-
A Holocaust Denier Walks Into a Bar
May 10, 2013 | 219 comments
-
What’s in a Name?
May 6, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Benediction
March 20, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Great Consolidator: Dec. 2009
February 15, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Punking the President
January 14, 2013 | 15 comments
Media Matters
Politico’s Nuns’ Story
Unwitting self-worship leads journalists astray.
The most disturbing part of Politico’s first book publishing project is probably the thing about the nuns.
About half way into their short e-book “The Right Fights Back,” co-authors Mike Allen and Evan Thomas give Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign manager Matt Rhoades a most unfortunate attaboy. “Most Romneyites,” they write, “credited [him] for relentless ‘message discipline,’ a quality the political pros worship the way nuns venerate virginity.”
There are so many things off about that sentence that it’s worth making a study of them. What the authors meant to say, I think, after reading it literally dozens of times, is that political pros “worship” tight message control in the same way that nuns “venerate the virgin.”
Perhaps you can see their literary dilemma here. They faced a crisis of parallelism. The “virgin” is a person (Mary, mother of God) and “message discipline” is not. But the authors, up against a tight deadline, must have figured “eh, virgin, virginity, close enough.”
Their linguistic confusion goes deeper, unfortunately. The word venerate has a history of being misunderstood — often intentionally so as part of anti-Catholic polemics. (“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Cult of the Virgin Mary?”) The point that Catholic apologists are forced to press is that “venerate” does not mean “worship,” an activity in the religious sphere that has been narrowed over the last several centuries to apply only to God. (The usage of the word “worship” used to be much broader. See references in English literature by commoners to authorities as “your worship.” It became “your honor” in the colonial idiom.)
In modern English usage, Google’s aggregate all purpose dictionary tells us that “to venerate” is to “regard with great respect; revere.” Thus, Catholics, and in their own way, Orthodox, and a few high church Protestants, can venerate, or demonstrate great respect for, objects or images attached to Mary and the saints without formally worshiping them.
Now, it is possible to venerate a state or quality, but the usage is usually secular. (“I venerate genius, bwahahahaha!”) And it does not seem to me remotely possible to venerate a quality the way that the sisters are said here to “venerate virginity.”
Nuns are not celibate because they venerate virginity but because they worship God and want to devote their lives exclusively to that end. They find in the life of the Virgin Mary a great example — the greatest example, save one — of heroic virtue and self-sacrifice on earth that led to better things in the great hereafter.
Why Allen and Thomas decided to conscript the poor sisters in the service of analogy is an interesting question, perhaps even an important one. Did they simply mean to say “Political pros think it is really, really important to stay on message” and look for language to sex up that rather dry statement?
Or were they reaching higher than that? Were they saying that political pros have an almost religious devotion to the idea that The Message is all important, quite apart from the truth of that message? Were they calling that devotion into question by likening it to the rigorist practices of a small subset of Catholics?
We can look to context for answers, but in vain. The preceding sentences are forgettable, and the next one is, “To be sure, the likability issue was nagging.” The sentence just sticks out there like the bastard child of an epigram and a Zen koan.
“The Right Fights Back” is part of a larger project, a partnership between Politico and publisher Random House. When the campaign is over, Allen and Thomas will gather this and a few other short e-books into a larger, smoother, more thoughtful narrative. At that point, one hopes, they’ll explain themselves.
About the Author
Jeremy Lott is editor of RealClearPolicy.com, RealClearBooks.com and RealClearReligion.org and associate editor of RealClearScience.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (185) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeremy Lott
More Articles From Media Matters
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/15/politicos-nuns-story
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
L. Ross| 12.15.11 @ 7:54AM
Mr. Lott:
As a protestant (Baptangled Methbraterian), I had no difficulty in understanding the meaning of the sentence as written. After all, according to Webster, Venerate means
To regard with reverential respect or with admiring deference
To honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion
The vows of celibacy which priests and nuns take are difficult to understand for non-Catholics, and trust me, it is no slam on the senior branch of the Christian faith to say that "nuns venerate virgininty." Certainly they do not respect and honor promiscuity. I understand the Catholic Church comes under a lot of criticism from secular and even Protestant sources. I understand how you may feel especially protective of your faith and your nuns. However, as an outsider reading the offending paragraph, I see no disrespect. Reading your concerns regarding the fault of the construction, I fear you are merely overreacting to an inoffensive simile. As a military member, I know that changing hearts and minds is virtually impossible but in this instance I suggest that you are predisposed to look for insult where no offense was intended.
Herb| 12.15.11 @ 8:11AM
As a Catholic (Romish papist mackerel snapping drunk) I concur and thank you for your understanding of the real meaning of the religious vows under which our nuns pledge their lives unto the risen Lord.
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of Cult of the Virgin Mary?" I like that, kind of like that old cartoon showing a frightened face behind bars with the caption, "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"
Anyway, if the author wants to accuse the media culture of being woefully out of touch with spiritual institutions and values, it's a very target-rich environment but this instance of the media's use of nuns as an analogy really doesn't rise to the level of an attack on the Catholic Church.
Lord knows, we're used to those.
Patrick| 12.15.11 @ 4:11PM
You forgot "ultramontane".
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 10:41AM
As a "half-Roman Catholic" (born and raised Presbyterian but educated in a Catholic Christian Brothers' high school), I think it's just silly and must be simply an attempt to fill a void created by a momentary writer's block to parse the word "venerate" in critiquing a comment by lefty commentators. Who cares?
W| 12.15.11 @ 10:58AM
name of the school?
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 1:44PM
Christian Brothers' Academy
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 1:46PM
St. Jean de la Salle, pray for us!
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 1:47PM
St. Jean-Baptiste de la Salle, that is.
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 1:54PM
I was occasionally referred to as "the Protestant Observer" during the four years I spent there. The Brothers in my school really HATED Vatican II.
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 2:07PM
Apparently with good reason. Since the Second Vatican Council ended in 1965, there are half as many Brothers, half as many Catholic high schools, and 1/3 as many Roman Catholics attending mass in the United States. It would have been better if the church had retained its strict identity and not spent so much energy trying to accommodate the church to modernism.
Patrick| 12.15.11 @ 4:13PM
Well, that and the Bugnini Mass, however as slow as things go in the Catholic Church, momentum has shifted away from the hippies.
W| 12.15.11 @ 2:36PM
Pittsburgh Central Catholic, also LaSalle Christian brothers,
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 2:42PM
Were your sports teams called the "Brothers"?
Rip rip rip
Rap rap rap
Brothers, Brothers
(clap hands three times)
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 2:53PM
Just for the record, I should be clear that I was well-treated at CBA, almost the same as everyone else. They couldn't help that on First Fridays everyone went to mass while we Prots had Study Hall.
No one will ever understand how a person can say that the Brothers occasionally gave 15-year-old you (or me) a punch in the snoot for acting up, but they to a man liked kids and were perfectly normal in the way they behaved toward us. People have to think that such schools must have been brutal environments filled with weird behavior. That wasn't the case at my school. I got a very good education from people who cared personally that I got it.
W| 12.15.11 @ 3:13PM
The Vikings. We had Danny Marino, Sam McDowell( pitcher for Cleve Indians), Jack Twyman, basketball great for Cincinati, among otheres.
Beth Van| 12.15.11 @ 2:50PM
And so, a momentary writer's block led somehow to a comparison about nuns venerating virginity? If so, then this is truly a case of a kind of Freudian slip...a fundamental idea held by the writer that was unwittingly exposed in an article that has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. I think the end result of what was written says a lot and exposes a general thread of thought.
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 10:11AM
Not exactly; it led to the writer devoting a thousand or so words to parsing the head-of-the-needle precise meaning of the term "venerate" as opposed to the term "worship." Not exactly blather, but it certainly looks suspiciously like pot-boiling.
It DID lead to a lengthy debate on Protestantism vs. Catholicism.
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 10:11AM
Not exactly; it led to the writer devoting a thousand or so words to parsing the head-of-the-needle precise meaning of the term "venerate" as opposed to the term "worship." Not exactly blather, but it certainly looks suspiciously like pot-boiling.
It DID lead to a lengthy debate on Protestantism vs. Catholicism.
Jacob R| 12.18.11 @ 8:28AM
Yea I mean, the billions of conversions to different religions show us that it's nearly impossible to change hearts and minds. Huh?
Maybe American soldiers who believe they're heroes because the media tells them they are don't change hearts and minds. My heart wouldnt be changed by some roid raging PTSD American soldier calling me sand n**** or shooting at me for fun.
I think you're confused bud. It's not the impossibility of change you're dealing with. It's that people want nothing to do with those Americans who are stupid and think being American means being superior.
You're one of those people who makes these cute little statements about not wanting to offend Catholics, and then explains how your steady secular military mind allows you to see past our childish preoccupations.
Give it a rest. Just because everyone gives you a free pass doesn't mean you and your military buddies don't have a lot more splaining to do.
While the Church was ministering to the lowliest among us, you were more likely firing "warning shots" at Afghan civilians and then laughing when they peed themselves.
And by the way you obviously know nothing about the media's obsession with defeating the one remaining enemy which hasn't dutifully transformed into a modern cesspool of shallow political correctness like the American Armed Forces.
There's nothing more annoying than these big strong military men who were too busy working out to pay attention to what's going on in the world and then one day decide they want to be grownups and rush into the conversation and say "What are you talking about?! There's no culture war, Im smart now like I got good at weightlifting and I've never heard about it!!!"
Peppermint Tea| 12.15.11 @ 9:38AM
As a Latter-day Saint (Americanus Mormonus) I concur and thank you for your understanding of the real insult as written--hopefully linking Romney's renegade religion to others religious vows that are just plain old fashion in the present zeitgeist, in which anybody who worships seriously is not taken seriously.
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of Cult of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?" Because they was an historical figure in Americas, they are somehow less venerable than saints of old. But I like the "venerable" definition and will use it in the future. By the way, Smith was arrested for being a Christian, and the Christian Illinois militia dispensed with a jury trial.
Anyway, the media culture is woefully out of touch with spiritual institutions and values, and it's use of nuns as an analogy really doesn't rise to the level of an attack on the Catholic Church--it is an attack on Romney.
Ken| 12.15.11 @ 12:17PM
Actually, Joseph Smith was once arrested and convicted as a con man. The arrest that led to his death in a shootout (although they were jailed, he and his brother Hiram were armed with pistols and returned fire on the lynch mob) was for destroying a printing press that had been used to print unfavorable things about him. Neither arrest had anything to do with being a Christian.
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 2:36PM
Also, the Illinois militia that ran the Mormons out of Nauvoo and sent them on their way to Salt Lake City weren't acting under the auspices of any church; they set themselves up as judges, jury, and punishers of the Mormons, but they weren't acting as the agents of any Christian sect.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 5:35PM
Indeed it was wrong just as the Roman Catholic Papacy tortured and killed millions of Bible believing Christians for six centuries for the "crime" of adhering to the Scriptures and rejecting the false teachings of this cult and therefore refused to bow the knee to the murderous Papacy (which teachings have still not changed, nor has it ever repented of so doing).
These Papists also made themselves judge, jury and executioner and the blood of the Martyrs of Christ are on their hands~ do you not realize this fact?
And do you not realize that the reason they put them to death is for the same false teachings and that thee false teachings are till being taught~ and that his is the reason you view Christians such as myself who dare to speak out against them as bigots and frauds?
It is because you are being taught to hate the Word of God, and those who preach them in accordance with those false teachings.
Nothing as changed, and the Harlot will not repent.
Babylon (false Religion) isn't going to repent. But you need to repent and believe the actual Gospel of Jesus.
I pray God opens your eyes.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 5:37PM
Sorry for the typos.
Papist Dan| 12.15.11 @ 11:13PM
You have more to be sorry for, Idiot, that typos.
Papist Dan| 12.15.11 @ 11:12PM
Idiot Bigot Margie,
You still believe it was fifty million, that is 50,000,000, Idiot Margie?
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 11:35PM
Well, Papist liar, just how many WERE murdered, men, women AND children~ Christians AND Jews alike by the Popery?
It went on for six centuries and there has been NO sign of repentance meaning change of mind in the teachings that led them to do this, as you prove so well here by your rejection of the very Words of God that refute those false teachings.
And just ONE is too many, is it not?
Now~ I notice that you have not said, even once that they were wrong in this.
Why is that, Papist hypocrite?
Or shall I call you Clint?
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 9:33AM
You know, John Calvin burned Servetus at the stake for being a heretic as to Protestant dogma, and he also oppressed Castilio for heresy.
So Protestantism has its own skeletons in the closet to worry about.
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 9:40AM
Servetus argued with Calvin over the existence of the Trinity, and about predestination. Servetus did not believe in either. Calvin preached both. That did it for Servetus.
About Servetus's burning, Castilio said, "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man." That put Castilio in bad odor with Geneva.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:18PM
I see, so you want to try and justify the cult of Catholicism?
Nick| 12.15.11 @ 11:59PM
Margie,
"Indeed it was wrong just as the Roman Catholic Papacy tortured and killed millions of Bible believing Christians for six centuries [...]."
Never happened!
Why do keep repeating these calumnies?
Also, Babylon and the Harlot refer to Jerusalem, not Rome. I have explained this to you, many times.
God Bless!
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 12:13AM
Nick,
Spoken like the true Religious Idolator that you are. I am sorry, but you are in denial, as history proves you wrong, and just because you say it never happened, doesn't make it so.
You are an Inquistion denier, just as there are Holocaust deniers, and yet the Papists are FAR worse, as they committed their atrocities in the Name of God.
And Babylon is a figure for FALSE RELIGION whether you choose to admit it or not.
May the God of the Bible, the only True God open your eyes to His Truth, and you repent of your Idolatry of Men and not God.
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 1:12AM
Margie,
I am no idolater. This is another of you many calumnies against me. But, I forgive you.
By the way, when you pray the Our Father, do you say, at the end, "For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever, Amen"?
Did you know that this doxology is not found in the Bible?
God Bless!
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 8:18AM
Nick
She repeats lies and distortions because she wants to. She enjoys being a bigot and having attention. This is her life. Probably nobody wants to talk to her, including her parents who are Catholic.
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 7:34PM
Dan,
I do not think that Margie's problems with the Catholic Church stem from her parents. We were friends for almost two years, and she never mentioned that her parents are Catholic, or, that she left the Faith in her youth, until this year.
I think her main sticking points with the Church are the same as many who still call themselves Catholic: Birth control and divorce and remarriage.
She believes in both, and, so, must prove that the Catholic Church is not the church that Christ founded. This, of course, is impossible. In her frustration, she lashes out at those who defend the Faith.
She needs our prayers and understanding, not our derision.
Merry Christ's Mass and God Bless!
Papist Dan| 12.17.11 @ 12:55PM
Nick,
I always enjoy reading your comments.
I have to respectfully disagree about M. Whatever her motivation, her daily bigoted anti catholic drivel has to be responded. You and others have tried valiantly to show she is wrong. You have used logic, reason, and facts. And you get called a liar, papist, punk, blah blah.
Many people disagree with Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, etc. for various reasons but nobody here posts such daily vicious unprovoked bigotry. In her case derision and mockery are appropriate similar to the appropriate mockery and derision in your replies to Jack inWi for his anti semitic/anti israel rants.
Keep up the excellent replies, very informative.
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 12:44AM
Dan,
Thank you for your compliment, I appreciate it.
I understand your frustration. And, yes, I can be harsh with Jack. Believe me, I am as guilty as anyone else when it comes to mocking those I disagree with.
I guess it's because I know Margie better than I do Jack, or any of the others that I regularly rip into, here, that I try to have more patience with her. Please, pray for me, also. And, feel free to correct me, whenever I cross the line.
Merry Christmas and God Bless!
PapistDan| 12.18.11 @ 2:31PM
Nick,
I don't believe you crossed the line. I was just saying that with people like Jack and Margie it is appropriate to mock and deride because their views are so far out.
Merry Christmas. Stay well.
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 12:25AM
Dan,
We all need prayers. Please keep me in yours.
May God Bless you and your family this Christmas Season!
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:20PM
Another lie, Nick.
I spoke about my history growing up here many, many times.
Anyone can do a search.
Either you're blind or lying.
And papist pun:
I never said EVER that I believe in Divorce~ I do NOT!
Sick bastard.
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 12:52AM
Margie,
Believe it or not, I don't get to read every comment that you make here. I meant that you didn't tell me your background, until this year.
Also, I wrote "divorce and remarriage." Didn't you tell me that Matt. 5:31 allows divorce and remarriage? If I'm mistaken, I apologize. But, you definitely defend the evil practice of birth-control.
Merry Christ's Mass and God Bless!
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:19PM
You're such a blatant liar, Nick.
The Bible allows re marriage on the basis of Adultery, punk.
What an ass.
And you blasphemed the Holy Spirit yesterday by saying that when Paul said, ALL have sinned" he meant it "generally"~ and that it didn't include Mary.
I suggest you get right with God, and also repent of your lying., because as of right now, you're on your way to Hell.
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 12:21AM
Margie,
"The Bible allows re marriage on the basis of Adultery, punk."
No. The Bible does not. And neither does Christ.
"And you blasphemed the Holy Spirit yesterday [...]."
No. I did not. And, Saint Paul did mean it generally.
Merry Christ's Mass and God Bless!
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 9:06AM
If you're referring to the Inquisition when you refer to the "Papacy" killing millions of Christian believers, you should know that there are several historians of Christianity who agree on a figure of about 5,000 killed during the approximately 400 years of the Inquisition.
Whether or not the people killed were adhering to the Scriptures or not is arguable. Many of the people who were killed were conversos, Muslims and Jews who had been told to convert to Christianity or be forced out of their homes and sent on their way to live on the road. So they were killed because it was believed that they didn't believe in Christianity. So that raises questions as to your premise that people were killed because they believed in the Scriptures. Others were killed because they rejected Catholic doctrine, that's true. It was wrong to kill them (in my opinion), but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they were killed because they believed in Scripture.
If you're using the word "cult" when you refer to the Catholic church, you might want to take another look at the definition of "cult." I don't think the Catholic church, as widespread and accessible as it is, really qualifies as a cult.
I believe that the Catholic church went too far in confronting what they believed was heresy, and I think that killing people believed to be heretics was something the Catholic church avoided doing for centuries for the sake of open debate as to dogma, the Catholic church then going overboard due to internal stresses over corrupt practices and the pressures of the Protestant Reformation, but I think the killing was understandable despite its wrongness.
I personally have never been taught to hate the word of God, but to obey it as I understand it. Evidently my understanding of it is different from yours.
The tone of your posts suggest that you would be burning people who disagree with you at the stake for their beliefs if you could get away from it.
W| 12.16.11 @ 11:21AM
Bill,
Excellent writing. I would expect no less from a graduate of the LaSalle Brothers. I just sent a check for Christmas to their retirement home. Do you get solicitations from their retirement home? A worthy cause.
Merry Christmas.
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 3:43PM
I don't get any solicitations for the retirement home, but my old school has been extremely diligent in sending me newsletters and updates on what's going on. I've made provision for Christian Brothers Academy in my will.
W| 12.16.11 @ 10:41PM
Bill,
Great. I also get the newsletter, and we have a strong loyal alumni. We have a big auction every year to raise scholarship money. Danny Marino has contributed hundreds of thousands dollars, and contributes sports stuff for the auction.
If you don't mind, what city is you school.
If I forget, Merry Christmas.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:23PM
You're a liar, and protector of your cult of hatred~ Catholicism.
God knows the number of His Martyrs killed by your CULT of hate, and it went on for six centuries, and yet YOU adhere to its perverted teachings?
The same teachings that led to these murders?
And yet YOU say I preach hatred?
Oh so typical of the Papist Idolators of Men and not God!
LOL!
W| 12.17.11 @ 7:35PM
MullahMargie,
Go play with your snakes. Or go to one of your KKK meetings with like minded people who hare your anti catholic bigotry and obsessions.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:19PM
Go screw the Pope, imbecile.
W| 12.19.11 @ 11:53AM
You have class, MullahMargie. "screw, panties, roooms." Gee, what is on your mind. Do you have fantasies about the Pope? sick, sick. You need professional strength counselling.
markenoff| 12.17.11 @ 12:44PM
Let's not forget the Roman Catholics killed by the English Monarchy when they set themselves up as head of the C of E.
Petronius| 12.15.11 @ 9:39AM
Equivocation is such a wonderful device for casting aspersion through a subjective "equation": Political Right=religious orthodoxy just covers more ground with scorn in this forlorn world so bereft of Reason. And life would be grand if Right Wingers and Catholics were not in it. Those who adhere to such sentiments over any objections to their wanton behavior are aware that whether any others object or not, they will be brought to book only by The gods of the Copybook Headings and cold hard reality that even without opposition their culture is doomed to self destruction.
DTOM| 12.15.11 @ 10:14AM
Mr. Lott;
In such a target rich environment, you seem to have plucked a veritable miniature target. Are you showing off your accuracy? Surely with a little effort you'd have been able to come up with a more egregious assault on Christianity and Catholicism in particular. Why waste such large shells on such small targets?
But I do not contest your point.
C Smith| 12.15.11 @ 11:19AM
Image worship, the worship of a virgin, the mass, priest craft, all of these things were related, inseparably related, to the pagan custom of the day. … Baal worship goes clear back to the tower of Babel. It was at that time that there was a system created that when you read it and realize that God condemned it you will recognize the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. … The teaching of purification by priestly absolution found its origin and its roots in paganism, not in Scripture. The power of men to forgive sin found its origin in paganism, not in the Scripture. The mediation of a woman found its origin and roots, not in Scripture, but in pagan origin.
http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.com/search?q=bowing
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 2:39PM
Whatever the Roman Catholic church is, it is most definitely NOT pagan. The Roman pagans made sure that Christians in Rome (and elsewhere) faced the lions in the Coliseum.
Beth Van| 12.15.11 @ 2:56PM
Wow, someone needs to read his Baltimore Catechism again....and maybe throw in a little Bible this time....fallen away Catholics are really bitter people. Sounds like you went to seminary, too, and condensed all the theological history into a convenient rant that satisfies you.
Beth Van| 12.15.11 @ 3:03PM
BTW, harmless aspects of paganism, i.e., Christmas Trees, were incorporated into Christianity because it made the process of converting pagans easier and offered them the comfort of some familiar customs they already followed.
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 4:01PM
Besides, so what if a church finds it worthwhile to adopt pagan ceremonies? How is such a thing somehow false or wrong? Jesus Christ didn't tell Simon Peter how to build the Church; He just told him he would be the rock upon whom the Church would be built. Is there something wrong with identifying the Passion, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection with pagan ceremonies celebrating spring? Or using the Saturnalia to express the Nativity? Why is that some sort of issue with a certain kind of person?
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 4:57PM
The fact that you are able to even ask those questions proves that you are in darkness still and know not the Scriptures that forbid such Pagan teachings as Catholicism teaches, such as prayer to the dead for one.
If you do not value the Scriptures and consider them the Words of Almighty God then you certainly need to repent and believe them because it is God's Own Son Who commands us to repent (change your mind) and believe them, else you will perish. Lk. 13:3.
He warns us because unless we repent and believe HIS GOSPEL we will be led astray and you are indeed already led astray since you believe not the Gospel of Jesus Christ but a false one that teaches doctrines demons such as Mary was born without SIN, placing her as equal to Christ.
That is indeed a teaching from Satan himself and for which teachers of will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for as they deceive their followers and lead them to Hell along with themselves.
You better repent of following these lies as everyone needs to as they are in direct opposition to the Lord of Glory Himself for there is only ONE Mediator between Go and Man, the Man Christ Jesus, and only ONE Who has died for the Sin of the World and is the Son of God.
"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.
This is not my own teaching for it is the Word of God and you will attack the messenger as a BIGOT along with the liar "W" and you are free to do so but it does not change His Truth and it remains that unless you repent and believe HIS Gospel you will perish along with the rest of the World of unbelievers:
"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. 2:9-12.
Yes, this is His warning to everyone and it is specifically to those who REFUSE to love the Truth but instead choose to believe lies and what you are believing are lies so I do hope you repent, and I pray God opens your eyes to His Truth so that you may do so, as He has done for me.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 1:13AM
And futhermore, the Rock is Christ.
"..and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ." 1 Cor. 10:4.
There are plenty of other verses that say that Jesus is the Rock as well, disproving the false teaching Of Catholicism and blows out of the water utterly and completely that not only is there no such thing as the hierarchy of Papery or of Popery, but that there is no such thing as a Popery that is handed down from Peter in some such "succession".
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 1:59AM
Margie,
No, it doesn't.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:25PM
"No it doesn't."
LOL.
I just provided a Scripture showing who the ROCK is, and He is CHRIST!
Repent, lying Papist, and believe the Gospel of God!
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 1:09AM
Margie,
"And I say to you: That you are Kephas [Aramaic for rock]; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:18
I guess there were two "Rocks," huh? Unless, Christ was mistaken? Or, is more likely that you are the one who is mistaken? Can you guess what I think?
By the way, you told me that you were going to research this verse, back in May or June, I believe. How's that research coming?
The fact that God is referred to as Rock in many verses of Sacred Scripture, does not mean that Christ did not make Simon bar Jonah the Rock of His Church. To deny this, is to deny the Word of God.
God Bless!
p.s. Saint Paul is relying on Jewish tradition when he states "the supernatural Rock which followed them," because nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that the Rock followed the Israelites. So, Paul uses Tradition, as well as the written Scriptures, to preach the Gospel of Christ.
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 9:27AM
Evidently you missed in your readings the play on
words that Jesus indulged in when he referred to Peter as a "rock."
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:26PM
I missed nothing, but you believe a cult of lies. This is what you were destined for.
I continue to take my stand on Scripture, while you have nothing but quicksand!
W| 12.15.11 @ 4:31PM
Smith,
Are you one of Margie's snake handlers?
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 5:01PM
I do not handle snakes, anti-Christ but you are a snake yourself as you despise the Word of God and them that preach them.
You already know that liars are thrown into the Lake of fire and yet you persist in your lies. So be it, for that is your "choice" as you were destined to do it seems.
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 10:13AM
I'll take your word on the snake-handling claim, but judging from some of your posts, it appears that you're adept at speaking in tongues.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:27PM
Judging from your posts it is clear that you defend a cult of false teachers and sexual predators, and worship Men and not Christ, nor His Gospel.
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 12:27AM
C. Smith,
"The teaching of purification by priestly absolution found its origin and its roots in paganism, not in Scripture. "
Wrong.
Have you ever read Leviticus 4:1 - 5:13?
"If a prince shall sin, and through ignorance do any one of the things that the law of the Lord forbids, and afterwards shall come to know his sin: he shall offer a buck goat without blemish, a sacrifice to the Lord. [...] And the priest shall pray for him, and for his sin: and it shall be forgiven him." - Lev. 4:22-23, 26
"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Whosoever shall sin, and despising the Lord, shall deny to his neighbour the thing delivered to his keeping, which was committed to his trust; or shall by force extort anything, or commit oppression; or shall find a thing lost, and denying it, shall also swear falsely, or shall do any other of the many things, wherein men are wont to sin [...] Moreover for his sin he shall offer a ram without blemish out of the flock: and shall give it to the priest, according to the estimation and measure of the offence. And he shall pray for him before the Lord: and he shall have forgiveness for everything in doing of which he has sinned." - Lev. 6:1-3, 6-7
Are you claiming that God also got this idea from the pagans?
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 2:11PM
"The point that Catholic apologists are forced to press is that "venerate" does not mean "worship," an activity in the religious sphere that has been narrowed over the last several centuries to apply only to God."
Uh, sorry guy, but when the cult of Catholicism teaches prayer to Mary, "the Mother of God", which she is NOT, but a lowly sinner saved by Grace like the rest of us, and it teaches that Mary was born sinless, putting her on par with Christ, and they actually pray to her, then YES, that is worshipping her.
This is the epitome of cults, and has nothing in resemblance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Who is the ONLY Mediator between God and Man. 1 Tim. 2:5.
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 2:40PM
The Roman Catholic church needs no apologists.
W| 12.15.11 @ 3:15PM
Bill,
Your are not allowed to disagree with the mad Mullah Margie. She will consign your papist approving Protestant soul to hell.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 3:25PM
Each person will indeed appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ and each one will have to answer as to why they rejected Scripture and and why it was not god enough for them, for Jesus Himself proclaims who it is that loves Him and it is those who keep His Words.
The above post of mine reveals exactly how the cult of Catholicism is in rebellion against His Words, and indeed those that refuse to repent of following the false teachings will NOT be able to apologize for rejecting His Gospel, for there can be no excuses possible when He has provided the Bible which contain His very Words and they are perfectly clear.
"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.
Bill| 12.15.11 @ 4:03PM
Well, I'm glad that the issue of the rejection of Scripture is God's and not some human person's. We might run into people who think their view of Scripture is the only right one. It seems like God might disapprove of that kind of thing.
W| 12.15.11 @ 4:05PM
Why wait for God to decide. Mullah Margie already has decided for God.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 4:37PM
That is correct it is God's warning to you and to me and to all of us and it is clear. I have not my own view of Scripture for Scripture needs no one's own view as it is not a MATTER of one's own view as it is written in 2 Peter 1:20.
So therefore explain to me if you will how it is that your cult proclaims against the written Words of God in the Bible that Mary was born without sin? Explain to me how it is that you try and justify that you are one who follows Him and yet you take your stand on false teachings that are directly opposed to God?
As in: Mary was a sinner as His Word says we ALL are as it is written:
"..since all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.." Rom. 3:23.
When God says ALL He means ALL and that therefore includes Mary.
Yes, you will have to explain to Christ Who is our Judge on that Day, along with His People, how it is that you chose to reject His Words and explain your hypocrisy to Him, and until then I am commanded as ALL Christians are to preach HIS Gospel as it is written and will do so as permitted by Him and in spite of Religious Idolators and hypocrites such as yourself who make pretense of godliness but are promoters of lies. For it is you who needs to repent of your Idolatry and follow Christ, and not Men.
Repent, and believe the Gospel of God, beginning in Mk. 1:1.
"'You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of Men.'" Mt. 15:7-10.
For that is an exact representation of your Religious cult.
W| 12.15.11 @ 4:51PM
Mullah Margie,
It has been "explained" repeatedly to you by many here, but you either do not understand or choose to not understand.
In any event, It is for God to decide and not an intolerant Mullah like you.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 5:12PM
Liar and anti-Christ Troll "W":
"IT" has not been "explained" to me but only by the unbelievers such as yourself and members of your cult, who believe not the Scriptures and wish for me to go away because you cannot near to hear them.
As you always do in the face of the written Words of God, you do not address the false teachings that you choose to believe in and therefore REBEL against God but you have nothing-ARE nothing- except demeaning and condescending insults.
Papist liar YOU are the Religious hypocritical Pharisee of old who thinks you can lord it over the Christian as your Papist liars of old did, but you cannot because as it is written, "The gates of Hades will not prevail against His church." Mt. 16:8.
It is laughable that you, who reject the Scripture and have no argument that you can present for believing a lie think you get to judge one who knows and believes them and in Him Who wrote them, the Word of God~ Who is Christ Jesus Himself.
Now until you can explain how it is that you reject the Holy Scriptures yourself you have no authority about anything you flaming Religious hypocritical Idolator of Man and not Christ~ to presume to judge me!
W| 12.16.11 @ 5:29PM
Mullah Margie,
Who cares about judging you? Nobody, except a Judge to commit your for a psych evaluation and treatment.
RCV| 12.17.11 @ 4:11PM
The Gospel teaches us that Mary is "blessed among all women" and that all generations "shall call her blessed. She is certainly not God, but she is just as surely not "just another sinner" as Margie says.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:31PM
No, not as Margie says, but as the WOrd of God says, liar.
I repeat HIS WORDS:
"..since all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.." Rom. 3:23.
When God says ALL He means ALL and that therefore includes Mary.
Now, do you have your own "Scripture"~ are YOU God?
Do you filthy lying Papists presume to judge the WORD OF GOD and tell HIM in rebellion that He is wrong?
That it is NOT true that ALL have sinned?
Go ahead, but it is YOU that have brought His condemnation upon yourselves for you are in rebellion toward Him!
RCV| 12.17.11 @ 5:42PM
Those are Paul's words, Margie, and a generalization about Mankind. But the words that Mary is "blessed among women" and " shall be called blessed by all generations" are straight from the Gospel.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:21PM
Paul, who was appointed by God to preach His Gospel, you lying Reprobate!
markenoff| 12.17.11 @ 12:47PM
So which one of the 30,000 + different denominations of Protestantism is right?
W| 12.17.11 @ 1:00PM
Easy answer, markenoff. Mullah Margie is right. Just ask her.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:33PM
The Word of God is right.
His Words are in the Bible. Denominations matter NOTHING!
Repent and believe the Gospel of the Grace of God, lest you perish!
Acts 20:14, Gal. 1:6.
Tony in Central PA| 12.15.11 @ 6:55PM
Actually, Margie, Mary is identified as the Mother of the Lord in the first chapter of Luke's Gospel.
Why do I bother ?
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 8:23PM
Yes she is the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, physically.
She is not the Mother of God, I know the Catholics teach that Jesus is God and yes the Bible says that Jesus is the very Image of God (Col.1), but Jesus Himself never put Himself above God and would not do so. (.."who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped". Phil. 2:6) so can try to justify this false teaching. Your Religion also teaches that Mary was SINLESS, placing her, once again above not only Jesus, but God.
This is indeed a teaching from Satan himself, and I am saddened that you chose to reject the Words of God in favor of a cult.
But why do I bother? I bother because I love His Truth and do His Will by preaching HIS gospel.
Tony in Central PA| 12.15.11 @ 10:29PM
Actually, Margie, Jesus Himself claimed equality with God the Father. Does your version of the Bible exclude these words from Jesus ?
Your post appears to revive a very old heresy known as Arianism. Arianism rejects the dogma that Jesus was begotten, uncreated and consubstantial with the Father. There was a great struggle in the first few centuries of the Church over this very dogma. Again, it seems there are very few new heresies, just the endless recycling of old ones.
The crux of your disgareement with Catholics, Margie, rests on the premise of sola scriptura. On this, everything you assert stands or falls. Before Martin Luther, there was no such thing as sola scriptura. I defy you to find any evidence for such a manmade doctrine in the historical record prior to Martin Luther or within the pages of the Bible itself. I've asked this before of you and never received any answer.
But its not only sola scriptura that creates the disagreements, its a particular interpretation and analysis of the Bible that severs it from the Church from which it was born. It would be analogus to dissecting the heart out of a human being and making all manner of judgments about that human being based on an examination of that dissected heart.
It is certainly true that the Catholic Church teaches Mary was without sin, original or personal. The Church believes Mary's sinlessness was necessary for the Incarnation to occur. Without the Incarnation, we would still be living in a world without redemption for humanity or the possibility of salvation for individual sinners. So it was, cosmically speaking, a very big event and a real bending of the rules by a loving God, the cost of which we will probably never fully understand.
The Church teaches Mary was a created human but preserved from original sin through a special grace. Nowhere has or does the Church claim Mary is equal or above God as you assert. I challenge you to prove your assertion. Fortunately, the Church goes through the trouble to spell out its dogmas and teachings in an umambiguous form known as the Catechism. Search it validate your claims before you post.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 10:51PM
"Actually, Margie, Jesus Himself claimed equality with God the Father."
Scripture, please, and then I will deal with the rest of your untruthful post as I have quoted you the Words of God that prove that Jesus did not do any such thing.
"For I have not spoken on My Own Authority; the Father Who sent Me has Himself given Me Commandment what to say and what to speak." Jn. 12:49.
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The Words that I say to you I do not speak on My Own Authority; but the Father Who dwells in Me does His works." Jn. 14:10.
"..for the Father is greater than I." Jn. 14:28.
Tony in Central PA| 12.16.11 @ 9:11PM
" I and the Father are one ". Jn 10:30
" I have given them ( the disciples ) the glory that you gave me that they may be as one as we are as one ". Jn : 17 : 22
[ I took these quotes from the NIV version for your satisfaction. The NIV is not used by Catholics in Mass celebrations.]
There are many other quotes, probably too may to post here, throughout John's Gospel and the synoptic Gospels emphasizing the unity of the Father and the Son. I chose John's Gospel because it has the most highly developed Christology of the four Gospels.
Am I correct in concluding from your posts that you reject the dogma of the Trinity ? I know some fundamentalists today do so.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:50PM
Tony,
And that was MY point. Jesus is one with the Father in unity and he was praying for us to be united with Him in that way.
"And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to Thee. Holy Father, keep them in Thy Name, which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are one."
So, since you just conceded to the truth of the Words of God~ where is your argument?
The point I am making to you is that:
"..Who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." Phil 2:6-8.
"..for the Father is greater than I." Jn. 14:28.
If Jesus did not even consider Himself greater than His Father, how can you possibly justify the false teaching of Mary as the Mother of God?
You refuse to say that God is the Father, and Jesus is the Son, because if your cult did that, it couldn't get away with this false teaching!
Your cult teaches that Mary was sinless, and God's Mother. This is a blatant lie.
God the Father has NO MOTHER, nor did Jesus have anything other than a sinner saved by Grace (Mary) as His physical, earthly Mother.
You may not like it, and refuse to repent of your unbelief and remain joined in spirit to a cult, but it is the truth according to the Bible.
Mary was a sinner as God's Word states: "since all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.." Rom. 3:23.
God says ALL and I must agree with Him above your cult's teaching.
W| 12.17.11 @ 8:59PM
You are purposely misleading.
Catholics do not consider Jesus greater than God, his father. Jesus is God. Mary is the Mother of Jesus, who is God.
You don't have to like it or accept it, but stop with your misreprentations.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:23PM
I posted the Catholic teaching, straight form your "Vatican", liar.
You ignored it and continued with your filthy and disgusting insults.
And you're lying again.
Your cult DOES say that Mary id sinless, and tat she's the Mother of God.
Repent, hypocrite, filthy, disgusting liar.
Tony in Central PA| 12.18.11 @ 9:35PM
Actually, Margie, the quote you posted from Phillipians validates the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. That Jesus would choose not to grasp equality with the Father, indicates that it was a possibility. He did not do so in order to fulfill His mission to humanity.
The Trinity is a mystery. If there's one thing I have noticed in fundamentalism of all stripes, its a profound distaste for mystery. I am left wondering if this distaste is rooted in pride.
There were many struggles within the early Church, Margie, about the nature of Jesus Christ and His humanity and divinity. The Church was confronted with various heretical views on the subject and had to define its dogmas more clearly. Look at the difference between the Apostle's Creed ( early second century ) and the Nicene Creed ( early fourth century ) and you'll get a sense of this. I also highly recommend Eusebius' " History of the Church " for its historical and theological background on this period.
As a previous poster mentioned, though, if you deny the Trinity, yet continue to regard Jesus Christ as divine, you're stuck in polytheism.
Again, though, we're always getting back to the basis of your disagreements with Catholic Christianity - - sola scriptura. I have asked you repeatedly to provide some proof that this is not a man - made tradition ( Martin Luther being the specific man in this case ) and you have never attempted to answer. I challenge you to find this doctrine in the pages of the Bible or from any historical writings from any time before Luther. Your silence on this leads me to conclude that you have no answer.
Think of it as an excercise in evangelism. If you're trying to convert a person with no prior religious background, how would you answer him if he asked you to provide evidence of sola scriptura.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:34PM
A distaste for mystery?
No a distaste for myths and for blatant lies!
And there is no such thing as a Trinity in the Bible.
Nor is there any such teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, nor that she was sinless.
You just do not care about what the Bible actually says, and I pity you!
AND: that is the ultimate PRIDE that you speak of.
You choose in your pride to reject the Words of God, and therefore are in Rebellion towards Him.
And you pompous asses continuously say I don't answer you but I do constantly~ you're blatant liars!
And as to the so-called Early church fathers~ they were a bunch of heretics:
Read some history yourself and learn something, Tony:
Many people have walked into the Roman Catholic Church through the broad door of the “church fathers,” and this is a loud warning today when there is a widespread attraction to the “church fathers” within evangelicalism.
The Catholic apologetic ministries use the “church fathers” to prove that Rome’s doctrines go back to the earliest centuries. In the book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David Currie continually uses the church fathers to support his position. He says, “The other group of authors whom Evangelicals should read ... is the early Fathers of the Church” (p. 4).
The contemplative prayer movement is built on this same weak foundation. The late Robert Webber, a Wheaton College professor who was one of the chief proponents of this back to the “church fathers” movement, said:
“The early Fathers can bring us back to what is common and help us get behind our various traditions ... Here is where our unity lies. ... evangelicals need to go beyond talk about the unity of the church to experience it through an attitude of acceptance of the whole church and an entrance into dialogue with the Orthodox, Catholic, and other Protestant bodies” (Ancient-Future Faith, 1999, p. 89).
The fact is that the “early Fathers” were mostly heretics!
This term refers to various church leaders of the first few centuries after the apostles whose writings have been preserved.
The only genuine “church fathers” are the apostles and prophets their writings that were given by divine inspiration and recorded in the Holy Scripture. They gave us the “faith ONCE delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The faith they delivered is able to make us “perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We don’t need anything beyond the Bible. The teaching of the “church fathers” does not contain one jot or tittle of divine revelation.
The term “church fathers” is a misnomer that was derived from the Catholic Church’s false doctrine of hierarchical church polity. These men were not “fathers” of the church in any scriptural sense and did not have any divine authority. They were merely church leaders from various places who have left a record of their faith in writing. But the Roman Catholic Church exalted men to authority beyond the bounds designated by Scripture, making them “fathers” over the churches located within entire regions and over the churches of the whole world.
The “church fathers” are grouped into four divisions: Apostolic Fathers (second century), Ante-Nicene Fathers (second and third centuries), Nicene Fathers (fourth century), and Post-Nicene Fathers (fifth century). Nicene refers to the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that dealt with the issue of Arianism and affirmed the doctrine of Christ’s deity. Thus, the Ante-Nicene Fathers are so named because they lived in the century before this council, and the Post-Nicene, because they lived in the century following the council.
All of the “church fathers” were infected with some false doctrine, and most of them were seriously infected. Even the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the second century were teaching the false gospel that baptism, celibacy, and martyrdom provided forgiveness of sin (Howard Vos, Exploring Church History, p. 12). And of the later “fathers”--Clement, Origen, Cyril, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Theodore, and John Chrysostom--the same historian admits: “In their lives and teachings we find the seed plot of almost all that arose later. In germ form appear the dogmas of purgatory, transubstantiation, priestly mediation, baptismal regeneration, and the whole sacramental system” (Vos, p. 25).
In fact, one of the Post-Nicene “fathers” is Leo the Great, the first Roman Catholic Pope!
Therefore, the “church fathers” are actually the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. They are the men who laid the foundation of apostasy that produced Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy.
The New Testament Scriptures warns frequently that there would be an apostasy, a turning from the faith among professing Christians. The apostles and prophets warned said this apostasy had already begun in their day and warned that it would increase as the time of Christ’s return draws nearer.
Paul testified of this in many places, giving us a glimpse into the vicious assault that was already plaguing the work of God. Consider his last message to the pastors at Ephesus (Acts 20:29-30). Paul warned them that false teachers would come from without and would also arise from within their own ranks. Consider his second epistle to Corinth (2 Cor. 11:1-4, 12-15). The false teachers who were active at Corinth were corrupting three of the cardinal doctrines of the New Testament faith, the doctrine of Christ, Salvation, and the Holy Spirit; and the churches were in danger of being overthrown by these errors. Consider Paul’s warnings to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:1-6 and 2 Timothy 3:1-13 and 4:3-4.
Peter devoted the entire second chapter of his second epistle to this theme. He warned in verse one that there would be false teachers who hold “damnable heresies,” referring to heresies that damn the soul to eternal hell. If someone denies, for example, the Virgin Birth, Deity, Humanity, Sinlessness, Eternality, Atonement, or Resurrection of Jesus Christ he cannot be saved. Heresies pertaining to such matters are damnable heresies. The corruption of the “doctrine of Christ” results in a “false christ.”
John gave similar warnings in his epistles (1 John 2:18, 19, 22; 4:1-3; 2 John 7-11).
In addressing the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, the Lord Jesus Christ warned that many of the apostolic churches were already weak and were under severe stress from heretical attacks (Rev. 2:6, 14-15, 20-24; 3:2, 15-17).
Thus the New Testament faith was being attacked on every hand in the days of the apostles by Gnosticism, Judaism, Nicolaitanism, and other heresies.
And the apostles and prophets warned that this apostasy would increase.
Paul said, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). This describes the course of the church age in terms of the spread of heresy!
Therefore it is not surprising to find doctrinal error rampant among the churches even in the early centuries.
Further, we only have a very partial record of the early centuries and the surviving writings have been heavily filtered by Rome. The Roman Catholic Church was in power for a full millennium and its Inquisition reached to the farthest corners of Europe and beyond. Rome did everything in its power to destroy the writings of those who differed with her. Consider the Waldenses. These were Bible-believing Christians who lived in northern Italy and southern France and elsewhere during the Dark Ages and were viciously persecuted by Rome for centuries. Though we know that the Waldenses have a history that begins in the 11th century if not before, their historical record was almost completely destroyed by Rome. Only a handful of Waldensian writings were preserved from all of those centuries.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the extant writings from the early centuries are ones that are sympathetic to Rome’s doctrines. This does not prove that most of the churches then held to Roman Catholic doctrine. It proves only that those writings sympathetic to Rome were allowed to survive. We know that there were many churches in existence in those early centuries that did not agree with Roman doctrine, because they were persecuted by the Romanists and are mentioned in the writings of the “church fathers.”
A LOOK AT SOME OF THE CHURCH FATHERS
Ignatius (c. 50-110)
Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in the early second century. He was arrested in about A.D. 110 and sent to Rome for trial and martyrdom.
1. He taught that churches should have elders and a ruling bishop; in other words, he was exalting one bishop over another, whereas in scripture the terms “bishop” and “elder” refer to the same humble office in the assembly (Titus 1:5-7).
2. He taught that all churches are a part of one universal church.
3. He claimed that a church does not have authority to baptize or conduct the Lord’s Supper unless it has a bishop.
These relatively innocent errors helped prepare the way for more error in the next century.
Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165)
When Justin embraced Christianity, he held on to some of his pagan philosophy.
1. He interpreted the Scriptures allegorically and mystically.
2. He helped develop the idea of a “middle state” after death that was neither heaven nor hell. Eventually this doctrine became Rome’s purgatory.
Irenaeus (c. 125-202)
Irenaeus was a pastor in Lyons, France, who wrote a polemic titled Against Heresies in about A.D. 185.
1. He supported the authority of the bishop as a ruler over many churches.
2. He defended church tradition beyond what the Scripture allows. For this reason he is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as one of their own.
3. He taught the Catholic heresy of “real presence,” saying, “The Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.”
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 230)
1. Clement headed the allegorizing school of Alexandria from 190 to 202. This school was founded by Pantaenus.
2. Clement intermingled the philosophy of Plato with Christianity.
3. He helped develop the doctrine of purgatory and believed that most men would eventually be saved.
Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 255)
Tertullian lived in Carthage in North Africa (located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in modern Tunisia, between Libya and Algeria).
1. Though he fought against Gnosticism, he also exalted the authority of the church beyond that allowed by Scripture. He taught that the church’s authority comes through apostolic succession.
2. He believed that the bread of the Lord’s Supper was Christ and worried about dropping crumbs of it on the ground.
3. He adopted Montanism, believing that Montanus spoke prophecies by inspiration of God.
4. He taught that widows who remarried committed fornication.
5. He taught that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
6. He classified sins into three categories and believed in confession of sins to a bishop.
7. He said that the human soul was seen in a vision as “tender, light, and of the colour of air.” He claimed that all human souls were in Adam and are transmitted to us with the taint of original sin upon them.
8. He taught that there was a time when the Son of God did not exist and when God was not a Father.
9. He taught that Mary was the second Eve who by her obedience remedied the disobedience of the first Eve.
Cyprian (? – 258)
Cyprian was the “bishop of Carthage” in Africa.
1. He was tyrannical and wealthy and he wrote against the Novatian churches for their efforts to maintain a pure church membership.
2. Cyprian defended the unscriptural doctrine that certain bishops had authority over many churches and that all pastors must submit to them.
3. He supported the heresy of infant baptism.
No wonder Cyprian was made one of the “saints” of the Catholic Church.
Origen (185-254)
Though he endured persecution and torture for the cause of Christ under the emperor Decius in 250, Origen was loaded with false teachings. Origen’s character is described by the Lutheran historian Mosheim as “a compound of contraries, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and injudicious; the enemy of superstition, and its patron; a strenuous defender of Christianity, and its corrupter; energetic and irresolute; one to whom the Bible owes much, and from whom it has suffered much.”
We do not agree that the Bible owes Origen much, but there is no doubt that it suffered much at his hands.
Following are some of the strange heresies of Origen:
1. He denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture.
2. He rejected the literal history of the early chapters in Genesis and of Satan taking the Lord Jesus up to a high mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. III, p. 614). Durant quotes Origen: “Who is so foolish as to believe that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden, and placed in it a tree of life ... so that one who tasted of the fruit obtained life?”
3. He accepted infant baptism.
4. He taught baptismal regeneration and salvation by works. “After these points, it is taught also that the soul, having a substance and life proper to itself, shall, after its departure from this world, be rewarded according to its merits. It is destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its deeds shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishment, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
5. He believed the Holy Spirit was possibly a created being of some sort. “In His case [that of the Holy Spirit], however, it is not clearly distinguished whether or not He was born or even whether He is or is not to be regarded as a Son of God” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
6. He believed in a form of purgatory and universalism, denying the literal fire of hell and believing that even Satan would be saved eventually. “Now let us see what is meant by the threatening with eternal fire. ... It seems to be indicated by these words that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire and is not plunged into some fire which was kindled beforehand by someone else or which already existed before him. ... And when this dissolution and tearing asunder of the soul shall have been accomplished by means of the application of fire, no doubt it will afterwards be solidified into a firmer structure and into a restoration of itself” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
7. He believed that men’s souls are preexistent and that stars and planets possibly have souls. “In regard to the sun, however, and the moon and the stars, as to whether they are living beings or are without life, there is not clear tradition” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
8. He believed that Jesus was a created being and not eternal. “He held an aberrant view on the nature of Christ, which gave rise to the later Arian heresy” (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, “Origen”). That Origen believed Jesus Christ had an origin is evident from this statement: “Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creatures; and after He had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things,--for through Him were all things made” (Origen, quoted by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
9. He denied the bodily resurrection, claiming that the resurrection body is spherical, non-material, and does not have members. “He denied the tangible, physical nature of the resurrection body in clear contrast to the teaching of Scripture” (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, “Origen”). He was condemned by the Council of Constantinople on this count.
10. Origen allegorized the Bible saying, “The Scriptures have little use to those who understand them literally.” In this he was one of the fathers of the heretical amillennial method of prophetic interpretation, which was given further development by Augustine and later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. This destroyed the apostolic doctrine of the imminency of the return of Christ (Mt. 24:42, 44; 25:13; Mk. 13:33) and the literal Tribulation and Millennial Kingdom. It also did away with a literal fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel and set the stage for the persecution of the Jews by the Roman Catholic Church.
Eusebius of Caesarea (270-340)
1. Eusebius collected the writings of Origen and promoted his erroneous teachings. “Whatever proof exists that Origen and his school deteriorated the correctness of the text, it is to the same extent clear that Eusebius accepted and perpetuated that injury” (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, I, p. 387).
2. Constantine the Great, who had joined church and state in the Roman Empire and had thereby laid the foundation for the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, hired Eusebius to produce some Greek New Testaments. Frederick Nolan and other authorities have charged Eusebius with making many changes in the text of Scripture. “As it is thus apparent that Eusebius wanted not the power, so it may be shewn that he wanted not the will, to make those alterations in the sacred text, with which I have ventured to accuse him” (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 35).
3. Many of the noted omissions in the modern versions can be traced to this period, including Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11. After intensive investigation, Frederick Nolan concluded that Eusebius “suppressed those passages in his edition” (Nolan, p. 240). In fact, many textual authorities have identified Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the manuscripts so revered by modern textual critics, as two of the copies of the Greek New Testament made by Eusebius. These manuscripts also contained the spurious apocryphal writings, Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Origen had considered these two uninspired and fanciful books as canonical Scripture (Goodspeed, The Formation of the New Testament, p. 103).
Jerome (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) (340-420)
Jerome was called upon by Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, to produce a standard Latin Bible. This was completed between A.D. 383 and 405 and became the Bible adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It is commonly called the Latin vulgate (meaning common).
Modern textual critic Bruce Metzger says that the Greek manuscripts used by Jerome “apparently belonged to the Alexandrian type of text” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 76). This means they were in the same family as those underlying the modern versions. Kenyon and Robinson also affirm this (Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, p. 88; Robinson, Ancient Versions of the English Bible, p. 113).
This means that the Jerome Latin vulgate adopted by Rome represents the same type of text as the critical Greek text underlying the modern versions. These commonly remove “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16 and contain many other corruptions.
Jerome was deeply infected with false teaching:
1. Jerome followed the false teaching of asceticism, believing the state of celibacy to be spiritually superior to that of marriage, and demanding that church leaders be unmarried. James Heron, author of The Evolution of Latin Christianity, observed that “no single individual did so much to make monasticism popular in the higher ranks of society” (Heron, 1919, p. 58).
2. Jerome believed in the veneration of “holy relics” and the bones of dead Christians (Heron, pp. 276, 77).
3. Jerome “took a leading and influential part in ‘opening the floodgates’ for the invocation of saints,” teaching “distinctly and emphatically that the saints in heaven hear the prayers of men on earth, intercede on their behalf and send them help from above (Heron, pp. 287, 88).
4. Jerome taught that Mary was the counterpart of Eve, as Christ was the counterpart of Adam, and that through her obedience Mary became instrumental in helping to redeem the human race (Heron, p. 294). He also taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin (Heron, pp. 294, 95).
5. Jerome believed in the blessing of water (Heron, p. 306).
6. Jerome justified the death penalty for “heretics” (Heron, The Evolution of Latin Christianity, p. 323).
As for his spirit and character, Jerome is described, even by a historian who had high respect for him, with these words: “such irritability and bitterness of temper, such vehemence of uncontrolled passion, such an intolerant and persecuting spirit, and such inconstancy of conduct” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, III, p. 206).
It is obvious that Jerome had imbibed many of the false teachings and attitudes that eventually became the entrenched dogmas and practices of the Roman Catholic Church.
Ambrose (339-397)
Ambrose was bishop of Milan, in Italy, from 374-397. Because of his commitment to many early doctrinal heresies, his writings have been appealed to by popes and Catholic councils. Ambrose had a strong influence upon Augustine. The Catholic Church made him a saint and a doctor of the church.
1. Ambrose used the allegorical-mystical method of Bible interpretation, having been influenced by Origen and Philo.
2. He taught that Christians should be devoted to Mary, encouraged monasticism, and believed in prayers to the saints.
3. He believed the church has the power to forgive sins.
4. He believed the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice of Christ.
5. He taught that virginity is holier than marriage and whenever possible he encouraged young women not to marry. His teaching in this helped pave the way for the Catholic monastic system.
6. He offered prayers for the dead.
Augustine (354-430)
Augustine was polluted with many false doctrines and helped lay the foundation for the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason Rome has honored Augustine as one of the “doctors of the church.”
1. He was a persecutor and the father of the doctrine of persecution in the Catholic Church.
The historian Neander observed that Augustine’s teaching “contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition.” Augustine instigated persecutions against the Bible-believing Donatists who were striving to maintain pure churches after the apostolic faith. He interpreted Luke 14:23 (“compel them to come in”) to mean that Christ required the churches to use force against heretics.
2. He was the father of a-millennialism, allegorizing Bible prophecy and teaching that the Catholic Church is the kingdom of God.
3. He taught that the sacraments are the means of saving grace.
4. He was one of the fathers of infant baptism. The ‘council’ of Mela, in Numidia, A.D. 416, composed of merely fifteen persons and presided over by Augustine, decreed: “Also, it is the pleasure of the bishops in order that whoever denies that infants newly born of their mothers, are to be baptized or says that baptism is administered for the remission of their own sins, but not on account of original sin, delivered from Adam, and to be expiated by the laver of regeneration, BE ACCURSED” (Wall, The History of Infant Baptism, I, 265). Augustine thus taught that infants should be baptized and that the baptism took away their sin. He called all who rejected infant baptism “infidels” and “cursed.”
5. He taught that Mary did not commit sin and promoted her worship. He believed Mary played a vital role in salvation (Augustine, Sermon 289, cited in Durant, The Story of Civilization, 1950, IV, p. 69).
6. He believed in purgatory.
7. He accepted the doctrine of “celibacy” for “priests,” supporting the decree of “Pope” Siricius of 387 that ordered that any priest that married or refused to separate from his wife should be disciplined.
8. He exalted the authority of the church over that of the Bible, declaring, “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church” (quoted by John Paul II, Augustineum Hyponensem, Apostolic Letter, Aug. 28, 1986, www.cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html).
9. He believed that the true interpretation of Scripture was derived from the declaration of church councils (Augustine, De Vera Religione, xxiv, p. 45).
10. He interpreted the early chapters of Genesis figuratively (Dave Hunt, “Calvin and Augustine: Two Jonahs Who Sink the Ship,” Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Dave Hunt and James White, 2004, p. 230).
11. He taught that God has pre-ordained some for salvation and others for damnation and that the grace of God is irresistible for the true elect. By his own admission, John Calvin in the 16th century derived his TULIP theology on the “sovereignty of God” from Augustine. Calvin said: “If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 22).
12. He taught the heresy of apostolic succession from Peter (Hunt, ibid., p. 230).
John Chrysostom (347-407)
Chrysostom was a leader in Antioch, in the Greek part of the Catholic church of that day, and became “patriarch” of Constantinople in 398.
1. He believed in the “real presence” of the mass, that the bread literally becomes Jesus Christ.
2. He taught that church tradition can be equal in authority to the Scriptures.
Cyril (376-444)
Cyril was the “patriarch” of Alexandria and supported many of the errors that led to the formation of the Catholic Church.
1. He promoted the veneration of Mary and called her the Theotokos, or bearer of God.
2. In 412, Cyril instigated persecution against the Donatist Christians.
A WARNING OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH FATHERS TO LEAD TO ROME
Having seen some of the heresies that leavened the “church fathers,” it is not surprising that a non-critical study of their writings can lead to Rome. That is where they were all headed! And for the most part we have only looked at the more doctrinally sound “church fathers”!
In the late nineteenth century JOHN HENRY NEWMAN (1801-90) walked into the Roman Catholic Church through the door of the church fathers. Newman, an Anglican priest and one of the leaders of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England, is one of the most famous of the Protestant converts to Rome. He said that two of the factors in his conversion were his fascination with the church fathers and his study of the lives of the “English saints,” referring to Catholic mystics such as Joan of Norwich. He converted to Rome in 1845 and was made a Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879.
In more recent days many are following Newman’s lead.
SCOTT AND KIMBERLY HAHN, Presbyterians who joined the Roman Catholic Church, were influenced by the church fathers. In their influential autobiography, Rome Sweet Rome, Kimberly recalls how that Scott studied the “church fathers” when he was still a Presbyterian minister.
“Scott gained many insights from the early Church Fathers, some of which he shared in his sermons. This was rather unexpected for both of us, because we had hardly ever read the early Church Fathers when we were in seminary. In fact, in our senior year we had complained loudly to friends about possible creeping Romanism when a course was offered by an Anglican priest on the early Church Fathers. Yet here was Scott quoting them in sermons! One night Scott came out of his study and said, ‘Kimberly, I have to be honest. I don’t know how long we are going to be Presbyterians. We may become Episcopalians’” (Rome Sweet Rome, p. 56).
In fact, they became Roman Catholics, and the influence of the “church fathers” on that decision is obvious.
In 1985 THOMAS HOWARD became another famous Protestant convert to Rome. In his 1984 book Evangelical Is Not Enough Howard had called upon evangelicals to study the church fathers. Howard was a professor at Gordon College for 15 years and is from a family of prominent evangelicals. His father, Philip, was editor of the Sunday School Times; his brother David Howard was head of the World Evangelical Fellowship; and his sister Elizabeth married the famous missionary Jim Elliot, who was martyred by the Auca Indians in Ecuador.
The church fathers were also instrumental in the conversion of PETER KREEFT to Rome from the Dutch Reformed denomination. Kreeft, a very influential Catholic apologist, studied the church fathers as a student at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He writes:
“My adventurous half rejoiced when I discovered in the early Church such Catholic elements as the centrality of the Eucharist, the Real Presence, prayers to saints, devotion to Mary, an insistence on visible unity, and apostolic succession. Furthermore, THE CHURCH FATHERS JUST ‘SMELLED’ MORE CATHOLIC THAN PROTESTANT, especially St. Augustine, my personal favorite and a hero to most Protestants too. It seemed very obvious that if Augustine or Jerome or Ignatius of Antioch or Anthony of the Desert, or Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, or Athanasius were alive today they would be Catholics, not Protestants” (“Hauled Aboard the Ark,” http://www.peterkreeft.com/top.....aboard.htm).
Kreeft is absolutely right. Many of the “church fathers” do smell more Catholic than Protestant!
The books Surprised by Truth edited by Patrick Madrid and The Road to Rome edited by Dwight Longenecker and Journeys Home edited by Marcus Grodi contain many examples of this phenomenon. One of the testimonies is by SHARON MANN, who says,
“I started reading the early Church Fathers and realized that whatever they believed, they surely were not Protestant. Catholic themes peppered the landscape of Church history. I couldn’t deny it...” (Journeys Home, 1997, p. 88).
This is true, of course. Catholic themes do pepper the landscape of the “church fathers.” What she should have understood is that they were not doctrinally sound and they have absolutely no authority. Whatever they were, they are not our examples and guides. She should have compared them to the infallible truth in the Bible and rejected them as heretics.
Instead, she allowed the “church fathers” to stir up her curiosity about Roman Catholicism and she ended up at a Mass. There she had a powerful emotional experience when the crowd knelt to idolatrously “adore” the blessed host as it passed by in its “monstrance.” She began weeping and her throat tightened and she couldn’t swallow. She said:
“If the Lord was truly passing by, then I wanted to adore and worship Him, but if He wasn’t, I was afraid to be idolatrous. That weekend left a very powerful imprint on my heart, and I found myself running out of good arguments to stay Protestant. My heart was longing to be Catholic and be restored to the unity with all Christendom” (Journeys Home, p. 89).
When she speaks of the Lord passing by, she is referring to the Catholic doctrine that the wafer or host of the Mass becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus when it is blessed by the priest and thereafter it is worshipped as Jesus Himself. Following the Mass the host is placed in a box called the tabernacle and Catholics pray to it. The host is the Catholic Jesus.
Roger Oakland describes an experience he had in Rome at the feast of Corpus Christi when Pope Benedict XVI worshipped at the Major Mary basilica:
“Finally, after almost three hours of standing and waiting, the pope and his entourage arrived. The pope was carrying the Eucharistic Jesus in a monstrance. Earlier that day during a mass at St. Peter’s, this Eucharistic Jesus had been created from a wafer that had been consecrated. Later in the say, the same Jesus was transported to St. John’s for another ceremony. Finally, for a finale, the pope transported Jesus to the Major Church of Mary. The pope took the monstrance, ascended the stairs of the church, and held Jesus up for the masses to see. Then this Jesus was placed on an altar temporarily erected at the top of the steps. A cardinal then opened the glass window of the monstrance, removed the consecrated wafer (Jesus), and hustled him inside the church where he placed Jesus in a tabernacle. This experience gave me a sobering reminder of this terrible apostasy” (Faith Undone, p. 126).
Mother Teresa exemplified this. She stated plainly that her Christ was the wafer of the Mass. Consider the following quotes from her speech to the Worldwide Retreat for Priests, October 1984, in Vatican City:
“I remember the time a few years back, when the president of Yeman asked us to send some of our sisters to his country. I told him that this was difficult because for so many years no chapel was allowed in Yemen for saying a public mass, and no one was allowed to function there publicly as a priest. I explained that I wanted to give them sisters, but the trouble was that, without a priest, without Jesus going with them, our sisters couldn’t go anywhere. It seems that the president of Yemen had some kind of a consultation, and the answer that came back to us was, ‘Yes, you can send a priest with the sisters!’ I was so struck with the thought that ONLY WHEN THE PRIEST IS THERE CAN WE HAVE OUR ALTAR AND OUR TABERNACLE AND OUR JESUS. ONLY THE PRIEST CAN PUT JESUS THERE FOR US” (Mother Teresa, cited in Be Holy: God’s First Call to Priests Today, edited by Tom Forrest, C.Ss.R., 1987, p. 109).
“One day she [a girl working in Calcutta] came, putting her arms around me, and saying, ‘I have found Jesus.’ ... ‘And just what were you doing when you found him?’ I asked. She answered that after 15 years she had finally gone to confession, and received Holy Communion from the hands of a priest. Her face was changed, and she was smiling. She was a different person because THAT PRIEST HAD GIVEN HER JESUS” (Mother Teresa, Be Holy, p. 74).
It is a great spiritual blindness to think that the Lord Jesus Christ can be worshipped legitimately in the form of a piece of bread!
A more recent convert to Rome is FRANCIS BECKWITH, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In May 2007 he tendered his resignation from this organization after converting to Rome. His journey to Rome was sparked by reading the church fathers. He said, “In January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant...” (“Evangelical Theological Society President Converts,” The Berean Call, May 7, 2007).
Again, he is correct in observing that the church fathers were very Catholic-like, but that proves nothing. The truth is not found in the church fathers but in the Bible itself.
This is a loud warning to those who have an ear to hear the truth. We don’t need to study the “church fathers.” We need to make certain that we are born again and have the indwelling Spirit as our Teacher (1 John 2:27), then we need to study the Bible diligently and walk closely with Christ and become so thoroughly grounded in the truth that we will not be led astray by the wiles of the devil and by all of the fierce winds of error that are blowing in our day.
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:14).
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR.
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 12:17AM
Margie,
Why are you following the teachings of man? Mr. Cloud couldn't even get the title of Dr. Scott and Kimberly Hahn's book correct. It is entitled Rome Sweet Home, by the way.
Mr. Cloud is justified in his fear of the early Church Fathers. As Cardinal Newman famously said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."
The reason that people who actually read the early Church Fathers come back home to the Catholic Church is because they find the Truth in these writings.
God Bless!
Tony in Central PA| 12.19.11 @ 1:27PM
Nowhere in this preceding post, which appears to have been lifted directly from a work of anti - Catholic literature, do you answer my biggest and most fundamental question to you, Margie. I'll restate it again because you seem to avoid it at all costs.
Where is sola scriptura in the Bible ?
I'll add a bonus question. If the Church was hopelessly corrupt from your dogmatic standpoint shortly after the Apostles died, why would you accept any part of the Canon when it wasn't finalized until sometime late in the fourth century ?
I expect no answers to these questions from you or any of your sources.
The historical references to Waldnenses and Catharists / Albigensians as " Bible - believing " Christians is a frequent one used by professional antiCatholics who apparently expect nobody to investigate these claims. The leader of the Waldneses followed an " inner voice ". Where was his Bible ? As far as the Catharists / Albigensians, they were a serious threat to Christianity. They opposed marriage and procreation because they regarded matter as intrinsicially evil. They practiced abortion and euthanisia ( the consolomentum ) and probably would have fit in quite well with some of today's secular humanists. Catharism / Albigensianism has been considered a revival of the ancient, dualist Manichean heresy. But I do think that the embrace of these old hereisies by modern " Bible " Christians shows the true nature of fundamentalism.
Papist Dan| 12.15.11 @ 11:16PM
Tony,
You are trying to be reasonable with a stupid bigot. You have good intentions but you are wasting your time. You are the latest reasonable person trying to talk to her. She is just a plain stupid bigot.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 11:38PM
Do you have any other words in your sickening vocabulary besides stupid, bigot and idiot?
No, you do not, for you have no argument of defense of your accusations nor do you have any defense in favor of the false teachings of your cult of which you belong.
It is you that is utterly unreasonable and indeed prove it clearly with each additional post.
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 8:22AM
Idiot Margie
I have lots of words in my vocabulary but these two fit you best because they accurately describe you. There is no point in stating facts to you, as others have done, because you just ignore facts, and stick to your bigoted opinions based on lies and distortions. That is the definition of a stupid intolerant bigot which I will say in response to every stupid bigoted comment you make.
Now go read your kenny emails and stew.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 4:54PM
"I have lots of words in my vocabulary but these two fit you best because they accurately describe you."
No, they do not as your words are lies and I stand on Scripture in all that I put forth here.
You are liar and have nothing but insults but I am satisfied as I know that you will receive your reward and that by the God of the Bible who throws liars into Hell for all of eternity.
It is sad and sickening that you seem to have no conscience nor stand on nothing but your sickening and deplorable insults but it is not really ME you are insulting but the LORD of GLORY as it is HIS WORDS that I post here.
markenoff| 12.17.11 @ 12:49PM
I've always wondered this:
If "sola scriptura" is the bedrock of Protestantism why are their bookstores filled with so many other books? Shouldn't they just stock Bibles?
W| 12.17.11 @ 1:02PM
Excellent insight, markenoff.
There is "sola scriptura" and then there are the ten thousand books written, for profit, lecturing us to trust only sola scriptura.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 5:00PM
That is not "excellent" insight at all, lying Papist!
For your cult of false teachings has created hundreds if not THOUSANDS of false teachings that are not in the Bible and presents them as God's Word!
You are so blinded by your ignorance and your utter hypocrisy that you cannot even see that.
Not surprising for a lying Idolator who chooses to believe untruths and unbiblical teachings and has rejected Holy Scripture and instead replaces the Words of God with the words of men, now is it?
For you have not the love of Christ in you but the love and worship of false teachers who are themselves in bondage to this cult and will be judged as well for rejecting the Word of God.
"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.
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 12:58AM
Margie,
"Your Religion also teaches that Mary was SINLESS, placing her, once again above not only Jesus, but God."
Whaaat?
You are implying that Christ and God (One, and the same) have committed sins.
Our Lady was conceived without sin. Saint Luke tells us so, when he wrote that the Archangel Gabriel greeted the Virgin Mary with, "Hail Mary, full of Grace."
If someone is full of God's Grace, they can't be a sinner. Or, else, they would have room for more Grace, wouldn't they? Why don't you want to honor the mother of Christ?
The Bible says that Jesus IS God: "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am! They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." John 8:58-59
This is the Gospel of Christ. Praise God!
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 1:25AM
Nick,
Once again, you are wrong, and twisting the Words of God to suit your own personal Religious Idolatry.
Nowhere in the Bible does God tell us that Mary was born sinless.
That verse you quoted means doesn't say it, either. Being full of Grace is something God gives to Christians who are born of His Spirit. As in Jn. 3:3.
You are reading something in because that is what you have been taught, but it is flat out WRONG.
The Bible says that ALL have sinned, and that includes Mary. Romans 3:23.
Unless you repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, HE says you cannot enter into His Kingdom.
Also~ yes, Jesus is the Image of God, and He is the Beginning of the Creation of God, and the Omega, the End, as it is written.
And yet, as it is written never counted equality with God something to be grasped, as it is written,
You take one verse and try to use it to justify the false teaching that Mary, who the liars in your cult say is the Mother of God.
Completely unscriptural, an utter lie and doctrine of Satan himself.
But you aren't interested in the Truth because you are a Religious Idolator, and choose to believe a lie instead of Christ.
I hope you repent of your Idolatry.
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 1:50AM
Margie,
"Nowhere in the Bible does God tell us that Mary was born sinless."
Yes, He does. I just showed you where. I choose to believe Saint Luke words, inspired by God the Holy Spirit. Not your incorrect interpretation.
"The Bible says that ALL have sinned, and that includes Mary."
Saint Paul was making a generalization. He did not mean to include Our Lady in that statement. Again, your interpretation is flawed.
"And yet, as it is written never counted equality [sic] with God something to be grasped, as it is written,"
Not really sure what you are trying to say, here.
"You take one verse and try to use it to justify the false teaching that Mary, who the liars in your cult say is the Mother of God."
It is not "one verse." There are several, many in fact,verses in the Scriptures where Christ and the Apostles equate Jesus with God.
The true doctrine of Satan is believing that you can understand the Word of God without the help of Christ's Church. It's called pride.
Merry Christ's Mass and God Bless!
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 2:05AM
p.s. Why did you imply that God has sinned?
And, why where you promoting the Presbyterian church, yesterday?
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 8:23AM
Because she is a stupid intolerant bigot, Nick.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 5:09PM
I did no such thing you sick liar.
Mary is not God, therefore I implied no such thing.
Repent, hypocrite!
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 1:40AM
Margie,
Again, you wrote, "Your Religion also teaches that Mary was SINLESS, placing her, once again above not only Jesus, but God."
Now, I know that you understand English very well. You are saying that because the Catholic Church teaches that Our Lady was conceived without sin, and never sinned during her life, that her SINLESSNESS means that she is "above" God.
This implies that God somehow sinned, does it not? How else am I supposed to understand that statement of your's?
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 5:08PM
No, you did no such thing as you took the verse as I explained above but you refuse to read, you took the one verse saying that Mary was full of Grace and try and use it to claim as your sick cult teaches you that that means she was sinless.
This is a perversion of the Word of God as it places Mary above and on par with God and indeed as your perverted cult teaches, that she is "the Mother of God."
Christians are saved by Grace ALL and this does not mean that we were born sinless, does it?
Have you not read the gospels at all?
You proved NOTHING but that you are standing on quicksand and not the gospel of the Grace of God, and you need to repent of your complicit twisting of the Bible, for you and your cult are calling God a liar by telling Him that He has a Mother.
"Before Me no God was formed, nor shall there be any after Me." Is. 43:10.
Repent before you die. Do you want to end up like Christopher Hitchens? It is NOT OK to believe a different gospel:
"But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8.
God takes the twisting of His Words very seriously, and He commands us to "REPENT and BELIEVE HIS GOSPEL!"
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 1:58AM
Margie,
"No, you did no such thing as you took the verse as I explained above but you refuse to read [...]."
"So now s is YOU who is are doing interpretation for God?"
You wrote both of those quotations. One might call them hypocritical. Why is it okay for you to explain the Scriptures, and not me?
Your explanation was wrong, by the way.
"This is a perversion of the Word of God as it places Mary above and on par with God [...]."
It does no such thing. Saying that she was created without sin does not put her "on par with God." Adam and Eve were created without sin. With God, all things are possible.
How could God touch a sinner, as He did in Mary's womb? Wouldn't God make a sinless vessel to carry the Incarnation? It makes perfect sense to me. Also, Our Lady is the Theotokis, i.e., God-Bearer. This is all the title Mother of God means.
This has been explained to you many times, by many commentators, here, at AmSpec. Is your memory this bad, or, do you willfully remain ignorant?
"Do you want to end up like Christopher Hitchens?"
How did he end up? I thought you claimed you didn't know how Mr. Hitchens ended up? Which is true, none of us know how he was judged.
God Bless!
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 6:05PM
"Saint Paul was making a generalization. He did not mean to include Our Lady in that statement. Again, your interpretation is flawed."
So now s is YOU who is are doing interpretation for God?
You dare to say against the Spirit of God that when He says "ALL" He means "ALL!"
Then you are actually blaspheming the Holy Spirit and are in danger of your Salvation.
You place yourself above the Spirit of God?
How sickening!
May God grant you repentance.
The Spirit of God though the Apostle Paul, who was appointed by GOD says this and you dare try and rebel against Him?
"..since all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." Rom. 3:23.
So Nick, do you also take it upon yourself lying Papist to rebel against the Spirit of God when the Spirit of God also speaks here again? How will you try and justify your apostacy again?
"Therefore as Sin came into the world through one man and death through Sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--
Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Rom. 5:12-14.
Will you try and pervert the Words of the Spirit again yet again?
Yes indeed the Papists reject Sola Scriptura and it is for this very reason~ so that they do not have to OBEY the Word of God!
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 2:15AM
Margie,
You dare to say against the Spirit of God that when He says "ALL" He means "ALL!"
Why do you refuse to obey the Word of God, spoken by Christ Himself, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, when Jesus said, "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you"?
"Then you are actually blaspheming the Holy Spirit and are in danger of your Salvation."
I am doing no such thing.
"You place yourself above the Spirit of God?"
Don't you do the same, when you try to "explain" the Scriptures to me? Are you not being hypocritical by condemning me for the same thing?
Since you don't obey Christ's command to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, it is you who is rejecting the Word of God.
And, since the Christians, to whom Saint Paul was writing, all knew that Our Lady was sinless, he did not need to keep repeating it, in his letters, when he wrote all are sinners. They knew what he meant.
God Bless!
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:37PM
Don't dare to bless me by the Name of God that you blaspheme you blatant liar.
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 12:56AM
Margie,
Really? This is all you've got?
This is because the Truth is impossible to refute.
Merry Christ's Mass and God Bless!
Tony in Central PA| 12.16.11 @ 9:13PM
Find sola scriptura in the Bible for me, Margie.
W| 12.17.11 @ 1:03PM
Tony,
You answer is the sound of silence.
Where in central Pa?
Tony in Central PA| 12.17.11 @ 4:47PM
Altoona, but grew up in Boalsburg.
PSU B.S. MCB 1983
W| 12.17.11 @ 7:44PM
Tony,
I have been in Altoona and Hollidaysburg for work, but haven't been there for about ten years. Always like that view of the valley between the mountains on Route 220/99. Is DelGrosso restaurant still there, near Tyrone? Had good meals there.
My wife is PSU, but I am Pitt.(horror)
Tony in Central PA| 12.18.11 @ 8:58PM
Its OK, I went to Pitt after PSU.
DelGrosso's restaurant is gone. The main revenue source for the DelGrosso enterprises these days is now the amusement park. The DelGrosso's also make various Italian food products like spaghetti sauce. I heard the restaurant was a Mafiosi rendezvous place back in the day.
Best Italian place around now is Finelli's in Altoona. The owner, Frank, is a dead ringer for James Gandolfini.
W| 12.18.11 @ 11:16PM
Thanks, Tony. Merry Christmas.
RCV| 12.17.11 @ 4:17PM
This is the closest Margie has come to admitting the reality of her non-Christian theology. She does not believe that Jesus is God, of one being with the Father. Rather than think about the implications of the Gospel verses she quotes, she blindly denies the inescapable truth of the Trinity because the Catholic Church also believes it. But virtually all Christians in history have accepted the Trinity, because the alternatives are polytheism, or a denial of Christ's divinity. Neither of those two alternatives is compatable with Christianity.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 5:11PM
You are getting really sickening you filthy lying hypocrite.
Unless you repent of your blatant lying you will be thrown into Hell with the rest of them.
This does not phase you though, not at all!
RCV| 12.17.11 @ 5:46PM
Margie, you just repeated what I said above - you do not believe Jesus is God. You believe that only the Father is God. Isn't that what you JUST said above?
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 8:59PM
Is 14:14.. there is only one who tried to make himself equal to God. The Devil.
And the Popes.
Papist Dan| 12.15.11 @ 11:18PM
Idiot Margie,
You have made yourself equal to God since you presume to speak for God and consign people to hell for disagreeing with you, and your interpretation of the Bible is the same as God's.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 11:44PM
Religious Idolator you once again lie as I do no such thing but as a Christian I post the very Words of God just as all Bible believing Christians do in the face of false teachings in order to PROVE them wrong.
And I consign no one to Hell but the very Scripture does so, and God says He will throw you~ a liar into Hell unless you repent, which you show absolutely no sign of.
Rev. 21:8.
RCV| 12.17.11 @ 5:47PM
Jesus is not EQUAL TO God, He IS God, of one with the Father.
W| 12.17.11 @ 7:48PM
RCV
You have one slippery witness who will not admit what she has said even when confronted with it. A normal rational person would answer by saying Yes, that is what I believe, and be done.
Satan| 12.17.11 @ 11:42PM
Ha ha, I have taught her well. You think she will admit anything. I am so proud of you Marg babe.
You done good today. Keep it up, together we will drive everybody to atheism.
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 12:31AM
Margie,
"[...] then YES, that is worshipping her."
No it does not.
And continuing to repeat it does not make it magically come true.
Remember what Victor said about Goebbels and the big lie?
Merry Christ's Mass and God Bless!
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 1:30AM
And no matter how many times you lie and say that claiming Mary was sinless, and that she is therefore equal to God, and indeed His Mother is true, does not make it so.
If you pray to her, think she is God, and can be prayed to, you are worshipping her.
I hope you repent of your Idolatry~ it is SIN.
" For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.." 1 Tim. 2:5.
"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.
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 1:58AM
Margie,
"If you pray to her, think she is God, and can be prayed to, you are worshipping her."
I pray to Our Lady, to ask her to ask her Son, to grant my intentions. That's it.
I do not think that she is God. I do not think she is greater than God. The Catholic Church does not teach these errors, either.
For you to keep repeating these falsehoods, after I have repeatedly denied them, is putting you dangerously close to bearing false witness against your neighbor. Please, do not put your immortal soul in such danger.
God Bless!
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 5:12PM
So you pray to a dead woman whom your cult teaches is the Mother of God, but you do not worship her?
My oh my you are so blind!
Satan| 12.17.11 @ 11:43PM
Great Margie, keep it up.
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 2:24AM
Margie,
No Christian is dead. Christ conquered death, on the Cross.
Worship is reserved for God alone. How much clearer can I be? Reverence and worship are not the same thing. At least, not in the way Christians use these words.
No matter how many times I, and many others, demonstrate to you that we don't believe that Our Lady is God, or "greater than God," or "worship" her as God, you keep repeating this falsehood.
It would seem that it is you who are the one that is blind.
God Bless!
sparch| 12.15.11 @ 2:24PM
I think the discussion between worship and venerate is misguided. The use of venerate is nothing more than an attempt at "creative writing" with the alliteration that is produced with the word virginity. Venerate virginity. How long did they have to puruse the thesaurus before 'venerate' was discovered and inserted. I hate to think of the time wasted in research and self congratulation.
Kathleen McCrea| 12.15.11 @ 4:49PM
Credentials: Novus Ordo Sect RC and now a Fully Traditional Roman Rite (1950) Catholic. I appreciate the points made in this essay. The secular humanists seem to think human nature changes (or should!) with each generation-and don't understand the timeless wisdom and differences among celibacy, chastity and virginity. Sigh. It's fun to try and explain it to my gob-smacked colleagues.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 5:20PM
"God-smacked"~ again another condescending insult from a Papist Idolator who rejects the Word of God that says that the teaching of the forbidding of Marriage is a doctrine of the demons!
The hypocrisy of Religious Idolators is sad but needs to be pointed out for the sake of the true GOSPEL of Jesus Christ and for the sake of them who are to believe in Him that they be not led astray in the same way:
"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." 1 Tim. 4:1-5.
How do you feel now that you know that what your cult teaches is actually of the Devil? Will you repent (change you mind), or continue to believe a lie and perish along with the rest that refuse to do so?
Papist Dan| 12.15.11 @ 11:19PM
How do you feel knowing you are a stupid bigot? Go back under your rock. Stick to your Ken emails.
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 9:18AM
"Gob," not "God." Please try to learn to read more carefully.
markenoff| 12.17.11 @ 12:55PM
"gob-smacked" - World English Dictionary
gobsmacked (ˈɡɒbˌsmækt) — adj
slang ( Brit ) astounded; astonished
Definition: flabbergasted, astounded, shocked; also written gob-smacked
Etymology: from gob 'mouth' + smacked 'clapping hand over in surprise'
Not "God-smacked". If you couldn't read that short post properly I understand why you have so much trouble with scripture. New glasses maybe?
Richard Baker| 12.15.11 @ 5:42PM
Ah yes, it's Margie again. Her Sharia Law is that we Catholics are damned to Hell and only Margie can lead us to the correct path. By the way, Torquemada and the Inquisition are ancient history. I'm surprised she doesn't condemn the Jews for "killing Jesus." Yes, the Church held that view for a long time but that was sometime ago. Religious bigots like her do a great disservice to the spread of Christianity all the while in their smugness. Sad.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 8:33PM
"Ah yes, it's Margie again. Her Sharia Law is that we Catholics are damned to Hell and only Margie can lead us to the correct path."
No, it is not MY Law, it is the Scriptures and the very Words of God that I post here for all to see and to choose whether to believe in in the face of Catholic false teachings.
It is YOU who call the Scriptures Sharia Law and that is sad and not only sad but utterly disgusting but then that is what you were destined to do I suppose for there is no truth in you.
You must consider Jesus a liar then as it is He Who proclaimed that His Way id the only Way, that He is the Way the Truth and the Life, and that NO ONE comes to the Father but by Him. Jn. 14:6.
What is truly sad is that you reject the Lord of Glory because it is more comfortable for you to hate His Words and a comfortable place to do so is in the cult of Catholicism.
The Torquemada happened in the 16th century and that is not exactly ancient times. And not only that but the Jews handed Jesus over to be the secular authorities, which were the Romans~ so that the cowards hands would be clean.
Just as the Catholic church does in its trying to claim that IT didn't kill Christians or anyone because the secular authorities did it.
The guilt of the Christian Martyrs is on the hands of your cult, Baker. The cult you join yourself to~ the one which preaches a different gospel~ the one which teaches the teaching from Satan himself that Mary was the "Mother of God" and that she was born without sin.
You are exactly like the Religious hypocrites of old~ for you sentence to death Bible believing Christians just as they did.
And yet it is YOU who believe a false Gospel.
Smug you say? You are disgusting, and the epitome of smugness.
Repent, you lying fool.
Papist Dan| 12.15.11 @ 11:20PM
Idiot Margie,
I see you are making new friends again with your Christian message of love.
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 9:20AM
"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to love God, and do mercy, and walk humbly with thy God?"
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 9:22AM
Correction: "do justice, and love mercy," not what I said.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 5:15PM
Cute, papist liar, but Jesus says you MUST repent and believe the Gospel of God~ which you reject.
He also says if you love Him you obey HIS Words, not the Words of lying Popes and cults.
"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.
W| 12.17.11 @ 1:07PM
Richard,
Not just Catholics, but all others, such as Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Budhists, and anyone who does not follow the MargieCult.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 5:18PM
Liar. I have no cult, but you are a member of the biggest cult on earth~ the Catholic Religion, whose false teachings liars such as yourself take much comfort in.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God.
And this is the Judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Jn. 3:18 & 19.
Let's see you explain yourself out of your little corner, liar.
W| 12.17.11 @ 7:53PM
MullahMargie
The corner exists only in your delusional world.
Why don't you just admit that you do not believe that Jesus is God, and therefore you are not a Christian, and stop lecturing everybody on what you believe is Christianity.
Nobody will care about your religious views. You attract such attention only because of your self righteous intolerance to others' religious views.
But you enjoy the attention right? Otherwise you would not pick fights daily with everyone here.
Kathleen| 12.15.11 @ 7:31PM
Not sure what to make of "Margie's" screed, but I would observe she's getting plenty of exercise jumping to conclusions. Ad hominem attacks are a waste of time. First of all faithful RCs should not idolize the Pope. That is against teaching. Repentance, Margie, is not just changing your mind, it's changing your actions. Finally, there is so much misinformation and ignorance regarding all the "hot button issues" pertinent to Catholicism. (e.g. the "Inquisition"). Uh, sorry, but the Jews-the Sanhedrin- executed (via the Romans) Jesus. It's just historical fact. And, as John Adams once said, Facts are Stubborn Things.
Papist Dan| 12.15.11 @ 11:21PM
Kathleeen,
Easy answer. Read Margie's comments and you will conclude she is an stupid bigot. Don't waste your time trying to reason with her.
Margie| 12.15.11 @ 8:41PM
What a convoluted and disingenuous post.
First of all repent means a change of mind, and yes when one has a change of mind, their actions follow~ so what is your excuse for you believe a cult of lies and of liars, called the Popery.
And~ I said nothing about the Jews killing Jesus anywhere but in my response to the hypocrite Baker's post, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Also~ yes indeed Catholics worship the Pope if they are part of this false Religion for you cannot belong to a Religion unless you believe in what it preaches.
Consider Obama and the "Rev. Wright." Hypocrite!
If one rejects the Scriptures and enjoins themselves to the teaches of the Popery instead they are not repentant sinners but enslaved Religious Idolators.
And exactly what have I gotten wrong about the Inquisition? Did I even mention it?
Yeah, facts ARE stubborn things, I suggest you consider them.
Papist Dan| 12.15.11 @ 11:22PM
Idiot Margie,
Maybe your worshipped the Pope when you were a Catholic, but nobody else did and does. Figures, you are stupid enough to do that.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 12:16AM
I have come to the conclusion that you are about five years of age or perhaps a silly teenager as you have nothing at all of substance to say but name calling and repeated lies, and I will ignore ALL of your future posts as you are an utter and complete fool.
Papist Dan| 12.16.11 @ 8:24AM
Can't take the heat, Bigot Margie? Go back under your rock.
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 1:01AM
Excellent essay, Mr. Lott.
Just another example proving that the only acceptable prejudice left in the world is against Catholics.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 1:34AM
It is not "prejudice" to be revolted at the false and unbiblical teachings of a cult nor is it hate nor bigotry to speak out against it.
And in FACT it is your cult that teaches you to hate as you do Bible believing Christians, as it has always taught, from the very beginning of its existence.
You have been had so utterly. I pray God opens your eyes to His Truth, lest you perish in your unbelief and Idolatry of Man and not Christ.
Nick| 12.16.11 @ 2:03AM
Margie,
So, you agree with the two liberals from Politico, Mike Allen and Evan Thomas?
Also, I do not hate anyone, not even you. Another calumny.
Merry Christ's Mass and God Bless!
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 5:31PM
I agree with no one but the Word of God.
Repent and believe the Gospel of the Grace of God, lest you perish along with the rest of the liars.
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 2:42AM
Margie,
You don't agree with the Word of God. You openly reject Christ's command to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.
If you had read Mr. Lott's article, you would have seen that Allen and Thomas were making a derogatory comment about Catholic nuns. A comment that the mere rules of grammar would not keep them from making. It was just too good to pass up.
If they, or you, for that matter, knew the Scriptures, they would know that Saint Paul recommended virginity and celibacy for Christians:
"25 Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
26 I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
29 I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,
30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods,
31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away.
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
34 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.
35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry -- it is no sin.
37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
40 But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God."
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 2:43AM
Oops! That is from 1 Cor. 7:25-40. Sorry!
God Bless!
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:40PM
"You don't agree with the Word of God. You openly reject Christ's command to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood."
Liar!
You are going to Hell unless you repent off your lying, you filthy degenerate!
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 12:54AM
Margie,
You have admitted that you do not eat His Flesh or drink His Blood. So, I'm not the one who is lying.
Besides, you don't even know what the second death is, in that verse from John's Divine Revelation, do you?
Dimitry Aleksandrovich| 12.16.11 @ 3:31AM
There's nothing revolting about venerating the Virgin Mary. Was Jesus Christ not God when he was in Mary's womb? So in effect the Virgin Mary's body was REALLY the Temple of God. Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians such as myself and traditional High Church Anglicans have many disagreements but veneration of the Virgin Mother of God (Holy Theotokos to the Orthodox) is not one of them. As in the icons she is always pointing us to her Son Jesus Christ. In the Orthodox view the Virgin Mary was a sinner like the rest of us made perfect by the grace of God and sanctified by the seed of God that grew in her womb. Of all human beings who have ever walked the earth none have been so close to God as the Virgin Mary for she had the Christ child in her womb and gave birth to him. The intercessions of the Virgin Mary are indeed very powerful.
Bill| 12.16.11 @ 9:21AM
Thank you. Well said.
W| 12.16.11 @ 5:31PM
Excellent, Dimitry.
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 5:29PM
"The intercessions of the Virgin Mary are indeed very powerful."
FALSE AND UNBIBLICAL TEACHING.
"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.
You have sold out your very soul to the Devil who has taught you this phony "veneration" of Mary and prayer to the dead which God hates.
Indeed your Religion is a very comfortable one to your flesh but it is a lie from Satan himself and you have seen how the Father of lies himself has taught this lie through men whose consciences are seared themselves and you see how it has been used to turn with mighty hatred the Religious Idolators against Bible believing Christians, and indeed they were tortured and put to death for six centuries by your cult of Catholicism which you agree with in this matter sadly, for this very reason, for standing on the Truth of God's Scripture and refusing to bow the knee of the lying Papists.
Satan| 12.17.11 @ 11:44PM
Great work Marge.
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 2:58AM
Margie,
"The intercessions of the Virgin Mary are indeed very powerful." - Dimitry Aleksandrovich
"FALSE AND UNBIBLICAL TEACHING." - Margie
Did you miss the first verse of chapter two of 1st Timothy, Margie?
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men [...]."
For Saint Paul, having intercessors did not take away from Christ's role as Sole Mediator. Catholics believe that there is only "one Mediator between God and men." So, you are making a straw man argument.
Why do you speak against the Spirit of God, when He says that intercessions are "good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior"?
(This is one of the many examples of the Apostles saying that Jesus is God, by the way.)
God Bless!
W| 12.18.11 @ 9:55PM
Nick,
There is one positive effect to Margie's comments. We get to read your discussions of the Bible to correct her. You know your stuff. Excellent writing.
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 12:32AM
W,
Thank you, very much!
Actually, I know a lot of great resources, that's all. And, I have learned much, which I did not previously know, by defending the Faith against the non-Catholics, here, at AmSpec. It's been like my own little Bible study, looking up all of these facts. I've even learned a little Hebrew and Greek.
I'm glad that you are enjoying my responses. I hope that they continue to merit such nice compliments. With the help of the Holy Spirit, of course.
Merry Christmas and May God Bless you and your family, during this Holy Season!
W| 12.19.11 @ 7:25AM
Nick,
Merry Christmas to you and your family, and a happy, prosperous, peaceful new year.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:42PM
Mary is DEAD, fool.
Therefore there can be no such thing.
Reprobate.
W| 12.18.11 @ 11:19PM
MullahMargie,
Go play with your snakes and conspiracy theories.
Get lost, Dope. Did others also call you a dope, or was it stupid, or moron?
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 12:52AM
Margie,
No Christian is "DEAD". Christ conquered death on the Cross. Saint Paul said that those in Christ were merely asleep in the LORD, not dead.
And, the saints are continuously offering prayers, as incense, in the Liturgy of the Heavenly Jerusalem:
"And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel." - Rev. 8:3-4
PapistDan| 12.18.11 @ 2:13PM
BigotMargie
Is it correct that you are pro-choice? Are you anti abortion?
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 10:43PM
Is it correct that you are a filthy disgusting lying son of your Father, the Devil?
Yes, I think so!