Rapture-Tribulation

Rapture-Tribulation

Rapture and Tribulation History

by Rev. Thomas W. Sheehan

Rapture comes from a vision (private revelation) not history or the Bible. In the spring of 1830, Margaret began having visions of Jesus catching-up in the air a select group of believers before the time of the anti-Christ. These visions marked the first time in Christian History that anyone ever split the Second Coming into two separate stages. Soon the McDonald’s Presbyterian Minister began to strongly preach against them. In time, the McDonalds were disassociated from their Church.

Why do people believe in rapture when it was not believed in the Church before 1830 and did not come from the Bible, but came from private revelation?Why do people believe in rapture when it was not believed in the Church before 1830 and did not come from the Bible, but came from private revelation?

Why do people believe in rapture when it was not believed in the Church before 1830 and did not come from the Bible, but came from private revelation?

In 1828, in Port Glasgow, Scotland four of the five McDonald brothers and sisters experienced Christian conversion and accepted Jesus as their personal Savior. The McDonald household then became the setting for evenings filled with Bible study and prayer. Using no other books but the Bible and their own limited knowledge of end times, a teaching on Christ’s expected Millennial Coming and Reign soon emerged. For six agonizing months, the only family holdout was Margaret McDonald, a 15-year-old girl.

Then she experienced conversion. In the spring of 1830, Margaret began having visions of Jesus catching up in the air a select group of believers before the time of the anti-Christ. These visions marked the first time in Christian History that anyone ever split the Second Coming into two separate stages. Soon the McDonald’s Presbyterian Minister began to strongly preach against them. In time, the McDonalds were disassociated from their Church.

Another element in creating The rapture and tribulation into a new doctrine involved the Rev. Edward Irving in London, England. A powerful preacher and a licensed Presbyterian minister, 1815, was strongly influenced by the 1,260 day/year theory. In 1826 he adopted the theory, that a corrupt Roman Catholic Priesthood would be the future anti-Christ. In 1828 he concluded the end time would witness an outpouring of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Soon tongues and end time prophesying were heard regularly in his London Church. Thus, he became the father of modern day Pentecostalism.

In 1830 he sent a group of observers to meet Margaret McDonald. In the September, 1830 issue of the Morning Watch, her distinctive teachings were set forth as accepted prophecy. By 1832, these and other teachings led to his dismissal from the Presbyterian Church. He then founded the Catholic Apostolic Church, in London. His followers were called Irvingites. The Irvingite Church preached as doctrine, a distinction between the ‘Epiphany’ (now known as rapture) and the parousia’ (second coming after the tribulation).

The next element was a man named John Darby, an Anglican Clergyman who left that Church to found the Plymouth Brethren in about 1828-1830 AD. Ordained for the Anglican Church in Ireland in 1825, he soon left the priesthood. Between 1828 to 838 he helped the Brethren movement grow in the United Kingdom. Among the doctrines taught was non­denominationalism.

Hearing of the new visions and the new teachings proposed by Margaret McDonald, he journeyed to Scotland to listen to her. Then he began to preach, as his own, her new end time teachings. In 1850, he claimed that he discovered these teachings while studying 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; in 1830. The teaching literally leaped at him from the Bible text.

The Plymouth Brethren adopted this new teaching on the end time as true prophecy. Many of the distinctive teachings of The Brethren, such as Dispensationalism, Pre­Millennialism and Creationism, have been adopted by modern fundamentalism. One of The Brethren’s most disruptive stances has also been adopted by modem fundamentalism. This is, to actively seek converts from the established Catholic, Orthodox & Protestant Churches.

As originally proposed by The Brethren, The Rapture, Tribulation & Millennium events are as follows. The ‘Epiphany’ (Rapture) can be expected at any moment and may be in secret. All true Christian believers, living and dead, will be carried to Heaven. Then the judgments of God, as foretold in Revelations, will fall upon the earth. During this time the anti-Christ will reign and be overthrown. A faithful Jewish remnant will witness to Christ during the Tribulation. Then Jesus will come in Glory (Second Coming) and take possession of the earth for 1,000 years and make Jerusalem His capital. The martyred tribulation saints will rise and go to heaven. The faithful Jewish remnant will live on earth with Jesus. The Millennium will end in a Great Rebellion led by Satan. Jesus will defeat His enemies and the wicked will be judged. The Old Testament saints, The raptured saints and those martyred during the tribulation will then descend from heaven to reign forever on the new earth. Though little changed in its basic outline by later fundamentalism. The scenario of events has become more dramatic and detailed as the 20th Century has progressed. With the discovery of Nuclear War, the interpretations were greatly enhanced.

Both friend and foe admit that the rapture and tribulation is a new teaching, and not a rediscovery of an old Doctrine. In 1834 AD, John Darby wrote: “We must pursue it (New End-Time Teaching) steadily; it works like leaven, and its fruit is by no means seen yet; I do not mean leaven as ill, but the thoughts are new, and people ‘s minds work on them, and all the old habits are against their feelings… “In 1983 AD, in ‘The Rapture’ Hal Lindsey states: “The one authority is the Word of God, and we are not confined by the straight jacket of tradition.” He claims that this stance has permitted the believer to interpret the Bible anew, and then he quotes the visions of Margaret McDonald as his prophetic authority! Then he argues (though not convincingly) for some connection to the teachings of the early Fathers, whose TRADITION testimony he has already flatly rejected. One thing is clear! The doctrine of the rapture and tribulation is an entirely new and modern teaching!

How did this system of dispensations get from Darby to Hal Lindsey and the present day? Darvey had a friend by the name of Schofield. Schofield, who was a lawyer, came up with a Bible and used Darvey’s notes. It was called then and now the Schofield Bible. Prior to this Catholics had notes in there Bibles but not Protestant because it would have been considered scandalous to put mans words with Gods word. The Schofield Bible became the hottest selling Bible among Protestants. This system of dispensations did not exist prior to 1830.

So what happened is a guy, John Alexander Campbell, studied this and the Bible teaches that you convert and you get Baptized, and you have to have communion, and you have one Church. So he started the one Church called the Church of Christ (fundamentalist). And then the Church of Christ got to fighting on whether you could have musical instruments in the Church. The other Church that came out of this is the Disciples of Christ called “Christian Church.”

Sorry, “Left Behind” Fans, “The Rapture” Is Not in the Bible.

Sorry, “Left Behind” Fans,

“The Rapture” Is Not in the Bible.

In fact, if anyone’s getting beamed up, it’s not the good guys.

John Martignoni / May 05, 2015

Question: A friend of mine has been reading the Left Behind books that have all of this stuff about the “Rapture” in them. Is there really going to be a “Rapture” like these books talk about?

Answer: No. The “Rapture” refers to a passage in First Thessalonians 4, where Christians are “caught up” in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” Many Christians believe, and the Left Behind books promote, that this being “caught up” to meet the Lord will occur before the Great Tribulation sometime in the near future. Christians will simply vanish, meet Jesus somewhere in the air, and then return with Him too Heaven to await the end of time.

But notice, in verse 15, Paul says that “…we who are alive, who are left,” shall be caught up. This is a very important point to stress to rapture enthusiasts. Those who are “left” get caught up to meet the Lord. Keep that in mind as we look at these next couple of Scripture passages.

The Left Behind books get their name from a passage in Luke 17, and a similar passage in Matthew 24, which compares the coming of the Lord to the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Matthew 24 puts it this way: “As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man…[they ate, they drank, they married] and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Then two men will be in the field, one is taken and one is left. Two women grinding at the mill, one is taken one is left.”

“One is taken, one is left” — the Rapture right? Jesus takes the Christians and leaves behind non-Christians!

That’s how rapture enthusiasts interpret these passages. Well, you need to say to them: “Not so fast, folks.” Two problems with the Protestant “Left Behind” interpretation: First, in the passages from Luke 17 and Matthew 24, Jesus’ coming is compared to the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Let’s think about that for a moment. After the flood, who was left? Noah and his family — the good guys. The bad guys were taken and the good guys were left behind! After Sodom and Gomorrah went up in smoke, who was left? Lot and his daughters — the good guys.

The bad guys were taken and the good guys were left behind!

The second problem with the “Left Behind” interpretation, has to do with what I mentioned above: 1 Thessalonians 4 says that those who are “left” get to meet Jesus in the air. You want to be left behind. Why? Because those who are left behind get to meet Jesus on His return to earth. Again, when you put 1 Thessalonians 4 together with Matthew 24 and Luke 17, it becomes quite apparent that the good guys are the ones left behind to meet Jesus.

And, if you need further proof of that, there’s a passage in Matthew 13 that pretty much seals the deal. Matthew 13:39-43, “…and the enemy who sowed them [the bad seed] is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send His angels and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

So when Scripture says that “one is taken and one is left,” as it does in Luke 17 and Matthew 24, it is not talking about the Rapture, it is talking about the harvest at the close of the age. The ones who are taken, as it says in Matthew 13, are the evildoers. The angels have taken them and tossed them into the furnace of fire. So, the Left Behind books got it exactly 180 degrees wrong.

The ones taken are not the good guys, they are the evildoers.

The ones who are left behind are the ones who get to be caught up in the clouds to meet Jesus in the air at His Second Coming, when He will bring all of the angels and saints with Him and there will be a new Heaven and a new earth.

In other words, there will be no Rapture like the one the Left Behind books talk about. The Left Behind books teach the opposite of what Scripture actually says.

John Martignoni is a nationally-known Catholic apologist and Bible scholar. He is the Founder and President of the Bible Christian Society, where you can find lots of free apologetics materials — CD’s, mp3 downloads, e-newsletters, and more, and host of EWTN’s “Open Line” airing on Mondays at 3 p.m. EST. He is also Director of the Office of the New Evangelization in the Diocese of Birmingham, Alabama.

http://aleteia.org/2015/05/05/sorry-left-behind-fans-the-rapture-is-not-in-the-bible/

Can We Ever Lose Our Salvation

Can We Ever Lose Our Salvation

Salvation

A person called in to a local Christian talk radio program in the Milwaukee area and was concerned that he might not be saved. They were trying to assure him that the moment he gave his heart to the Lord, he could never lose his salvation. The caller didn’t sound very convinced.

I often times run into people who believe in the “once saved always saved” concept. They firmly believe that once they have confessed their sins and asked Jesus into their heart they are saved and can never lose their salvation. They can kill, steal, rape and destroy, but ultimately their salvation is guaranteed because they believe they can never lose their salvation.

In fairness to my Evangelical friends it should be pointed out that this is only one point of view among Evangelicals. Some Evangelicals believe “once saved always saved” while others vehemently reject the notion. The concept of “once saved always saved” while never losing your salvation is not in the Bible. It comes from human reasoning. In fact, the Bible speaks against this particular concept.

Did the Apostle Paul believe that we can never lose our salvation? If Paul had absolute assurance that he can never lose his salvation then why did he work out his salvation with fear and trembling? “So then, my beloved, be obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12).

Did Paul believe “once saved always saved” or was it possible to be cut off? In the book of Romans, there is the possibility that you can lose your salvation; you too can be cut off, if you don’t remain in Gods kindness. “For if God did not spare the natural spare you either. See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; you too will be cut off” (Rom. 11:21-22).

Did Jesus require us to endure to the end to be saved or did He believe in “once saved always saved?” If you can never lose your salvation then why did Jesus require endurance and perseverance to the end to be saved? “You will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved” (Mk. 13:13). Was Jesus mistaken? Is it truly necessary to persevere to the end to be saved, or should we believe those people who claim, that we can never lose our salvation?

I can believe someone, who says there is no possibility of losing their salvation or I can believe Paul, who speaks about the possibility of being cut off (Rom. 11:21-22). I can believe people, who say, once saved always saved, a concept and wording not in the Bible, or I can believe Jesus, who says, “The one who perseveres to the end will be saved” (Mk 13:13).

By claiming the man-made tradition “once saved always saved” they have nullified the word of God “for the sake of your tradition” (Mt. 15:6). They make the claim that we can no longer lose our salvation; therefore, they no longer have to persevere to the end as Jesus commanded. How is that for making “void the word of God” (Mt. 15:6)?

This does beg the question, why do some Evangelicals today believe in the “once saved always saved” concept when in fact this is at odds with the Bible? Where does this concept come from? It actually comes from the Fr. Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both were Catholic; however, this is one of the areas where they departed from the Bible and Church teaching. I personally believe that they were trying to come up with a nicer, kinder easier form of Christianity. They seemed not to be aware of the fact that the “once saved always saved” concept is at odds with both the Apostle Paul and Jesus.

Some non-Catholics are quick to point the finger and make the claim that Catholics don’t always know their Bible very well. And in this, they are correct because here we have two Catholics John Calvin and Fr. Martin Luther who were not knowledgeable about their Bible as it relates to salvation. Had they been aware that their Bible requires that you have to persevere to the end in order to be saved, they would not have had to break with the Catholic Church on this point. When they broke with the Catholic Church, they were also breaking with the parts of their Bible, that did not fit with their own understanding. Instead of listening to the Church (Mt 18:17), they were leaning on their own understanding.

“There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16).

We have already seen that we must persevere to the end and we can be cut off and so what are some of the verses, that some claim, are evidence of the “once saved always saved” concept.

That you may know that you have eternal life. The verse in the Gospels that seems to be quoted most often for proof of “once saved always saved” is in 1 John 5. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life (1 Jn. 5:12-13). This is interpreted by some to mean that you cannot lose your salvation because once you have eternal life in you, you cannot make God die. Eternal life is the very life of God so how can it die. This type of thinking is misleading because no one is claiming that God dies; however, we can separate ourselves from God and lean on our own understanding.

Their point is that we can have eternal life and know it. The fact that they don’t list any contingencies doesn’t mean that there isn’t any. It just means they haven’t listed any. In fact, we have already quoted some of the contingencies coming from both Paul and Jesus.

They quote 1 John as their proof text for “once saved always saved” and then conveniently forget to mention the contingency given in 1 John 5. In doing so, they have left out part of the context. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments (1 Jn. 5:2&3).

The contingency here is that we love God and obey his commandments. The reason that these verses are not listed in the “once saved always saved verses” is because if we don’t love God and obey his commandments then there is a possibility that we too can lose our salvation.

Never-the-less there are those who absolutely insist that keeping the commandments is not a requirement for salvation. And will even go so far as to say “nobody can keep the commandments!”

Is keeping the commandments truly a requirement for salvation? Some say yes, others say no, but what does the Bible say? Below is a conversation that I had on social media with an individual who insists that we do nothing in order to be saved because for him, Jesus did it all.

Timothy Barret: “What must *I* do to obtain and maintain my salvation (and please provide me the exhaustive list of everything that I must do, please, if possible).”

Lenny Alt: “Timothy, thank you for your very excellent question. I will answer your question if you will answer my question first. What must you or I do to inherit everlasting life with God in Heaven? I will make it easy for you. I won’t ask you for an exhaustive list. Personally, I don’t think you can answer this question correctly. On the other hand, if you can then you will have answered your own question.”

Timothy Barret: “The answer to your question is nothing, for Jesus did it all. We are saved by grace, not works (Eph. 2:8-9). And please do not assume I will get an answer to a question incorrect. It is arrogant and condescending.”

Lenny Alt: “Timothy, to your credit, you did give a verse of the Bible that has to do with salvation; faith versus works of the law, circumcision (Eph. 2:8-11). Notice that the Apostle Paul speaks for good works in verse 10 and against works of the law (circumcision) in verse 11. This is much clearer in Romans 3:28-29.

Yes, you are correct, Jesus did it all and He also answered my question, something you did not do. Here again is the question that you did not answer. What must you or I do to inherit everlasting life with God in Heaven? How did Jesus answer this question? He said,

“If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

The rich young man asked Jesus, “Teacher what good must I do to gain eternal life?” He answered him, ‘Why do you ask me about the good? There is only one who is good.’ If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt. 19:18). And then Jesus went on to list several of the commandments.

Jesus said to enter into life, keep the commandments, and then spoke against man-made traditions that usurp the commandments. He rebuked the usurping and undermining of scriptures through man-made tradition when He said, “The worship they offer me is worthless; the doctrines they teach are only human regulations. You put aside the commandment of God to cling to human traditions . . . In this way you make God’s word null and void for the sake of your tradition which you have handed down” (MK. 7:7, 8, 13, J.B.V.).

No one can keep the commandments. Are they liars? There are still others who make the statement, “no one can keep the Commandments!” However, Jesus doesn’t say that; the Apostles do not say that; the Bible does not say that anywhere. They are coming from a man-made tradition that is in violation of the Bible and the commandments.

I can listen to Jesus who says to keep the commandments or I can listen to man-made tradition which says “nobody can keep the commandments.”

Who will you listen to? The Apostle John says that people who claim to follow Jesus and don’t keep the commandments are liars. “The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:3). You can’t know Jesus without following the commandments! Will you keep the commandments or will you be a liar, devoid of truth? Why would Jesus and the Bible ask us to keep the commandments if we couldn’t do it? The fact is this, we can keep the commandments and when and if we fail, He is faithful and just to forgive us.

Will we follow the liars who say that “nobody can keep the commandments?” Or will we follow Jesus who says that the one who “does not keep the commandments is a liar?”

For the full story on this please go to:http://catholicmilwaukee.com/salvation-do-i-simply-do-nothing-.html

So, if we are following the commandments, we have some indication that we have eternal life and if at some point, we turn our backs on God and choose not to follow the commandments then we no longer have the assurance of eternal life with God in Heaven. Those, who claim that you cannot lose your salvation, are quoting from their tradition, not from the words of the Apostles or Jesus.

One Evangelical friend told me that all you have to do for salvation is believe in the name of Jesus. I asked her this question, “do you mean that we do not have to actually believe what Jesus says; all we have to do is believe in the fact of Jesus existence? And she said, “Yes.” However, what she didn’t seem to realize is that Bible asks us to go beyond this and to not only believe, but to obey Him as well. “Whoever does not obey the son shall not see life” (Jn. 3:36).

If I were to use her criteria Satan, would have been saved because he believed in the fact of Jesus existence and yet He did not obey Jesus. Satan wanted Jesus to obey him instead. “You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble” (Jm. 2:19). Satan believed in Jesus enough to even tempt Him. I have since discovered that although intellectual ascent is an Evangelical tradition; in fairness to many Evangelicals, there are those who do believe that obedience to Jesus is necessary for salvation.

There are those who contrast an absolute assurance of salvation with no assurance of salvation. This is a false contrast because the Church does not teach no assurance of salvation. It teaches that we can have a reasonable assurance of salvation. It is just that it is possible to be self-deceived and that is why we do not claim an absolute assurance. And it is also possible that after believing “in the name of the Son of God” (1 Jn. 5:13) to turn away from him. “Severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you REMAIN in his kindness; you too will be cut off” (Rom. 11:22).

God’s kindness is not afforded to those who claim “once saved always saved.” It is given to those who remain in His kindness.

Good luck to those who when seeing Jesus say “Lord, Lord, I am once saved always saved.” If they didn’t do anything, because Jesus was supposed to do it all for them, He will say to them, “Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven (Mt. 7:21). How many people over the years have told me that they do absolutely nothing for their salvation? They ignore the words of Jesus which require obedience to the will of the Father as a requirement for entrance into Heaven. They neglect the many verses in the Bible that require effort on our part.

Those who preach the “once saved always saved” concept are people of good intention who were taught this in their tradition not knowing that this concept is at odds with their Bible. Our Bible very clearly shows that salvation is a conditional one that requires effort on our part to persevere to the end (Mk. 13:13) otherwise we will be cut off (Rm. 11:22). Those, who claim that we cannot ever lose our salvation, are at odds with the Apostle Paul, Jesus and their Bible.

Salvation CatholicMilwaukee.net-For God So Loved the World he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
Confession-Luther-Permission to sin

Confession-Luther-Permission to sin

Is permission to sin a Catholic or Protestant tradition?

Did Martin Luther give his followers permission to sin?

Martin Luther said; “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day”.

IS CONFESSING YOUR SINS A PERMISSION TO SIN?

Some people speaking against the Church would say, you can sin on one day and be forgiven the next, only to sin the following day and be forgiven again. Why would they say this against the Church as if it was a negative? Don’t they believe that God can forgive sins?

And so why were they suggesting that the forgiveness of sins was wrong; after all the Bible says; “Then Peter approaching asked him, ‘Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times’ “ (Mt 18:21:22). Do non-Catholics believe they can only be forgiven a limited number of times?

Actually, they were not saying that the forgiveness of sin is wrong, but they were suggesting that the Sacrament of Confession is a permission to sin. Of course the sacrament of Confession as a permission to sin is non-Catholic teaching, not to be confused with Catholic teaching. You will not find it anywhere in Catholic teaching, and so where does it come from? It comes from Protestant teaching about Catholicism, not to be confused with the Catholic teaching.

Okay, so permission to sin is not Catholic, but Protestant teaching. And so where does the tradition of a permission to sin originate in Protestantism? You guessed it; license for sin was first orchestrated by none other Martin Luther.

Martin Luther said; “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day”.

IS CONFESSING YOUR SINS A PERMISSION TO SIN?

Some people speaking against the Church would say, you can sin on one day and be forgiven the next, only to sin the following day and be forgiven again. Why would they say this against the Church as if it was a negative? Don’t they believe that God can forgive sins?

And so why were they suggesting that the forgiveness of sins was wrong; after all the Bible says; “Then Peter approaching asked him, ‘Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times’ “ (Mt 18:21:22). Do non-Catholics believe they can only be forgiven a limited number of times?

Actually, they were not saying that the forgiveness of sin is wrong, but they were suggesting that the Sacrament of Confession is a permission to sin. Of course the sacrament of Confession as a permission to sin is non-Catholic teaching, not to be confused with Catholic teaching. You will not find it anywhere in Catholic teaching, and so where does it come from? It comes from Protestant teaching about Catholicism, not to be confused with the Catholic teaching.

Okay, so permission to sin is not Catholic, but Protestant teaching. And so where does the tradition of a permission to sin originate in Protestantism? You guessed it; license for sin was first orchestrated by none other Martin Luther.

“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We; however, says Peter (2 Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”

Notice the above underlining. This is the part that some Protestant scholars have removed because it is one of the more embarrassing statements made by Martin Luther. I first heard of a PERMISSION TO SIN from non-Catholic sources and so I was originally unfamiliar with it. I just don’t think it is fair for non-Catholics to take one of their Protestant traditions and impose it upon the Catholic Church when in fact it is coming from the original Protestant (Fr. Martin Luther).

Martin Luther was a mixed bag of tricks. Although he got many things wrong; he didn’t get everything wrong. Luther wrote a publication called the Small Catechism of Martin Luther which is still published today. In this publication he defended confession from the confessor, as from God himself. Some will say I only tell my sins to God, but this was not Luther’s understanding. He proclaimed the sacrament of Confession.

SMALL CATECHISM OF MARTIN LUTHER:

What is confession? Answer
“We receive absolution or forgiveness from the confessor, as from the confessor, as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe that by it our sins are forgiven before God in Heaven.”

Some will say, I only tell my sins to God, but Luther understood that telling sins to the confessor was in fact telling our sins to God. And in this, Martin Luther was in conformity with the example of Jesus who breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive and retain sin. (Jesus) said to them again,

“Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (Jn 20:23).

Many reject this notion from Jesus. So strong are their man-made traditions that they do not believe the Apostles had the power to forgive and retain sins even though Jesus gave them this power!

“All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal” (1 Jn. 5:17).

Infant Baptism

Infant Baptism

Infant Baptism, what does the Bible & Tradition say?

Jesus said, Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God (Lk. 18:14-16).

Martin Luther and infant Baptism: Martin Luther, while championing the concept of Bible alone, also used tradition when it served his purposes. The Church, he says, could not have been permitted by God to remain in error for so long a time. He pointed out that the agreement of the entire Church about infant Baptism is a special miracle. To deny it is to deny the Church itself. This teaching of Luther about infant Baptism is clearly stated in the Confession of Augsburg, 1530. There the Anabaptists were condemned because they repudiated infant Baptism and asserted that children are saved without Baptism. The error of the Anabaptist was also clearly rejected by the Council of Trent The New Catholic Encyclopedia.

In other words, this handing on (tradition) of infant Baptism was an argument used by Luther to show the validity of infant Baptism when he spoke against the forerunners of today’s Baptists.

The Anabaptists did not believe in infant Baptism, and those who were previously baptized as infants were baptized again. The word Anabaptist means those who baptize again. Not only the Catholic Church but also the Protestant reformers: Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, all considered the Anabaptists to be in error. Luther had moved away from the Catholic Church, and Calvin and Zwingli had moved progressively further still. However, the Anabaptists had gone too far; what they were doing was considered a great heresy.

Protestant reformer Zwingli drowns Anabaptists: As a result, the Anabaptists were persecuted by both Catholic and Protestant governments. For example, Zwingli one of the Protestant reformers ordered the drowning of a group of men in Zurich who insisted on rebaptizing adults and who taught that only an adult Baptism, or a believer’s Baptism was valid (History of the Catholic Church, p. 66, Alan Schreck). This was one of many actions taken against the Anabaptists. Baptist, Mennonite, and other churches that rebaptize often consider the Anabaptists to be part of their tradition.

It is interesting to note that many people who have Anabaptist belief today are aware of Catholic persecution of the Anabaptists but are seemingly unaware of persecution by the major Protestant reformers. One such Baptist minister by the name of Bart Breuer ex-Catholic priest) speaks in glowing terms of Martin Luther, that great Holy man of God, and yet if he had lived at the time of Luther, he would have been on the run from Luther. Bart Breuer is an ex-Catholic priest who became a Seventh Day Adventist Minister; later he became a Baptist Minister. He manifests a particular distaste for the Catholic Church and invites Protestants and Catholics alike out of their respective churches, into the Baptist Church.

Fox’s Book of Martyrs opposes those who Baptize again: One very anti-Catholic book, Fox’s Book of Martyrs, mentions the Anabaptists and Luther, Luther persisted in carrying out the work of the reformation, as well as by opposing the Papists, as by combating the Anabaptists and other fanatical sects; which, having taken the advantage of his contest with the Church of Rome, had sprung up and established themselves in several places (p. 164).

Today, there seems to be a common myth that the Protestant Reformers were a united group of Christians fighting an evil empire called the Catholic Church. The truth is that the Reformation was not united; it was very divided on such things as Communion, Baptism and many other things. On specific issues, some of the Reformers were closer to traditional Catholic views than they were with one another. For example, Luther’s understanding of Communion, Consubstantiation, was closer to the Catholic view than to Zwingli’s understanding; Luther believed in a real presence, Zwingli did not. It is true that they fought with the Catholic Church, and it is also true that they fought with one another, sometimes verbally and at other times violently, as in the case of the Anabaptists.

Are infants excluded from Baptism in the Bible?  In Acts Chapter two, Peter addresses the crowd and we find the promise that the Holy Spirit is poured out on all flesh; “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17). Notice that this isn’t limited to adults, but to all flesh.

One Baptist professor claimed that they didn’t Baptize children in the Bible. According to this professor, Baptism of children didn’t happen prior to the year 150.  However, the promise of Baptism is for you and your children and it is in the Bible.

And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is

to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Acts 2:38-39).

Notice that the promise of Baptism is not just for adults but for their children as well. Now the Baptist reasoning is this, since a baby cannot sin until it is of such an age that they can know right from wrong, they cannot be baptized.

There are two problems with this. First since a baby does not have the intellectual capacity to sin, they cannot actually sin. The ability to sin; however, is not a requirement for Baptism. Sin is removed from an infant, but it is not actual sin but the original sin that we have inherited from Adam and Eve.

There is another larger problem with the age restriction in Baptism. Baptists believe in a little concept called “Sola Scriptura” or the Bible alone. The claim is this, if it isn’t in the Bible they don’t believe it.

The problem with this is that there is no age restriction that excludes infants from Baptism in the Bible.

The age restriction that prohibits them from baptizing infants comes from their man-made tradition. If you wish to hear the sound of silence ask them (chapter and verse) where there is an age restriction for the Baptism of children in Scripture. If they give an answer at all, it doesn’t come from Scripture, but their Baptist tradition. Scripture is clear that there is no prohibition of Baptism for infants.

The entire household of Steph’anas was baptized; “I did baptize also the household of Steph′anas” (1 Cor. 1:15:16). There was no restriction for infants or young children.

Notice that Lydia and her household were Baptized and there was no age restriction or refusal to Baptize infants in her household. “After she and her household had been baptized” (Acts 16:15).

The Jailer and all his family were baptized. Notice that all of his family was included and again there was no restriction of Baptism for infants or young children.

“Then he and all his family were Baptized at once” (Acts 16:33).

The rejection of child Baptism comes from the Baptist tradition, not from Scripture. And so, where did the Baptists come up with this age restriction, since it is not in the Bible? They borrowed it from the Anabaptist tradition of the 16th century.

Zwingli admitted that the Baptism of infants is not forbidden in the New Testament: William Estep, who wrote the book, The Anabaptist Story, had this to say, Baptism is thus the most effective distinguishing mark of the Anabaptist movement (p. 175). When Zwingli debated the Anabaptists, Hubmaier, an Anabaptist, used Zwingli’s words against him. “In relation to Zwingli’s argument that the Baptism of infants is not forbidden in the New Testament, Hubmaier wrote; ‘you protest loudly (and correctly) that Scripture testifies to no purgatory, but only to hell and heaven. Ah! Zwingli, could we not, even here, demand of you a prohibitory law, so we should not believe in purgatory? By virtue of your own teaching, you must show us a prohibitory word. Else you must reestablish purgatory, accept a new Papacy, and yield to the statements of the Vicar. Else is your present teaching erroneous” (p. 161).

In other words, if Zwingli’s supposition that infant Baptism is correct because there is nothing prohibiting it in the Scriptures, then to be consistent, he should (according to Hubmaier) believe in purgatory and the Papacy since there is nothing prohibiting these in Scripture. Of course, this type of argument works well against Zwingli; however, it doesn’t work at all against the Catholic Church since the Church does believe in both Purgatory and the Papacy. And so, the truth still stands; there is nothing in Scripture prohibiting child Baptism.

It seems that the strength of argument against child Baptism is in the simple saying so, and here are some of the ways that The Anabaptist Story says so: Therefore has the Antichrist, the abomination of desolation, the Pope, placed such emphasis on the accursed infant Baptism; To sum up, [infant Baptism] is a foolish and blind affair; (Grebel) Infant Baptism is a senseless, blasphemous abomination, contrary to all Scripture (p. 96, 151).

baptism acts 2:38.39These are just some of the many inflammatory statements made against infant Baptism. Grebel not only not fails to show that infant Baptism is contrary to all Scripture; he also fails to show that it is contrary to any Scripture. Of course, inflammatory statements were not the only weapons used. Hubmaier never tired of denouncing infant Baptism. He used all the weapons in his arsenal–the Bible, logic, sarcasm, ridicule, the teaching of Christ and the example of the apostles (p. 158).

If Hubmaier really has sound Biblical arguments, then why does he need sarcasm and ridicule? At any rate, let’s take a look at one of his Biblical arguments; I find no text which says go hence into all the world and Baptize infants, and teach those who are only a few years old (p. 158).

Exclusion of infants not found in Scripture, in fact Jesus included them: Hubmaier is correct; there is no text like this in Scripture; however, there is a text that tells us to go out and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19). Please note that this text does not exclude infants or small children. Although the Anabaptists claim to follow the Bible and the Bible alone, the exclusion of infants from Baptism is not found anywhere in the Bible. Exclusion of infants in Baptism comes from the man-made tradition of many Baptist and Evangelical groups. Many non-Catholic groups do embrace infant Baptism, for example Lutheran Churches baptize infants.

Hubmaier admits this, but continues to hold to his position. It is clear enough for him who has eyes to see it, but it is not expressed in so many words, literally: ‘do not baptize infants.’ May one then baptize them? To that I answer: ‘If so, I may baptize my dog or my donkey, or I may circumcise girls (p. 60).

Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God (Lk. 18:14-16).

The Apostle Paul Baptizes entire households: Hubmaier’s answer is not very well thought out. As to circumcising girls, this was not done; they circumcised boys, and not only that but circumcision was replaced by baptism. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead (Col. 2:11-12). As to baptizing dogs and donkeys, they would not have been included. When Paul baptized entire households (Acts 16:33) infants and small children as well as older children and adults would have been included. I realize this is an attempt by Hubmaier to strengthen his position by trying to make infant Baptism look ridiculous; however, I think this approach ultimately makes his own position look ridiculous.

So far, Hubmaier tries to use logic, humor, and the Scriptures, to show that infant Baptism is unnecessary, useless, and an abomination before God (p. 60). Perhaps he will do better with the Fathers on his side.

Early Church Fathers defend infant Baptism: Someone asked me on the phone if the early Fathers of the church practiced and recommended infant Baptism; some people were saying to her that they did; others were saying that they didn’t. There is an excellent three volume work put out by William A. Jurgens called The Faith of the Early Fathers to help us answer this question.

IRENAEUS [A.D. 180-199] Against Heresies: He came to save all through Himself, all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God, infants and children and youths and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children sanctifying those who are of that age,(vol 1, p. 87).

HIPPOLYTUS of Rome [A.D. 215]: The Apostolic Tradition: Baptize first the children; and then if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or relatives speak for them (vol 1, p. 169).

ORIGEN [Post A.D. 244]: Homilies on Leviticus: The fact that in the church, baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the church, baptism is given to infants. And indeed, if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would be superfluous (vol 1, p. 207).

catholic milwaukee.net
Priesthood-Altar-Mass

Priesthood-Altar-Mass

Boettnner claims there is no New Testament Sacrifice.

If he is correct then, there is no priest hood, altar or Mass.

The above statement was made by a man who wrote an entire book, against the Catholic Church. His name is Lorraine Boettner and his book is called “Roman Catholicism.” The book is sometimes referred to as the Bible of anti-Catholicism by Catholic apologists.

If Boettner is correct and there is no New Testament sacrifice that continues to be offered, then we don’t need the priest because it was the priest who was required to offer sacrifice, and we most certainly wouldn’t need an altar, if there was no sacrifice to be offered. We are doing pretty well so far; we just eliminated the priesthood, the Mass, and the altar. And while we are at it, we could also eliminate altar calls; we could call them table calls instead.

IS THERE REALLY NO NEW TESTAMENT PRIESTHOOD? The Apostle Paul claims there is. “Where Jesus has entered on our behalf as forerunner, becoming high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20). And so we do have a New Testament priesthood, with Jesus as our High Priest. The New Testament priesthood exists, but some will say the priesthood ended at the tearing of the veil (Mark 15:37-38) when Jesus died. Is this true? Did the priesthood end or did it continue on according to the Bible? According to the Apostle Paul, not only does the priesthood exist but it lasts forever and does not pass away.

The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: You are a priest forever (Heb. 7:21). But he, because he remains forever, have a priesthood that does not pass away (Heb 7:24)

There is no place in the Bible that says there is the end of the priesthood; however, the Apostle Paul tells us there is a change of priesthood. “When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well” (Heb 7:12).

IS THERE REALLY NO NEW TESTAMENT ALTAR? Boettner doesn’t think so. He quotes a Dr. Harris to make the point that there was no New Testament altar. “It was probably the invention of the priesthood which brought in the altar. The early churches had no altars” (Fundamental Protestant doctrines, II, p. 5). We all ready know that the priesthood exists and Jesus is High Priest, but what about the altar; does that exist as well? Actually there is an altar and it is in the Bible;

The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: You are a priest forever (Heb. 7:21). But he, because he remains forever, have a priesthood that does not pass away (Heb 7:24)

There are many references to an altar in the New Testament. Jesus made references to an altar. The book of Revelations made reference to the temple of God and the altar, and people were worshipping in it. Boettner would have fared better if he just would have stayed with the Bible that he professes to believe, rather than quoting a Dr. Harris.

IS THERE REALLY NO NEW TESTAMENT SACRIFICE? Okay, we have a High Priest, Jesus and an altar, but does this particular High Priest have a sacrifice to offer? “Now every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, thus the necessity for this one also to have something to offer” (Heb 8:3). What are the sacrifices that Jesus as High Priest is offering? How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences, from dead works to worship the loving God (Heb 9:14). “He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself” (Heb 7:27). And so Jesus as High Priest has gifts and sacrifices to offer and what He offers is Himself.

IS THERE A PRIESTHOOD TODAY THAT OFFERS GIFTS AND SACRIFICES? We know that it takes a priest to offer sacrifice (Hebrew 8:3), but this particular High Priest (Jesus) is doing the offering. Jesus offered Himself at the Last Supper. “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:26-28). Every Mass is a reenactment of the last supper with a priest, who is not a High Priest, presiding.

CAN WE ALSO OFFER JESUS OR MUST IT ONLY BE JESUS, AS HIGH PRIEST, OFFERING HIMSELF? According to the Apostle Paul, Jesus can be offered in the Mass. “In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. DO THIS, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes”(1 Cor 11:25-26). We are not only allowed to do this, but Jesus commands us to do this.

WHY DID SOME PROTESTANT CHURCHES DISCARD THE PRIESTHOOD IN THE 16TH CENTURY? All churches going back to the time of Christ and the Apostles had a priesthood. All rites of the Catholic Church and all Eastern Orthodox Churches have a priesthood to this day. At the time of the Protestant Reformation many Protestant Churches began to discard the priesthood. Many of the early Protestants of notoriety, such as Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingly were Catholic priests.

On the one hand it is hard to understand why some Christians today speak against a New Testament priesthood when it is so obviously in the Bible and in the history of the Church. On the other hand what are they going to do? They belong to churches that do not have a priesthood and if they acknowledge a New Testament priesthood with Jesus as High Priest, then they would have to join a church with a legitimate priesthood. In order to do this they would be leaving their friends and their familiar surroundings. It would be a big sacrifice for them. Some can make the change; others cannot.

There is no place in the Bible that says there is an end of the ministerial priesthood after the death of the Christ. Those who believe there is no priesthood, also believe in the Bible alone “Sola Scriptura,” concept. Interestingly enough, the moment that they believe there is no ministerial priesthood, they are believing something not in the Bible. The Bible does not speak of the end of the priesthood; however, the Apostle Paul tells us there is a change of priesthood. “When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well” (Heb 7:12). That change took place when Jesus became High Priest, Hebrews 6:20.

It is true that many non-Catholic groups discarded the priesthood, but in fairness, I also must admit, some of these groups kept the priesthood, such as the Anglicans and Episcopalians.

Sacrifices that cannot take away sin

Sacrifices that cannot take away sin

Are priests really false mediators offering sacrifices that cannot take away sin

or is Mike Gendron teaching falsehood?

Dan Bregant on Face-book posts one of Mike Gendron’s writings alleging that priests are offering “same sacrifices that can never take away sins” (Heb 10:11). I asked Dan several times what were these same sacrifices that cannot take away the sins of the world? He said many things, much of which was true; however, he never actually answered the question.

catholic Priests

There are two pertinent questions that must be answered in order to determine the context. What are these same sacrifices that cannot take away sins? And are priests actually offering these same sacrifices?

What are these same sacrifices that cannot take away sins? And are priests actually offering these same sacrifices?

Animal sacrifices cannot take away sins. In chapter 10 of Hebrews it tells us very clearly what these “same sacrifices” are. “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats take away sins” (Heb 10:3-4). Now we know that the sacrifices that can never take away sins are animal sacrifices. Why doesn’t Mike Gendron indicate that these “same sacrifices” are animal sacrifices? This is because the moment that he mentions that these are Old Testament animal sacrifices, he can no longer use this against the New Testament offering of Jesus at every Mass. We do not offer animal sacrifices at Mass; we offer one same Sacrifice Jesus at every Mass.

Are priests actually offering animal sacrifices? No they are not. If you attended Mass and a priest was offering animal sacrifices, he would be in violation of Hebrews 10. However, there is no violation because he is offering Jesus at the Mass.

Michael Gendron, by confusing animal sacrifices with the one same Sacrifice of Jesus celebrated at every Mass, is teaching falsehood.

Dan, you are right, Gendron does not say that animals can take away sin. Herein lies the problem he quotes a verse in Hebrews that has to do with Old Testament animal sacrifice and tries to apply it to the new testament Mass where Jesus is offered. The priest at Mass does not offer animal sacrifices. Gendron is both quoting out of context and is being intellectually dishonest.

Gendron quotes from Hebrews “Every priest stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins” (Heb 10:11).

In the Old Testament we have a priest and in the New Testament we have a priest. And so what is the difference in priesthoods? It is in the offering. In the old, the priest offers animal sacrifices. In the new we offer Jesus.

And so the next question is this; how do we know that Hebrews 10:11 is speaking of animal sacrifices? How do we know that this verse does not have to do with sacrifice of Jesus, when it refers to sacrifices that can never take away sins? This is because the context in verse 4 says that it is in fact animal sacrifices.

“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4).

And so the context is animal sacrifices,

Gendron is both quoting out of context and is being intellectually dishonest.

12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, “he sat down at the right hand of God,” 13 and since then has been waiting “until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.” 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,

Verse 11 in context should be read this way; “Every [Old Testament] priest stands daily at his ministry, offering frequently those same sacrifices [animal] that can never take away sins.” Alfonso and others are confusing animal sacrifices with the Sacrifice of Jesus in the Mass.

Are the time of miracles over?

Are the time of miracles over?

Are the time of miracles over? Some say yes; others no, BUT WHAT DID JESUS SAY?

NILO SAYS: Yes, you did not say that her incorrupt body is going to heaven. But the BIBLE never had any such miracles, promised any such miracles, and on the contrary, the INCORRUPTIBLE body is promised ONLY during the resurrection.

LENNY SAYS: Nilo, at the time of our resurrection we are given an incorruptible body as you say. Your premise that w…e can accept only miracles that are existent in the Bible is not Biblical. This is coming from your man-made tradition. You have violated your own belief in the Bible Alone “Sola Scriptura,” (one of the pillars of Protestantism), by believing something not in the Bible.

Furthermore your thesis is in violation of the Bible because Jesus did not limit us only to the works He worked. “I tell you most solemnly;whoever believes in me will perform the same works as I do myself, he will perform even greater works because I am going to the Father” (Jn 14:12). Also note that Jesus has gone to the Father and His works are still happening.

Nilo, I can believe you who limit the works of God or I can believe Jesus who says; we “WILL PERFORM EVEN GREATER WORKS” (Jn 14:12)!

Jesus even used miracles to show that He is the one. “And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.” Those who oppose miracles are at odds with Jesus and their bible.

Born Again

Born Again

Are you “born again” the Bible way?

Steve, just curious, are you born again? I said Yes, I am born again the Bible way. And he says what do you mean by that? You asked the question, so why don’t you tell me how one gets born again? Why don’t you take the Bible off your lap? I saw it under there and why don’t you read for me John chapter three verse 3. They hate it when we know the Bible better than they do. Jesus said to Nicodemus, in order to see the kingdom of God you must be born again. Verily, verily I say unto you, you must be born again. And he closed his Bible and I said, so what is the answer how do you get born again? He said by asking Jesus into your heart and asking him to be your personal Lord and savior. I said, now I have a dilemma, because now I have to decide whether I am going to believe your definition or Jesus’ [definition]. Who should I believe, you or Jesus? I said, would you please open your Bible again; you always do this, you read one proof text and close it.

Read the whole thing in context! He opened it and read further; verse 4 says, and Nicodemus says how can that be, I am too big, too old to crawl back into my mother’s womb and Jesus said you are the teacher of Israel and you don’t understand these things. Unless a man is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he will never see the Kingdom of God. I said to him; Jesus said I get born again by water and Spirit and you say asking Jesus in my heart.”

Jesus said, I get born again by water and Spirit and you say asking Jesus in my heart.

Lenny’s Note: Born again, how does it happen?
The Baptist (ex-Catholic) answer; by asking Jesus into your heart and asking him to be your personal Lord and savior. Source, Baptist tradition not in the Bible. The Catholic, Steve Ray (ex-Baptist) answer; Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (Jn 3:5). Source, Jesus in the Bible.

“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (Jn 3:5).

My question to you is this, who or what will you follow? Will you follow the Baptist tradition, which is not in the Bible or will you follow Jesus, who is in the Bible?

Being born of water and the spirit is Baptism. Others will claim that being born again is asking Jesus into your heart; however, you don’t ask Jesus into your heart and take a glass of water to consummate being “born again.” Jesus did say “born of water and spirit” and so this begs the question is there anything having to do with water and spirit in the context of John 3? “Yes there is; after this exchange Jesus and the Apostles went out and baptized.” After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing (Jn 3:22).

I understand there are people who will believe that being “born again” is asking Jesus into your heart; however, asking Jesus into your heart is neither in the context nor even in the Bible. I understand that there are those, who will not be able to believe “born again” is Baptism. However, Baptism is both in the context and in the Bible and something that Jesus advocated. I have a rule; when your religious tradition conflicts with the Bible and Jesus, then leave your TRADITION and follow Jesus.

Where else in the Bible is water spirit and Baptism? “He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. (1 Peter 3:21-22). Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19-20). These are some of the references to salvation and Baptism.

Steve Ray “Are you born again? A Catholic response.”(YouTube)

Steve Ray also puts on the very finest pilgrimages to Rome and Israel, that there is. Make your Bible come alive by walking in the foot prints of Jesus in the Holy Land with Steve as your guide. I usually don’t advertise for other people; however, in this case, I have personally gone with Steve Ray to the Holy Land and it was far beyond my expectations.

Steve Ray pilgrimages to Rome, Israel and other places.

Major Medjugorje detractor guilty of fraud

Major Medjugorje detractor guilty of fraud

Major Medjugorje detractor guilty of fraud.

Spirit Daily circulated this article

Medjugorgie war massacre was a fraud. By Jakob Marschner on Nov 4, 2012

In a book widely cited by Medjugorje antagonists, a Dutch anthropologist claimed that families in Medjugorje killed each other during the civil war. Now another book reveals this as untrue, and causes Free University of Amsterdam to open case of scientific fraud against its former employee.

Whereas the destruction of the Franciscan monastery in Mostar remains a well documented fact, Mart Bax’s claims of Medjugorje citizens committing atrocities against each other during the civil war have never been possible to verify. The Free University of Amsterdam now officially investigates the academic work of its former anthropology professor.

Retired anthropology professor Mart Bax will be investigated by his former university in Holland over serious suspicion of scientific fraud. Part of the case concerns Mart Bax’s work on Medjugorje, the Dutch online media Univers Online reports, along with other media in Holland.

The investigation has been spurred by the recent publication of a book by the Dutch investigative journalist Frank van Kolfschooten. Part of the book is devoted to examining Mart Bax’s claim that rivaling families in Medjugorje committed atrocities against each other while Bosnia and Hercegovina was plagued by civil war in 1992-95.

Frank van Kolfschooten Mart Bax made far-reaching claims in his book “Medjugorje: Religion, Politics, and Violence in Rural Bosnia”, published in 1995 and since then often cited by Medjugorje opponents. Frank van Kolfschooten is not the first to find that the claims cannot be verified:

In what Mart Bax termed “the little war”, he claimed that 140 residents of Medjugorje were killed, and that another 600 were forced to flee the region when a claimed dispute over the housing of a drastically decreasing number of pilgrims soon developed into bloodshed.

Medjugorje went undamaged through the war. Here, a Serbian cluster bomb has failed to explode, to instead drill its way into the sidewalk 100 meters from Saint James Church.

Mart Bax also wrote and published that mutilations and torture were carried out on a regular basis in nightly raids between the warring families. He further wrote that elements of the Croatian army sided in the conflict, resulting in a massacre that saw the death of 100 people by the same time.

Women, children and elderly were murdered, homes were burned, rocket launchers were used to cause members of a rivaling family to flee – and the victors offered up prayers of thanks to the Virgin Mary for her special grace and protection, Mart Bax further wrote.

Aside of Mart Bax’s writings, it was always undisputed that no person was killed in Medjugorje during the war. Damage to property and physical locations was very limited, and reports of divine intervention to protect Medjugorje even came from Serbian pilots who had standing orders to level the village with the ground.

Claims have been denied before

No death certificates exist on the 140 people Mart Bax claimed were murdered. The parish of Medjugorje denied Mart Bax’s claims in the parish bulletin when his book came out in 1995.

Fr. Ivan Landeka Later, no one in Medjugorje, priests or local citizens, could confirm the anthropologist’s claims when the Croatian daily Jutarnji List fact-checked Mart Bax’s work on Medjugorje in August 2008. Neither could Croatian or Bosnian university professors also asked by Jutarnji List. Internationally, the story made it to German media, but never to the English-speaking world.

“During the time of the war, there was neither murder, nor fighting. My impression is that Bax had the wrong informants, faulty sources, or did not understand the story he told. It is hard to tell what it was all about” said Fr. Ivan Landeka, parish priest in Medjugorje during the war.

Professor Mladen Ancic

“Mart Bax is ignorant and a poor anthropologist, and the problem is that he was a reputable publisher, and that researchers cite the nonsense that it is” Mladen Ancic, professor of philosophy at the University of Mostar, told Jutarnji List.

“When I came across these things, I ordered and read the book, then went back to Hercegovina to hear if anyone knew about this. Of course, no one did.”“After that, I trailed the books that he cites. When you go to his notes and references in the bibliography, you see that it is all made up. Secondly, it can be seen that he never picked up some of the books that he cites” said professor Mladen Ancic.

Against these and other accusations, Mart Bax will have the opportunity to defend himself when Free University of Amsterdam proceeds with its investigation of possible scientific fraud. At this point, Mart Bax remains silent.

“I have approached him several times to have an explanation, but he has not responded” the Dutch investigate reporter Frank van Kolfschooten tells Elsevier.

The German newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau had only little more luck. “I have put that behind me” Mart Bax replied when the paper approached him for a comment. Join our pilgrimage, attend an apparition!

Major Medjugorje detractor guilty of fraud

God and Holy Mary who saved the Philippine people

God and Holy Mary who saved the Philippine people

ROSARY REVOLUTION [Prayer’s effectiveness]

Then a Lady of enormous splendor appeared to them…”: In 1986 the threat of a civil war was hanging over Philippines. The totalitarian dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, established in 1972, was then dying away, while the dictator himself used to react nervously to any activities that could endanger his ruling. The country plunged into corruption and economic stagnation, communist fighting squads rose in power, while the prisons were crowded with Marcos’ political opponents.

However, the dictator was unwilling too evoke a conflict with the Church, whose respected Cardinal Jaime L. Sin had become a strong critic of the dictator’s ruling. The assassination of an uncompromised oppositionist Benigno Aquino in 1983 brought about Marcos in an open conflict with the nation.

On February 22, 1986, Marcos ordered to detain the defense minister gen. Juan Ponce Enrile as well as several other officials. The minister along with gen. Fidel Valdez Ramos, the armed forces deputy commander-in-chief, and three hundred other military men, barricaded themselves in the barracks at Manila’s Revelation of the Saints Avenue (EDSA). They announced to fight to the death. They requested Cardinal Sin to support them. After an hour and a half of prayers in the chapel Cardinal Sin called on the Philippines’

Mary Maria, Catholic Milwaukee

people on the radio to come out to the streets and stand between the rebels and the approaching troops of the loyalists. The worshippers did obey the appeal. Two million people – the poor and the rich – appeared side by side in an avenue of Manila, holding rosaries in their hands. A major national religious service began and lasted for the next four days. There was prayer, Marian songs, while bishops and priests were conducting services at camp altars. Told so by Cardinal Sin, the religious sisters in three contemplative orders stayed ceaselessly vigilant, fasting and praying.

Twenty-five tanks and six thousand armed to the teeth ruthless professional troops were sent against the praying crowd. The two million people then knelt in the street facing the approaching tanks. They raised their rosaries and began to pray. And then something astounding happened – the tanks halted, and the military men began to join massively the praying people rather then to raid them. People approached the troops with flowers, gave them sandwiches, embraced them. Marcos was furious. He ordered to disperse the crowd with tear gas. When the gas containers were thrown into the crowd… the wind reversed unexpectedly and thus the aggressors had to flee. So was two hours later. An order was given to use mortars to shell Enrile. Initially the order was not obeyed since “no appropriate target had been found.” “We do not want to kill civilians” – explained the soldiers. After several hours of “seeking a target” the mortars were fired, but the shells appeared to be … blind. The crews of the task force helicopters sent to suppress the rebels … joined them instead. On February 25 Marcos fled to Hawaii. Corazon Aquino, the widow of Benigno, was elected new president.

The bloodless revolution has been deemed a miracle. Cardinal Sin unveiled that at the key moment a Mary’s revelation happened and it was God and Holy Mary who saved the Philippine people from a massacre. “The tanks attempted to ram into the crowd. People were praying and putting up high their Rosaries. Then a Lady of enormous splendor appeared to them…” the Cardinal told in a review. “She was beautiful, and Her eyes were shining. And that beautiful woman spoke out to the soldiers using the words: ‘Stop, my dearest soldiers! Don’t go any further! Do not harm my children’. Having heard this the soldiers abandoned everything, left the tanks and joined the people” – said Cardinal Sin.

Share This