The Great Whore is Religious Rome

[Bro. James]

Would you consider the testimonies of 50 Roman Catholic Priests who renounced Roman Catholicism?

See: carm.org/testimonies-ex Roman-Catholic-Priests, to find excerpts from a book: "Far from Rome, Near to God".

Also: "Fifty years in the Church of Rome", by Chiniquy is a good read.

Also: What every Catholic should know--Former Priests and Nuns. A website. Further: surf: What every Catholic should know for dozens of testimonies.

Shall we swap one Catholic priest for one nominal Baptist layperson?

Someone is given to strong delusion for sure.

Someone needs to do some more soul searching and homework.

Sola Scriptura.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Walter]

Would you consider the testimonies of 50 Roman Catholic Priests who renounced Roman Catholicism?

See: carm.org/testimonies-ex Roman-Catholic-Priests, to find excerpts from a book: "Far from Rome, Near to God".

Also: "Fifty years in the Church of Rome", by Chiniquy is a good read.

Also: What every Catholic should know--Former Priests and Nuns. A website. Further: surf: What every Catholic should know for dozens of testimonies.

Shall we swap one Catholic priest for one nominal Baptist layperson?

Someone is given to strong delusion for sure.

Someone needs to do some more soul searching and homework.

Sola Scriptura.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Check it out closer, my friend. There are Baptist pastors who have come home to the Catholic Church.

 

[DHK]

Check it out closer, my friend. There are Baptist pastors who have come home to the Catholic Church.

Not if they were truly saved in the first place.
There are many liberal Baptist churches, some even denying the deity of Christ. So that kind of statistic doesn't mean much. The majority of the J.W.'s were former Baptists, sad but true. The statistic points to the fact that in America "baptist" is one of the largest "Protestant" denominations, and many of those that call themselves baptists are liberal even denying the faith. Thus they end up with something worse.

"When I some shall I find faith in the earth," Jesus said.
Indeed, there will be a great falling away.
Perhaps that falling away is from true and Biblical Christianity INTO the false belly of the RCC??

 

[Walter]

Not if they were truly saved in the first place.
There are many liberal Baptist churches, some even denying the deity of Christ. So that kind of statistic doesn't mean much. The majority of the J.W.'s were former Baptists, sad but true. The statistic points to the fact that in America "baptist" is one of the largest "Protestant" denominations, and many of those that call themselves baptists are liberal even denying the faith. Thus they end up with something worse.

"When I some shall I find faith in the earth," Jesus said.
Indeed, there will be a great falling away.
Perhaps that falling away is from true and Biblical Christianity INTO the false belly of the RCC??

I do agree with you about the liberal Baptists. Some of them are even involved in goddess worship. I would also bet that next to former Baptist, nominal ex-Catholics are the next largest group of J.W. converts. Sad, but true. I tend to agree that statistics do not mean much without reasons for them. As I have said before on this board in my testimony, as a Baptist, I cared about what the Holy Spirit revealed to me, but had little regard for what he had revealed to others, especially those in the first centuries–some who knew the apostles personally. But then I studied the early Fathers of the Church, starting with Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, (disciples of Peter and Paul), Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others, I became convinced the Early Church was Catholic.

 

[DHK]

I do agree with you about the liberal Baptists. Some of them are even involved in goddess worship. I would also bet that next to former Baptist, nominal ex-Catholics are the next largest group of J.W. converts. Sad, but true. I tend to agree that statistics do not mean much without reasons for them. As I have said before on this board in my testimony, as a Baptist, I cared about what the Holy Spirit revealed to me, but had little regard for what he had revealed to others, especially those in the first centuries–some who knew the apostles personally. But then I studied the early Fathers of the Church, starting with Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, (disciples of Peter and Paul), Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others, I became convinced the Early Church was Catholic.

In what era do you think heresies entered into the church?
There were already some denying the resurrection in Corinth--thus the reason for 1Corinthians 15.
Many of those same church fathers introduced the heresies that abound in the Catholic church and in other denominations today. They weren't perfect. Their writings often contradict not only each other, but are contradictory within themselves. Remember that some of the earliest ones didn't have an entire NT canon to work with. There was no printing press--no fast way of accumulating different books.

Hindsight is better than foresight. Tertullian is a good example. His beliefs in the early part of his life were vastly differently than his beliefs near the latter part of his life.

 

[Walter]

Not if they were truly saved in the first place.
There are many liberal Baptist churches, some even denying the deity of Christ. So that kind of statistic doesn't mean much. The majority of the J.W.'s were former Baptists, sad but true. The statistic points to the fact that in America "baptist" is one of the largest "Protestant" denominations, and many of those that call themselves baptists are liberal even denying the faith. Thus they end up with something worse.

"When I some shall I find faith in the earth," Jesus said.
Indeed, there will be a great falling away.
Perhaps that falling away is from true and Biblical Christianity INTO the false belly of the RCC??

BTW, I have had the same thing said about me on this board. That is, if I was truly saved to begin with, I would never have become a Catholic. I can tell you I absolutely had repented of my sins and placed my trust in Christ for my salvation. I have said before that if a Baptist can lead a nominal Catholic to repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ I loudly applaud that. The same goes for anyone who does not know Jesus as Lord and Savior. However, I can tell you that my becoming a Catholic Christian has only brought me closer to Jesus Christ and my love for Him has only grown. Also my thirst for the Word of God has grown. You and I simply don't understand the Catholic Faith in the same way.

 

[DHK]

BTW, I have had the same thing said about me on this board. That is, if I was truly saved to begin with, I would never have become a Catholic. I can tell you I absolutely had repented of my sins and placed my trust in Christ for my salvation. I have said before that if a Baptist can lead a nominal Catholic to repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ I loudly applaud that. The same goes for anyone who does not know Jesus as Lord and Savior. However, I can tell you that my becoming a Catholic Christian has only brought me closer to Jesus Christ and my love for Him has only grown. Also my thirst for the Word of God has grown. You and I simply don't understand the Catholic Faith in the same way.

I grew up a Catholic and I think you know that.
I know what RCC baptism is. It is salvation. It is the new birth. Without it one cannot be saved; cannot enter the RCC. Without it you are not born again. The belief is baptismal regeneration.

That in no way can be reconciled with the Biblical truth of the new birth.
It cannot be reconciled with "trusting Christ as your Savior," the new birth, both of which happen simultaneously and without water.

If that happened when you were a Baptist it can't happen when you became a Catholic.
It that happened when you were a Baptist it didn't happen at the time when you were baptized.

So your beliefs are contradictory. The RCC belief of salvation lies in baptism, but you say you "trusted in Christ as Saviour" before that time. That isn't possible according to the RCC. How do you reconcile that? Do you believe Baptist (Biblical) doctrine or the heresy of the RCC?
Which one. Both cannot be right!

 

[Protestant]

I don't wrestle with my conversion to Christ's Holy Catholic Church at all!

(The Papal Antichrist Emeritus offers the Eucharist containing the Real Presence of Jesus as a sacrifice to God the Father.)

“The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it.” (Catholic Answers: The Real Presence)

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts the Roman Catholic priest, who is called ‘another Christ,’ has the power to change the wafer and wine into the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

In essence, the creature is able to create his Creator….at will.

A mighty miracle, indeed.

At Mass the priest dispenses the Holy Eucharist orally to the worshippers while reciting the words, ‘The Body of Christ.’

By so doing there is no mistaking who it is they are eating.

Through partaking the sacrifice of the Mass grace is conferred to the recipient.

This doctrine is called ‘ex opera operato.’

“Ex opere operato is a Latin expression meaning "by the work worked." It refers to the fact that the sacraments confer grace when the sign is validly effected -- not as the result of activity on the part of the recipent but by the power and promise of God.” (Catholic Answers: Ex Opere Operato)

Priests are the wonder workers who work the work worked.

Unfortunately, such wonder workers who claim to create their Creator are condemned by the true Jesus who presently resides in Heaven at the right hand of God.

When He returns to Earth it will not be in a wafer.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Roman Catholic priests, who are preachers of a false Gospel as well as exorcists who claim wonder-working powers, are exposed by Christ as workers of iniquity doomed to damnation.

“When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

Despite the claim of the Real Presence of Christ by which they celebrate Mass, Christ excoriates their doctrine while pronouncing their deserved eternal punishment.

By no coincidence, the term 'Mass' has its root meaning as 'dismissed.'

The workers of iniquity will, indeed, be 'dismissed' from Christ's presence.

Yet despite the testimony of Scripture, the Martyrs and God-given common sense, nothing seems horribly out of place in Walter's World of Wonders.

 

[Walter]

What we find with the New Testament writers and the writers in the Early Church is that there is no contradiction between personal faith and Baptism. When Peter was asked on the day of Pentecost, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter did not reply, "Repent and believe." Rather he announced, "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2: 37-39). When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he did not write, "By one Spirit we were all received by affirmation of faith into one body," but he wrote, "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (I Corinthians 12: 13). When Peter wrote to a group of Christians who probably were about to be baptized or had just been baptized, he did not write, "Faith alone saves you," but rather "Baptism ... saves you" (I Peter 3: 21).

 

[The Biblicist]

What we find with the New Testament writers and the writers in the Early Church is that there is no contradiction between personal faith and Baptism. When Peter was asked on the day of Pentecost, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter did not reply, "Repent and believe." Rather he announced, "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2: 37-39). When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he did not write, "By one Spirit we were all received by affirmation of faith into one body," but he wrote, "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (I Corinthians 12: 13). When Peter wrote to a group of Christians who probably were about to be baptized or had just been baptized, he did not write, "Faith alone saves you," but rather "Baptism ... saves you" (I Peter 3: 21).

I have demonstrated with solid evidence that the Roman Catholic Catechism clearly teaches that Rome views circumcision under the Old Covenant in the same exact sacramental sense as they veiw baptism under the New Covenant. You never responded to that evidence and we know why because the CONTEXT is indisputable that the Catechism places both circumcision and baptism under Sacraments and in connection with the covenants.

Therefore, Romans 4:9-11 indisputable proves that sacraments whether under the Old or New Covenant are "signs" and "symbols" that occur AFTER justification by faith as Abraham was not justified "IN circumcision" but "IN UNcircumcision." That proves that baptism and circumcision are POST-external symbols of PRE-justification by faith. Therefore, baptism does save, does remit sins in a POST-symbolic manner but never in a LITERAL manner.

 

[Protestant]

Mr. Winburn has a strange notion as seen in the nonsense posted above that he had discovered precisely what the "Sign of the Beast" was. It was the sign of the cross

In his classic polemic, The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches (1688), French Cardinal Bossuet (d. 1704), highly regarded theologian and defender of the Catholic faith, presented what he considered compelling arguments proving the Roman Catholic Church the true Church of Jesus Christ, while at the same time disproving the ‘alleged’ uninterrupted succession of the Protestant churches from Apostolic times.

There is no question the Bishop of Meaux was extremely intelligent and well read.

His publication caused numerous English and European Protestants to respond in kind, refuting his skewed interpretation of Church history, all the while proving, through the testimony of the enemy and the creeds of the ancient Christian dissenters, that many of those dissenters who separated from the Roman Catholic Church held the same essential doctrines as did the Reformed Churches.

Thus, they, like the Reformed, were true Christians the Catholic Church persecuted and murdered.

Furthermore, Protestant commentaries on the Revelation flourished proving the fulfillment of the prophecies by delineating the ever multiplying errors of the persecuting, idolatrous harlot Church of Rome, as well as the fulfillment of the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, in the Bishop of Rome occupying the Papal office.

I now quote from volume 2 of Bossuet’s work, published in English (1836) NY: John Doyle, p. 169:

"5. Illusions with regard to the Revelations
Who can relate here the mysteries our Reformed have found in the Revelations, and the deceitful prodigies of the beast, which are the miracles Rome attributes to saints and their relics……..What shall I say of the character which the beast stamps on the forehead, which in their [Protestant] language means the sign even of the Cross of Jesus Christ, and the holy chrism which is employed to imprint it.” (Emphasis mine.)

I now quote from the 1995 official Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 356:

"An indelible spiritual mark…..

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.” (Emphasis mine.)

Our current wannabe Roman Catholic Apologist, Walter, is no Cardinal Bossuet.

Had he knowledge of Church history prior to his conversion to Mystery Babylon religion, he would have discovered that centuries ago Protestants were able to connect the dots, demystifying the ‘mark/character’ of the papal Beast.

To be continued……

 

[Walter]

Well, I did respond. Just not in the way you were hoping. It is unfortunate that Catholics are not allowed to join this board as I'm sure there are others much, much better able to respond to your position but I will research it and do the best I can with what I turn up. After all, that is my reason for participating here. To learn. But just what is Paul’s purpose in writing this passage? Is it to make a point about baptism or sacramentalism? Is it something else? If baptism is implied, but not primary to the text, we have to find out what the primary purpose of the passage in in Paul’s argument.

To answer your position, Biblicist, it would seem to me that Paul is addressing the fact that since justification is by grace, through the Christ's atonement at Calvary, it is apart from the Law, and all the marks of Judaism that up till then marked out the people of God. Since Jesus death upon the cross Gentiles are included in this justification apart from the law, by faith, just as the Jews are in justification.

From what I have read, your position would be flawed in several places. I believe your interpretation of this passage is one you believe takes apart 'covenantal justification'. Scott Hahn has written much on the subject and I will see what I can dig up. But first, I would say that your position doesn't give sufficient emphasis to what St. Paul's reason is for writing this passage. It is about Gentiles and not first and foremost about justification. From what I've read justification is an application of the argument, not the argument itself; and second, it does not address the means of grace – which are not included in the law.

Is it ok to simply replace the word, circumcision, in the text with the word, baptism? That would seem to do violence to Paul’s argument, because circumcision here stands for the whole law of Moses.


Now, I'm no bible scholar like yourself, but that would seem to be responsible exegesis, and being subservient to the scripture as it wishes to be understood.

 

[DHK]

What we find with the New Testament writers and the writers in the Early Church is that there is no contradiction between personal faith and Baptism.

First the Bible doesn't teach that.
Second, neither do ALL the ECF writers teach that.
Third, the Biblical writers wrote in Greek, not Shakespearean English, from whence comes your misunderstanding of these verses.

When Peter was asked on the day of Pentecost, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter did not reply, "Repent and believe." Rather he announced, "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2: 37-39).

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--When does the "remission of sins come"? Before or after the baptism?
A.T. Robertson explains:

Unto the remission of your sins (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hūmōn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1Co_2:7 eis doxan hēmōn (for our glory).

But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mat_10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophētou, dikaiou, mathētou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc.

It is seen again in Mat_12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kērugma Iōna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koiné[28928]š generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.

My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.

All those in this were familiar with the ministry of John the Baptist. His ministry was a baptism unto repentance. But he required the repentance first. Baptism did not bring repentance. Unless he saw the fruit of repentance he chased them away. He would not baptize them. The same is true here. No repentance; no baptism.

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he did not write, "By one Spirit we were all received by affirmation of faith into one body," but he wrote, "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (I Corinthians 12: 13).

--By one spirit. There is nothing here about water baptism. You have taken the scripture out of context. He is addressing a very divisive local church about unity. They were baptized, by the Spirit, into unity. There should not be any divisiveness among them. Read the chapter. Then entire chapter speaks how the proper use of the spiritual gifts should bring unity and harmony to the local church. There is nothing about being baptized by water in this passage.

When Peter wrote to a group of Christians who probably were about to be baptized or had just been baptized, he did not write, "Faith alone saves you," but rather "Baptism ... saves you" (I Peter 3: 21).

Faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone does save. Water has nothing to do with it. Read the context here. Read the verses preceding it. The element "water" is the destructive force. All those baptized or immersed in water were destroyed.
Look at the context:

1 Peter 3:20 who before were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ark was being built. In it, few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (WEB)

The entire world that was immersed was destroyed. Only eight were saved as they were safe in the ark. It was the ark that passed through the water. They were immersed in the ark, for the ark was Christ.

1 Peter 3:21 This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you--not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
--The first part of the verse you ignore: "This is a symbol."
Which baptism saves? The flood? No it destroys. That is not the teaching.
In fact he clarifies that--not the putting away of the flesh. The Flood put away the flesh. That is not the symbol here.
Christ saves. They were safe in the Ark. Peter clarifies this in verse 21 when he says but the answer of a good conscience ...through the resurrection of Christ."
I am saved through my relationship to the resurrected Christ. I am baptized in Him, not in water. The water is destructive. It is Jesus that saves.

 

[Yeshua1]

First the Bible doesn't teach that.
Second, neither do ALL the ECF writers teach that.
Third, the Biblical writers wrote in Greek, not Shakespearean English, from whence comes your misunderstanding of these verses.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--When does the "remission of sins come"? Before or after the baptism?
A.T. Robertson explains:

All those in this were familiar with the ministry of John the Baptist. His ministry was a baptism unto repentance. But he required the repentance first. Baptism did not bring repentance. Unless he saw the fruit of repentance he chased them away. He would not baptize them. The same is true here. No repentance; no baptism.

--By one spirit. There is nothing here about water baptism. You have taken the scripture out of context. He is addressing a very divisive local church about unity. They were baptized, by the Spirit, into unity. There should not be any divisiveness among them. Read the chapter. Then entire chapter speaks how the proper use of the spiritual gifts should bring unity and harmony to the local church. There is nothing about being baptized by water in this passage.

Faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone does save. Water has nothing to do with it. Read the context here. Read the verses preceding it. The element "water" is the destructive force. All those baptized or immersed in water were destroyed.
Look at the context:

1 Peter 3:20 who before were disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ark was being built. In it, few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (WEB)

The entire world that was immersed was destroyed. Only eight were saved as they were safe in the ark. It was the ark that passed through the water. They were immersed in the ark, for the ark was Christ.

1 Peter 3:21 This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you--not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
--The first part of the verse you ignore: "This is a symbol."
Which baptism saves? The flood? No it destroys. That is not the teaching.
In fact he clarifies that--not the putting away of the flesh. The Flood put away the flesh. That is not the symbol here.
Christ saves. They were safe in the Ark. Peter clarifies this in verse 21 when he says but the answer of a good conscience ...through the resurrection of Christ."
I am saved through my relationship to the resurrected Christ. I am baptized in Him, not in water. The water is destructive. It is Jesus that saves.

Jesus only misuse Acts 2:38 in same fashion as rome, as the Greek construction plainly tells that they the Jews, who because of their belief in jesus, were commandedto be baptized in his name, as He was the source, why their sins were remitted!

Ties into peter, as physical act of baptism does NOT wash away sins, but is a type of One who does, blood of Jesus!

 

[Bro. James]

An interesting documentary: "Secrets of the Vatican" aired on PBS, Frontline, 2-25-14.

It is available online at PBS.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[The Biblicist]

To answer your position, Biblicist, it would seem to me that Paul is addressing the fact that since justification is by grace, through the Christ's atonement at Calvary, it is apart from the Law, and all the marks of Judaism that up till then marked out the people of God. Since Jesus death upon the cross Gentiles are included in this justification a part from the law, by faith, just as the Jews are in justification.

This is the common response of Roman Catholics to this passage. This was TS response. However, this response is impossible. Abraham was PRE-Mosaic and thus PRE-Judaism and PRE-Mosaic Law. Hence, "works" in Romans 4:1-8 cannot possibly refer to Judaistic works or becoming a Jew as Abraham lived 430 years prior to the mechanism (the law) that Rome is attempting to make this chapter apply to.

From what I have read, your position would be flawed in several places. I believe your interpretation of this passage is one you believe takes apart 'covenantal justification'.

It is not my interpretation but Paul's, as Paul explicitly denies Abraham was justified "in circumcision" which is the symbol of the Abrahamic Covenant. He explicitly and repeatedly states Abraham was justified "by faith" while in UNCIRCUMCISION. So Hahn and Roman Catholicism are attempting to reverse what Paul says.

It is about Gentiles and not first and foremost about justification.

That is utterly ridiculous!!! Romans 3:9 includes both Jews and Gentiles and Romans 3:19-20 uses universal langauge ("no flesh" "all the world" "every mouth") as does Romans 3:23 "all have sinned" which introduces the doctrine of justification in Romans 3:24 which continues as the subject right up to Romans 5:2. Abraham is introduced in Romans 4:1 as an example of the principle set forth in Romans 3:27-28

Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom. 4:1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

The very same Greek word translated "boasting" in Romans 3:27 is translated "glory" in Romans 4:2. Abraham is introduced to illustrate that Abraham provided nothing in his justification to boast about, including circumcision as he was justified by faith WITHOUT circumcision (works) but while he was "in UNcircumcision." Paul's point is that the justification of Abraham denies all "works" as means to be justified and this is finally illustrated in Romans 4:16-21 where Abraham and Sarah provided NOTHING to obtain the promise but had to rely wholly upon faith in God's promise and power to provide it - NO INSTRUMENTAL MEANS as their reproduction organs were "DEAD."

This is such a simple and straightforward point that so utterly repudiates the whole Roman Catholic soteriology that one must intentionally pervert the scriptures to deny it.

From what I've read justification is an application of the argument, not the argument itself;

You are reading with rose colored glasses. Justification by faith without works is the subject introduced and defended in Romans 3:24 ("freely by grace") and is defended by precept in Romans 3:24-31 and then defended in a systematic process of elimination by the illustration of Abraham in Romans 4:1-21.

and second, it does not address the means of grace – which are not included in the law.

Wrong! It is specifically and pointedly denying any "means of grace" used in justification. He denies "works" are instrumental means (Rom. 4:1-6). He denies that divine ordinances are instrumental means (Rom. 4:9-12). He denies the Law is instrumental means (Rom. 4:13-15). He denies that any definition of faith which includes instrumental means is false (Rom. 4:16-21).

Is it ok to simply replace the word, circumcision, in the text with the word, baptism? That would seem to do violence to Paul’s argument, because circumcision here stands for the whole law of Moses.

You have further demonstrated by your previous post that in the view of Rome, baptism is parallel to circumcision as a sacrament in regard to covenants. The Roman Catholic Catechism clearly makes the same comparison. It does no violence to Paul's argument as his argument is designed to deny that divine ordinances play any role in justification by faith. By denying that circumcision played in role in justification by faith would in the mind of any Jew prove that no external divine rite could play such a role as circumcision was viewed by the Jews as the supreme initial ordinance in relationship to the covenant. Hence, repudiation of circumcision for justification was a clear repudiation of all divine rites as instrumental in obtaining justification blessings.

 

[Protestant]

The Angel from the Abyss

After all, that is my reason for participating here. To learn.

"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon."

The Pope is both Bishop of Rome and Monarch of Vatican City State, the smallest sovereign nation in the world.

“Vatican City is the smallest independent state in the world in terms of inhabitants and size.”
“Vatican City State is governed as an absolute monarchy. The Head of State is the Pope who holds full legislative, executive and judicial powers.”
http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/organi-dello-stato.html

Monarch: “a sovereign head of state, esp. a king, queen, or emperor.”

The Pope is a King, the King of Vatican City State.

The Pope claims apostolic succession from Peter as Head of the Church:

“936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth" (CIC, can. 331).” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm)

The Pope is an Apostle.

An Apostle is a messenger.

Apostle: “Gk. apostolos . Envoy, ambassador, or messenger commissioned to carry out the instructions of the commissioning agent.”
(http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apostle/)


An angel is a messenger.

Angel: “Superhuman or heavenly being who serves as God's messenger.”
(http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/angel/)

Bottomless pit = Abyss = the abode of demons
Abbadon = Destroyer
Apollyon = Destroyer
(Any Lexicon will confirm the above.)

Therefore, the angel of the bottomless pit is a king who is the Destroyer.

His origin is not of Heaven, but of the abyss.

He is not of God, but of his father, the Devil, a murderer from the beginning; a liar and thief who comes to steal, kill and destroy.

Is the Pope the Destroyer sent by Satan?

I quote excerpts from Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council Encyclical, Canon 3:

“We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known…..”

“Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross [i.e., the mark of the Beast] for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.”

“Secular authorities……….ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church;”

“….he [the Pope] may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith;”
(http://www.intratext.com/ixt/eng0431/)
(Text taken from H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, (St. Louis, 1937)

Exterminate = “ to get rid of by destroying; destroy totally; extirpate: to exterminate an enemy; to exterminate insects. “ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exterminate)

CONCLUSION: The Pope is the Destroyer; a king; a false apostle, a demon angel/messenger who orders the extermination of dissenters.

He is Antichrist who comes in the name of Christ.

"Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

 

[Walter]

"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon."

The Pope is both Bishop of Rome and Monarch of Vatican City State, the smallest sovereign nation in the world.

“Vatican City is the smallest independent state in the world in terms of inhabitants and size.”
“Vatican City State is governed as an absolute monarchy. The Head of State is the Pope who holds full legislative, executive and judicial powers.”
http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/organi-dello-stato.html

Monarch: “a sovereign head of state, esp. a king, queen, or emperor.”

The Pope is a King, the King of Vatican City State.

The Pope claims apostolic succession from Peter as Head of the Church:

“936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth" (CIC, can. 331).” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm)

The Pope is an Apostle.

An Apostle is a messenger.

Apostle: “Gk. apostolos . Envoy, ambassador, or messenger commissioned to carry out the instructions of the commissioning agent.”
(http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/apostle/)


An angel is a messenger.

Angel: “Superhuman or heavenly being who serves as God's messenger.”
(http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/angel/)

Bottomless pit = Abyss = the abode of demons
Abbadon = Destroyer
Apollyon = Destroyer
(Any Lexicon will confirm the above.)

Therefore, the angel of the bottomless pit is a king who is the Destroyer.

His origin is not of Heaven, but of the abyss.

He is not of God, but of his father, the Devil, a murderer from the beginning; a liar and thief who comes to steal, kill and destroy.

Is the Pope the Destroyer sent by Satan?

I quote excerpts from Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council Encyclical, Canon 3:

“We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known…..”

“Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross [i.e., the mark of the Beast] for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.”

“Secular authorities……….ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church;”

“….he [the Pope] may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith;”
(http://www.intratext.com/ixt/eng0431/)
(Text taken from H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, (St. Louis, 1937)

Exterminate = “ to get rid of by destroying; destroy totally; extirpate: to exterminate an enemy; to exterminate insects. “ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exterminate)

CONCLUSION: The Pope is the Destroyer; a king; a false apostle, a demon angel/messenger who orders the extermination of dissenters.

He is Antichrist who comes in the name of Christ.

"Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

PEANUTS is SEVEN letters, and can be anagrammed into A SUN PET, which clearly means a devotee of the pagan sun god!

Charlie Brown bears upon his shirt the wavy line symbol of Aquarius, the water-bearer of pagan astrology.

Peppermint Patty is also the name of a candy produced by York, as in the York Rite of Freemasonry.

Schroeder: Bavarian, just like the Illuminati. Enough said.

Marcie anagrams to MERCIA, and ancient English kingdom close to the the Kingdom of Northumbria, which contained the City of York, as in the York Rite of Freemasonry.

Sally Brown calls Linus "her sweet baboo" an obvious reference to baboon and thus, evolution.

Snoopy alludes to the 'snoops' inside spy agencies of the government, part of the Masonic New World Order.

And to think people have read this mind-destroying stuff for decades....

Please note that the word "exterminate" (as has been pointed out countless times on this board) does not mean to kill, as one exterminates pests, but to drive outside of the boundaries of said Catholic country.

This from the Catholic EncyclopediaL

"Innocent was also a zealous protector of the true Faith and a strenuous opponent of heresy. His chief activity was turned against the Albigenses who had become so numerous and aggressive that they were no longer satisfied with being adherents of heretical doctrines but even endeavoured to spread their heresy by force. They were especially numerous in a few cities of Northern and in Southern France. During the first year of his pontificate Innocent sent the two Cistercian monks Rainer and Guido to the Albigenses in France to preach to them the true Faith and dispute with them on controverted topics of religion. The two Cistercian missionaries were soon followed by Diego, Bishop of Osma, then by St. Dominic and the two papal legates. Peter of Castelnau and Raoul. When, however, these peaceful missionaries were ridiculed and despised by the Albigenses, and the papal legate Castelnau was assassinated in 1208, Innocent resorted to force. He ordered the bishops of Southern France to put under interdict the participants in the murder and all the towns that gave shelter to them. He was especially incensed against Count Raymond of Toulouse who had previously been excommunicated by the murdered legate and whom, for good reasons, the pope suspected as the instigator of the murder. The count protested his innocence and submitted to the pope, probably out of cowardice, but the pope placed no further trust in him. He called upon France to raise an army for the suppression of the Albigenses. Under the leadership of Simon of Montfort a cruel campaign ensued against the Albigenses which, despite the protest of Innocent, soon turned into a war of conquest (see ALBIGENSES)."

 

[DHK]

This from the Catholic EncyclopediaL

"Innocent was also a zealous protector of the true Faith and a strenuous opponent of heresy. His chief activity was turned against the Albigenses who had become so numerous and aggressive that they were no longer satisfied with being adherents of heretical doctrines but even endeavoured to spread their heresy by force. They were especially numerous in a few cities of Northern and in Southern France. During the first year of his pontificate Innocent sent the two Cistercian monks Rainer and Guido to the Albigenses in France to preach to them the true Faith and dispute with them on controverted topics of religion. The two Cistercian missionaries were soon followed by Diego, Bishop of Osma, then by St. Dominic and the two papal legates. Peter of Castelnau and Raoul. When, however, these peaceful missionaries were ridiculed and despised by the Albigenses, and the papal legate Castelnau was assassinated in 1208, Innocent resorted to force. He ordered the bishops of Southern France to put under interdict the participants in the murder and all the towns that gave shelter to them. He was especially incensed against Count Raymond of Toulouse who had previously been excommunicated by the murdered legate and whom, for good reasons, the pope suspected as the instigator of the murder. The count protested his innocence and submitted to the pope, probably out of cowardice, but the pope placed no further trust in him. He called upon France to raise an army for the suppression of the Albigenses. Under the leadership of Simon of Montfort a cruel campaign ensued against the Albigenses which, despite the protest of Innocent, soon turned into a war of conquest (see ALBIGENSES)."

Born Lothair of Segni (in Italian, Lotario di Segni), Innocent III was one of the most powerful and influential popes of the Middle Ages. He sponsored the Fourth Crusade and the Albigensian Crusade, he approved the work of Saints Dominic and Francis, he convoked the fourth Lateran Council, and he built the papacy into a more powerful, prestigious institution than it had ever been before. Innocent viewed the role of the pope as not merely a spiritual leader but a secular one as well, and while he held the papal office he made that vision a reality.

Almost immediately upon his election as pope, Innocent sought to reassert papal rights in Rome, bringing about peace among the rival aristocratic factions and gaining the respect of the Roman people within a few years. Innocent also took a direct interest in the German succession. He believed that the pope had the right to approve or reject any election that was questionable on the grounds that the German ruler could claim the title of "Holy" Roman Emperor, a position that affected the spiritual realm. At the same time, Innocent explicitly disclaimed secular power in most of the remainder of Europe; but he still took direct interest in matters in France and England, and his influence in Germany and Italy alone was enough to bring the papacy into the forefront of medieval politics.


Innocent called the Fourth Crusade, which was diverted to Constantinople. The pope excommunicated the Crusaders who attacked Christian cities, but he made no move to halt or overturn their actions because he felt, erroneously, that the Latin presence would bring about a reconciliation between the Eastern and Western Churches. Innocent also ordered a crusade against the Albigenses, which successfully subdued the Cathar heresy in France but at a great cost in life and blood.

http://historymedren.about.com/library/who/blwwinnocent3.htm


This site is dedicated to the study of medieval history. It is neither Catholic nor Protestant that I can see. It is obvious that your Catholic sources revise history when possible, and make a complete bloody genocide and massacre of an entire people, into a family picnic without even a scratch on anyone. He lived up to his name didn't he? Innocent???
He was anything but!
A bloody massacre, and their blood is upon the Pope's hands.

 

[Protestant]

PEANUTS is SEVEN letters, and can be anagrammed into A SUN PET, which clearly means a devotee of the pagan sun god!

Charlie Brown bears upon his shirt the wavy line symbol of Aquarius, the water-bearer of pagan astrology.

Peppermint Patty is also the name of a candy produced by York, as in the York Rite of Freemasonry.

Marcie anagrams to MERCIA, and ancient English kingdom close to the the Kingdom of Northumbria, which contained the City of York, as in the York Rite of Freemasonry.

Sally Brown calls Linus "her sweet baboo" an obvious reference to baboon and thus, evolution.

Snoopy alludes to the 'snoops' inside spy agencies of the government, part of the Masonic New World Order.

And to think people have read this mind-destroying stuff for decades....

The above argumentation is typical of one who has lost all sense of reality.

Rather than face the hard truth which I have carefully and simply explained so that a child could understand, Walter responds with fictions relating to fictional characters.

Walter's psychosis has been delineated by The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).

It defines someone who is “psychotic” as out of touch with reality, likely experiencing false beliefs, [i.e., Roman Catholicism], known as delusions or false sights or sounds, known as hallucinations.

I believe adoration of the Holy Eucharist has taken its toll.