Tags
It is one of those deep Mysteries, which will never be understood, save in Heaven, in the Light and Love of Almighty God. For it may be, that, in Hell, it will be part of the misery of the damned, still to rebel against the Justice of God, as here against His Love and Righteous Will. One only difficulty there is, of which all the rest are but offshoots, “Whence is evil amid the Works of an All-Good, All-Wise, God?” And if man, living in this corner of the Creation, bounded in his understanding, looking but a little way along a little space, be not humble enough to say, “I cannot know, God has not revealed it,” there is nothing before him, but to say with the fool, “There is no God.” If we shrink back from this, as we must, and believe, and know, and confess, and glory, and think in our inmost souls, that, be this how it may, (we know not, need not to know, cannot know now, wish not to know,) since we know this which alone concerns us, that God is very good to us, then we shall go on, and with the Psalmist “Praise God in His Holiness,” for “His Mercy is over all His Works,8” although we understand not His Dealing with any of them.
There are but two resting-places in the whole range of thought about God; the one a loving, implicit, child-like faith, which, although it understands not, believes every Word of God, because it loves Him, and “bends not the Thoughts of God to be as its thoughts, but yields and casts down its every thought to be obedient to the Thoughts of God; the other, entire unbelief, which ends in dethroning God, making God a part of the world, and itself a part of God. All else is only moving in the one way or the other.
…
And so will ye, too, Brethren, and putting from you all thoughts, “how it can be thus?” think only, reverently though sadly, “hath not He Who is Love, God Who, for Love of us men, became Man, said, it shall be thus?”
Alas! Brethren, it is an Aweful, painful Mystery of the Justice of Almighty God, corresponding with the Mystery of His Love in our Redemption by the Infinite Merits and the Death of the Only-Begotten Son. Both were foreshadowed from Paradise; both were revealed, in their depth of light and darkness together, by Him, and in Him. It would seem as though they were inseparable. Without the one, we should presume; as, without the other, despair. The loss of an Infinite Good, must be an infinite evil. An Infinite Remedy implies an ill all-but infinite. We can see that it is very fearful to put aside Love so Boundless. It may be a contradiction, that such Love, such light terms of acceptance should be offered, and not entail misery proportioned on those who put them aside. But what I would point out, is the fact, that our knowledge of the Greatness of our Redemption, the misery of those who would not receive it, and their multitude, became known to us, by degrees, together. Scarcely were the Gates of Paradise closed, with the Promise of Him Who should crush the serpent’s head, than the first-born of our fallen race was a murderer! His seed became the mighty of the earth, the discoverers of all earthly wisdom, the corrupters of what remained good in the race of Seth, until “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” …What is the constant prophecy of Judgment to come? “A remnant only shall be saved.” It is foretold in the name of Isaiah’s son; and yet he again, St. Paul says, is the image of us Christians, “the children which God” the Father “hath given” to His Christ. St. Paul again gives this as the sum of the prophecies as to Israel. “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved; ” and again, “Except the Lord of Hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah,” the cities whom God utterly overthrew, “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Again, when amid a great forsaking in the midst of the land, a tenth only should remain, even this should again be consumed, and a “holy seed” alone be the hope for the time to come. “A holy seed,” “gleaning grapes as the shaking of an olive tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in the outmost fruitful branches thereof;” such are the emblems of those who shall be left. And when that former people were restored from that first desolation, the captivity of Babylon, (again an image of our restoration in Christ), how few, in comparison, even of that one tribe returned, from which our Lord was to be born; and when He came, these were divided in divers heresies; and they who believed in Him, although a great multitude, even “many tens of thousands” in Jerusalem alone, were still but “a remnant according to the election of Grace,” while “the rest were blinded.” What is the very name of Christians in St. Paul, but “the elect,” i. e. those “chosen out of” the greater mass who remained; and of those thus chosen, there is yet a smaller body, which, when the larger part are cast away, shall be “the chosen;” “Many are called, but few chosen.” Again, the name by which our Lord calls His disciples, is “a little flock. d” He prays for them who are chosen out of the world. They are but as a heap of corn, small, compared to the chaff from which it is sifted. e Such is the history before Christ came and at His Coming; before, few were even called, still fewer chosen; at His Coming “His own received Him not.” So many would “not have this Man to reign over them,” that St. Paul had to prove that God had not altogether cast away His people, that, in the mass of Israel, there was a hidden number who alone were the true Israel. And what shall be at the end? Our Lord answereth, “When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find Faith on the earth?” and that, “if it were possible, the very elect” should fail.
…….
But what, Brethren? are we then to despond for ourselves or others, because the way is narrow, and few find it? This were the very device of Satan, to slay us through despair, if he cannot lay us to sleep in presumption. This we know, God willeth all men to be saved, willeth that we be saved. His Love is wanting to no one, but we to It. God willeth thee to be saved; will thou it also; will it with a steadfast will; will it with a whole heart; will it at whatever cost; and pray Him to uphold thy will, and thou wilt be saved. Wherever or whatsoever we are, we are encompassed with tokens of His Love. …
These aweful warnings are but a token the more of His Love towards us, if we will be warned. He terrifieth us, only that we may take refuge in His Love. He meeteth us in terror if we fly from Him, only that we may turn to Him in love. He affrighteth us, even as a tender parent doth, that we may cling the closer unto Him. … He biddeth us, “fear” and “fear not;” “fear Him” and we shall fear nothing out of Him; “fear the Lord and depart from evil.” He Himself saith, “Ye that fear the Lord, put your trust in the Lord, He is their Helper and Defender.'” He Himself biddeth them who fear Him, to say “His Mercy endureth for ever.” …….
Never, perhaps, were there times, in which the Windows of Heaven were more opened, God’s Calls louder, His Work and Care, in recovering us, as a Church, more visible, His Work and Care for human souls more manifest. He calls us, as a Church, by sorrow and by blessing, by spreading us without and strengthening us within, by giving us “the heathen for our inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for our possession,” by enlarging our borders; and woe unto us, if we preach not the gospel.'” He is calling us individually, again and again; He is calling the very “dead in trespasses and sins” to hear His Voice and live.
Oh stand we not all the day idle! trust we ourselves with Him, and He hath said, “A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand, but it shall not come nigh thee.” Aid we how we may, whom we can, by prayers, alms, self-denial, that His Call reach others also. Our love shall return into our own bosom. “Pray” we “the Lord of the Harvest” to “send forth labourers into His Harvest.” And for ourselves and those we love, fear we not either repented sin or present infirmities, so as to lose courage, and faith, and hope in Him. The more pitfalls surround us, cleave we the closer to Him, our Only Guide. The more the waves assault us, cling we closer to Him, the Rock of our Salvation. Cast we ourselves, our fears, our past sins, into the Infinite Abyss of His Mercies, and as we lose ourselves in Him, we shall find ourselves in Him for ever. If we fear to faint by the way, keep we the nearer to Him Who is our Food for the way. If we fear to be parted from Him, part we with ought, at least offer we to Him, to part from us ought which may keep us from Him. Commit we our way unto Him, and He will bring it to pass. He Who forsook us not when we forsook Him, will not forsake us when we would turn to Him. “Faithful is He That calleth you, Who also will do it.”
Now unto Him “Who hath saved us, and called us with an Holy Calling, not according to our works, but according to His Own Purpose and Grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, be blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, for ever and ever, Amen.”
St Bosco said:
Its the best subject…..getting saved. Nothing else matters.
Now, on a more worthless and mundane matter, …….I always get a kick out of the Catholic League and Donahoe. He withdrew the League from this parade because they are letting homos prance in it. Why doesn’t he quit the catholic church. It allows, nay, it welcomes homos into its priest craft. And at the same time it decries homosexuality. But you say other religions have wicked priests. other religions don’t claim that their priests are little christs and have special powers that god must obey. This means that the claims are false. A religion based on false claims….my my. Anyone who lives and dies in this false system gets what they deserve.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I think you may have made this point before – about two thousand times before.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
I believe it is an important point. My catholic brothers need food for thought.They will never seek the invisible Christ as long as they think they are saved thru their priestcraft. If I can wake them up. ive done something with my life.
Cathols love to say….Oh, there are sinners everywhere. Fool…everyone is a sinner.
A priest is a man of god, holy and set apart. A mediator between man and god. A religion that has wicked priests is a false religion. Now why would anyone want to stay in a false religion?
Answer; Because man Is wicked.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The problem here Bosco is you are arguing against something which does not exist. I have never met a Catholic who thought he was saved by a priest. I think you know lots of deadbeat Catholics who knew nothing about the Church they have abandoned.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
You, good brother, are not the average cathol. You cut the fat off the meat. Most other cathols depend on the priest to bring god down from heaven so they can stare at him. I hear it every day, 100 times a day, how this euchrist is the thing that gives them god. I know you don’t bow befor idols. You take the essence of religion and leave the fat on the cutting floor. You will make a powerful witness for Christ.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Jesus told us that the bread and wine were his body and his blood; the Eucharist is this body and blood, it is Jesus – and as we all know, it is Jesus who saves.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Yes, and you always have stressed that. Ive often wonderd about you. You never say that Mary is needed to get to Christ. Its like you dont subscribe to everything your beloved religion tells you. Ive even seen you say that non cathols can go to heaven. Oops…. I hope Quiav the Great didn’t see me say that.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
My Church tells me something very simple Bosco. Jesus founded it, Jesus is necessary for salvation, and the house of Jesus is his church. Beyond that, nothing more is necessary.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
“”All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”
“”Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who – by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion – are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.'”
“”The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”” (CCC, 836-838)
“”Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”
“The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”
“And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
“The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
“All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .
“The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”
“In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
“Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.
“To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.” (CCC, 839-845)
Bosco, Chalcedon is just simply an orthodox Catholic maintaining to the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I cite here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
St Bosco said:
The CC has put on a happy face mask. They also have stopped burning bible believers to death. Its bad for business.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Generally, I would have to agree with “Bosco” here, the visible Roman Catholic Church, especially since Vatican II, and noting the GS, or the Gaudium et spes, does not look or sound like the Church Catholic! The Church is NOT founded on Peter himself, but his witness and revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah of God! (Jesus/Yeshua). (See, 1 Peter 2: 4-7, etc.) Btw, ugh on the “happy face” indeed, that the modern and now postmodern church has become, and surely both Catholic and Protestant! Liberalism, with the Enlightenment (18th century European philosophical movement, which is still post today!)
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
I should have added Vatican I, and the whole 19th century doctrine of the Papacy! It “ain’t” Infallible! And btw, were NOT going to agree here about the essence of the so-called Church Catholic! As a classic Anglican here, I would be somewhat closer to the EO on the Ecumenical Councils, though only the first 5 for myself. But with Luther, I would press that General Councils may error, and have sometimes brought error, so it is my conscience and mind bound by the Holy Scripture itself, in “spirit and truth”! Yes, I am a Protestant, and unashamedly! 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The only difficulty is that the Petrine verses are clear – and as we can see, Anglican authority is not. 🙂
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
C speaks of this mythical thing called “Anglican authority” LOL–no offense to Mother. Maybe the Continuing Anglicans have a sense of authority. I’ve been going to an Anglican Catholic Church that is located at a cemetery that is part of the Traditional Anglican Communion which is a Continuing Anglican Church. Much more authority there–even their own canon lawyers. Nearly joined up with the Catholic Church…most of its parishes did any way.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Hello good brother irishanglican. You are a breath of fresh air. its rare for someone to agree with me, in here that is.
You have to excuse good brother Chalcedon for his swipe at the authority of the Anglican church. He means well.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@chalcedon… That’s of course YOUR supposition mate! The so-called Petrine authority is NOT really based on the exegesis of the whole “Petrine” Textual authority, as I noted in quoting from 1 Peter 2! (Of which you are silent!) And again, even the EO or Orthodox don’t see the classic Roman papal authority, i.e. from the Papacy itself, as the Infallible so-called chair of Peter! It’s a late addition! WE can see this in some of the statements even in Bernard the Abbot of Clairvaux, per the so-called Immaculate Conception! But that is another long issue.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I have no problem with 1 Peter 2, on which, indeed, somewhere here, I have written a commentary. The Orthodox saw it until they decided not to. If you look up the series on the Council of Chalcedon on this blog, you will see the grounds on which I make these comments.
What you bind here is bound in heaven, said Jesus. That is a statement of infallibility, and was, and must be, inherent in authority – how else are we to discern God’s voice over the shouting of our self-will?
As for Our Lady being Immaculate, the OC believe the same, though they use different phraseology.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@St. Bosco: Yes, sadly the full historical of Anglicanism is rarely seen these days, especially the so-called English! And here we must hammer home the great history of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (BCP), and the legacy of the Elizabethan Settlement! We live in the day of modernity and postmodernity! And oh so how has the High Church people today fallen in here!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded
Jesus is the Rock, not some man.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Jesus said it when he named Peter ‘the rock’, so you will have to take it up with him next time you visit.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother irishanglican, I don’t know anything of full Anglican historical, or Cramner or Elizabethian settlement. But whatever they are, they have turned you into a decent soul. Gods speed to you.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@Bosco: I am just a classic historical Anglican churchman, with the Thirty-Nine Articles, etc. And yes, I am a conservative Evangelical Anglican also.
God’s blessings to you also mate, as all here.. In Christ! May Christ, the “Logos” (Word) and the “Rhema” (His utterance/”kerygma”) BE our blessing!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
An edict of Roman Emperor Theodosius linked Saint Peter with Rome!!
Emperor Theodosius, with the help of bishop Ambrose of Milan, laid the groundwork for the 2 main Latin Church heresies:
1. The Primacy of St. Peter.
2. The civil power or government is subservient to the Latin Popes and their clergy
In 380, Theodosius issued an edict that everybody in the Empire MUST believe that Pope Damasus was the successor of St. Peter.
The claim that the CC is the church that Christ founded is built on an edict, a law, on pain of death. In south America, the natives either converted or were killed. They still remain catholic even though the cruel Jesuits don’t kill them anymore. Same for the rest. Mormons are born into that religion. hardly anyone would examine it and then join it. The CC hangs its legitimacy on aedict, a claim. A claim founded on a claim. No basis in reality. Peter never even was anywhere near rome.
So no, the CC isn’t founded by Christ.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The difficulty with your method Bosco is that it is unhistorical. Theodosius was not the first person to make this claim – Jesus was. Nice to know a Roman Emperor ended up following Jesus; so will we all if we ask him.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The moral of the story is…..Peter as pope and bishop of rome was forced on the people, because it never happened.
Seems the CC only sells claims. You drop your dime in the basket and you get a earful of claims. Anybody can claim anything. The Mormons have all 12 apostles. The CC only claims to have one. Ask any Mormon, he will tell you its true.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
But there is, and we have presented it here many times, good historical evidence for the Papal claims; there is none for Mormonism.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Bosco, Mormonism emerged in 19th century America. The Catholic Church stretches back from at LEAST the fourth century C.E. up through its split with the Orthodox, up through the Protestant Reformation. Possibly even directly to Jesus as the orthodox doctrines developed via the ecumenical councils which you can read about here:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/index.htm
The first seven are agreed upon by High Anglicans, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox alike. You can choose to go your way or the church’s way but going the church’s way is going to be a hell of a LOT easier for you because you’ll find that no one agrees with you!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Ah, mon ami, you are wrong again. Someone does agree with me.
Say, since when did you become the voice of religious morality?
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Yes Bosco, a paedobaptist (of which you are not) “agrees” with you (an adults-only baptist).
Since I took a class in religion and moral issues I became a voice on religious morality but by no means the only or the loudest voice. Go to school, get an education, and damn, you’re no longer Protestant!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Oh gosh, you took a class on religious morality. Well excuse the hell out of me.
I feel privileged to learn at the feet of the master.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As indeed you should 🙂
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
let me see is I got this straight….go to school and learn and you no longer are protestant. I guess you learn that gold cups and golden Baal sun symbols and cracker gods and graven images and a queen of heaven are where its at?
Say, what school did you go to? Is it too late to get your money back?
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Bosco, the Jesuits improved the morality of the Catholic Church. Any unbiased historian knows that. Trust me, I’m unbiased–I’m just a seeker.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Is that why the Jesuits got banned from the catholic church awhile ago? Even the dirt bag catholic church couldn’t stand the filthy ways of those corrupt murderous Jesuits.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
No Bosco the Jesuits were banned because they defended the rights of the land from European explorers of Native South Americans. Many of them were even brutally killed in their defense of these indigenous peoples.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
trust you. I don’t trust you as far as I can throw you.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Indeed our ONLY trust must be the Holy Word-Writ of God, and its constant Reforming nature, in “Spirit and Truth”! Here is that Reformational and real scholastic nature of the Church of God… ‘Ecclesia semper reformada’!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Worship in spirit and truth. You seem to know what the real deal is. I try to impress on my catholic friends that same message. You see, spirit and truth are invisible. The CC sets out things for the eyes. Nothing is wrong with art…even I do oil on canvas. I don’t need a statue to direct my prayers.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Yes, our “Catholic” Brethren, are quite often NOT bound by the Text of Holy Scripture itself and “alone” (sola Scriptura)! This is one of those great dividing-lines that simply must define the Biblical & Theological Christian! Though sadly too, many so-called Protestant and so-called Evangelical Christians today, are far from this heritage and patrimony also! It is a late hour in the Church of God on earth! (My conviction at least!) And yes, I am pro-Israel! I lived and taught in Israel in the latter 90’s (after fighting in Gulf War 1, as an RMC … this turned-out to be a great providence for me! And now we are seeing the great negative depth of Islam here even more!) Lord have mercy on the Church in the West, and the East!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Yes, these televangelists are waxing fat off the flock. But you know what…..they do preach the word of god and people actually get saved thru them, despite them. Once they are saved, the spirit leads them to gather with other fellow pilgrims.
I believe the time is very near for the rapture. Things cant keep going as they are.
I am pro Israel…what Christian wouldn’t be?God curses those who curse Israel.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Yes, the Bible is about Salvation, and from the OT to the New.. this is a progressive revelation! But GOD has chosen that the great Messiah and Christ of God would be a Jew! (Romans 9: 1-5) So God will again, turn toward National Israel in the last or so-called Eschatological Days, (Matt. 23: 39 ; Zech. 12: 1-9 ; 13: 8-9 ; chap. 14 / Rev. 1: 7). But only an elect Remnant of the Jews and Israel will survive and be saved! (Rom. 11: 25-29)
*I myself see more of a Post-tribulation so-called “Rapture” or “catching away”, “and our gathering together unto him.” (2 Tess. 2: 1 thru verse 3). But I am a Premillennialist, and something of a Progressive Dispensationalist. God will surely save the Land of Israel, and the Jewish and Israeli people therein, but only a “Third” part (Zech. 13: 8-9), will survive during the Day of the Lord, and the Visible Second Coming of Christ! (Zech. 14: 4-7, etc.) My take anyway!
*Btw too, sadly there are many so-called Christians who in reality don’t love the Jewish people nor the Land of Israel: the Holy Land! But the Jewish people are still God’s elect people, and the Covenant is first given to them! (Rom. 15: 8-9) And we are surely seeing too the great Gentile Apostasy spoken of by St. Paul, (2 Tim. 3: 5, etc.)
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Youre rite good brother irish, a third of Israel will survive. I want to ask you one question, to see if you have done your homework.
Where do these jews flee to during the abomination of desolation?
Youre post trib? Well, there is ample cause for you thinking like that. Myself, I am convinced that its pre trib. I know of saved folk that are post trib. Both have their points. I believe, and the NT points out, that the man of sin cant be revealed til the saved are taken out of the way. Plus, the saved aren’t appointed unto wrath. Saved is short for….saved from the wrath of god.
Yes, some Christians don’t care for Israel or jews. Well, narrow is the path to salvation and few be there on.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Well yes, I know my Pre-Trib friends see it as Petra, Jordon…
‘I understand why Jordan is the most likely country to choose (Because Jordan’s King Abdullah is the closest living relative to Mohammed). Is Petra the most likely city because the old Roman Amphitheater?
Also — Wouldn’t the current Jordanians be less than in favor of Petra being invaded? What would have to happen to welcome the Jews?
A. There are three clues that hint at Petra being the hiding place for the Jew during the Great Tribulation. One is in Daniel 11:41 where we learn that Jordan will be one of the only places that elude the Anti-Christ’s control during the Great Tribulation.
The second is in Rev. 12:14 which says that the woman, who represents the believing remnant of Israel, will flee into the desert to a place prepared for them during the Great Tribulation. The closest desert hiding place is Petra.
And the third is in Isaiah 63:1 where the Lord is shown coming from Bozrah, the region where Petra is located, having defeated His enemies there. Many scholars believe that He will do this just prior to arriving in Jerusalem at the 2nd Coming, to protect the believing remnant.
From the non-Biblical side, Jordan does have a peace treaty with Israel, and Petra is an ideal location for the Jews to seek refuge.’
Btw, the “wrath” of God also does not rest on the Redeemed of God, as those saved and being saved! Salvation is biblically seen in three tenses in the Bible: past, present & future! So the idea of the Church being kept during the so-called Tribulation is, or can also be seen in Rev. 3: 10, as kept “thru” the hour. If we make this verse depend upon our “keeping” patience, then it involves OUR being faithful, and this could be somewhat a works-righteousness toward the Rapture. See too, Rev. 12: 17, there will be “the/a remnant, which keep the commandments of of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” But this faith itself, and not works per se.
And 2 Thess. 2: 3 surely teaches that the Church will see the Antichrist! But yes, the “timing” of the Rapture should be something of an open question, generally. But I take the Post-trib, looking at 2 Thess. 2: 1 also.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Ok, you passed the test. Petra was prepaired for the jews to flee to. Its a whole city in the mountain. There he will miraculously feed them and give light to them inside the caves.. God said that over bosra he will throw out his shoe. back in those days, when a man claimed land, he would throw a shoe of his onto the land to claim it.
There is not much more to the story.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The remnant are those who come to the Lord after the rapture. You know, the 144,000 jews and all the people that they bring to Christ.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
When I lived in Israel even back in the latter 90’s, there were several thousand Messianic Jews living in Israel. Now there are certainly many more! Btw, I am quite aware of the whole Pre-Trib and Dispensational position. Even when I was a boy in Dublin Ireland, and a Roman Catholic, my great-gram was a born-again Christian (former Catholic of course). And she had fellowship with and among the so-called Plymouth Brethren. She surely had a mark on my young self, with her “Biblicism” and memory of the Holy Bible! She could quote whole chapters and blocks from the Scripture. She died when I was around 15 as I remember. A fine woman of God!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
In 381, Theodosius presided over the Council of Constantinople. The 150 bishops in attendance refused to acknowledge his Peter in Rome edict and ruled that Old Rome had precedence only because it was the imperial city:
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
And Canon 28 of Chalcedon in 451 overruled that.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Do you know what a camel is?
A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, but you can’t go round making statements as though they are facts when other, later facts, contradict them Bosco.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Ah, I see. A committee was formed that tossed out what the previous committee had laid down. So that makes it a new fact. I wish you could hear yourself.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If a council says x and another says otherwise, then if you say x too, you show yourself not up to date.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Thank God “logic” alone is not the basis of even the Councils! But logic with too the “unio mystica”, but foremost the Holy Scripture! 😉 *Note btw, my first degree was a B.A. in Philosophy from a Catholic school…(way back in my late 20’s).
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Up to date I am not, as everyone in here knows. All I know is Christ and him crucified. I do not claim to know anything else.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
In the year 390, a star charioteer was arrested for the crime of homosexual rape. This took him out of the race, and as a result, the people rioted and many were killed. Theodosius’s answer was to send in his soldiers, and about 7,000 people were massacred
Sorry, this just doesn’t look like a church that Christ founded.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you are expecting an emperor to behave like Jesus, you are always going to be disappointed.
LikeLike
mkenny114 said:
How is it that the question of how many will be saved, which is such an interesting question in and of itself, has been able to be turned into a discussion about ‘priestcraft’, bad history and the supposed secret homosexual agenda of the Church? Monomania anyone?
Happily though, the Faith does not depend upon the acontextual querying of individuals but has been preserved in a continuous community of discernment guided by the Holy Spirit, the results of which can be referred to and considered on its own merits, as is evidenced by New England Sun’s citations above. The Rock or the shifting sands – these are the two options before us.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed Mike – and the misreadings are rife.
LikeLike
mkenny114 said:
They are, and I have to say that this is the primary legacy of the Protestant Reformation. I know this is an ecumenical website, and this certainly isn’t meant as a criticism of individual Protestants, but that severance of the Bible from the Church that bore it was a great tragedy, and we’re still feeling the force of it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I agree, Mike, a great tragedy.
LikeLike
mkenny114 said:
Anyway though, as to the original topic, what are your thoughts?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I thunk Pusey has it right.
LikeLike
mkenny114 said:
Yep, I’d say so. As I said re part 1, there is a part of me that can’t help hoping for all to be saved (though, having said that, the ‘all’ is very difficult to accept when reflecting on some of the great perpetrators of evil that have lived) but on the whole I just can’t quite see the universalist position. For one it, as Pusey intimates, seems to make light of the sacrifices made in this life by those who choose to follow Christ, and makes the interpretation of many dominical sayings hard to fit. I have an ‘ongoing conversation’ with myself about this, but I think the voice of the Church (apart from being authoritative) gives the best sense of things.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
We are at one here, Mike. I want to be a universalist, but the church says that is a heresy – and so I follow the Church.
LikeLike
mkenny114 said:
That’s it. The choice is there again – the Rock or the shifting sands. We have to build our house on His word or, at the end of the day, our (prideful) egos will find a way in.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That is right Mike. We either choose, in effect, to follow ourselves, or Him.
LikeLike
mkenny114 said:
Absolutely. Christ places a very simple path before us in essence, but it doesn’t half get complicated along the way, mainly because of that popular tendency to follow our own will against our best interests 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, our fallen nature gets in the way.
LikeLike
mkenny114 said:
It certainly does. The situation could be summed up as: God makes the world with a view to creating those who would bear His image and share in His life of Love; God creates those creatures; they reject His offer and continue to reject it in favour of lesser, short-term gains; God enters into the world to rectify things and offer a way out of their cycle of self-interest which will make for their true happiness; many still continue; God keeps opening the door.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
A great summary, Mike.
LikeLike
mkenny114 said:
Thank you 🙂
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Btw, as one raised Irish Roman Catholic (born in Dublin 1949), I can say that the RCC has surely changed in my life time! It is now much more “Pelagian” than it was Augustinian (my Irish Catholic pastor was educated in an Augustinian Order, what a good providence he was for my young life!). But “Francis”? He is most surely not an Augustinian! I think Benedict/Ratzinger was to some degree (an Augustinian), but of course all the other Catholic additions are somewhat mixed in! And so I am a classic Anglican, Protestant & Reformed (over 30 years now). And as Luther, the true church (regenerate) is hidden, in the historical church, both Catholic & Reformational. (Matt. 25: 1-13) Only the LORD, “knows them that are His!” (2 Tim. 2: 19) Btw too, the metaphor of the “great house” for the visible church is quite profound, in 2 Tim. 2: 20-21!
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Fr. Robert,
According to Luther the true Church consisted of all the baptised and hence was visible, not invisible. Do your homework.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
People are the church. People aren’t invisible. How did you guess that? Its god and truth and spirit that is invisible.
Oh, but we have a golden cup and a Baal sun symbol with a cracker in it. We can see god. That’s because god is the cracker. We can stare at it. Then next sunday we can stare at it again.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I see you still, as the unsaved will, fail to understand Jesus when he says ‘this is my body’.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@newe.. I can see you don’t really read Luther! “The true church is hidden!” (Luther, WA.)
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The true church is kinda hidden. There are no flags or headquarters. No costume holymen. You can walk past a saved person and you wont know it. No badge or a nuns hat. Yes, it is hidden.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Jesus disagreed – he said we should take our disputes to the church, and that what its leaders bound on earth would be bound in heaven; who is right, you or Jesus?
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Amen Bosco, you are mate the real breath of fresh air! The true Church is both historical and hidden, and you challenge the so-called intellectuals and the High Churchism of our day! I can be somewhat High Church, believing that Mary is the “Theotokos” (Council of Ephesus), and the vessel of the Incarnate Christ. But “she” is not a goddess, and has no intercessory powers in “herself”! We pray, Only as in Jesus name, the one and only mediator! (1 Tim. 2: 5-6)
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
A straw women here? no Catholic has ever believed Mary is a goddess, and if you believe that e saints in heaven can pray for us to the Father, you believe they can intercede for us.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
WELL, WHEN GOOD BROTHER cHAlcedon is rite, he is rite.Ok , tell us how people come to the CC to work out disputes. tell us how we do it today.
I will tell you how we saved did it. Someone would bawl someone out for something. That’s it. rite or wrong.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Are you still disagreeing with Jesus then? I think you should take it up next time you speak. We just do what the NT says – being as how we read and follow it.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@chalcedon: With me, you are talking (chatting) with someone who was raised, baptized and confirmed Irish Roman Catholic, in Dublin Ireland, in the 1950’s. I quite remember that Latin Church! In those days, only us “Catholic’s” even had a shot at heaven! And then with lots of Purgatory! (And btw check out the Old pre-Vatican book -Preface 1953-: Mary In Our Life, by William Most. He was an American Catholic theolog. And surely here Mary is seen as “Mediatrix of All Grace”!) Don’t forget my first degree was a B.A. in Catholic Philosophy! And I even spent a few years (mid 70’s) in the English Benedictines (after my first tour with the RMC’s, in which I was “attached” to the US Marine Force Recon in the Nam). So my life experience does have some personal depth! And yes, I went back to the RMC’s, I am a retired “Mustang” (enlisted to officer). My last combat was Gulf War 1. The latter certainly changed my Christian belief and doctrine! No “High Tower” Christianity for me! So ya got to bring your A game with me mate! So far you have not!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It does indeed, but as it led you out of the Church, it must also be taken with that baggage, surely? I am not sure that 1950s Irish Catholicism should be considered a norm by which to judge the Church.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
It seems that good brother irish has seen the business side of the devil. The blood and guts all over the ground. He has no sympathy for the idyl claims of a clergy that lives in splendor, at the expense of the flock.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Amen Bosco! I consider Papal Catholicism (by definition theologically) to be very ill to say the least! The RCC has had some good people, but I count that in spite of the Papal Church! I have a book in my library called: The Bad Popes (1969), by E.R. Chamberlin (he was Brit), and the book is very historical (309 pages). The chapter on Luther and pope Leo X is interesting to say the least. Luther wrote Leo…”You sit like a lamb amidst wolves and live like Daniel amidst the lions or Ezekiel among the scorpions. The Roman court, which neither you nor any man can deny is more corrupt than either Babylon or Sodom and – according to the best information – is sunk in the most deplorable and notorious impiety. The fate of the court of Rome is decreed: The wrath of God upon it, advice it detests, reformation it dreads. “We have medicined Babylon and she is not healed” Let us therefore leave her.” I have always lamented, O most excellent Leo, that you,who are worthy of better times, should have been elected in such days as these.” Luther did not so much blame Leo in himself, as the depravity of the Papacy itself! And we must remember that Luther had visited Rome when he was a Augustinian monk, (walking there with a brother monk). He was not impressed, surely this began Luther’s questioning of the historical Papacy! Indeed, “the business of the devil”..Wow!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Oh dear, well, if you think Chamberlin a good guide, that would explain much. Try something more modern and scholarly – I’m happy to recommend a variety of accurate works, many not by Catholics at all.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother Luther was a catholic priest in good standing.He couldn’t talk bad about the pope, god on earth. Cathols seem to forget good brother Luther was a cathol. Luther couldn’t stand the depravity of the Vatican and its clergy. He found out the hard way that the CC was a fake false religion.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Luther wanted to marry a nun Bosco – just the sort of Catholic you usually criticise.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Luther did marry a former nun in “Katey”! And they were very happy!
Btw “chal” you are degressing mate! And thus loosing my respect…historically, theologically, and of course finally biblically! WE are not in dialogue here! Time to let this blog go for me!
I can only leave you to God In Christ, and His Word!
*Bosco has kicked your wee butt, with his “biblicism” and simple argument! Rock On! 😉
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As you’ve answered none of my points and clearly can’t, it might be wise to run away.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
I don’t have access to my older Roman Catechisms, their in my greater London home. I do have many of my books on line, but not these. The challenge is to you and any readers who care to check!
And I am surely NOT running away from you! But both time, and spiritual purpose are also important! But, with newenglandsun, I will be back! As the Lord enables? I must have some lunch, and see a few patients!
Semper Fi (always faithful) to Bosco! 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed they are – and you’re always welcome here – as Bosco is.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Well well well. Am I to understand good brother irish is considered a priest, hence the title fr, Robert? So a priest agrees with me 100%. Ive been wondering when a Christian would stumble into this site.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother Chalcedon, if I criticize a catholic clergy for marrying, its just to point out that men need female companions, no matter what their religion says. I count it a joy when I hear that a priest marries a nun and they leave the CC. Priests…nuns. Those are just sham titles give to people by a wicked religion. People are people. My advice to catholic clergy….take all the money you can from the CCs money box and run.
Flee the icy Lucifer. Oh he’s an awful fellow!
What a mistake! I didn’t take a feather from his pillow
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@Bosco: For we Anglican Low Church evangelicals, see the so-called “presbyter” as Paul says as a “preacher” of both the Word and Sacrament. As Paul says to the Corinthians: “for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” (1 Cor. 4: 15, NIV, 2011) Only the Gospel message, the so-called “kerygma”,Gk., i.e. the message of Christ: “crucified, risen and ascended” is the sacramental message preached and spoken. And as Paul wrote it down the “evangel” itself: In Christ! “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached (the kerygma) to save those who believe.” (1 Cor. 1: 21, NIV 2011) The “sacrament” of bread & wine are themselves, but the sign and seal of our salvation In Christ. Drawing on the reality of Christ who has died for sin and sinners, and is now risen and ascended! The real presence it itself is the whole Gospel and Good News of God – ‘In Christ’! As Paul so loves to say! So we Anglican Low Churchmen who preach, are but instruments and ministers to the Gospel. Men of God, and but servants of Christ. In ourselves we are quite nothing! “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake.” (2 Cor. 4: 5, KJV).
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good to hear that my brother. Some do the sowing, some do the watering and some do the reaping. We are all labourers in the same field.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Btw, as the Old Ox, Tom Aquinas said: God was NOT going to save all men or humanity, but the elect or chosen of God! And Aquinas called himself something of an Augustinian. Surely the Death of Christ is sufficient to save everyone, but it is only efficient, or efficacious (causative) to save the Elect and Chosen of God! Note btw, Judas Iscariot was never “regenerate” … John 6: 70-71 ; 17: 12 / Mark 14: 21.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Sadly it appears, we did not get to the essence of this post subject… “The Fewness of the Saved.” And note, I believe both the EO and the majority of the Roman Catholics are quite near the position, at least practically.. of Pelagius and Pelagianism! Here surely is where “Francis” resides!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
jesus said only a few will be saved. I can attest to that. I only know a handful of saved people.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Actually, no. Prevenient grace cancels a Pelagian interpretation of free will. Not even St. Augustine was into the total depravity idea as he argues that we have a desire for God. Do some homework.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Yes, “few” as is the number compared toward the rest of the world (left to their sin and self), and it is somewhat too a hyperbole, an exaggeration for the effect of how hard and profound is the salvation of the sinner, i.e. “narrow is the way”! (Matt. 7: 14) But not so much a number here. The true Redeemed of the Lord will be “out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (Rev. 5: 9)
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@newgen… YOU might want to really read Augustine himself! I do! And see and read too, Peter Brown’s classic: Augustine of Hippo, A Bio. (1967, and yes I have a first edition).
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Sorry make that *newenglandsun Btw, we chatted before, please don’t get ad hom on here!
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
And btw, both our top tier Reformers, Luther and Calvin were Augustinians, (and of course too Luther was trained by his Augustinian mentor Staupitz), both Luther and Calvin did NOT believe in Free-Will! Myself, as I have written on my own blog, I have been reading an edited book: Erasmus And Luther, The Battle Over Free Will, (Hackett Publishing Co.1212). It includes both of Erasmus Letters here, as too Luther’s famous, The Enslaved Will (1525). I love Luther’s term, “bound choice”!
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
*2012… sticky keys, and an old man! I bet I’m the oldest here perhaps? 65 late next month. But still 155lbs at 5’11…Aye always that RMC!
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Fr. Robert,
Which of Augustine’s works are you referring to? His later works–i.e. Confessions–are closer to Arminianism than to Calvinism. Note: Thomas Aquinas was Augustinian and Arminius was a Thomist 😉
And further, I have researched the free will debate and am fairly a confident Thomist because Arminius was also a Thomist.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother irish, pay no attention to the fancy talk of good brother newengland. Its just smoke and mirrors. The guys a satan worshipper.
LikeLike
theophiletos said:
How ought we Christians to live in light of this truth? This truth is too important for dispassionate intellectual evaluation. I believe universal salvation is false, but I know and love too many non-Christians to rejoice in condemnation. (Indeed, my parents and siblings are not Christian to this day, though I have been now for over a decade.) We may pray for those who presently reject Christ, and we may share with them the good news of how Jesus is redeeming the world, and we may love and serve them in the Holy Spirit given to us by our Lord. The eternal stakes should give us urgency, and awake us from our lethargy! We should also be sensitive to the grief of those of us who have lost loved ones, evidently apart from Christ. And in all things, we must take refuge in the character of a just, loving, and merciful God, who does no wrong, and we must choose to love the Creator more than the creature.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
Since Paul wrote all those books we read and from which all church doctrine is designed, not Peter, how can there be a Primacy of Peter ?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Because Jesus tells us so in Matthew 16:18. Until protestantism came along, the plain meaning of Jesus’ words was pretty clear, as it remains to the majority of the world’s Christians.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Great statement and question Carl! It is obvious that Paul’s Apostleship is quite central in the foremost NT and Apostolic Revelation, and especially doctrinally as you have noted, there is simply no one like him! And his challenge to St. Peter in Galatians 2: 11-16, etc.does not bode well at all for any Primacy of Peter, at least in any papal sense. Not to mention the doctrine of Justification, also central in Galatians, Gal. 2: 16 ; see too Gal. 3: 6-26. Indeed Law only presses us toward the Gospel, and yes it is “Law & Gospel” in the process, but only the Gospel in the end, which is “Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law shall on flesh be justified.” (Gal. 2: 16)
And btw, to get real biblically and theologically, the so-called Primacy of Peter, at least what we see in Roman Catholicism, is just Medieval and too late Tradition, as Vatican I.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I can never work out why non-Catholics seem to equate primacy with absolute power, or infallibility in matters of faith with being right all the time about everything; is it deliberate or accidental?
How, for example, Fr Robert, do you know what books are in the Bible?
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
*all flesh
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@chalecdon… Well first, the Papacy itself presents the Pope as Infallible in faith and morals, Vatican I as I noted. And the Books of the Bible presented themselves on and in their own presupposition and authority, which certainly the NT Church itself simply acknowledged. No, the Church itself did not MAKE the Bible or NT, but the Church later did authorize and accredit the Holy Scripture. Btw, for theological students here, I would recommend Michael Kruger’s fine book: Canon Revisited, Establishing The Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, (Croosway 1012).
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Jesus tells us that what Peter (and the Apostles) bind here on earth is bound in heaven; that is a definition of infallibility, and it is there not from 1871, but from the start.
No, the books do not present themselves, they were recognised by the authority of the Church, and there was little that was simple about the process of acknowledging – as Kruger shows in what is, I agree, an excellent book.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Jesus gave that ability to the apostles, to loose and bind. He also gave them the ability to heal in his name. Well, that’s nice. They are gone now. And their ability has gone with them. The CC can claim to have all power in heaven and earth, that’s because no one can come back and demand a refund if they don’t get to heaven. But one thing no pope has ever done…go around healing the sick. Some Holy Father.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
How can any sane person sut there and claim that the CC is the church Christ founded when its history is nothing but a sad tale of torture and murder and theft and immoral popes and thug clergy. Even today it has had to pay for her crimes against humanity. The legal system in the US has made those wicked priests pay up fpr their crimes, something that wouldn’t happen 100 yrs ago. The CC was able to do its criminal thing and get away with it. Now it has to pay. But the beat goes on. The clergy are still just as wicked as ever. Their flock still can be found at the feet of graven images. How can a sane person justify any of this is way beyond me.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Were that the case, you might have a point, but you ignore the vast number of good works which the Church has done and continues to do; you are like a modern liberal talking about the USA as though all it had ever done was kill Indians and suppress women and steal territory from Mexico. These are part of US history, but does that mean the USA is a worthless nation which should self-destruct?
The Church is a hospital for sinners, so who else would you find in it but sinners, Bosco?
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Yes, a hard rain is going to fall on America. We killed 500,000 innocent Iraqi citizens.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Your NOT reading Kruger straight-up I am afraid! Its simply wipes-out the the “Papal” idea of Holy Scripture! Note too both Mike Horton and John Frame wrote in support of Kruger’s book. And they of course are both Reformed!
Btw, that was *Crossway!
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Note, I believe in the basic aspect of the Presupposition and Authority of Holy Scripture itself! The Reformation and Reformed Church’s position is: Ecclesia semper reformada… always reforming, by “Spirit and Truth”, i.e. Holy Scripture!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
God gave us the bible.What man or group of men want to take the credit for it? The same group that claim they have the holy father? Isnt this the bunch of thugs that banned the bible from the common man, on pain of death, which they carried out for 600 yrs? Hey , catholic church…thanks for nothing.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Yes, the long history of the RCC is hardly what they want to paint it to be! And this so-called pope “Francis” is most certainly theologically ugly! Not to mention the moral inside nature of the clergy, note: the known gay lobby that “Francis” has even admitted within the priesthood and hierarchy. He has said that perhaps 3% of the hierarchy are pedifiles? Bad news all around! But note too, there are no doubt many regenerate people in the RCC, especially the so-called laity.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As the Anglican Church claims to be part of the Catholic church, I take it you don’t concur, Father? If you did, you’d have to accept responsibility for that history, and not just bloody Elizabeth’s burnings. It is unworthy to imply that the RCC is the only Church with a paedophile problem – all churches, even Bosco’s, have them.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That means nothing. How do you explain the contents if the Codex Siniaticus on that view? It contains books we do not receive now. On whose authority do you do receive them? I know on whose authority I do not.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Call no man on this earth Father, for one is your father in heaven
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
What did you call your male parent, Bosco?
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Btw, Paul called himself a “father” of the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 4: 15, but here it is a pastoral title in and from the Gospel itself! I only use the title myself in this sense. Note “reverend” is itself also a name for God Himself! (Ps. 111: 9) So we must be careful in its use, even in the ministry! And we must admit “Catholicism” and too Orthodoxy (the EO), have surely moved well past this aspect!
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@chalcedon: You are all over historical and theological map! I know it is impossible to strictly defend Papal Catholicism, and as an classic Anglican I have the BCP (with the Thirty-Nine Articles – note too Article VIII Of the Three Creeds…Nicene, Athanasius’s and the Apostles Creed). Here I am closer to the classic “catholic” position, with the Reformation, which somewhat includes Luther and the Lutherans (at least the best of the latter). Though I am myself surely closer to the Reformed, with The Irish Articles, 1615 (with the Archbishop James Ussher). So it is a straw-man to present Protestantism, as not being historical and creedal! But yes, generally we Reformed Christians see the authority of the Sola Scriptura “alone”! But, that does not mean we don’t use “tradition”, but it is only secondary to the Holy Scripture. but it can be a useful guide. (YOU need to learn what us Historical Reformational and Reformed Protestants actually believe! Us classic type conservatives anyway, and there are actually quite a few of us!)
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
I called my dad daddy. Jesus was talikg about the religious costume holymen when he said that. Cathols like to sweep it under the rug by saying we call our dads father. Cathols are duty bound to say the bible doesn’t mean what it says, while they bow down face first to the dirt befor their graven images. Catholicism is all about graven images. They even claim the graven image is alive.
Oh, come, let us see the mary cement statue that mover her eyes. Oh, let us journey to see the Mary plaster cast that cries. Oh, the virgin of Guadalupe is on the windshield of a car that a bird miraculosely left for our edification. lets journey to go worship it. The Mary graven image at our church gets up and goes to starbucks to get coffee.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I have not expounded a Papal view, and Kruger does not support the idea that the Bible ‘just is’.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Indeed Kruger is a “presuppositionist” on the nature and authority of Scripture!
“My Church tells me something very simple Bosco. Jesus founded it, Jesus is necessary for salvation, and the house of Jesus is his church. Beyond that, nothing more is necessary.” And of course my church is the church of the Papacy!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The presuppositionist view fails to explain why its adherents do not accept the NT Canon of the earliest surviving codices. I know why I don’t – the authority of the Church; why don’t you?
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Presuppositionist. Wow. If I knew what that meant, id join the conversation.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
The so-called “Presuppositionalist” view on Holy Scripture, is the view that Holy Scripture is its own authority and witness, and needs no real help from sinful man! In fact sinful man stands before the Holy Scripture itself! And the Church has no “pope”, paper or otherwise, but Christ as both the Logos/Word and the Rhema/witness… and from here is the Lordship of Christ/ Messiah.
For the “theolog’s” here, see John Frame’s work: The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, (P&R 1987).
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Since it is rare to find two Protestant denominations which agree on how to read Scripture, the statement that it is its own authority always amuses me. The Church founded by Jesus had a head, if your church does not, I’d be wondering who founded it.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Again, please no straw arguments! Actually Roman Catholicism is now quite a mixed-bag since Vatican II. And as we can see now with “Francis” Traditional Catholics are getting hammered! And this only fuels the SSPX! The postmodern so-called “Catholic” Church is simply a mess! I have Irish extended family members here, and hear and see it! Not to mention the “Ordinariate”, which is seeking to use the BCP!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, there is still a Magisterium which pronounces with infallible authority on what is and is not Catholic doctrine and dogma. You have introduced a hermeneutic of rupture much beloved by the MSM as though it were fact. The SSPX is not in full communion with Rome and its pronouncements are as much catholic doctrine as your own – that is to say not at all.
I have a copy of the Ordinariate Prayer book and can assure you it is not the BCP.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
There are pedophiles everywhere. Im shocked.Even in the ranks of Anglican priests. Those Anglican pedophile priests have gone over to the CC because the protection is way better, They can molest as much as they want and the CCs rat line will spirit them away to greener pastures. Oh, by the way, the CC is nothing but front for a pedophile ring, using religion as a cover story.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As an sample of bigotry that’s hard to beat; as an example of discipleship of Christ, it’s very easy to beat.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
It is factual that they (the Ordinariate) are working on using aspects of the BCP! Of course they (as Roman always does) will expunge it of any of the non-Roman (so-called) aspects, at least when they get done with it! And yes, I even have a few friends in the Ordinariate! Former Anglicans of course who have taken their High Church views to Rome. One wonders what will really become of the Ordinariate? I have an Anglican good friend who went, and now he has already left! So indeed but time will tell where this will finally end up?
Btw, “chalcedon” I noted you are a Roman convert! We used to call some of these , as people with “Roman-fever”, who became more Roman than cradle Catholics! (Note here btw, Matt. 23: 15)… The many parallel’s between the Pharisees, and any legalistic Christians, especially those with “Roman-fever” is quite profound!
In the end, theology must be Biblical! And Roman Papal Catholicism “ain’t” it!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Which was not what you wrote the first time when you said they were using the BCP. As I say, I have a copy of their Missal in front of me, and whilst it uses parts of the BCP, it is those parts Cranmer adapted from the old Sarum Rite for the most part. They don’t, of course, have the 39 Articles, but then as the Anglicans don’t seem to pay them any mind, one might say neither does the C of E in any meaningful sense.
The Ordinariate will remain one of the uniate churches – the Catholic Church has always been wider than just the Latin Rite.
No, I have no fever, and never have had, and I doubt you’ll find much here of my writing which is legalistic – indeed it is one reason QV and I have had our disagreements.
Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. You’ve never explained to me why you don’t follow the early Canon as in the first complete codexes of the Bible. That might, of course, be because you’d have to admit that the Church came to the conclusion that they didn’t belong because they were not Apostolic.
If the Church can tell you what the Bible is, is it not rather odd to claim she doesn’t know how to read it, but you do?
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Laughing here! 😉 We all have “bigotry”, it is the nature of being human and fallen! But we can only see it ‘In Christ’! Let’s note 1 Cor. 1: 2…all true Christians are “sanctified” and also are “saints”! But true Catholic doctrine cannot say this!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I never heard any Catholic doctrine which denied either of those things and would be grateful if you could direct me to statements of the Magisterium which support what you say 🙂 You can’t, but I’ll have some fun watching how you fail to answer.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Of course, “Papal Catholic” doctrine!
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
And btw, let me know when “your discipleship” has beat and killed the old man-nature! Yes, I take the older Augustinian view of Romans 7: 13-15!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That will happen when theosis has taken place – and not before.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Read some of the older Roman Catechisms! There you cannot escape it! And btw, I still have several, shall I quote?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
By all means – as long as they agree with the current catechism.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Catechism/ Whats wrong with searching the scriptures? Oh, that’s rite…the bible condemns everything the CC holds near and dear.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Since your belief in the rapture is not one held by most Christians, your belief that the Scriptures explain themselves is contradicted by that fact.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@chalcedon: I agree with Bosco in principle, because he is right about the RCC being just what it is, a combination of paganism and some Christian doctrine and ideas. The vast dogma of the Papacy cannot be explained biblically, nor in places certainly theologically. In the end, the Catholic Papacy will give way (as we can see in “Francis” into liberalism and the social gospel) to apostasy, and perhaps the Last pope will be The False Prophet himself aligned with Antichrist? Note even the Malachy prophecy! I have seen this so-called Papal Church go from bad to worse in my lifetime! And in the end too, Luther, Calvin, as all the top-tier Reformers saw the Roman Papal Church as antichrist! Of course I am speaking Ecclesiastically here, and not every member or person within the so-called church itself. As I have said, I know some RC’s that I sense that are born-from-above, but they are fast becoming less seen in the Catholic Church in my opinion. Especially as more Traditional Catholics move off into the SSPX, and some go to the EO, and even some to the Reformational Churches!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The idea of Bosco being ‘right’ about anything involving the Catholic Church is an interesting one. Did you come to the conclusion it was partly pagan when you were a Catholic or after you ceased to be one? It would be interesting to know what you mean by such a vague statement. Still, if you are going to start quoting Malachy, I guess I know from whence you come.
You seem fond of vague generalisations. Neo-liberalism is most often used with regard to economics, and I see nothing in Pope Francis’ pronouncements which would make me think it an accurate label; similarly, his views on abortion and women priests seem entirely conservative.
That heretics like Calvin thought the Pope anti-Christ is not surprising, but why anyone should buy into their bigotry at this point in history is a puzzle; I guess people are not as well-educated as they should be.
The Bible itself ‘cannot be explained Biblically’ – can you give me the chapter and verse where we are told that we take our teaching from a book called the Bible? No, of course you can’t. I have given you the Biblical source for the Papacy, you have never provided me with any Biblical source for your belief that the Bible is the be all and end all.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Your funny chal, when you cannot make a biblical argument, you move off into a very poor ad hoc! I never said Bosco is “right” about everything involving the RCC! But he does know that the “principle” aspect of Catholicism is ‘the Papacy’! This is the whole issue! And indeed there really cannot be a marriage between the true and historical Reformation Churches and Roman Papal Catholicism! The Papacy is so far from the Biblical and the true Biblical constructs! Luther was surely God’s providence early, to expose this, and of course Calvin was closer to a second generation Reformer! Calvin and Luther never met! Though Calvin did write a personal letter to Luther, which however Luther did not answer?
Now as to the Holy Bible and Sacred or Holy Scripture, the Reformers basically put the hammer down on Roman Catholicism! They brought forth the great Pauline truth and reality that the NT Revelation is itself the great concept of the absolute norm of God’s Doctrine and Teaching! Of course the Reformers called this the “sola Scriptura” (the Scripture alone!) THIS still is the great dividing-line between the Reformed & Reformational Churches and Papal Catholicism! And the Reformers never rejected outright “tradition”, but they saw it as most secondary to the authority of Holy Scripture! Indeed the former is always subordinate to God’s Holy Writ! And THIS is surely the Biblical Presupposition, in both the Old and New Covenant!
In Second Timothy, Paul’s Last Will &Testament, he lays down this position for Timothy himself… “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3: 14-16, NIV 2011) And note, 2 Tim. 1: 3 through 5 here also! The good Jewish family, and the doctrine of Covenant/covenants! Indeed the Holy Scripture is a progressive revelation…OT to the New!
And btw, the Reformers and the Reformation wanted to “Reform” Catholicism, and this desire still exists! But sadly, the Papacy has shown over and over again, that “IT” will simply not listen, especially the very principle of the Papal authority itself!
*Note, this is not every “pope” in himself personally, as I have said in other places for example, that Benedict-Ratzinger was I believe the best biblical and theological man the Catholic Church has had in the so-called chair of Peter, at least in my lifetime! But he too had to bend to the Papal doctrines quite often, sadly! I truly believe he retired early when he saw the great ill’s in the Roman hierarchy, which he could not change or divest!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The so called reformers – in reality self-willed men misled by Satan – established a model unknown in the early church, and which none of the churches which trace their lineage back to the Apostles recognise. It may be that God hid his true purpose until the sixteenth century and allowed Christians to be lost for that long, but much more probable is the hypothesis that sinful men fond if the sound of their own voices were led astray.
It is literally meaningless to say that the NT is itself God’s revelation, not least because Paul nowhere teaches such a thing; where does Paul tell us what Scripture is? As with all deformers, you omit what Paul says about oral tradition and utterly misread 2 Tim 3 – what, after all, did Paul mean by ‘scripture’? The OT, not something he knew nothing about – the NT.
The Catholic and Orthodix Churches, which gave us the NT know how to read it; as you and Bosco show, Protestants cherry pick and, being outside the Church, fail to understand its book – even as Jesus warned would be the case.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
It is a very interesting, and worthwhile effort to look at the lives and friendship between the Roman Catholic priest, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the great Protestant theologian, Karl Barth! Von B, even wrote a book on The Theology of Karl Barth, (1951 German… an English version was done in 1992, by the Catholic Press, Ignatius Press, 431 pages)…which I have and have read! While I am not a Bathian, I do see Barth as a great modern Church Father! And when I was younger, I did read Barth’s whole C.D. once, (14 vol.) I do count this one of my major personal achievements in my life! And though I can’t follow Barth everywhere, his doctrine of “Nein” to Natural Theology, is surely something genuine in Reformed theology!
I love the quote by John Updike, to Barth’s book: Anselm: Fides Quarens Inntellectum, etc. He wrote: “There is no way from God to us – not even a ‘via negativa’ – not even a ‘via dialectica’ nor ‘paradoxa’. The god who stood at the end of some human way . . . would not be God!” It is here btw, that I think the best Catholic theologians of the past (Augustine, Aquinas, etc.) would say Amen! And of course too a Luther and Calvin, etc.!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As Barth was not a member of the Church, but a heretic, he is not a Church father. Reformed theology is a man made construct which leads nowhere – as I think we see if we look at the fate of the Anglican church family – losing souls daily and declining into liberalism and pelagianism.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
*Barthian
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Awe, now were getting to the real nuts and bolts of YOUR so-called system “chal”! The first above ad hom post, I will simply shoot the whole back at you! YOUR just a hot-head Roman “fevered” convert! I have seen so many of you come and go!
But as to Barth, he was invited by Pope John XXIII to see and observe Vatican II, as a guest! And if your going to call Barth a “heretic”, then you will have to include the great Roman Catholic,Von Balthasar! Damn mate, you really are going from bad to worse!
And, your description of the Anglican High Church, quite too fits some R. Catholics, as sadly too some EO! I have noted here in America, that some cradle Catholics are finding some renewal in the Ordinariate! As one has said to me, I have learned to sing and worship again with these so-called Anglican converts! Yes, there are some of us “regenerate” Anglicans still! And a few of these Anglican-Catholics, still present an Augustinian view of redemption! I only hope they don’t loose it in Rome?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
There was no ad hominem remark in what I wrote, and as convert of long-standing who never had Roman fever, your attempt to excuse yourself by recourse to prejudice is noted and laughed at.
All non-Catholics are heretics, and since Balthasar was a Catholic he was not one; as Barth was not, he was; simple definition. If you have failed to understand the obvious, I am happy to remind you of it.
Anglicans – would you be one who accepts homosexual and women priests and believe the resurrection was a conjuring trick with bones, or one who is a Christian? So hard to know with Anglicans.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Say, good brother irish, watch and learn. What do say we wag the dog for a few mins, eh?
The cathols are quick to tell us the CC is gods church because they graciously gave us the bible. Do you know what it feels like to be burned alive? Unreal pain. Unreal suffering. This is what happened to anyone caught by the catholic authorities and their thugs owning bibles. When I mention Wyclif, the cathols dummy up. The silence is deafening. The CC couldn’t get their hands on good brother Wyclif to stop him from translating the bible to English so the people could read it for themselves. So what does this generous church do? They dig up his bones and burn them…which gave the bloodthirsty CC some satisfaction that they did burn him after all. Lets skip to 1963, vat II. Here is how the conversation must have gone….;
Ok guys,we changed a lot of our intolerant exclusive doctrines, or rather, muddied them up with a bunch of double talk, so we don’t look so bad anymore. One more little thing we gotta do…um, theres this little matter of the bible being banned by our church. I think we better issue a unbanning decree, and fast, befor the prots run with it. And get rid of those death warrants we got stacked to the ceiling in the Holy office befor they fall into the wrong hands.
The cathols like waving about what the CC claims……I like waving about what the CC has done and is doing. They cant stand that.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Let us see what can be done to dispel your ignorance, shall we? Firstly it was the State and nit the Church which condemned people to death. Burning was a popular method at the time, used in Protestant countries too. As you both live in a country which still kills people in jail, I wouldn’t talk so loud about it if I were you.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The first prots were catholics. The weak excuse that the state did the killing is, well, weak. So, if anyone broke catholics laws, the state burned them to death. The state hated to see anyone disobey the catholic church.
Or maybe this scenario….the state had its own laws that no one could own a bible.
The CC is innocent because the state killed the people who broke catholic laws.
USA kills violent offenders, not bible believers.
The CC protects violent offenders and kills bible believers.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The State took action against those breaking the law Bosco – as it does now. The laws were not Catholic laws, they were the laws of the State. The State, like the Church, took the view that the immortal souls of people mattered, and that if you allowed ignorant people to misread the Bible, they would end in the lake of fire.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Indeed Bosco has it correct here! Catholicism had the power of the “sword” in the Medieval age, and as we can see it in the death and martyrdom for example of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (nor to mention the earlier death and killing of John Hus), and Latimer and Ridley. Mary Tutor I was certainly listening to the Papacy, and tried Cranmer for heresy rather than treason, and burnt him at the stake! Yes, this was somewhat the nature of the culture at the time, but the RCC surely did use the so-called “sword”! Calvin and the death of Servetus for small potato’s to Rome! And were it not for the German prince, Luther also would have been captured and burnt himself! But God had a great work and providence for him! Yes, I am a Luther fan, and did my D.Phil. on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross (mid 90’s).
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I wonder why you do not mention that Edward VI started the burnings, or that he and his sister Elizabeth, like their father, killed far more Christians?
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
*was small
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
How bad can a translation of a bible be ? Im surprised and shocked that you, good brother Chalcedon, condones killing people for having an alleged erroneous bible. Is that a reason for killing someone? Cathols have to agree that it was for the benefit of the individual to burn him at the stake for having a bible. Everything the CC did the present day cathol is duty bound to say was a good thing. Its against catholic law to dis agree with what ever the CC does. Bottom line is…. cathols wont admit their religion is wicked, because it means their dead loved ones who died catholic are sitting up in hell. Put your head in the sand and it will go away.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It isn’t the bad translation, its the nutty interpretation, not least of Revelation – and if you want to know whats nutty about it, reread your posts on it.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother, was it OK to kill people because they might have had a faulty bible? is that a reason to burn them to death? And why did the CC, not the local govt, dig up Wycliffs bones and burn them?
Good brother Irish, I told you they wont touch those subjects. Just call me various names and leave it at that. All cathols care about is what the CC says. They don’t want to talk about what it does and have done. But good brother Chalcedon will engage the ills of the CC. But he doesn’t like repeating himself. Seeing as how I keep repeating the same charges.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Yes Brother Bosco: One of the long ill’s of the Roman Papal Church, is when one cannot attack the subject and issue, they attack the “man”… good old ad hominem: appealing to one’s prejudices rather than to reason! And boy howdy did and have they attacked Martin Luther! … As too John Calvin! I have seen a few good Catholic “theolog’s” generally on Luther (as the French Catholic, Daniel Olivier’s book: Luther’s Faith, The Cause of the Gospel in the Church, (in English from Concordia, 1982). And Alexandre Ganoczy’s bio on Calvin: The Young Calvin, (again from the French, to the English: 1987 The Westminster Press). I think the Catholic Ganoczy was a German? Anyway, I have both books, and they are fair and positive of both men, as Christians and men of God! Thank God there are some open minds in the Catholic “theolog’s”!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Reason is not your strong point Robert. You have failed, again and again, to tell me why you accept the current NT Canon and not that in the earliest Bible.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@chal.. More poor ad hoc from you, if we can even call it that? And never an exegesis from Scripture I might add! Basically, as the Jews I follow the Masoretic Text, and certainly without the Apocrypha! And of course in the NT I follow a more eclectic text. (I read my Greek NT every A.M., as an Anglican presbyter is enjoined at his ordination!) And “reason”? You have yet to use such, only following by rote it appears the Roman Papal party line! Ugh! I know personally several Catholic theolog’s, and they are for the most part, “Free men In Christ”! But sadly this is NOT your path!
Yes, both Rome and the EO are simply NOT standing upon the basis of the sola Scriptura…”alone”, as too “sola gratia” (grace alone), and without such one can never really arrive at the soli Deo gloria: glory to God alone! Here of course Justification leaves nothing to the human will or to human works. And here synergism, i.e. cooperation between man and God is ruled out of the initial work of salvation. And here too even faith is the result of grace and cannot be considered as the result of human effort. Yes, the Reformation and the Reformed was the renewal of the Pauline Gospel! (1st. Cor. 1: 17-31) This is the Gospel I follow and preach! 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you can point to one place in Scripture or the Fathers where we are enjoined to proceed sola scriptura, I shall concede you have a point; until then I will continue to say that your whole hermeneutic is late, man-made and un-Apostolic; but then as the ‘orders’ you hold are and the church to which you belong, that is not surprising. You mistake my aligning your methodology with your church as an ad hominem comment because, unreflective as many Protestants are, you simply fail to see that both are cut from the same cloth, therefore one cannot mention the one without the other. Your resort of the hackneyed ‘Catholics don’t think’ can be very easily refuted by my referring you to more than 500 posts on this blog, most of which are extremely thoughtful.
Asneither myself nor the Orthodox nor Catholic Churches advocate synergism, your comments, as so often, seem to be aimed at a straw man of your own devising. There is no ‘Pauline Gospel’, there is a unified Christian Gospel which the Church preaches; if you are preaching another gospel, I would remind you what Paul says about such.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
HEY! The Anglicans burned people on the stake too! Play nice!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The early Anglicans were catholics. They grew up thinking burning people was the thing to do, seeing as how the catholic church did it all the time. the church that Christ founded that has the deposit of faith and is universal and holy and pure and white and is apostolic and universal and gods one true religion and pure and white.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
I don’t belong to a religion. I follow the Lamb. There are no pedophiles in my church.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
” There are no pedophiles in my church.”
That’s because you don’t HAVE a church! The church is made up of SINNERS! It’s a HOSPITAL for SINNERS!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Shut up good brother newengland. You are but the buzzing of flies. You, of all people have no business reprimanding me.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, not a single member of a Calvary Chapel has ever interfered with a child?
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Calvary chapel isn’t a religion. Its a legal name for a place to gather and run their mouths. At calvary chapels, one can go in and find a few saved people. This is something you cant find in the CC or other religions. At the one here in elsinore, there has been no incidence of any foul play. I cant vouch for any other calvaries. The spirit led me to this one, even though there is one in walking distance from where I live, ive never been moved to go there.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I’m not sure how you can say there are only saved people in the CC – makes you sound like a ‘cathol’ there Bosco.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
@Bosco: I live now (with my wife) in the So Cal., we moved here several years back for my wife’s health and better doctors. My wife suffers from COPD (and she’s some younger than me too). We have still a home in greater London, where my oldest son lives. Note, as I have said elsewhere, my younger brother 52, is now an American citizen. He was in the USMC in the 80’s. And he too lives near here (we have a three bedroom condo). Yes indeed true Christian Fellowship is getting harder! But the Church is always both visible and hidden. Since I am semi-retired, and do now mostly hospital chaplain work, we fellowship in several places, sometimes with some conservative Lutherans, as too some Presbyterians of the same. And I do preach and teach some still. And I certainly do believe in the “call” of God to the biblical ministry! The so-called “presbyter” is always a pastor-teacher!
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Ill pray for your wife.
Good brother Chalcedon, calvary chapel I just a string of meeting places. And ive never said everyone who goes the is saved. But there are saved people there. They lead others to Christ. They invite people to their homes for study. there they can share the good news. Our goal is to snatch as many people out of empty hollow hell bound religion, and other stuff, and show them Christ. Its a war out there. satan wants to see you burn forever in a lake of fire, and hes winning the battle. just look at how many are sucked into vain hollow religions’. Drug addicts, sexual deviants, homeless, lonely, orphans….all can join with Christ and be a member of his body and have life and have it more abundant.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
CHAL “I can never work out why non-Catholics seem to equate primacy with absolute power, or infallibility in matters of faith with being right all the time about everything; is it deliberate or accidental?”
Seems I use the term “primacy” quite differently than Catholic definition. Certainly I do not use the word to present that RC or PROT has the truth and therefore a primary foundation of the faith, no not this. For me it is whose teachings should be primary in developing our Christian NT understandings. The Petrine camp or the Pauline camp ? How can we posit that primacy, in this sense, lies with Peter? Peter has to kiss up to the Christian Jews because they think the Messiah is the exclusive property of the Jews. After all they have a bunch of scripture they wrote to validate that claim. They think membership in the blood line of tribal Israel, following the Law and complicated ritual is “primary” in being identified as a Jewish Christian as there can be no other kind.
If Peter did write a whole bunch of scripture we have only the one book so there is very little upon which to develop a faith from his lack of presentations. So how can our understandings of faith on his primacy as he has no legacy other than his most important and holy example, presence and death ?
Paul posits that Christ is available to all of humanity and that all the Jewish stuff is of no consequence in the New Covenant. Paul writes all the books, does all the traveling (perhaps Marco Polo’s role model), does all the missionary and evangelic work and without Paul there is no Christianity. Therein lies Paul’s “primacy”, primacy in my sense of that word. It is Paul’s primacy not Peter’s that causes the evaporation of the Jesus movement within Judaism.
I may be incorrect on this point that primacy in the RC sense is that Peter is the “Rock” upon whom Jesus founds His church. But that nonsense is merely to validate that unscriptural pope stuff. The Rock is several things but not Peter. The Rock is Christ Himself, His life, His death, His resurrection. The Rock is also living in Christian testimony demonstrated by the yet to come congregants in the yet to be developed earthly church. If Rock is attributed to any man (which I content not) it would be Paul not Peter.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
For us there is no question of two camps – the two Apostles worked well together; I’m unclear why some Protestants have a problem and think there are two camps at all?
It was Jesus who called Peter ‘rock’, and I think those who wish to question Jesus might, with profit, ask why? All I am doing is sticking to the Bible and not trying to read in my own reluctance to read what Jesus says. I can see that Protestants have a problem with it, I used to when I was one!
Peter, of course, was Mark’s mentor, and most scholars agree with the tradition which says his Gospel is based on Peter’s teaching, so we have quite a bit of it in the Bible itself.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
jesus said to Peter that on this Rock he will build his church. That Rock was what peter said. That Jesus is the son of god. Its sad, but everyone isn’t going to heaven. False religions really have a good grip on those who hate the Lord. Satan loves the things of men. False religions love the things of men. They erect statues of men and bow face first to the ground befor them. The light of the life is not in them.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Sure, everyone isn’t going to heaven – and surely, Jesus called Peter the rock – on which he would build his church. Connect the dots and you’re there nearly.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
I will agree with you and every other cathol I know, that the CC is built on a man.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
CHAL
I concede that both traditions are ways in which the Word is revealed to us.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Thanks Carl, but I am unclear there are two traditions – as was every Christian before fairly modern times. I find it odd that people say the Catholic Church has added to the faith once received, when the Protestants have added so much more!
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
This is a question, but since this appears to be a rather High Church blog and place, I wonder how many people here have ever read anything of substance from both Martin Luther and John Calvin? As say from Luther;s W.A. (Weimar Edition?) Or Calvin’s, Institudes? I am just interested if any of the High Church people have? And if any depth?
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Damn keys tonight… *Luther’s and *Institutes” …
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Bergoglio wants to make Mary part of the trinity. Forget Luther…this is bigger news.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No he doesn’t Bosco. If the Jesus you met allows you to tell lies, then it was not Jesus.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
I did not think I would get a sound out of most the High Church people on this question, certainly NOT “chalcedon”? And of course I can never forget Luther, though sadly much of the so-called evangelical church has, and knows almost nothing about the great Reformer! Sadly too even some Lutherans!
And yes I saw this yesterday about Mary and Rome! Though in reality it nothing new there, Mary is already “Co-redemptrix” and “Queen”, in Latin “Domina” and here it is translated “Lady”, but the meaning is “Sovereign Lady”! She is even given the place of “singular election”! She is also seen in Catholicism as “Mediatrix” of all graces! And she is given her own veneration, proper to the so-called Blessed Mother alone in “Hyperdulia”! I have a book, that no doubt many Roman Catholics would love to have! It is by (or compiled as he says) the old English or British Catholic, now long gone, the layman: Donald Attwater… A Dictionary of Mary, (Longmans, Green And Co., 1956-1957). And the so-called “Titles” given to Mary, are quite amazing! There can be no doubt that Mary the Mother of Jesus, is seen by the Roman Catholic Church as a “goddess”! Or sure they won’t admit that, but the concept and place she occupies can simply be no other! See for example the anthem and prayer: Ave, Regina Caelorum:
Hail, shining Queen of the celestial train,
O’er angel-powers extend thy brighter reign.
Hail, fruitful root of life; hail, orient gate
From whom earth’s better light derives its date.
O glorious Maid, rejoice; alone possess
The highest seat of creature’s happiness,
And, crowned with beauty, thence implore thy Son
To grant our prayers from his indulgent throne.
Again, just quite amazing, and just now try and tell me that this is not the essence of a “Goddess”?
And btw, I love Mary too, but only the “biblical revelation” of her! I even believe Mary had but “one” Son, and that she perhaps was “Ever Virgin”! And she is certainly the Mother of the Incarnate Christ! But, all of the Titles and stuff Roman gives to her? No way! And we can note that even Thomas Aquinas taught that in principle and early reality Mary was born in “sin”, though she did not sin outright, as he said. But of course this was forgotten with the Roman and Papal dogma of the “Immaculate Conception”! Which did not come till 1854! And the so-called doctrine and dogma of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, did not come until the Papal declaration of Nov. 1, 1950. (I was a year old 😉 )
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As usual, you were wrong. As I have been at work all day, I have not had time to respond until now. With an eldest son who is a Baptist pastor, I have ready access to Calvin, and have read his Institutes, parts of which are excellent, parts of which are not. As Luther is a figure not much regarded in the UK, I have not read his writings.
No only is there doubt that we regard Mary as a goddess, it is an outright falsehood to say so; you either know that, and despite your ‘orders’ are lying, or you are ignorant; I leave it to readers to decide which. If you can provide a single authoritative Catholic text which supports your claim, I withdraw my allegation, if you cannot, I challenge you as a clergyman and a gentleman to withdraw it; which will it be?
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
And btw, the said book (A Dictionary of Mary) by Donald Attwater, does have the Catholic: Nihil obstat and the Imprimatur, Plymouth (England) 9 March 1955. This is for you “chal’! And if people can find a copy, read the Preface (Attwater, though a layman, knew lots of priests and religious! And he says: “The book is not meant to be apologetic or justificatory, but mainly descriptive and informative..” – But how can it not be somewhat theological and technical by very nature?) And there is an American Edition: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, New York (1956). I have a copy of that also. It is the same, just a wee bit bigger!
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
I’m not quite 22 yet–next month though! Institutes is definitely on my to-read list along with Jacobus Arminius’s works.
Any way, I grew up in a very leftist-leaning Evangelical family. Mom was in a “crazy” church and that effected her, dad grew up fundie baptist and that effected him so none of us (my sisters and I) were baptised. I struggle with faith, my older sister’s an atheist, younger sister is a no-clue. Natural theology was the only theology we ever got since dad was an engineer. He wanted us to be the scientific, rationalist Christians!
N.T. Wright and C.S. Lewis were the only real theologians I was aware of. Well, N.T. Wright came in more recently. But I’ve since really expanded. Joseph Ratzinger, Sergius Bulgakov, F.C. Copleston, Fr. Raymond E. Brown, etc. And of course, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Therese of Lisieux.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I have read the whole of Calvin’s Institutes,which contain some good theology and some bad; Luther is a closed book.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Well mate, I will answer you somewhat here! First, I have two son’s myself, both born in my 40’s, (one 24, and one 18), and both are good young men – thanks be to God! Yes, not bad for a guy who will be 65 next month! I would hope that you and your Baptist son would have some real theological give and take! (YOU sure cannot with me!)
And not reading Luther, and ONLY reading Calvin’s Institutes, brings you up short! I have far too many Calvin and Luther books to even mention! And I have too read my share of Aquinas, plus! And of course Augustine! But yes, I am quite DONE (personally) with all forms of the High Church, and especially Papal Catholicism. Though I do somewhat respect some EO people, mostly theolog’s now gone! But, I do like some of the things from John Anthony McGuckin’s works, note his nice work on The Orthodox Church, etc.(2011, Wiley-Blackwell). And some, just some from Andrew Louth. I won’t mention those EO I like who are before the Lord!
YOU SIR have quite made great ad hom’s toward who I am as an Anglican presbyter! And YOU are quite ignorant of the Reformed, I can see that! So I shall not even seek to continue on this aspect. And I will simply NOT retract calling classic and traditional Catholic doctrine on the Virgin Mary, to make Mary a “goddess”, of course practically! This is all very real to an open and true biblical-theological mind! But then, I am Reformational and Reformed! And actually a Neo-Calvinist, conservative, but also eclectic! 😉
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
A man who tells a lie and will not retract is welcome to his own company; I do not seek it and consider any dialogue between us at an end.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
“All non-Catholics are heretics”! Well there it is! All you who are not Roman Catholic better get off here! And you High Church Anglican’s, best make your way to Rome! At least so says Mr. chal! Thank God as I wrote on my blog, ‘I am a Free-Man ‘In Christ’! (Gal. 5: 1) Sadly, very sadly many just don’t know or understand our liberty In Christ!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You are free to call yourself what you like, there is no trademark after all. But from the point of view of the Church you are an heretic and a schismatic.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Fr. Robert’s “liberty in Christ” seems to be a never-ending enslavement to sin.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Sadly chal, its does appear you would’nt know the true Church if it fell on you! And of course here we are speaking of the Holy Spirit! As Jesus said: “Except a man be born-again (or from Above), he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 3)
YOU MUST BE born-again! (Verse 7)…And verse 8 definitely shows that is is NOT Water Baptism!
Btw, I am glad I came back, it appears I have put you sir on the run! Well really not I, but the truth of God’s Word! It does appear however I have somewhat won this battle! And I have been called a heretic and schismatic by many High Church people on these blogs! It simply comes with the territory of the biblically & theologically ignorant! May God’s Word…”Spirit and Truth” – Rock On!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Your capacity for self-delusion seems endless. The true Church is where it has always been, and you are outside it worshipping your own pride.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
No, I am just a Reformational and Reformed Anglican presbyter! YOU might want to read both the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Irish Articles, 1615, (the Archbishop James Ussher). Btw, don’t you know any theological history? WE had a Reformation btw! … And it is still very much alive! – The Ecclesia semper reformada!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I have read the Thirty Nine articles – and your point would be what? The Church is the Church, and you are outside it.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Read them again! And try to take off your human blinders! And YES, read them Irish Articles, 1615, ya might learn something? And btw, it does appear you have never met a serious Reformed Anglican! 😉
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
And I still haven’t.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Chalcedon, please explain why a guy who claims to be an Augustinian and influenced by Martin Luther doesn’t believe in baptismal regeneration. I’m confused by Fr. Robert…
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As am I, possibly because he is confused. I am doubtful about his credentials. He calls himself ‘Father\’ and yet agrees with Bosco who says ‘call no man Father’; all very odd.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Btw, this will be short and quick, but calling me a “troll” and “dog”, and speaking “doubtful about my credentials”, surely proves my point about your ad hom here! (Hum, should we check yours also?) As I have said, when one cannot debate the subject or issues, they then turn and attack the man, and of course this is the essence of the Ad Hominem – appealing to one’s prejudices rather than to reason, and attacking one’s opponent rather than debating the issue! Your above point as to what I said about 1 Cor. 4: 15 shows this, my exegesis of the verse really shows that Paul is showing his pastoral heart here…”for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” Here at least “father” is not just a title!
And btw too, I will not dialogue with NES, he came over to my blog, and called both me and Bosco trolls! Btw also, how can ya call Bosco a troll, when he is one of the mentioned bloggers on this site? Simply amazing again!
As to Baptism and the Sacraments, I am closer to Augustine, and his words of “sign” and “seal”! “We say with Augustine that the sacramental symbols are visible words.” (Peter Martyr Vermigli). See btw, the older, by surely classic book by Joseph McLelland, Ph.D. (Oliver And Boyd, 1957):The Visible Words Of God, An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli, A.D. 1500-1562)… And yes, I have the 1957 First Edition! Though I know it has been reprinted! A very profound book on the subject!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You clearly can’t read, as I did not call you a dog. Since you are the one resorting tothe ad hominems, I take your word for why you do it; can’t you stop yourself then?
As for Bosc, he is a long-standing member of this site and here with the owner’s permission – and contrary to your repeated, erroneous assertions, I am not the blog owner.
You never answer questions either, which is impolite of you. Why should I read Luther when there are so many orthodox fathers to read?
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Btw, funny but I have “Books” that are older perhaps than most of you!? And books that I have gathered myself! Yes, I am an old “bookmen” and reader!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Dear me, if you are that old, you ought to know how to behave properly. The oldest book in my library dates from 1805 – are you that old, perhaps?
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
I bet too, I have more EO or Orthodox books than you? I have been reading EO writers for many years! Btw, one of my EO friendly books is by the old Anglican Bishop (RIP), F.C.N. Hicks, ‘The Fullness Of Sacrifice, An Essay In Reconciliation, (my copy is the S.P.C.K. 1953, Third edition). And as the Third edition Foreward says…’That Orthodox theologians should say that this book might have been written by one of themselves…Nugent Hicks shared their mystical categories.’ These guys are generally different than today’s Roman Catholic theolog’s! But, yes, I still disagree with the EO loss in the Pauline Imputation and Adoption!
I will look, but perhaps you removed the said ad hom?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You appear to think this is some kind of competition. It isn’t how many books you have read, it is whether you read them in the Spirit that resides within God’s Church; you don’t.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Aye, it appears you did remove it? But we both know what you said! And who knows how many others also saw it? (It was on the other Pusey blog, Advice, etc.) Maybe I copied it? Walk softy mate! I could catch you here!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I said you were as much a priest as my dog is – which is not calling you a dog. I am not your ‘mate’, and your threats should be beneath a real priest.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Btw, I know (as bloggers), at least some…NEO and JessicaHof! NEO is a Lutheran, but High Church friendly. And of course Jessica is a Anglo-Catholic, though I believe, still with the CoE? I think she is ‘the keeper of the keys here’, i.e. this blog?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Jess is seriously ill at the moment. But yes, this is her blog.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
So please tell us (if you can) what is her situation and prognosis?
And yes, I quite admit I am an old crusty RMC, retired Captain (“Mustang”). But I am still also an Anglican presbyter, though retired, and semi-retired in my ministry.
Apples and oranges on the term “dog”! But, thanks to admit using it, since it is “record”!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I used it in reference to my dog.
Jessica’s condition is not for public discussion I am afraid; the prognosis is not good.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Sad, but we should at least bring this among the blog “Brethren”! And make serious prayer for her! Damn, she is only in her 40’s. My own dear wife has chronic COPD, and she is closer (somewhat) in age to Jessica.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Jessica is much younger than that – the situation is – well, words fail, even if prayer does not – and if I am occasionally more acerbic than is my wont, my patience is thinner than usual.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Btw, I was told by NEO that Jess was in her 40’s. And I have quite noted the sharp and bitter tone on this blog, long before I got here! And this is a blog, not a place for just proper pronunciation, we all make mistakes on the blog, as we type so quick. And I am not a typist for sure! And I am one of the oldest here! No so much today since this was Friday, but often I am up and down from my laptop, at the hospital. Btw, I do enjoy Bosco, he is always a breath of fresh air, and he is regenerate! Which I am not so sure about so many I hear on the blogs these days!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you cannot see the irony of your parading your learning whilst typing in an illiterate manner, there really is little hope for you.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Btw, Am I starting to smell an “English” snob? Ou that contempt for us sso-called poor Irish! Btw my Irish father (RIP) was a Spit pilot in WW II, and a scientist/physicist after. And for fun, he raced his P-51 Mustang into his 60’s! I have told this story before, but when they were both older, my father got to meet the great American Astronaut, Neil Armstrong, one on one. And as my father said, all they talked about were Airplanes! Since Armstrong was an American Naval aviator (fighter-pilot) in the Korean War. Aye, yes we are a proud people, we Irish!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you are starting to smell, I recommend a shower.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Sorry mate, I got years and wit on you! YOU can’t keep-up with this Irishman! 😉 Indeed sometimes life-experience says it all!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You have zero qualifications in history – and it shows.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Btw – if they doubled your wit you’d be half way there:)
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Keep trying my “English” mate, but you thing is perhaps certain? I will BE in the glory before YOU! 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Only if God loves a braggart.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
HE loves the Irish! The Land of Saints, Scholars & Kings and not a few Irish Protestants, like the Archbishop James Ussher! And btw, I hope ya are a Creationist?
P.S. One can help but wonder what some must be a think’in.. listening to the two of us? Don’t take yourself too serious mate! 😉
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you think I am taking you seriously, I suggest you look up the word irony.
Now that D.Phil you claim to have? Neither Cambridge nor Manchester award D.Phils.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Depending on the school, the D.Phil is also considered the the Doctor of Philosophy, or even Ph.D. But back in my day, things were somewhat different. Note the old BD is gone now! Now I am NOT going to be pushed into YOUR ad hom’s anymore!
Btw, beware of your own house mate! Shall we press and question your educational aspect?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That is utter rubbish. Only two English universities award D.Phils, the others award PhDs. Back in your day only one English University awarded the D.Phil. My qualifications are easily verifiable from my university website. Jog on little man.
Now, that ordination you keep avoiding answering – who ‘ordained’ you?
You never answer questions – until you answer these, I shall take it you are embellishing.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
I am NOT “Embellishing” anything! And I surely don’t have to prove myself to YOU at all! Hell man, I am 64- 65 next month! And who “ordained” me is not going to be expressed on an open blog! Enough said! My theological and pastoral abilities stand for themselves, and mostly before the Lord! I alone now answer to HIM! Note I am retired now, you might get there yourself someday?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Busted sonny Jim – you’re a fake.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Mate, you can think what you want? But I have proven you don’t know “beans” about the Holy Scripture or Theology! I will leave you all with our friend Bosco!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Good bye you old fraud.
LikeLike
irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert said:
Your last words down to the end…Ad Hominem, when you cannot attack the issues, you attack the man, and with great prejudice and personal ignorance! May God forgive you!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You have been exposed as a fraud – and as you said you were off, a liar. How God deals with such we know from Scripture. Jog on little fraud.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
C, though he was a fraud, I miss our good friend Fr. Robert already. Maybe he will come back again some day?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I do hope not – can’t abide a fraud.
LikeLike