Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post

Ghosts · Bible and Fantasy (quora) · CMI is Bad on Church History · Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half with Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post

Continuing the debate from Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half under point VIII.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** No, I didn't. Puritans started out as a more Edwardian than Jacobean branch of Anglicans, so, they too had it from the Catholic Church.

They start in Netherlandish towns with many denominations, i e Catholics and several Protestant ones. At 1600 at the earliest.

This means they too had it from the Catholic Church. **

Always taking undeserved credit. Catholicism wasn't around until the 4th century, and they weren't a bunch of Catholics regardless of what you try to claim. I guess we'll just forget all about the Waldensian's, and Albigenses around the 1100's.. Since the Catholics had pretty much wiped them out because they were "Heretics".. Because that's how you love your enemies, by slaughtering millions and torturing them in the most horrible ways with those who don't conform under your self proclaimed authority such as the Inquisitions.. Love they neighbor right?

** He could have chosen another means, possibly, but didn't. And my point is, the means He chose was up to Anglicans and Puritans the Catholic Church.**

God can use the wicked for his purpose. He used Pharaoh in such a way.. God's running the show. Not us.

(Rom 9:17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
(Rom 9:18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
(Rom 9:19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
(Rom 9:20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(Rom 9:21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(Rom 9:22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(Rom 9:23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

** When it comes to initial justification, I am saved without works done, but when it comes to my final salvation at death (if at all salvation) according to works done by grace from justification on. **

So in other words.. It's YOU who control your salvation. Not Jesus. There's only one salvation, you are either saved or not, or are there more?

** Except it doesn't. **

I know it doesn't for you, because you don't believe the Bible. You believe your church.

** I agree a newly baptised child who dies within a year is not obliged to works in the usual sense.

Apart from that, you do not have the phrase from the Bible, you have it from men who had the Bible from the Catholic Church. **

You keeps saying no works. I just quoted Romans 4:5, but then you contradict yourself saying it requires works? That's because your church is works based.

** The passive voice is used to avoid speaking of who actually did it. Who debunked them and how?

Criterium not bad if proven, but some have also "debunked" the historic accuracy of the the Gospels. So, not everyone "debunking" is worth listening to.**

Search for the truth. You'll find it, if you are indeed searching for it. Seek and ye shall find.

** Meaning He, God in the flesh, actually was in a temple.

St. Stephen is speaking of the Old Temple, which had fulfilled its role as a symbol.

St. Paul is speaking of pagan imaginations of statues working as sth like a portal. **

In the Old Testament yes to fulfill the Law. Last one was destroyed. How else would you be able to know who the Messiah was? No more temples made with hands (Apparently that's not clear enough for you). Man made temples, are not sufficient to the Lord. Only our faith is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S I'll be brief this time and bring things to my essential point.

"Catholicism wasn't around until the 4th century, and they weren't a bunch of Catholics regardless of what you try to claim."

That's still quite earlier than 15th 16th C.

"I guess we'll just forget all about the Waldensian's, and Albigenses around the 1100's"

They didn't do much Bible transmitting. Especially not Albigenses who denied the OT (except psalms) and added a Book of Two Principles.

They were not around for Luther, not around for Calvin, not around for Cranmer (and it is doubtful he was very fond of Lollards).

Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, all of them had Bibles from the Catholic Church (those handwritten in the 4th C were not available to them) and knew it to be the word of God through the Catholic Church.

Credit or not, if you scrap Catholicism, you don't give them a credible line over which to know this of the Bible. That's not undeserved, that's the fact.

And justification by "faith alone" was probably a very welcome distraction from this, to you.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** That's still quite earlier than 15th 16th C **

Still not earlier than the earlier church... Where do you think the Catholics got the original text from? Not to mention I'm sure early Catholics weren't the only ones making copies.

** They didn't do much Bible transmitting. Especially not Albigenses who denied the OT (except psalms) and added a Book of Two Principles.

They were not around for Luther, not around for Calvin, not around for Cranmer (and it is doubtful he was very fond of Lollards).

Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, all of them had Bibles from the Catholic Church (those handwritten in the 4th C were not available to them) and knew it to be the word of God through the Catholic Church. **

What does that have to do with murdering and torturing millions? Don't your popes claim infallibility on all things spiritual?

From your church: Catechism

To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

Just a couple of many examples of the arrogance of these proclamations.

So let me ask you... Was it Biblical to murder the other groups who believed different than the Catholic Church? Was it moral according to the NT? If not, then I guess the Papacy is fallible, and these decree's are just another lie you've been taught.

** Credit or not, if you scrap Catholicism, you don't give them a credible line over which to know this of the Bible. That's not undeserved, that's the fact. **

That's not a fact, as it wasn't just early Catholics making copies of the NT...

** And justification by "faith alone" was probably a very welcome distraction from this, to you.**

That's in the Bible.. It's just hard for you to accept. You've been taught something for so long, it HAS to be true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "Still not earlier than the earlier church..."

Admitted as factual, but irrelevant.

Luther did not pick up a papyrus Gospel from Egypt or Holy Land. If he had, how would he have known that he should not also take Gospel of Thomas from Nag Hammadi, or where it was?

He had the Bible from the Catholic Church exactly as you have it from America.

"Where do you think the Catholics got the original text from? Not to mention I'm sure early Catholics weren't the only ones making copies."

How many Bible manuscripts do you find attributed to Albigensians or Waldensians? Oh, btw, one NT with a very bad extra book (perhaps psalms too, but also Book of Two Principles) is attributed to Albigensians. But that is not what you meant.

"What does that have to do with murdering and torturing millions? Don't your popes claim infallibility on all things spiritual?"

• 1) Murdering millions you get from where? Nag Hammadi scrolls?
• 2) On all definite judgements, not on all personal actions.
• 3) Even so, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer had the Bible from the Church of these Popes. If they could not trust these Popes, why should they trust the Bible?

"To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals."

You could have stated which Catechism, but it is correct. This means I can trust 73 books as not just historically accurate, but inerrant word of God, as stated by Trent.

Now, where did LUTHER hear the Bible was inerrant? Not from Hussites. Not from Waldensians. Not from Lollards. From Catholics. If he trusted them on that, why not on the rest? If he made reservations on the rest, why not on that too?

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421"

Even if it is from a wrong Catechism by the Vatican II sect, it is not divergent from previous to 1950 verifiable Catholic doctrine. Now, your turn :

• 1) show that any Pope ever said "it is right for the Church to kill millions"
• 2) if so, ask how Luther, Calvin and Cranmer could ever know from such Popes that the Bible is inerrant.

"Just a couple of many examples of the arrogance of these proclamations."

An "arrogance" which exactly matches Christ's promises to His Church.

"So let me ask you... Was it Biblical to murder the other groups who believed different than the Catholic Church?"

• 1) What group was killed as in "murdered"?
• 2) Show where Christ tells men, judges, to not oppose heresy by punishments?
• 3) If you can show this immoral (like "millions claim" from your historic novel Trail of Blood or theological claim heretics cannot Biblically be punished), how could Luther, Calvin, Cranmer have been right to trust the Church that told them the Bible was the word of God? Because that is exacly what they trusted, like you trust the Bible lore floating around in "America".

"Was it moral according to the NT?"

• 1) As we limit ourselves to executing heretics, St. Thomas argues it was moral and foreseen : "who falls on the stone shall be crushed, whom the stone falls on, he shall be shattered" meaning Christ foresees two way persecution, and Church / Himself being victorious on both games.
• 2) Supposing you take the opposite view, that it was not moral, how could Luther have been right in trusting the Church that made such a blunder, when he trusted it on Bible being word of God?

"If not, then I guess the Papacy is fallible, and these decree's are just another lie you've been taught."

At least, I have not been taught any decree to murder millions. But with a fallible papacy, and getting the Bible from it, what was infallible about Luther's rationale to believe the Bible infallible?

"That's not a fact, as it wasn't just early Catholics making copies of the NT..."

Making precisely Catholics THE line by which Reformers got the Bible.

"That's in the Bible.. It's just hard for you to accept. You've been taught something for so long, it HAS to be true."

Justification by grace, not from works, but unto works is in your own quote from Ephesians 2, and final salvation at hour of death from fidelity to the works we were given grace for is in Matthew 25, since the judgement of the soul at death and the judgement of soul and body at Resurrection do not differ.

And no, you do not know my biography like I historically know those of Luther and Calvin. You are guessing about me, I don't have to guess about them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[added]

@Charles S One more:

"In the Old Testament yes to fulfill the Law. Last one was destroyed. How else would you be able to know who the Messiah was? No more temples made with hands (Apparently that's not clear enough for you). Man made temples, are not sufficient to the Lord. Only our faith is."

In fact, the last temple was destroyed and built up agains on the third day. It's still around in the Eucharist.

That is in our Faith.

And yet one more:

"God can use the wicked for his purpose. He used Pharaoh in such a way.. God's running the show. Not us."

It was NOT Pharao who spoke to Moses i[n] the burning bush!

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** Luther did not pick up a papyrus Gospel from Egypt or Holy Land. If he had, how would he have known that he should not also take Gospel of Thomas from Nag Hammadi, or where it was? **

Because if you know Gods Word, you'll know if it's from God. Is one of the Books of Enoch from God? Of course not. They aren't hard to spot.

** He had the Bible from the Catholic Church exactly as you have it from America. **

Not quite, the KJV uses the Majority Text. You use the Latin Vulgate. There are some differences in the text. Some minor, some not so minor.

** How many Bible manuscripts do you find attributed to Albigensians or Waldensians? Oh, btw, one NT with a very bad extra book (perhaps psalms too, but also Book of Two Principles) is attributed to Albigensians. But that is not what you meant. **

I didn't say anything about their teachings. Apostate or not. My point was they weren't on board with the Catholic Church, so they "Had to pay" for it.

** 1) Murdering millions you get from where? Nag Hammadi scrolls?
2) On all definite judgments, not on all personal actions.
3) Even so, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer had the Bible from the Church of these Popes. If they could not trust these Popes, why should they trust the Bible? **

No.. That's from History including the Inquisitions, etc..

** 1) What group was killed as in "murdered"?
2) Show where Christ tells men, judges, to not oppose heresy by punishments?
3) If you can show this immoral (like "millions claim" from your historic novel Trail of Blood or theological claim heretics cannot Biblically be punished), how could Luther, Calvin, Cranmer have been right to trust the Church that told them the Bible was the word of God? Because that is exacly what they trusted, like you trust the Bible lore floating around in "America". **

If I didn't know better. I would say you are trying to justify murder? I hope not...
On question 2.. You CAN'T be serious?

(Luk 6:27) “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
(Luk 6:28) bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
(Luk 6:29) To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.

(Gal 1:8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

(Mat 13:30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

(Mat 5:45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Please tell me WHERE in the NT it says to kill people for unbelief or even bad doctrine?

** Luther, Calvin, Cranmer have been right to trust the Church that told them the Bible was the word of God? Because that is exacly what they trusted, like you trust the Bible lore floating around in "America". **

You guys and Luther. Ha.... My goodness.. That must be your boogeyman.

** 1) As we limit ourselves to executing heretics, St. Thomas argues it was moral and foreseen : "who falls on the stone shall be crushed, whom the stone falls on, he shall be shattered" meaning Christ foresees two way persecution, and Church / Himself being victorious on both games.
2) Supposing you take the opposite view, that it was not moral, how could Luther have been right in trusting the Church that made such a blunder, when he trusted it on Bible being word of God? **

Amazing, you don't even see your own heresy..... That's why this church is still dangerous. What's changed? Why aren't you still murdering people like the old days?

** At least, I have not been taught any decree to murder millions. But with a fallible papacy, and getting the Bible from it, what was infallible about Luther's rationale to believe the Bible infallible? **

Again.. Luther the boogeyman..... It wasn't Luther bro, it was God calling his people out of the Apostate churches. I know you don't believe God can preserve his Word. I can assure you it's not a problem for him.

** At least, I have not been taught any decree to murder millions. But with a fallible papacy, and getting the Bible from it, what was infallible about Luther's rationale to believe the Bible infallible? **

That's called "Double speak".. You just all but justified it in a previous question, then wrote you weren't taught that...

** Making precisely Catholics THE line by which Reformers got the Bible. **

They did make many copies.. But they were making copies 200 years prior to that..

** Justification by grace, not from works, but unto works is in your own quote from Ephesians 2, and final salvation at hour of death from fidelity to the works we were given grace for is in Matthew 25, since the judgement of the soul at death and the judgement of soul and body at Resurrection do not differ. **

Sooooo.. God will save you then un-save you? You are either saved or not... The "Catch" for lack of a better term is, you won't know it till you die...

(2Ti 4:7) I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
(2Ti 4:8) Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

(Mat 22:14) For many are called, but few are chosen.

Jesus isn't interested in your works.. He searches the heart.. Intent if you will... Some, many think they can pull the wool over Gods eyes.. Which is crazy.. If we aren't genuine about our love for Jesus, he WILL know and we're on the road to destruction.

(Jer 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
(Jer 17:10) I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Some will be saved that none would think would be, and some will not be saved because we always thought they were "Super" Christians as it were.

** Justification by grace, not from works, but unto works is in your own quote from Ephesians 2, and final salvation at hour of death from fidelity to the works we were given grace for is in Matthew 25, since the judgement of the soul at death and the judgement of soul and body at Resurrection do not differ. **

Your salvation isn't by works at all.. You're reward in heaven has something to do with your works.. But not your salvation.. Hence Romans 4:5... Again.. Intent bro... I didn't claim to know you. But I know the church you follow is NOT God's church... Doesn't mean there aren't people who won't be saved in your church. I'm sure there are some in your church that love God and will be saved. But it's going down fast. Your current Pope is "OK" with homosexuality, and anyone can get into heaven by "Doing Good".. No man is good. No not one.. Those are lies from the pit of hell.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl We who have faith are ALL temples of the Living God.

(1Co 3:16) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
(1Co 3:17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Because if you know Gods Word, you'll know if it's from God. Is one of the Books of Enoch from God? Of course not. They aren't hard to spot."

I am sorry, but you shilly shally around the fact Luther would NOT have known even ABOUT the word of God, much less known it (while Catholic) in any degree, if he hadn't had it from Catholicism.

"Not quite, the KJV uses the Majority Text. You use the Latin Vulgate. There are some differences in the text. Some minor, some not so minor."

Luther never had _any_ KJV. He had both Vulgate and the texts in Greek for New Testament from Catholics (Erasmus, who _remained_ a Catholic, had made an edition of the Greek NT).

But the point is, Luther believed the words "the Bible is the word of God" or "die Bibel ist das Wort Gottes" before he started out with his own translation (which is not the KJV!). Where did he have this from? Catholics. And before you bring up Pharao, it was not Pharao who told Moses what God to trust!

"I didn't say anything about their teachings. Apostate or not. My point was they weren't on board with the Catholic Church, so they "Had to pay" for it."

You first brought them up as a potential of having transmitted the Bible. My point is, they weren't.

"No.. That's from History including the Inquisitions, etc.."

Murdering millions is not History. It's Fake History.

You didn't answer my point three, here it is again : 3) Even so, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer had the Bible from the Church of these Popes. If they could not trust these Popes, why should they trust the Bible? **

"If I didn't know better. I would say you are trying to justify murder? I hope not..."

I do not consider righteous execution for severe crimes as murder.

"On question 2.. You CAN'T be serious?"

I am.

Luke 6 speaks about the personal behaviour of individual Christians, not about the behaviour of Christian magistrates, see Romans 13.

Your point about Galatians is irrelevant unless you first answer my question.

(Mat 13:30) - is about the behaviour of angels in relation to good and evil men, not about the behaviour of Christian magistrates.

(Mat 5:45) - is about Christians in positions out of power, so, again not about Christian magistrates.

"Please tell me WHERE in the NT it says to kill people for unbelief or even bad doctrine?"

It also doesn't say one should kill people for murder or stealing. Unless you take the admission of the good thief on the cross as an endorsement, but he might instead have meant he and the other thief deserved death and suffering as God's punishment, rather than meaning they deserved death penalty from human justice, if one takes your view.

Romans 13 however says: *For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.* [4] *For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.* [5] *Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.*

This is only perfectly true with Christian magistrates.

"You guys and Luther. Ha.... My goodness.. That must be your boogeyman."

I enumerated a few others as also behind the Reformation. The problem still stands, since Non-Denominational is a byproduct of the Reformation. One group of Denominations is Apostolic (with five subgroups, Catholic to Nestorian with three shades in between), one group of Denominations is Protestant. You don't need to belong to a Denomination like Lutherans in order to belong to this second group. It is sufficient that you do believe as the things Protestant Denominations have in common - and if you are non-Denominational believing that, you are in fact one micro-Denomination of one man, but of _that_ group. NOW, it so happens, you actually mentioned America and its knowledge of the Bible, that is partly from Catholics, but in 13 Colonies even more from Anglicans with Puritans as a subgroup of Anglicans. That is why Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, where they got the Bible from, is where America got the Bible from.

"Amazing, you don't even see your own heresy..... That's why this church is still dangerous. What's changed? Why aren't you still murdering people like the old days?

I don't agree it is a heresy. I don't agree it is about murder. I don't support lynching of criminals the civil law will not punish.

As to your question, I answered part of it in the last sentence. I don't support killing heretics in a country where heresy is legal anymore than I support stoning sodomites in a country where sodomy is legal.

The other question is, should death penalty for heresy be brought back, and I have already answered, for the present situation, NO.

I answered that back in 2013:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : I do not agree with religious liberty in all cases for all religions
https://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-do-not-agree-with-religious-liberty.html

"Again.. Luther the boogeyman..... It wasn't Luther bro, it was God calling his people out of the Apostate churches."

How? A voice from Heaven, like in Apocalypse 11? No.

Again, the question is not if Luther was right or wrong, good or evil. Since you are US American, and since the 13 colonies got their Bible knowledge from Anglicans, including Puritans, as well as Catholics, the question is where did the Anglican Reformers (both the actual Anglican and the two honorary ones) get their Bible from? Not where the Bible originated, where THEY actually got it? Catholic CHurch.

"I know you don't believe God can preserve his Word. I can assure you it's not a problem for him."

The question is not WHETHER God CAN, but rather HOW God DID, in a credible way.

"That's called "Double speak".. You just all but justified it in a previous question, then wrote you weren't taught that..."

I never ever justified murdering millions, as that was NOT what the Inquisition was doing, and here, as that was NOT how the Inquisition had been decided doctrinally either.

"They did make many copies.. But they were making copies 200 years prior to that.."

If you mean 200 years prior to the Reformation, those making these copies then were Catholics too. If you mean 200 years prior to when you imagine the Catholic Church started, that is NOT anything the Reformers could access.

"Sooooo.. God will save you then un-save you? You are either saved or not... The "Catch" for lack of a better term is, you won't know it till you die..."

Yes, God will justify someone and then allow them to dis-justify and un-save themselves.

Your quote of St. Paul confirms that St. Paul (writing this close to death, no doubt) knew (a little in advance) he would be one of those who hadn't un-saved themselves.

"Jesus isn't interested in your works.. He searches the heart.. Intent if you will..."

I already said "works" is understood about how one does them. In a state of grace. Which informs the will and its intentions.

"Some, many think they can pull the wool over Gods eyes.. Which is crazy.. If we aren't genuine about our love for Jesus, he WILL know and we're on the road to destruction."

Oh definitely. We believe that too.

The quote from Jeremiah actually says that God is finally judging us based on works - namely works as God sees them when watching our heart.

No Catholic believes he can fool God as he could fool men.

"Some will be saved that none would think would be, and some will not be saved because we always thought they were "Super" Christians as it were."

We agree on this one. In fact, we have a Bible text for it. Stabunt iusti, read at the Commune martyrum (masses said at martyr's feasts that do not have a very specific other Epistle text for just that martyr or for someone who was sth other more important beside). It is Wisdom 5:1-5

Douay Rheims : Wisdom, Chapter 5
http://drbo.org/chapter/25005.htm

You can study the confuted people (either damned or in Purgatory) stating how surprised they were at the final salvation (judgement) of those actually saved and going directly to Heaven.

"Your salvation isn't by works at all.. You're reward in heaven has something to do with your works.. But not your salvation.. Hence Romans 4:5..."

As I look again at this challenge.

*But to him that worketh not,*

That is, to the Christian who has fallen into sin.

*yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly,*

Meaning, hopes to get absolution.

*his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.*

He gets absolution on condition of his faith.

"Again.. Intent bro... I didn't claim to know you. But I know the church you follow is NOT God's church... Doesn't mean there aren't people who won't be saved in your church. I'm sure there are some in your church that love God and will be saved. But it's going down fast."

When we Catholics speak of works, we do always include intent. We never mean external work only.

"Your current Pope is "OK" with homosexuality, and anyone can get into heaven by "Doing Good".."

Bergoglio is not my current Pope, Pope Michael is.

"No man is good. No not one.. Those are lies from the pit of hell."

Have I said I believed Bergoglio? A Pope is infallible. Logic.

Option A: Bergoglio is Pope, therefore we must believe what he says.

Option B: we cannot believe Bergoglio, therefore he cannot be Pope.

I take option B.

"We who have faith are ALL temples of the Living God."

Christ's Body is God's third temple in and of itself, we who partake of it in Communion are it by participation - as Christ is Rock in and of Himself, Peter by participation.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm going to re-word that for you...

** I am sorry, but you shilly shally around the fact Luther would NOT have known even ABOUT the word of God, much less known it (while Catholic) in any degree, if it hadn't been for God. **

** Luther never had any KJV. He had both Vulgate and the texts in Greek for New Testament from Catholics (Erasmus, who remained a Catholic, had made an edition of the Greek NT).

** But the point is, Luther believed the words "the Bible is the word of God" or "die Bibel ist das Wort Gottes" before he started out with his own translation (which is not the KJV!). Where did he have this from? Catholics. And before you bring up Pharao, it was not Pharao who told Moses what God to trust! **

Bro. Let me explain something to you... I would have come to the same conclusion in the Bible whether Luther or Calvin existed. I know you keep taking credit for the Bible. I'm not saying Catholics didn't have a part in it.... God can use anyone to spread his Word.. Catholic or non...

** You first brought them up as a potential of having transmitted the Bible. My point is, they weren't. **

No that wasn't my point at all. My point was your Church slaughtered them for being heretics. Maybe they were. Don't care. You don't kill and torture people for it.

** I don't agree it is a heresy. I don't agree it is about murder. I don't support lynching of criminals the civil law will not punish.

As to your question, I answered part of it in the last sentence. I don't support killing heretics in a country where heresy is legal anymore than I support stoning sodomites in a country where sodomy is legal.

The other question is, should death penalty for heresy be brought back, and I have already answered, for the present situation, NO.

I answered that back in 2013:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : I do not agree with religious liberty in all cases for all religions
https://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-do-not-agree-with-religious-liberty.html

Don't know how you'd ever come to that conclusion that it was ever stated in the NT.. Which of course it isn't. That was your church taking matters into their own hands. You still haven't learned. Men will ultimately fail you. God will not.

** The question is not WHETHER God CAN, but rather HOW God DID, in a credible way. **

Who cares how he did it. I know it was the RIGHT way...

** We agree on this one. In fact, we have a Bible text for it. Stabunt iusti, read at the Commune martyrum (masses said at martyr's feasts that do not have a very specific other Epistle text for just that martyr or for someone who was sth other more important beside). It is Wisdom 5:1-5

Douay Rheims : Wisdom, Chapter 5
http://drbo.org/chapter/25005.htm

You can study the confuted people (either damned or in Purgatory) stating how surprised they were at the final salvation (judgement) of those actually saved and going directly to Heaven. ***

How about that.. I figured that out without the extra text you used.... There is no seconds chances. We have one shot at it.. It's now or never, heaven or hell... Nothing in the Bible indicates anything even remotely close to a purgatory, or second chances. It says just the opposite..

(Heb 9:27) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

** I already said "works" is understood about how one does them. In a state of grace. Which informs the will and its intentions. **

If you don't do your traditions such as Eucharist, confession, etc.. Will you make it to heaven?

** Oh definitely. We believe that too. **

You mean YOU believe that. I'm glad you understand that. Many don't. You shouldn't speak for others however. Plenty don't believe that way, Catholic or otherwise.

** As I look again at this challenge.

But to him that worketh not,

That is, to the Christian who has fallen into sin.

yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly,

Meaning, hopes to get absolution.

his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.

He gets absolution on condition of his faith. **

Read it again bro...

** But to him that worketh not,

Says nothing about sin here. You know as well as I do that no practicing sinner is going to make it to heaven..

** yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly,

Not sure how you came to this. I think you're reading into it, or maybe just "Over thinking" it. Who can justify the ungodly? Only Jesus...

** his faith is counted for righteousness.

His faith alone is counted as righteousness. No works.

[my emphasis]

Just off the top of my head I can think of a situation where someone is Paraplegic. Can't move. In pain, can't walk, but they could read a Bible.. Is the Lord going to tell him no you aren't allowed into my kingdom, even though I know you couldn't really do anything? Of course not. There are situations that you really couldn't do much. Maybe you are sickly? You get the idea. :)

** When we Catholics speak of works, we do always include intent. We never mean external work only. **

That's spiritually wise as no one is going to fool the Lord. Though believe it or not some will attempt it..

** Bergoglio is not my current Pope, Pope Michael is. **

** Have I said I believed Bergoglio? A Pope is infallible. Logic.

Option A: Bergoglio is Pope, therefore we must believe what he says.

Option B: we cannot believe Bergoglio, therefore he cannot be Pope.

I take option B.

Didn't know... Glad you stayed away from him. He's lost his mind.

** "We who have faith are ALL temples of the Living God." **

Jesus is the Corner stone, the head of the corner. We are the other stones that makes up the temple. Peter is another stone. He's not a rock as pertaining to Jesus. You build a foundation on Bedrock which is Jesus Christ, that holds up the rest of us.

So much for making it short.. ha ha.. ;)

I appreciate the civil dialog though. Some people can get real nasty (Which is not sharing the truth in Love as the Lord commanded). I'm speaking of all denominations when I say that. Keeps me sharp...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "Bro. Let me explain something to you... I would have come to the same conclusion in the Bible whether Luther or Calvin existed."

Same conclusion from digging the texts up in Nag Hammadi?

You have it from America. Many parts had it from Catholics only (French and Spanish colonies). Thirteen colonies had it from Catholics (Maryland and Pennsylvania), Anglicans, Puritans (who started out as a party among Anglicans) and, to some degree, Quakers and non-Conformists (including Catholics) in Pennsylvania.

All of these can be traced back to ... Catholics.

"I know you keep taking credit for the Bible. I'm not saying Catholics didn't have a part in it.... God can use anyone to spread his Word.. Catholic or non..."

In some ways yes, but there is a snag to this.

Matthew 28:20. Or verses 16-20. Now, the point I am here trying to make is not Apostolic succession, it is, the real NT Church has to have a continuous presence on Earth ("every day" in verse 20) and be visible and universal ("teach ye all nations"), sacramental ("baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"), orthodox ("teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you").

Sure, I could receive the Bible like you, from a culture that spanned several denominations and also non-denominational individuals or micro-denominations. But in order to trace it back from this culture to the Apostles, I have to go through the Catholic Church.

You can claim, you just go one further, through the supposedly "pre-Catholic" Church. The problem with this is, the Catholic Church does (excepting modern apostasies which aren't Catholic) match up with the criteria outlined by Matthew 28:16-20, since it was not just around in 1517, but also in 1988 (at least apparently so to a somewhat modernist Protestant, and also really, outside that modernism).

Your supposed "pre-Catholic" Church (we claim the Church in 250 was as Catholic as the Church in 350!) doesn't match this.

Also, while I was not yet Catholic, my position was in fact illogical, since I did not credibly trace my access to the Bible back to the Apostles. You could say, who cares if the culture you got the access from is right or wrong on other subjects, Bible alone would be sufficient authority for accepting the Bible.

No, A cannot prove A.

Again, the NT nowhere shows us a Church consisting of individualistic Bible readers being self sufficient. The Eunuch from Ethiopia shows the clear opposite of that.

"No that wasn't my point at all. My point was your Church slaughtered them for being heretics. Maybe they were. Don't care. You don't kill and torture people for it."

Not under the First Amendment, but you cannot trace back to the Bible a universal duty on behalf of all states present and past to adopt it.

"Don't know how you'd ever come to that conclusion that it was ever stated in the NT.. Which of course it isn't."

In fact, the NT leaves the issue open. Because Christ knew His disciples would have to deal with it.

"That was your church taking matters into their own hands. You still haven't learned. Men will ultimately fail you. God will not."

God will not fail His Church.

You have not Biblically proven that Catholics were wrong to execute heretics, any more than you could prove Biblically they were wrong to execute sodomites and murderers.

And if you try to pretend the NT presents a case of Christians never having any civil authority, you are contradicted by Matthew 28:16-20. Nations typically have governments and teaching a nation typically means teaching its government.

Also, while Antichrist will have either civil authority or a power somwhat resembling it (it may not be constitutional or legal), he will also have to do battle at Harmageddon, meaning there is an army of Christians opposing him. Could it be just a prayer meeting? But as likely, they will prepare for battle, and then be set aside by the reinforcement from Heaven.

"Who cares how he did it. I know it was the RIGHT way... "

I know it was the right way, because it was the APOSTOLIC, the CATHOLIC way. There is something illogical about "God did it the right way" pronounced together with "I don't care how God did it". If you should care about God, care about what is right, you should also care about HOW God did it the RIGHT way.

"How about that.. I figured that out without the extra text you used.... There is no seconds chances. We have one shot at it.. It's now or never, heaven or hell... Nothing in the Bible indicates anything even remotely close to a purgatory, or second chances. It says just the opposite.."

Purgatory in Catholic doctrine is NOT about second chances. There are second chances on Earth, you dis-justify yourself by sin, God can justify you again. All who are in Purgatory will be in Heaven at the latest from Doomsday. None of them is damned or risking damnation.

It is still painful, as is the Christian walk on earth, and on earth we have distractions.

"If you don't do your traditions such as Eucharist, confession, etc.. Will you make it to heaven?"

If it's not my own fault, as if in I didn't know or as if in I haven't access, yes.

By the way what you call our traditions are Christ's ordinances and contained in the Bible.

"You mean YOU believe that. I'm glad you understand that. Many don't. You shouldn't speak for others however. Plenty don't believe that way, Catholic or otherwise."

If a Catholic doesn't believe that, he is not believing as a Catholic. The Catholic Church back in Luther's time was no different. Luther argued (not in 95 theses, but later) one could not have the right intention in this life, that's why works cannot be even a secondary condition for salvation. He would have objected to your salvation by works with intent as much as he did to ours.

"Says nothing about sin here. You know as well as I do that no practicing sinner is going to make it to heaven.."

It does if you read next verses, 6 - 8:

As David also termeth the blessedness of a man, to whom God reputeth justice without works: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin.

The Christian who right now is not working is the Christian who between now and death needs to be forgiven for a sin.

"Not sure how you came to this. I think you're reading into it, or maybe just "Over thinking" it. Who can justify the ungodly? Only Jesus..."

The guy we do get absolution from - including in confession.

"His faith alone is counted as righteousness. No works."

No works prior to absolution. However, "faith alone" is not in the text.

Absolution is a new justification and it means as the one at baptism, it is not from one's works, it is through grace, and it is unto works of rigteousness, as per Ephesians 2, which I thank your for citing.

"Just off the top of my head I can think of a situation where someone is Paraplegic. Can't move. In pain, can't walk, but they could read a Bible.. Is the Lord going to tell him no you aren't allowed into my kingdom, even though I know you couldn't really do anything? Of course not. There are situations that you really couldn't do much. Maybe you are sickly? You get the idea. :)"

Can a paraplegic breathe? Can he pray? Those are works.

"That's spiritually wise as no one is going to fool the Lord. Though believe it or not some will attempt it.."

Sure those guys aren't more like just trying to have a nice time in Church?

I know of Ananias and Sapphira, but it seems St. Peter had to tell them it was to God they had tried lying. They probably thought they were buying a nice honour in Church while keeping the comforts of private property (which they could licitly keep with somewhat less honour). The nearest case I could imagine is someone knows the absolution in confession absolves from sin, but thinks he can get it by lying to the priest, now, that is a very exact parallel, one would be lying to God, not men, but one would not deceive Him.

"Didn't know... Glad you stayed away from him. He's lost his mind."

He's a typical modernist Anglican, plus some extra Catholic doctrines.

"Jesus is the Corner stone, the head of the corner. We are the other stones that makes up the temple. Peter is another stone. He's not a rock as pertaining to Jesus. You build a foundation on Bedrock which is Jesus Christ, that holds up the rest of us."

Well, there is another text where while Jesus is corner stone, Apostles and Patriarchs are still part of the Foundation. So, Jesus is Rock as corner stone, Peter as other part of foundation.

"I appreciate the civil dialog though."

Thank you very much!