Dude...
I guess I've been wrong all my life... Ok so the next question is which of the other 30,000+ flavors of Protestantism should I follow? Oh... wait... Jesus prayed for unity in the last supper. Which church had shown the greater unity? Catholic church less than 100 flavors... Protestantism 30,000 and still groung!!!! Based on track record I think I'll still take my chances with the old Roman Church. But don't worry I'pray to St Jude for you.
Cheers!
Hanamalu
Dude,
"Ok so the next question is which of the other 30,000+ flavors of Protestantism should I follow?"
Follow the teachings of the Word of the Living God, which is the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Join yourself to a Bible believeing, Bible preaching church. Not a house of idolatry (Romanism).
"Oh... wait... Jesus prayed for unity in the last supper."
Yes, unity among believers. Romanists are idolators, not believers (John 17). I will also add here that the Truth divides, my Lord made that clear in Matthew 10:34-35. There are many ways people can go astray, that is why you have so many faiths out there; again the Bible rings true: Matthew 7:13-14.
"Based on track record I think I'll still take my chances with the old Roman Church"
Free country. Enjoy your sin while you can, idolators will have their place in the Lake of Fire.
"But don't worry I'pray to St Jude for you."
Worship man all you want, it's powerless and foolish.
I'm under no illusion, I know you were mocking me with your sarcastic comment, but rest assured, I am not frustrated or angry. My friend, I feel sorry for you. I was once a Romanist, before the Lord saved me; I know how fraudulent and empty your faith is.
I will pray the God of Heaven and Earth, that He, by His Holy Spirit, break your rebellion and hard heartedness, and cause your soul to be born-again. Perhaps He will be gracious to you, as He has been to me.
Dude...
So you where Catholic once... Let me ask you a simple question when, or what happened that made you loose your faith on the True Presence?
Hanamalu
The Lord saved me. I was born-again of the Spirit of God.
It didn't take me long to see that the "True Presence" was really a "False Religion". When God saves a man, He gives Him spiritual life (Ephesians 2:1), and the man begins to seek God (the opposite of what a natural man does: Romans 3:11). Which is what I did, by reading His Bible.
Look at the comparison I made between Romanist doctrine and the Bible passages I listed. My mother and I brought all these questions to our priest not only didn't have an answer for these glaring contradicitons, he even discouraged us from reading the Word of God! 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Bible is profitable for everything spiritual, that it makes the Christian PERFECT, as in COMPLETE, and this priest of Baal discourages us to read the Bible.
We understood, very quickly the strength of Romanism. It's strength is in ignorance. The greater part of my family is still under Romanism, and while all of them can recite the Rosary, none of them have any time for the Scriptures. None of them have anytime to truly live for the Lord, it's all a bunch of
traditions and rituals.
You too, my friend, need to repent and believe on the Gospel. Not the gospel given to you through wicked Romanist priests, but rather, the straight, honest to goodness Word of God, the Bible. You need to stop making excuses and reading things into the Bible to excuse Romanist false doctrine. You need to be born-again of the Spirit of God.
I will continue to pray. In the end, God alone is the One who can save you from the darkness of vain religion and bring you into the kingdom of His Dear Son (as He did for me, so many years ago).
God be gracious to you,
"True presence"="false religion"? Are you saying that what The Lord talks extensively, the reason why he was willing to loose disciples as the Gospel of John clearly explains is a false religion? ( i.e. "This is my flesh" "If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood...") I guess you are more confused than what I though you where.
By the way have you ever wandered which scriptures was Paul talking when he wrote 2 Timothy? Since this letter was writen before the Gospels where composed was he talking about the Hebrew scriptures? Think about this before you answer I would not want you to fall in a contradiction here... I'll tell you more later...
hanamalu, dude, I'm going to have to stop you right here.
I absolutely care nothing in being instructed by you in the falsehoods of Rome. You have questions for me, no problem, I'll answer them. And that even if it is only to then mock me.
I have no questions for you my friend, because, quite simply, I don't believe you have any worth while answer. You want to debate the merits of Romanism? There are plenty of sites, like Joe Missionary's (which I believe is where you came from) who will not only listen, but actually see merit in some of your heresies. A Form of Sound Words has no place for Romanist doctrine.
I know your doctrines, I've learned them at a young age. I weighed them with the standard of the Bible, and have rejected them as carnal and evil.
In conclusion, let me also correct your erroneous views:
The loosing and binding of souls is by the POWER OF THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL, not through the wicked Romanist organization. I'm afraid it is you who are confused/deceived.
Of the eating of the Lord's flesh and the drinking of His blood, I believe John Gill best explains the true meaning of this doctrine (as opposed to the heresy of transubstantiation):
"...spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves: it is to partake of, and enjoy the several blessings of grace procured by him, such as redemption, pardon, peace, justification, &c. and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them: without this there, is no evidence of life in them; not such live as feed on sinful pleasures, or on their own righteousness; only such that believe in Christ are living souls."
Also, your view that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 only refers to the Old Testament is heresy. Paul says ALL SCRIPTURE. Not all they had on hand, not just the Pentateuch, not just the Prophets... ALL SCRIPTURE.
If you have no further questions, take care, I hope you come to the knowledge of the Truth someday...
Please respect the commenting rules,
Peace,
Hanamalu,
Your comment has been deleted, for obvious reasons. You have been deceived and are yourself a deceiver; I will give your wickedness no room on my blog.
Subsequent attempts at promoting Romanist doctrine will be answered with a permanent ban.
I REPEAT: I care nothing for your "explanations" or how you believe your view is "far superior than mine". You got QUESTIONS, I'll attempt to answer them with the Word of God (and yes, quoting a Bible believing saint is proper, so long as his answer is in accordance with the Whole Counsel of God; this is still Sola Scriptura... but then, you knew that, you just wanted to be a scorner and a mocker... read Psalm 1 when you are feeling lonely).
Repent and believe on the Gospel,
Rand,
Good post, however one point is a bit obscure: "-Jesus was born of a kind, godly woman, but still a sinner by birth and choice (Luke 1:26-3
."
It looks like you are saying Christ was still a sinner by birth and choice. Maybe you could edit to say: "-Jesus was born of a kind, godly woman, who was still a sinner by birth and choice (Luke 1:26-3."
Cheers 
Good call Frank,
I wouldn't want that misunderstanding to occur. I think my edit will clarify any misinterpretation.
Thanks again,
Rand, coming to you through Michael's Conservative Christian blog-a good resource which you probably already have is the book, "A Woman Rides the Beast"
by Dave Hunt. Subtitled the Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days. A friend and I have been discussing whether a born again Christian could remain in the Catholic Church to try to reach others, making it a mission field, so to speak. I thought that the indwelling Spirit of God would naturally lead a Christian out of Catholisism so as to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. My friend's suggestion was that to stay in the church, they would have to quench the Spirit, and, though still saved and be going to Heaven, they would not be making themselves available to the Spirit, though of course God uses whom He will where He wishes. We aren't disagreeing with each other, but possibly you could shed some light on what you think about this question.
Good job on the site!
Welcome Doug,
I know of the book you are refering to, I believe it is in our church library. Another great ressources on Romanism which I have used is Lorraine Boettner's "Roman Catholicism", it's quite thourough.
As for the debate you and your friend were engaged in, I promise to blog about soon (sometime this week if the Lord wills).
Take care,
"Another great resources on Romanism which I have used is Lorraine Boettner's "Roman Catholicism", it's quite thorough."
I've got a copy of Boettner's book; it is indeed impressive. I've never known any writer who could pack so much falsehood and deliberate misinterpretation into such a concise format. It's a masterpiece.
Rand, I hope I don't sound overly confrontational, but how do you respond to Protestant Christians who become Catholic? I was born again as a Baptist, but joined the Catholic Church when I found I couldn't reconcile Protestant ecclesiology with history, nor sola scriptura with the Bible. If Catholics aren't Christians, I figure, then there were no Christians between AD 90 and 1517, and the gates of Hell prevailed.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.
Joel,
I hope I don't sound too confrontational, but my poor friend, if you left the Faith for Romanism, you were NEVER born-again, I can assure you of that (Romans 6:2 and 1 John 2:19).
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
There I've just proven for you Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures make the man of God PERFECT, as in complete. No need for anything else.
Now, church history. You err my friend. There have been Christians outside of Romanism since the Resurrection. You may argue that there isn't much by way of historical documentation of this, but that is not terribly surprising. The powerful Romanist organization of the day would not only have killed such documentation, it would have killed the author as well.
There is no doubt that these centuries were "the dark ages", but God had His people in these times, and they most certainly were NOT Romanists. If you study early church history, you will read of several religious groups (some Bible Christians, others not) that existed outside Romanism.
I'm sorry to hear of your embracing of the idolatrous false religion of Romanism Joel, I really am. Like you, I followed Romanist tradition and dogma. It gave me good little spiritual feeling for a time. But it is empty and wicked.
The Lord show you grace and mercy, may He take you out of the ways of dumb idols, and show you the way of Christ (as He did for me),
Peace now,
"You may argue that there isn't much by way of historical documentation of this, but that is not terribly surprising. The powerful Romanist organization of the day would not only have killed such documentation, it would have killed the author as well. "
I have trouble with this idea, because there were any number of groups the Church considered heretical, and they didn't wipe them out without a trace. The Monophysites are still alive and well, as are the Nestorians. The Albigensians aren't, but we do have ample records of them (and their theology makes the JWs look orthodox, so they weren't the ones).
Then, too, why didn't these "underground Bible Christians" come out of hiding at the time of the Reformation? We don't have any record of anybody standing up and saying "Here we are, free at last!"
"If you study early church history, you will read of several religious groups (some Bible Christians, others not) that existed outside Romanism."
Yes, there were the Copts, and the Mar Thoma Christians of India, and the Ethiopian Orthodox, and (after 1054) the Eastern Orthodox. None of those believed as Protestants do. Can you show me any early Christian sect that did?
I just read your commenting rules, and I apologize if I slopped over into debate contrary to them. I'd be happy to continue the discuussion either here or by e-mail, or drop it if you prefer.
Incidentally, I don't think Brother Andrew is Catholic. You did mean the "God's Smuggler" guy, didn't you?
Yes, we will end this here. The fact of the matter is this: if you can look at Romanist teachings and dogma on one hand, and look at Scripture with the other, and find harmony... a debate is a total waste of both our time.
Now, just to correct some of your statements there Mr. Joel:
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, AND FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT." (Matthew 7:14, emphasis mine)
True Christians are, and always have been few in number. God has always been the God of the "remnant". Crushing the few is far easier than eliminating the many. Both Monophysites and Nestorians were at some time "state religions" (in Syria and Persia). Hardly "few".
Your third and fifth paragraphs are hilarious! You must be so used to being in a huge religious institution that you can't see any faith outside the such like. A man with a Bible (who could read it), along with a few souls to minister to, and there you go! A local Bible church.
It is my contention that such groups existed all over in the world. Most likely very few in number since Romanism kept the Scriptures in languages very few could understand, and prevented the preaching of the Scriptures outside of mass. It truly was "DARK AGES".
The Reformation was nothing short of a massive revival sent by the Lord (like the Old Testament revivals - the days of King Josiah for example). For the first time in history, so many scholars were interested in translating the Scriptures, even Rome's might couldn't stop it. And once more souls ended up with the Bible, Bible churches were openly and publickly formed. The knowledge of the Truth combined with God's great manifestation of grace and power in many souls caused Bible Christianity to come out of the shadows and organize.
I will also add that it is doubtful that there would have been a church in those days that would have confessed every doctrine I stand for today. Quite simply, for over a thousand years, the restrictions Rome imposed on the Bible kept good, godly men from developping sound systematic theology. Therefore, when I speak of Bible churches, I simply speak on a group of believers who would use the Bible only (or whatever parts of the Bible they had) for matters of faith and practice. No popes, no Romanist structure, no Romanist traditions. BIBLE ONLY.
Joel, all this is all nice and dandy... it makes for fun "academics", but in the end, my friend, the Bible and Romanism are at odds, and you have chosen the wrong standard. I believe everything I believe in because God says so in His Word (for example, the Lord said "the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against His church, so I know there were Bible churches before the Reformation). You believe the carnal traditions and teachings of Romanism. You need to repent and take hold of that which can make you PERFECT, THOUROUGHLY COMPLETE: THE WORD OF GOD.
Until then, any debate will be "vain babblings" which God tells me, in His Bible, will only "increase unto more ungodliness."
Oh... brother Andrew... aka "Frère André"...
Sorry, as a Canadian, I probably am aware of this guy far more than others. You can read about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bro...i/
Brother_Andre
Later,
Rand, I am a Roman Catholic, and I love the Scriptures. In each Mass, we celebrate the liturgy of the Word (Scriptures) and liturgy of the Eucharist. The source and summit of our worship, spirituality and life is Jesus Christ.
I was challenged by Evangelical friends and acquaintances into a deeper, prayerful study of Scriptures, and it has strengthened my Christian life in the Catholic Church. I do not see the contradictions you see.
Please go beyond Boettner. That book is full of misconceptions, written as it was by a non-Catholic. By your integrity as a Christian, you must investigate the possibility that Boettner's book gets things wrong. Until you do so, your ministry to the Catholics will be flawed since so many things that Boettner claims are not taught to Catholics by word of mouth, nor by the catechism, nor by papal encyclicals, nor by our beloved Church Fathers and the more famous of our saints. You owe it to yourself and to the Catholics you wish to save, to seek the truth dilligently. Otherwise, you may end up failing in this most honorable cause to save Catholics.
We are not a secretive sect. You can find the catechism, order of the Mass, official prayers, and even canon law on the Internet or in libraries. Do not carry this false picture (I can assure you) of the Catholic Church that you have in your head. We do not have any doctrine about how long Christ's hair is, nor is it of any significance to Catholicism. You must also examine this claim: the Catholic Church does not and may not ever contradict the Word of God, the Bible, as we may not ever contradict our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. After all, he is the head and groom of the Church, his Bride.
You wish to end "vain babblings" so I won't go into debate, but since you have a post that specifically claims something against the Catholic Church, you will have to allow us Catholics some form of response. To do otherwise would not be fair. My response is simply to invite you to study, pray and reflect. To study, however, you can't rely on Boettner for he does not speak for us. He is not even Catholic. Will you trust a Buddhist who has read the Bible to explain Christian doctrine to you?
Please study carefully. Aside from reading the catechism yousrelf, I propose the following references to begin with:
Jeff,
You may think you love the Scriptures, but I know you don't read them or regard them with the level of fear and earnestness of a born-again saint. If you did, you would obey the Second Commandment of Moses, and you would chuck out the window all the carnal traditions instituted by Romanism.
Secondly, Lorraine Boettner did not instruct me in Roman Catholicism... I WAS A ROMANIST! 12 years in Romanism baby! And the conclusion of the matter: Boettner's book only confirmed and dealt with the very things I had experienced in wicked Romanism. I have done my homework, both academically and experiencially. With absolutely ZERO doubt, I affirm: there is no salvation in Romanism.
Thirdly, God saves His people from their sins. Rand doesn't save anyone. I post about the Truth of the Scriptures: God will take care of saving His elect through it.
Fourthly, the long-haired skinny "jesus" is the classic image the Romanists use to symbolize Christ. I haven't made anything up there. It may not be in your "church documents", but it definitely is in your practice. Oh... and I stand by Romanism being in contradiction to the Scriptures, and I speak with experience (as a Romanist and as one who diligently searches the Scriptures).
Fifthly, when you are visiting this blog, you are under the terms of use that I have set. I don't owe you anything my friend; not even a say in my comment box. You may not like this, but that's just too bad.
Sixthly, to claim that one HAS TO GO to a Catholic to know what a Catholic is like is absolutely quacky. I've never had a chat with an Islamic suicide bomber, but I assure you, I know enough about what they believe to know that they are evil. But hey! this whole point is moot: I know Romanism. You are interacting with a man who is packing 13 years of Romanist education where catechism was a obligatory course.
Lastly, your links were removed because I do not allow false religion smut on my blog; the Lord saved me from that junk, I no longer want any part of it. You want to promote Romanism? Do it on your site, not on mine.
You are in error Jeff, and you need to repent (as I have many years ago).
Jeff,
Respect the commenting rules.
Your comment was deleted because I do not allow Romanist heresy in my comment box. I thought I had made this clear. I will not repeat myself again, I will ban.
Jeff, please understand: you and I are co-workers in absolutely nothing. You serve the devil through the false religion of Romanism. I serve the Living God through faith in Christ Jesus. We are not brothers separated by a mistake or a misrepresentation. You are an idolator, and therefore a child of Satan , I am a child of God who worships Him in spirit and in Truth. Until the Spirit of God causes you to be born-again and subsequently, you turn your back to the sin of Romanism, things will remain exactly as they are ( 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 ).
I will ignore much of your blabbering on me "having a bad experience with Romanism" and "me just not understanding real Romanist catechism", because it is clear, that's what you WANT to believe. I say: I KNOW Romanism. You say I don't. You are therefore calling me a liar. Who's judging now?
About your imaginations of church history. It is clear, by their writings that many, if not all, of the church fathers were not of one mind with the Romanism of today, or even the Romanism of 1000 years ago. To call these men Romanists is a big stretch. I will grant you that some of the men who put the Scriptures together were heretics, and I TOTALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT! Did Caiaphas not prophesy of the work of the Cross? Was he a faithful high priest? No, he was not, but the Lord still used him. Hense, I have NO PROBLEM believeing that the Lord could have used even heretics to not only put the Scriptures together, but help copy it as well. (I will remind you that Pharisees, before the New Testament, were also used of the Lord in the preservation of the Old Testament... were they not mostly heretics?)
Oh... and just as a reminder to my readers, Romanists may have been used in the preservation of Scriptures, but I remind you that they were the ones keeping the Word of God out of the people's hands. Many a saint burned at the stake by the wicked popes for attempting to translate the Bible and distribute it to the masses.
As for judging, like your Romanism, you are again mistaken:
"Beware of FALSE PROPHETS, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know THEM by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know THEM." (Matthew 7:15-20)
You are a false prophet, Jeff. Your fruit is corrupt.
I repeat: Repent and believe on the Gospel, not in Romanism.
FYI:
Jeff's comments were again deleted.
He, yet again, and more cunningly this time, attempted to use the comment box to show the merits of Romanism, and the "prejudices" of old Rand. He asked me to leave his comment there in order to show that he hadn't been vitriolic, but there is no way I could leave his nonsense there.
The problem with heretics is that most of them don't KNOW they are heretics. They actually believe the lies (2 Timothy 3:13). I'm sure that "in real life", Jeff is a real sweetheart of a guy, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a wicked false teacher. He thinks he's doing good, but he's doing wickedly.
Indeed, let us pray Jeff sees the error of Romanism and repents.
Jeff: what you believe is "reasonable" when it comes to commenting rules is completely irrelevant here. I have clear "commenting rules" and I know you have read them. What I am looking for isn't an apology and a clarification, I am looking for respect for the rules.
You have questions on the post at hand? Ask away! You want to express your disaproval ON THE POST? Go ahead comment, and then, let go! You want to express your appreciation? It's welcome! You want to present and debate an opposing view? You have a blog, do it there.
Peace,
Gotta love it! "The Roman Church crushes the freedom of the Christian conscience! And to prove it, I'm deleting all comments by anybody who disagrees with me!"
You sold me, Rand! Your little totalitarian blog is a great advertisement for the Catholic faith.
I'm going to leave that one there... 'cause it amuses me to no end! Won't be long I'll be called "hitler" you just watch and see... LOL!
What Mark fails to see, and I doubt it is by mistake, is that I have, and continue to give dissentors a voice on my blog. Jeff, Hanamalu, Joel... their comments are all still there. Mark is just angry because I am not letting the Romanist hord "carte blanche" in my comment box.
Grow up Mark, and learn to respect the practices of others. The rules I have put down are for the sakes of order and Truth. You don't buy it? No one is forcing you to come to my "little totalitarian blog".
Repent and believe.
Very well put post I agree with every word it was a very good summary.
"that includes all the popes, mother Theresa, brother Andrew, and all other men and women who have rejected the God of the Bible to embrace the Romanist god."
If you are born again while in the catholic church you should come out of the catholic church just like you would come out of the Jehovah's Witness church.
Rand, As a Catholic, I respect your beliefs and turn the other cheek. I forgive you. May Jesus bless you all the days of your life.
Dennis
Well thanks for the respect Dennis. I'm sorry you consider my post as a slap in the face, it really isn't the intention. I was a "Catholic", and it is through Bible teaching, like my post, that I came to Christ.
I pray the same will happen to you in the near future.
Take care,
Rand,
Peace be with you!
I guess I do consider this a slap in the face.
I have a very deep love for Jesus Christ. Everything that I do, I do out of love for Him. Every waking hour, I worship Him and praise His name. He calls me to love all people as He loved them.
What you write won't convert me as what I write will not convert you. There are too many cradle Catholics out there who are in need of conversion far greater than anyone who reads your web site and I choose to bring them closer to Jesus Christ through loving them as Christ loves me.
Good luck with your ministry. Some advice though, if you want to convert others, do it out of love. I read your web site and I don't feel the love. Don't get me wrong...I'm sure you do love us Catholics as you are called to love us...I just don't sense it in your web site. People will not convert by calling them Nazis or Islamic terrorists. Just love them as Christ loves us and they will convert.
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always.
Yours in Christ,
Dennis
...feel the love...
LOL!!!
I'm sorry Dennis, but you are mistaken, in a really funny way actually.
First off, as I am sure you will understand after reading my post, I totally reject the idea that you worship Jesus. You worship a "jesus", but not the Jesus of the Bible.
Secondly, I have a question in relation to this statement:
"He calls me to love all people as He loved them."
Do me a favour Dennis, read the following Scriptures:
-Matthew 23 (the whole chapter)
-John 8:31-59
Friend, do you think the pharisees "felt the love"? Would it have been appropriate for Jesus to love them as He loved His own?
Jesus did not love these wicked souls because the were wicked and unrepentant. These pharisees did not "feel the love" because they were hardened against the Truth of the Gospel. As is all unrepentant Romanists.
You consider my post a slap in the face because you will not receive the Truth of it. That's too bad, but all I can do is preach the Truth. God will save through it, or He will allow men like you to harden themselves in their self-deceit.
And finally, for the record, I have never, in any of my posts, called Romanists: Nazis or Islamic terrorists. I suspect you have misread my "Nazi Jew" statement. What I was establishing there was a contradiction: A Nazi and a Jew cannot mix together, they are total opposites. The same can be said of Romanists and Christians. That was the point.
Finally, it is not by any "love" from me that anyone will convert. It is by the power and will of God that people are saved. Read the book of Jonah, my friend. Jonah had no love for the Ninevites, but by his doom-and-gloom message, the Lord still saved.
Repent and believe on the Gospel Dennis, it is your only hope.
Dennis,
Please obey the commenting rules. The link is at the top of all comment boxes.
If you have questions, or would like to have further precisions, please go to e-mail.
I have read your comments and they have only confirmed that the jesus you worship is NOT the Jesus of the Scriptures. They may be similar is some aspects, but they are NOT the same person.
Again friend, repent and believe on the Gospel,
Catholics claim to be Christians despite the fact that much of what they believe constitutes the essence of blasphemy. They spit in Jesus’ face every time they hold mass, yet many saved Christians still believe Catholics will be ascending to Heaven with us. How could our colleagues be fooled by a religion that is so obviously anti-Christian? They assume that, because the Catholics have millions of followers worldwide, they must believe something right. Well, let me tell you something – popularity means nothing. Sixty million Americans eat Spam but that hardly makes it good.
However, in terms of Jesus having long hair the following passages seem to support it in some cases. Thoughts?
Numbers 6:5
No razor shall come upon his [a Nazarite's] head. He shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair on his head grow.
Judges 13:5
For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son [Samson]; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite.
1 Samuel 1:11
I will give him [Samuel] unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.
Hi Will,
The Scriptures you have put down speak of the Nazarite vow. While Samson and Samuel both took this vow (for their entire lives no less), there is no indication in Scripture that Jesus was a Nazarite. He was a Nazarene (as in, He was from Nazareth), but not a Nazarite.
Actually, there is ample reason to believe that Jesus had NOT taken a Nazarite vow. Consider all of Numbers 6, and you will find that the Lord could not have been a Nazarite.
1 Corinthians 11:14 is clear. Other than the exception of the Nazarite vow, it was (and still is) a shameful thing for men to have long hair. Jesus wasn't a Nazarite, and He was sinlessly perfect. Therefore, He had short hair.
Later,
Dang, you know your stuff, don't ya? Don't get all puffed up now!
Hee hee...
I'll keep myself away from any form of yeast...
LOL!
Hello Rand; I was a catholic for 38 yrs,was saved by Jesus that yr. I'm 64.
I have visited Christan web sites from the U.S. for yrs.I didn't think there were any in Canada. Being such a secular country. Well, looky here!
Roman Catholicism is the most digusting cult in the world. No other "religion" spits in God's face like they do. I Thank Jesus for taking me off the broad road to hell.
Steve
I'm surprised that you spend so much energy attacking the Roman Catholic Church - that's hardly your real enemy. It doesn't sound very Christian to me - your vitriol on the subject is quite disturbing - makes me want to steer clear of anyone like you, & immediately embrace the church of Peter.
Please re-think your position.
“I'm surprised that you spend so much energy attacking the Roman Catholic Church - that's hardly your real enemy.”
And I’m surprised your surprised. Romanism most certainly IS the enemy. You should definitely listen to the sermons by John McArthur:
http://aformofsoundwords.blogspo...are-
pearls.html
“It doesn't sound very Christian to me…”
That’s easy enough to understand. You don’t know what it means to be a Christian.
“...makes me want to steer clear of anyone like you, & immediately embrace the church of Peter.”
Do whatever you want, but be sure of two things: it is not me you are ultimately steering clear of, you are steering clear of God and His Word. Also, be sure that Peter had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Romanism. There isn’t even any proof he was ever in Rome, despite what the pope will have you believe.
"Please re-think your position.
Repent and believe on the Gospel.
The last section of your post is certainly a point we could find common ground on. Orthodox Catholics believe that there is no salvation outside the Church; i.e., there will be no non-Catholics in Heaven. Now, you and I certainly differ in that you think there will be no Catholics in Heaven, but I believe there will be nothing but Catholics in Heaven. If someone lived their whole life as a Baptist, for example, he or she would not enter through the narrow gate as a Baptist. He or she may enter once they repent of their sins and recognize the truth of the Church handed on to us from the disciples, but not before. Whether this conversion comes through a death-bed confession or something earlier, either way one cannot get into Heaven before recognizing that the Catholic Church is the heir of the New Covenant between God and man. Again, I would emphasize that you and I agree on the fact that anyone who clings to a certain faith we do not hold to be the objectively true one will not be brought to Heaven before their conversion to the true faith.
Tom
Tom, you push the romanist church as if it were Christ. He is the head of the true Church, but you are confused by the tradition of men and miss out on the Gospel. If anyone returns to the roamist "church," it is easy to apply Proverbs 26.11, "Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly." Your allegiance is to a system built on mens' imaginations and thrist for power- ours is built on Christ and His Gospel.
"Orthodox catholics"... hmmm... so there is a difference between an "orthodox catholic" and the "garden variety catholic"? Sounds to me like there is a problem with the so-called "unanimity" of the "holy catholic church". It should also be noted that of the near 1 billion romanists in the world, only a small fraction would adhere to Tom's definition of "orthodox catholic". So much for the great "Catholic Church".
Tom, you are obviously a scorner, a mocker and an exceeding wicked false teacher. On top of that, you lack the most basic human tact and respect. You know my commenting rules and you willfully violated them. Tell me, Tom, is this Christ like behaviour? (you know it isn't... and the reason is because you know Him not, nor serve Him).
On the latter point, you are without excuse. I even banned you as a clear indication that you were out of line, and still, you sinned. Again, this is not a surprise. You are a Romanist heretic, and one who keeps company with religious hypocrites (the SSU clan).
Repent and believe on the Gospel of Jesus.
(Your privileges on this blog are permently revoked, Tom. Time for you to move on)
By saying 'Romanism', do you mean 'Catholicism'?
('cause if you do, I'm about to lay into you in the same way I laid into Doug from 'fine dry whit')
Crud, do you block people who discredit your erroneous assumptions about Catholicism (again assuming that is what you mean by saying 'romanism')? If so, let me know, and I won't bother correcting you.
Kevin,
By Romanism, I do mean what you call "Catholicism". Catholic means Universal, as in "Universal Church", and kick-and-scream all you want, Romanism isn't the Universal Church. Actually, it's no church at all.
Secondly, you will "lay" absolutely nothing "into me", since this is my blog, I have full rights as to what shows up here; and I have no time for Romanist folly.
Finally, you can rock back and forth mumbling: "he's wrong... he's wrong... he's wrong..." If it makes you feel better, then by all means! The fact will remain: the Bible condemns, in no uncertain terms, Romanist practices and doctrines; and you will see this from my posts.
Repent and believe on the Gospel, or begone.
Sincerely,
Thank you God and thank you Jesus Christ for life.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
