Some Of My Doctrinal and Scriptural Issues With Catholicism; Please DON”T read if you’d rather not hear them..

Affordable Webhosting!

I wish nothing more than to serve God and to see as MANY people as possible come to salvation and lives of love and service to Christ and others.  NOT all religions and Churches are of God, no matter how many good works they might do.  I understand this will take you some time to get through as there are multiple links each with things to read.  PLEASE understand that I have discussions like these with people of ALL sorts of religious persuasion (Mormon, Witnesses, Pentecostals etc) I do not hate Catholics, I LOVE them and that is why I am willing to speak the truth as I understand it even though it is highly unpopular and some people DO get upset with me.

Here is a link to a writing by the late Dr. John Rice “Dear Catholic friend”

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/dear_catholic_friend_john_rice.htm

The assumption of Mary into Heaven is actually NOT spoken of in the Bible at all.  Early church history records a belief that Mary’s tomb, after her physical death was found to be empty.  (IF she was bodily brought to heaven like Enoch there could be no tomb)  Oddly, even though we have details of the deaths and burial places of most of the Apostles the exact details of Mary’s death and the whereabouts of her supposedly empty tomb are not known.  This would SEEM to argue that Mary wasn’t a central figure to the early church since no OFFICIAL record exists of her burial place OR her “assumption” This is just part of the reason I feel that Mary was never meant to be held in regard above any or all other women.   I do NOT believe or accept and the Bible doesn’t teach that Mary was without Sin or necessarily better or more holy than other women, she was willing to submit to Gods will for her.  I am sure there were others who would’ve.  MY wife once said, “All this attention to Mary discounts what a special man Joseph was.  HE also believed the Angel of the Lord and bore shame and humiliation to keep Mary as his wife!”  Mary and Joseph had other children so she was NOT “pure” till death as this would’ve ALSO been violation of scripture since we have marital duties to our spouse (1 Corinthians 7:3-6) I have a couple of links that I think explain fairly well the wrongful impressions that many have of Mary and perhaps WHY these beliefs might have been fostered.  http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp

I want to forewarn you and perhaps apologize because some of the statements in Chick tracts are considered “Anti-Catholic” and certainly some of the statements you will encounter seem harsh but they all have some foundation in verifiable truth.  The drawings also tend to show the representatives of the Church as leering evil people.  I disagree with that assessment.  I believe that most Priests BELIEVE they are doing right and have no ill intent.  The hierarchy of the RCC is another matter entirely…

MY personal opinion is this, I used to “get” why the Catholic Church had been so successful.  The Priest was your representative, for the most part HE was the only one who had access to the scriptures or could even read.  WHY so many continue to hold to the traditions and teachings of the RCC today really mystifies me though; the entire Protestant reformation started with Martin Luther realizing and challenging many of the UN-Scriptural teachings of the RCC.  The rise of literacy, the availability and affordability of Bibles and the Reformation are all elements that make it SHOCKING to me the RCC is still so huge.   Calling a Priest Father, or thinking he has authority to forgive sins is wrong too.. Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Mark 2:7  7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? We CAN forgive sins against US we cannot forgive sins in place of God for sins committed against HIM.  IF we could what need would there have been for his sacrifice?  This idea of MEN forgiving sins, I think is a clever design to cut Jesus out of the equation and put “The Church” in his stead.  Then The priest tells you to say something like so many Our Fathers and so many Hail Mary’s and maybe to pray the Rosary (which has NO scriptural foundation nor odes holy water) http://www.gotquestions.org/praying-rosary.html I have heard Catholics defend this as NOT being repetitious prayer but I disagree.  The power is NOT in the words we say but in the heartfelt sincerity of our opening ourselves to God.  Matthew 6: 7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

The idea of last rites I find to be even more frustrating as it gives a false sense of peace and security to those dying and their family members.  NO person can absolve you of sin and guarantee your entrance to heaven Jesus paid that price but you have to accept it and LIVE for him.  For more information on BIBLICAL Salvation I hope you will read 5 Steps http://www.kjv-truth-ministries.org/?page_id=32 Please scroll down after clicking.  The idea of Purgatory, prayer for the dead and saying that priests and nuns must be celibate and take a vow of poverty (the better for the CHURCH to attain wealth) and other ideas are unscriptural.  Priests USED to be allowed to marry but a married man must provide for his household so he CAN’T take a vow of poverty.  Denying Priests the right to marry may be, at least partially responsible for the abuse scandals too…

1 Corinthians 7:1-2  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 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.

The more details I really look at on the founding, changes and history of the RCC the more convinced I am that it is like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormon church, ostensibly created and set up to be “Christian” yet openly rebelling against scripture and God at various points.  Setting up traditions that are WHOLLY man made and unnecessary to a relationship with Christ or establishing our salvation.  I will post a couple more Chick tract links because they cover MANY of the errors and histories of the RCC.  I also fear the RCC is going to be the seat of the one world religion spoken of in Revelations.  http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1057/1057_01.asp  http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0047/0047_01.asp http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp 

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp

I know this is a LOT to wade through so I will give you plenty of time to read, think and pray on what I have provided.  If you should decide not to respond I will understand.  I will pray for you.

God bless you!

 

  • Breezeyguy

    The Bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven, and as Queen, is quite clearly displayed in Rev 12.

    • Thanks for visiting and posting!

      I am sorry to disagree but I must.

      Here is a pretty good handling of it https://carm.org/revelation12mary but to summarize there is a special place afforded to Mary in RCC teaching and tradition that argues (as do many RCC teachings) against scripture.

      1 Timothy 2

      1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

      2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

      3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

      4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

      5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

      6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

      7Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

      8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

      Unless you can find me scripture that supports us praying to or through anyone but Jesus?

      • Breezeyguy

        Hi Preacher Cruz: I wasn’t asserting praying to or through anyone. Only that the Woman with the Crown clearly has a “head” and “feet” = a Body. That has always been taken by Christians to be Mary, until protestants denied it and tried to assert other things.

        But seeing as you asked, Jesus conversed with Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor. And in the spirit of the liberty of the children of God, I can too, just as I can ask any living Christian to pray for me. He is the God of the Living, not of the Dead.

        God bless you! Cling to the Risen Jesus!

        • I appreciate that you weren’t asserting prayer to or through anyone but, if we’re being honest and fair, the RCC does teach and or allow the laity to practice this.

          I would take exception to any statement that Christians have always understood Revelation 12 to be about Mary and would politely request support for such.

          PLEASE take the time to read this thread that I found. https://victorspen.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/romanism-and-the-early-church/

          I apologize as I do find some of his word choices to be a little inflammatory but he covers the history of the early church and how many RC teachers, theologians, historians and the RCC itself has played a form of historical revisionism.

          Bottom line, there is a common belief that the early church was all Catholic and this sis simply not true.

          • Breezeyguy

            Yes, the RCC teaches the Communion of Saints. That in Christ we are all One Church, both this side of the grave and the other.

            But we were talking about Rev 12:1. And you politely asked for support of such. Yes, indeed, I only found it myself a few months ago. It is in the Letter from Vienne of 177 A.D, published in Anne Fremantle’s “Treasury of Early Christianity”. But you can find it online here:
            http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/viennalyons.html

            Note that in Rev 12:1-2, the “Woman” is depicted as “travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered”. This is how the martyrs describe their own martyrdom, both in falling and in confessing:

            “The intervening time did not prove barren or unfruitful to the Witnesses, but through their patient endurance the immeasurable love of Christ was made manifest. For through the living the dead were made alive; and the Witnesses conferred favours on those who were not Witnesses, and the Virgin Mother had much joy in, receiving back alive those whom she had given up as dead abortions. For through the Witnesses the greater number of those who had denied returned, as it were, into their mother’s womb, and were conceived again and re-quickened; and they learned to confess. And being now restored to life, and having their spirits braced, they went up to the judgment-seat to be again questioned by the governor, while that God who wishes not the death of the sinner, but mercifully calls to repentance, put sweetness: into their souls. This new examination took place because the Caesar had given orders that the Witnesses should be punished, but that if any denied they should be set free.”

          • I apologize that I haven’t responded before now. It’s been a very busy week as I have also been doing a little reading on Freemasonry….

            I haven’t had the time to really dedicate to reading and digesting your link. I will attempt to do so this week.

          • Breezeyguy

            Fair enough. I highly recommend you stop following Jack Chick, and seek out instead Scott Hahn. God bless you.

          • That would be exchanging one form or possible/potential bias for another. Many think that Chick is “Anti-Catholic” and an argument can certainly be made but Scott Hahn is a Catholic Apologist, so…

            Looking into what Mr Hahn and others have said about Marianic dogma I come to three major points repeatedly.

            1. Though there IS an argument to be made that scripture referring to siblings of Christ COULD mean cousins that is far from proving it so. In fact, we would have to believe that Joseph lived his life married to a woman that was a perpetual virgin… That is completely inconsistent with Biblical teaching on the nature of marriage duties and the marriage bed. More to the point it is completely ignores scripture that says otherwise.

            2. MANY theologians have seen Revelation 12 as a reference to Israel and not Mary. Linked to this is the fact there is no written support for the bodily assumption of Mary Before the 6th century.

            3. The open and unashamed devotion to Mary and other central figures in Catholicism and the lofty title granting, holy, BVM eminence, holiness etc is unbecoming and completely without scriptural support. Examples? See Acts 10: 25-26 where Peter (supposedly the first “Pope” wouldn’t allow for anyone bowing before him.) or John and the Angel in Rev 22:8-9…

            I refuse to use my ordination title of Reverend for a similar reason. The word reverence appears only ONE time in the Bible Psalm 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.

            NO human being was ever without sin save Christ and any teaching otherwise not only argues against scripture but borders on heresy and idolatry. NO one, not even Mary or any Pope was truly “Holy” as ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God…

            Thanks for sending me the letter even so. I LOVED the accounts of suffering and martyrdom as they made me think, praise God and weep for such faithfulness and peace in the face of the suffering of Christ.

            However, I noticed a few things in the letter. Notice that NO where, did anyone say, I am a Catholic or that they would be going into the embrace or presence of Mary and yet the letter writer says “the Virgin Mother had much joy in, receiving back alive those whom she had given up as dead abortions.”…

            This places Mary in a rarified place that scripture does NOT afford her. The Triune God alone holds such distinction, power and honor in regards to the souls of believers.

            Your letter also reinforces my point about the honor bestowed onto men “Who also were to such an extent zealous followers and imitators of Christ, who, being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God; that though they were in such glory, and had borne their testimony not once, nor twice, but often, and had been again taken back to prison after exposure to the wild beasts, and bore about with them the marks of the burnings and bruises and wounds all over their bodies, yet did they neither proclaim themselves Witnesses, nor indeed did they permit us to address them by this name; but if any one of us on any occasion, either by letter or in conversation, called them Witnesses, they rebuked him sharply. For they willingly gave the title of Witness to Christ, `the faithful and true Witness, ‘ and first-born from the dead, and the leader to the divine life. And they reminded us of those Witnesses who had already departed, and said: `These indeed are now Witnesses, whom Christ has vouchsafed to take up to Himself in the very act of confession, thus putting His seal upon their testimony through their departure. But we are mean and humble confessors.’ And with tears they besought the brethren that earnest prayers might be made for their being perfected. They in reality did all that is implied in the term `testimony, ‘acting with great boldness towards all the heathen; and their nobleness they made manifest through their patience, and fearlessness, and intrepidity. But the title of Witness, as implying some superiority to their brethren, they refused, being filled with the fear of God.”

            God bless…

          • Breezeyguy

            1. If Mary was expecting to have relations with Joseph, then
            Luke 1:34 makes no sense.

            2. The fact is, the ancient Church (177 A.D.) saw Mary as the image of Rev 12:1. Glad you liked the link..

            3. Rarified? Definitely. Luke 1:43, 45, 48

          • 1. No. Sorry. That is an INCREDIBLE stretch. Luke 1:34 makes TOTAL sense. Mary had not KNOWN a man as in to lie with in the Biblical sense. THAT is what she meant by how can this be. Anything more is pure eisegesis or reading into the scripture what is clearly not there.

            2. If you mean the RCC after the 6th century that is true. Otherwise it is not fact as there is still much debate over it.

            3. This is again a serious feat of eisegetical gymnastics. When read in context it is clear that she was to be called blessed for being used of the Lord in that way ONLY. Unless you can point me to other scripture where Jesus or the Apostles said such things?

          • Breezeyguy

            1. Not a stretch at all. If Mary was planning to have relations, then she would have assumed the baby would be conceived in the normal way, and I re-assert her question would make no sense.

            2. 177 A.D. is way before the 6th century. And Mary was important enough to be the subject of an entire council, Ephesus 431, still before the 6th century, and in the East actually, not the West.

            3. In what way “only”? You mean, as His mother? As the object of prophecies from Genesis to Isaiah? As the “Woman” of John 2:4? Whose soul would be “pierced”, of Luke 2:35? Or, maybe as YOUR mother, John 19:27?

            Not about eisegetical gymnastics, but rather about having eyes to see, and obedience to the full Gospel. And it would help if you rejected the false (and very unscriptural) idea of “sola scriptura”.

          • I think we may have to be done with this.

            Sola scriptura is NOT a false idea.

            2 Timothy 3

            13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

            14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

            15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

            16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

            17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

            Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

            ANY and all faiths that teach that we need anything other than the Bible to know Christ and receive Salvation are cults led by Heretics and false teachers.

            Still a stretch because Mary was engaged, not married. Sure, eventually she planned to have relations with her husband. That was understood and it is a stretch and just plain foolishness to pretend otherwise. The Angel was telling her you will. She correctly understood that he was telling her what was CURRENTLY about to happen. As she had not been with any man, she questioned. After this there is NOTHING in scripture whatsoever to inform any belief that Mary would be eternally virgin.

            I may have conflated different aspects of Marianic Dogma or you may have misunderstood me.

            The teaching on the Assumption/Ascension of Mary wasn’t taught much until into the 6th century and didn’t receive widespread acceptance until into the 8th. http://justforcatholics.org/assumption.htm

          • Breezeyguy

            1) Timothy was a Bishop. Bishops were indeed tasked with “doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”. So not “sola scriptura”, but rather “Timothy with scripture”. And besides, verse 16 says “all scripture”, which includes the books protestants reject.

            And furthermore, the Bible says the epistles of Paul contain things “hard to be understood” 2 Pet 3:15-16, and that the “unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Pet 3:16. So here the Bible says not “sola scriptura”, but rather “scriptura plus learning plus stability”.

            Sola scriptura is nonsense, unhistorical, unscriptural, unrealistic, and a very late 16th century fabrication. It is a false doctrine that could only be made up after the invention of the printing press.

            2) Mary and Joseph were entitled to marital relations. That’s why he could put her away, publicly pregnant, without subjecting her to the law about fornication. Matthew 1:19

            3) The bodily heavenly presence of a crowned Mother of Jesus appears quite nicely in Rev 12. Your anti-assumption website is unconvincing. The sufferings are obviously her empathy with the persecuted Church, as evidenced in the letter of 177 A.D.

          • It is obvious that you will not fairly consider anything that doesn’t comport with RCC teaching and tradition.

            That is too bad.

            May god judge between us and lead us to his truth and grace. Let s put aside OUR views to follow his word.

            Amen.

          • Breezeyguy

            You accept and defend many things that comport with RCC teaching and tradition. One of them is the Divinity of Christ, right?

            You don’t seem to be able to fairly consider anything that doesn’t comport with Jack Chick’s teaching and tradition.

            God bless you, and may He free you from the Jack Chick insanity.

          • Not entirely fair or true. My views are not dependent upon Jack Chick. More than this, I think it is unfair to call his work (at least generally) insanity.

            I accept where Catholics and I agree, but more important, it is where we both agree and scripture agrees.

            Example? Christ is Lord and the only way to Heaven? We agree.

            Where we disagree and where I might agree with Chick is where things diverge from scripture.

            Example? How one may KNOW they are saved. One need not be a member of the RCC to be saved and I have known MANY faithful Catholics who were not sure of their own salvation.

            I don’t know about your faith progression but I was not raised to be anything at all. I evaluated all religious belief and for many reasons ruled Catholicism out for myself.

            God bless.

          • Breezeyguy

            Yet you reject the Eucharist, don’t you? Nothing is more evident in Scripture than the Eucharist. Don’t you see how your pretended allegiance to Scripture is a fiction?

          • It seems the civility is gone and the long knives are out?

            So be it. People in glass houses friend. R C Sproul once wrote “At the moment the Roman Catholic Church condemned the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, she denied the gospel and ceased to be a legitimate church, regardless of all the rest of her affirmations of Christian orthodoxy. To embrace her as an authentic church while she continues to repudiate the biblical doctrine of salvation is a fatal attribution.”

            Almost all Christians take Communion which is a form of the Eucharist. The Catholic model is flawed though as it teaches in a plainly incorrect manner on how to be in a state of grace, or worthy of communion.

            I could go further and will if anyone else asks.

            I will just say this. We are done and here’s why…

            You are now guilty, after all of your peaceful overtures, of the same arrogance that plagues the RCC as an institution. You dare to imagine, absent scriptural support, that unless someone is a part of the RCC and keeps all its tradition and teaching, one can not be saved.

            Jesus said in Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

          • It seems the civility is gone and the long knives are now out?

            So be it.

            People in glass houses friend. R C Sproul once wrote “At the moment the Roman Catholic Church condemned the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, she denied the gospel and ceased to be a legitimate church, regardless of all the rest of her affirmations of Christian orthodoxy. To embrace her as an authentic church while she continues to repudiate the biblical doctrine of salvation is a fatal attribution.”

            Almost all Christians take Communion which is a form of the Eucharist. The Catholic model is flawed though, as it teaches in a plainly incorrect manner on how to be in a state of grace, or worthy of communion.

            I could go further and will if anyone else asks.

            I will just say this. We are done and here’s why…

            You are now guilty, after all of your peaceful overtures, of the same arrogance that plagues the RCC as an institution. You dare to imagine, absent scriptural support, that unless someone is a part of the RCC and keeps all its tradition and teaching, one can not be saved.

            Jesus said in Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

          • Breezeyguy

            Justification by faith alone isn’t a biblical doctrine. It is an explicitly anti-Biblical doctrine, a flat contradiction of James 2:24.

          • Breezeyguy

            James 2:24 is not incorrect.

          • Now you’re just being silly. Gods’ word is NEVER incorrect. Our chosen or taught interpretations of it may be and THAT is what I was clearly saying. Did you even read the link?

            You can’t take ONE scripture out of context and say it means X.

          • Breezeyguy

            I went to the link. It just dismisses James 2:24 by referring to some Kennedy guy.

          • It says a great deal more, here is just part of it.

            What about James 2:24 and your salvation? Is justification by faith and works?“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (James 2:24)

            Vatican flag

            Salvation by faith and works—a doctrine of Roman Catholicism

            In November of 1544, in the northern Italian community of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church convened its 19th ecumenical council. The Council of Trent officially lasted from December of 1545 through December of 1563. During that time the Church intensified its ongoing affront on Protestantism by codifying Catholic dogma in unprecedented fashion, in matters ranging from the strategic place of the sacraments to the doctrines of transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints, and the efficacy of relics. Tradition was declared coequal to Scripture as a basis for authority.

            Perhaps most significant was the Roman Catholic Church’s claim that salvation and justification were the result of works as well as faith.

            Canon 9 of the Council of Trent states categorically,

            “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining [of] the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

            Canon 14 states:

            “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.”

            What does the Bible say?

            Romans 3:20—”Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in [God’s] sight: for by the law is the knowledge ofsin.”

            Romans 3:28—”Therefore we conclude that a man is justified byfaith without the deeds of the law.”

            Titus 3:5—”He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing ofregeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”

            But the Council of Trent met a long time ago. Hasn’t Rome since modified its position?

            “Has Rome’s position changed? In fact it has not. The Vatican II documents as well as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church reinvoke the theological position of the Council of Trent, condemning the gospel of justification by an imputed righteousness” (Michael Horton, Founder & President of Christians United for Reformation, 1995).

            PLEASE at least consider the material I share with you before you offer a “rebuttal”.

            To do otherwise is a waste of time for both of us.

          • Breezeyguy

            Who cares what that website says? Why don’t you care what the Bible says? Paul NEVER said “faith alone”. Martin Luther made that up with help from Satan, and he actually mistranslated Paul, adding the word “alein” and calling down the curse of Rev 22:18 upon himself. And Luther rejected the entire letter of James, for which the True Bible Church excommunicated him. The Council of Trent was called to stem the rising revolution of Lutheranism Calvinism and Anglicanism, and it reiterated that James was inspired scripture, and reiterated the entire Canon of Scripture. Amen. I accept the entire Canon of Scripture.

            Did you know the KJV of 1611 had the entire Canon of Scripture in it? Do you care? Here’s a website for you.
            http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-Maccabees-Chapter-1/

            Now, believe or don’t, but stop contradicting the Bible while pretending to believe it.

          • I have, up to this point, made every effort to answer every point you’ve made…

            I will not bother anymore. You’re true feelings and conduct towards me is showing.

            YOU said earlier “I went to the link. It just dismisses James 2:24 by referring to some Kennedy guy.”

            I showed you that was NOT true. That link had much commentary and scripture but you pretended that it didn’t and want to accuse me of contradicting the Bible?

            Fine. ANY person reading this thread can see that you’ve left honest debate behind.

            I could block you from posting here again but will not in hope that we can return to HONEST debate. I will pray for both of us.

          • Breezeyguy

            The link goes on about the Council of Trent and the Catholic Church. What about James 2:24?

            “Faith”? Yes!
            “Faith alone”? No.

            And the link does quote some James Kennedy guy, as I said. Here is the entire discussion of James 2:24, just pulled from the site:

            “What about James 2:24 (“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” James 2:24, NKJV.)
            “…James is dealing with people who profess to be Christians, and yet they don’t evidence the reality of their faith by theirworks [deeds]. Over, and over again… people will say they have faith and they don’t have works, and James is saying that real faith always produces works as a result… The question is, ‘A man may say that he has faith, but will that faith justify him?’ If it is just a ‘said’ faith”—no, it won’t!” (D. James Kennedy in“Irreconcilable Differences,” a roundtable discussion and television broadcast, Ft. Lauderdale FL, 1995)”

          • Breezeyguy

            And James is not “out of context”. He was obviously trying to correct people who had misunderstood Paul, as Luther did.

    • The Manz

      That passage has nothing to do with Mary nor assumption of anyone. It is quite clear your biblical understanding is fatally flawed. Don’t look to RCC for biblical interpretation as RCC is not blessed with the Holy Spirit and cannot properly interpret the Bible. Get yourself saved. Time is of the essence.

      • Breezeyguy

        I take the interpretation of the whole Church over the naysaying of individuals. And interpreting Rev 12:1 as Mary is clearly ancient practice.

        • The Manz

          You’re wrong and deluded. Hosea 4:6.

          • I understand your frustration but please do try to stay civil and answer with evidence and reasoning. Telling someone they’re wrong and deluded (even if it were true) is not likely to have positive results for the Lord.

          • The Manz

            Yes, you are correct. Thank you.

          • Breezeyguy

            Hosea 4:6 has this: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”

            Let us pray that God has mercy on us all, as my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ asked “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34 KJV.

          • The Manz

            I hope someday you see that catholic doctrine is antibiblical. See Galatians 1:6-9 and Revelation 18:4 and Jeremiah 51:6-9.

          • Breezeyguy

            God bless you. I hope some day soon you are able to come back to the ancient and true gospel Paul preached, and stop following the 16-century man made “gospel” of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Melanchthon.

            Forensic justification, or justification “outside of the man”, is a lie straight out of hell.

          • The Manz

            Please withhold your Babylonian curse as I’m covered by the blood of Christ Jesus.

          • Breezeyguy

            “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you” 1 Peter 5:13 KJV.

          • The Manz

            Peter referred to Rome as Babylon. Perhaps you should research. Here’s a site which might be useful. http://www.granddesignexposed.com

          • Breezeyguy

            God bless you.

          • The Manz

            The very same to you.

          • The Manz

            Perhaps you should read the entire Bible instead of taking verses out of context that still don’t support your errors. Seek the pastor’s help. You need it.

          • Breezeyguy

            Jesus Christ is my pastor. God bless you.

      • I hope you will see my response to breezy guy above made just today.

        God bless and may we all be civil and loving to each other as we all serve Christ and learn and grow.

        • The Manz

          Point well taken. That’s why you’re the preacher. 😉

          • I am flawed and fallible too just trying to set a Christ like example where I can.