Why do protestant groups insist on saving people that don’t need saving…?

MattBlack,

Matt, you can "call me on it" to your hearts content. And where do you get this "your assertions" stuff?

They are not my assertions. The one whos work I quoted from is the one who produced those 24 volumes of scholarly work, not me.

I am not a novice regarding dealing with Catholic apologists, Matt. I've been doing it for years.

Its always the same. The "modus operendi" for Catholic apologists is to constantly create diversions, send people off on little "rabbit trails", sling some mud, question peoples credibility, maybe slander a little bit, etc etc etc. Anything to divert attention away from whatever it is that has become "troublesome".

Its not going to work.

I am not going to waste my time going off on silly little rabbit trails. The person in question on the other thread speant YEARS of his life doing that very thing in writing 24 BOOKS of SCHOLARLY information. And he took the time to provide extensive footnotes. I have full confidence that he went down every "rabbit trail" that needs to be investigated.

This is not a Catholic source we are dealing with here, Matt. This is someone interested in the truth.. If he didnt know it was TRUE, he would not have committed himself to the years it took to produce the work.

God bless,

Mike

 

Matt,

I wonder why you don't join RC,if you like them.

I wonder whether or not you agree with them on Purgatory. If you agree on it, then you don't believe that you yourself are going to Heaven after death, but to Purgatory.
You may say that Purgatory is a temporary place and you are saved. However your destiny would be depending on the prayers and almsgiving, and works by others, which is quite a misery and unpredictable. Bible clearly says no human being can satify God's standard as we read Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Therefore, even in Purgatory ( if it existed even though it is untrue) the only breakthrough would be Relying on Redemption at the Cross.

If you don't believe in Purgatory, isn't it enough for you to quit defending for RC?

Do you believe Mass is correct where priests repeat to ask God to forgive sins, then never bring the forgiveness which was done already at the Cross? If they indeed preach the Redemption and Forgiveness of sins at the Cross, why don't they preach the Forgiveness next week, instead of asking for the forgiveness of sins repeatedly?
Asking God for the forgiveness of sins without bringing the Gospel that such sins were already forgiven is apparently an Unbelief about what was done by Him, right?
Do you believe that all of our sins were already forgiven? or do you believe that something should be done at every time when you commit sins?
If you believe that your sins were already forgiven completely at the Cross and need Sacrifice no more, then you disagree with RC Mass, right?

Do you believe this?:

Heb 10:18
Now where remission of these is no more offering for sin.

If you believe these truth, why do you try to defend such Heretics?

Don't you expect such Heretics can produce a lot more heretics such as Papacy, Idol making, Idol Worship, Prayer to the Dead, etc?

If you agree with such Heresies, why don't you join there? If you disagree with them, why do you try to defend them ?

Do you agree that there is no Salvation outside the Holy Roman Catholic declared by the same Pope who claimed Papal Infallibility ?

 

Eliyahu, I suspect Matt is much like I am in this regard, we both have serious disagreements with the theological positions of the RCC, however we are both tired of the slanderous trashing of the RCC that occurs on this board. I am trying to defend them by correcting gross missunderstandings, responding against bigoted hatefull writings, and to give them a voice where they have none.

By not engaging in hateful speech and addressing them in Christian love and fellowship I am hearing more and more from RCC clergy and laity, "Martin Luther was right"

 

From the first, and throughout, that movement [the Reformation] was energised and guided by the prophetic Word. Luther never felt strong and free to war against the papal apostasy till he recognised the pope as antichrist. It was then he burned the papal Bull. Knox's first sermon, the sermon which launched him on his mission as a Reformer, was on the prophecies concerning the Papacy. The Reformers embodied their interpretation of prophecy in their confessions of faith, and Calvin in his "Institutes". All the Reformers were unanimous in the matter . . . And their interpretation of these prophecies determined their reforming action . . . It nerved them to resist the claims of that apostate church to the uttermost. It made them martyrs, it sustained them at the stake. And the views of the Reformers were shared by thousands, by hundreds of thousands. They were adopted by princes and peoples... —H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation (Toronto: S. R. Briggs, [n.d.]), pp.250-260.


Martin Luther
We are convinced that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist — D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Briefwechsel (Weimar, 1930-1948), Vol.2, p.167, cited in What Luther Says, ed. Ewald M. Plass, Vol.1, p.34.

You should know that the pope is the real, true, final Antichrist, of whom the entire Scripture speaks, whom the Lord is beginning to consume with the spirit of His mouth and will very soon destroy and slay with the brightness of His coming, for which we are waiting. — D. Martin Luthers Werke, ed. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883-), Vol. 8, p.554., cited in Plass, op. cit, Vol.1, pp.36, 37.

(In response to a papal bull [official decree]): "I despise and attack it, as impious, false... It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." --D'Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.


“The mass,” continued he, ( Luther ) “is a bad thing; God is opposed to it; it ought to be abolished; and I would that throughout the whole world it were replaced by the Supper of the Gospel. But let no one be torn from it by force. We must leave the matter in God’s hands. His Word must act, and not we. And why so, you will ask? Because I do not hold men’s hearts in my hand, as the potter holds the clay. We have a right to speak; we have not the right to act. Let us preach: the rest belongs unto God. Were I to employ force, what should I gain? Grimace, formality, apelings, human ordinances, and hypocrisy......But there would be no sincerity of heart, nor faith, nor charity. Where these three are wanting, all is wanting, and I would not give a pear-stalk for such a result. ( HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY by J. H. Merle D’Aubigne book 9 chap.8)

7. But not only have such great strides been made in the world of commerce, but also in the spiritual field have there been great changes. Error, sin, and falsehood have never held sway in the world as in these last centuries. The Gospel has been openly condemned at Constance, and the false teachings of the Pope have been adopted as law though he practiced the greatest extortion. Daily mass is celebrated many hundred thousand times in the world, and thereby the greatest sin committed. ( SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER VOL. 1 SERMONS ON GOSPEL TEXTS FOR ADVENT, CHRISTMAS & EPIPHANY by Martin Luther SECOND SUNDAY IN ADVENT. I. THE SIGNS OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. )

63. The Turks also are no Christians; but in two senses they are better than the Papists: first, they have never been Christians or stars, therefore have not fallen from the faith; secondly, they do not sin against the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood. But the Papists make a sacrifice out of the mass and a meritorious work and do it daily and continually. This is certainly the most sacrilegious perversion upon which the sun has yet shined. In short he who desires to become holy and be saved by works and holy orders, falls from the faith, falls from heaven; for the blood of Jesus Christ alone is able to save us. Therefore, whenever you see a star fall, then know that it signifies some one has become a priest, a monk, or a nun. ( SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER VOL. 1 SERMONS ON GOSPEL TEXTS FOR ADVENT, CHRISTMAS & EPIPHANY by Martin Luther THE SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF THESE GOSPEL SIGNS.)

Bye for now. Y.b. in C. Keith

 

AMEN!!!

I think Bro. Luther, at least in this statement, had the makings of a Primitive Baptist even before we existed as Primitive Baptists.

btw, does anyone else love the hymn "A Mighty Fortress"? I just love that song.

 

Chemnitz, I guess you wouldn't have joined Lutheran if you had lived in the era of Luther, but would have stayed in RCC.
Thesedays, Lutheran pastors are quite happy with cigars in the mouth carrying one bottle wine in their hands. They don't live so much complicated lives as I am struggling.

 

Let God be praised for these faithful men who, at Gods appointed time, rose up and prophesied truth directly about, and to, the Pope and his murderous minions.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Matt, you can "call me on it" to your hearts content. And where do you get this "your assertions" stuff?

They are not my assertions. The one whos work I quoted from is the one who produced those 24 volumes of scholarly work, not me.

I am not a novice regarding dealing with Catholic apologists, Matt. I've been doing it for years.

Its always the same. The "modus operendi" for Catholic apologists is to constantly create diversions, send people off on little "rabbit trails", sling some mud, question peoples credibility, maybe slander a little bit, etc etc etc. Anything to divert attention away from whatever it is that has become "troublesome".

Its not going to work.

I am not going to waste my time going off on silly little rabbit trails. The person in question on the other thread speant YEARS of his life doing that very thing in writing 24 BOOKS of SCHOLARLY information. And he took the time to provide extensive footnotes. I have full confidence that he went down every "rabbit trail" that needs to be investigated.

This is not a Catholic source we are dealing with here, Matt. This is someone interested in the truth.. If he didnt know it was TRUE, he would not have committed himself to the years it took to produce the work.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]&lt;sigh and beats head against brick wall&gt; How can I make this easier for you Mike.

You (and Wylie and Carroll) say: there were proto-evangelical groups outside of the Catholic-Orthodox Church(es) from the time of Constantine (fl 313) until the Reformation - right? That is 'your assertion' to which I refer. The fact that Wylie, Carroll and the guy living two blocks down the road from you also assert it doesn't make it any more than an assertion; it merely means that others assert it too.

For an assertion to be borne out as true, it requires evidence. The truth of the assertion is not dependent on the character of he who asserts. I'm sure Carroll and Wylie were very good, moral Christian men who loved the Lord, as indeed I'm sure you are and do too. But that doesn't affect the accuracy of your assertion; evidence is needed.

I have already elsewhere admitted that from the time of the Waldenses (c1160-) there were such groups, and in that category I would also include the Wycliffites/Lollards and the Hussites/ Bohemian Brethren, but NOT the Cathar/Albigenses. So, your task is to produce evidence to demonstrate the proof for your contention/assertion that such groups existed in the years 313-1160.

Such evidence comes in the form of contemporary primary source documents. Let's break that down:

'Contemporary' means dating from the time under consideration ie: 313-1160

'Primary source' means from a source written at the time ie: a later copy is fine, but a later paraphrase, summary or 'spin'/opinion is not.

'Document' means written rather than mere hearsay.

Now, Carroll, Wylie and indeed Mosheim are not contemporary, as they wrote ouside of the period under discussion eg: Wylie in 1878. They are not primary sources either although I accept they refer to those from time to time. Therefore, their works do not qualify as contemporary primary source documents.

So - the task for you and others asserting similarly is clear now, I hope: either here or on the Catholicism thread, please cite clearly the primary source documents and the passages therein upon which you seek to rely in demonstrating the truth of your assertion. That's all I've been asking for, and I still await your answer.

[ETA - Eliyahu, my answer is basically what Chemnitz said. I think the Reformation was necessary because after 1054 the Church no longer spoke with a united voice which meant that Catholics in particular were free to add unilaterally to doctrine unchecked by the 'counsel of the whole Church' as it were, and that 'adding' was largely erroneous eg: Purgatory, the 'works-based salvation' of the late medieval scholastics, indulgences etc. So that's primarily why I'm not Catholic, yet I believe that they are closer to the truth than some free church evangelicals...]

 

Matt,
When I visited Europe, I often noticed that the free Evangelicals are even worse than Catholics sometimes, in terms of practicing their faith in their lives. They don't care about abortion or many other things.
On the other hand in my view you under-estimate the fundamental problems with RC doctrines and the outcomes from such doctrines as consequences.

Mostly RC is based on human works, human idea, and in such case Holy Spirit doesn't work. Even after I was born again, if I try to work before Holy Spirit works or try to work on my own, Holy Spirit didn't work.

As a result, Compulsory Celibacy which is contrary to 1 Tim 3:2, Papacy against Mt 23:8-11, Idol making, Idol Worship, Prayer for the dead, Prayer to the dead, Inquisition, and many practices are wrong, and we can safely conclude that RC is worse than any other heretics and fall under the False Prophets mentioned in Mt 7:15-16

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.


If we can definitely confirm that RC is Fake Christian religion, then should we still condon and advocate them as Brothers and Sisters?


As I mentioned before their concept of salvation is different as they say they are born again by Baptism, even by Infant Baptism, or they claim simply that they are saved by deciding to attend RC churches. True Christianity believes that the spiritual conversion comes after the repentence.
Spiritual experience is essential for the Salvation. All the time so far, whenever I spoke with RC people I have noticed that they don't have actual experience of Being Born Again, while I have noticed and heard hundreds of Protestant believers testifying their own salvation about how they were born again by Holy Spirit, or how they met their Lord Jesus Christ and their lives were changed thereafter.

This is a serious matter that RC or RC sympathizers should think about.

Without such spiritual changes, RC just repeat the religious ceremonies and claim that they are the fellow Christian believers as well and that they are the Christian Brothers and Sisters, which is far untrue because they don't have any spiritual acceptance of Holy Spirit. This is the problem with many denominations of Free Evangelical Churches as well.

These are the fundamental underlying problems and misunderstandings.

 

Keith -- good source documents!

 

#1. WHY in the world are you falling on your sword over the idea that the RCC was so successful at exterminating those who opposed it - that none could have survived??!!!

#2. WHY in the world are you falling on your sword over the idea that Waldenses, Albigensis, and other early Christian groups "should only be viewed through the eyes of their murderers"???

Where do you come up with that stuff?

Why would anyone but a truly "extremist" RC member even venture onto such absurd territory???

What motivates you??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Don't read more into than is there. Luther only felt that way because it changed the Lord's Supper into a sacrifice instead of being a gift of the gospel as was intended by God.

That is a load of well I can't say with out having post deleted. How dare you insinuate such garbage. You don't have the first clue about what is to be a Lutheran Pastor. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for spouting such filth.

BTW I would have gladly joined Luther.

 

Wow! This is a wide brush stroke if ever I've seen one. The Lutherans I know have dedicated and godly pastors.

 

quote: Eliyahu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thesedays, Lutheran pastors are quite happy with cigars in the mouth carrying one bottle wine in their hands. They don't live so much complicated lives as I am struggling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The protesting Roman Catholic "Luther" was very different from the Lutheran church today. It is often very difficult to find a Lutheran that even knows the doctrinal differences between what Martin Luther actually believed and the RCC -- and the Bible basis for those beliefs.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Only a Protestant calls the Baptists Protestants. This shows a high level of willing ignorance. Not only have there always been churches that preach Baptist doctrine, they have always been persecuted. Even before the Crusades the Catholics were bent on destroying certain groups-who were they? The local Lyon's Clubs? Read "The Trail of Blood," then "Foxe's Book of Martyrs," and throw in a couple of Baptist History books and get back to me.
Protestants left the Catholic Church. Does any one think there was no accurate religion being practiced before Luther? We never left anything-especially that "Mother of Harlots," who birthed all these other harlots, who teach works salvation.

 

I never had any trouble finding people who know the difference.

 

You often spout the filth !

 

How dare you spout the Garbage from your mouth ?

 

ummmmmm -- Could we play nice, please?

 

Better yet, why don't you read the actual primary source documents, rather than secondary historical revisitionist works ("Trail of Blood"--p-lease!), and you get back to us.