Chuck Missler and his wild anti-catholic views

[Randy_Carson]

There is nothing unreasonable about the gospel’s demand for a commitment to Christ also requiring a corresponding commitment to the Catholic Church which He founded beginning with Peter, the rock.

You are incorrect with your “Rock” comment. The Rock silly is Jesus not Paul. If you look up Rock in a thesarus, you get the following:

Now with that, look at all of these verses that show Christ is the rock, cornerstone, etc.

You are in error because of your misunderstanding of the metaphors…here’s what I mean:

Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

a] Peter means rock.

Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:

“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Besides the Catholic Church likes to assume the Pope is infallible…it’s not logical to think that Jesus would put someone who made so many mistakes as the leader of the Church.

God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, has he not?

But regarding your silly argument above:

On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy

In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.

However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:

Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:

Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?

This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:

Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.

However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So not only was Peter infalliable, but he was also married so that’s yet another example of the Catholic Church turning away from scripture.

To the contrary…listen carefully to these words from the Bible:

Many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God because it forbids people to marry (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3) or that it is wrong for priests to remain celibate. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely. Here is an article, “Celibacy is a Gift”, that explains this more fully: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp

 

[DFWChristian]

Howdy my Christian brothers,

I hope the Lord Jesus Christ has been blessing your day. I appreciate the kind responses Mr. Carson. You do have a great faith in Christ and I love it!!

However your emails are very long and I cannot answer all of your points for lack of time, so I will concentrate on the highlights.

1. PETER WAS MARRIED
   How can you tell? When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.- Matthew 8:14. A person cannot be married without having a mother in law. Mark 1:30, Luke 4: 38 both address these as well.
2. MARRIAGE IN MINISTRY
   I see you 1 Cor 7 piece of scripture where Paul writes, Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

However look at verse 2. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. God wants us to multiply. If you choose to stay single, that’s great. However got wants us to fill his Earth with children.

1. JESUS HAD BROTHERS AND SISTERS
   I’m not certain why Matthew 13:55 is unclear. Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? There are two James that are in the Bible. James and Jude were unbelievers during the life of Christ, but these were the same guys who wrote the epistles. But regardless, it doesn’t matter because it’s very clear they are his brothers.
2. PETER WAS INFALLIABLE
   It conflicts with the Catholic’s Church’s belief that the Pope is infalliable. He was constantly putting his foot in his mouth during Christ’s life. Jesus even calls him Satan after your infamous rock statement. Even after Christ is ascended, Peter and Paul have a disagreement and Paul gives Peter a lesson on the faith. When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.- Galatians 2:11.

I have to go. But I hope you boys are blessed.

In Christ

 

[Farsight001]

1. PETER WAS MARRIED
   How can you tell? When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.- Matthew 8:14. A person cannot be married without having a mother in law. Mark 1:30, Luke 4: 38 both address these as well.

I fail to see the relevance unless you think that Catholics believe there’s something wrong with Peter being married, which we don’t.

1. MARRIAGE IN MINISTRY
   I see you 1 Cor 7 piece of scripture where Paul writes, Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

However look at verse 2. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. God wants us to multiply. If you choose to stay single, that’s great. However got wants us to fill his Earth with children.

Marriage may be good, yes. But the point is that it is in no way required.

1. JESUS HAD BROTHERS AND SISTERS
   I’m not certain why Matthew 13:55 is unclear. Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? There are two James that are in the Bible. James and Jude were unbelievers during the life of Christ, but these were the same guys who wrote the epistles. But regardless, it doesn’t matter because it’s very clear they are his brothers.

The problem is in your assumption that they are literal half-brothers. Why make that assumption? Can they not be children of Joseph from a previous marriage, and thus not children of Mary? Can’t they be spiritual brothers, as the term “brother” is so very very often used in the NT, and even some in the OT? We have absolutely no reason to assume they were children of Mary, but plenty of reason to assume they were not.

1. PETER WAS INFALLIABLE
   It conflicts with the Catholic’s Church’s belief that the Pope is infalliable. He was constantly putting his foot in his mouth during Christ’s life. Jesus even calls him Satan after your infamous rock statement. Even after Christ is ascended, Peter and Paul have a disagreement and Paul gives Peter a lesson on the faith. When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.- Galatians 2:11.

Infallibility means preservation from teaching error on matters of faith and morals only. An infallible pope can make mistakes all the time. They can receive correction and sin and all sorts of things. What happened to Peter in the bible has never been in conflict with what infallibility is supposed to be. This is why Catholics have such a problem with people like Chuck Missler - they don’t get our beliefs right. Like ever. Or our history. They may be an expert on theology and have many degrees in theology, but that doesn’t make one an expert on Catholicism.

As an example, the original post in this topic was questioning Missler’s claims about the pope killing people. Missler has a degree in theology. But this claim of Missler’s is not a matter of theology. It is a matter of history, a field in which he is NOT an expert. Which easily explains why he got it so completely wrong as to be logically impossible. If anti-Catholics cared more about truth and opposing our real teachings than just having something - anything at all - to oppose, there wouldn’t be a problem.

 

[joe370]

Hey DFW…

PETER WAS INFALLIABLE
It conflicts with the Catholic’s Church’s belief that the Pope is infalliable. He was constantly putting his foot in his mouth during Christ’s life. Jesus even calls him Satan after your infamous rock statement. Even after Christ is ascended, Peter and Paul have a disagreement and Paul gives Peter a lesson on the faith. When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.- Galatians 2:11.

DFW, I can tell that no one here at CAF is going to change your mind; your resolve seems quite firm. Peter, like all of the bishops of Rome, was a fallible sinner, yet Jesus still said to Simon renamed Kepha:

“I tell you that you are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

If you don’t believe this then I can certainly understand your non-Catholic position, however, I believe what Matthew 16 is saying. A strange thing happens after Pentecost…the messiah, after his resurrection, instructs Simon, renamed Peter to “feed my lambs, watch over my sheep, feed my sheep” and the ramifications are quite compelling. Throughout the OT, God himself is understood to be the Good Shepherd. God promised to a remnant that He would come and be the shepherd of his people through his servant David. When Jesus Christ, the Son of David, fulfilled this prophecy, God’s promise is kept; no big surprise there. Then, before Jesus returns to His Father, he commands Simon, renamed Peter to take charge of his pastoral ministry, undertaking the role of Good Shepherd in his place, even though Simon, renamed Peter put his foot in his mouth during Christ’s life and was told by Jesus: Satan get behind me. Surely you will agree that the man Simon, renamed Peter prior to pentecost (acts 2) - was a completely different man post pentecost, just as all the apostles were transformed from a craven bunch to a fearless bunch? The big difference between Simon, renamed Kepha and the rest of the apostles, is the fact that Simon was/is the kepha upon which Jesus’ church is built. Of course Jesus is the divine Rock/Cornerstone; that goes without saying, but His church is built on Simon surnamed Kepha (as opposed to Simon’s confession; that makes no sense) - and the gates of hell…well you know the rest. This is further illustrated by pointing out that people (the apostles and prophets) - form the foundation of Jesus’ church; not a confession:

…God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

DFW, if I said to you:

This is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast, would I be talking about the same boat regarding my mast, grammatically speaking?

How is that any different than:

You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church?

DFW do other protestant church magisters claim to teach error free doctrines in their churches? Of course they do! I am a former protestant…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Howdy my Christian brothers,

I hope the Lord Jesus Christ has been blessing your day. I appreciate the kind responses Mr. Carson. You do have a great faith in Christ and I love it!!

However your emails are very long and I cannot answer all of your points for lack of time, so I will concentrate on the highlights.

Let me state that my posts are lengthy because explaining why you are in error takes time. You see, it’s easy for you to pop into this forum, spew a bunch of very tired, anti-Catholic nonsense in a single posting (as you did earlier) and then go your merry way.

Explaining why you are in error takes more space.

1. PETER WAS MARRIED
   How can you tell? When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.- Matthew 8:14. A person cannot be married without having a mother in law. Mark 1:30, Luke 4: 38 both address these as well.

Thank you. You may be surprised to learn that Catholics are familiar with these passages, also. No one disputes the fact that Peter was (or had been) married. It is less certain as to whether Peter was still married at the time of his ministry as an Apostle. Not to be rude, but so what?

1. MARRIAGE IN MINISTRY
   I see you 1 Cor 7 piece of scripture where Paul writes, Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

However look at verse 2. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. God wants us to multiply. If you choose to stay single, that’s great. However got wants us to fill his Earth with children.

Again, so what? This does nothing to prove that the Catholic Church is doing anything unbiblical by requiring that SOME of its clergy (not all) remain single in order to follow Christ more closely. You have not made your case here.

1. JESUS HAD BROTHERS AND SISTERS
   I’m not certain why Matthew 13:55 is unclear. Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? There are two James that are in the Bible. James and Jude were unbelievers during the life of Christ, but these were the same guys who wrote the epistles. But regardless, it doesn’t matter because it’s very clear they are his brothers.

No, it is very clear to anyone who reads scripture more deeply that the opposite is true.

Clearly, you didn’t work through my post very carefully…you admit you have limited time, but I recommend you work through it more slowly because I demonstrate that the passage you believe “proves” that Jesus was not an only child does no such thing.

1. PETER WAS INFALLIABLE
   It conflicts with the Catholic’s Church’s belief that the Pope is infalliable. He was constantly putting his foot in his mouth during Christ’s life. Jesus even calls him Satan after your infamous rock statement. Even after Christ is ascended, Peter and Paul have a disagreement and Paul gives Peter a lesson on the faith. When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.- Galatians 2:11.

You do not understand what “infallibility” actually means, and the passage that you cite does not undermine the validity of Peter’s infallibility.

When this passage is read in context, it becomes clear that Paul was not questioning Peter’s teaching, but was admonishing him for failing to practice what he preached. Peter knew full well that Jews are saved in the different manner as the Gentiles, but by leaving table fellowship with the Gentiles, Peter’s actions were hypocritical. For this reason, Paul opposed him to his face, for by his actions he was “not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:14).

While this was a sin on Peter’s behalf, it does not infringe upon the gift of infallibility. After all, the Holy Spirit still used him to infallibly write two books of inerrant Scripture. By mentioning this, it is useful to draw a parallel between the inspiration of Scripture and the infallibility of the Church. While they are distinct, the fact that all Protestants accept the inerrancy of Scripture can be used by the Catholic apologist to explain God’s reasons behind infallibility.

If God can take fallible and sinful men (the authors of sacred scripture) and transmit his truth through them without error, why would God not be able to take fallible, sinful men (the pope and bishops), and use them to preserve his teaching without error? This is the only safeguard that his Church has to keep the pure teaching of the apostles from being tainted. Otherwise, we are left with an inerrant document (the Bible), that is used by 30,000 different denominations to justify their contradictory teachings. The fault is not in the Scriptures but in the desire to part with its authoritative interpreter—the Church.

 

[joe370]

Randy you said:

If God can take fallible and sinful men (the authors of sacred scripture) and transmit his truth through them without error, why would God not be able to take fallible, sinful men (the pope and bishops), and use them to preserve his teaching without error? This is the only safeguard that his Church has to keep the pure teaching of the apostles from being tainted. Otherwise, we are left with an inerrant document (the Bible), that is used by 30,000 different denominations to justify their contradictory teachings. The fault is not in the Scriptures but in the desire to part with its authoritative interpreter—the Church.

This is perfectly stated and I hope he takes the time to respond; I really want to see what he has to say, and I hope he has an open mind when he reads your post. Another question worth asking: why would God not take the fallible successors (all sinful men) - of the apostles, through every generation, until Jesus’ return, and use them to preserve His teachings? This lineal succession certainly seems like the best way to preserve doctrinal truth!

If God didn’t preserve doctrinal truth in this manner via the power of the HS then doctrinal truth would be suspect, but He did make arrangements as per the bible, to safeguard the deposit of faith so that all generations could benefit.

 

[DFWChristian]

Hello gentlemen,

I want to start off saying that if you are a member of this board, you are obviously very interested in learning about the LORD and in that respect, we are all in the same boat and because of our love for Him, I think we all can agree that we will be in heaven.

The point I’m striving for is that we are all saved simply by God’s grace and nothing else. There is nothing we can do our end to achieve salvation. He are saved exclusively through God’s grace. Any doubts about needing anything like works are not true, and all you have to do is open to Luke 23:39-43 where a criminal that had not know Christ who hung on the cross next to our Lord. He turned to Him and Jesus told him he was saved- no works, no purgatory but he would be in the Kingdom! How great is that? Works should be done as it shows an example, of our faith, but like this example from Luke, there is no way to earn salvation and you only need to do one thing- believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is our Lord and believe in Him, and we will be saved.

Have a blessed day

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello gentlemen,

I want to start off saying that if you are a member of this board, you are obviously very interested in learning about the LORD and in that respect, we are all in the same boat and because of our love for Him, I think we all can agree that we will be in heaven.

The point I’m striving for is that we are all saved simply by God’s grace and nothing else. There is nothing we can do our end to achieve salvation. He are saved exclusively through God’s grace. Any doubts about needing anything like works are not true, and all you have to do is open to Luke 23:39-43 where a criminal that had not know Christ who hung on the cross next to our Lord. He turned to Him and Jesus told him he was saved- no works, no purgatory but he would be in the Kingdom! How great is that? Works should be done as it shows an example, of our faith, but like this example from Luke, there is no way to earn salvation and you only need to do one thing- believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is our Lord and believe in Him, and we will be saved.

Have a blessed day

Did the thief on the cross do any good works?

Of course he did.

In Luke 23:40-42, we see that the good thief:

• rebuked the bad thief who reviled Jesus (Lk 23:40)
• feared the judgment of God and repented over his sins (Lk 23:40-41)
• professed his faith in Jesus and expressed his desire to be with Jesus in heaven (Lk 23:42)

Thus, the good thief showed sorrow and repentence for his sins and desired salvation. In other words, the good thief persevered in both faith and works to his death, and Jesus rewarded him with eternal life (Lk 23:43).

 

[Tomster]

Hello gentlemen,

I want to start off saying that if you are a member of this board, you are obviously very interested in learning about the LORD and in that respect, we are all in the same boat and because of our love for Him, I think we all can agree that we will be in heaven.

The point I’m striving for is that we are all saved simply by God’s grace and nothing else. There is nothing we can do our end to achieve salvation. He are saved exclusively through God’s grace. Any doubts about needing anything like works are not true, and all you have to do is open to Luke 23:39-43 where a criminal that had not know Christ who hung on the cross next to our Lord. He turned to Him and Jesus told him he was saved- no works, no purgatory but he would be in the Kingdom! How great is that? Works should be done as it shows an example, of our faith, but like this example from Luke, there is no way to earn salvation and you only need to do one thing- believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is our Lord and believe in Him, and we will be saved.

If that be the case, would you please interpret for all of us what St. Paul meant when he said that he was working out his salvation in fear and trembling.

Have a blessed day

 

[Tomster]

Hello gentlemen,

I want to start off saying that if you are a member of this board, you are obviously very interested in learning about the LORD and in that respect, we are all in the same boat and because of our love for Him, I think we all can agree that we will be in heaven.

The point I’m striving for is that we are all saved simply by God’s grace and nothing else. There is nothing we can do our end to achieve salvation. He are saved exclusively through God’s grace. Any doubts about needing anything like works are not true, and all you have to do is open to Luke 23:39-43 where a criminal that had not know Christ who hung on the cross next to our Lord. He turned to Him and Jesus told him he was saved- no works, no purgatory but he would be in the Kingdom! How great is that? Works should be done as it shows an example, of our faith, but like this example from Luke, there is no way to earn salvation and you only need to do one thing- believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is our Lord and believe in Him, and we will be saved.

Have a blessed day

Please explain for all of us, if you could, what St. Paul meant when he said “I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling.”

 

[DFWChristian]

OK, well i think our defintion of works is different, and that’s all good Going by your definition, can you come up with a scenario where someone who believes in faith of Jesus Christ does not demonstrate works? It is quite impossible in that case to have faith but not works and if so, James quote is moot.

I will say this, you are a good brother in Christ. You give me a much more positive understanding of Catholicism now than where I was a few days ago. The people i know who are Catholic unfortunately caught up in the “world” than Christ. I once went out with a girl who said she was Catholic because she liked to drink. She’s very promiscous and I cannot see how someone can be obcessed with drinking, sex with multiple men and never diving in the Bible and believing they are saved? I don’t understand how my parents who were baptised when they were infants into the Catholic faith and who know very little about Christ yet think they are saved.

I do have to say, I do like you boys here. I disagree with parts of your doctrine, but it’s exciting to me personally that many of you do undestand the Bible, and for that I give you a halleauh!

Have a blessed day.

Did the thief on the cross do any good works?

Of course he did.

In Luke 23:40-42, we see that the good thief:

• rebuked the bad thief who reviled Jesus (Lk 23:40)
• feared the judgment of God and repented over his sins (Lk 23:40-41)
• professed his faith in Jesus and expressed his desire to be with Jesus in heaven (Lk 23:42)

Thus, the good thief showed sorrow and repentence for his sins and desired salvation. In other words, the good thief persevered in both faith and works to his death, and Jesus rewarded him with eternal life (Lk 23:43).

 

[Tomster]

OK, well i think our defintion of works is different, and that’s all good Going by your definition, can you come up with a scenario where someone who believes in faith of Jesus Christ does not demonstrate works? It is quite impossible in that case to have faith but not works and if so, James quote is moot.

I will say this, you are a good brother in Christ. You give me a much more positive understanding of Catholicism now than where I was a few days ago. The people i know who are Catholic unfortunately caught up in the “world” than Christ. I once went out with a girl who said she was Catholic because she liked to drink. She’s very promiscous and I cannot see how someone can be obcessed with drinking, sex with multiple men and never diving in the Bible and believing they are saved? I don’t understand how my parents who were baptised when they were infants into the Catholic faith and who know very little about Christ yet think they are saved.

I do have to say, I do like you boys here. I disagree with parts of your doctrine, but it’s exciting to me personally that many of you do undestand the Bible, and for that I give you a halleauh!

Have a blessed day.

Consider the case of a fundamentalist minister convicted of a heinous crime. What must the man in the pew conclude from his sin? That the pastor was just as saved as his congregants, who would have been embarrassed to attend a movie rated less than PG? Logically they would have to say precisely that, if the man had been saved according to the fundamentalist scheme of things, even if his experience of salvation had come years before, even in his last years had been years of perversity. From the fundamentalists’ perspective, one can do nothing to lose salvation.

 

[joe370]

DFW, you said:

I want to start off saying that if you are a member of this board, you are obviously very interested in learning about the LORD and in that respect, we are all in the same boat and because of our love for Him, I think we all can agree that we will be in heaven.

I hope, but it makes me wonder why the road to perdition is so darn wide and those pearly gates to heaven are so darn narrow, which only few find.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The point I’m striving for is that we are all saved simply by God’s grace and nothing else.

All Christians belonging to the CC agree with you my friend.

There is nothing we can do our end to achieve salvation.

All Christians belonging to the CC agree with you my friend. However, I suggest that you read the book of James to fully understand that faith without works is dead. I am certain you already have read it many times.

He are saved exclusively through God’s grace.

Works can save no one; all Christians belonging to the CC agree with you, their bibles and their church founded by JC.

Any doubts about needing anything like works are not true…

…and the CC agrees with this statement…

…and all you have to do is open to Luke 23:39-43 where a criminal that had not know Christ who hung on the cross next to our Lord. He turned to Him and Jesus told him he was saved- no works, no purgatory but he would be in the Kingdom!

You are preaching to the choir my friend. Again, no one is save by good works; catholics simply believe what the bible says, that’s all. Not sure what you are talking about regarding purgatory? We are not saved by works; we are not saved by purgatory (so silly) - we are saved by the atoning work of Jesus - period!!! To make it to that purgative state is to ultimately make it to heaven.

How great is that?

It’s awesome…

…Works should be done as it shows an example, of our faith, but like this example from Luke, there is no way to earn salvation and you only need to do one thing- believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is our Lord and believe in Him, and we will be saved.

Agreed, there is no way to earn salvation; I hope you will succumb to the fact that everyone here at CAF agrees with you and move on; it’s kind of an insult if you don’t. DWF, can faith without good deeds save you or me? Can such faith save him? This isn’t me asking you this question; this is God asking you this question!!!

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, **what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
**
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man,** do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless**…You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

You have a blessed day as well my friend…

 

[Farsight001]

The point I’m striving for is that we are all saved simply by God’s grace and nothing else. There is nothing we can do our end to achieve salvation. He are saved exclusively through God’s grace. Any doubts about needing anything like works are not true, and all you have to do is open to Luke 23:39-43 where a criminal that had not know Christ who hung on the cross next to our Lord. He turned to Him and Jesus told him he was saved- no works, no purgatory but he would be in the Kingdom!

I don’t want to get too off the subject here, but I’m curious - what, other than the fact that you don’t believe it exists, makes you think the thief on the cross didn’t go to purgatory?

 

[simspt]

Brothers and sisters in JESUS CHRIST.

Who is our final authority?

Wisdom of men, or the Bible?

To my understanding is always has been the word of GOD right?

Correct interpretation of the Bible, most doctrines have extra biblical elements that the Church used in developing and articulating doctrine … The final authority is what the Church has left us both written and orally that is testimony from the Apostles and Christ.

 

[DFWChristian]

Thanks sir. It is a big surprise to me so many of you boys think that way. Praise God! And I love the Matthew verse. That scares me for many people and loved ones I know who really don’t know the Lord. We just need to keep praying as there is nothing we can do to change someone’s heart. My friend of mine who happens to be Catholic really despises the Christian Church so I assumed it was natural for everybody to believe that. Checking out this board on error turned out to be beneficial.

Have a blessed day.

DFW, you said:

I hope, but it makes me wonder why the road to perdition is so darn wide and those pearly gates to heaven are so darn narrow, which only few find.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

All Christians belonging to the CC agree with you my friend.

All Christians belonging to the CC agree with you my friend. However, I suggest that you read the book of James to fully understand that faith without works is dead. I am certain you already have read it many times.

Works can save no one; all Christians belonging to the CC agree with you, their bibles and their church founded by JC.

…and the CC agrees with this statement…

You are preaching to the choir my friend. Again, no one is save by good works; catholics simply believe what the bible says, that’s all. Not sure what you are talking about regarding purgatory? We are not saved by works; we are not saved by purgatory (so silly) - we are saved by the atoning work of Jesus - period!!! To make it to that purgative state is to ultimately make it to heaven.

It’s awesome…

Agreed, there is no way to earn salvation; I hope you will succumb to the fact that everyone here at CAF agrees with you and move on; it’s kind of an insult if you don’t. DWF, can faith without good deeds save you or me? Can such faith save him? This isn’t me asking you this question; this is God asking you this question!!!

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, **what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
**
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man,** do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless**…You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

You have a blessed day as well my friend…

 

[DFWChristian]

Because purgatory is not mentioned once in the Bible. The Bible is my only source for knowledge on Christ. If you start taking doctrine many generations past the time of Christ, then not only are you bringing in man made doctrine to what is something that is “God-breathed” like the Bible, not only do you limit the importance of the Bible as the only source of doctrine, but you then start making an argument for false religions like Mormanism and Islam that came into play many years after the life of Christ. I don’t trust man, but I trust the Lord and if those who live prior to or during the time of Christ didn’t witness to it, I’m not going to as well.

Have a blessed day friends.

DFW, you said:

I hope, but it makes me wonder why the road to perdition is so darn wide and those pearly gates to heaven are so darn narrow, which only few find.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

All Christians belonging to the CC agree with you my friend.

All Christians belonging to the CC agree with you my friend. However, I suggest that you read the book of James to fully understand that faith without works is dead. I am certain you already have read it many times.

Works can save no one; all Christians belonging to the CC agree with you, their bibles and their church founded by JC.

…and the CC agrees with this statement…

You are preaching to the choir my friend. Again, no one is save by good works; catholics simply believe what the bible says, that’s all. Not sure what you are talking about regarding purgatory? We are not saved by works; we are not saved by purgatory (so silly) - we are saved by the atoning work of Jesus - period!!! To make it to that purgative state is to ultimately make it to heaven.

It’s awesome…

Agreed, there is no way to earn salvation; I hope you will succumb to the fact that everyone here at CAF agrees with you and move on; it’s kind of an insult if you don’t. DWF, can faith without good deeds save you or me? Can such faith save him? This isn’t me asking you this question; this is God asking you this question!!!

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, **what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
**
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man,** do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless**…You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

You have a blessed day as well my friend…

I don’t want to get too off the subject here, but I’m curious - what, other than the fact that you don’t believe it exists, makes you think the thief on the cross didn’t go to purgatory?