the Gnostic reference means. Since Gnosticism was a serious early heretical challenge to the Church ( and continues to be one to this day ) I don't understand why the Church would incoporate its discredited elitist baloney into its theology.
- The last writings of the NT were not finished " until around A.D. 70 ". Even if you believe the available evidence of early authorship, John's Gospel, letters and Revelation were at least a deade, maybe three after that.

Gaba| 9.21.11 @ 12:17PM

If you were so Catholic for 32 years, you'd know what RCIA is....

Apple Annie| 9.20.11 @ 10:34AM

Doctor please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You stated that you were Catholic for 32 years. Did you understand anything about your faith? Scripture? Tradition? Just what about the Church is not scriptural? History of the Church begins with Jesus Christ. Read the writings of the fathers of the Church. Read the history. Sorry your Church did not educate. So many fallen away Catholics know/knew little about the faith. What Catholic doctrine is at odds with scripture?

Evanston2| 9.20.11 @ 11:33AM

Apple, the truly amusing part of the "misconceptions" regarding Roman Catholicism is that they are all created by "the church" itself. It invents all sorts of teachings out of nothing, including most critically in regard to the sacraments and salvation which are specifically at odds with Scripture and is "another gospel." These aberrant and unscriptural teachings depend on the assumed authority of the Magisteria to invent extraBiblical doctrines. That, itself (assuming that they speak for God) is at odds with Scripture. What makes it amusing is that Catholics continually say that "Catholics don't believe ____" when they do...there's a hierarchy of teachings, the highest being ex cathedra (though "the church" itself has never published an authoritative list of what these are) down through the various church Orders (Benedictine, Jesuit, etc.) that invent novel doctrines down to the popular inventions (parades with weeping statues of Mary, collections of medallions of saints for "blessings" and that end up as far more than mere "veneration"). The so-called "misconceptions" regarding "the faith" are created by the blank check that "the church" has written for itself. But the Bible isn't good enough for you. 2 John 1:9 "Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God."

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 11:38AM

WELL SAID, Evanston2!

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 12:34PM

"But the Bible isn't good enough for you."

There are at least two, often three, Bible readings at every Mass. Catholic parishes offer Bible study, and have for years. This is just another vicious canard that certain "Christians" love to spread about Catholics.

Anti-Catholic bigotry loves to hide behind the Bible.

As for the True Meaning of the Bible, Bible-only religions fight, split, schism, and (more often than they admit) pillory and even condemn each other to hell for disagreeing on what that True Meaning actually is.

Catholics believe everyone can get to heaven living a good life; Bible-only types love to tell Catholics they're going to hell for not following the right Biblical formulas.

So, who are the reasonable ones?

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 1:56PM

NO ONE can get to heaven by leading a "good life".

WHO defines "good" in that system?

If you cling to that, you are lost.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:02PM

That's their whole basis of Salvation by works, as you know.

Who defines good?

Why, the Papists of course.
LOL.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 2:59PM

"Who defines good?"

A man's soul, inspired by God.

Margie, what's it like living with a head so full of hate?

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:03PM

Cal Mark,

YOU are the hater.

I love the Word of God, and despise those that would try and pervert it.

You're a liar.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 3:42PM

Margie,
I say all good people go to Heaven, regardless of faith. Including you, if you lose the hate--regardless whether you convert to my religion or not.

THAT makes me a hater?

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:25AM

Alas, you are not GOD!

Therefore, what you think about "good people" going to Heaven is as relevant as the dirt on my shoe.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:00PM

Margie does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Or am I wrong?

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:23PM

Joseph,

This is what I believe, and it is the last time I'm going to answer you.

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our Fathers by the Prophets; but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through Whom also He created the World.

He reflects the Glory of God and bears the very Stamp of His Nature, upholding the universe by His Word of Power. When He had made purification for sins, He sat down at the Right Hand of the Majesty on High, having become as much superior to Angels as the Name He has obtained is more excellent than theirs." Heb. 1:1-4.

This is the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and it is what I believe.
Now, I ask you~ do YOU believe this?

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:36PM

You do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. What's the problem?

Tony in Central PA| 9.20.11 @ 10:36PM

Salvation depends upon " feeling " saved as Luther once wrote ? So faith is a " feeling ", an emotional experience that is nothing to be lived out in our actions or choices ? How does this square with Matt 25, for instance ?

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 2:33PM

You say:
NO ONE can get to heaven by leading a "good life".
WHO defines "good" in that system?

I reply:
You are a moral relativist, and not a Christian.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 2:10PM

"Bible only" types...

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 2:11PM

Criticism is NOT bigotry; that's a convenient straw-man that Catholics like to employ whenever Catholic doctrine is questioned.

mames| 9.21.11 @ 12:08AM

Romanism can be be described as Jesus Christ plus. That plus is what gets it into trouble as the plus can take the form of anything the fathers say it is, even "tradition". Sure they use the Scripture in their readings however their teaching often denies what they have just read from the Word. There are those in that body that are heaven bound as they trust in Christ alone for their salvation but they are believers in spite of the teachings of the church not because of them.

michigander_sandusky| 9.21.11 @ 12:36AM

CalMark: Reading and/or quoting Scripture is no more proof of Catholic veracity than is a Communist quoting the U.S. Constitution. Remember, even Satan quotes Scripture (Matt. 4:6).

Evanston2| 9.21.11 @ 8:16PM

CalMark, thank you for reading what I wrote and your detailed response. My main point was that y'all have created these "controversies" by opening a Pandora's Box of extraBiblical "truths." Regarding your specific points, I'm sorry but the first is lame. Just reading passages out loud does not constitute study. And saying that "Bible study" has been "offer"ed "for years" is itself an admission of the shallow level of Biblical knowledge, at least among laymen. Roman Catholicism is sacrament and tradition oriented. My great aunt (a nun) knows tradition well, Bible nearly zero. It's funny that you end by saying that "Bible-only types love to tell Catholics they're going to hell for not following the right Biblical formulas." Until Vatican II that was the official position of Romanism: that protestants are damned. Further, The Council of Trent has not been renounced: so we're all still anathematized under it (and as a council it has Ex Cathedra status). And truthfully, the rejection I've heard among protestants is regarding the institution of Romanism because of one (I say again, "one") formulation: that is regarding The Gospel. As outlined by others here, if you believe anything you do saves you then you can argue against the Apostles (including Peter). Finally, regarding schisms within protestantism, they are not regarding The Gospel but interpretations of the sacraments and worship styles that are not directly related to God's Work of Salvation. Within Romanism you have those same schisms (think about it, with all the Orders and social groupings and differences from country to country, etc.) but the unity is within the sacraments. In sum, what you have officially within Roman Catholicism is salvation by denomination as official policy, in the form of performance of the sacraments, penitence and other "good works." That's cool, as Traditions of Men go (as Paul pointed out regarding Israel having "the oracles of God") you could do far worse. Regarding the salvation of individual Catholics, if someone loves "to tell Catholics they're going to hell" then this is damning and definitely not my heart nor my intent here. Again, my main point is that blaming "controversies" on outsiders is silly: "the church" invited it with its bent toward invention, and as all Bible readers know the only real threat to God's elect comes from within The Church.

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 1:42PM

Evanston2,
You're correct that the Catholic Church does not do a good job of educating its own members. I've noted among many of the commenters today that the word "doctrine" is used very widely, leading to much confusion about the teachings of the Church. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are very few. I'll try to list as much as I can remember:
1) There is one God (straight out of the Bible)
2) There are three persons in this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (straight out of the Bible)
3) Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, is completely both God and Man (straight out of the Bible)
4) Jesus Christ gives us His body and blood of which to partake, in remembrance of Him and of His sacrifice for us (straight out of the Bible)
5) Mary, the mother of God, was conceived without original sin (straight out of the Bible)

The doctrines of the Catholic Church are required to be believed by all those who are Catholics. The popes are only infallible in stating the DOCTRINE of the Church; nothing else. The rest of the Church's teachings are not doctrine; they are simply commonly-held teachings of the Church, like Purgatory, a bunch of stuff about Mary, the saints and angels stuff, etc. The rest of this stuff is called the Tradition of the Church, comprising the rest of its commonly-held beliefs. None of these are required to be believed by Catholics; they're just part of our tradition and culture. By the way, every Sacrament of the Church is also VERY rooted in the Scriptures.

Hope this clears things up. Those of you who question the Church I recognize as very wise commenters on these pages, and look forward to reading what you have to say every day.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 2:16PM

Mary was not God's "mother"; she gave birth to the human form that contained his essence.

God existed before Mary, so she can't be His "mother".

And please...don't try to obfuscate the issue by speaking of "traditions". That is yet another straw-man that Catholics employ when their Doctrines are questioned.

If you believe that Mary was the "mother of God", that's far more than a "bunch of stuff about Mary". That's error. And it's taught as a true-ism by Catholics. Doctrine, tradition, whatever...it's wrong.

There's a large Cathedral where I grew-up called "The Cathedral of Mary, Our Queen". There's a huge Cathedral in Orlando called "The Cathedral of Mary, Queen of the Universe".

"Our Queen"?? "Queen of the Universe"???

That's not just a euphemism. Catholic doctrine/tradition elevates Mary to the status of a deity.

Do you believe that Mary was born sinless?

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:02PM

Doc,
Do you believe that Jesus is God?
Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus?

kerry| 9.20.11 @ 4:04PM

There was a Roman Goddess that was worshiped back when the Church was trying to gain power ("save souls"), her name was Isis, and she was known as the "queen of heaven", and had 12 stars around her head, and statues commonly placed her on top of a cloud. Sound familiar to Mary?
BTW, I am a recovering Catholic, it was quite distressing and disolussioning for me to discover these things.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:34PM

It's amazing: people who say the vilest things about Catholics always claim to be "former Catholics."

Pardon me for not believing you.

kerry| 9.21.11 @ 11:31AM

It wasn't vile, I'm sorry. I did convert to Catholiscism in my twenties. You don't understand, I am really distressed over this and other things too. I have not found a church or denomination yet that has the same level of seriousness and veneration for God. In other words, I tried the "happy clappy" but found it very disappointing. I don't like mainstream churches and am revolted by their marxism. oh, and yes, btw, liberation theology and marxism are very much alive and well in the Catholic church. That is another HUGE source of contention for me!!! So, my church is me, my Bible and other inspirational Christian works and prayer, no churches. Charity I do on my own...

BobRN| 9.20.11 @ 6:51PM

Please go back to re-consider the things you've discovered. The image of Mary with twelve stars around her head comes from the Book of Revelation, chapter 12. It's become a common critique of Christianity that so many of her teachings were inspired by pagan myths. That accusation doesn't hold up on deeper investigation.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:33AM

Actually, it DOES hold up to deeper investigation.

kerry| 9.21.11 @ 11:33AM

Some of the sources for this is "got questions dot org" a Christian apologetic website. I like that sight and have found it very factual and professional. I will continue to pray for guidance on these issues, if I am wrong perhaps God will lead me in the right direction. Trust me, I didn't want to believe it, because I am looking for a place that matches my beliefs.

BobRN| 9.21.11 @ 11:48PM

I'm glad you'll continue to pray and seek guidance on the matter. A place to start:

http://www.about-jesus.org/paganism.htm

Just a thought: rather than looking for a place that matches your beliefs, look for the truth and embrace it. There are very few who never have to humbly set aside sometimes cherished beliefs in the face of the truth. St. Paul says that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth." As Catholics, as Christians, we believe that God has made Himself known to us through His revelation. The Church is the instrument of God's revelation. Without the Church, we're left dangling for this snatch of truth or that snatch, never really having confidence that what we've grasped is the truth of God for the ages.

God bless and keep you in His tender care.

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 4:30PM

Dr. Right,
We Catholics believe that the essence of Jesus Christ is that He is both completely God and completely Man. Mary is the mother He had as complete Man. Doesn't mean that she gave birth to God. We Catholics don't have any problems with that type of seeming contradiction. We can keep it straight.

No obfuscation here. It's a lot like almost any organization out there. A company may have a policy which states that one employee may not discriminate sexually against another employee. That rule would be equivalent to the Catholic doctrine (you can get fired for practicing sexual discrimination). The same company may allow employees to dress down on Fridays, to include the wearing of jeans, or whatever the employee desires. That second item is more like company tradition and culture. If you look at the company from the outside, you may think that you HAVE TO wear jeans on Fridays, and that this is a basic company rule, but you would be mistaken. A lot of Catholics believe that there is a Purgatory. That doesn't mean that they have to believe this in order to be Catholic; they just do. That's tradition and culture. Queen of the universe stuff is just tradition and culture. Some Catholics elevate Mary to the status of a deity; you're right. Just like some employees of the above company feel they MUST wear jeans every Friday, and do so religiously. Doesn't make it a company rule, though.

Of course I believe that Mary was born sinless. I also happen to believe that you were, too. On the day that, knowing what you were doing, you lied to your parents about what you were up to, you joined me and the ranks of a lot of people to be sinners.

BobRN| 9.20.11 @ 6:46PM

"... she [Mary] gave birth to the human form that contained his [Christ's] essence."

This sounds like Nestorianism. Jesus Christ did not possess a human form that contained a divine essense. Jesus Christ is fully human/fully divine.

This is precisely the false teaching the Council of Ephesus in 431 sought to address in declaring Mary the "Theotokos" = "God-bearer" = "Mother of God."

Your complaint that "God existed before Mary, so she can't be his 'mother'" is a centuries-old argument the Church addressed centuries ago. That you're not aware of this really calls into question your knowledge of Catholicism. You confuse the title "Mother of God" with "cause of divinity." Mary was not the cause of Christ's divinity, as she was the cause of His humanity. But Mary was the true mother of that one person Who is the God-Man. He was "born of a woman," and Mary was that woman. Therefore, she is His mother.

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. The point Ephesus was making, and Chalcedon later that century, is that you cannot create a false dichotomy in the one person of Jesus Christ, as if this part of Jesus is human, while that part is divine. Jesus Christ is the God-Man, fully human/fully divine.

This is basic Catholicism, doc. If you're going to intelligently discuss Catholicism, and intelligently critique it, you need to know what you're talking about. Many of your comments so far don't provide much proof that you do. Rather, they suggest that you've fallen victim to a distortion of Catholicism common among her critics.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 6:51PM

Bob,
You are wasting your time talking to bigots.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:38AM

It's kind of interesting how the RCC tortured and murdered millions of people for hundreds of years, and then when you question their obvious heresies, they play the victim card.

Bzzzt! Wrong ploy. Not gonna work.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:07AM

Mister Grady,

Millions?
That is a ridiculous number, invented by anti-Catholics centuries ago. Please, do not spread their errors.

Tony in Central PA| 9.20.11 @ 10:45PM

In Luke, Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as " The Mother of my Lord ". Jesus claimed He and the Father were one. Jesus was born to Mary. That would make her His biological mother. So Mary as Mother of God is a simple, but paradoxically profound deduction.

Nick| 9.21.11 @ 12:15AM

MikeBee,

Whoever taught you this, was wrong. Purgatory is definitely a dogma of the Catholic Church that every professed Catholic must believe. Our beliefs are not confined to the Creed. The Magisterium, the Church's official teaching authority, is made up of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (that's big "T" tradition) which contains ALL of God's Revelation.

Little "t" traditions, like Christ being born on December 25 or that Our Lady appeared to Saint Bernadette of Lourdes, are things Catholics are free to accept, or reject. But, Purgatory and the Communion of Saints, for example, must be believed to be a Catholic.

If you have a problem with a teaching of the Church, it is up to you to find out why the Church teaches what it does and pray to the Holy Spirit to show you the Truth.
God Bless!

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:40AM

I agree that praying to the Holy Spirit to find the truth is essential. The Holy Spirit has freed many Catholics of the shackles and heresies of the RCC.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:39PM

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus teach us to pray TO the Holy Spirit.
That is NOT correct.
Jesus teaches us to pray to Him, and the Spirit INTERCEDES for us.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:05AM

Mister Grady,

The Holy Spirit brings people to the Catholic Church, not the other way around, in my opinion. Of course! Ha-ha!

Evanston2| 9.21.11 @ 8:24PM

MikeBee, I'm grateful for your response but your supposition regarding my ignorance is just that. By the way, I disagree with a great many parts of your description of Romanism, having grown up officially as a Catholic (although we were "ChrEasters") among Catholics and having shared thoughts with family members "of the cloth" and specifically studied the online Catechism. Obviously we all need to simplify due to the format here, but as soon as you use the word "Church" to apply to an institution instead of the Elect of God (as it is used in the Bible) then all the other inventions (such as regarding Mary -- NOT in the Bible) are really inevitable. Must tickle the ears, mustn't we, to keep the unwashed coming in to get their Magic Pez from the Church Dispenser. Salvation by sacrament is the reality of how "the church" operates both doctrinally and functionally.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 11:37AM

The history of Christianity begins with Christ (actually, it began before that, but that's a different issue).

Christianity is NOT synonymous with Catholicism.

The "Church that did not educate" me was the Catholic Church.

Sorry, but I don't need to read Catechism - again - to know that much of catholic Doctrine is in direct opposition to scripture.

Maybe you should spend time reading scripture, instead of catechism?

Derek Leaberry| 9.20.11 @ 1:12PM

For Protestants to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is pernicious to Christ they must admit that the Roman Catholic Church was wrong from the beginning or was later perverted. It would seem that an honest Protestant is forced to proclaim that either Peter and the Apostles were wrongly to commanded to create His Church or He was wrong to choose Peter and the Apostles to spread His word because they would pervert it. Either way, Protestants would appear to have to admit an inconceivable error made back in 32AD.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 1:34PM

It has been WRONG from the beginning.
And thanks, Evanston2 for being in agreement with the Word of God. I've been saying the same truth here for years now.

And Derek, not all Christians are "Protestants", whether you happen to like it or not.

Papists continually try and put Bible believing Christians in a box, but you fail because the truth doesn't bend to what you or anyone tries to make it.

Your premise is all wrong. First of all, "His Church" isn't a building, and it isn't a Religion. His church is the body of believers who FOLLOW HIS teachings and REJECT all others, and they are individuals.

There are assemblies of Christians the world over who belong to the Body of Christ. It has NOTHING t do with buildings or denominations, it has EVERYTHING to do with obeying His teachings, that are in the Bible.

What you said is so very convoluted.

The error that you speak of wasn't on the part of Christians~ it was on the part of the Apostate Catholic church who corrupted the Words of God, and began putting to death Bible believing Christians in the Name of God because they refused to bow the knee to their perverted doctrines.

That, my friend, is the truth.

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 2:01PM

Margie,
What's needed today is for all Christians, Catholics and others, to stand together in their commonly-held beliefs. Especially now that there is a "religion" which wants to conquer the world and control everyone (Muslim religion). We need each other even more today, and must stand together. Satan would want us to be at odds with one another, so that we are divided. Over the last 100 years, the Catholic Church has repeatedly stated its collegiality with its Christian brothers and sisters worldwide.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:09PM

Mike,

You happen to be a nice guy. Your posts speak to that. The thing is, the Religion of Catholicism is phony through and through.

It's teachings are not in accord with the Bible. They are twisted. There is no unity there.

There can be no fellowship with darkness.
How can anyone possibly be united with someone who believes that by standing on Scripture is of the Devil and hate filled?

No one can serve two Masters. And all of this Ecumenical stuff is not of God, either. It's actually a bunch of people agreeing to keep their mouths shut about what the others believe~ even if it's false.

The Apostles and Jesus warned about false teachers and those who didn't abide in the Doctrine of Christ~ they said to have nothing to do with them.

And Catholicism doesn't abide in Christ's Doctrine.

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 4:35PM

Margie,
The entire Catholic doctrine is completely based on the Word of God. Culture and tradition have developed alongside that, and sometimes is not based on the Word. But, what we believe as Catholics, our doctrine, is based (and MUST BE based on the Word of God). That's how God revealed Himself to us. We have a lot more in common than you think..........

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:36PM

"The entire Catholic doctrine is completely based on the Word of God."

No, it is not.

What we have in common may be a belief in Christ. But as Jesus says, "Even the demons believe, and shudder."
His point is that anyone can say that, but it doesn't mean anything unless we're actually abiding in His Words.

"If you abide in Me, and My Words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you." Jn. 15:7.

Belief alone isn't enough. According to the Words of Jesus, if anyone doesn't teach the Doctrine of Christ, they are to be shunned, and accursed.

His Words are His Doctrine.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him." 1 Jn. 1:9 & 10.

It matters what we're buying into, and Catholicism has not the Doctrine of Christ.

The entire hierarchy of this Religion is against God, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'd advise you to get into the Bible more, and look at how the Doctrine doesn't match up.
You WANT to be following Jesus, not a different Gospel other than the one that He gave us.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:03PM

Mike, you are wasting your time trying to reason with Margie. She is infallible.

Derek Leaberry| 9.20.11 @ 2:10PM

Was Peter wrong to form the Church?

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 2:19PM

Jesus was not wrong.

And neither Peter nor ANY of the Apostles were wrong, because neither Peter nor any of the Apostles were ever members of the Catholic Church.

That's straw-man # 3...

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:41PM

This is the Gospel according to Doc Right
. There are hundreds of good books explaining the differences among religions, and between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. Most are reasonable, balanced, and respectful of the differences, many of which are opinions.
You wont find a reasonable discussion here with Margie, who is an intolerant bigot, nor from Doc Right who is more reasonable than Margie. It takes too long to discuss all the differences and the reasons. All you will find here is accusations from Margie that you are wrong and she is right, and you are a liar who will go to hell.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:46AM

The RCC did not start until the pagan Constantine co-opted Christianity, leading to the Romanized, paganized form of pseudo-Christianity commonly known as Catholicism.

One other thing I know for certain is that, after seeing the hundreds of postings by dozens and dozens of Catholics over the years, there can really be no doubt at all the RCC and it's adherents are a bunch of liars.

Ryan| 9.21.11 @ 8:15AM

Were there any Christians, then, between Constantine and the Reformation?

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 7:13PM

Yes. Of course there were. Good grief, what a bizarre question.

Tony in Central PA| 9.21.11 @ 9:22PM

What amazes me over the all the years I have read this sort of post that " Constantine co - opted the Church " is the inconvenient fact that the NT canon had not been completed at that time. This means in the mind of this claimant that you have a Church that has already gone absolutely off the rails deciding what goes into the Bible.The Bible is then claimed as the sole, infallible guide and source of the faith.

Jack in Wi.| 9.22.11 @ 1:44AM

The Roman Emperor paid for the publication of the first 50 Bibles. That was a huge expense. All you Protestants are worshipping out of a book which was first published by the goodwill of the Roman Emperor. The Protestants have been fighting and squabling about the Catholic Bible for 500 years. The Bible was put together by the Catholic Church, by it's God given Authority. It was guided by the Holy Spirit as it edited the Sacred Scriptures. It has then faithfully copied and used them until the present day. They have always been the foundation of the Mass and other Catholic services.

Evanston2| 9.21.11 @ 8:36PM

Derek, this is fascinating. Romanism presumes: (1) that Peter was the foremost Apostle (no, that was James until his death, afterward is unclear); (2) that he died in Rome (per Tradition -- not the Bible); (3) that he placed hands on successors who in an unbroken line became bishops of Rome; (4) that this placement of hands granted these bishops authority to create extraBiblical teachings; (5) that successors of other Apostles (like the orthodox who claim John in the East) must submit to this presumed authority, though Peter never even claimed it for himself (no less his never-mentioned successors) in his Apostolic letters; (6) that the Roman leadership you have today, after the many intrigues over the centuries, is legitimate. This is just for starters. FYI, the Roman Catholic Church was created at the time of Constantine in political opposition to what are now the Eastern churches, not in 32 AD. You forgot to say that since "the church" chose what books are in the Bible that you therefore have a copyright on it and its interpretation: that's a much more intelligent argument than the totally extraBiblical gibberish you wrote. But I'm sure if you pray to Saint JPII then God will be forced to help you when He otherwise wouldn't because of your pedigree. Strongly recommend you look at the words of Our Lord regarding the claims of the Jews on God, and the entire OT for that matter on who is God and what man is...and stop relying on your traditions.

Tony in Central PA| 9.21.11 @ 9:35PM

Evanston, Peter was the foremost Apostle. That's why Jesus referred to him as The Rock. There is also the moving account of Jesus instructing Peter to " feed my sheep " after the Resurrection. Jesus never also said these things to James as far as anybody can determine. There's very old evidence that backs up the claims of the Church concerning Peter and his position in the early Chruch. I would refer you to the writings of St. Irenaeus " Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3 and Book 4, Chapter 26. Tertullian is another source that confirms this Church teaching in " On Modesty " Chapter 21. Those are just a couple, there are many more.

Evanston2| 9.22.11 @ 12:53PM

Tony, Congratulations on making a Biblical point regarding Peter. No doubt he was specially tasked by Christ and tested by Satan. But consult Acts regarding how Paul corrected him "to the face" and that there was a division between leadership of Jews (to Peter) and gentiles (to Paul). For you to say that Peter was "foremost" is not an outright lie, but at best very vague. As you yourself confirm, support for your argument that Catholic Tradition is authoritative is...Catholic Tradition. That is a tautology (circular "reasoning"). Overall, for you to presume that I am unfamiliar with Peter's nickname as "The Rock" (from the Bible) or arguments from Tradition (easily available online) is arrogant, and ineffective insofar as you specifically avoid most of the 6 points I outlined above. If what "The Rock" says matters to you, recommend you read 2 Pet 1:16: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and ccoming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." By relying on cleverly devised myths (traditions of men) instead of the word of eyewitnesses (the Bible) you yourself reject Apostolic Authority. Next time you venerate Mary, why don't you ask yourself why Jesus berated her many times and none of the Apostles mention her as a leader or "veneration" of her while alive or as a "saint" in any way. Or again, why Peter failed to mention how "the church" should follow whomever claimed his "mantle" as "bishop of Rome." Rely on your myths, but to return again to the book review, stop blaming others for the Controversies that "the church" itself has invited with its continual inventions. It's like when "good Catholics" say any mention of homosexuality or pedophilia is "an attack on the church" when it's the actions of your clergy that are the real attack and an abomination for cloaking heinous sin in Christ's name. While you're claiming primacy over Christianity via your mythical pedigree, how about taking some ownership over how Roman Catholicism is really practiced? Ninevah at least repented for a season...

Tony in Central PA| 9.22.11 @ 8:09PM

Evanston, I limited myself to replying to your opnions about the primacy of Peter because the space in this forum is limited. There is significant evidence in the Bible that Peter was specially tasked as the primary bishop of the Early Church. There's also a large body of evidence outside of the Bible from the earliest Christian writers. There's even evidence in the NT that Peter was in Rome when he penned the farewell in his first letter from " Babylon ", an early Christian code word for Rome.

The real conflict between Catholic and Protestant versions of theology and history, as always, is sola scriptura. The plain case is that sola scriptura is historically and theologically implausible. Jesus started a Church before He ascended. He didn't leave us a Bible. The Church was guided to write and canonize the scriptures via the divine authority given to it and this took quite some time. I recommend Eusebius " History of the Church " for its brief but fascinating discussion of the developing canon.

As far as pedophilia, I find it sickening. Whoever pereptrated or ignored this behavior will undoubtedly receive his reward. I think it should be exposed and prosecuted if found true.

Evanston2| 9.23.11 @ 12:21PM

Tony, You're obviously right about sola scriptura being the point of contention -- the corollary being that Tradition rules. You're equally forthright and correct regarding claims by "the church" to essentially have preceded (and in a sense, to hold the copyright) to the Bible. What is "historically and theologically implausible" is Rome's claims to be "the church." Read the Bible. The term "church" is used in regard to people -- God's elect -- not an institution. Further, this point is made in reference to Israel by Paul, the writer of Hebrews, and oh yes, Our Lord. And your assertions to the outright primacy of Peter (and even worse, the nebulous connection of the Papacy, etc. to Peter's authority) still rely on Tradition. Be honest: you assume your conclusion theologically. In sum, historically the church does not mean Rome, nor does Tradition validate the Scripture. We have the OT and the Apostolic writings. You have built a theology that claims to have precedence over these in all matters (what books are canonical, deuterocanonical, ex cathedra, good Tradition, bad tradition (anything judged "not in communion" like Donatism, etc.). Returning to the original point, you rightly point out that you have built an extraBiblical authority in Rome along with an overflow of novel worship practices and invented interpretations to those prescribed by Our Lord...and then you sit in wonderment at the "Controversies" these have spurred. I don't care that you have obscured The Gospel and depending on your emphasis, have introduced Another Gospel. Seriously, I don't care. What bothers me is y'all being whiney about so-called misunderstandings of Roman Catholicism. Let's "keep it real" -- shall we? Roman Catholicism is the ACTUAL belief and practices of those in the pews. And for this you all will answer. Because as you indicate, what Rome says goes. Read the NT. Those who love God love His Word. But you do not. You presume to have in essence written it yourself and presume to speak for God every time a new, infallible ex cathedra edict comes forth. You use the penumbra of Papal infallibility to cloak level-after-level of lower level edicts from "the church" creating a pagan's hall of special-purpose and geographically designated "saints" to "venerate" and Mary and lesser characters to pray to (oh yes, just for some extra help to convince God to help when He otherwise wouldn't) and claim that this magnifies God's Glory. You all know this. God's real church did indeed Scripture, beginning with Able & Seth, through the Faith of Abraham in God, down to our day. Read Romans 1:16-22. What can be known about God is plain...claiming to be wise, you have become fools.
You have given your approval and Faith to this Tradition. You are likewise accountable for its fruit, including "Controversies" and alleged misunderstandings.

Nick| 9.24.11 @ 12:02AM

Evanston2,

Forgive me for butting in, but, I must reply to two of your points.

First, your appeal to Saint Paul's confrontation of Kephas, as if this episode wipes all the other incidences of Saint Peter leading the Church, to me, is not vague, but, lacking in evidence. Just because Paul had to correct Peter, doesn't prove that Christ didn't appoint him as His prime minister (see my comments at the end of this thread.) Also, technically, Peter was the Apostle to the Gentiles, before Paul arrived on the scene.

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." - Acts 15:7
(This is another example of Kephas leading Christ's Church, by the way.)

Second, "good Catholics" don't claim that "any" mention of homosexuality and pedophilia is "an attack on the church." It is when the Catholic Church is singled out for derision because of the small percentage of priests involved (1.7% over 50+ years). Especially, since priests are at the bottom of the list when compared to other professions, like teachers, doctors, and other religious ministers. Good Catholics freely admit that those priests and bishops guilty of crimes should go to jail for a long time. They have absolutely no effect on whether, or not, the teachings of the Catholic Church were taught by Christ, do they? This is known as the straw man argument.
God Bless!

Evanston2| 9.24.11 @ 2:28PM

Nick, There's no such thing as butting in online. Yet, there is such a thing as arrogance. Good thing you told me what a strawman argument is -- I'd never know without your instruction! Thank you for that, and also telling me what's in the Bible about Peter. You missed the point. If you bothered to carefully read the back-and-forth between Tony and I, we were addressing not only what "foremost" means (when Tony says that Peter was the "foremost" Apostle) but the passing of this alleged authority down to present day Rome. I'm not going to go over the role of James (which you ignore when citing Acts 15) or the significance of Paul's rebuke with you as we have in the past here at AmSpec. Your overall approach, as well as that of "the church" = eisegesis. See Clint's surprisingly good excerpt here regarding exegesis. You assume that Rome -- an external institution -- validates the Bible. That is, we should believe in the Bible because "the church" says it's OK. That is, The Faith = Faith in The Church, which leads to faith in the Bible. So what, for example, if the Hebrew canon did not include Maccabees? You need it to justify a "church" teaching so you bring it in. Congratulations.

Further, my point about the church (as the BIBLE teaches about God's people from the OT through the Apostolic letters) is that the threat to the (real) church is always internal. My comment was directly tied to Roman Catholics whining about "Controversies" -- Tony understood it as such. But you instead tell me how this behavior in no way relates to whether "the teachings of the Catholic Church were taught by Christ." Uh, you're right. Again, that's not what I said. I said that when "the church" claimed the right to invent (oh yes, "reveal") extraBiblical teachings that it created this whole route to Controversy. Just man up to what you've done. I did not say that heinous sin by the clergy proves that Catholic teachings were not (as you say) "taught by Christ." I clearly stated that the attack on "the church" (whether statistically significant or not -- though to really know we'd have to be omniscient, right? -- regarding the actual numbers particularly given the predilection to cover-up) was internal. So ironically your accusation of a strawman argument was itself a strawman: I was saying that the heinous sin (no matter how large or small) is the attack, and that it is internal. You instead try to change the subject to external persecution (which the true church can always expect) and a connection to Rome's teachings which I did not make or even insinuate. So for the final time, I will repeat that these Controversies are themselves the direct result of Rome's reliance on Tradition. The fact that these Controversies exist neither validates nor invalidates a particular position. In laymen's terms, you opened the barn doors and animals of all sorts are drifting in and out. Quit blaming everybody else.

Nick| 9.25.11 @ 1:17AM

Evanston2,

You are welcome. And, believe me, I'm well aware of what arrogance looks like.

"If you bothered to carefully read the back-and-forth between Tony and I [...]."

My comments almost always focus in on one particular statement, which I either quote or paraphrase.

"I'm not going to go over the role of James (which you ignore when citing Acts 15) [...]."

I ignored no such thing. I was refuting your point "that there was a division between leadership of Jews (to Peter) and gentiles (to Paul)." This allusion to Scripture should not be used to infer that Simon Kephas was not the leader of the whole Church.

Also, Saint James' role at the council, described in Acts 15, was as Bishop of Jerusalem. Peter speaks first, stopping the disputing; then Paul and Barnabas give their testimony; then James agrees with Peter. It was to Peter that Christ revealed that the Gentiles were to be included without having to follow all the precepts of the Law of Moses.

"That is, we should believe in the Bible because 'the church' says it's OK."

How else are we to know which books are inspired and which are not? How do you know that the Gospel of Peter, the Didache, or the Book of Jubilees don't belong in the Bible? Disputes arose in the third and fourth centuries, and the pope and the Church decided which books were inspired. This Canon wasn't much disputed until Luther. Then the Church had to declare, infallibly, the Canon of Sacred Scripture, at the Council of Trent. Going back to Sola Scriptura, the Bible doesn't say what books belong in the Bible.

"So what, for example, if the Hebrew canon did not include Maccabees?"

The Hebrew canon wasn't formed until well after Christ's Ascension. Plus, they had good reason to get rid of Deuterocanonical books. Christians were converting many Jews with them. Probably with quotes like this:

"Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” 21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them,"
- Book of Wisdom 2:12-21 (Which was written 150 - 200 years before His Advent.)

"And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” 41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.'"
- Gospel of Saint Matthew 27:39-43 (Written 10 to 20 years after Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross.)

"You instead try to change the subject to external persecution (which the true church can always expect) and a connection to Rome's teachings which I did not make or even insinuate."

You brought up the "external persecution," not I. Read what you wrote again. You wrote that "good Catholics" take "any mention of homosexuality or pedophilia" as "an attack on the church." I was rebutting only this assertion. Good Catholics do not react this way to any mention of this scandal, your anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

This was the straw man to which I was referring. I did not mean that you were using the scandal to attack the Church's teachings. This is my fault. I did not write this as clearly as I should have done. Bad editing on my part. I apologize. My point was that others have attacked the Church's teachings because of the scandal, while excluding all other institutions' worse guilt; and it is this false discrimination to which Catholics object so vociferously.

I have no problem with the rest of your statement, or else I would have said so. Any scandal hurts the Church and the spreading of the Gospel. I stated as much in my reply. The clergy abuse scandal, and cover-up, is one of the worst in the Church's history. No good Catholic defends these priests, or the cover-up. So, this would be the second straw man argument you have made.
God Bless!

greg | 9.20.11 @ 12:59PM

Please give a variety of examples where Roman Catholic doctrine conflicts with scripture.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 1:36PM

Do you REALLY want to go there?

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 2:19PM

See my response below to a similar question.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:24PM

Oh, I did and I rejoice that I am not alone in speaking the truth here today.

I wish you were posting in the Evilution (Evolution) thread the other day. I could have used the support.

But it doesn't seem to matter to them, they want to believe lies.
The Pope is more important to them than the actual Words of God in the Bible.

And us plain Bible believing Christians are to them the same as the Jihadists.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 2:46PM

What's it like, living with a head so full of hate?

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:10PM

What's it like living with a lie and being a liar?

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 3:45PM

Margie,
Catholics believe all good people go to Heaven, regardless of faith. If you live a good life, that includes you--provided you lose your blinding hate--regardless whether you convert to Catholicism or not.

THAT is a lie worthy of condemnation?

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:27PM

Jesus says that no one is good

"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone." Lk. 18:19.

Now, I ask you, Cal Mark~ who is lying here and Who is telling the truth? You or Jesus?

Now, think about it. If He says this, then how are we to be saved?
Do you know?

The Bruce| 9.21.11 @ 1:18AM

Margie wrote, "Jesus says that no one is good."

And Margie wrote, "And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone.' Lk. 18:19."

Sorry, Margie, but you've been doing quite a bit of deciding (on this forum) who is good and who isn't, based solely on what religious moniker they call their own (Catholic or not). It seems you've decided to elevate yourself to the position of God.

Since you've elevated your status to God, how would you evaluate the vitriol you've spewed toward your fellow believers -- Jesus-like? I doubt it. Thank God your aren't God, because you would have committed yourself to Hell, which is pretty damned ironic.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:26PM

Sorry Brucie baby, but the Papists are the ones making themselves "level with God."

I am taking my stand on the Bible (God's Own Words), and am the recipient of the attacks~ wherewith I continue to defend the Word of God.

Don't like it?
Too bad.

The Bruce| 9.22.11 @ 12:07AM

"...but the Papists are the ones making themselves 'level with God.'"

That very well may be true, Margie sweetie, but one mustn't confuse the Papists with the folks that show up for Mass every Sunday.

Your attacks on Catholics for not being "Christian enough" sounds very similar to Islamic fundamentalists attacking other Muslims for the very same thing.

Love ya, sweetie. kthxbye. Go with Christ, Love.

Margie| 9.22.11 @ 1:18AM

Stuff it, Brucie baby.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:49AM

You should be far LESS concerned with what Catholics believe and far MORE concerned with what the BIBLE says you should believe.

mames| 9.21.11 @ 12:13AM

Margie as one in the faith and not a roman, please focus your remarks on the issues and stop attacking the person. This is not God pleasing "and do it with gentleness and respect".

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:24PM

mames, knock it off.
You are lying. The attacking is being done by the Papists, not me.
I am speaking from Scripture~ what is wrong with you?

Mark| 9.20.11 @ 8:42AM

That first sentence in the second paragraph should read, "Additionally, based on the topics presented, it doesn't really seem to touch on REAL hot-button issues relating to Catholicism and Christianity, namely how substantial portions of Catholic doctrine contradict scripture according to Pope Doctor Right." :p

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 9:36AM

You obviously have NEVER examined Catholic Doctrine in the context of scripture. If you had, you'd understand what I mean.

And as I'm obviously NOT the first person to ever say this, I don't consider myself a revolutionary...and never, ever a "Pope".

DaveS| 9.20.11 @ 11:35AM

Give me one example, sir.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 11:44AM

The existence of a celibate Priesthood that claims to intercede for Christ, when NO intercessor is necessary.

The worship of Mary (yes, worship), and elevation of her personage to divine status.

The false practice of infant Baptism.

The belief that Peter was a ever Pope, and that Popes are "infallible" on matters of faith and doctrine (this despite the fact that they have countermanded each others' edicts throughout the ages).

The use of "vain repetition" in the worship service.

The elevation of "tradition" to an equal level with scripture.

...Need I go on?

There is ZERO scriptural justification for any of this.

You asked for 1; I gave 5.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 1:07PM

1. "The existence of a celibate Priesthood that claims to intercede for Christ, when NO intercessor is necessary."
Garbled and inaccurate. Celibate priesthood arose 1,000 years ago because probate law did not exist and priests' families claimed church property as inheritance. Eastern Catholics and Anglican converts have a large, thriving married clergy. As for the implied illegitimacy of the priesthood, we got that tradition from the Jews.

2. "The worship of Mary (yes, worship), and elevation of her personage to divine status."
Inexcusable ignorance or willful malice. Catholics consider Mary a human being who is Queen of Heaven and principal intercessor for humanity; in other words, our primary spokesman "up there." It's like having a trusted mutual acquaintance put in a good word for you with the boss.

3. "The false practice of infant Baptism."
Inflammatory and irrelevant. Decent people can disagree in a about the right age for baptism. Some don't believe in infant baptism, but a whole lot more do.

4. "The belief that Peter was a ever Pope, and that Popes are "infallible" on matters of faith and doctrine (this despite the fact that they have countermanded each others' edicts throughout the ages)."
Contrary to popular belief, few Catholics expend a fraction of the energy thinking about the Pope that Catholic-haters do bashing the Papacy. Catholics believe Peter was the first leader of the church: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18). Catholics call him the Pope; other denominations can call him whatever they like. Infallibility is extremely limited although it is regrettably abused by Catholics with earthly agendas; this is no different Bible-church "Christians" condemning to hell, with great certainty, anyone who disagrees with them.

5. The use of "vain repetition" in the worship service.
Incoherent hypocrisy. There are as many different Christian worship services as there are denominations, from the smallest storefront to the Church of England. At least Catholics are consistent in their service, worldwide.

6. The elevation of "tradition" to an equal level with scripture.
Irrelevant and nasty. You don't believe it? Fine--don't be a Catholic. Go in God's peace, and leave us alone.

...Need I go on?

6. "There is ZERO scriptural justification for any of this."
Says you. Catholics think different. Disagree? Fine. Go in God's peace, and live your life in a different religion. We don't bug you about your beliefs--leave us alone about ours.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 4:21PM

I'm not sure if it's arrogance or ignorance that enables you to dismiss what I wrote simply by saying "It's wrong!", but it IS amusing!

1. Jewish tradition, blah-blah-blah, 1,000 years ago, probate law, blah-blah-blah. None of that is relevant to what's written in scripture, where prohibitions against not marrying are specifically warned against:

1 TIM 4: 1-3:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats..."

Please deny that the Catholic Church forbids Priests to marry (except those who come as converts and are already married)!

2. "Catholics consider Mary a human being who is the Queen of Heaven"...

...Ummm...If you don't recognize the absurdity in that utterly unjustifiable comment, then nothing I say will deter you.

3. Reasonable people can disagree about infant baptism, but there's no inherent virtue in disagreeing. The fact that there are ZERO incidents of infant baptism in the Bible, the fact that ALL baptisms in the Bible are of people of an age to make the decision for themselves, and the fact that babies are born absolutely innocent has obviously eluded you...

4. Glad you mis-used Matthew 16:18...You're not the first. That passage is the knee-jerk reaction of people who want to justify the structure of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, it does NOT translate as "Peter was a Pope". It translates as "You are small ('Petras' from the original Greek), but you are strong, and your strength will help to spread My word." PLEASE find the Papacy, the College of Cardinals, the unbelievable wealth, the 2,000 years of political intrigue, and the Vatican as a State in this passage.

Go ahead.

5. Yes, elevating man-made tradition to the Word of God is wrong. In fact, scripture is quite clear on that issue:

Revelation 22:18

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

Yes...You should "go on". I'm dying to hear yopur explanation.

6. Catholics think different? Obviously. That's why we're having this discussion.

And please...spare me the phony wish of "God's peace". You don't mean it.

And Catholics have persecuted others for their beliefs for 1,800 years, you hypocrite, so you might want to remove that plank in your eye.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:40PM

"And please...spare me the phony wish of "God's peace". You don't mean it."

I do wish you God's peace. You go your way, I go mine. If you cannot believe that, then it is your problem, not mine.

You are so full of hate that you cannot bear to give up your bigotry.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:53PM

"Please deny that the Catholic Church forbids Priests to marry (except those who come as converts and are already married)!"

Eastern Catholic clergy--the ancient Patriarchal churches in union with Rome--have married clergy. In fact, my own great-grandfather was a CATHOLIC priest, as was his father. My great aunt's husband was a Catholic priest. There are married Eastern-rite Catholic priests all over the country, including my last three pastors--in Omaha, Chicago, and here in California.

This fact is little known for two reasons. First, married priests haven't been allowed to be bishops for about 1500 years. Second, Rome keeps it VERY quiet, lest Roman-rite priests start to ask, "Why can't I get married?" Answer: there is no good reason why not, so the Vatican wraps it up in mumbo-jumbo about the sacredness of celibacy. It's like selling indulgences 500 years ago--everyone knows it's not right, but the hierarchy is too set in their ways to change.

Your dogmatic ignorance in this single matter casts doubt on all your arguments.

mames| 9.21.11 @ 12:25AM

#1 the romans forbade priests to marry so that the property they owned would remain with the church and not the wives and children they might leave behind. It was done in the 10th century after centuries of priests being married. Hebrew priests did marry and have children.

#3 babies are born sinful not innocent. Sin is inherited and expressed in a variety of ways. There is no time in our lives right from conception that we are sinless or innocent.

ASSUME people mean it when they say something nice to you - you do not have the ability to judge their motives. You are exhibiting an unloving tone - stick to the issues and do not attack the person even if they attack you. Remember "and do it in a loving and respectful manner".

The Bruce| 9.21.11 @ 1:48AM

"And Catholics have persecuted others for their beliefs for 1,800 years, you hypocrite, so you might want to remove that plank in your eye."

That's not exactly fair, since non-Catholic Christians didn't come into existence until the late 1400's. And since then, they've certainly engaged in their share of persecution -- fighting Catholics and burning 'witches.'

It isn't fair because Catholics have an automatic 600-year disadvantage over the persecution that non-Catholics now engage in (like Margie).

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:58AM

Good grief, but the RCC teaches some absolutely bizarre and self-serving lies.

Non-Catholic Christians have existed for nearly 2000 years now. In fact, the only kind of Christian IS, by necessity, non-Catholic.

The Bible says that the Devil is the father of lies. While that is certainly true, it is also true that the Popes have always given the Devil a run for his money in that regard.

Ryan| 9.21.11 @ 8:18AM

If that's the case, then how is the promise to Abraham about the number of his children fulfilled?

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 1:58AM

Mister Grady,

"Non-Catholic Christians have existed for nearly 2000 years now."

Really?
Where are all of your written records, then?

Jack in Wi.| 9.22.11 @ 1:57AM

Dr Wrong: Most of your stuff is so wrong that I won't waste my time on it. The issue of infant baptism comes up in the Book of Acts when Peter goes to the house of the Roman official Cornelious and baptizes the whole household. It doesn't say that he either circumcized the males or withheld baptism from the infants. In fact infant baptism was widespread in early Christianity. Babies were lost in large numbers in those days and the parents wanted the certainty of Baptim for their children.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 4:24PM

I can't believe I missed the part where you claim that Mary is your "intercessor" and your "primary spokesman up there"!!!!

Mary is your intercessor?!?!?!

No, CalMark...JESUS is your intercessor. Your ONLY intercessor.

THANK YOU for confirming EXACTLY what I said about the Catholic view of Mary!

Catholics elevate Mary to the status of a heavenly deity, equal to (and sometime greater than) Christ.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:36PM

Goodness, you're full of hate.

You and Margie should get married.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 4:01AM

In lieu of actual counterarguments, Catholics play the victim card, or the "you're a bigot" card, or the "you're so full of hate" card.

But that's okay, because Christians play the only card that matters, which is the "God's Word is the only Word that matters" card.

Joseph| 9.21.11 @ 8:27AM

Good morning Margie, why you using Mister Grady.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:22PM

SoCon,

Why are you here posing as a man?
You cannot hide from God.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 7:17PM

Uggh, I am myself. Not Margie. Trust me on this when I tell you, there is more than one person on the planet who is disgusted by the RCC.

Trying to play "Guess who is behind that screen name?" is not a counterargument, just like trying to claim victim status is not a counterargument.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:44PM

These are all your opinions, Doc. Or are you also infallible?

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 4:04AM

Doc is not infallible. But the Bible is. That's why he reads it and sticks to it - which is what Christians are supposed to do. But if you prefer to go to hell, you can believe in the manmade pagan perversions of the RCC. Choose wisely? It's a decision that will last forever.

Joseph| 9.21.11 @ 10:25AM

Use your name Margie, we know it's you.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:21PM

Liar, not it isn't me.
Christians have the same mind though, the Mind of Christ.

Of which the Bible (God's Own Words) command us to have.

It is why we speak in like manner. And the Papists HATE it!

What's your excuse, ?

"For who has known the Mind of the Lord so as to instruct Him?" But we have the Mind of Christ." 2 Cor. 2:16.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 7:19PM

Are you an idiot?

Counterarguments only!

You're going to hell in a hurry and you're playing "Guess who is behind the screen name?".

It's very, uh, internety. And very infantile.

Jack in Wi.| 9.22.11 @ 2:01AM

The Bible comes from the Infalible Church Grady. How do you square that with your beliefs? If the Bible is the final answer, How come 30,000 Protestant sects can't agree on a common interpertation?

Occam's Tool| 9.20.11 @ 11:51PM

Minor point, guys, on the Jewish issue---after the Temple was destroyed, no priesthood was capable of truly continuing. The rabbinate is NOT celibate, and does not generally act as an intercessor (some Hasidic groups appear to be different). No Rabbi is required to run a full service; that's kind of the point of a Bar Mitzvah.

I now withdraw to observe, and occasionally bash Jack and Clint.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 3:20PM

"Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.

So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12). "

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 3:27PM

"Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision. "

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 3:54PM

"Unfortunately, many non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling to recognize these distinctions. They confidently (often arrogantly) assert that Catholics "worship" Mary and the saints, and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that one must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term. The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call "worship"—is to be given only to God."

Occam's Tool| 9.20.11 @ 11:53PM

Well, Clint, given your likelihood of landing a wife, celibacy is an excellent recommendation for you. Further, it will remove you from the gene pool. Win-win.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:18PM

Deceit is what Catholics are taught, sadly.

mames| 9.21.11 @ 12:29AM

Notice Paul does not demand celibacy for the Holy Ministry and says that his celibacy is a "gift"

greg | 9.20.11 @ 4:00PM

"The existence of a celibate Priesthood that claims to intercede for Christ, when NO intercessor is necessary."
Matthew 10:1
Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness. (Looks like intercession to me!)
"The worship of Mary (yes, worship), and elevation of her personage to divine status."
Catholics DO NOt worship Mary and it was God himself who made Mary divine, for how can God-even in the form of his son, Jesus Christ, have anything at all to do with evil. Matt. 1:30 "Then the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God."
"The false practice of infant Baptism."
Matt. 19:14 "...but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
And, Acts 16:15 One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God,* listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. 15 After she and her household had been baptized, she offered us an invitation, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my home,” and she prevailed on us." Presumably children were included in the family if women were.
"The belief that Peter was a ever Pope, and that Popes are "infallible" on matters of faith and doctrine (this despite the fact that they have countermanded each others' edicts throughout the ages)."
Matthew 16:18
Pretty straight forward.

"The use of "vain repetition" in the worship service." Presumably referring to Matt. 6:7.
I'm sorry. I've never in my life experienced "vain repetition" in the worship service. Can't relate to that.
"The elevation of "tradition" to an equal level with scripture. I noticed you used a small t in "tradition". The Roman Catholic Church has a rich history of Traditions and traditions. I know you can not identify one small t tradition that has been elevated to an equal level of scripture by the Church. Even Tevya can attest to that!

If you can go on, Doctor, please do. I believe all of your points indicate that you have arrived at your conclusions by yourself without actual serious discussion with any Catholic clergy.
Intellectual honesty demands that.
If your premise is based on something like Sola scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus Christus, Soli Deo gloria: you're not going to find that in the Bible. either! I'll pray whatever bitterness you have in your heart dissolves.
Peace!

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 4:07AM

Dude, you be proof-textin'......big time.

Nick| 9.21.11 @ 2:29AM

Doctor Right,

1) Saint Paul recommends (by his own opinion) celibacy to all, not just to the clergy, in 1 Cor. 7:1-9, 32-40. Paul also told Timothy not to get "entangled in civilian pursuits" (2 Tim. 2:3-4). Marriage is a civilian pursuit. After many centuries, the Catholic Church decided to follow Paul's advice.

2) Catholics do not "worship" Our Lady, nor, was she elevated to "divine status." You also objected to the Virgin Mary being called "Queen." If Christ is "King of Kings" then Mary is His Queen, according to the Bible.

In the Davidic kingdom of Judah, kings had multiple wives, but, only one mother. Therefore, the Queen of the kingdom was the Gebirah, the Queen Mother. Every Queen Mother is listed, along with the kings of Judah, from 1 Kings 12 to 2 Kings 24.

So, following all the queens of Judah in the Old Testament, Mary is the Queen Mother of the New and Everlasting Kingdom of her Son, and King, Christ the Lord.

Worshiping Our Lady is forbidden, because it is idolatry. She was never elevated to a deity. The tittle "Mother of God" doesn't imply that she pre-existed God, or created Him. It is taken from the first title of Mary, from the Greek Theotokos, i.e., God-bearer.

I can deal with the rest, if you would like. But, it's late. So, it will have to be later.
God Bless!

Nick| 9.21.11 @ 2:41AM

Oops! That should be: Marriage is partly a civilian pursuit.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 4:13AM

Catholics really like to deny that they worship Mary. I guess our lyin' eyes deceive us. How many pictures and video and Catholics have I seen doing things that look like worship, sound like worship, seem like worship, but in the end I guess even if it is apparent worship, it's not really worship when it's inconvenient to admit that it actually IS worship.

If you really respect Mary, stop worshipping her. If she could come back to earth for even just a few minutes, she tell you how awful and horrifying it is that the RCC worships her. And then to make matters worse, they LIE about it.

False worship and lying: That's major RCC doctrine obliterating 20% of The Ten Commandments.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 1:50AM

Mister Grady,

"[...] have I seen doing things that look like worship, sound like worship, seem like worship [...]."

Things?
Could you be a little more specific?

Also, were not talking about what individual Catholics might be doing. We are talking about what the Catholic Church actually teaches. And, She has never taught the Body of Christ to worship Our Lady.

If a "Bible-believing Christian" kills someone and lies about it, may I blame all Bible-believing Christians for breaking 20% of God's Commandments?
No, I may not. Well, I could do it. I just wouldn't be justified in so doing.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:17PM

"Worshiping Our Lady" ... "is forbidden."

LOL.

"Our Lady?"

Which "Lady" would that be, Nick?

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 1:54AM

Margie,

The Gebirah, i.e., Queen Mother, of the Kingdom of God; the Virgin Mary, Mother of God; the Ark of the New Covenant; and Theotokos, i.e. God-bearer.

Praise the Lord that she agreed to bring Jesus into the world!
God Bless!

W| 9.20.11 @ 12:13PM

Dave,
If you are interested in a balanced analysis of this issue you may want to try, Norman Geisler's "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, Agreements and Differnces." He and co-author Mckenzie discuss all the questions with refernces to all versions of the Bible, history, tradition, etc.
Geisler is an Evangelical, McKenzie is Catholic. It is a good analysis of the agreements, and the reasons for the disagreemnts.

mames| 9.21.11 @ 12:31AM

It is also subject focused and done in respect and love. Geisler is a great gift to Christian apolegetics and systematic theology.

W| 9.21.11 @ 12:02PM

mames.
Agree about Geisler.

I also liked a History of Apolegetics by Cardinal Avery Dulles. I believe he was Episcopelian who converted to RC. His history analyzes apolgetics by century, country, and religion. Fair and balanced.

Alan Brooks| 9.20.11 @ 5:05PM

There is no Pope who has ever caused or who could ever cause as much suffering as Martin Luther did in the 16th and 17th centuries.

BobRN| 9.20.11 @ 6:21PM

The key to your criticism of Catholicism is your claim that "substantial portions of Catholic doctrine contradict scripture."

Of course, what you really mean is that substantial portions of Catholic doctrine contradict your interpretation of Scripture.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 4:18AM

Excuse me for blowing you out of the water like this, but there are many plain and obvious teaching of the Bible that the RCC violates. Not everything is like Revelations or the prophecies of Daniel. You can't really hide behind the "different interpretations" schtick.

When the abundance of scripture teaches that Jesus is - ALONE - our intercessor, then that's it. It's a done deal. And interpretation ain't got a thing to do with it.

Catholic ignorance is appalling.

Mimi| 9.20.11 @ 7:42AM

Unrelieved Anti Catholicism.....is .so TRUE !
Some of the discussions on this site can get heated to say the least!
One merely today...goes to mass and always finds a seat, the seats mainly filled with the children of pre and during WWII...now with white hair!
Some of the passion and fervor remain but its ...SO QUIET !
The book you are discussing is certainly a needed and welcomed relief to sort out fact from fiction....the CHURCH has really taken a hit.
Even though, throughout its HISTORY, with all the warts , and imperfect PLAYERS it has survived for over 2000 years....To point the way to have ETERNITY on our mind, as we live this LIFE in the WORLD!!

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 8:39AM

Thank you, Mimi, for your comments. What a lot of folks seem to forget is that Jesus Christ chose to be born into this world in the humblest of surroundings, in a place not worthy of a King, let alone the King of Mankind. We will always find Jesus Christ in an imperfect world, and should not expect to find Him where everything is perfect. He's too busy working on an imperfect world. It doesn't surprise me to find that the Catholic Church, or any others who proclaim Christ, are imperfect.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 9:38AM

There's a distinct difference between "imperfect" and "contradictory."

No Church is "perfect" since none of it's congregants are perfect.

But on matters of faith and doctrine, Christians can know and understand the Truth, and distinguish it from un-truth.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 11:03AM

"Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text."

Evanston2| 9.20.11 @ 11:38AM

Clint, not sure what your purpose is behind quoting the definition of exegesis (vs. eisegesis), but I agree with it and that this is absolutely the critical difference between "Christians" who authentically worship God and those who actually worship themselves.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 11:45AM

Don't worry, Clint isn't sure what his purpose was in posting that, either...

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 12:48PM

I know the difference between Exegesis & Anti-Catholic Eisegesis from Fixated Obsessive Lapsed Catholic with an ax to grind & their Little Anti-Catholic Atheist Girlfriends.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 1:05PM

I know the difference between Exegesis & Anti-Catholic Eisegesis from Fixated Obsessive Lapsed Catholic with an ax to grind & their Little Anti-Catholic Atheist Girlfriends.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 1:06PM

Smoke That Poser Punk Poster,Dr.Reich.

Mimi| 9.20.11 @ 4:19PM

In my mid twenties my father gave us all a Bible....I began to read it at night when the children were asleep. We all were educated in Catholic schools but in those days reading the Bible was not a priority...so I got a real wake -up call...and thought Gee I wonder if the Nuns ever heard of .."TURNING the OTHER CHEEK ", I became so impressed with the telephone to GOD every night in what I was becoming aware of.
You might say I too had a crises in faith in the church...but Vatican II and changes in scripture encouragement kept me in the Catholic faith. To me 2 things were most important...The love for the Eucharest and Mary mother of God. I enjoy going to visit other services and observing ...but I remain a Catholic for life!
Doc I fully understand your view...have been there!

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 1:44PM

Yes!
It isn't a matter of "no-one's perfect."
It IS a matter of blatant perverse doctrine that is openly against the Word of God Himself.
And Christians refuse to keep our mouths shut in the face of the Papists who wish to gloss over this reality.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 3:02PM

Uh Oh !
Speaking Of Fixated Obsessiive Lapsed Catholics With An Ax To Grind, Anti-Catholic Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie Is In The Building.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:11PM

God has an ax to grind, Clint.
Are you on His side?
Better hope so.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 4:24PM

I must be, because I'm not on your side Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie, American Spectator's Resident Nut Cake Bigot .

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:30PM

We'll see...

mames| 9.21.11 @ 12:34AM

you two stop the vitriol this is not how Christians are to debate

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 4:35AM

Catholics aren't Christians. They're enemies of the Gospel. Ever since the beginning of the RCC 1700 years ago it has been an enemy of God and drunk on the blood of the martyrs. It is the Babylonian whore who rides the beast.

And with their repeated lies about their history and lies about their beliefs, I'm not feeling terribly charitable to them, as they support a belief system which has kept untold millions of people from the true Gospel for nearly 1700 years. It's one lie after another with these people.

And notice that the RCC began at about the same time when Satan realized that attacking Christianity from without would work better if he could first subvert it and attack it from within.

The NT warns specifically, repeatedly, emphatically, and very very seriously about those who would corrupt and pervert the gospel from within the ranks of Christian church. And what the NT warned about came to pass. You can draw a straight line from those warnings directly to the RCC.

There is a time for the warm glowing countenance of Christian agape. But there is also a time to unapologetically confront people who, when discussing their beliefs, tell you to read the Catechisms. Real Christians, when discussing their beliefs, tell you to read the BIBLE.

And it speaks volumes about Catholics that nothing sets their teeth on edge more than to hear that the BIBLE, not their catechisms, is what matters.

Satan| 9.21.11 @ 7:13AM

Margie, use your real name. Don't use Mister Grady, a sissy name, be yourself. Good work yesterday stirring discord, get to it again.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:12PM

EXACTLY. (To Mr. Grady).

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 1:39AM

Mister Grady,

"It is the Babylonian whore who rides the beast."

The Catholic Church cannot be the Babylonian whore. The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc., repeatedly call Jerusalem both Babylon and a prostitute/harlot.

Also, the ten horns of the beast (Rome) turn on the harlot and destroy her:

"And the ten horns which you saw in the beast: These shall hate the harlot and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire." (Rev. 17:16)

The destruction of Jerusalem is described in great detail in Revelation 18. Rome, nor the Catholic Church were completely destroyed by fire. Only Jerusalem was.

We know these visions point to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in A.D. 70 because Saint John tells use twice that these things would happen shortly:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John [...]." (Rev. 1:1)

"He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (Rev 22:20)

Amen! Praise the Lord and God Bless!

Joseph| 9.21.11 @ 8:29AM

You must be new here, read some of Margie's posts and then tell us if she acts like a Christian.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:11PM

Sorry~ one of us is lying and one is telling the truth.
Don't lump me in with a liar.
I am permitted to defend myself and the Word of God as I see fit.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:15PM

mames. Spare me with the self righteousness.

You see no difference between Clint and me?
You must be a sickening Papist.

See my post below to you~ Jesus defended the Truth, He is Truth, and I will defend Him as I see fit.

Hesus called liars liras, and so will I.

You aren't a Christians if you sit idly by and do not come to the defense of those who stand on His Word.

That's make you just the same as those doing the attacking. Especially if oyu want to stoop so low as to consider me on par with the likes of the scumbag, Clint.

GOD| 9.20.11 @ 8:45PM

Yes I do, Margie, and you're earning your way to the top of my list!

Yea I say unto thee, for someone who hurls stones at the Papacy over the issue of infallability, I find it rather annoying that you present your own interpretation of my best work with a prodigious sense of infallability. Why just the other day I was talking to Peter about you, and he said to me, "Oh, Margie, you mean the infallable one? Annoys the hell out of me, that one!"

Beware, Margie...needle in someone's eye, beam in yours and all that business...

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.20.11 @ 8:24AM

No arguments and rants today, OK?

As Rick Perry said, "we are all broken people trying to help a broken world".

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 1:40PM

"Can't we all just get along?"
~Rotney King.
Answer: No!

The Papists don't want anyone speaking the truth to their lies.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 2:49PM

You sound like a militant atheist, wanting to stomp out any disagreement. What do you care that Catholics think things different than you? Why does it bother you so much?

You do your thing, we'll do ours. In other words, go in God's peace and we will do likewise.

What's it like living with a head so full of hate?

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:12PM

The Papists do nothing but lie.
I pity you.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 3:55PM

Margie,
"Papist" is a bigot's archaic word for Catholics, who neither embrace the word nor are offended by it, although we find it useful for identifying enemies.

Catholics believe all good people go to Heaven, regardless of faith. If you lead a good life (provided you lose your blinding hate) that includes you, or anyone--regardless of religion, or even lack thereof. In other words, salvation for all worthy human beings.

THAT is a lie worthy of condemnation?

greg | 9.20.11 @ 4:05PM

As long as one accepts Christ as Savior.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:13PM

Wrong. The traditional Christian prayer: "Glory to God in the Highest; and on Earth, Peace to all men of good will." Note: "men," not "Christians."

People all over the world, including in this country, have not been exposed to Christianity in any meaningful way. If they are decent good-living people, it is unthinkable that they would be denied heaven through no fault of their own.

It is evil to assert otherwise.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:32PM

Since you copied your post from above, I'll copy mine again, in response to yours:

"Jesus says that no one is good

"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone." Lk. 18:19.

Now, I ask you, Cal Mark~ who is lying here and Who is telling the truth? You or Jesus?

Now, think about it. If He says this, then how are we to be saved?
Do you know?

Marc | 9.20.11 @ 8:47PM

How are we to be saved? Like all Christians, whether Catholic, Protestant, etc., by accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior and repenting our sins to Him. That is all that matters. Lighten up a little Margie on the Pharisaism.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:09PM

Jesus never lightened up. He died for SIN. He died because of SIN. That same SIN is being practiced here against those who speak in His Name.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:44PM

p.s. Papist is one who loves the Pope more than they love Christ,

Jesus says that if you love Him, you must abide in His Doctrine.

Since Catholicism does not do that, it is not of Christ.

It is SIN to not abide in the Doctrine of Christ.

Your lies are indeed worthy of condemnation, Papist.

greg | 9.20.11 @ 4:03PM

May the Lord Bless you, and Keep you, and show his Countenance upon you.
Amen.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:06PM

CalMark,
Margie is the Mullah of her cult. She is infallible.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 5:07PM

Jesus Christ is LORD.
Repent, liar.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 5:19PM

But do you believe in the divinity of Jesus? yes or no.

LMAO| 9.20.11 @ 8:48PM

Margie,
How many cats do you have? Me and the boys at the tavern have a bet - the over/under is 9; I'm thinking at least a dozen.

Satan| 9.20.11 @ 10:14PM

You boys leave my Margie and Dr.Right alone.

Evanston2| 9.22.11 @ 1:15PM

Marc, Please specify exactly where Marge is guilty of Pharisaism. I see her quoting Scripture accurately with the appropriate meaning in context, not relying on traditions of men as the Pharisees (and yes, Roman Catholicism) were guilty of using to make "void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do." (see Mark 7)
And unless you're Marge's special buddy, don't use the diminutive "Margie." You're the one who comes across as arrogant, "Marky." And if you do bother to read Mark 7, don't presume to give away what Our Lord did not. While all who rely on Christ and His works alone for salvation are indeed saved, this is not the "official" Roman Catholic formulation (which relies on sacraments and the work of (as you put it) "accepting" Christ by their own merit. Marge is Biblically correct, unless God Himself changes our hearts to "accept" Christ, we are spiritually dead (none are good) and will stay so. This bears repeating: salvation is solely His work. If you find this objectionable, read the NT. Or just do your own thing and in effect worship yourself regarding the way you prefer things to be. You may find out after death that it is He - Jesus - who will save His people. Matt 1:21

Evanston2| 9.22.11 @ 1:18PM

Marc, Well, I screwed up on my placement of my "reply" to your comment and also see here that Marge calls herself "Margie" on occasion now. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and mis-characterization.

Micha Elyi| 10.9.11 @ 1:00AM

@Evanston2 "Marc, Please specify exactly where Marge is guilty of Pharisaism. I see her quoting Scripture accurately with the appropriate meaning in context,"

I refer you to the earlier post by "Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:32PM" in which one line is plucked from Luke 18.

Let's look at Luke 18:19 in context. One of the gravest charges the pharisees made against Jesus was that He falsely claimed to be God. When Jesus replies to some of their number who called him "good" with "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone" He is trapping them with their own words.

There you go.

Now, if you're wrong in such a simple thing then why should anyone trust you to be an authority on anything Christian - especially the Catholic Church and the Bible you received from it?

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 4:41AM

When has the RCC ever gone in peace in the last 1700 years? Mass tortures. Mass murders. Perverting and paganizing the Gospel. And now you want to "go in peace". Clean up all that blood first, stop lying about your history and your beliefs, stop perverting the Gospel, and then we'll talk about peace. Eh?

Christians don't take orders from Catholics. We take our orders from the Bible. And the Bible tells us to confront such as you.

Joseph| 9.21.11 @ 10:28AM

Margie we know you are Mister Grady. Can't be two real people this bigoted.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:08PM

No, liar. It isn't me.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 7:32PM

Aww, poor Joseph. Someone confronted the repugnant heresies of his Romanized pseudo-Christian cult, so now he wants to play the "You're a bigot card".

Methinks Joseph is not altogether very bright if he hasn't figured out yet that this sorts of ploys do not work as cudgels any longer. Gone, are the days when you can manipulate people by playing such a weak hand of cards.

Poor, poor, poor Joseph.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 10:03PM

He gets away with it here, because no one will refute him and his lying Papist ilk.

They flee like cowards because they don't want to offend certain regulars that post here.

Ken Old Tex being the worst of them all.
I knew him personally. He is a liar and along with the rest of them that continue to bear false witness, they don't seem at all interested in repentance.

Sad.

GOD| 9.20.11 @ 8:49PM

Margie! Me Damnit! I've had just about enough of your bad mouthing my lambs.

I'm not going to warn you again!

Now, go feed your cats and leave these nice people alone.

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 10:53PM

LOL!!!!!

mames| 9.21.11 @ 12:35AM

speak the truth IN LOVE

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 7:36PM

I am speaking the truth in love. The reason I tell Catholics they're going to hell for being Catholic is because I don't people to go to hell. If I hated Catholics, I wouldn't warn them. I'd just keep it to myself and secretly laugh at them. That's why I HATE the RCC. Because I LOVE people, and the RCC consigns millions to hell.

I'm really just not one of those Christians that's trying to win the "shiniest halo of the year" award.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 10:04PM

Dittos.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 1:20AM

Mister Grady,

That is fine. This Catholic has no problem with you telling me I'm going to Hell. I believe you do it out of caritas, i.e., charity, love.

Just don't misrepresent what my Church teaches, or, what she has done throughout history. If you do, don't get mad at me when I correct you, okay?
God Bless!

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:07PM

Ken,
Your friend Margie broke the truce here.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:33PM

You need to quit fantasizing, and lying.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:45PM

Everybody lies except the Mullah.

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 8:42AM

Thank you, Ken. Well spoken as always.

Petronius| 9.20.11 @ 10:41AM

Doctrine is not and never has been the cause of division. The trouble started when church authority displayed more than one face. Pre Vatican II Catholicism posited the almighty as 100% American and my old parish ran people out who opposed the Viet nam war. But the guys who couldn't wait to fight in it were also the same guys who couldn't wait to stop going to church. Today the church is controlled by weenies and women who hide behind the skirts of altruism and charity to displace criticism of their cowardice and sloth. That situation only reflects the people in the pews. And if they don't hear what they like in the homily, they will decamp to another parish or denomination. The only Hell striking fear into anyone is that of not being accepted. Until the dawn of the twentieth century the primary relationship the Holy See maintained with the world was between Altar and Throne. America was still a missionary country. The major league play took place between the Papacy and the monarchs of old Europe. The Church validated the Crowns and vice versa. WWI ended that charade, but when the crowns fell the aged Curia barely noticed that their mitres could be next. With an educated populace who have no fear of them the relationship of throne and altar has small meaning as the prophecy of Huey Long is here concerning religious belief; "every man a king." Catholic or not, contemporary Americans are devoted to the images they have of themselves and nothing tempers their beliefs and decisions except the opinions of their friends. And God is who and what they say He is: a Liberal.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 11:48AM

If the Church would stick to scripture as the sole authority for it's beliefs and practices, very little of what you described above would occur.

TLS| 9.20.11 @ 1:25PM

To which version of the Bible do you refer? The fact is that there are as many versions of the Bible as there are people willing to translate it. I’ve been involved for years with various Bible study classes, groups, and conferences and it’s amazing to me how different each translation is and how they have changed over time. So to place 100 percent of your beliefs in the written word that has so many different translations is dangerous and irresponsible.
This is where sacred tradition in the Catholic Church fits in. This tradition along with the Catechism together provides the faithful the full teachings of the church, for all of Christianity. One isn't more important than the other. They are, in fact, inseperable. So saying that Catholics place one thing above the other is a non sequitur argument. There are thousands of writings and teachings going back thousands of years by people much smarter than us, so reinventing the wheel is unnecessary.

JimH| 9.20.11 @ 2:35PM

There are those here whose biblical scholarship amazes me, so maybe they can weigh in. TLS, it is not just translation. These different Bibles vary not just by translation but also by what is included and omitted. I believe it is not just among Christian faiths. I think that the Jewish Old Testament differs from the Christian. Was the process of determining which books to include and leave out considered divinely inspired? How are the Apocrypha to be regarded? One thing Muslims seem to have understood was the potential for such issues to arise with translation. This is part of the reason that translating the Quran from Arabic is frowned upon.

Evanston2| 9.22.11 @ 1:42PM

TLS and JimH, This is seriously infantile. If you compare Bible translations they are as remarkably consistent as the 66 books by 40 authors over 1500 years. Doctrinal differences rarely rely on different word choices: instead they result from taking snippets entirely out of context. Oh, and to rely on a God who cannot preserve His Word to preserve your life is itself nonsensical. You can use words like "sacred tradition" endlessly and talk about the Apocrypha and other writings that were not accepted by believers, but the number of deuterocanonical works that are in dispute is small and their doctrinal impact even smaller. Islam has it entirely wrong: repeating words that a majority of adherents do not understand (Arabic) makes the Quran effectively into gibberish, and the need to burn many (most?) Hadith early in its history betrayed its man-made source. Again, it is the variety (4 Gospels, OT and NT, etc.), length of time, and multiple languages (Hebrew, Greek, even snippets of Aramaic and other languages) that show how only God could maintain the doctrinal consistency of the Bible. For TLS or JimH to claim that there is a large doctrinal disparity between versions of the Bible is laughable. For example, I use a "Catholic" Bible (the New Jerusalem) and have no problem showing the fault in the man-made traditions of Romanism in a study with a (former Catholic) friend that we do every-other-week. I studied the Higher Criticism in college (UVA) and totally believed it. I've been surprised as a thinking adult to see how thin the supposedly scholarly arguments actually are...but when you're intent on getting an "A" in class you really don't second-guess the Prof. The wisdom of God's Word is that a child can understand The Gospel, yet we are continually edified by its study. I recommend 2 Tim 3 where Paul contrasts the empty learning of dead hearts with those who are alive in Christ.

Nick| 9.23.11 @ 12:33AM

Evanston2,

"Doctrinal differences rarely rely on different word choices: instead they result from taking snippets entirely out of context."

What about when Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28, in his German translation?

"Apocrypha and other writings that were not accepted by believers, but the number of deuterocanonical works that are in dispute is small and their doctrinal impact even smaller."

Praying for the dead and Purgatory have a small "doctrinal impact"? These two doctrines are taught, explicitly with the former, and implicitly for the latter, in 2 Maccabees 12:42a, 44-45 :

"So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out [...] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

Also, most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament (around 2/3, I think) are from the Septuagint. Christ quoted from it many times, including when He first began His ministry with the announcement of the fulfillment of Isaiah 61, in the synagogue at Nazareth (cf Luke 4:16-21).

Evanston2| 9.23.11 @ 1:11PM

Nick, The Bible interprets itself on any major topic. God explains Truth through direct statements, metaphors/allegory, and even having prophets conduct mini stage plays with their lives, and even major aspects of the lives of "good" and "bad" people (sometimes the same person e.g., David) and entire nations. That is, YOU make my point. If Luther inserted an extra word in a translation, that is harmful only if you study Scripture in snippets but not in context. Seriously, though, we all hear/read statements in context in our normal lives, whether they be from a politican or a spouse or co-worker or even a note you wrote to yourself. You understand it in the greater context. Bible translations are stunningly similar.
Your point about the Septuagint is unclear. No kidding, that's what is quoted commonly in the Greek NT regarding Jesus' quotes from the OT. Are looking for word-for-word equality after translating from Hebrew to Greek, or thought-for-thought? Are you saying the Bible is so confusing that only Rome can hack reading it? OK, then you expect the laity to instead read the mountains of edicts and interpretations that have emanated from Rome and the various Orders and bishops, etc. over the centuries? Oh no, that's right, they are to rely on the Catechism. So, how many Catholics have a copy of it lying around their houses? Oops, I forgot, you don't expect the laity (or want them) to know how to read. So that's how you end up with a system, both theologically and practically, of salvation by sacrament. And why is it then, that you care to comment about Bible content? Skip it, you don't need it.

Regarding the 2 practices you mention, I assert that praying for the dead and Purgatory are minor issues. The fact that you mention these in relation to the Apocrypha, though, is quite "telling." These doctrines were inserted by Rome into a pre-existing framework of OT and NT Scripture. That is, they were small enough not to obviously invalidate other doctrines. You tell me, do these invalidate Jesus' work on the cross? Not according to Rome they don't. According to the Bible we rely on Christ's work and do good works because we love Him (though He first loved us per 1 John 4:19). But Rome can claim that prayers for the dead are generated by that love, that purgatory is not an actual work but co-operation with Christ, etc. So what I'm attempting to point out is clear throughout Scripture but most succinct in Heb 11:6 -- "Without faith it is impossible to please him." Really, read about all the heroes of the faith in Heb 11. It is their reliance on God: His promises, His character. I seriously doubt they thought out or would have agreed on all the intellectual constructs of doctrine. Even belief in God is insufficient for "the faith" -- as James points out in 2:19 the demons believe in God and tremble. It is rather a reaction of joy, knowing our own vile nature and (by His grace) seeing and loving His goodness that constitute the hallmark of salvation...and all good works flow from that love and are a sign of salvation.

I say all this because the "Controversy" that surfaces on comments here at the AmSpec and that hopefully is dealt with in the book by Mr. Gabriel is whether God's sanctification generates good works or whether your works generate sanctification. Getting back to Purgatory, prayers for the dead and other inventions are not themselves damning or becoming. What, are they dealt with in Scripture as major doctrines? Or must I again point out that Rome decides it likes a work, then dredges through Scripture for snippets that justify "worship" practices? The sin in Rome's adoption of these practices is not their theological impact, but their practical use. Rome amplifies these inventions to the point that they obscure (i.e., "crowd out") and occasionally deny the complete efficacy of Christ's work on the Cross for His People. Put another way, your majoring on minors can end up with Another Gospel. And that is damning to the institution.

Regarding individual Catholics, I don't know their hearts, many may be saved, perhaps most. Unlike some other commenters here, I do not seek to "save" anyone (because it is damning to sit in the Judgement Seat of God and think you know the ultimate fate of anyone, or that you have the power to do anything beyond providing an accurate witness regarding the God of the Bible) . I do hope for a bit more clarity and honesty. For that, Nick, you have my respect because you at least attempt to formulate a thought pattern in reaching your inevitably dogmatic conclusion.

Nick| 9.24.11 @ 1:18AM

Evanston2,

"The Bible interprets itself on any major topic."
And who decides what is a "major topic"? You?

"If Luther inserted an extra word in a translation[...]."
He inserted a word that wasn't there and changed the meaning of Paul's teaching. Saint John warned people not to add a word to his visions, in Rev. 22:18. Margie constantly accuses me of adding words to Scripture, and that I will go to Hell if I don't repent.

"Are [sic] looking for word-for-word equality after translating from Hebrew to Greek, or thought-for-thought?"
Chris, Himself, quoted from the Septuagint. In many examples, if the Hebrew is used instead of the Greek, the point which Christ (and others) is making, changes. Here are some of those examples:

- Matt. 1:23 quotes the LXX Isaiah: "behold, a virgin shall conceive." Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 : "behold, a young woman shall conceive."
- Matt. 12:21 quotes the LXX Isaiah: "in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust)." Hebrew Isaiah 42:4 : :the islands shall wait for his law."
- Acts 7:43 quotes the LXX Amos: "the tent of Moloch and star of god of Rephan." Hebrew Amos 5:26-27 : "You shall take up Sakkuth your king, shrine, and star of your god.
- Rom. 2:24 quotes the LXX Isaiah : "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles." Hebrew Isaiah 52:5 : "my name continually every day is blasphemed." [There is no mention of the Gentiles.]

Christ, and the other New Testament writers, used the Septuagint and considered it canonical, i.e., inspired.

"Oops, I forgot, you don't expect the laity (or want them) to know how to read."
It is very arrogant of you to presume what I "expect" or "want," is it not? The Catholic Church has always encouraged those with the means to read the Scriptures, frequently. They never tried to hide the Word of God from the laity.

"[...] is whether God's sanctification generates good works or whether your works generate sanctification."
The Church has never taught that our own works, by themselves, "generate" sanctification. It is Christ's Church, with Her Sacraments, that allow us to attain the graces necessary for sanctification. As Peter says about one of those sacraments: "Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saves you also [...]." - 1 Peter 3:21

These teachings have been part of the Church that Christ founded on the Kephas from the beginning.
God Bless!

Evanston2| 9.24.11 @ 4:20PM

Hey Nick. It helps to remember that I was responding to comments by TLS and JimH regarding whether the Bible itself differs greatly from translation-to-translation. I used the word major and minor. So let's deal with that for a minute and then talk about heresy.

I dunno Nick, what would be a "major topic?" Uh, something God repeats again and again and again in the Bible? Does that make sense to you, or did God screw up? Is He a bad writer who He needs Rome's help? And what would be "minor?" Something that requires rooting around forever for some sort of inferred connection to a single snippet of Scripture. Even if you disagree with its implications, does this dichotomy make sense to you? Or does Rome's habit of building entire doctrines regarding Peter, Mary, Purgatory, etc. make you blind to common sense?

Heresy is, with importance that is hard to exaggerate, a different matter. We are told by the Apostles that only Jesus' atoning work can save, and this is prefigured by the entire OT. Our Lord (and again, "Moses and the Prophets") tell us that we must repent of our own sinful nature and seek God wholeheartedly. Anything that violates this need to repent (that is, which claims that man is good) or that God is not good is heretical. Simply put, Christ tells us what it means to be a Christian. Make sense?

As the most major of all major topics, we can expect heresy to correlate with frequency of discussion in the Bible. Again, the NT tells us that the entire OT points to Him (the particular claim to the Godhead that enraged the Jews to kill Him in John 8:56, Jesus' parables, most of Hebrews and other Apostolic letters).

So, returning to purgatory, prayers for the dead and other Controversies. These are "minor" according to my schema involving frequency. But are they heretical? It depends on how you define the purpose and nature of these actions. Are they works that augment the work of Christ? Or is prayer merely heartfelt mourning for those suffering in purgatory, is purgatory just a prolongation of obtaining new bodies and a perfect spirit or is this instantaneous (see 1 Cor 35-52, 2 Cor 5:1-10, 1 John 3:2)...or is it a place where one's suffering "earns merit?" Again, the Bible translations are shockingly consistent, it is the implications of extraBiblical teachings that stir up Controversy.

I am grateful for your citing Rev 22:18 as it "warned people not to add a word to his visions." Luther will answer for any such sin. So will Rome.

If Margie personally tells you that you are going to hell, then she sins per Our Lord's admonition not to Judge. Conversely, if she cites Scripture accurately as a general admonition regarding false beliefs, you should welcome it as those who love Him love His Commandments and use His Word in the fight against Satan.

Regarding the Septuagint, I was trying to get you to be clear about your point. I should have left it at that. My questions, which were intended to prompt you to be clear, may have led you to believe that I deny that Christ's OT citations (as recorded under Inspiration by the NT writers) were from the Septuagint. I do not deny this in any way. Again, I wasn't sure what your point was in bringing up the Septuagint. That's why I asked "Are [sic] looking for word-for-word equality after translating from Hebrew to Greek, or thought-for-thought?"

Now I see that you were asserting that the entire Septuagint is inspired. That is, if Christ is quoted using any book from it, this means that all of it is inspired (including Maccabees). My knowledge of this topic is superficial. Still, are you saying that the translators of the Septuagint had such Authority that anything they translated is Inspired? If so, how do you account for what I see online about the Apocrypha (including Maccabees) -- that they "are not present in the Hebrew." Still, I could really care less if you consider these to be part of the canon. My point was that Rome considered inclusion of these books to be "minor" (using my word regarding impact) insofar as their doctrinal implications fit into Rome's pre-existing framework. Again, my original comment was aimed at TLS and JimH. It's totally cool that you dropped in to make some additional points, but again I believe they supported what I was saying about (to coin a word) snippeTheology.

Yes, it is arrogant of me to presume what you "expect" but since you vouch for Rome you can handle it. Example: "The Catholic Church has always encouraged those with the means to read the Scriptures, frequently." Really? Certainly not in their native tongues. That you got you killed in a variety of inventive ways. So if you were (using your words) "with means" enough to read Latin then under supervision you could perhaps study. Providing a reference or two here for this alleged "encouragement" would be useful to support your assertion.
"They never tried to hide the Word of God from the laity." When I was born services were still largely in Latin, at least here in the U.S. I can't claim to know exactly how much of the service (Sacraments for sure, but responsive prayer, homily, music?) were in Latin. But however much was in a foreign tongue, it might as well have been in Arabic ("sounds like Greek to me")! To this day the homily is a minor insertion in a sacramental service, the Mass isn't one without the Eucharist and it's my arrogant opinion that most people only show up for this dispensation. So you say that Biblical knowledge is "encouraged." Happy day.

Go ahead and "attain the grace." Is your faith in His Work on the Cross or your work in being baptized, partaking of the Eucharist, Confession/penance, etc.? Only you know. And here is where my witness is defective. I hope to accurately present God's word. But like Jonah, we are all called to preach repentance and turning to God. But I don't care. So witnessing about myself, I stink. I know I don't "deserve" to be in Heaven, with God eternally. THAT, and even for us to have an iota of love for Him given our true nature, is the blessing of God. I know you don't mean it as a throwaway, but when you say "God bless" I do hope you know that is the way it is. We do not bless Him at all with obedience to His Word, it is what we should do in love for Him. I recommend Hebrews 11 to you to define what faith is and then see a list of examples. The sacramental nature of Moses' action during the Passover is most particular, but all of these relate to our trusting in God and His power and Promises and not our own merit.

To return to your original accusation, "Who decides...You?" I think we know the answer to that. If you have decided that God's Word is defective without Rome's assistance, then it is YOU who have decided. I, by God's blessing, receive Salvation. You attain.

Nick| 9.26.11 @ 1:47AM

Evanston2,

"Uh, something God repeats again and again and again in the Bible?"

This sounds like your own personal interpretation. While idolatry and rejection of God are the most repeated themes in Bible, there are other topics of great importance that are not covered near as much as Israel's continued fall from grace and acceptance of false gods. Murder has very few references, comparatively. What about abortion, the Moloch worship of our time? How many times is abortion mentioned in the Scriptures? Abortion was practiced in the first century A.D., yet Christ never mentioned it. Does this mean it wasn't even a "minor" issue, but, no issue at all. It was listed in the Didache, so, Christians did address it.

"Something that requires rooting around forever for some sort of inferred connection to a single snippet of Scripture."

Actually, I find that it is Protestants and other non-Catholics who read the Bible through sound-bite. They constantly wrench the meaning of a particular verse, or verses, out of the context that the author meant them to be received. The Catholic Church interprets the Scriptures through the context of the whole book.

"Anything that violates this need to repent (that is, which claims that man is good) or that God is not good is heretical."

The Catholic Church does neither of these. And, yes, Christ tells us what it means to be a Christian. His instrument for this mission is His Church.

"Are they works that augment the work of Christ?"

They don't augment the work of Christ, nothing can do that. They co-operate in the work of Christ, which is what Christians are called to do. God uses imperfect men to perfect His work, the Redemption of mankind. He always has.

" [...] you should welcome it as those who love Him love His Commandments and use His Word in the fight against Satan."

I always welcome correction, if needed. I do not claim to be infallible. I make mistakes all the time.

"That is, if Christ is quoted using any book from it, this means that all of it is inspired (including Maccabees)."

This was not my point. If this were true, then the book of Ester wouldn't be in the Bible, because Christ never quoted from it. Nor, did He quote from Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah, Nahum, Ruth, and Song of Songs. These are all considered canonical. Also, if books quoted by New Testament writers were evidence of their Divine inspiration, then the Book of Enoch, Assumption of Moses, and pagan poets would have to be considered inspired.

My point is that Christ, Himself accepts the Septuagint as inspired, because He directly quotes from it. Christ also strongly alludes, if not outright quotes from, many parts of the Deuterocanonicals (apocrypha,) as do the other New Testament authors. If the apocrypha books, and the Septuagint as a whole, were not inspired, would Christ have not made a point to His disciples never to use it? Because the LXX was in wide use, even in Judea and Galilee, in Christ's time. Wouldn't He have forbade using the LXX?

"Yes, it is arrogant of me to presume what you 'expect' but since you vouch for Rome you can handle it."

Yes, I can handle it, just fine. It is you who seems to get out of joint about the arrogance of those whom assume that you don't understand what the Catholic Church teaches. I'm sure you can also handle it.

"Providing a reference or two here for this alleged 'encouragement' would be useful to support your assertion."

I can do much more than that: http://www.catholicapologetics.....eading.htm

"When I was born services were still largely in Latin, at least here in the U.S."

Even in the old Latin Tridentine Rite Mass, the missal had the English alongside the Latin, so that the laity could follow along. The Church wasn't trying to hide the Word of God from the people. She was just being universal, i.e., catholik.

"Go ahead and 'attain the grace.'"

Maybe I wrote that imprecisely. I'm no great grammarian. We don't attain His grace by our own power. We reach (attain) His Grace, through His Power, which He gives us, through His Sacraments. We can accomplish nothing without God. Everything is a gift from Him.

Thanks for the recommendation of Hebrews 11. Coincidentally, I plan on starting a comprehensive commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, very soon.
Yours in Christ, Nick

Joe D.| 9.20.11 @ 12:20PM

"But there is a special kind of bile reserved for Roman Catholicism, given its staying power and consistent and sustained resistance to the demands of sexual liberation". - But lets not forget the hypocracy of the Catholic Church with regards to their Popes, Bishops and Priests. What you do in the shadows regarding sex is ok so long as it does not become public.

And you can even be Bishops and Priests if you are homosexual even though God is very much against it (Levitcus, Romans 1 and Corithnins). You may even sodomise boys in the shadows. Just don't let it become public. Well once is ok.

The book may clean up the misinformation and that is good. However, it still does not clean up the white wash jobs the Catholic Church has done over the centuries.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 12:29PM

"Whitewash"???

Careful, Joe...You're about to be subjected to reams of cut-n-paste jobs telling you your child is more likely to be molested by a public school teacher than by a Priest...

...And that you're an anti-Catholic bigot spreading lies and disinformation.

Stuart Koehl might show-up with long-winded posts specifically designed to make you NOT read them, so you won't have the inclination to reply...And then he'll claim your non-reply as a victory.

...And Clint will make bizarre, pseudo-violent threats...

Etc, etc, etc...

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 1:57PM

Or RCV will show up to say a he did the other day to me, that Satan has no better an ally than me in keeping people away from Christ.

RCV who is in open rebellion against God for claiming that Homosexuality is not sin, of course is the authority on who is and isn't a Christian.

Or Ken, who enjoys throwing Christians to the wolves here for open attack because he believes along with the Papists that Homosexuals are born that way, and Darwin was right!
And accuses Christians of being whack jobs and just like the Mullahs and Jihadis~ and like Clint!

Oh, yes, he wants us to keep our mouths closed in the face of these false accusations.

Or Nick, who adds to the Words of the Bible as he did yesterday, adding the word Priests to a verse in the Bible in order to try and justify the perverted protection of child rapists from exposure to the Law and the justice they deserve.

Or good old Joseph the troll will chime in along with them, to claim that Bible believing Christians like me do not believe in the Divinity of Christ.

One thing these Papists have in common is that they have sold their souls to the Devil himself, to the false and perverted teachings of Catholicism.

The same false Religion that said the same exact words to the Bible believing Christians before putting them to death for rejecting the Papists and their false teachings.

They also stood on the Word of God and chose instead to accept the abuse and lies and demeaning of their characters rather than sell out for a lie.

They loved the Lord Jesus Christ and His testimony as Lord and Saviour unto death.

"For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough." 2 Cor. 11:4.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 3:06PM

Now, Tell All The American Spectator Readers What You Think About Protestants & Jews, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Bigot Margie.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:14PM

The American Spectator readers (whom you do not speak for), have Bibles.
If they care to read them, they can find out what God thinks, not what I think.
Punk.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 4:30PM

What's the matter Bigot Margie. Cat Got Your tongue.

Now, Tell Practicing Protestants & Jews What You Say God Thinks About Them.

Oh Yeah, Tell Everyone Where You Say Practicing Jews & Muslims Go When They Die.

You're Up World Class Religious Bigot Pig Margie.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:34PM

God has my tongue.
And we all know who has yours, liar.

Occam's Tool| 9.20.11 @ 11:57PM

Clint, you're the anti-semite; Margie is the philo-semite. Why don't you engage in reproductive activities suitable to your C. Elegans status.

Would you like me to bring up your passages on Judaism as a religion, Clint?

You are a Nazi.

Satan| 9.21.11 @ 7:16AM

Occam's Tool
Great work
help Margie sow discord
focus on Clint not Margie

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:09PM

Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus? Yes or No will suffice. Afraid to answer because your answer is NO.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:35PM

Answered ad infinitum, punk.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:47PM

No you did not. Liar. Say yes or no and I won't ask again. Embarrased to answer and defend that you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 5:06PM

Answered ad infinitum, punk.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 5:21PM

Mullah punkette, I can trade insults all day long with the likes of you. Just answer the question, yes or no, and I won't ask again.

Satan| 9.20.11 @ 10:15PM

Never admit

Nick| 9.21.11 @ 1:13AM

Joseph,

Margie did admit to the divinity of Christ, in the Evolution Needs to Evolve thread. She just won't say that "Christ is God" or "Jesus is God" because that gets her too close to having to admit that Our Lady is the Mother of God.

So, she would rather ignore, and wrench out of context, the Word's of God than type those specific words.
God Bless!

Ryan| 9.21.11 @ 8:24AM

Not even that - she refuses to acknowledge that the Trinity is a Biblical concept. All she does there is quote Trinity-proving verses without saying "yes" or "no."

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 1:15AM

Ryan,

Yes, she does deny the Most Holy Trinity. Because you can't find that specific word in the Bible, which is technically correct.

Only the Holy Spirit can convince her of the Truth about this great mystery of God. All we can do is present the Truth to her, with faith and caritas, i.e., charity.
God Bless!

Joseph| 9.21.11 @ 8:38AM

Nick,
I have to disagree with you.
She said Jesus is Lord but she will not say she believes in the divinity.
She refuses to answer a simple yes or no question but just quotes snippets of verses.

I agree she won't admit that Our Lady is the Mother of God because that would destroy most of her made up cult belief system.
You may want to look at the stuff written by the KnowNothing anti immigration Party of the last century and the KKK. The words Papist, Irish Catholics, wicked priests, Romanists, blah are there, and mirror Margie and a few others on this site.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 7:41PM

Mary is not the mother of God. She was the mother of the earthly Jesus. But Jesus existed, as John clearly explains, from the beginning. Jesus was not created. Again, refer to John. (By the way, for you Roman cultists, when I refer to "John", I am referring to the fourth book of the NT, which is the second major part of a book Christians call "The Bible". Throw your obnoxious catechisms in the garbage where they belong.)

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 12:41AM

Mister Grady,

The title "Mother of God" does not imply that Mary created Jesus. You must not have read all the comments, huh?

And, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is chock full of Sacred Scripture. Sorry, I'll keep it right next to my several Bibles.
God Bless!

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 1:09AM

Joseph,

This was easy to miss in that thread, since there were so many comments. But, Margie did admit that the reason she wasn't answering your's and RCV's questions was to prove a point:

"Oh! Yes, you must be denying that!
"Using you [sic] Papists' twisted Inquisitory methods, if you say Jesus is the Son of God~ you MUST be prosecuted until you confess that He is God!
"Just a taste of your own despicable medicine, Papists!!"

This was in response to my question to her (I stuck my nose into the discussion.) I had shown her that the Bible says that Jesus is God. After another reply from me, she admitted that the reason she won't say that Jesus is God is because Catholics call Mary the "Mother of God":

"Jesus is the Son of God, and Son of Man. That's what the Bible says. Even Jesus proclaimed that His Father is greater than Him.
"Catholicism can't stand that!
"Because you teach (falsely) that Mary is the Mother of God.
"Mary is not the Mother of God, she was the Mother of Jesus."

I should point out that Christ said that the Father is greater than He, because He was being humble. Because Christ also said that He and the Father are one.

Hope that helps.
God Bless!

Joseph| 9.22.11 @ 1:08PM

Nick,
I defer to to you on the Bible. I am far from an expert.

But I know when someone is evading answering a simple question that can and should be answered yes or no.
I respectfully disagree. She has not answered that she believes in the divinity of Jesus. It must make some diffeence to her made up cult.
I agree she cannot bring herself to say Mary is the Mother of God. She must be arguing some dual nature of Jesus. Who knows, who cares what she thinks, if thinks is even the proper word.

Always enjoy your posts.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 11:54PM

Joseph,

I am by no means an expert on the Scriptures, believe me. I'm not being humble, either. I just have access to great sources.

You are completely correct, Margie has not come out and explicitly answered the question, "Yes" or "No." I inferred from her reply to me an acknowledgement of Christ's Divinity. You may be right, she may not believe that Jesus is God.

But, she has been exposed to the Truth. Now, if we keep praying for her, the Holy Spirit will show her the light.

Thanks for the compliment. I enjoy your comments, as well.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:06PM

Bingo!
You just proved my point, Nick.

THANK YOU!!!!

The Trinity was not taught by Jesus, or the Apostles. It isn't IN the Bible.

It is a Catholic doctrine that was brought in by Origen~ the same imbecile that taught that the Devil is going to be redeemed.

The Trinity is taught by Catholics for the sole reason that it allows them (deceitfully so) to teach that Mary is the "Mother of God."

Thanks, Nick. Well done.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 12:49AM

Margie,

I didn't write anything about the Most Holy Trinity. Nor, did I claim that you will find the word Trinity in the Bible. Therefore, I did not prove this point for you. You are mistaken.

The Holy Trinity was taught by Christ, Himself, in the Gospel of Matthew:

"Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 28:19)

The word "Trinity" was used to better explain this mystery of God. Jesus is God. The Bible says so.
God Bless!

Nick| 9.21.11 @ 1:06AM

Margie,

"Or Nick, who adds to the Words of the Bible as he did yesterday, adding the word Priests to a verse in the Bible in order to try and justify the perverted protection of child rapists from exposure to the Law and the justice they deserve."

I did not add the word "priest." You must not have read my reply to that charge, in the other thread. I suggest that you go back and do so, before you, again, write such falsehoods.

Also, I have never tried to justify any child rapist, ever. Please, don't imply that I have. All child rapists, whether a Catholic priest, or not, belong in jail. You should know my views better, by now.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 10:06PM

You did indeed add the word Priest to a verse in the Bible.

And please, do not say, "Bless you."

STOP.

Vlady| 9.21.11 @ 10:14PM

How's about shalom, then, cupcake?

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 12:29AM

Stuff it, scumbag.

Vlady| 9.28.11 @ 8:54AM

Stuff what where, cupcake? Your intelligent and imaginative ripostes are truly underwhelming.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 12:36AM

Margie,

You must not have gone back to the Evolution thread to read my reply. Here's the link, so anybody can go see that I did not add the word priest (it's towards the bottom, but there are over 600 comments, so, you still have to scroll up a bit):

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_627723

Here is part of my response to your false accusation:

"[...] AND YOU ADDED THE WORD PRIESTS WHICH ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!!!"

I didn't add any words. Do you know what brackets "[ ]" inside of quotation marks mean? They mean that the part inside the brackets, are not part of the original quotation. The word elders means priests in James 5.

And, here's part of my response to Victor's objections, to which he never replied:

The etymology of the English word priest is from the Latin presbyter, which is from the Greek presbyteros, i.e., elder. I'm surprised that you did not know this.

Finally, here is the original quote, which caused you so much confusion:

"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church [priests], and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.Therefore confess your sins to one another [to other priests], and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." (James 5:14-16)

I did tell Victor that the part about "confess your sins to one another" could also include bishops, deacons, and lay people. And, that I should have been clearer on this point.

Hope that clears up your confusion.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.22.11 @ 1:26AM

Utter deceit.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:29AM

Margie,

Great come-back! But, alas, no substance.
And, a false accusation, to boot.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 12:28AM

It is you who has only the substance of a lying Papist.
Repent, liar.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:35AM

p.s. Are claiming that the word priest does not come from the Greek word for elder, i.e., prebyteros?

Joseph| 9.21.11 @ 10:30AM

Margie,
I am honored to be included as a Papist with Nick and RCV. Both have class and intelligence, something you don't.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:03PM

Good for you.

You certainly deserve each other!

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:19PM

Indeed, the church of Satan continues to this very day to insist on protecting child molesters.

Sinead O'Connor posted the latest news about what the Vatican is up to on her blog.

Yes, THAt Sinead O'Connor. It seems she has a very real and righteous hatred of the perversion that tries to pass itself off as Christianity:

"Currently in Ireland there is a battle being fought between The Vatican't and the people who have given their full backing to our Prime Minister and Justice minister in order to make it a crime for a priest hearing confession by a perpetrator of sexual crimes against children not to report that perpetrator to the police. The Vatican't stance on the issue is that confession is private and perpetrators are entitled to be protected by the seal of confession. And that under no circumstances whatsoever should that seal be broken.
This of course continues the Vatican't's arrogant belief that they should be entitled to live by their own laws and not the laws of a sovereign state (by the way, should u have time to read various treaties u will see the Vatican't is NOT a sovereign state though it claims to be ) These are the laws which created the circumstances wherein thousands of children were raped, tortured and abused decade after decade after decade and perpetrators were not only protected but in fact sent from parish to parish, country to country, where they continued their crimes and countless children who should have been protected were not. All this while Arch-bishops (see Hoyes) wrote letters of congratulations to bishops who did not report child molesters and rapists to the police. At no point has the Vatican't ever apologised for these cover-ups or endangerments of children. Yes they apologise for abuse. But not for cover up. And still arrogantly defend their cover-ups.
There is one very simple question, the answer to which would solve this issue immediately. " what would Jesus do?". Every baby in the street knows that Jesus Christ, who was in fact an anti- religious character (study the gospels. Anti-religious was his raison d'etre) would drag the perpetrator immediately to the police, resisting the urge to immediately cast him to the bottom of the ocean with a "millstone around his neck".
Every baby in the street knows Jesus Christ would never have sanctioned any type of cover up of sex crimes against children. Nor would he sanction the sickening attempts made by the Vatican't in the last two years, to cover-up the cover-ups.
Had Christ been the person who had received the first allegation there would never have been one other case of abuse again. The Vatican't are showing time and again nothing but mocking and blasphemous disrespect of Christ, whose body is and was those children who were ravaged. may I add that it is a blasphemy for the Vatican or indeed anyone else to call themselves Christ's representative. Christ has never needed a representative thank u very much. Christ IS the representative.
No person who had any sense of there being a God who sees all could consider behaving as the Vatican't delight in behaving. We the people want those at the top to walk out of the Vatican't and hand us back our church. Your relationship with Satan is more important to you than Christ and do not think there are not those who can see who and exactly what you are. We want you out of our church Satan. And we want our beloved Christ released from your hellish bondage.
The gospels make very clear it is a crime in God's eyes to "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit". Consider yourself condemned Mr Ratzinger, and your co-horts.Your days are numbered and your pit prepared."
~Sinead O'Connor speaks the truth from her home in Ireland.

Who is closer to Christ? Sinead O'Connor or the lying Papists?

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 2:51PM

What's it like, living with a head so full of hate?

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:16PM

What's it like being a liar and brother to him who destroys?

LIAR AND BROTHER TO DESTROYER| 9.20.11 @ 8:56PM

I ain't gonna lie, honey; it doesn't suck! What with the lying and the destroying and the debauching and the pillaging and the stealing, I barely have enough hours in the day.

It's not all fun and games, though. My old lady is always on back and going on about setting a good example for the kids and having all that loot laying around the house, but on balance, I wouldn't trade it for the world.

Well, ta ta, I'm off to the mall to get in a round of lying and stealing before retiring for the evening...

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 7:50PM

The Lord says: Hate what is evil.

Depending on what you hate, hate ain't bad at all.

I hate the RCC, I dislike Romanists qua Romanists, but I love them as humans and pray that they will become born again and not go to hell. It pains me to no end to think of people going to hell. That ain't hate!

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 2:56PM

"Who is closer to Christ? Sinead O'Connor or the lying Papists?"

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Mt 1:7)

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (1 Cor 2:11)

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:20PM

Those who love the Truth, speak the truth, and Sinead O'Connor spoke the truth.

Those who hate the Word of God cover up and stick up for child molesters.

And you use the Scripture wrongly.

Christians are called on to speak the truth to the lies of the Devil.

And to judge as well:

"But as many as received Him, to them
He gave authority to become children of
God, to the ones believing into His name,
13 who were generated not of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of
man, but were generated of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.

As to judging others:

"Do you not know that we are to judge Angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" 1 Cor. 6:3.

Wake up, Cal Mark. Quit your misrepresenting of Bible believing Christians and hating of them, along with your Catholic Cult~ read and believe your Bible instead.

Purple Lips| 9.20.11 @ 3:24PM

"Those who love the Truth, speak the truth, and Sinead O'Connor spoke the truth."

And Josef Stalin would have agreed 100% with Sinead O'Conner (as would Mao and Castro). I take it Stalin was a Bible believing Christian? After-all, he did attend seminary for 1 year.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:29PM

You're saying Joseph Stalin was a Christian?

What are you smoking?

Say, Papist, what exactly did Sinead O'Connor say here that isn't the truth?

I'll wait.

Purple Lips| 9.20.11 @ 3:35PM

Did I say it wasn't the Truth? I just pointed out that you, Sinead O'Conner, and Stalin share some of the same rather eccentric sentiments.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:40PM

Cute. Real cute. Spoken like a true Papist.
Hey~ you join with the other Catholic cult members in comparing Bible believing Christians with murderers.
No surprise there!

But history proves something quite the opposite~ while Catholics constantly accuse Bible believing Christians of hatred, they are in fact doing all of the hating.

They tortured and killed millions of Bible believing Christians for about six centuries.
And their spirit lives on in the defenders of this Popery Religion of today.

You're just another case in point.
Does it make you feel good?

DaveD| 9.20.11 @ 3:08PM

Knowing I'm about to be called (in error) a papist ...

This is not so simple a thing as you would have it to be. Protestant Ministers, Rabbis, Doctors and Lawyers enjoy the same protections. For that matter, so also do journalists (as in protecting their sources). All with good reason.

If you are afraid to tell your Doctor how you got infected for fear you will get ratted out, your Doctor may not be able to help you get well. If you do not tell your lawyer the truth, he or she may not be able to defend you in court properly. We as a society have learned much from journalists who can only get the information if the source remains confidential. Confession is good for the soul and if one cannot freely confess transgression(s), how then can a person proceed towards redemption?

That said, in any of those instances where the sheltered "confession" references a crime, it is beholding on the listener to encourage, not just spiritial, emotional and healthy redemption, but also that the individual take responsibility for their action(s). The error is not that the Priest/Minister/Doctor/Lawyer/Journalist cannot be compelled to speak out, the error is if the listener assists in covering up the wrongful action(s).

In this, the Catholic Church of America (and perhaps world wide) has much to answer for. Priestly perversions have been covered up and overlooked. They are now paying a financial price for that and may very well have placed their immortal souls in jeopardy because they honored the institution above biblical teachings.

Even so, lawyer client privilege, doctor patient confidentiality, the sanctity of the confessional, journalism's protection of sources - all are too important to be thrown away willy nilly over the actions of a comparative handful of miscreants.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 3:14PM

The Catholic Church is a human institution, run by men, some of whom are knaves, even criminals. That does not discredit Catholicism any more than the corruption and brutality of the Obama regime discredit the Constitution or the government it founded.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:23PM

"This is not so simple a thing as you would have it to be. Protestant Ministers, Rabbis, Doctors and Lawyers enjoy the same protections. For that matter, so also do journalists (as in protecting their sources). All with good reason."

It astonishes me the length of depravity the Papists will go to in protecting perversion!

You've got to be kidding me, right? But sadly no, you're not.

You're actually claiming that child molesters ought to enjoy protection, and all in the Name of God?

This is what a Papist means: A person who loves the Popery more than they love Christ.

Purple Lips| 9.20.11 @ 3:33PM

Speaking of child molesters, GuideOne and Church Mutual, 2 of the largest insurance companies who indemnify Protestant Churches, reported that they cover on average 73 and 160 molestation cases (involving Protestant Clergy) respectively every year.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:43PM

Yes, yes, the Papists will do their usual pontificating about how "everybody does it!"

The fact is that (duh) child molesters aren't Christian, are they?

And Catholic Popes who protect them are of the Devil~ or are you going to disagree?

Or more equivocating?

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:29PM

Anyone--including Catholic bishops--who protect despoilers of people or goods are evil-doers. The previous and current Pope are not even close to universally beloved, as their followers would have people think, in no small part because of these scandals. At best, they were culpably ignorant.

But just because some Catholic leaders are evil does not make Catholics instruments of the Devil, any more than evangelicals who stick with their church after their reverend is caught with a deacon's 16-year-old daughter or embezzling from the parish treasury.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:38PM

"The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Mt. 6:22-24.

What's that they call the "Holy See?"
LOL.
It's all a fraud. You need to wake up.

DaveD| 9.20.11 @ 5:10PM

Knew it. I knew you'd call me a papist. What a joke.

Remember a few days ago, I told you in all honesty that I have attended six Catholic services in my 64 years: one Christmas Eve service, two weddings and three funerals. And as before, if that makes me a "papist," so be it.

DaveD| 9.20.11 @ 5:20PM

"You're actually claiming that child molesters ought to enjoy protection, and all in the Name of God?"

Dear heart, I have no idea how you got that from my previous post. I said no such thing nor would I ever think such a thing much less say it.

I said that society has good reason to continue supporting the sanctity of the confessional as well as doctor patient and lawyer client privilege. I stand by that.

I also said, but perhaps not clearly enough, that the confidentiality granted therein does not excuse assistance in covering up the crime. Yes a Doctor/Lawyer/Priest should not be compelled to reveal things said in confidence. No, they should aid the miscreant in avoiding the consequences, for in so doing, they too become guilty.

And how did you get "papist" from someone who wrote: "In this, the Catholic Church of America ... has much to answer for?"

DaveD| 9.20.11 @ 5:24PM

Nuts, shoudla' been : "No, they should NOT aid the miscreant in avoiding the consequences, for in so doing, they too become guilty."

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 12:23AM

"I said that society has good reason to continue supporting the sanctity of the confessional."

I repeat: that is bunk.
There is no such thing in God's Eyes as a "confessional." It doesn't exist anywhere in Scripture.

It is a Catholic teaching.

The Bible is what Christians go by. Catholicism is not Christianity.

And I just pointed it out again, for the umpteenth time.

Dearheart.

Satan| 9.20.11 @ 10:16PM

Great Margie!!!
Keep it up.

Vlady| 9.21.11 @ 10:13PM

ROTFLMAO! Sinead O'Connor??? REally??? No one in their right mind can EVER take you seriously again. Your authority is a washed up loser singer?

You just threw yourself out to the world as the biggest jackass since Obama!!!! Holy sh*t, and I'm Jewish, and this is the funniest thing I have seen in months!

Margie| 9.22.11 @ 1:27AM

When someone speaks the truth, a genuine Christian rejoices.
It is one more soul that has been found and rescued from the Whore of Babylon.
Repent, liar!

Vlady| 9.22.11 @ 9:16AM

Cupcake, when you start speaking the truth, you just let the rest of us know. And when you start acting like a genuine Christian, you won't have to tell us because we will see it.

As for whores, well, I won't go there. But man do I want to!

By the way, if you are such a Christian, why are you so nasty? Okay, I get the whole "I interpret the Bible differently and I want to put my position out there" thing. After all, I am a Jew, so I don't exactly agree with the Christian interpretation of things. But your nastiness to others in the way you do it makes me think that Christian biblical interpretation isn't the only think going on here.

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 12:27AM

If you think I am nasty, punk, wait until you see what God has in mind for you and ALL those who bear false witness.

Vlady| 9.28.11 @ 8:56AM

Ooohhhhh!!! I'll take my chances with G-d, cupcake.

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 12:54PM

You're neither a Doctor, nor Right.

You're An Obsessed Fixated Serial Anti-Catholic Bigot from Joisey,who doesn't have the guts to tell Practicing Protestants and Jews what you believe about Their Religious Practices,because that would stick a fork in your Bigot Agenda.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 1:02PM

You're neither a Doctor, nor Right.

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 12:56PM

Smoke That Poser Punk Poster,Dr.Reich.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 2:45PM

Catholics believe that all good people who live a decent life, regardless of religion, get to heaven. Doctor Right, Margie, and a few others here declare that goodness is irrelevant; salvation is only through specific formulas they define--God told them so.

In other words, their interpretation of their holy book is the only one that is acceptable. Anyone who disagrees, regardless how good a person, is going to hell. This is God's way because the holy book says so.

Minus the physical violence, it sounds a lot like Islam.

PJ| 9.20.11 @ 5:11PM

CalMark,
Your 1st paragraph is not quite correct. Catholics believe that 1 has to be a faithful member of the Catholic Church in order to get to Heaven. What is a faithful member? 1)baptized by using the Triune formula (I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit....), 2)believe in the doctrine stated in the Nicene Creed & other doctrine derived from the Councils, (To better understand the doctrine, 1 needs to know Scripture.) & 3)try to lead a moral life by following the 10 Commandments & its complement, the Sermon on the Mount.

For those who do not follow the precepts of of the Catholic Church or Orthodox Churches, Catholics also believe that God through His infinite mercy & love will find a way to welcome those into Heaven. An analogy of this whole idea is reading a map to a destination: Catholics have a map that includes detailed markings such as street names & distances. While others have the same map but with various levels of less details & descriptions. The former seems to be easier but I know people who get lost w/detailed maps. The latter seems to be harder; I happen to also know people who can find their way around with a simple drawing of a map.

BTW: Salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way to get to Heaven (finding the destination from the map). Else, there would be no reason to be any type of Christian. As a Catholic I agree w/Marge & Dr Right on this point & so does the Catholic Church.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 5:49PM

Sorry, pal. Your boat sailed a looong time ago.

The Catholic Church teaches that you don't have to be a Catholic, or even a baptized Christian, to reach heaven. To do so is to deny that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and has inherent potential for salvation.

No true Christian would bar decent, good-living people from heaven on a technicality. This kind of thinking is akin to teaching children that unbaptized babies go to "Limbo" and will never be with God, through no fault of their own. This kind of sick dogmatism gives Catholicism and its Tradition-based teachings a bad name.

PJ| 9.20.11 @ 6:33PM

You need to read the Catechism esp the Section that starts with "The Necessity of Baptism" (1257-1261).

"... has inherent potential for salvation" does not mean a guarantee of salvation.

Now if you read my post carefully, you will find that I implied that we can not pigeon-hole God because His love & mercy is infinite. He can do whatever He wants w/it which includes accepting all people of good-will into Heavenly realm.

Through the Catholic Church, He has given us the most straightforward, not necessarily the easiest, route to Heaven. I think the map analogy is quite good & should satisfy your belief that all people can potentially get into Heaven.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 12:19AM

Jesus IS the Way to Heaven.
Catholicism can't save anyone. It's a lie.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 4:49PM

That's right, Margie - through MY SON, NOT THROUGH YOU! So get down off your pulpit now before I smite thee.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:27PM

"salvation is only through specific formulas they define--God told them so."

God tells everyone the way to Salvation. It's in the Bible.

You mock the "Holy Book"~ which only reveals that you aren't a Christian.

If you were a Christian, you'd know that the Bible contains the very Words of Christ~ and those who would call themselves Christian must follow them.

You mock. That's sad.

You join the ranks of the others here as well by comparing Bible believing Christians with Mullahs and Jihadists.

Sickening.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:00PM

Margie,
You are a zealot, like Saul before his conversion. I'm done arguing with you.

May God have mercy on your twisted, evil soul.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:39PM

Good Papist!

Mike McLaren| 9.20.11 @ 4:43PM

Margie....as a Catholic I love and have reverance for the inspired Word of God, and read and study it regularly. But would you please tell me where in the Bible that it says that it is the sole source of revelation.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 5:01PM

If you believe that God's Words were written through the Prophets, and if you believe that Jesus is the Word become flesh, and if you believe that the Apostles were appointed by God and therefore that what they said was what God wanted them to say, then by following those Words you are following Christ.

Does not the Bible contain the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

If you agree, then whatever you have heard that is not in agreement with it, is not of God. No matter what the Papists say.

"So, then, brothers, stand firm and
strongly hold the teachings you were
taught, whether by word or by our letter.
But may our Lord Himself, Jesus
Christ, and our God and Father, the One
having loved us and having given everlasting
comfort and good hope by grace,
encourage your hearts, and may He
establish you in every good word and
work." 2 Thess. 2:15-17.

Ultimately, you will have to decide for yourself whether to allow teachings that aren't biblical into your life.

There were false teachers even at the time of the Apostles, and they and Jesus warned us about them.

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep." 2 Pe. 2:1-3.

Sound familiar? Sound like it covers pedophile priests, to you?
Sound like the Papists here who condemn anyone for speaking out?

There's more:

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." 2 Tim. 1:4-5.

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:11PM

She is a bigot, plain simple bigot.

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:15PM

I am afraid you are right. One rarely sees such vile, intense, outrageously outspoken bigotry.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:40PM

Good Papists! Speaking from Scriptures is Evil!
Off with their heads!

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 6:57PM

"Off with their heads"

The real Mullah speaks. A fatwa?

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 12:17AM

No, dimwit.
Off with their heads is what the Papists did for centuries. You still cannot read, idiot.

Satan| 9.21.11 @ 7:20AM

Good Margie.
Always deny
Always lie
Always deflect
Never admit

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 12:58PM

Satan,

So Margie's working for you? Well now it all makes sense!

By the way, how are the wife and kids? We really do have to get together sometime soon - it's been millenia!

P.S. Peter sends his regards.
P.S.S. Congratulations on the bin Laden deal; he has the makings of a Hell Hall of Famer.

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:50PM

She is restrained today, you should read her stuff when she is on a roll. She admitted her parents are Catholics and Democrats. She hates both Catholics and Democrats. I asked her if she calls her parents Papists, cult, cowards, liars, blah blah, her ususal words for Catholics.
She needs a good shrink. Even a bad shrink. Too much hate for a normal person. I

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:57PM

Actually, just what I've seen today is irrational, borderline-incoherent, and deeply disturbing. I read the Amspec blog rules: "N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you."

Somehow, I don't see those being applied. Too bad.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 5:03PM

Better watch out, liars~ God's Rules are applying to you right now!

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 12:55PM

Not to worry, folks; I grade on a curve.

SHRINK| 9.20.11 @ 9:01PM

Holy shit! Don't send her to me!

Clint| 9.20.11 @ 4:19PM

Apocalyptic Crank Lady Bigot Margie Is The Queen Of Eisegesis.

"Exegesis is what comes out of the Bible, as against what gets read into it. (Of course, the ways we use to find out from the Bible are often merely ways to put something into it 'between the lines'. That's really eisegesis in a Halloween costume.) In a more theological setting, exegesis means what comes from the use of certain methods of studying the Bible. Just about every imaginable method already has a name, and there are all sorts of mixes, but the main types are :

* historical (using the form, word choices, editing work, historical context, main themes, and so on, to find what it meant back when it was written or when it happened),
* canonical (treating the Bible as an whole document designed to be what a specific community lives by),
* symbolic/allegorical (figuring out what each character and event represents),
* rational (thinking it through using logic and deductive technique).

Most Bible students use most of the methods in their own way at some time, even if they don't think they do. All of them are often helpful, sometimes not at all helpful, and occasionally downright deceptive. It's best to see all methods as tools for the Bible student to use prayerfully, rather than as rules to follow or conclusions ('scholarly consensus') that one must accept. There are many angles and facets to most passages of Scripture, and the different methods can help you get at more of them.

If you aren't doing some kind of exegesis, you are not finding out what the writings themselves are saying. But what good is knowing eternal truth if it doesn't matter to you? Thus, exegesis is just one important step in studying the Bible; there also needs to be hermeneutics"

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:40PM

Clint the Papist punk is an example of one thing and one thing only:

His Father the Devil.

Satan| 9.21.11 @ 7:20AM

You're my favorite Margie not Clint

Clint | 9.20.11 @ 5:02PM

Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie Craves All This Negative Attention.

Now,Tell All American Spectator's Practicing Jews & Muslims, Where You Believe They Go When They Die.
What About Practicing Protestants And Us Catholics ?

Hmmmmmmm ?

Are You Sayin' We Go To Hell ?

Hmmmmmm ?
C'mon Self-Designated Truth Teller Pennsy Pig Bigot Margie.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 5:06PM

I quote the actual Scriptures.
Your dripping hatred of them is clear to anyone with eyes in their heads.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Is. 5:20.

Clint | 9.20.11 @ 7:14PM

What's Obvious Is Your Using Your Faux Self-Styled Interpretation Of Christianity, As A Nasty Ass Excuse,To Beat Other Relgious People Over The Heads.

See A Religious Counselor & A Pstchiatrist.

Satan| 9.20.11 @ 10:17PM

Please don't see an exorcist.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 12:16AM

Clint is projecting again.

DaveD| 9.20.11 @ 5:34PM

Luke 6:
[35] But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.
[36] Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
[37] "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

Words to live by, don't you think, Margie?

Or perhaps ..
Matthew 7:
1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 12:26AM

You need to admonish the liar in the room.
His name is Ken.
Otherwise, get lost, idiot.

BobRN| 9.20.11 @ 7:08PM

Well, I suppose any hope for a meaningful, intelligent conversation here was lost with the first comment. It seems those posting comments are reduced to a small number pretending to be Scripture experts and infallibili (in between their flinging insults at each other), so I guess there won't be too much harm done. No reason to stick around, then. Toodles!

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.20.11 @ 7:44PM

Well,
I began early this morning asking everyone to try to avoid rants and stupidity, but some of you guys just could not desist.

Margie worships an idol called the "King James Bible".
Evidently she has a crush on the King James interpreters as well.

Please ignore her rants forthwith. They are based upon that crush. She evidently thinks only they had the "holy inspiration".

Many of you know I went to Baylor University and played baseball. I majored in "Christian Family Counseling".
I studied the New Testament in THREE languages over a period of five years...to get "my roots down".

Perhaps more important, I have wept at the feet of Jesus for forty years...for my weakness and stupidity.

Bottom line, I'm a sinner saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. My eternal life began when I was born of the Spirit in 1967.

Uh...eternal means eternal. If I screwed up since...(heh, a LOT)... I have been assured forgiveness.

Margie will be forgiven for her harshness and her crush.

Romans will be forgiven if they are tripped up by "doctrines" enforced upon them.

Roman Popes and Bishops can be forgiven...given a contrite heart.

GO IN PEACE MY BROTHERS! JESUS IS LORD,
and He and His Father will divide the sheep and the goats.

In the meantime, I have the joy of being a Christian.

Marc | 9.20.11 @ 9:03PM

Finally, a voice of reason appears. Thank you.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 11:13PM

Ken,

You're a liar, and you know it.

You're a freaking Catholic protector~ you have them over to your house and drink with them.
You also say you have "a deal with God" to use His Name in vain.
You also have lied about me here several times now.
Including my use of the KJV Bible, most of which I hardly use, I usually use the RSV, I was raised using it. But the other version I sometimes quote from is the original Greek, from the KJV.

It is from the original Greek language, and if you were a Christian, you would love it, but you aren't a Christian, you're a blatant liar.

You aren't God, and if you think that you can purposefully turn others against me, well, you may succeed in this life~ but you will pay the penalty in eternity.

You will not be allowed into His Kingdom for purposefully bearing false witness against a sister in Christ.

You know that God hates that~ yet you persist.

LIAR! I have no crush on anyone. What are you talking about you FREAK?

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 1:03PM

"You will not be allowed into His Kingdom for purposefully bearing false witness against a sister in Christ."

I'll be the judge of that, Margie!

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 1:11PM

And another thing - I noticed (quite surprisingly) that you wrote the following words above:

"You know that God hates that~ yet you persist."

Now - how many times do I have to tell you that I am ALL LOVE? Indeed, it is my true essence, the fullness of my being, which by definition does admit of any essense that is contrary to it's form. Accordingly, it is metaphysically impossible and contrary to all logic that I could hate anyone or anything. You, therefore, have borne false witness against ME; for this, you must be punished (in the spirit of Christian charity, of course).

Peter - get Satan on the phone.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 11:24PM

p.s. Ken the Papist:

"For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth;
but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." 1 Cor. 1:26-29.

Stick that in your pipes and smoke it, haughty intellectuals!

Got that, Ken?

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 12:54PM

"but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise"

BINGO! Now you get it, Margie! I chose YOU to shame the wise. Praise Me! Margie has seen the light!

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 12:03AM

By the way, Papist Ken:

Which version of the Bible do you read from? Or do you even read the Bible?
Is it the Catholic Papist Bible?
Let us know so we can pick you apart for it, PUNK.

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 1:15PM

Margie,

Stop calling Ken a punk. First, it's not nice; second, it's not his fault you couldn't get a date in high school. Third, you don't know what you're talking about.

Now stop cutting and pasting my work and using it out of context. I'm not getting a dime in royalties, here!

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 1:28PM

You have an excellent brother in Ken.
A brother who destroys... other Christians!

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 4:52PM

Would that it were true, Margie; would that it were true.

W| 9.21.11 @ 12:17PM

Ken,

What position did you play?
Saw that you wrote a book, I will get it. Been reading Elmer Kenton's historical novels about Texas. Great stuff. There is a recommendation on the back covers by Rick Perry.

Rich D| 9.20.11 @ 10:33PM

Dr. Right says, "The fact that there are ZERO incidents of infant baptism in the Bible, the fact that ALL baptisms in the Bible are of people of an age to make the decision for themselves, and the fact that babies are born absolutely innocent has obviously eluded you..."

There are two errors here:

First, whole families were baptized, and the text is silent on whether there were babies or children there, so it is overstepping the text to claim the age of majority (about 13 in those days) for all of those baptized. We simply do not know.

Second, nobody is born innocent (including Mary). ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, and there is none good but God.

Tony in Central PA| 9.21.11 @ 9:48PM

Good point about infant baptism, Rich. While there is no explicit mention of it in the NT, there is certainly no basis to argue against it. Its also worth remembering that St. Paul said that circumcision was to the Old Covenant what baptism is to the New Covenant.Since circumcision was carried out on the eight day after a male birth, that again adds weight to the long - historic practice of infant baptism.

POST American| 9.20.11 @ 11:02PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

---From catholics to baptists, one and all,
if they're at all serious about their belief,
MUST, without delay ----CLEAN the Masonry,
infiltrators, and sundry Rock--F--L--O
'Counci of Churches' ops, and surveillance
operatives, OUT of their churches.

------------THIS IS ABSOLUTELY KEY--------------

Rich D| 9.20.11 @ 11:09PM

Have you sought help for your fixation? - you're as bad as the blame Bush crowd.

Rich D| 9.20.11 @ 11:07PM

greg: "If your premise is based on something like Sola scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus Christus, Soli Deo gloria: you're not going to find that in the Bible. either! "

You are incorrect here. One finds things either explicitly or by deduction. If you are going to defend the Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, and other RCC doctrines, you are on dangerous ground with your statement. If fact, you just blew away the Trinity. Care to reconsider?

Nick| 9.21.11 @ 1:36AM

Rich D.,

Since Catholics don't believe in Sola Scriptura, Greg has nothing to worry about.

It is those who claim the Bible is the sole source of our faith that have to justify it by showing, exactly, where that command is found in the Sacred Scriptures.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 1:44PM

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

"Do you not believe that I am in the
Father and the Father is in Me? The words
which I speak to you I do not speak from
Myself, but the Father, the One abiding in
Me, He does the works." Jn. 14:10.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 12:14AM

Margie,

Neither of those Scripture quotations say that the Bible is to be our only source of authority.

In fact, Christ plainly says, in your own quote, that it is "the Word which you HEAR," not the Word which you read. Showing that the Gospel was to be preached. By those whom He appointed. Who, then, appointed others to preach the Gospel, and so on.

And, Saint John also told us that "[...] there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25)

John the Apostle tells us that everything that Christ did was not written down.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.22.11 @ 1:32AM

More utter deceit from another Papist.
God didn't appoint the ones who do not preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Anything that doesn't agree with Scripture is to be rejected.
God didn't appoint liars.

And just because all the miracles that Jesus did weren't written down doesn't give you or the Pope or anyone else gets to add to or make teachings up.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:26AM

Margie,

"Anything that doesn't agree with Scripture is to be rejected."

We agree. Fortunately, the Catholic Church doesn't teach anything contrary to the Sacred Scriptures.

Just because a teaching is not specifically mentioned in the Scriptures, does not mean that it is automatically condemned by them, either.

Non-Catholics constantly bring up infant baptism as if it is forbidden by the Bible. It is not forbidden, and you can't provide a verse that says God forbade baptizing babies.

So, you make an argument from lack of evidence. Well, lack of evidence is not the same as prohibiting something. And, the Catholic Church, along with many other denominations, makes a very persuasive argument for baptizing infants.

"And just because all the miracles that Jesus did weren't written down [...]."

Saint John doesn't say anything about "miracles" in that passage. He says everything that Christ did could not be written down. Everything includes all of Christ's teachings.

Someday, you will make the link, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless!

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:48AM

p.s. I thought that you used the Interlinear Bible with the Greek presented along with the English, side by side? Where is the word "miracle" or signs used in John 21:25?

Careful now, are you adding words to the Word of God? I know you are well aware of the consequences for such things! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.22.11 @ 9:29AM

You are being really silly here. Everything includes signs, and what you claim did not happen - that was not a quote. Ha-ha, yourself.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 11:45PM

Rich D.,

I'm sorry you feel that way.

And, I never wrote that "everything" did not include signs. But, as I stated, it also includes teachings.

Margie wrote that John 21:25 was only referring to "miracles." She didn't imply it, she stated as a fact. Did you read what she wrote?

I will admit that I was being snarky. I offer as my defense that it was late! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:58AM

Margie,

"God didn't appoint liars."

You mean liars like the good Catholic Sts. Ignatius and Ireneaus? Both of whom are praised in the book Martyrs Mirror, to which you constantly link as source of complete truth? (But not lately, huh?)

The same Martyrs Mirror where you get the ridiculous figure of "millions of Christians killed" by the Catholic Church?

So, what part did they get wrong? Praising Catholic saints and listing them among the Martyrs? Or, the millions killed part?

Inquiring minds want to know! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 12:24AM

They weren't appointed by God.
End of story, Nickypoo!
Haha!

Rich D| 9.21.11 @ 3:05PM

Nick, are you requesting something of me?

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:01PM

He's hiding under the covers. But don't worry, he'll be back with more Catholic tripe to try and disprove the Word of God.

The Papists believe (and they are deceived by Satan himself) that every Word of God is available for twisting. That the Papists that came with their false doctrines after Christ were somehow just as good to listen to, even though their doctrines are utterly against Scripture.

But watch~ he'll do it.

Scripture isn't good enough for them.

CURIOUS| 9.21.11 @ 6:07PM

Margie,

So, out of curiousity, is it your belief that the Bible is to be taken literally and accepted at face value, or do you hold the view that it (or at least certain of the passages therein) are subject to interpretation?

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 9:47PM

"First of all you must understand this, that no Prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no Prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 2:1:20 & 21.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 12:05AM

Margie,

I hide from no one.

Margie| 9.22.11 @ 1:33AM

You will be soon enough. When you are confronted with Jesus Whom you have chosen to throw under the bus and replace with the Pope, and the Whore of Babylon.
You've been warned, and you refuse to listen.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:12AM

Margie,

I have proven, from the Sacred Scriptures, that the Catholic Church cannot be the Whore of Babylon. And, yet, you still refuse to believe the Word of God.

I pray that the Holy Spirit opens your heart, as well as your eyes.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.23.11 @ 4:30PM

Nick, you never proved any such thing.
And the Catholic Papacy who murdered Bible believing Christians is indeed covered in this:

"And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly." Rev. 17:6.

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 12:22AM

You have proven nothing at all, but that you are a Papist who will continue misrepresenting the Word of God.

babylon is a figure for false Religion, darlin', and Catholicism is a false Religion, and has the blood of the Martyrs on its hands.. six centuries worth.
And it has never repented of its false teachings, either, which led them to commit the tortures and murders against the brethren~ whom YOU as a good Papist refer to them as heretics, just like their murderers did.

You need to repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:13AM

p.s. You, nor Victor, never answered my question about whether, or not, either of you were Adventists. Are you?

Margie| 9.23.11 @ 4:32PM

Spare me, Nick.
You know better.
You've been posting here and talking to me for how many years now?
And how many times have I said that I am a non-denominational Bible believing Christian?

Nick| 9.24.11 @ 1:24AM

Margie,

One can be a non-denominational, Bible-believing Christian and still be an Adventist, i.e., one who believes that Saturday is the only day of rest and worship, the Sabbath day, according to the Ten Commandments. You don't have to belong to the Seventh-day Adventist church to believe this.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.28.11 @ 12:17AM

That isn't what I believe, so what is the purpose of your comment, otter than to try and make people think that it IS what I believe?
Which would be deceitful and sinful of you to do.
But that is what Papists do~ bear false witness.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 12:04AM

Rich D.,

No, I was not. I was just pointing out a fact and showing that your logic is flawed. That's all.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.22.11 @ 9:15AM

Well, you didn't. Show me.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 11:39PM

Rich D.,

I did show you.

Greg's premise was that doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, et al, are not found in the Bible. For Sola Scriptura to be a true article of the Christian faith, it must be explicitly taught by God's Holy Word, correct?

Since, Catholics do not subscribe to the doctrine by Scripture alone, but, use both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to teach all of God's Revelation to man; the Church does not have to prove everything She teaches comes from only the Bible.

Those who demand that the Bible is the sole source for authority, must show where in the Bible that command is found.

Hope that clears this up.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.20.11 @ 11:26PM

Margie: "But the other version I sometimes quote from is the original Greek, from the KJV."

Most translations (except for those translated from Latin versions such as the Douay or the Septuagint OT) came from the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek manuscripts. However, the Authorized Version (KJV) and some others did not use the best manuscripts.

The KJV is fine, archaic English, but the words have changed meaning and the scholarship is not up to today's standards. Leave it on the shelf. Try the NASB for a good translation (or read the Hebrew and greek yourself!). The NRSV (Not Really Scripture Version) was the first attempt to do a sex-inclusive translation, and this resulted in many passive sentences that frustrate the meaning of the text. Always read more than one version, and never use a paraphrase as your only resource.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 11:37PM

Excuse me, but I know and am no fan of the KJV.
What I read is a Greek Interlinear Bible.

It is the best Bible that I know of. It has the original Greek and Hebrew languages and right under the words it has the English and it has Strong's numbers.

If you know anything about that, you will know Interlinear Bibles are wonderful.

Ken is a liar. I am not a fan of the KJV as such.
He seeks to bear false witness against me because His own Sin is bothering him.

Rich D| 9.21.11 @ 12:58AM

Actually, I use the Hebrew (BHS) and Greek (NA27) for serious study.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 1:27PM

And I use a Bible with the original languages as well.
When I quote Scripture here, I mostly use the old RSV, only because it is that which was out back when I became a Christian.

Most versions are so watered down now, everyone knows that. At least most do.

But the haughty intellectuals who go around disseminating over Bible versions are despicable liars,

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 11:49PM

Rich D,

For someone who claims I am harsh with others, Ken has born false witness against me here several times, blatantly lying about me along with the other Papists here.

He makes an issue over a version of the bible that I sometimes quote from, which is translated from the original Greek. It is the Interlinear Bible I just mentioned.

He seeks to turn AmSpec readers against me~ is that not harsh and unloving in the utmost?

His hypocrisy is blinding him, as he doesn't even see that what he is accusing me of is that which he is actually doing to one of the least of these.

Papists cannot stand a strong Bible believing Christian who stands on Scripture and speaks the truth to the lies of Catholicism.

Ken is a lukewarm Christian who protects his fellow Catholics, no matter how wrong they are, and no matter how on the path to Hell they might be. He doesn't care, because he's on his way there himself.

Each time he lies about me and what I believe, he puts one more nail in his coffin.

"But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of Life." Rev. 21:27.

And no matter which version one may use or prefer, the message is the same, is it not?

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 11:52PM

Rich D:

Here you go. Read this and tell me what you think:

http://www.sgpbooks.com/cubeca.....d_705.html

Rich D| 9.21.11 @ 12:54AM

The English at this site is confusing and even has its own grammatical errors - it will take time to decipher, and it is late here. My first comment is that the Textus Receptus is NOT the best Greek text to start with. The NA27 based on the Alexandrian manuscripts is better. Also, although the Masoretic text (10th century) is the only complete text of the Hebrew Bible that we have (the BHS), some Dead Sea Scrolls of over a millennium earlier have other readings that must be considered that are supported by the LXX.

Regarding "Jehovah", there is no such word. The divine name YHWH is not a name at all, and was NEVER pronounced. This is a serious error of scholarship! The Masoretes sometimes pointed the consonants of YHWH to tell the reader to say "adonai" (lord) and sometimes "elohim" (God - actually a plural form). Sometimes the tetragrammaton YHWH was written YY or simply Y to guard against an inadvertent pronunciation while reading, as it is the habit of some to read out loud. YHWH is a form of the verb "to be" that can be translated as "I was", "I am", and "I will be". There is a reason that God did not give Moses a name to use.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 1:24PM

Well, one can pontificate along with the Papists for decades over which version of the Bible one uses, and most Christians don't even use an Interlinear Bible.

Does one judge a Christian according to which version he uses?

The Catholic hypocrites like Ken do.

The liars who breathe venom against evangelical Christians who reject Darwinism are hated by the Kens of this world.

He's a snake.

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 11:56PM

Ken,

Quit with the "warning" e mails again, will you, punk?

You are not God.

IRONY| 9.21.11 @ 12:48PM

"...will you, punk?"

Ah, yes. Spoken with the charity and purposeful resolve to love thy neighbor that is reminiscent of the Lord himself.

Well done, Christian soldier! Now, go spread some more love to these lying, destructive, Papist, punks. Remember, one should live the gospel and lead by example (and Lord knows the gospel teaches us to address our bretheren as lying punks...).

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 12:50PM

It wasn't Ken, Margie. I thought I told you that only I am omniscent (you think you know, but, yea I say unto thee, ye don't know squat).

Now, don't you have some snakes to be charming?

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 12:31AM

Notice how Ken the liar starts his post out with, "Some of you", then goes on to single me out?

Why? Because the Scriptures hit too close to home for him. His conscience is bothering him. He cannot stand that I take my stand on Scripture with the strength I have in Christ.

Tuff luck, Papist. And as long as you continue lying about me along with the other liars here~ I'll continue giving it right back to you.

And if you keep sending me e mails warning me to keep my mouth shut, I'll speak up even more.

YOU'VE been warned, bully.

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 5:02PM

Hast though spoken to one of my lambs without charity in your heart, Margie? I implore you, Sister Margie, to examine your conscience, for I have said unto you that you are to love thy neighbor as you love me; whatsover you say or do to them you do unto me. And today, Margie, you have by virtue of what you have said to my lambs said unto me the most piercing and insulting words that could come forth from the mouth of the condemned.

Go forth in charity with a purposeful resolve to sin no more. LAST WARNING!

Jose| 9.21.11 @ 6:01AM

Define Protestant, and please show us how you aren't one. I have yet to see a convincing argument from you on the matter.
http://www.discountsunglassesforsale.com
http://www.topbrandsbags.com

Jose| 9.21.11 @ 6:12AM

Roman Popes and Bishops can be forgiven...given a contrite heart.
http://www.wholesalehatsshop.com
http://www.wholesalesunglassesbrands.com

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.11 @ 9:35AM

Oh well,
when one sticks his hand in a viper's nest, that one must expect to be bitten.

When one confronts a Pharisee, one might expect to be crucified...if there are enough Pharisees.

I am perfectly content and joyful to have my life and eternity in the hands of Jesus Christ.

I believe the Bible is the "inspired Word of God"
there are just too many things about which ALL Christians can rejoice together.

I shall continue to counsel forbearance, and tolerance, and finally "agape' one another as I have loved you".
Jesus said those words to fallen men and women.

To me, one of the most wonderful things about the Synoptic Gospels is that with all of the different "takes" and emphases by the Gospel writers, the "message" comes through...the "Good News" of the advent, teachings, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ on our behalf.

So, in Jesus' name, go in peace my brothers and sisters. Jesus knows His own.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 1:21PM

Oh, the liar has tolerance for the snakes and other liars here who trash me only!

And then he places himself above all and says to you, "Go in peace, my brothers!"

Like he's a Pope or leader of you all.

And I'M the VIPER??

Ken, you're a man who is bearing false witness against a sister in the LORD.

You aren't going to get away with it.
There is no, "Oh, wells" in Hell to which the Word of God says you are gong for what you have done and continue to do to me.

No matter which version of the Bile you use, God's message is the same.

Take your pick, disseminator:

Proverbs 15:5:

KJV
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall not escape.

NKJV
A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who speaks lies will not escape.

NLT
A false witness will not go unpunished, nor will a liar escape.

NIV
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will not go free.

ESV
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape.

RVR
El testigo falso no quedará sin castigo, Y el que habla mentiras no escapará.

NASB
A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who *tells lies will not escape.

RSV
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who utters lies will not escape.

ASV
A false witness shall not be unpunished; And he that uttereth lies shall not escape.

YLT
A false witness is not acquitted, Whoso breatheth out lies is not delivered.

DBY
A false witness shall not be held innocent, and he that uttereth lies shall not escape.

WEB
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall not escape.

HNV
A false witness shall not be unpunished. He who pours out lies shall not go free.

VUL
testis falsus non erit inpunitus et qui mendacia loquitur non effugiet

WLC
עֵד שְׁקָרִים לֹא יִנָּקֶה וְיָפִיחַ כְּזָבִים לֹא יִמָּלֵֽט׃

LXX
μάρτυς ψευδὴς οὐκ ἀτιμώρητος ἔσται ὁ δὲ ἐγκαλῶν ἀδίκως οὐ διαφεύξεται

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 1:47PM

And speaking of Pharisees~ you, Ken are the utmost example of one.
Just look at your behavior towards me!
Turning against me for standing on the Bible, trashing me because of a particular version I SOMETIMES quote form (and there is nothing any worse wrong with it as most others are not perfect, either).
Then you seek to throw your weight around and get others to trash me along with you?

You are a Pharisee to the max, kiddo.

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 5:04PM

Margie,

I'm begging you - seek medical attention immediately. You're jumping the shark, sister.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.11 @ 8:53PM

Margie,
God bless you, but you have a short memory.

For years I have thanked you for clarifying by referencing scripture here.
I have praised you endlessly for bringing Christ to the conversation....for years.
Nevertheless.....lately you have let the Clints of the world drag you down to their level of discourse.

You have dragged out female PMS on Roman catholics that belittles.....you.
Yeah,
the Roman church threw their weight around for a thousand years, but not these days...in the US.

You hammering catholics every day is the same as Negroes blaming ME for slavery. I never owned a slave.
Please,
live in peace with your brothers in Christ.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 9:44PM

So now, not only am I a Viper and not a Christian, I am like a Negro blaming you for slavery.

Your Narcissism knows no ends, does it?

Wake up. The article is about phony Catholicism. I speak God's truth and the attackers come out in full force.

And what do you do?

You join them.

And they are NOT my brothers.

Neither are you, but you are an enemy of the Cross of Christ.

You have LIED about me several times here. You need to REPENT.

Until then I will BLAST you with God's Words unceasingly.

I couldn't care less what you think of me, you are a liar.

DO NOT say "Bless you" EVER again. It makes me sick. You slap Jesus in the face every time you say i, because you have just finished heaping more lies about me right before your phony blessing.

YOU MAKE ME SICK.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:40PM

I'm glad that I have the enemies that I do. It keeps me free to love Jesus with all of my heart.

Praise God!

GOD| 9.21.11 @ 6:05PM

Thank you.

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 7:55PM

"The Lord, via the Bible, says: "Hate what is evil."

Depending on what you hate, hate ain't bad at all.

I hate the satanic ideology known as Islam. And I hate the RCC. I dislike Romanists qua Romanists, but I love them as humans and pray that they will become born again and not go to hell. It pains me to no end to think of people going to hell. That ain't hate! And anyone who thinks it is, is spiritually sick.

Nick| 9.21.11 @ 11:56PM

Mister Grady,

I see that you are still disobeying Christ's command no to call anyone "master" (mister is a variant of master.)

"Neither be called masters: for one is your master, Christ." (Matt. 23:10)

You had better repent of your un-Biblical practices.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.22.11 @ 9:11AM

There is a cure for foot-in-mouth disease, and it is education. The Greek word means a governor or official who leads others, or coming first. He was preaching humility of position.

That gets rid of the position of pope, doesn't it.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 11:26PM

Rich D.,

I know what Christ is teaching in the opening verses of Matthew 23. But, Mister Grady tried to use Matthew 23:9, "call no man your father," as proof that the Catholic Church is wrong to call priests father. I think Margie has used the same argument with me.

And, no, it does not get rid of the position of the Holy Father. The office of the Vicar of Christ was established by Christ, Himself, in Matthew 16:19-20; Luke 22:31-32; and John 10:1-10; among others.

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 11:36PM

Papists follow the Pope above and in place of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And Ken, you are one of them.
That makes you a liar in itself.

Catholicism still has not repented of its false doctrines, and its adherents are still taught the same "pap."

And we see the vehement hatred towards Bible believing Christians on these very pages today~ and YOU are part of it.

REPENT.

Ken praises me yet throws me to the wolves. He says he praises me for my use of Scripture and yet utterly destroys me with his defamation of my character for which version of the Bible I sometimes quote from, and includes the defamation of its godly translator, (now gone to be with the Lord), whom he knows nothing about anyway.

Somebody's PMS-ing, and it ain't me.

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 3:16AM

I'm glad to see that ALL of the non-Catholic regulars here, who like to endlessly speak their truth to all of us Catholics, regarding the errors of our faith; did the same in the article about the Episcopalian bishop, this Wednesday.

Oh, wait, they didn't make one comment!
And, this was an article about the mainstreaming of homosexuality by a major Christian denomination.

Gee, I wonder what could explain such behavior?

Vlady| 9.22.11 @ 9:25AM

Look, I know Doctor OT is going to hit me for this, and that's okay because I respect his opinion. And his humor. But here's the deal with Margie and Mister Grady etal. They do the same sort of commentary that I have lived with for years as a Jew. Put their diatribes about the Catholic Church side by side with the rants against the Jews and you'll see lots of similarities. Just change Jew to Catholic.

They are small minded simple bigots. You and Ryan (though I don't think he's Catholic) and the rest on here will never reason with them. They are long past that.

And as you say, while the US is burning, they are fiddling.

Rich D| 9.23.11 @ 12:20AM

CURIOUS| 9.21.11 @ 6:07PM

Margie,

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

False premis. Literally does not mean true and metaphorically does not mean false. Metaphors are also taken at face value.

Rich D| 9.23.11 @ 12:34AM

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 11:26PM "And, no, it does not get rid of the position of the Holy Father. The office of the Vicar of Christ was established by Christ, Himself, in Matthew 16:19-20; Luke 22:31-32; and John 10:1-10; among others."

Your dodge doesn't work, and neither do your proof texts.

Matthew used the keys when he gave his sermon(s). The door has been open.
The rest of that verse is mistranslated and misunderstood. The way you would have us read it is that some human makes decisions that heaven (i.e., God) will follow. That is the ultimate arrogance.

In Luke, Jesus tells Matthew to help the rest of the disciples to stand fast. That doesn't make him a pope. Remember what Jesus said about taking the lowest seat at the table, and what he said to the arguing disciples?

John 10:1-10 has nothing to do with earthy authorities.

Do you think that if you throw enough verses against the wall, a pope will stick?

So, answer my question - do you call a priest "father"?

Nick| 9.23.11 @ 1:46AM

Rich D.,

"Your dodge doesn't work, and neither do your proof texts."

I dodged nothing.

"Matthew used the keys when he gave his sermon(s)."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm unaware of any Scripture mentioning Matthew giving a "sermon."

"The rest of that verse is mistranslated and misunderstood."

Not by Catholics. Christ is referring to Isaiah 22, in Matthew 16. This is where God tells Isaiah to tell Shebna that he will lose his office of al Habbayit, the one over the household (of David), i.e., the Prime Minister of the kingdom: "And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open" (v. 22).

Christ makes Simon the Kephas (Rock) on which He will build His Church (singular, not churches.) Christ makes Kephas His prime minister by giving Peter the "keys to the kingdom of Heaven," i.e., God's Kingdom.

"The way you would have us read it is that some human makes decisions that heaven (i.e., God) will follow."

Actually, it works the other way around. The Holy Spirit protects the Pope, and the Church's Magisterium, from teaching any error. Now, when sins are forgiven, Canon Law established, people are excommunicated, etc., these decisions are accepted in Heaven. Doctrine is protected by the Holy Spirit, day-to-day operations of the Church are protected by Christ's prime minister, the pope, and the other bishops.

"John 10:1-10 has nothing to do with earthy authorities."

Christ, in John 10, says that there will be a "shepherd" (pope) that will enter through Himself (the door/gate) to lead the sheep, i.e., the Church, the Body of Christ. The Church is protected in the "sheep pen" by the "shepherd" from the "thieves and robbers." The "sheep" (the Eklesia, Church) are to follow the "shepherds" voice.

"In Luke, Jesus tells Matthew to help the rest of the disciples to stand fast."

Again, I'm confused. Christ tells Saint Peter, "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (v. 32). This is right after Christ told all the Apostles that they were to be "one who serves." This is why the Pope is called Servus Servorum Dei, Servant of the Servants of God. Christ tells Simon Kephas, alone, to "strengthen" the other Apostles. Peter is the shepherd of the whole flock, including the 11 other Apostles.

"So, answer my question - do you call a priest 'father'?"

I looked again, and I didn't see where you asked me this question. But, yes, I call priests father, all the time. I also call people Mister and teacher/doctor, which Christ also told the disciples not to do.

Christ's prohibition was not literal, in Matthew 23. Or, else, He wouldn't have made the disciples teachers (cf Matthew 28:19-20). Nor, would have Saint Paul called himself a father (cf 1 Cor. 4:15).
God Bless!

Rich D.| 9.23.11 @ 12:00PM

Sorry - it was late. Where I typed Matthew, I meant Peter, thinking of the book and not the character.

Nick| 9.24.11 @ 1:54AM

Rich D.,

No problem.
Peter used the keys whenever he used his power as Prime Minister of Christ's Kingdom, i.e., His Church. Which is what the Kingdom of God is, the Body of Christ.

This involved more than just sermons. Where do you even get "sermon" from what Christ is saying Matthew 16? From where did you get the idea that "keys" equal "sermons"? Not from the Bible, that's for sure.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.26.11 @ 1:17AM

See Acts for the sermon. The keys were used then and the door was open once and for all. They were not needed after that.

Nick| 9.27.11 @ 12:23AM

Rich D.,

I searched the Acts of the Apostles, as well as my concordance, and found that the words key or keys are never used by Saint Luke, in Acts. So, the conclusion that "Peter's keys" were used in any "sermon" by him, is quite a stretch.

I did find references to Acts 2, 10, and 14, and Peter's keys, but, since you did not provide the chapter and verse, as is common courtesy, I cannot be sure to what you are alluding.
God Bless!

Rich D.| 9.23.11 @ 12:40PM

"The rest of that verse is mistranslated and misunderstood."

"Not by Catholics."

By everybody. Young's Literal Tranlation comes te closest to the implication of the Greek tenses used. Th idea the heaven would be bound to a human is ludicrous.

Furthermore, the "you" in verse 19 is plural.

Nick| 9.24.11 @ 1:47AM

Rich D.,

"By everybody."
You are an expert in Koine Greek, are you? Do you have a degree in ancient languages?

"Th [sic] idea the heaven would be bound to a human is ludicrous."
So, you are calling Christ "ludicrous"? Because, that is what He commanded. It's right there, in black and white (or, red and white, depending on your Bible. Ha-ha!)

"Furthermore, the 'you' in verse 19 is plural."
Not according to Young's Literal Translation it's not. Didn't you just cite them, before you typed that?

"19 and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'" - Matt. 16:19, as translated by Young's Literal Translation

Those look like singular forms of you, to me. I hope that takes care of all your objections.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.25.11 @ 1:00AM

Nick: You are an expert in Koine Greek, are you?

Enough to know how to translate the verb form used there. It is a future tense of the verb eimi (estai) coupled with a perfect (i.e., past tense) participle, so it is a future perfect periphrastic construction. These are difficult to translate without being wordy, but look up the definition of periphrastic. Therefore, it should be translated "will have been (as in already) bound (or freed) in heaven.

Nick: "Th [sic] idea the heaven would be bound to a human is ludicrous."
So, you are calling Christ "ludicrous"?

Duh, are you being dense? Christ is the one speaking.

Nick| 9.25.11 @ 7:43PM

Rich D.,

"Enough to know how to translate the verb form used there."

Well, I'm not an expert in biblical languages, like 99.9% of all the Christians who have ever lived. Therefore, I have to rely on translations, 4 of which I use regularly: RSV-CE (1950's version), Douay-Rheims, the Jerusalem Bible, and the New American Bible. I also sometimes use the New St. Jerome Study Bible (an English translation of the Vulgate) and look up the Greek words used in a verse.

So, when you assert that the "you" in Matt. 16:19 is plural, and you also assert that Young's Literal Translation "comes te [sic] closest to the implication of the Greek tenses used," and I look up Matt. 16 in Young's and find the singular form of "you"; I am left to wonder why you would assert such things.

"Therefore, it should be translated "will have been (as in already) bound (or freed) in heaven."

I don't see how this changes the meaning of verse 19, or, makes the "you" plural. It certainly does not change the fact that Christ made Simon the Kephas, i.e., the Rock in Aramaic, and gave only to him the keys to the kingdom, i.e., the leadership of the Church.

"Duh, are you being dense? Christ is the one speaking."

Yes, Christ is saying that Peter, and later the rest of the Apostles, will bind and loose on Earth as it is in Heaven. They are protected from contradicting the Truth, which is in Heaven, and whatever they bind on Earth, is bound in Heaven. You claimed this was ludicrous.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.26.11 @ 1:59AM

Oops! You just changed the tense of the verb! Most Bibles say will be bound in heaven. That implies that the binding on earth happens before the binding in heaven, which is what I call ludicrous. Binding in heaven is first and eternal, and is not subject to man.

It is not a license for any church man or woman to claim any personal authority other than what is found in Scripture, which can only be proclaimed.

Nick| 9.27.11 @ 12:51AM

Rich D.,

"Binding in heaven is first and eternal, and is not subject to man."

I have stated as much. The pope is protected from contradicting God's Truth concerning Faith and Morals. It is in the day-to-day functions of the Church and constructing Her rules that the bishop's decisions are bound in Heaven.

Christ gave Simon Kephas this power in Matthew 16. He gave the rest of the Apostles the power to bind/loose and forgive sins in Matthew 18:18 and John 20:21-23.

Christ did not limit His power to just the Apostles, as seen in Luke 10. Paul told Timothy to pass on his teaching authority to "faithful men" who will pass it on to "others" in 2 Tim. 2:1-2. So, it is logical that the power to bind and loose and to forgive sins was also passed on to faithful men, as Christ had passed on His power to the seventy, previously. This is also attested to by the early Church Fathers.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.25.11 @ 1:09AM

"Furthermore, the 'you' in verse 19 is plural."

Sorry, Mt 28:19 - the charge is to all disciples. This is attested by other Scriptures.

Note that Peter immediately gets a satanic fat head, and tries to tell Jesus that the will of God should not happen.

Nick| 9.25.11 @ 7:51PM

Rich D.,

"Sorry, Mt 28:19 - the charge is to all disciples."

Yes, He does (it's Matt. 18:18, by the way.) This still doesn't take away from Peter's role as Kephas. If this is what you meant by "the 'you' in verse 19 is plural", you were not very clear.

"Note that Peter immediately gets a satanic fat head, and tries to tell Jesus that the will of God should not happen."

So, this proves that Peter was not the Kephas upon which Christ would build His Church? Did He change His mind? Simon also denied Him three times, and Christ still told him to shepherd His flock (John 21:15-19).
Yours in Christ, Nick

Rich D| 9.26.11 @ 1:24AM

Mt 28:19 is correct - the verb is second person plural.

Nick| 9.27.11 @ 12:57AM

Rich D.,

I don't see what Matt. 28:19 has to do with Matt. 16:19. It says nothing about binding and loosing there. And, the only plural form I see is in Matt. 28:18 : "And Jesus coming, spoke to them [...]."

You are still not making your point very clear.

Rich D| 9.23.11 @ 12:37AM

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 11:39PM "Greg's premise was that doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, et al, are not found in the Bible. For Sola Scriptura to be a true article of the Christian faith, it must be explicitly taught by God's Holy Word, correct?"

No, it doesn't. If you think that, then there is no point debating. Where is the Trinity?

Nick| 9.23.11 @ 1:57AM

Rich D.,

Then what does by Scripture alone mean, then? If the Bible is our sole source of authority, you would think that Christ, or the Bible, would have said so in no uncertain terms, wouldn't you?

Sole Scriptura is a doctrine, and ALL doctrine is found in the Scriptures, no?

"Where is the Trinity?"

I don't claim that the word Trinity is found in the Sacred Scriptures. But, Christ taught it, when He said, "[baptize] them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." There are many other allusions to the Most Holy Trinity in the Scriptures, too many to list here.
God Bless!

Rich D.| 9.23.11 @ 12:17PM

Sola Sctptura means that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. What it means is that there are no gaps needing to be filled by tradition or humans.

The implication is that if someone promotes a doctrine that disagrees with Scripture, he is wrong. Additionally, if someone promotes a doctrine that Scripture is silent on, it is adiaphora. What is happening is that some churches are misdefining Sola Scriptura in order to burn straw men.

Nick| 9.24.11 @ 2:18AM

Rich D.,

"Sola Sctptura [sic] means that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness."

According whom? You?
Luther said that the Bible was the final authority for everything concerning faith and morals.

"What it means is that there are no gaps needing to be filled by tradition or humans. The implication is that if someone promotes a doctrine that disagrees with Scripture, he is wrong."

None of the Catholic Church's Traditions, or Doctrines, contradict the Sacred Scriptures.

"Additionally, if someone promotes a doctrine that Scripture is silent on, it is adiaphora."

As I pointed out to Margie, a few days ago, above: "Non-Catholics constantly bring up infant baptism as if it is forbidden by the Bible. It is not forbidden, and you can't provide a verse that says God forbade baptizing babies."

The Scriptures are silent on the matter. Is infant baptism included in the concept of adiaphora? (I admit it, I had to look it up! Ha-ha! That term has never come up in the Catholic writers I've read.)
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.24.11 @ 11:38PM

Nick asks me re Sola Scriptura: According whom? You?

By whom? Are you serious?

(1) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions | 1997 | JOHN BOWKER | 426 words | Copyright
Sola Scriptura (Lat., ‘by scripture alone’). The belief that the truths of Christian faith and practice can and must be established from scripture alone, without additions from, e.g., tradition or development.

(2) Free Online Dictionary: Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

(3) Catholic Encyclopedia: Sola scriptura ("Bible alone")
The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice...

For crying out loud, the definition is practically in the term itself! Are you just trying to be difficult?

This is why you get criticized by others for being a pest - you argue with the RCC definition itself and never get to the meat of anything, but blow smoke and dance around the issues.

If you have you own private definition, go argue with yourself!

Nick| 9.25.11 @ 8:04PM

Rich D.,

"By whom? Are you serious?"

Yes, I concur. As I started reading your reply, I wondered myself why we were arguing about this. But, then I went back and looked, and it was you who objected to my defense of Greg, above. So, who is the one being "difficult" here?

"This is why you get criticized by others for being a pest [...]."

No one here, at AmSpec, calls me a "pest." The regular commenters here like me. I didn't realize that you are so new to this forum.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.25.11 @ 12:03AM

Nick: Is infant baptism included in the concept of adiaphora? (I admit it, I had to look it up! Ha-ha! That term has never come up in the Catholic writers I've read.)"

Well, maybe you ought to find some educated Roman Catholic writers to read. They do exist.

Fist, I can't remember the last time that anybody on this forum argued that infant baptism is forbidden by the Bible, let alone _constantly_. You grossly exaggerate and weaken your image as a serious scholar.

Answer your own question - does being baptized as an infant or as an adult upon conversion affect your salvation?

Nick| 9.25.11 @ 8:16PM

Rich D.,

"Well, maybe you ought to find some educated Roman Catholic writers to read. They do exist."

Could you, please, be even more sarcastic in your replies? They're oh, so witty. My point was that this term, adiaphora, is a Protestant term.

"Fist [sic], I can't remember the last time that anybody on this forum argued that infant baptism is forbidden by the Bible [...]."

This is probably due to the fact that you haven't been here long enough to form such an opinion. Doctor Wright, among others, have argued this point with myself and other Catholics, more than once. I exaggerate nothing, and I never claimed to be a scholar, serious, or otherwise.

"Answer your own question - does being baptized as an infant or as an adult upon conversion affect your salvation?"

No, it doesn't matter whether you are an infant or adult. You can be baptized at any age. But, baptism itself does affect your salvation, according to Saint Peter:

"Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saves you also [...]." - 1 Peter 3:21
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.26.11 @ 1:43AM

A Protestant term? Hmm - I thought it was ancient Greek.

I've been here a while and don't see what you say constantly.

That is an old and awkward translation. The referent of "which" (in your translation as "whereunto") is water and Peter does not say that the comparison is identical in all respects. What saves is the open inquiry, not the physical act or the water. If that were so, it would be salvation by works. You have to read the verses together.

Nick| 9.27.11 @ 1:18AM

Rich D.,

"A Protestant term? Hmm - I thought it was ancient Greek."

Sola Scriptura is Latin. It is still a Protestant term.

"I've been here a while and don't see what you say constantly."

I have been posting comments here, at AmSpec, since 2008. How long have you been commenting here? I have been aware of you for only a few months, sorry.

"What saves is the open inquiry, not the physical act or the water."

This is another personal interpretation not backed up by the context of what Peter is saying. He compares baptism to the Great Flood, which "saved" eight people "through water." How are the Ark and Flood related to "open inquiry"?

Also, baptism is not just comprised of the "physical act or the water." It also includes the coming of the Holy Spirit, as happened to Christ in the Jordan River, when He was baptized by John (John 1:29-34).

"And I knew him not: but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me: He upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizes with the Holy Ghost." (v.33)

Baptism, along with Confirmation (laying on of hands,) bestow the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are necessary to reach salvation.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.27.11 @ 9:46AM

Nick, you are unfocused. You said that adiaphora was a Protestant term on 9/25 at 8:16:

You: "My point was that this term, adiaphora, is a Protestant term."

It is ancient Greek.

Nick| 9.28.11 @ 1:41AM

Rich D.,

"You said that adiaphora was a Protestant term on 9/25 at 8:16 [.]"

Yes. It, like Sola Scriptura, is used by Protestants, not by Catholics. Protestant is not a language. Term is self-explanatory.

You are nitpicking again. Didn't you imply that it was me who was the one being difficult? Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.27.11 @ 9:55AM

Me: "What saves is the open inquiry, not the physical act or the water."

You: This is another personal interpretation not backed up by the context of what Peter is saying.

Peter is not saying that they are equivalent in all respects, only similar.

Sorry, Nick, I don't have time to educate you on Pneumatology. It is NOT a personal interpretation. You have been seeped so long in the dogma of your denomination that you can't or don't want to do any original thinking. If you read what you just wrote, you will see that the water and the act are incidental. If you think that you gained the Holy Spirit at baptism, you are wrong.

Nick| 9.28.11 @ 2:12AM

Rich D.,

"Peter is not saying that they are equivalent in all respects, only similar."

Yes, and the part in which they are similar is the part where they are saved. Truly saved. Noah and his family were saved from the wicked people of their time by the waters of the Flood. And, we are saved by baptism, the outward sign of which is water, the inward sign which is by the Holy Spirit.

Just as when Christ was baptized, even though He didn't need to be, He went into the Jordan physically and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in what appeared to be a dove. Which also alludes to Noah and the Ark.

Oh, yeah, the Father was also there. Meaning that the Most Holy Trinity was present.

After Christ's first miracle at Cana, and attending the Passover in Jerusalem (John 2), He explains baptism to Nicodemus the Pharisee. After this Christ took the disciples into Judea and they baptized (John 3:22ff).

This was to fulfill what God told Ezekiel:

"I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances." - Ezekiel 36:25-27

Peter also explains the difference between baptism and confirmation, in Acts 10, when Cornelius and his household receive the gift of speaking in tongues, from the Holy Spirit, before they were baptized. Peter also states that water was necessary for baptism, in verse 47:

"For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days." Acts 10:46-48

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how you found any keys in any part of the Acts of the Apostles, by the way.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.25.11 @ 12:37AM

Nick: None of the Catholic Church's Traditions, or Doctrines, contradict the Sacred Scriptures."

To start: Praying to dead people? Intercessors other than Christ? Praying for dead people? Excess merit?

Can you give your own defense of any of these?

Nick| 9.25.11 @ 8:27PM

Rich D.,

"To start: Praying to dead people? Intercessors other than Christ? Praying for dead people? Excess merit?"

Boy, praying to the dead must be really bad, huh? You listed it twice!

"Can you give your own defense of any of these?"

I can provide the Catholic Church's defense of all of them, if you would like? Which is all I ever do when I defend the One, True Faith.

Although, you will have to define what is "excess merit." This is not a Catholic term, and a search yielded no concrete answer.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.26.11 @ 1:45AM

Boy, praying to the dead must be really bad, huh? You listed it twice!

Nope - one reads "to", the other "for".

Necromancy is proscribed.

Nick| 9.27.11 @ 1:28AM

Rich D.,

"Nope - one reads 'to', the other 'for'."

Yes, I saw that after I posted my comment. Oops! But, they are two sides of the same coin.

"Necromancy is proscribed."

Yes, it is. Asking for those in Heaven (saints) and those in Purgatory (souls being purified) to pray for ourselves, or others, is not necromancy. They are not dead, for He is God of the living, not the dead (Mark 12:27).

Also, necromancy is but one form of divination prohibited in Deut. 18. Witchcraft is what is being condemned here. Not the act of asking those who have "fallen asleep in Christ" to pray for us.

Rich D| 9.27.11 @ 10:01AM

Nick: "But, they are two sides of the same coin.:

Not really. Both are serious theological errors.

Nick| 9.28.11 @ 1:31AM

Rich D.,

You are picking nits, again. And, not dealing with the point that I made.

Asking those, who have died, to pray for us and praying for those souls still in Purgatory is not the same as necromancy, or divination. Therefore, appealing to Deut. 18 as proof that they are an abomination to God, and, thus condemned, is a false appeal.

And, as is shown in 2 Maccabees, praying for the dead was practiced by Jews 150 years before Christ's Advent.

Rich D| 9.26.11 @ 1:49AM

No sale. I know the RCC defense and can read. I'm not here to debate a cut-and-paste artist.

Nick| 9.27.11 @ 1:39AM

Rich D.,

Since I am no "cut-and-paste artist," you have nothing to worry about. I mostly paste Bible quotations. And sometimes from Catholic authors, to whom I give full attribution.

To debate, one must consider the argument the other party is making. If you know the Catholic Church's defenses, then you should know that this is all that I offer. Men smarter than I have made these same defenses of the Faith for almost 2,000 years now. I cannot improve on their great works.

Rich D| 9.27.11 @ 9:59AM

The errors are still there.

Nick| 9.28.11 @ 1:16AM

Prove it.

With evidence. Not mere assertions.

Rich D| 9.26.11 @ 1:52AM

Excess merit comes up in the first hit of "excess merit Catholic". I'm surprised that you don't know it and have to lean on websites. There is no real debate if you merely parrot external authority and can't speak on your own.

Nick| 9.27.11 @ 1:58AM

Rich D.,

"I'm surprised that you don't know it and have to lean on websites."

That is because this, again, is not a Catholic term. Are you claiming that you also don't lean on websites, by the way?

Catholics refer to the Treasury of Merit and indulgences. If this to what you are referring, it comes from Christ's command in Matt. 6:20 : "But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth does consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal."

Since I cannot always completely explain the Church's position, in my own words, on this forum, I sometimes provide links, so that someone who sincerely wants to know, can find out. Again, "real" debate depends on each party addressing the points made by the other.

Here are two links: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4G.HTM

http://archive.catholic.com/li....._Merit.asp

Rich D.| 9.23.11 @ 2:51PM

Nick: "Sole Scriptura is a doctrine, and ALL doctrine is found in the Scriptures, no?"

SS is not a doctrine. Sorry.

Nick| 9.24.11 @ 1:57AM

Rich D.,

It was according to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. Sorry.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.24.11 @ 2:39AM

One's salvation is not dependent on even knowing the term, or any of the other "solas". If you want to broaden the definition to include any teaching (from the Latin for teacher), fine. Keep dancing, and don't debate the point.

Nick| 9.24.11 @ 7:27PM

Rich D.,

How am I dancing? I've endeavored to answer all of your objections and questions, to the best of my ability.

The one who trying to change the meaning of Sola Scriptura is you, not me.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.25.11 @ 1:14AM

"The one who trying to change the meaning of Sola Scriptura is you, not me."

See above. My definition is the same as your church's. What's yours?

Margie| 9.23.11 @ 4:37PM

Well said, Rich D. But the modern day Pharisees do not care a whit.
They openly reject the Word of God and replace it with the doctrines of demons.

POST American| 9.24.11 @ 5:32AM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

--Baptists --Presbyterians ---Episcopalians
---Congregationalists ---Methodists ---Lutherans
--------Catholics!

----HIGH TIME to clear ALLLLLL the Luciferian
Freemasonry from your church at any and
all cost.

This includes Arminian Heretics,
'Coucil of Churches' operatives, infiltrators
and, most recently, the federal
'clergy response' control and surveillance grid.

Defilement's in the temple.

TREASON and EUGENICS are at large.

-----------------HIGH TIME!

------------------------TAKE HEED!

doormouse| 9.24.11 @ 2:43PM

Mr. Mehan forgot to mention that he is a long-time friend of the author, Stephen Gabriel. Shame on the American Spectator for publishing a puff piece from an interested party! You can do better.

G. Tracy Mehan, III| 9.24.11 @ 5:40PM

Dear Doormouse,
I have known Steve Gabriel for ten years. While we do not socialize together, we are friends by way of church attendance in the same parish. If I did not think his book had merit, I would not have published my review. As it is, like the prominent papal biographer, George, Weigel, I can recommend it whole heartedly. I hope you read it.

POST American| 9.25.11 @ 12:09AM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

---Catholics --Protestants ---everyone!

CLEAR the Freemasonry from your leadership,
from your ranks. That includes all the chumps,
porch Masons, government and 'Council of Churches'
and other Rock--F--L--O operatives
---AND, of course, 'clergy response'
federal tattle-tales.

Get the 'bennie violence' and 'chair--IT--Abel'
world culture destroying age-endas ---OUT!

IF you can't ----GET OUT and start your own
meeting group.

Scripture tells us anyway----SMALL IS BEST.

Rich D| 9.26.11 @ 10:18PM

Nick, you say, "Coincidentally, I plan on starting a comprehensive commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, very soon."

How are you going to do that without knowing Koine Greek? You have said above (9/25 at 7:43pm) , "Well, I'm not an expert in biblical languages, like 99.9% of all the Christians who have ever lived. Therefore, I have to rely on translations,..."

You seem doomed to failure.

Also, Paul did not write Hebrews. The author is unknown.

Nick| 9.27.11 @ 2:11AM

Rich D.,

"You seem doomed to failure."

Then, so are you. Unless, you are also an expert in Latin, Hebrew, and Aramiac? You have already admitted that you are not an expert in Greek. Have you also read every ancient copy of the Scriptures in existence?

Somehow, I don't think this is what Christ had in mind when He wanted us to be Christians. Or, else He would have picked only scribes, not mere fisherman, to spread His Word.

Our faith cannot depend on our knowing four ancient languages to defend our beliefs. Christianity would never have spread, if this was the case.

"Also, Paul did not write Hebrews. The author is unknown."

Tradition tells us that Saint Paul is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I believe it. Just as it is only through tradition that we can say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their respective Gospels. The Bible doesn't say, and they didn't attach their names to them. Do you believe that they are the four authors of those Gospels?
Yours in Christ, Nick

Rich D| 9.27.11 @ 2:40PM

Nick: "Tradition tells us that Saint Paul is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I believe it."

No, it doesn't. You are ignorant of your sect's teaching on this. Read this:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm

The conclusion is that it contains ideas of Paul, but the writer was much better at Greek. The language and style are much better and clearly different from Paul's. It doesn't even open like Paul's known letters with his name and a greeting. Also, nowhere else does Paul speak of the Lord as a priest. Most likely, a disciple of Paul remembered some of his words and wrote them down, including non-Pauline material.

Origen quoted by Eusebius a hundred years later (c. 330) said that only God knows. Few supporters of Pauline authorship remain. You might be one of the last.

Nick| 9.28.11 @ 1:13AM

Rich D.,

"No, it doesn't. You are ignorant of your sect's teaching on this."

I am ignorant of no such thing. I well aware of these disputes. They are covered quite well in the introduction to the afore mentioned commentary that I am about to begin.

I agree with the view that says Saint Paul was the author of the epistle, but, that a disciple wrote it down. Possibly Saint Luke, or Apollos. That is, Paul dictated the letter and one of his followers took the dictation down in Greek.

Hope that clears this up.
God Bless!

Rich D| 9.27.11 @ 2:58PM

"Just as it is only through tradition that we can say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their respective Gospels. The Bible doesn't say, and they didn't attach their names to them. Do you believe that they are the four authors of those Gospels?"

Shall we take them one at a time?

Nick| 9.28.11 @ 1:15AM

Whichever way you prefer.

Rich D| 9.27.11 @ 2:11PM

Nick: You have already admitted that you are not an expert in Greek.

Expert in the sense that you probably meant? No. Enough to translate, yes, which is what I said.

Nick: Have you also read every ancient copy of the Scriptures in existence?

In a way, yes. When I read in the original languages, the Hebrew and Greek texts that I have list the variant readings in the critical apparatus (q.v.). I can look up the dates and pedigree of the manuscripts. Even the LXX and Syriac manuscripts are included. I also have the two best lexicons published, BDB and BDAG. Latin translations are not primary sources.

Nick| 9.28.11 @ 1:01AM

Rich D.,

You seem to have taken me way too literally, and have missed my point entirely. I will reiterate it: Christ does not expect His disciples to become PhDs in order to figure out which church was the Church He founded. What hope would people with mental disabilities have to become Christian if they can't even read? Let alone all the illiterate Christians from the past two thousand years?

"Latin translations are not primary sources."

I never stated that they were. But, much of what we know about how the Canon of Scripture came down to us is written in Latin. If I am expected to read the Bible in the original languages to know the Truth, surely I must be expected to read, in the original languages, what the first Christians had to say on the subject, no?

Nick| 10.2.11 @ 5:55PM

Rich D.,

Hello? I'm still waiting for your responses, in case you thought that I wasn't coming back to this thread to check.

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|40 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|33 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|18 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|13 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|11 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|19 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|8 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Buy the Book

Catholic Controversies

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (459) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 7:30AM

JP| 9.20.11 @ 7:42AM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 9:30AM

Ryan| 9.20.11 @ 12:57PM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 1:54PM

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:03PM

Alan Brooks| 9.20.11 @ 9:12PM

Tony in Central PA| 9.20.11 @ 10:24PM

mames| 9.20.11 @ 11:41PM

Tony in Central PA| 9.21.11 @ 8:35PM

Ryan| 9.21.11 @ 8:10AM

Jack in Wi.| 9.22.11 @ 1:24AM

Mevadog| 9.20.11 @ 8:30AM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 9:34AM

Le Cracquere| 9.20.11 @ 9:51AM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 10:05AM

MA| 9.20.11 @ 1:33PM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 1:55PM

Mike McLaren| 9.20.11 @ 4:01PM

Quartermaster| 9.20.11 @ 5:30PM

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 6:49PM

Tony in Central PA| 9.20.11 @ 10:30PM

mames| 9.20.11 @ 11:58PM

Tony in Central PA| 9.21.11 @ 8:58PM

Gaba| 9.21.11 @ 12:17PM

Apple Annie| 9.20.11 @ 10:34AM

Evanston2| 9.20.11 @ 11:33AM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 11:38AM

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 12:34PM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 1:56PM

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:02PM

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 2:59PM

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:03PM

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 3:42PM

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:25AM

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:00PM

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 4:23PM

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:36PM

Tony in Central PA| 9.20.11 @ 10:36PM

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 2:33PM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 2:10PM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 2:11PM

mames| 9.21.11 @ 12:08AM

michigander_sandusky| 9.21.11 @ 12:36AM

Evanston2| 9.21.11 @ 8:16PM

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 1:42PM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 2:16PM

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:02PM

kerry| 9.20.11 @ 4:04PM

CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 4:34PM

kerry| 9.21.11 @ 11:31AM

BobRN| 9.20.11 @ 6:51PM

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:33AM

kerry| 9.21.11 @ 11:33AM

BobRN| 9.21.11 @ 11:48PM

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 4:30PM

BobRN| 9.20.11 @ 6:46PM

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 6:51PM

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:38AM

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:07AM

Tony in Central PA| 9.20.11 @ 10:45PM

Nick| 9.21.11 @ 12:15AM

Mister Grady| 9.21.11 @ 3:40AM

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:39PM

Nick| 9.22.11 @ 2:05AM

Evanston2| 9.21.11 @ 8:24PM

Doctor Right| 9.20.11 @ 11:37AM

Derek Leaberry| 9.20.11 @ 1:12PM

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 1:34PM

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 2:01PM

Margie| 9.20.11 @ 3:09PM

MikeBee| 9.20.11 @ 4:35PM

Margie| 9.21.11 @ 5:36PM

Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 4:03PM

Derek Leaberry| 9.20.11 @ 2:10PM