http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/culture/story/21803.html

Holy Y2K Reuters

3:00 a.m. 17.Sep.99.PDT Rome unveiled a state-of-the-art control room on Thursday to ensure everything runs smoothly when millions of pilgrims flock to the city for the Roman Catholic Church's Holy Year in 2000.

Vatican, police, medical, defense, transport, and telecoms officials will work together in a special structure equipped with closed-circuit television screens and computers linked to the city's telecoms, security, and energy centers.

"Rome is placing itself at the avant-garde with this project," Rome's Mayor Francesco Rutelli told reporters surrounded by brand new flat-panel computer screens and online maps of the city.

"Through this structure, we will ensure all forces and bodies involved share information and coordinate interventions."

Rome expects to host 30 million pilgrims next year, five times the normal number of visitors.

To improve infrastructure in the traffic-clogged city, the council is carrying out hundreds of building and restructuring works.

The new control room, which Rome officials have dubbed "the situation room," will be for coordination only, leaving intervention to single bodies or institutions.

Copyright 1999 Reuters Limited.

-- Lynn Ratcliffe (mcgrew@ntr.net), September 17, 1999

Answers

My answer is OT but here goes: According to the most respected religious leaders today, after this Pope there will be one more and then no more. The next one will be the one that betrays the church.

-- Carol (glear@usa.net), September 17, 1999.

I disagree with you.......yes, there are a handful of church leaders that promote that theory but they tend to be a small number and certainly not among the most respected........

Can you be specific about what leaders you are referring to please? I am not aware of many or even any of the most respected church leaders that agree with that line of thought. Perhaps I have missed what some of them have been saying. Names please......Thanks.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), September 17, 1999.

I've heard that too, but don't be suprised if the NEXT one after JP2 is the f-prophet.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), September 17, 1999.

If you want detailed info on Rome/The West/The East and the power struggle taking place go get Malachi Martins book, "The Keys Of this Blood". It is VERY in depth and you won't view the world around you in the same light again. Not to mention his crudentials are impeccable. He also has a site, I think.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), September 17, 1999.

Frankly, the world would probably be better off without the catholic church.

-- (should@keep.my.mouth.shut), September 17, 1999.

Malachi Martin may not be an unbiased observer.

A less opinionated study of St. Malachy's list of Popes, with the corresponding mottoes can be seen here.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 17, 1999.

The idea that the next pope will be the last pope and antichrist is prophesied by St. Malachy, a catholic prophet who wrote in the middle ages. There is a little book out for a few dollars titled, "The Prophecies of St. Malachi(y)". You can get it at a Catholic bookstore where I bought mine.

Is it believable? Well, look at the popes of the dark ages.. They weren't all godly. History proves that. But as to the next one being the last one, who really knows. Nobody.

Jesus said in John14:29, "I tell you these things before they happen, so when they happen you may believe I am He." This is called the moral purpose of prophecy. Clearly, Jesus is telling us that prophecy is not given to make us experts on the future. Rather, He gives prophecy so that when things happen and we wonder about it, we can turn to the Bible and realize that we were told about it long ago. The desired result and purpose is that we would then have more faith in Jesus, Who knows the end from the beginning.

Yes, Malachi Martin's book 'Keys' is excellent. It is the primer to understanding Capitalism, Communism, and Catholicism as they all vie for domination of the world in the millennial geopolitical endgame. It clearly reveals Communisms ability to feign weakness as part of their strategy to overcome the West. It is in paperback. (amazon.com)

Martin died a couple of months ago. For a good understanding of where the Catholic church is now, Martin's last book, a novel, Windswept House revealed what is going on. And it's not good. Martin was a Jesuit scholar.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 17, 1999.

I read the book a few years ago......very interesting. Granted, Malachi was not exactly an unbiased observer, but in all honesty, who is when they are writing a book.

Overall though, extremely well written and lots of food for thought.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), September 17, 1999.

1. Truth for Catholics
2. Who is the Rock of Matthew 16:18?
3. Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (ex-Protestant)
4. Nazareth Resource Library (ex-Protestant)
5. Catholic Answers' Tracts by Topic
6. Where We Got the New Testament (ex-Protestant)
7. Philip Hughes' History of the Church
8. Philip Hughes' Church in Crisis
9. Lane's World CatholicPage (ex-Protestant)

"History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this." (John Henry Newman, ex- Protestant)

When Catholic bashing takes place this forum, I will take it as an invitaiton to post Catholic apologetics. If you don't like it, quit inviting it.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 17, 1999.

"It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was not other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand; the statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus; the deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints; the Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything; the Church became as crowded with the one as the Pantheon had been with the other, and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud." Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

-- heretic (heretic@hereticc.com), September 17, 1999.

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practise, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter." Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

-- heretic (heretic@hereticc.com), September 17, 1999.

>>. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter."

Tee hee. How better off we have been since Thomas's day. The years have proven his wisdom, as witness the lack of despotism, redistribution of wealth to the masses, and the good of man that came with the jettisoning of religion in general and Christianity in particular, by the powers that be during the Reign of Terror, the Nazi purges, the starvation of the Ukraine and Georgia, the Chinese and Soviet massacres, Pol Pot, etc. etc.

Didn't I read somewhere that predudice against the Catholic Church is the only socially acceptable form of prejudice by liberals?

-- Spanky (spamme@no.more), September 17, 1999.

If you look at the long historical term- centuries, that is- the Catholic Church is in decline, even though their numbers are greater than ever due to Third World conversions. Ultimately the pope will matter little. I also doubt that the Papacy will stop. There are still Zoroastrians out there some 4,000 years after their heyday. But the power of the Roman church over Western civilization was irreparably broken by the Reformation, and their power and influence has waned since, especially in the rise of Western democracy and religious pluralism.

I thought Malachy referred to the last Pope as the one who "feeds the people". Post y2k food aid?

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), September 17, 1999.

Apparently Christianity has this in common with y2k: Some folks "get it" & some folks don't.

-- still Catholic after (all@these.beers), September 17, 1999.

You forgot the "Batman" part, you're fired!

-- Bruce Wayne (stately@wayne.manor), September 17, 1999.

"Of all the tyranny that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity." Thomas Paine, the Age of Reason

-- heretic (heretic@hereticcc.com), September 17, 1999.

The Bible speaks for itself. Catholics have 2 authorities-the church and the bible. Better trust the Book.

[Jer 7:18] "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger."

[Mat 23:9] "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Matt 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[Rev 17:5] "And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

-- biblebeliever (wordmagnified@above.all), September 17, 1999.

heretic-

The argument from authority is the weakest one. It's all well and good to say that Thomas Paine thought Christianity was wrong. But

1) Why do you think that it is wrong?

2) What about the millions of others living and dead who have discovered that Christianity was right. You can demonstrate the opinion of one man, but I can demonstrate the opinion of a million men.

These questions are horribly OT, so I would be happy to take this discussion off-line. My real email is ainsje00@wfu.edu, the one below is a spam address.

-- John Ainsworth (ainsje@cstone.net), September 18, 1999.

And I can demonstrate the opinions of millions of men who believed that Copernicus was wrong. So what?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 18, 1999.

>>The Bible speaks for itself. Catholics have 2 authorities-the church and the bible. Better trust the Book

Actually, the Bible doesn't speak for itself, or why are there tens of thousands of Christian sects, new ones popping up every day, each claiming the single right interpretation?

The Catholic church at least traces its lineage back to Jesus, when it was given original charge to teach and to spread the gospel. That is the Church's authority, conveyed by Jesus. Incidentally, Jesus did not just drop off a book and say, here guys. Rather he founded an organization, the Church. The Church itself (with writers under the inspiration of the holy spirit, according to Catholics), wrote the New Testament, not Jesus. Finally, the Bible was not a whole book, but rather many scattered books, many of which supposedly were canonical. How to determine which gospels and letters were really canononcial, since they were not self-interpreting? Well, the Catholic Church in fact is the organization that gathered together many texts, and rejected others, to form what today we call the New Testament- all this hundreds of years after Jesus. Incidentally, without universal printing presses for centuries, there was no univeral literacy, or no Borders books, the Bible was preserved by Catholic clerics and monks, hand-copying the manuscripts.

Each person who claims the Bible is the sole authority in reality looks to two authorities anyway- the letter of the Book, and his own interpretation of it, or else the interpretation of someone he considers wise. For Catholics, the interpretation is done by the Church, whose membership predated, wrote, and compiled the New Testament.

-- Scarecrow (Somewhere@overthe.rainbow), September 18, 1999.

Biblebeliever -

I'm with you.

[Rev 17:5] "And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

The first time I read Revelations (after I was converted), "dressed in purple and scarlet" made me think of the Catholic church. Come out of her.

-- Cable_man (wascatholic@nowibelievein.him), September 18, 1999.

If you want to be "religious" read the following...

(James 1:27 KJV) "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), September 18, 1999.

>>Rev 17:5] "And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

Tee hee. St John, a Catholic priest, decided to write this about his own religion. And generations of Catholic monks spent hours and years in bad light, faithfully transcribing these words, century after century, just to say mean things about their own religion. Yeah, right.

>>The first time I read Revelations (after I was converted), "dressed in purple and scarlet" made me think of the Catholic church. Come out of her.

Made me think of six different teenagers I saw in the mall today, two college football teams, and my toddler niece. Last thing it made me think of was the Catholic church... I thought the colors on the Vatican flag were yellow and white, or something?

-- Spanky (nospam@read.history), September 18, 1999.

Sure there are lots of Catholics. Are they a world power? Nah. This world is really ruled by the Prince of Darkness, the Advosary, the Father of Lies, the Devil, Satan. Whether or not this being is a literal person or a symbolic representation is up to interpretation. Reminds me of a story of a certain Catholic saint:

The soldiers burst into the chapel, tearing the place apart. "Where are the treasures of the Church??!!" the thugs demanded. The Saint then lead them around a corner to a place where sick and dying orphans were cared for. "Here are the treasures of the church!" said the Saint. The saint was promtly executed on the spot.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 18, 1999.

Father Malachi Martin was a guest on Art Bell's show at least a half- dozen times. Check Art's guest list Past Guests for the dates of his appearances. You may then go to the Art Bell Archives in order to listen to the shows using Rea lPlayer

Though I don't share Father Martin's particular brand of religion, nor the god he espoused, he nonetheless struck me time & again as a very sincere person.

RIP Malachi Martin.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), September 18, 1999.

Well said, Spanky and Scarecrow.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 18, 1999.

"There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilization. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheater. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigor. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustine, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila.... Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigor when some traveler from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's?" (Thomas Babington Macaulay, English historian, and no friend of the Catholic Church)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 18, 1999.

It's an interesting experience for a recovering Lutheran to watch the Catholics duke it out amongst themselves on doctrine and Y2K, with cheerleading on the sidelines from the other denominations, agnostics and atheists. Gary Larson coulda done a Far Side cartoon on the image in my head. Goodness, I love irony and whimsy.

-- Amnowsane (lapsed@wittenburg.com), September 18, 1999.

Mark, Protestants don't like the Letter of James, KJV or otherwise.

That's the book that damns their chief doctrine, their false tradition of men, justification by faith alone: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24).

At this point, Protestants will start doing handstands, backflips, and somersaults trying to explain away the plain meaning of plain words. :-) Watch here, and you may get to see some of the gyrations!

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 18, 1999.

Spanky, check out

these scary words.

New York city might be Babylon.

-- Cable_man (tlangan@iname.com), September 18, 1999.

Check out

these scary words.

New York city might be Babylon.

-- Cable_man (tlangan@iname.com), September 18, 1999.

Let us agree on this:

There can only be One Supreme Being. There can only be one nature and character of this Being. There can only be one truth. There can only be one reality.

Who is right about this Supreme Being, His nature, character, His truth that determines the one reality?

Can a simple common person know? Listen: Jesus said, "IF anyone wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine (truth)." The key is not in how smart a person is, it is found in the heart. Are you willing to do God's will. That is the condition to finding the one reality.

For me it is found in: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, and sola christo (Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, by the authority Christ and His apostles in The Holy Scriptures.)

Lane, You and the catholic church's failure to understand the nature of faith and the place of works in regards to justification is the chief reason for us estranged catholics continuing the protest. Go wrong on justification by faith and you go wrong everywhere else.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 18, 1999.

I was waiting for DiETEr to knock some sense into all of you, but knowing how fickle he can be, I didn't hold my breath. Uncle Deedah is the next best thing when it comes to common sense.

This is pathetic. "Christians" arguing over which branch is more "Christian". You're all fooled. As long as you can get a clue about Y2K though, you have a chance.

Gotta go refill my glass of wine. (Jesus was an alright guy, he liked wine.)

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 18, 1999.

Perhaps some of you Catholic apologists can explain to some of us why the Catholic Church:

1. ...prays to "mother" Mary. 2. ...has elevated her to co-redeemer status along with our Saviour Jesus.

Both of these heresies are unbiblical and an abomination to Christians everywhere. Nowhere in the bible does it say to pray to mother Mary but I understand that she needs a saviour just as much as I do.

BTW, if the pope would be the greatest among us then according to Jesus he would need be a great servant. Why does he want us to kiss the ring on his hand. This also is a disgusting practice which I see as unworthy of a great Christian leader. These are only a few systemic problems I see as an outsider to the Catholic church.

my name is written in the Lambs book of Life but not on the Catholic register.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 19, 1999.

Disputing whose beliefs are holier or unholier is just another way of hollering at the kid next door, "My big brother can beat up your big brother."

Which of us, before the Source, is not as a child playing in a sandbox, heedless and unaware of the world beyond his own yard?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

>>>>Perhaps some of you Catholic apologists can explain to some of us why the Catholic Church: 1. ...prays to "mother" Mary. 2. ...has elevated her to co-redeemer status along with our Saviour Jesus.

1) Refer to Matthew, and the words of Elizabeth, stating that Mary is blessed among all women. 2) 'Pray' is an old English word,whose meaning is not just praying to a divinity. It has another meaning- to ask. In this sense, Catholics are asking Mary to pray to God on their behalf. Just as you might ask your friends or neighbor- or mother, to pray for you. Given the unique state of Mary- the only mother of a Redeemer in history, and bibically 'blessed among all women,' her word may or may not carry more wait to other humans. WHy not, then, ask for her and other saints to pray for you? 3) Catholics believe Mary is a human, not a deity. They believe that Jesus is the only redeemer and savior. Mary's redeemer, in fact, was her son Jesus.

>>>BTW, if the pope would be the greatest among us then according to Jesus he would need be a great servant. Why does he want us to kiss the ring on his hand. This also is a disgusting practice which I see as unworthy of a great Christian leader

I guess it's a ceremonial thing, left over from some previous thing with kings and such. If it bothers you, or any Catholic, just don't do it. Right, it is kind of silly if you think about it. But I suppose it's a symbolic thing, the ring being the symbol of the papacy, an institution created by Jesus and handed down unbroken since His day.

-- Scarecrow (Somewhere@over.com), September 19, 1999.

>>>>Disputing whose beliefs are holier or unholier is just another way of hollering at the kid next door, "My big brother can beat up your big brother." Which of us, before the Source, is not as a child playing in a sandbox, heedless and unaware of the world beyond his own yard?

Maybe, but if you notice here, it's the Catholic Church that's being attacked, not doing the attacking, and the responses are only to those attacks.

Secondly, simply because there is a dispute, there should not be an assumption that both parties are automatically wrong. Perhaps one is right, or more right than another, or why do we even have civil courts?

Finally, agreed that there is one Source. That being said, isn't the job of those seeking the source to find the best way to that Source, perhaps one given by that Source itself. Perhaps many paths have a partial truth... why not take the one that has preserved the most? For Catholics, and those who have converted to Catholicism, they believe they are on it.

-- Scarecrow (Somewhere@Over.com), September 19, 1999.

"justification by faith!?" heh. what about the epistle of James, which says, "Faith Without Works is Dead?"

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 19, 1999.

Mary has a special place in the hearts of catholics, simply because Jesus ASKED that Mary and her memory be loved, honored, and respected after he left this world. In particular, Jesus placed the care of Mary under apostles John and James.

Because those who die in a state of grace commune in the heavenly vision of God (looking into God and seeing all things in all times in the most perfect light), one way of knowing God is by honoring God's saints, of which Mary is one of many known and unknown. While they are NOT God, they share in Christs's death and resurrection and in each other's death and resurrection. Hence, the doctrine of the "communion of saints." ...A complex idea which I have surely done no justice for, but one that is worth considering. It is part of how the trascendent God (ie., God the Father) becomes imminent in us through the power of the Holy Spirit.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 19, 1999.

Kissing the ring of pope is simply a sign of humility and respect for the Church--the bride of Christ--not the Pope the man or the Vatican bureaucracy. People who get offended by this should also recall that the Pope washes the feet of his people, on his hands and knees, smelling that funky toejam in the same manner that Jesus did to his apostles.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 19, 1999.

For me it is found in: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, and sola christo (Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, by the authority Christ and His apostles in The Holy Scriptures.)

Sola Gratia and Sola Christo: two steps in the right direction. By which I mean that they are Catholic doctrines.

Since you sidestepped James 2:24-26, you obviously know that Sola Fide is completely against the Scriptures: I don't know of any doctrine that is more flatly contradicted by a specific, direct, and explicit condemnation in the Bible than is justification by faith alone.

Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible (though Protestants do resort to quoting about fifteen passages out of context, usually by begging the question, to try to prove it), is inherently illogical (since the Bible does not say what books belong in it and what books don't), and is completely unworkable (having produced literally thousands of denominations who officially disagree amongst themselves on essential doctrines).

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 19, 1999.

..."it's the Catholic Church that's being attacked, not doing the attacking, and the responses are only to those attacks."

The ecumenical approach of the contemporary Church to other faiths is a relatively recent development. Much of its long history has been quite otherwise. When I was attending parochial school in the 1930's, and a Catholic high school in the 40's, we were instructed that attending a religious service in a Protestant church was considered a mortal sin. Happily this troglodyte attitude has changed somewhat for the better.

The Church's enormous financial strength, and its widespread political and psychological influence, naturally focus attention on it.

But my remarks are addressed to all parties, in particular to those who see it as their duty to convert the rest of Christianity (not to mention the rest of the world) to their own particular convictions. This tendency is shared by all Christian denominations; it is not limited to small sects in storefront churches.

One said, "My Father's house has many mansions." Too few remember that.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Hi Lane,

When you say sola gratia and solo christo are catholic doctrines you imply that these doctrines originated exclusively the Catholic denomination. That is a misrepresentation of the truth. The Apostles taught these truths, and they were taught these truths by Christ in person and through the Holy Spirit. "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

These truths belong to God and were revealed by Him. By making these truth claims for the Catholic Church glory is taken away from God To Whom belongs all glory and honor.

I am glad to see that we are in agreement on two of the solos :-) What I don't understand and maybe you can help me with this, is how you can separate what God has joined together?

For example, Ephesians 2:8,9 reads, "For by grace you have been saved through faith , and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

According to the Apostle Paul we are saved by grace ALONE through faith ALONE. He clearly makes sure there is no mistake about how we are saved.

It is "not of yourselves". There is nothing a PERSON can do to contribute or has to achieve to earn salvation, "It is the gift of God..." If salvation is a gift then it is free. We all know the nature of a gift. A gift can only be received. It cannot be worked for or earned or it ceases to be a gift.

"It is not of works, lest anyone should boast." Salvation cannot be earned by anything we can do. As soon as you say that works are necessary to being saved then you have to ask how much, how many?

If that is how you interpret James then I must ask you, just exactly what do I have to do in addition to trusting in what God did for me at the cross? I must know this so I can have assurance that I am saved. No. No. No. A thousand times no Lane. I went down this road when I became a believer at 23. It is the road Pilgrim went down in Bunyon's "Pilgrims Progress". Isn't Christ's work enough? Isn't His obedience enough? Were all my sins taken care of at Calvary?

In the matter of justification we must be clear about this. What exactly is required in order to be put in a right relationship with God? Is being right with God something I must work all my life to achieve, or is it achieved the moment I put my trust in Christ and His finished work?

"Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:1.

I am justified, or put in a right relationship with God, the moment I trust in God's provision. PTL! Hallelujah!

If works enter in at all, then .....when or how can I ever know that I am right with God?

Hmmm, seems there is a conflict here between what Paul is saying and the verse you quote from James. How do you reconcile what James said from what Paul says here? How do you understand these verses written by Paul? I will supply my understanding of James 2:24-26 in the next post.

God bless you and yours. Thanks for all the good work you are doing on y2k :-)

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 19, 1999.

Tom,

Thanks for the thought of children in a sandbox. How true!

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 19, 1999.

God has established the Catholic Church to teach the truth. Denying that is taking away from His Glory.

"ALONE"? Sorry, you added that little word to the text, just like Martin Luther did to Romans 3:28.

Ephesians isn't contrasting faith and works, as you seem to think, but is contrasting grace and anything we can do on our own. I am not saying that as someone who is grateful to God for having delivered me from the mindless blindness of Protestantism, but as somebody who can read a text for what is says rather than for what he wants it to say. We are saved by grace through faith. We do not and cannot do anything to deserve salvation: that is Catholic teaching and has always been Catholic teaching. I believe it 100% because that is what the Catholic Church has taught from the beginning. That's why Ephesians is in the Bible, BB: because the Bible teaches the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

NOBODY believed in faith alone until Martin Luther invented his false gospel of men in the sixteenth century. Nobody. If it's so obvious, so Biblical, how in the world did it take men sixteen centuries to discover it?

Don't trot out all the mentions of faith in the Bible. There are zillions of them, and I know them as well as you do. Faith is absolutely necessary, and nothing else is a substitute for it. But the mention of faith does not imply faith alone.

Kindly address the one and only one mention of "faith alone" in the Bible, in James 2:24-26, which denies that we are justified by faith alone. (Hint, try arguing that he's not talking about just any kind of faith, but only about "living" faith or "justifying" faith, which produces works as evidence. I've heard it all before, BB. I've heard it all before.)

Please excuse me: you are simply trotting out the same tired old misconceptions of Catholic teaching that started back when Luther and Calvin started lying about Catholic teaching to make their own fables sound better.

Thanks, I'm trying my best on Y2K.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 19, 1999.

"Ephesians isn't contrasting faith from works as you seem to think, it contrasts faith from anything we can do on our own."

Please explain the above statement. You are saying what I did but in different words. (works = anything we can do on our own)

I'm relieved to hear you say that "we do not and cannot do anything to deserve salvation." I am wondering if you understand justification. Forget the rhetoric Lane, I did. Forget protestantism and the reformers you wrongly judge and pillage. Let us just work with the Bible text as two brothers in Christ. What does the Bible mean by justification Lane? When God justifies a sinner, what exactly does He do? And when does it happen?

Please answer this and then I'll kindly answer what James 2:24-26 means. Peace

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 19, 1999.

To whom it may concern: Scarecrow somewhere over the rainbow and Caprolith:

"Mary has a special place in the hearts of catholics, simply because Jesus ASKED that Mary and her memory be loved, honored, and respected after he left this world"

Where in the bible is this? Answer: Nowhere!

This issue takes place in John 19:26/27..."When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved (yours truly, John) standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" (27) The He said to the disciple (John), "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home".

Context, context. Jesus did NOT ask that the memory of Mary "be loved, honored, and respected after he left this world" he looked down at John from the cross and said: "behold thy mother". In other words, make sure she is taken care of, I'm giving you this responsibility. The text clearly shows that John understood the words and took her to his home.

"Because those who die in a state of grace commune in the heavenly vision of God (looking into God and seeing all things in all times in the most perfect light), one way of knowing God is by honoring God's saints, of which Mary is one of many known and unknown."

Where did this theological nonsense come from? It certainly didn't come from the bible. As for Mary being a saint, it seems to me that Catholics are somewhat confused as to the biblical meaning of what a saint is. A saint is not a great spiritual athlete who attained some lofty altitude of piety. Over and over in the bible the saints are the entire body of Christ. The bride of Christ. But since the Catholic Church has done a great job of redefining the meaning of "is" then what do we expect.

As Christians we are authorized ONLY to pray to God the Father or to the Son. Mary cannot intercede for anyone. That is pure dung and you know it.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 20, 1999.

You don't want to address James 2:24-26 because you know it destroys any notion that justification by faith alone is a Biblical doctrine. Luther knew it: James is the only book of the New Testament he didn't write a commentary on. In fact, he relegated it to an appendix in his German New Testament (he didn't want to have it there at all, but others convinced him that he would be destroying his own foundation if he got rid of it entirely) because his new False Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone is so flatly, explicity and specifically denied by James 2:24-26. So, you want to make jump through hoops before you'll address that passage. Sorry, BB. I'm not playing those games.

I refer you to Justification and Salvation Apologetics. And to the other links I gave above.

P.S. Imputed righteousness, a.k.a. forensic justification, was also invented by Luther and is contrary to the Scriptures.

P. P. S. Judge and pillage them? See The Protestant Inquisition.

God bless you.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 20, 1999.

Lane -- At least three streams claim, with equal historical justification (not addressing spiritual "rights" here) to have drunk from the source: Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and a wide but discernible group of dissenting communities (that is, as viewed by the winners). Omitting the third one for now as too complex for this thread, the Orthodox would not take kindly to the notion that original Christianity and Roman Catholicism are interchangeable terms.

With respect to Protestantism, it is unquestionably a deformation of Roman Catholicism. But however speckled its destiny, the abuses which sparked its rise can hardly be laid to the feet of the Reformers but arose from grave abuses within the latter, as has not infrequently been recognized by Roman thinkers themselves.

Justification-works is a crucial hinge but not the only one around which claims of authenticity and a pure gospel center (again, consider the Orthodox tradition for another hinge). Unquestionably, Luther's over-emphasis on faith alone was regrettable (though Protestantism scarcely lacks for a "works mentality" and, for that matter, "works" theologies), but charges that he preached a false gospel could well be countered by similarly scaled charges about a variety of Roman doctrines (that is, unless one takes the Roman claim of a right to define doctrine as axiomatic).

With respect to inquisitions and slaughter, Romans, Orthodox and Protestants have shared and shared alike.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 20, 1999.

but charges that he preached a false gospel could well be countered by similarly scaled charges about a variety of Roman doctrines

Most Protestants think they are the only ones who can level such charges. Yet Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, forensic justification, symbolical sacraments (or none at all), and private judgement were all invented out of whole cloth in the sixteenth century -- along with the perspicuity of the Scriptures whose "clear" Protestant teachings somehow remained obscure for fifteen centuries until Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, and Simon came along to discover them. Go figure.... :-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 20, 1999.

Us Catholics will burn in Hell because we pray to His Mother???

I don't think so......

I always thought it was a 'who ya know' kind of thing.......

Kinda sounds like ol' Homer Lindsey has been doing a little brainwashing here. Pretty funny stuff.........

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), September 20, 1999.

Thanks Lane for answering my question in your P.S. You don't believe that justification is an instantaneous declaration of my acceptance with God based solely on the imputed merits of Christ's life and death. That is want I wanted to know.

Let's drop the history lessons ok? The church needed reformation in Luther's day as well as thoughout the centuries. It needs it desparately today in both the catholic and protestant streams.

I am not playing a game Lane. I told you I would deal with James but you don't want to answer my questions. Paul and James obviously contradicts each other according to your interpretaion of Scripture. I am interested in how you reconcile Paul/Romans and James.

But let us go ahead and play YOUR game. Let us assume you are indeed correct and justification is not by trusting solely in what God provided is a gift. (Another point I made you choose to ignore.)

If being right with God depends on works in addition to faith according to James then what are these works I must do to be justified? When can I know when I am right with God? I am now in your camp Lane. What are the works I must do in addition to faith that will justify me? Isn't this a fair question?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 20, 1999.

I never said that the only saints in existence were those canonized. That is yet another common Protestant slander. Technically, a saint is anyone who dies in a state of grace. However, if the Church deems that certain noteworthy lives are good examples of Christ's love, they are recognized. Saints are not perfect. (Hey, Peter was a saint and he denied he ever knew Jesus in his darkest hour.) Saints are only meant to teach what a human being can become after being touched by God. If some teach powerful lessons, why not enshrine the most holy lives in our memory?

The Catholic church teaches that there are many ways to become closer to God. Because we are (currently) mortal, physical beings who can only know about the world through our senses, God sometimes (perhaps often) lets us know about his nature through the lives of other people, saints.

On honoring Mary. Jesus placed Mary in the care of John. Correct. But Jesus also obeyed the Ten Commandments, one of which is "honor thy father and thy mother." Christians must immitate the example of Christ in order to know God more closely. Therefore, we must try to love his mother the same way he loved his mother. Mary happens to be a cannonized saint because she can teach us much about wisdom, grief, patience, and hope.

My final point here is that Protestants often place things into unrealistic, hermetically sealed categories from one another. For example, faith and works are supposed to be "separate." That's a nice little fantasy, but sorry, it just isn't real. Faith IS a work--you are actively firing neurons that suppress your doubt and opening your heart to Divine love. Many works are only possible through faith. But many works strengthen faith and vice versa. The idea that suddenly a light bulb pops on in yer head and there is a sudden moment when you are "saved" and "believing" is ludicrous. (I for one go through long peroids of doubt and agnosticism; followed by deeper renewals.) Furthermore, the ability to have faith in the first place is a gift from God, not an act of great free will. It is the works of your will which makes this mustard seed of faith grow into a tree.

To all who slander and blaspheme the Holy Church in rebellion against Christ, may God forgive you for your ignorance, for you really don't know what you are saying.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 20, 1999.

You're still playing the same game.

Have a nice life.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 20, 1999.

Kathleen Norris, in her Amazing Grace - A Vocabulary of Faith, writes

"The problem of theology is always to keep it within its bounds as an adjunct and response to a lived faith. In the early Christian church, we can see how quickly the creeds, which began as simple statements of faith made at baptism, and were local in character until the early fourth century, became tests of orthodoxy as the church established itself as an institution. And as such, they could be, and were, used to include or exclude people from the Christian fold. [...] In her book, Image as Insight, the theologian Margaret Miles states that: 'The history of western Christianity is littered with the silent figures of Christians who found themselves excluded by each increment in verbal theological precision.'"

(quotation supplied to me by a friend)

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 20, 1999.

You're folding up your tent a little soon aren't you?

Here is my answer to your question about James, Lane. The answer to reconciling Paul and James is to understand the context. What were their objectives in writing. Who were they writing to etc. I offer this in meekness as a brother and as your humble servant. BB

====================================================================== Faith is nothing but the instrument of our salvation. Nowhere in Scripture will you find that we are justified because of our faith; nowhere in Scripture will you find that we are justified on account of our faith. The Scripture says that we are justified by 'faith' or through 'faith'. Faith is nothing but the instrument or the channel by which this righteousness of God in Christ becomes ours. It is not faith that saves us. What save us is the Lord Jesus Christ and His perfect work which sinners can never add to. It is the death of Christ upon Calvary's Cross that saves us. It is His perfect life that saves us. It is His appearing on our behalf in the presence of God that saves us. It is God putting Christ's righteousness to our account that saves us. This is the righteousness that saves; faith is but the channel and instrument by which His righteousness becomes mine. The righteousness is entirely Christ's. My faith is not my righteousness and I must never define or think of faith as righteousness. Faith is nothing but that which links us to the Lord Jesus Christ and HIS righteousness. As Jeremiah refers to Him, He is the Lord OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jer. 23:6.

You must never divorce faith from its object. Faith is always linked to an object. The object is the Lord Jesus Christ and His perfect work and His perfect righteousness; and as long as you always remember that, you can never go wrong. So we must not boast of our faith; it is not faith as such that saves us. Faith is merely that channel, that instrument, that link, that connects us with the righteousness of Christ which saves us. His is the righteousness that saves, and faith simply brings it to us. It is His righteousness that saves us by faith, through faith.

At this point, of course, we have of neccessity to consider the Apostle James and his teaching. 'This is all very well', says someone, 'but as evangelical Christians we believe in the inspiration of the whole of the Scriptures, and we believe in the innerrancy of the Scriptures. Paul's conclusion in Romans 3:28 is this, "We conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT the deeds of the law(works)." And yet here is James saying in 2:24: "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." What do we do with these two statements of God's holy apostles? Don't Paul and James blatantly contradict themselves?

This is a VERY IMPORTANT question. Even Martin Luther fell into this trap and called the Epistle of James 'an epistle of straw'. Is there a contradiction between James and Paul? Let us see again how to approach our study of the Scriptures. The danger, of course, is to pull out verses, as I have done deliberately in order to show you what not to do; you pull out Romans 3:28 and you pull out James 2:24. There you are,the critics say, the Bible clearly contradicts itself. But to do that would be unfair to both Paul and James. Every statement in the Scriptures should always be taken in its context and in its setting. Furthermore, you must always read the whole and discover what the author is setting out to do. That is the key to this problem.

James and Paul, while believing the same truth, were setting out to do two different things; they had a different immediate objective. Paul is concerned to show that our works under the Law do not count at all in justification; James is concerned to do something very different. The problem James had to confront was that there were people in the early Church who were talking about faith in an utterly wrong way. He puts that clearly in verse 14 in the second chapter. 'What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith and has not works?' James was dealing with the kind of people who said, 'I have faith, I am a believer' and then went on to say that, because they had faith and were believers, it did not matter what they did, that what saves a man is that he says he is a believer. In other words, they had this problem that plagues the church even today called 'easy believism'.

James is dealing only with men who claim to have faith - men who use the word 'faith' but who mean nothing by it but intellectual assent. Look at the way in which James deals with that and you will see clearly what he is saying. Look at his illustrations, verses 15 and 16. 'If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?' You do not help that poor person who is naked or destitute or starving by just saying, 'Well, God bless you, carry on'. That does not help them. Mere talk is of no value. If you really want to help, in addition to saying something you must do something. That is the context, that is his argument. Then he applies that in verse 17: 'Even so' - in that same way exactly - faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.' Then he goes on with his argument in verse 19: 'Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well' - that is very good. You say, 'I believe there is one God'. Excellent! 'The devils also believe and tremble.' The devils say in the same way that they believe there is one God; thou doest well' - that is very good. You say, 'I believe there is one God'. Excellent! 'The devils also believe and tremble.'

The devils say in the same way that they believe there is one God. That is valueless. Merely to say that you believe there is one God is of no value if your faith does not bear the fruit of works such as submitting to that one God, if you do not obey that one God, if you do not love and worship that one God,if it doesn't lead to loving behavior. The devils do not do so, so that their saying that they believe is useless.

That is the sort of person James has in his mind, and he gives proof of that in verse 20: 'But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead.' HE IS TALKING ABOUT THIS VAIN PERSON, this man who says, 'I believe; therefore, because I believe, all is well'. Simply believing, that is all.' Vain man, you do not realize what you are saying. Then he goes on in verse 24: 'Ye see then how that by works a man is justified (or gives evidence of truly being justified), and not by faith(or intellectual assent) only.' Why does he say that? Because that is his conclusion as the result of what he has just been saying about Abraham. 'Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.' Abraham believed God. How do you know? Was it merely a statment made by Abraham? Not at all! He took his son Isaac and put him on the altar and was on the point of offering him as a sacrifice. It was not mere talk, he did it. That is James' argument. Abraham is one of his proofs that faith is not merely a matter of saying, as a vain man does, that you believe something. Abraham in practice proves that he has true faith; not this thing that is without works which is dead, but the living thing and the real thing. In other words, faith does not mean the kind of belief that the devils have. Faith indeed does not just mean believing certain things. In faith there is always the element of trust, the element of committal, the element of obedience, the element of abandoning oneself to what you believe. James was concerned to emphasize that.

He puts it in the clearest statement of all in the last verse, verse 26: 'As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.' So that when James is arguing about faith' and again you notice it is an argument - he has in mind a belief which is distinct from faith. He is concerned about people who separate these elements in faith. Faith is not just intellectual assent. A man can give intellectual assent to the teaching of the whole Bible and go straight to hell. Faith means, first of all, that you are aware of the truth. It means, secondly, that you believe it and accept it. And, thirdly, it means that you commit youself to it and abandon yourself to it. What James is saying is that if you separate these things, what you call faith is worthless. It is exactly like taking the spirit out of the body; the body is then dead and lifeless, and it is useless. There must never be a wedge between belief and committal, belief and trust.

This is of very great importance. There is no contradiction at all between Paul and James. Paul is asserting that this great thing called faith has nothing to do with 'works of the law'. James is asserting that faith is a very great thing and does not mean mere intellectual assent, merely saying 'I believe'. They are both saying the same thing, but they are looking at it from different angles. You see how this becomes urgently important for those of us who are unhappy about rushing people into decisions in evangelistic meetings. A man can say that he believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and yet be outside the Kingdom. There are many people who say they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But it does not influence their lives at all; they go on living as they did before. He is not 'the Lord' of their lives. They do not know Jesus as their personal Savior. The devils do that, James says. The devil recognized Him as the Son of God, you remember when Jesus cast them out. So, merely to believe a number of propositions is not faith; it does not mean of necessity that we are in the Kingdom. I would not venture to say that any man is in the Kingdom of God until he gives some manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit, until he shows certain signs that he has a living faith, that he is really in Christ. All I say is that I would not dare to say that he is, or I am, or that anybody else is Christian merely because we say 'Yes' to a number of intellectual propositions. That alone is not faith. James makes that clear once and for ever; and Paul asserts the same thing in his own way. The whole of chapter 6 of Romans is really designed to say just what James says in chapter 2 of his Epistle. -Taken from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

James is dealing with the nature of faith Lane. Paul would agree wholeheartedly with James and James would read Paul and agree wholeheartedly with him. Paul would agre with Jame about faith. True living faith is not merely intellectual assent to truth. True faith assents to the truth and abandons the whole life to it and trust in it explicitly. This true faith always leads to works of love and service. Not to get justified or saved but because you realize you already are through the perfect righteousness of Christ offered in the gospel as a free gift. "Therefore being justified freely by His grace though the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" we rejoice and praise God. If I must add my works (righteousness) to Christ's then His was not enough. And I will never know how much I must add. I will never be quite sure that I am doing enough. I will never have that blessed assurance and the peace that passes understanding. It is not faith plus works, it is the faith that works.

God bless you Lane. This is not a game. I have answered your question. Your failure to answer mine proves the bankruptcy and inadequacy of the Catholic false doctrine of justification.

Yours in the righteousness of Christ,

Bob

"I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels." Isaiah 61:10

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 20, 1999.

Caprolith said: "I never said that the only saints in existence were those canonized. That is yet another common Protestant slander. Technically, a saint is anyone who dies in a state of grace. "

If you read the bible (old testament and new) you will note that those who are on earth and alive are ALSO referred to as saints and that the "saints" are not just a select few. I have had discussions with Catholics and they ALL were under the misimpression that only the select few cannonized "saints" were saints. After all these centuries it seems that the Catholic church still discourages the "saints" to read their bibles but would rather have them read predigested studies broken down by day, week and month. Darn those printing presses. Therefore, it is error to say that a "saint" is anybody who dies in a state of grace. ALL Christians are in a state of grace, bought and paid for by the shed blood sacrifice of Jesus but you don't have to be dead to be a saint. My point is that the Catholic church does a lot of redefining of the word "is". I don't need the pope to tell me what the bible means.

Caprolith said: "Christians must immitate the example of Christ in order to know God more closely. Therefore, we must try to love his mother the same way he loved his mother. Mary happens to be a cannonized saint because she can teach us much about wisdom, grief, patience, and hope."

More nonsense. Yes, but of course we must try to imitate the example of Christ. However, I read the bible, old testament and new and I find scores of godly characters who jump out of the pages of history and who become hero's in my mind and whom I admire and whose examples of faith and godly valor become lessons of inspiration for me. Joseph is one but I certainly don't pray to him my Joseph "rosary". All of the bible stories can teach us about wisdom, grief and hope. Jesus did not elevate Mary to co-redemptress and mediator to God for answered prayer nor did God the Father. Man did. All of your hairsplitting and subtle intellectual bending on this issue is lost on the masses who become mania-ized over Mary sightings and manifestations - truly a spiritual side trip if not downright dangerous and satanic not to mention an abomination in God's eyes. This is a false doctrine that detracts from Jesus who alone is worthy of all honor and glory.

Caprolith also said: "To all who slander and blaspheme the Holy Church in rebellion against Christ, may God forgive you for your ignorance, for you really don't know what you are saying."

May god forgive you and those who CLAIM to be the Church but who teach false doctrines and make the bible say something it doesn't say. For taking His pure word and twisting it to heap burdens on the saints for gain. Don't worry, Caprolith, my life will not be judged by my relationship to the pope or the Catholic church but by my relationship to Jesus Christ, His majesty, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, before whom all knees will bow.

God bless you and have mercy on us all.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 20, 1999.

The Roman Church sought to appease the pagan masses and thereby corrupted a pure Gospel and Christianity with its marriage of church and state, and its syncretism of doctrine with pagan doctrine. This vile creation, calling itself "the Holy Roman Empire" fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel as well as the warnings of Paul:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation." (1 Tim. 4:1+)

Paul warned of an apostasy which, oddly enough, hinged on two seemingly trivial elements... the freedom to eat certain meats, and the liberty to marry. Almost instantly the Roman Church fulfilled this prophecy, given to Paul by the Holy Spirit (who spoke expressly!) in these very two matters. Paul defines this fallen church susinctly:

'...giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.'

One need only look at the Angel's interpretation of the mystery of the harlot who rides the great beast in Revelation 17 to identify religious Rome as the harlot (in prophetic language, the harlot is a symbol of a FALLEN or corrupted synagogue/church/ people of God). She is drunk with the blood of the saints; she adorns herself in the colors of royalty; she is a city which sits upon seven hills. She 'fornicates' with the kings of the earth.

but God says to her NOW and in the future: "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities."

She has taught the world that one must seek salvation in herself, through the Mother Church and her authority; she alone has the authority to forgive sins, in violatin of the word of God and the word of Jesus. She teaches that salvation is a formulaic magical process from confession/mass to confession/ mass, overseen by a human priesthood (in violation of the entire book of Hebrews). She has even been so brazen in her harlotry as to alter the unalterable 10 commandments of God in the official catechism of the Mother Church, discarding the commandment against graven images (how convenient considering the Roman preoccupation with idols!) and doubling the covet commandment into two to make up for the lack.

Such abominations are remembered by God Almighty. It is terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.

-- James Neff (neff1@mindspring.com), September 21, 1999.

Well it looks like we would all make a lousy party: arguing about religion, politics and sex. At any rate, in spite of all the hot air, I wish you the best and have no hatred to any of you. It's clear I've done a terrible job trying to explain what seem to be fairly simple ideas. No matter. I hope you all fare well, and I look forward to seeing you in Purgatory ;)

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 21, 1999.

Coprolith, "If I had all knowledge and understood all mysteries yet have not love, I sound like a clanging cymbal, I have nothing at all."

Debate is only negative when you lose your cool and your love. I don't mind it because "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

At least you and Lane are informed about what you believe. I can respect that even as I disagree with it. Hopefully, we all learned in this little exercise.

Peace and grace to all, BB

-- bb (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 21, 1999.

Caprolith: Hey, don't leave mad. No hard feelings I hope. I thought you did great. It's hard to debate or argue when Truth is not on your side unless you are good at blowing smoke and lies which I doubt describes you. BB is correct, iron sharpens iron. I hope I see you under God's throne, an "overcomer" by the blood of Christ who endured to the end.

BTW, "Purgatory" ... hhmmmmmmm that must be another one of those man made things. I couldn't find it in God's word. Is this another one of .....oh never mind.

Bless you.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 21, 1999.

This line: "I hope I see you under God's throne, an "overcomer" by the blood of Christ who endured to the end."

Should have read: "I hope I see you (Caprolith and Lane) under God's throne, who endured to the end, an "overcomer" by the blood of Christ.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 21, 1999.

The greatest act of love any follower of Jesus Christ can produce is dying for his Lord or his brethren; but second to this is to warn those who are in spiritual peril, saving them from eternal death. James was speaking to those who had embraced a gnostic concept of salvation by knowledge, that is, the knowledge of faith alone; but who regarded the good ways of God, and his commandments, as passed. Treated as such, and believing that one need nothing more than to know or believe that Jesus was the Christ (as demons believe, and tremble also and do not have an opportunity for salvation) was a form of Gnosis which pervaded the early church -- as it is written by Peter, many wrestled Paul's great words to their own destruction, turning grace into license. James defines faith, PISTEOS, rightly (as did Paul) as a verb form, emphasizing its FRUIT, rather than its character. Pisteos is Acting upon a conviction sustained by both circumstances and evidences. Therefore, faith without works is dead. Likewise, works, apart from faith, is of no value.

The works, the fruit of the Spirit, is seen in many ways. In the shortest life, the thief on the cross, we see the fruits: Recognition, repentance and hope. The thief had nothing to offer Christ but his NEED. First, he recognized his sin and repented: "We deserve what we are getting. But this man has done nothing." Then he asked: "Jesus, remember me when you come in your Kingdom." Upon repentance and recognition of his sin, the Holy Spirit clearly imparted to this thief an understanding of the Christ AND His KINGDOM. The plaque above the Lord's head, meant to mock him, was seen by the thief as truth: KING of the Jews. Upon his request, with no works short of the fruit of the spirit, he received salvation from Jesus. "You shall be with me in paradise."

But if our faith itself is amiss, what profit is there in any WORKS or DEEDS? The rightly focused faith has been the central issue of God from Genesis forward. If our faith is not in the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ, his sinless life, his death, burial, bodily resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God -- and that solely, to the exclusion of all else and others -- casting ourselves upon his perfect sacrificial offering (not repeatedly, as in the mass, but once for all) and his mercy, recognizing that He "who alone is immortal, and dwells in unapproachable light" is the only mediator of the new covenant in His own blood shed for us... we have no hope. It is therefore a great act of love and kindness to bodly warn, as watchment in a high tower, those who would transgress, who would pollute the pure covenant which has no agency this side of heaven (for pure it is, being removed from the taint of sinful men, Christ having received ALL power and ALL authority in heaven and in earth, and seated with God, ever living to make intercession for us). For God does not wish that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (from both sin AND dead works). For we are saved by grace through faith, that not of ourselves, but a GIFT of God; not of works, lest any many should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, to do those good things which it is ordained that we walk in them.

If the tree produces no fruit, or bad fruit, it will be cut down and cast into the fire. That which a man sews he shall also reap. But if we are grafted into Christ, our nourishment is from the true vine, and we produce the fruit of the Spirit, the works James speaks of in our lives. That fruit is love.

-- James Neff (neff1@mindspring.com), September 21, 1999.