What Fat Tuesday and Lent Means to God 0314
If you consider yourself a Christian, here are A few things to consider before you head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday and Lent.
Catholicism is making a strong effort to appear more Christian than others, Calling all to return under the yoke and authority of the Pope. The reformation began not to overthrow the Catholic Church, but to reform Her. But it became evident that the Catholic Church wasn’t who she claimed to be. In the final analysis, the Pope demands authority over the whole world by claiming authority over God and His Word.
Tonight , as I write this, is Fat Tuesday. My Catholic cousin sent me an email, trying to make the case of how Biblical Lent is. This is my response that in a sense reveals that Evil is as evil does.
The Biblical part of what you say is like the air freshener commercial. You are sitting in a cab full of Garbage, and God’s word is like fabrese attached to the air source to cover the stench of Catholic dogma, tradition, mis-interpretations, and lies!
As you know, I attended a Lutheran church for the first 2/3 rds of my life. I know what Lent is. The shrove Tuesday, ash wednesday, 40 days of lent, ending before palm sunday.
While God command us to fast and pray at times, and doing so with the right biblical motivations can deepen our walk with God, what the Catholic tradition adds to it is a mockery of Biblical Christianity.
Today is Fat tuesday. The day before Lent begins on ash wednesday. Just like the Irish ( and others pagan or not) celebrate st patrick’s day by getting blitzed by green beer, Pagans celebrate fornication, sodomy, debochery, and idolatry on Fat Tuesday. For many, lent is just an excuse to get blitzed on fat tuesday.
As you go out tonight and celebrate fat tuesday as all “good” Catholics do, acting as debased as humanly possible, ask yourself why would God lead or even permit His people and their earthly leaders to be so worldly? He doesn’t. His people sit amazed how clueless and lost Catholics are!
On Ash Wednesday you remember your mortality. In a somber ceremony, the pastor or priest places a dot of ashes on your for forehead. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. You give up some sin or bad habit for 40 days.
A true Biblical Christian would grieve and repent his sinfulness daily, through out the year. Lent isn’t in the Bible. Catholics do on lent what they should do year- round. But Jesus said when you fast, do it in secret, not as a public display (or tradition). Those truly saved have the indwelling Holy Spirit that leads them to fast, pray, repent.
“Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. (Matthew 6:1-4 NKJV)
Just before The angel were to judge Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham pleaded for the towns by humbling Himself as dust and ashes.
“Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord:” (Genesis 18:27 NKJV)
Jesus used the reference to point out how he felt about the worldly who refuse to hear Him and repent of their sinfulness.
Jesus said:
“Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.” (Matthew 11:20-24 NKJV)
The point of Christian salvation is not to be of the world, while we live to Glorify God while we live in this world.
Apostle Peter warned the church about worldliness and ungodliness and its consequences:
“and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.” (II Peter 2:6-17 NKJV)
You can tell a Christian not by their works, but by their walk. You won’t find Christ at Fat Tuesday or at superficial Lent!
In Christ,
AZ4Christ.wordpress.com
I had an interesting set of comments with someone regarding this post. ( it follows in comments). He thought that I didn’t know Catholicism. Does anyone really?
There is the experience that individual Catholics have that may seem quite similar to Biblical Christianity. Its based on half truths and lies propagated by the Jesuits.
Then there is the one defined by what Popes and Catholic Bishops have said, written, and claimed. Much of it is self contradictory. Catholicism teaches there are 7 sacraments that earn merit toward salvation. The Bible teaches only Jesus ‘s substitutionary sacrificial death on our behalf can pay for our sin.
Lent is linked to the Catholic sacrament of penance. It supposes that we must prepare ourselves to be worthy of Jesus’ sacrificial death. Our works are like filthy rags and cannot help us earn salvation. This has led some Catholics to flail or injure themselves to earn the salvation of Jesus. This is unbiblical and denies the power of Christ to save us. Priestly absolution, dispensations, or purgatory are unbiblical too. Biblical fasting is post salvation ( justification) and is part of worship and useful in sanctification (not justification). The Catholics, if truthful, will admit they teach that lent it is part of justification.
It’s not.
az4christ 
“You give up some sin or bad habit for 40 days.”
You’re mistaken about this. You’re not supposed to give up “some sin” for Lent, because you’re supposed to give up all sin always. If you only give up a sin for Lent and then deliberately return to it when Lent is over, you’re, well… sinning.
The fact that the Church requires us all to fast, means that we can’t possibly be doing it to impress other people. Why would anyone be impressed when we’re only doing what is required?
I agree that worldliness is bad, as all the Catholic saints have taught.
God bless you.
My replies are in [ ]s. Thanks for your comments.
Agellius commented on What Fat Tuesday and Lent Means to God
If you consider yourself a Christian, here are A few things to consider before you head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday and Lent. …
“You give up some sin or bad habit for 40 days.”
You’re mistaken about this. You’re not supposed to give up “some sin” for Lent, because you’re supposed to give up all sin always .
[I agree. So what do you give up for lent? Is it just a 40 day fast? Do you fast at other times of the year?]
If you only give up a sin for Lent and then deliberately return to it when Lent is over, you’re, well… sinning.
The fact that the Church requires us all to fast, means that we can’t possibly be doing it to impress other people. Why would anyone be impressed when we’re only doing what is required?
[Fair enough. But, it is hardly in secret. Lent isn ‘t in the Bible. Do you celebrate fat tuesday? If fat tuesday involves worldliness, which included sinfulness, does that behavior continue through lent or is it not done before lent? ]
I agree that worldliness is bad, as all the Catholic saints have taught.
God bless you.
[I have no issue with Biblical disciplines taught by the Catholic. I do have issue with the unbiblical traditions and behaviors it teaches or promotes. ]
You write, “I agree. So what do you give up for lent? Is it just a 40 day fast? Do you fast at other times of the year?”
You may fast at any time. The Church doesn’t dictate all the times when you must or must not fast. It only requires a minimum of fasting during Lent, and that’s only for two days: Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. So, two days out of the entire year, the Church requires you to fast. The rest of the year, it’s up to you to fast when you feel you want to or need to.
I think of Lent as an annual “training camp”. A lot of people don’t think about fasting all that often, and when they think about it, they don’t often do it. Lent is as good a time to fast as any, so what’s the problem?
You write, “Lent isn ‘t in the Bible. Do you celebrate fat tuesday? If fat tuesday involves worldliness, which included sinfulness, does that behavior continue through lent or is it not done before lent?”
Does the Bible say that you may only do what’s specifically stated in the Bible?
Fat Tuesday is not an official Church feast day. It’s just a cultural custom. People know that they will be fasting on Ash Wednesday, and generally trying not to indulge themselves as much as usual throughout Lent. So they take the opportunity for one last “fling”, so to speak. Granted, things often get out of hand at Mardi Gras celebrations. But bear in mind that the Mardi Gras in New Orleans and in Rio de Janeiro, for example, are municipal events, they’re not put on by the Church.
You write, “I have no issue with Biblical disciplines taught by the Catholic. I do have issue with the unbiblical traditions and behaviors it teaches or promotes.”
Yes, we have very different ideas about the role of the Church and Scripture, which I am happy to discuss with you at any time. I would just say that the fundamental difference in outlook between us, is the understanding that the Bible came from the Church, and not the other way around. Christians didn’t read the Bible and then decide to start a Church based on what they read in the book. Rather, the Church was started first, and the Bible came along later, as one of the fruits of the Church.
I believe that this difference in understanding is at the root of many of our disagreements.
Thanks for letting me respond. : )
New comment waiting approval on az4christ
Agellius commented on What Fat Tuesday and Lent Means to God
If you consider yourself a Christian, here are A few things to consider before you head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday and Lent. …
You write, “I agree. So what do you give up for lent? Is it just a 40 day fast? Do you fast at other times of the year?”
You may fast at any time. The Church doesn’t dictate all the times when you must or must not fast. It only requires a minimum of fasting during Lent, and that’s only for two days: Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. So, two days out of the entire year, the Church requires you to fast. The rest of the year, it’s up to you to fast when you feel you want to or need to.
[Can we agree that observing Lent is a doctrine of men and earns the participant no merit?]
I think of Lent as an annual “training camp”. A lot of people don’t think about fasting all that often, and when they think about it, they don’t often do it. Lent is as good a time to fast as any, so what’s the problem?
[God’s word describes a relationship between God ‘s saved elect and Him. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Man is born
In original sin and is spiritually dead. The gift of Faith includes our spiritual regeneration, our awareness of our sinfulness, our repentance, and knowledge of God’s sacrificial death for our redemption and to propitiate God ‘s just wrath about our sinfulness, God’s gift of His Holy Spirit, to teach, guide, and protect us for ever. We become a spiritual part of God’s body. The Biblical Church is the spiritual body of Christ, each guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Those actually saved by God are a new creature in Christ given the will to know God and obey God.
The Catholic Church is fundamentally different. All the unbiblical doctrines and traditions of the Catholic are uninspired, unnecessary, and designed to keep the lost away from God’s word and remedy for sin. All the traditions are empty practices that keep the lost busy and unsaved. Going through lend, the lost feel like they accomplish something that earns them heaven. But their sin remains. Wanting to “indulge” in a last “fling” is something a spiritually lost person person craves. Connecting pagan depravity with a festival claiming to be Christian and approved by perceived Christian “authority” is blasphemy. Even their effort to “indulge” less during Lent is sinful , because sin and condemnation remains. That is the problem. ]
You write, “Lent isn ‘t in the Bible. Do you celebrate fat tuesday? If fat tuesday involves worldliness, which included sinfulness, does that behavior continue through lent or is it not done before lent?”
Does the Bible say that you may only do what’s specifically stated in the Bible?
[A church group holding a pot luck, fellowship, bible study, a work day, or anything else that doesn’t violate moral law is acceptable to God. However adding obligations and festivals that is claimed or believed to have merit toward, or distorts God’s part in His plan of redemption or salvation, is a false witness and sinful. If holding Lent directly or indirectly encourages some to sin before , during, or after , then Lent itself is ungodly and sinful. ]
Fat Tuesday is not an official Church feast day. It’s just a cultural custom. People know that they will be fasting on Ash Wednesday, and generally trying not to indulge themselves as much as usual throughout Lent. So they take the opportunity for one last “fling”, so to speak. Granted, things often get out of hand at Mardi Gras celebrations. But bear in mind that the Mardi Gras in New Orleans and in Rio de Janeiro, for example, are municipal events, they’re not put on by the Church.
[It doesn’t matter that Fat Tuesday isn’t “an official church feast day”. Its sin to cause or condone the sin of others. Christians are commanded to be Holy, set apart from the world, and not an excuse or occasion for pagans or Christians to sin. ]
You write, “I have no issue with Biblical disciplines taught by the Catholic. I do have issue with the unbiblical traditions and behaviors it teaches or promotes.”
Yes, we have very different ideas about the role of the Church and Scripture, which I am happy to discuss with you at any time. I would just say that the fundamental difference in outlook between us, is the understanding that the Bible came from the Church, and not the other way around. Christians didn’t read the Bible and then decide to start a Church based on what they read in the book. Rather, the Church was started first, and the Bible came along later, as one of the fruits of the Church.
[I challenge you to know the truth and let it set you free. Here are the facts:
1) Every part of what we call the Bible existed and were in common use by the first century church.
2) The old testament and the eye witness accounts and inspired letters by or under the direction of the Apostles was accepted by the first century church.
3) the inspired Word given by the Apostles didn’t permit further change by non-Apostles.
4) the Apostles ( And NOT the church at large nor non-Apostolic leadership) were authorized and inspired to write scripture and doctrine.
5) Scripture documents that God (not the church ) authored scripture through inspiration.
6) God ( not the church) has authority over all creation. Jesus is God’s word made flesh. Jesus is the head of the Church. The church obeys God. God doesn’t obey the church!]
I believe that this difference in understanding is at the root of many of our disagreements.
[We can not accept both positions of authority. They are mutually exclusive. They lead to fundamentally different faith. The Catholic Church isn’t the Biblical Church and the Biblical Church isn’t the Catholic Church. Calling both Christian is sacrilege and illogical! ]
Thanks for letting me respond. : )
You write, “Can we agree that observing Lent is a doctrine of men and earns the participant no merit?”
Lent isn’t a doctrine, it’s a practice. It’s something the Church decided to do, over the centuries, because it seemed like a good practice that would benefit people spiritually. The practices involved in Lent, mainly fasting and abstaining from things that we like, for the purpose of spiritual discipline, are scriptural.
Do you claim that your church doesn’t do anything which is not specifically described in the Bible? Does the Bible specifically say to have church services where you sing a few songs, then have a sermon, then sing a few more songs and have an altar call? No, but the practices involved in Protestant church services are scriptural: Singing songs of praise, preaching, inviting people to repent and receive the Good News.
You write, “God’s word describes a relationship between God ‘s saved elect and Him. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Man is born In original sin and is spiritually dead. The gift of Faith includes our spiritual regeneration, our awareness of our sinfulness, our repentance, and knowledge of God’s sacrificial death for our redemption and to propitiate God ‘s just wrath about our sinfulness, God’s gift of His Holy Spirit, to teach, guide, and protect us for ever. We become a spiritual part of God’s body. The Biblical Church is the spiritual body of Christ, each guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Those actually saved by God are a new creature in Christ given the will to know God and obey God.”
All agreed and in harmony with Catholic teaching.
You write, “All the unbiblical doctrines and traditions of the Catholic are uninspired, unnecessary, and designed to keep the lost away from God’s word and remedy for sin. All the traditions are empty practices that keep the lost busy and unsaved.”
Well, see, now that you’re describing Catholic practices, all the sudden you’re being vague. What do you mean by “all the unbiblical doctrines and traditions”? Don’t you even have to specify what you mean?
You write, “Going through lend, the lost feel like they accomplish something that earns them heaven.”
How do you know how they feel? When I do Lent, I don’t feel like I’ve earned Heaven. Do you know anyone who does? If so, give me their email address and I’ll set them straight. : )
You write, “But their sin remains. Wanting to “indulge” in a last “fling” is something a spiritually lost person person craves.”
Oh, come on. You’ve never wanted to have a last fling of any kind? Is there something wrong with, say, wanting to do something fun on the last day of summer before school starts? That’s all it is. It seems to me that you’re being rather pharisaical here. Where in the Bible does it say that you may not have a feast or a party, on the last day before a long period of fasting?
You write, “Connecting pagan depravity with a festival claiming to be Christian and approved by perceived Christian “authority” is blasphemy. Even their effort to “indulge” less during Lent is sinful , because sin and condemnation remains. That is the problem.”
So we’re wrong when we feast, and we’re wrong when we fast! LOL. We just can’t win with you. : ) You remind me of Jesus when he said, “We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'” Mt. 11.
Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. : )
You write, “Every part of what we call the Bible existed and were in common use by the first century church.”
OK, but which came first, the Church or the Bible? I was under the impression that the New Testament was written by people who were *already* members of Christ’s Church. Is this not true?
New comment waiting approval on az4christ
Agellius commented on What Fat Tuesday and Lent Means to God
If you consider yourself a Christian, here are A few things to consider before you head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday and Lent. …
You write, “Can we agree that observing Lent is a doctrine of men and earns the participant no merit?”
Lent isn’t a doctrine, it’s a practice. It’s something the Church decided to do, over the centuries, because it seemed like a good practice that would benefit people spiritually. The practices involved in Lent, mainly fasting and abstaining from things that we like, for the purpose of spiritual discipline, are scriptural.
[ok a practice. What happens if a Catholic doesn’t observe Lent? Who initiated it ( leadership or laymen). I have no problem with prayers to God the father and fasting. You don’t need to abstain from
Non-sinful things unless its abstaining from food as part of Fasting. Is there non food abstaining going on? If it is abstaining from sin, it shouldn’t be just during Lent. ]
Do you claim that your church doesn’t do anything which is not specifically described in the Bible? Does the Bible specifically say to have church services where you sing a few songs, then have a sermon, then sing a few more songs and have an altar call? No, but the practices involved in Protestant church services are scriptural: Singing songs of praise, preaching, inviting people to repent and receive the Good News.
[I thought i was clear. There are probably an near infinite number of possible things that a church group can do that isn’t mentioned in the Bible that isn’t ungodly or lead to or permit sinfulness. The idea that abstention during lent will cause Fat Tuesday behavior the week or night before makes me wonder what Catholics think Lent is for! Matthew tells us to fast in secret without showing others how much we are sacrificing. Also, some may postpone or delay fasting at other times is its not yet lent. Jesus fasted for 40 days prior to beginning his ministry. Creating a practice leading up to passover/ easter seems out of place. The church was born on pentecost. Finally, i believe the Holy Spirit or the individual should fast when so led. Doing it as part of a church calendar seems contrived or forced unless Catholics aren’t saved, so they wouldn’t know what the influence of the Holy Spirit feels like.]
You write, “God’s word describes a relationship between God ‘s saved elect and Him. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Man is born In original sin and is spiritually dead. The gift of Faith includes our spiritual regeneration, our awareness of our sinfulness, our repentance, and knowledge of God’s sacrificial death for our redemption and to propitiate God ‘s just wrath about our sinfulness, God’s gift of His Holy Spirit, to teach, guide, and protect us for ever. We become a spiritual part of God’s body. The Biblical Church is the spiritual body of Christ, each guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Those actually saved by God are a new creature in Christ given the will to know God and obey God.”
All agreed and in harmony with Catholic teaching.
[All the Catholic dogmas and doctrines violate the 5 Solas the Bible teaches. ]
You write, “All the unbiblical doctrines and traditions of the Catholic are uninspired, unnecessary, and designed to keep the lost away from God’s word and remedy for sin. All the traditions are empty practices that keep the lost busy and unsaved.”
Well, see, now that you’re describing Catholic practices, all the sudden you’re being vague. What do you mean by “all the unbiblical doctrines and traditions”? Don’t you even have to specify what you mean?
[So I am suppose to believe that that Catholic sacraments aren’t done for accumulate merits? Are you denying purgatory, dispensations and Mary/ saint veneration and prayers, too?]
You write, “Going through lend, the lost feel like they accomplish something that earns them heaven.”
How do you know how they feel? When I do Lent, I don’t feel like I’ve earned Heaven. Do you know anyone who does? If so, give me their email address and I’ll set them straight. : )
[ I don’t. I just can not comprehend how a redeemed community can condone mafia, lifestyle drunks, fornicators, homosexuals, and idolaters who bask in defilement and believe they remain good Catholics ( or protestants for that matter). The redeemed will act redeemed.
You write, “But their sin remains. Wanting to “indulge” in a last “fling” is something a spiritually lost person person craves.”
Oh, come on. You’ve never wanted to have a last fling of any kind? Is there something wrong with, say, wanting to do something fun on the last day of summer before school starts? That’s all it is. It seems to me that you’re being rather pharisaical here. Where in the Bible does it say that you may not have a feast or a party, on the last day before a long period of fasting?
[There is a difference between having fun and sinning! I don ‘t have fun by sinning. Life is fun without hanging out with drunken sailors and prostitutes. Being saved, I enjoy sinless entertainment. Isn ‘t having “a fling” mean fornicating or committing adultery? If that is part of their Catholic walk, they aren’t saved. All the hail Mary’s and confessions in the world will not change things if it lacks repentance and the desire to walk biblically with Christ. A pot luck is the closest thing we get to a feast. Perhaps feasting is a carryover from pagan Roman. ]
You write, “Connecting pagan depravity with a festival claiming to be Christian and approved by perceived Christian “authority” is blasphemy. Even their effort to “indulge” less during Lent is sinful , because sin and condemnation remains. That is the problem.”
So we’re wrong when we feast, and we’re wrong when we fast! LOL. We just can’t win with you. : ) You remind me of Jesus when he said, “We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'” Mt. 11.
[So Jesus was a gluttonous sinner???? Some Romans would connect orgies to feasts. I don’t find a Thanksgiving feast to be inherently sinful or sinful at all. But walk down bourbon street and it is sinful.]
Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. : )
[i didn’t say or imply that. John 3:19 says the lost are condemned already. Those who are saved love Christ and those who love Christ want to obey Him. ]
You write, “Every part of what we call the Bible existed and were in common use by the first century church.”
OK, but which came first, the Church or the Bible? I was under the impression that the New Testament was written by people who were *already* members of Christ’s Church. Is this not true?
[We received God’s Word from God. He inspired the Apostles to write it down. It hasn’t changed since John the Apostle died. Jesus is head of the church . The church isn’t the head of God’s Word.]
God bless!
You write, “The idea that abstention during lent will cause Fat Tuesday behavior the week or night before makes me wonder what Catholics think Lent is for!”
Again you’re not being clear on what’s wrong with Fat Tuesday. Do you know how I observed Fat Tuesday? I had some cookies at lunch, and a cupcake after dinner. Also I had a burger and chili fries for dinner — in other words, more calories than I normally have because I’m watching my waistline. Today I’m fasting. Can you tell me specifically what sin I’m committing here?
You write, “Doing it as part of a church calendar seems contrived or forced unless Catholics aren’t saved, so they wouldn’t know what the influence of the Holy Spirit feels like.
This sounds very much like a matter of personal opinion. You’re not saying it’s wrong to have a Church calendar, you’re just saying that it “seems contrived”. “Contrived” means “not spontaneous”. OK, I plead guilty: My Lenten fasts are not spontaneous. So what?
Do you know what else is not spontaneous? Birthday celebrations. Every year we have ice cream, cake and candles. Christmas: Tree, lights, presents, same every year. Thanksgiving. Fourth of July. Are we to reject all these then, on the ground that they’re “contrived”?
How about Protestant worship services? The songs that you sing: Are they chosen ahead of time, and rehearsed? Or do you make them up on the spot, relying on the Holy Spirit’s guidance to get you all singing the same notes together? And the pastor’s sermon: Does he prepare it in advance, or make it up on the spot?
You know one thing Protestants love that’s NOT spontaneous? THE BIBLE! Completely and totally non-spontaneous, since it’s carved in stone for all eternity.
Let’s face it: The issue is not spontaneity. The issue is that you don’t like the Church commanding Christians to do things. This is why you accuse us of wrongdoing when we feast, and also when we fast. It’s not that feasting or fasting are wrong, it’s that you don’t like the Church to tell people when to feast and when to fast. Isn’t that it, in a nutshell?
You write, “All the Catholic dogmas and doctrines violate the 5 Solas the Bible teaches.
ALL of them??? OK fine. Everything we do is wrong. Feel better now? However if you want to get down to specifics, let me know.
You write, “Isn ‘t having “a fling” mean fornicating or committing adultery?”
No, having a fling doesn’t mean fornicating or committing adultery. Well, it can have that meaning. For that reason maybe I should used a different term. But another definition of “fling” is “a short period of carefree enjoyment, especially before a time that is expected to be less exciting or enjoyable”. This is precisely the way I meant it.
You write, “So Jesus was a gluttonous sinner???? Some Romans would connect orgies to feasts. I don’t find a Thanksgiving feast to be inherently sinful or sinful at all. But walk down bourbon street and it is sinful.”
I’m not accusing Jesus of being a gluttonous sinner, but the scribes and Pharisees accused him of being gluttonous when he didn’t fast, and of being possessed when he did fast. This was the point of the quote: No matter what he did, he was accused of wrongdoing.
My point is, you’re treating the Catholic Church the same way: When she feasts on Fat Tuesday, she’s a glutton, and when she fasts on Ash Wednesday that’s also bad too for some reason. So she can’t win with you, no matter what she does.
You write, “We received God’s Word from God. He inspired the Apostles to write it down. It hasn’t changed since John the Apostle died. Jesus is head of the church . The church isn’t the head of God’s Word.”
I agree. However you didn’t answer my question. The people who wrote the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. — were they members of the Church when they wrote it?
[Agellius, after reading your comments and before i reply, i wanted to set the stage. The Bible alone define what a christian is. It doesn’t call them christians – it calls them saved, redeemed, obedient followers of Christ, slaves of righteousness. The word “catholic” means universal. Narrow is the way to Salvation and few find it. It is NOT universal or even the majority condition.
My hope for you, is that God will give us eyes to see and ears to hear what God says and the ability to follow Him alone. Deception always includes some truth, but twists it in ways never intended in order to reach conclusions not really true.
I know what Catholicism claims and practices. I know what the Bible claims and requires. The Catholic church isn’t good enough to save anyone. ]
Agellius commented on What Fat Tuesday and Lent Means to God
If you consider yourself a Christian, here are A few things to consider before you head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday and Lent. …
You write, “The idea that abstention during lent will cause Fat Tuesday behavior the week or night before makes me wonder what Catholics think Lent is for!”
Again you’re not being clear on what’s wrong with Fat Tuesday. Do you know how I observed Fat Tuesday? I had some cookies at lunch, and a cupcake after dinner. Also I had a burger and chili fries for dinner — in other words, more calories than I normally have because I’m watching my waistline. Today I’m fasting. Can you tell me specifically what sin I’m committing here?
[ You didn’t. I presume that many don’t. But thats not what Fat Tuesday is known for . Drunkenness,
depravity, sexual immorality, etc is what it is known for. Having one of the most depraved night tied to a Catholic practice is noteworthy. Having others like St Patricks Day, St Valentines Day, All Saints Day, and Mexican Day of the Dead reveal a Catholic proclivity to mix pagan with sacred.]
You write, “Doing it as part of a church calendar seems contrived or forced unless Catholics aren’t saved, so they wouldn’t know what the influence of the Holy Spirit feels like.
This sounds very much like a matter of personal opinion. You’re not saying it’s wrong to have a Church calendar, you’re just saying that it “seems contrived”. “Contrived” means “not spontaneous”. OK, I plead guilty: My Lenten fasts are not spontaneous. So what?
[I would call it an observation. True Christianity is supernatural, miraculous. Being let by the Holy Spirit to turn away from and avoid sin, or to pray and fast in obedience to God’s Word isn’t staged. It is directed by God , not a calendar or tradition, usually. The presumption of Catholicism is perpetual sin treated by regularly repeating canned prayers, penance, confession and absolution to Men (priests). The presumption of the Bible following salvation is a new creature whose will to sin was eternally broken and replaced by a will to be godly. ]
Do you know what else is not spontaneous? Birthday celebrations. Every year we have ice cream, cake and candles. Christmas: Tree, lights, presents, same every year. Thanksgiving. Fourth of July. Are we to reject all these then, on the ground that they’re “contrived”?
[ Sure. Scheduling significant dates and celebrating is all well and good. But my point is that creating lent were it is and leading up to passover is out of sequence and arbitrary. Let the Holy Spirit direct spiritual things. The singular uniqueness of biblical Christianity is that it is a walk and relationship directly with God. ]
How about Protestant worship services? The songs that you sing: Are they chosen ahead of time, and rehearsed? Or do you make them up on the spot, relying on the Holy Spirit’s guidance to get you all singing the same notes together? And the pastor’s sermon: Does he prepare it in advance, or make it up on the spot?
[Much of contemporary protestant service is a carry over from Catholicism, good and bad. I believe the first century church experience was quite different. Concepts of professional clergy, passive participation, and most of everything else we equate to worship may be un necessary or unbiblical. In any case, my main issue with Lent is that it is not required biblical and is abused by many who observe it. ]
You know one thing Protestants love that’s NOT spontaneous? THE BIBLE! Completely and totally non-spontaneous, since it’s carved in stone for all eternity.
[True. Too bad Catholics follow corrupt human authority over God’s Word which can’t change though eternity. How do you Like the unbiblical wanderings of your current pope ?]
Let’s face it: The issue is not spontaneity. The issue is that you don’t like the Church commanding Christians to do things. This is why you accuse us of wrongdoing when we feast, and also when we fast. It’s not that feasting or fasting are wrong, it’s that you don’t like the Church to tell people when to feast and when to fast. Isn’t that it, in a nutshell?
[Not quite. The issue is claiming to be a follower of Jesus Christ without Honoring His Will and His Word! Lifting up empty traditions and ignoring His commandments. Catholics being OF the WORLD, Not Christians of The Word. Taking what God calls spiritual unity with Him (the Church) and using it to profane Him (idolatry and paganism) and deceive the world with lies and half truths. The whore of Babylon is quite descriptive and accurate!]
You write, “All the Catholic dogmas and doctrines violate the 5 Solas the Bible teaches.
ALL of them??? OK fine. Everything we do is wrong. Feel better now? However if you want to get down to specifics, let me know.
[ The five solas are biblical responses to doctrinal errors of Catholicism. They are:
1) Scripture alone is the authority
2) Faith alone saves us
3) Grace alone, we earn no merit toward salvation
4) Christ alone, His sacrifice is sufficient to saves us through eternity
5) God’s Glory alone, all we are and do is for God’s Glory.
I have posts on Catholicism.]
You write, “Isn ‘t having “a fling” mean fornicating or committing adultery?”
No, having a fling doesn’t mean fornicating or committing adultery. Well, it can have that meaning. For that reason maybe I should used a different term. But another definition of “fling” is “a short period of carefree enjoyment, especially before a time that is expected to be less exciting or enjoyable”. This is precisely the way I meant it.
[ok. If your fling isn’t sinful, feel free to enjoy your flings. Why can’t you fling during lent ( unless it involves eating, in which case, fasting would end feasting. ]
You write, “So Jesus was a gluttonous sinner???? Some Romans would connect orgies to feasts. I don’t find a Thanksgiving feast to be inherently sinful or sinful at all. But walk down bourbon street and it is sinful.”
I’m not accusing Jesus of being a gluttonous sinner, but the scribes and Pharisees accused him of being gluttonous when he didn’t fast, and of being possessed when he did fast. This was the point of the quote: No matter what he did, he was accused of wrongdoing.
My point is, you’re treating the Catholic Church the same way: When she feasts on Fat Tuesday, she’s a glutton, and when she fasts on Ash Wednesday that’s also bad too for some reason. So she can’t win with you, no matter what she does.
[No.
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” (Matthew 11:18, 19 NKJV)
The Pharasees criticized both John the Baptist and Jesus , one for not eating or drinking enough , the other for eating or drinking too much. In Jesus’ case they also criticized his association with what the Pharisees considered sinners. But Jesus’ response was “but wisdom is justified by her children”. Jesus came to save sinners and He did, not by condoning sin or sinning himself, but by going to those who knew they needed help and would receive Him and listen to Him.
So regarding Fat Tuesday, Jesus wouldn’t have condemned suitable eating or drinking or fun, for that matter, but would and did say “go and sin no more”. He certainly wouldn’t condone sinning. Neither do I. BUT, Jesus would and did criticize the religious leaders of his day for being white washed tombs, heaping on unbiblical requirements on others while pridefully sinning themselves. That is what Catholicism does. Priests can’t marry (leading some to sin in secret), and laymen during lent is to look penitent and contrite for 40 days, while in fact never repenting of their sin as evidenced by their worldly behavior before lent began, for example. If Catholicism practiced and preached godliness, i would have no issue with it. Sometimes they do, frequently they don’t. ]
You write, “We received God’s Word from God. He inspired the Apostles to write it down. It hasn’t changed since John the Apostle died. Jesus is head of the church . The church isn’t the head of God’s Word.”
I agree. However you didn’t answer my question. The people who wrote the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. — were they members of the Church when they wrote it?
[yes, of course they were. But they were far more that that. They were apostles who walked with Jesus for 3 years and were uniquely empowered by God with special purpose and inspiration to finish God’s Word. To say that the church (including non-Apostles) gave us the Bible and is permitted to change it since the Apostles died, is wrong and forbidden by God’s Word. The true Church is spiritually connected to Christ and knows and follows Him, only.
The Catholic Church, as evidenced by their unbiblical ungodliness in significant areas, cannot be the Biblical church. It is the apostate counterfeit church warned of in scripture. The church isn’t a building or organization ruled by idolatrous men. It is the spiritual kingdom of God saved and ruled by Jesus, honoring God the father, and led and protected by God the Holy Spirit.
I hope that you identify more with the God revealed in the Bible, than with The Catholic Church. While all churches are obedient to God in many ways and none are perfect, truth is defined both by things done and things refrained from doing.
God’s Word alone is perfect. It defines who God is and what sin is. We all fall short of the glory of God. This drives some to their knees in Godly repentance. Some of these believe God’s promises and call on Him in spirit and in truth to forgive them and take away their sins. These are the elect of God. They repent because God regenerated their spirit enabling them to see God and sin as it real is. The rest remain condemned getting what they want and deserve – separation from God. ]
You write, “I know what Catholicism claims and practices.”
I know you think you understand what Catholicism believes and teaches, but many of the things you have said show me that you do not. Therefore, you’re rejecting what you don’t understand. I am happy to try to help you to understand it better, if you wish.
You write, “I know what Catholicism claims and practices.” I know you think you understand what Catholicism believes and teaches, but …
[I spoken to many Catholics. Eventually it comes down to authority. The only authority that we likely can share is God’s Word. If you compare Catholicism with God’s Word, you can’t help but notice that they teach different things. Gal 1:8 forbids a changing Gospel.
Your belief that the church gave us the Bible is refuted by John 1.
All inspired Scripture is part of God’s Word, originating from God’s mind at the beginning. The fact that God revealed it over time does not mean it evolves or changes.
Here are my posts on Catholicism. If you wish to discuss it later, i’m game.
]
You write, “Your belief that the church gave us the Bible is refuted by John 1. All inspired Scripture is part of God’s Word, originating from God’s mind at the beginning. The fact that God revealed it over time does not mean it evolves or changes.”
Come on. Do you really think Catholics don’t believe scripture comes from God?
However the Church also comes from God, does it not? When the Church does good in the world, do the individual members of the Church get the credit, or does the credit go to God?
What I’m saying is that the New Testament is something that God did using the Church as his instrument, just as he used individual members of the Church as his instruments to do the actual writing.
And the Church itself is another thing that originates from God and does his will in the world. You don’t pit one of God’s instruments against another.
Agellius commented on What Fat Tuesday and Lent Means to God
If you consider yourself a Christian, here are A few things to consider before you head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday and Lent. …
You write, “Your belief that the church gave us the Bible is refuted by John 1. All inspired Scripture is part of God’s Word, originating from God’s mind at the beginning. The fact that God revealed it over time does not mean it evolves or changes.”
Come on. Do you really think Catholics don’t believe scripture comes from God?
[You come on. Catholics have changed the gospel claiming authority over God’s Word. You claim that God condones or approves of these changes violates gal 1:8. Similarly you claim the Pope and Bishops of Rome represent God. You call it the Vicar of Christ. The Bible calls it what it really is the Anti Christ deceiving the whore of Babylon, which is Catholicism. ]
However the Church also comes from God, does it not? When the Church does good in the world, do the individual members of the Church get the credit, or does the credit go to God?
[The Church created by God and defined by the Bible isn ‘t anything like the idolatrous religion called Catholicism. When the church is good and does what Jesus wants, only God can be glorified. Kneeling to “father” pope and kissing his feet and ring is blasphemous. Jesus alone is the head of the church. The pope is an anti-christ. ]
What I’m saying is that the New Testament is something that God did using the Church as his instrument, just as he used individual members of the Church as his instruments to do the actual writing.
[The New Testament is part of God’s Word inspired by God through the Apostles. Claiming that Catholicism is the Church is unBiblical and a lie from hell. ]
And the Church itself is another thing that originates from God and does his will in the world. You don’t pit one of God’s instruments against another.
[You treat ” the church” as an autonomous organization, separate from God ‘s revealed will provide in His word. You claim that the Catholic Church through the centuries have the authority to change God ‘s Word. It doesn’t and neither does the Biblical Church. The Biblical Church is a spiritual organism, headed by Jesus Christ, led and protected by the indwelling Holy Spirit that honors God’s Will and God’s Word. The Whore of Babylon isn’t of God but a curse from the pit of Hell. Half truths are lies designed by Satan to deceive the deceivable. The saved elect in dwelt by the Holy Spirit who are part of the Biblical Church isn ‘t deceivable. ]
[The simplest way to make the Biblical case is that the Bible teaches one thing, The Apostate church teaches something that looks similar but in significant irreconcilable ways is different and therefore accursed.
If you desire to know God, know His Word. You should really read the blogs I identified in my last response. It provides links to shine light on Catholicism. Either you are unaware of the real nature of Catholicism or else you know its different from the biblical gospel and are just trying to be deceptive.
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”. (John 1:12, 13 NKJV) ]
Praise God,
AZ4Christ.wordpress.com
“You come on. Catholics have changed the gospel claiming authority over God’s Word. You claim that God condones or approves of these changes violates gal 1:8. Similarly you claim the Pope and Bishops of Rome represent God. You call it the Vicar of Christ. The Bible calls it what it really is the Anti Christ deceiving the whore of Babylon, which is Catholicism.”
If we’re just going to get nasty then I’m not sure this discussion is going to bear any good fruit. I can just as easily call you a rebellious heretic, but I don’t because it would not be charitable, and also you are not likely to hear anything more that I have to say. Can we discuss this like Christians, or will it just devolve into name-calling?
Agellius commented on What Fat Tuesday and Lent Means to God
If you consider yourself a Christian, here are A few things to consider before you head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday and Lent. …
“You come on. Catholics have changed the gospel claiming authority over God’s Word. You claim that God condones or approves of these changes violates gal 1:8. Similarly you claim the Pope and Bishops of Rome represent God. You call it the Vicar of Christ. The Bible calls it what it really is the Anti Christ deceiving the whore of Babylon, which is Catholicism.”
If we’re just going to get nasty then I’m not sure this discussion is going to bear any good fruit. I can just as easily call you a rebellious heretic, but I don’t because it would not be charitable, and also you are not likely to hear anything more that I have to say. Can we discuss this like Christians, or will it just devolve into name-calling?
[What you call “nasty name calling” is what the Bible calls truth. I do not think you believe that our dispute is just a misunderstanding. Its not new and its more than private. Good fruit is both of us agreeing that God’s Word is our sole authority and the changes made by Catholicism are unbiblical. Greater men than I ( such as Luther and Calvin ) were called heretics by Rome. Our opinions do not matter, God ‘s word alone matters. Do you really believe that God’s word is unchanging and that papal authority and succession, mary and saint veneration, mass , 7 sacraments, and view on justification and sanctification are biblical ? How do you continue to ignore Gal 1:8? To accept The Claims of Rome, I would have to ignore the warnings provided in God’s word. We both know you cannot use God’s word justify terms and concepts foreign to inspired scripture. Have you ever considered the possibility that Roman Catholicism isn’t what it claims and pray to God to know the Biblical truth? Your eternity depends on it!]
Praise God!
“What you call “nasty name calling” is what the Bible calls truth.”
I must say that’s one of the strangest sentences I’ve ever read. : )
What you’re saying, basically, is this: “I’m right and you’re wrong, and what I consider a good discussion is you agreeing that I’m right.”
Hey, I can understand you being sure of yourself. Most people are. All I’m saying is, if you’re trying to convince people who disagree with you, that’s not going to get you very far.
You keep ignoring the points i make and try to spin it off into an opinion point. The bible says what it says. You treat it like a smorgasbord. These aren ‘t my opinions. It is what the Bible teaches. I ‘m seeking and defending biblical truth not sharing my opinions. Prove me wrong biblically or call it a day. Catholicism has claimed ( on different occasions that salvation is only possible for good Catholics, that all Gods are the same, that protestants are heretic , that we are all Good , even atheists , moslems , mormons, you name it. Can ‘t you see logically and biblically this is possible?
Prsiise God!
You write, “You keep ignoring the points i make and try to spin it off into an opinion point. The bible says what it says. You treat it like a smorgasbord. These aren ‘t my opinions. It is what the Bible teaches. I ‘m seeking and defending biblical truth not sharing my opinions. Prove me wrong biblically or call it a day.”
I would love to prove you wrong except it’s impossible to disprove general statements like “The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon” or “All Catholic dogmas are of the devil”.
Of course we don’t disagree about what the Bible says. All we have to do is open the Bible and read it to see what it says. But it is possible to disagree about the implications and ramifications of what the Bible says.
For example, you wrote: “Your belief that the church gave us the Bible is refuted by John 1. All inspired Scripture is part of God’s Word, originating from God’s mind at the beginning.”
First, I think you actually meant 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Now we agree that this is what the Bible says. But you go further, when you say that this verse refutes the belief that the Bible came from the Church and not the other way around. The verse itself doesn’t say, “The belief that the Bible came from the Church is hereby refuted”. That is your interpretation of the verse.
So while we can’t disagree about what the Bible *says*, we can disagree about what it *implies*.
I completely agree with 2 Tim. 3:16-17, that the scriptures are inspired and are profitable in various ways. But this does not contradict the statement that the scriptures came from the Church. Take for example the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Is it called the Epistle of God to the Corinthians? No, it’s the Epistle of Paul: It’s a letter that Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth. It’s like a letter in every way: it starts with a greeting:
“1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their’s and our’s: 3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
And ends with a saluation in Paul’s own hand:
“21 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand. 22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. 23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.”
Now, is it wrong to say that the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians came from Paul? We agree that it was inspired by God, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t come from Paul. Paul writes, “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.” (1 Cor. 12:27) The Church is Christ’s Body, and the individual members of the Church are members of Christ’s Body. Therefore if Paul writes scripture that is inspired by God, that scripture comes from Paul in one sense, and it also comes from God in another sense. The fact that it comes from God, does not mean that it did not also come from Paul. And if it comes from Paul, and Paul is a member of the Church, and therefore a member of Christ’s Body, then in that sense it also comes from the Church.
Therefore, although we agree on what the verses say, your interpretation and understanding of the verses differs from mine.
Agellius commented on What Fat Tuesday and Lent Means to God
If you consider yourself a Christian, here are A few things to consider before you head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday and Lent. …
You write, “You keep ignoring the points i make and try to spin it off into an opinion point. The bible says what it says. You treat it like a smorgasbord. These aren ‘t my opinions. It is what the Bible teaches. I ‘m seeking and defending biblical truth not sharing my opinions. Prove me wrong biblically or call it a day.”
I would love to prove you wrong except it’s impossible to disprove general statements like “The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon” or “All Catholic dogmas are of the devil”.
[What do you think the Bible means when it says “Whore of Babylon”?
The reference is in the Bible book of Revelation, chapter 17.
Lets define terms.
Babylon is the world order it began that continues to dominate the world. The book of Daniel first described the worldly enemy of God’s people as an image that in the Babylon King’s dream that predicted the present and future world order. “Of Babylon” means having the spirit of Babylon. The final ruler with this spirit was Rome in 2 parts. This speaks of the 2 parts of Rome, one ruled by Rome and the other ruled by Constantinople. This happened at the birth of the Catholic Church when Roman Emperor Constantine “converted” to Christianity. This was no conversion, rather, the hostile takeover of Christianity by pagan Rome.
“Whore or harlot ” physically it means someone who violates the oath of Marital fidelity. Spiritually it is linked with spiritual fidelity (faith).
“(for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods. “(Exodus 34:14-16 NKJV)
So, the “Whore of Babylon” is someone who claims fidelity with God but worships other gods. So this Whore of Babylon lives on the Rome capital, claims to be the faithful Church of Christ but worships other gods and leads Kings and others to do likewise.
Jesus is the Christ. Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is the only Head of the Church, the only Bridegroom of His Bride the Church, faithful to Jesus, God’s Word who dwelt with us. This Word predicted the appearance of an apostate church that would claim to be the Church but be unfaithful to the Word of God. That is the Catholic Church, the incarnation of Pagan Rome. As a faithful Christian, I trust the Word of God, alone. Read Revelation 17. Even Catholic.com confirm that the beast is the city of Rome. The only spiritual entity that sits on this beast is Roman Catholicism.
Catholic Dogmas are edicts made to add, subtract, or change Catholic doctrine or traditions. At times, these dogmas directly reverse Biblical truth. Read my blog
for specific examples of this!
In Gal 1:8, the Bible FORBIDS all changes and warns that those who accept a different Gospel will be accursed. In other words, Catholic Dogmas that change the original Biblical Gospel are not following God, but the Devil, who is God’s adversary. ]
Of course we don’t disagree about what the Bible says. All we have to do is open the Bible and read it to see what it says. But it is possible to disagree about the implications and ramifications of what the Bible says.
For example, you wrote: “Your belief that the church gave us the Bible is refuted by John 1. All inspired Scripture is part of God’s Word, originating from God’s mind at the beginning.”
First, I think you actually meant 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
[No. I meant John 1.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:1, 3-5, 10-14, 29 NKJV)]
Now we agree that this is what the Bible says. But you go further, when you say that this verse refutes the belief that the Bible came from the Church and not the other way around. The verse itself doesn’t say, “The belief that the Bible came from the Church is hereby refuted”. That is your interpretation of the verse.
So while we can’t disagree about what the Bible *says*, we can disagree about what it *implies*.
I completely agree with 2 Tim. 3:16-17, that the scriptures are inspired and are profitable in various ways. But this does not contradict the statement that the scriptures came from the Church. Take for example the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Is it called the Epistle of God to the Corinthians? No, it’s the Epistle of Paul: It’s a letter that Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth. It’s like a letter in every way: it starts with a greeting:
“1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their’s and our’s: 3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
And ends with a saluation in Paul’s own hand:
“21 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand. 22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. 23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.”
Now, is it wrong to say that the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians came from Paul? We agree that it was inspired by God, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t come from Paul. Paul writes, “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.” (1 Cor. 12:27) The Church is Christ’s Body, and the individual members of the Church are members of Christ’s Body. Therefore if Paul writes scripture that is inspired by God, that scripture comes from Paul in one sense, and it also comes from God in another sense. The fact that it comes from God, does not mean that it did not also come from Paul. And if it comes from Paul, and Paul is a member of the Church, and therefore a member of Christ’s Body, then in that sense it also comes from the Church.
Therefore, although we agree on what the verses say, your interpretation and understanding of the verses differs from mine.
[ Every word from the letters of Paul came via Paul’s hand from the mind of God.
“knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (II Peter 1:20, 21 NKJV)
The Biblical doctrines that the Catholic Church upholds are not the issue between us. The Catholic dogmas and traditions that violate scripture are the issue. The Bible warns us to spiritually only call God Father, that Jesus is our only moderator to God, and that the Holy Spirit alone interprets scripture for us. The Catholic Church tries to stand in the place of God, commanding idolatry and the worship ( veneration and prayer) to mean and women, dead and alive instead of to God alone, in Jesus’ Name, guided by His Spirit. The warnings of scripture are there to protect His adopted Children against false teachers and the deceptions of the devil and the temptations of the world.
The “good” that is done by anyone can never justify their sinfulness. Jesus came to save the elect from their sins, by dying for us to propitiate God ‘s wrath due us. The works of Catholicism ( Hail Marys , mass, the sacraments in justification, dispensations, etc are unable to save anyone. Only the blood of Christ can and did once and for all for the elect chosen by God alone.
That is what the Bible teaches. Its not what the Catholic Church teaches. That is what makes the Catholic Church the apostate Church and the whole of Babylon. ]
None of what you have written refutes my point: You are not relying on the scriptures alone, you are relying on the scriptures plus your interpretation of the scriptures. If you were relying on the scriptures alone, then you could just quote the scriptures and say nothing more.
I agree that “Every word from the letters of Paul came via Paul’s hand from the mind of God.” But you are drawing a false dichotomy by claiming that because they were inspired by God, therefore they did not come from Paul.
There is no logical reason why both can’t be true: That they came from Paul, and that they came from God. Paul wasn’t just a rag doll that God used to hold a pen.
Agellius commented on What Fat Tuesday and Lent Means to God
If you consider yourself a Christian, here are A few things to consider before you head out to celebrate Fat Tuesday and Lent. …
None of what you have written refutes my point: You are not relying on the scriptures alone, you are relying on the scriptures plus your interpretation of the scriptures. If you were relying on the scriptures alone, then you could just quote the scriptures and say nothing more.
[So what is your point? Is it that every interpretation of scripture is private and equally valid? You deny the inspiration of scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Its not my interpretation, I believe it is the interpretation of God.
“For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.”
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. “(Hebrews 4:2, 12 NKJV)]
I agree that “Every word from the letters of Paul came via Paul’s hand from the mind of God.” But you are drawing a false dichotomy by claiming that because they were inspired by God, therefore they did not come from Paul.
There is no logical reason why both can’t be true: That they came from Paul, and that they came from God. Paul wasn’t just a rag doll that God used to hold a pen.
[“And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (II Peter 1:19-21 NKJV)
Paul wrote the letter, but God was the author. Paul was moved by the will and inspiration of God. Without God’s inspiration he would have been just an ordinary man, speaking fallible words of men.
Again, I do not know why you labor your point, but it seems to me that you find offense that I or anyone would in faith receive it as the very words of God.
Your Popes are all over the place, doctrinally. Our debate is over authority, biblical verses Papal. There would be no debate if the Popes honored God’s Word. The idolatry and disobedience of Catholicism expose its adjenda – to deceive the inhabitance of the world and keep them from God’s salvation. That is Satin’s purpose. But faith will come to all of God’s elect by Hearing God’s Word spoken and shared by God’s faithful redeemed.
“He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.” But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” (Matthew 15:3, 7-9, 13, 14, 18-20 NKJV)
If you keep the Catholic Church above Christ, you will remain condemned. ]
[This is getting pointless. The Bible tells us that it must be spiritually discerned. You don’t understand and accept what the Bible teaches, because you can’t. Only the saved are given the Holy Spirit. I hope that you will Call on the Lord in repentance and are saved. I realize that from your perspective, i’m wrong. Let God judge our hearts.
In Christ
AZ4Christ.Wordpress.com
Dude, you deleted my comment? Not cool man.
I received and read your latest comments. There was nothing you challenged me biblically that I haven’t already addressed earlier. Opinions do not interest me. The point of my blog is challenging unbiblical belief with biblical arguments. It was getting pointless. That is why I discontinued the dialog. Refuting opinion is pointless.
I understand that you are Catholic, and have been taught by your church many things, some biblical, some unbiblical. Lest you think i am just anti Catholic, i challenge other cults, religions and even professing protestant christians when the doctrines and traditions of man violate the doctrines, precepts, and principles of God that are only found in the Bible.
So, if what I post or comment is unbiblical, I welcome Biblical correction. My intent is not to offend. God has sanctified my understanding of His doctrine many times. I love it when my belief becomes more biblical. Glory to God!
In closing, lent isn’t setup by the Bible. Repentance is a daily part of every Christian’s walk. Lent isn’t necessary. If it justifies sinfulness outside of lent, it is ungodly. If it externalizes the appearance of santification into a play instead of internal sanctification, it is ungodly. If the unsaved do it to try to earn salvation, it is ungodly. Repentance includes both an awareness of sin and a perminant turn from it. If something causes you to sin, pluck it out. Challenge me biblically and I will post and respond. Unbiblical opinions already addressed biblically require no response. If the bible doesn’t change your opinion, neither would my comment.
God bless!
OK, so this is a Nazi-run blog where you start discussions but then delete your opponent’s side of the discussion whenever it suits you. Got it.
Whoa! Let us reason together, says The Lord!
Freedom of speech includes freedom to speak, freedom to listen, and freedom not to listen. It does not include freedom not to be offended.
Most blogs manage their sites to aid in positive communication and hinder negative or pointless communication.
If you read my blog purpose statement, it is to share God’s truth and defend biblical authority. As I politely told you, challenge me Biblically and we shall engage in debate. Tell me your opinion unsupported by Biblical scripture, and i exercise my freedom of speech by ignoring it.
So you call me a Nazi, the person who runs my blog.
What is a Nazi?
The Nazis eliminated free speech.
The Nazis burned books.
Burned people who read the bible, old or new testament.
The Nazis murdered millions of jews and Christians motivated by evolutionary beliefs.
The Nazis eliminated free speech and deceived people with propaganda and lies.
Hitler was the leader of the Nazis.
Hitler wasn’t German but came out of Austria. Hitler wasn’t a Christian but was a baptized Catholic and former alter boy. The Nazis used the Catholic traditions and pageantry to take over and control Germany.
Hitler claimed to be the sole authority and ignored most of the teachings of Christ. That made him an anti-christ.
Hitler came out of Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism came out of pagan Rome. The leader of the Catholic Church is the Pope. The Pope claims authority over the Bible. The Pope calls Himself holy father, the vicar of Christ, and the moderator between God and man. In other words he claims to be the father, son, and Holy Spirit, contrary to the testimony of the Bible and The true Holy Triunity. The Bible says such a person is an anti christ. The Catholics in the dark ages outlawed private ownership and use of Bibles, burned bibles, and millions who owned, read, and believed the Bible.
Millions of people have been murdered by anti christs.
If we lived on Germany in the 1930s, would you have been a Nazi who followed Hitler? I wouldn’t.
Today, you call yourself a Catholic who follows the Pope.
So what does that make you?
You are free to read my numerous posts on Catholicism and why it is unBiblical. You are free not to. Ironically, the Bible says no one is spiritually truly free. We either are slaves of sin or of righteousness , following the spirit of truth or error.
You cannot follow Christ and follow an anti christ. The devil is in the details.
You see, this is extremely unfair. You get to go on and on responding to and critcizing things that I say, but I don’t get the chance to respond and defend what I said (or if I do, I have no assurance that it won’t be deleted).
All I’m saying is, if you’re going to start discussions, then you have an obligation, in fairness, to let the other person respond. If you had simply not allowed comments in the first place, I would not have critcized you. You have every right to have a blog in which you post your views for other people to read, but don’t allow comments.
But if you do allow comments, you’re giving the impression that free discussion will be allowed. To then later on begin editing the discussion to suit your preferences, does indeed strike me as fascistic.
Fairness is a relative term. Fairness is always received in a subjective manner. It wasn’t fair that Jesus died to take away my sin. It wasn’t fair that some are elect and some aren’t. I thank God that He isn’t fair.
Challenge me Biblically and you will be heard.
I don’t participate in censored discussions.
You are free to do so. The only thing I am “censoring” is pointless opinions not backed up with Biblical truth.