Tagged: Roman Catholic Church Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • John T. Polk II 8:29 am on 2016-09-12 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Roman Catholic Church, , sanctified   

    9-5/6-2016 Gospel Saints 

    The Apostle Paul wrote: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Corinthians 1:2 NKJV).  There were “saints” in the church of God in Corinth.  Paul had “testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ,” “And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:5,8 NKJV).  “Saint” is short for “sanctified,” or set aside for spiritual purpose.  A “saint” calls on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.”  When Saul of Tarsus was told to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16 NKJV), “he arose and was baptized” (Acts 9:18 NKJV).  There were “saints” before any Roman Catholic Church.             

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

     
  • John T. Polk II 8:27 am on 2016-09-12 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Roman Catholic Church,   

    9-7-2016 Saints Serving The Poor 

    There was no Roman Catholic Church in existence when Paul wrote: “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:7 NKJV). They were “distributing to the needs of the saints” (Romans 12:13 NKJV).  Paul was “going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem” (Romans 15:25-26 NKJV).  There is more than just serving the poor, however, for “though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3 NKJV).   Serving without love “profits nothing.”  Corinthians “hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8 NKJV) and were “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:2 NKJV).

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

     
  • John T. Polk II 8:56 pm on 2016-09-09 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Roman Catholic Church,   

    9-5/6-2016 Gospel Saints 

    The Apostle Paul wrote: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Corinthians 1:2 NKJV).  There were “saints” in the church of God in Corinth.  Paul had “testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ,” “And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:5,8 NKJV).  “Saint” is short for “sanctified,” or set aside for spiritual purpose.  A “saint” calls on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.”  When Saul of Tarsus was told to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16 NKJV), “he arose and was baptized” (Acts 9:18 NKJV).  There were “saints” before any Roman Catholic Church.             

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

     
  • John T. Polk II 8:55 pm on 2016-09-09 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Roman Catholic Church,   

    9-7-2016 Saints Serving The Poor 

    There was no Roman Catholic Church in existence when Paul wrote: “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:7 NKJV). They were “distributing to the needs of the saints” (Romans 12:13 NKJV).  Paul was “going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem” (Romans 15:25-26 NKJV).  There is more than just serving the poor, however, for “though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3 NKJV).   Serving without love “profits nothing.”  Corinthians “hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8 NKJV) and were “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:2 NKJV).

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

     
  • John T. Polk II 2:13 pm on 2016-02-09 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Roman Catholic Church,   

    2-10-2016 “Mardi Gras” And The Bible 

    Though Mardi Gras is not officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church, it is officially ignored! It is the Tuesday of sinful excesses before their official “Ash Wednesday” beginning their 40 penitential days of “Lent.” (1) None of this is taught in the New Testament of God’s Word; (2) Everyone who practices these things do so by the authority of the apostate Roman Catholic Church, not God; (3) Before conversion, Christians “once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others” (Ephesians 2:3 NKJV), but not afterward; (4) Paul preached to Jews and Gentiles “that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance” (Acts 26:20 NKJV), but there was never a “season of repentance.”

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

     
    • Adam Smithyman 4:07 pm on 2016-02-09 Permalink | Reply

      I just stumbled onto this site looking for info on lent and read some of the articles here. Very strange teachings. What denomination is this? Are you a cult? I notice the same few people post and no one replies to any of them. Are there many members or is it a small group of relatives? Thanks.

      • John T. Polk II 5:20 pm on 2016-02-09 Permalink | Reply

        Adam, Thank you for your inquiry. Our teachings are “strange” to those not familiar with Scripture, just like Paul’s preaching Jesus and the resurrection from the dead were “strange things to” the ears of those in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). Please read only the Scriptures to know what we are teaching. We are no “denomination” of the church of Christ, but are “the churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16). We are not a “cult” in that we follow no one but “Jesus [who] is the Christ, the son of God” (John 20:31). “The same few people post” because the contributors have been approved by the “editor” who has the final say in this matter. As far as I know, nearly all of the “contributors are related only through Jesus Christ. Keep reading from this website, and maybe you can understand what we’re about. May God bless you. John T. Polk II

        • docmgphillips 8:20 pm on 2016-02-12 Permalink | Reply

          Adam, an inquiring mind is one that seeks to learn. Thank you. I would add that, if you desire to know more about what we believe and teach, and do not feel adequate to read the Bible on your own at first, please feel free to contact the Church of Christ nearest you and ask for help. If you hesitate to ask unknown people, please go to http://www.worldbibleschool.com, and sign up for free correspondence lessons. The only cost to you is the postage to return the lessons.

      • tiffanystttt 11:05 pm on 2016-02-12 Permalink | Reply

        Out of curiosity, is this you, Adam? http://www.freedomdestiny.org/#!meet-the-pastors/c209q

        As for the ‘strange teachings’ on Mardi Gras, et al., the only source of truth is the Holy Bible. Search it all you want, and the terms Mardi Gras, Lent, Christmas, Catholic, Pope, transubstantiation, and many other Catholic teachings are not to be found at all. That indeed does make us ‘strange’, but in a good way. You will also not find that any of the contributors to websites like this one, which is a collective effort from many brethren in Christ, not a single one will encourage you to follow what they say over and above what the Bible says. The Bible is the source of truth for one and all, and all the postings here and on other sites from brethren promote Biblical teaching and exhort and encourage all who come across the site to read the Bible to understand who we are; who God is; and what Our divine purpose is on this temporary Earth. God bless you in your Bible study, and I hope you find the truth that is in the Scripture.

        • Adam 10:01 pm on 2016-02-13 Permalink | Reply

          No, not me. Different Adam. Thanks for the info.

  • John T. Polk II 11:54 am on 2015-07-04 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Roman Catholic Church, Words of Wisdom   

    Please go back to the “Words of Wisdom” for 6/23/2015. A Roman Catholic has replied, and I have replied to him.

     
  • John T. Polk II 8:56 pm on 2015-06-28 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Galileo, political power, Roman Catholic Church, unscientific idea   

    6-23-2015 Catholic Church Bails Out Again! 

    Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. On June 18, 2015, he sent an encyclical to be read to Catholics endorsing a new world political authority” action based upon “Climate Change.” Is this another abandonment of true scientific facts for Catholic Church political gain? This Church, in 1633, persecuted the Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo with house arrest for the last 8 years of his life. In 1992 they admitted he had been right: the Earth DOES revolve around the sun! “Climate Change” is another unscientific idea being popularized for political power. After the Earth’s destruction by flood in Noah’s day, God decreed, “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22 NKJV). No “climate change” on God’s real world!

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

     
    • Patrick 5:02 pm on 2015-07-02 Permalink | Reply

      A few corrections:

      •The encyclical is written to all people, not just Catholic Christians.
      •A political authority that has the interest of developing nations over our common home is a better idea than having rich nations make those decisions.
      •What “political gain” are you talking about?
      •Galileo wasn’t “Italian”; Italy wasn’t formed until 1861.
      •Galileo wasn’t “right”; he taught that the planets traveled in “circles” around the sun, which I hope, you know is not true.
      •Galileo wasn’t persecuted; he was under house arrest for mocking the pope and causing unrest. There are books about this subject if you would like to actually learn about it.

      Other than just about everything you wrote being wrong… great job, buddy.

      • John T. Polk II 11:51 am on 2015-07-04 Permalink | Reply

        A few corrections:
        •The encyclical is written to all people, not just Catholic Christians.
        According to New Advent about “encyclical:” “According to its etymology, an encyclical is nothing more than a circular letter. In modern times, usage has confined the term almost exclusively to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either Bulls or Briefs, and which in their superscription are explicitly addressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of the Universal Church in communion with the Apostolic See.”
        •A political authority that has the interest of developing nations over our common home is a better idea than having rich nations make those decisions.
        You admit, then that the Vatican is a “political authority?” Jesus, then, would put it in the place of “Caesar,” and not “God’s” (Matthew 22:21)!
        •What “political gain” are you talking about?
        You just admitted the Vatican is “political,” therefore, it’s interest is not “spiritual.”
        •Galileo wasn’t “Italian”; Italy wasn’t formed until 1861.
        •Galileo wasn’t “right”; he taught that the planets traveled in “circles” around the sun, which I hope, you know is not true.
        •Galileo wasn’t persecuted; he was under house arrest for mocking the pope and causing unrest. There are books about this subject if you would like to actually learn about it.
        According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: Galileo was born in “Pisa [Italy]” and died in “Arcetri, near Florence” and was an: “Italian natural philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician who made fundamental contributions to the sciences of motion, astronomy, and strength of materials and to the development of the scientific method.” “Finally, his discoveries with the telescope revolutionized astronomy and paved the way for the acceptance of the Copernican heliocentric system, but his advocacy of that system eventually resulted in an Inquisition process against him.”
        Other than just about everything you wrote being wrong… great job, buddy.
        Thanks, coming from you who defends the wrong doctrines of the wrong church, I consider your sarcasm a compliment. Jesus said, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luke 6:26 NKJV). Interestingly, you denied what is wrong with the Catholic Church, but are completely silent over the Scriptural point about “Climate Change!” You, indeed, are one of what Jesus said, “blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch” (Matthew 15:14 NKJV). Maybe you need to read what the Roman Catholic Church teaches before you defend it, and read the Word of God before you attack it!

        • Patrick 2:41 pm on 2015-07-04 Permalink | Reply

          You wrote a lot. I’m guessing you don’t want to focus on a single issue?

          So I’ll skip to the bottom real quick. Well, I’ve never attacked the Bible (bearing false witness?) and I do understand the Church; it is you who relies on building up straw men. How about, wait for it… learn Catholicism before you attack it;) But I give you some credit; you’re one of the only CofCers I know of who don’t run away!
          Pax

    • John T. Polk II 10:30 am on 2015-07-07 Permalink | Reply

      Patrick,
      Which “single issue” did you mean: encyclical? political authority? Galileo? or your judgmental claim that everything else I wrote “being wrong?”
      You “attack the Bible” when you ignorantly uphold your Roman Catholic Church encyclical on “Climate Change” which contradicts God’s plain statement in Genesis 8:22.
      If you “understand the Church,” then why do you claim: it’s “encyclical” is for all people, when it claims “encyclicals” are only for their hierarchy? it has political authority over other countries, when it claims to be the spiritual authority? Galileo wasn’t an Italian, when your Church’s Encyclopedia claims that he was? If you “understand the Church,” then you must know it teaches what you deny or ignore!
      What “straw man” did I build up? Certainly not the Roman Catholic Church, for I quoted from their own resources. Certainly not you, because you clearly contradict the RCC claims. Certainly not your “ego,” for you still haven’t even referred to Genesis 8:22, but seem willing to become a pompous “judge” of others who point out the truth! To those who didn’t seem to know the difference between God’s Word and their own misunderstanding, Jesus said, “”Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24 NKJV).
      Who needs to “run away” from you?

    • Patrick 4:03 pm on 2015-07-07 Permalink | Reply

      Don’t pretend to be interested; you care about trashing the Church.

      Your CofC-typical and incoherent rant against the Catholic Church, beginning with a meaningless title and ending with no defense of it, is the sort of thing that repels people of good will from your sect — I personally know hundreds.

      And the world knows that all you can do to establish yourself is tear down what was already established, and so attack the Church with cryptic and grossly misunderstood sound-bites such as “Galileo!!!!” Of course, you’ll believe what you want – not what is true.

      And ever mind the nonsense of your bizarre and incoherent assertions, never mind the ignorance of suggesting the Pope’s letter to you isn’t – to you, never mind the absolute craziness of telling a person he doesn’t understand the Bible (when he doesn’t even mention it) and then proceeding to quote it to him… What matters is surrounding yourself with like-minded Church haters who Ra Ra your “words of wisdom.” But hey, some people don’t want heaven, and they surely don’t want hell. So they enter the swine.

      • LaraIngalls 9:43 pm on 2015-07-30 Permalink | Reply

        Hi Patrick, John, apologies for the late reply. I do want to wade in here, though, hopefully with a little logical perspective, not emotional heat.
        The issue addressed in the original ‘Words of Wisdom’ is that the Catholic leadership is wanting people (Catholic or otherwise is irrelevant) to support ‘climate change’. Yet there are scriptural questions to the standard ‘climate change’ narrative, e.g., that the world will be destroyed by human activity if they don’t all submit to globally authoritative rules.
        To this point, what John said is true; there are scriptural objections to this narrative as John references – and serious scientific discrepancies in the Climate Change narrative as well, which make it hard to logically endorse. The main purpose as I see it to support globally authoritative rules is to actually create/ enforce some form of world power. This is a political matter, and in my humble opinion to put such wide sweeping authority into the hands of any human would be extremely dangerous.
        But that is not the point in the Words of Wisdom. The point is, the Catholic leadership are offering support for ‘Climate Change’ when the science is questionable (historical comparisons to what happened with Galileo are pertinent reference for this). And, as stated, the scriptures themselves indicate otherwise.
        I pray for all to know GOD through HIS scripture, and HIS scripture only. We should all “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12,13). God bless.

  • Eugene Adkins 6:41 am on 2015-03-25 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Pope Francis, Roman Catholic Church   

    Pope Francis has only "half of the saint’s love" 

    According to a recent story, pope Francis has been credited with a miracle…wait a second, make that a “half miracle” after a vial of 1,700-year-old blood partially turned to liquid when he kissed it. This same blood purportedly liquefies at least three times a year, if the “faithful” are faithful enough in prayer; the blood has being doing so for the last 600 years, although this is the first time the blood has done such in the presence of the “papacy” in over 150 years.

    In response to why the blood only partially liquefied, the pope said, “If only half of it liquefied that means we still have work to do; we have to do better….We have only half of the saint’s love.

    In response to why the blood only partially liquefied, the Bible says, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4 – ESV)

     
    • docmgphillips 9:08 am on 2015-03-25 Permalink | Reply

      “Sound teaching?” You mean anything taught is not good enough? Wow! What a revelation! On the serious side, this is something we all need to pay strict attention to.

      • Eugene Adkins 10:00 pm on 2015-03-25 Permalink | Reply

        It can serve as a teachable moment for those who are interested in being taught.

        Thanks for commenting.

  • TFRStaff 6:29 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Roman Catholic Church, ,   

    WHO ARE SAINTS? 

    With its widespread influence through its practices, teachings, and traditions, Roman Catholicism has tainted the original idea of the word “saint” in the minds of many to the extent that very few in the world would ever think of calling what the Bible describes as a Christian a “saint.”

    Notice the following concerning the process by which one may become a “saint” in the Catholic Church. “Canonization is an act or definitive sentence by which the Pope decrees that a servant of God, member of the Catholic Church and already declared blessed, be inscribed in the book of saints and be venerated in the universal Church with the cult given to all saints.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, Pg. 55). In other words, a person could read and study his Bible, obey the gospel through faith, repentance, confession and baptism, and thus be saved from past sins (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; Romans 10:10), do all he could to please God, die a faithful Christian and go to heaven eternally, but never be recognized as a “saint” because the Pope did not declare it and he never belonged to the Catholic Church. (More …)

     
    • Joseph Richardson 7:37 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

      The truth is that we’re talking about two different uses of the word “saint” here. In Scripture the word ἅγιος (hagios) means “holy, set apart” — and that word is translated sanctus in Latin, the origin of the word saint. The saints in Scripture are the set apart ones, those who have been called out of this world by Christ (that is what ἐκκλησία [ekklesia] literally means, a calling out). And nobody in the Catholic Church denies that this is the way that word is used in Scripture, or that the word can aptly be used that way in referring to all the saints (“set apart ones”) alive even today. But over the course of the first few centuries of the Church, the word came more and more to refer to the holy ones who have been set apart by sanctification, whom the Lord has made holy by His work in their lives. And sure, to be formally recognized as a “saint” on the liturgical calendar of the Church, there is a formal process of canonization — but that does not mean that one is not a saint until we say so. It’s a frequent saying that “any cemetery is likely to be full of the bodies of unknown saints” — that even being said of Protestant cemeteries. God makes saints, not the Church.

      • Eugene Adkins 10:56 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

        So as usual it comes down to the Catholic Church using words and practicing things that sound biblical but they actually have absolutely no foundational support that can be found in the scriptures? I believe that was the author’s point.

        • Joseph Richardson 11:04 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          No fundamental support can be found — for what? For the fact that God saves people? For the fact that he brings them to perfection and glory in heaven? Oh, what about, “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, … to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect …” (Hebrews 12:22–24)? Just because the common usage of a word evolves over time does not mean that either the former idea — that we are holy ones, called out by grace — is discarded, or that the latter idea – that the souls of just men are made perfect in the heavenly Jerusalem — is a new or unfounded notion.

          • Eugene Adkins 11:26 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

            No fundamental support can be found — for what?

            For creating a special class of people that has no scriptural basis.

        • Joseph Richardson 11:37 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          I’m confused by that statement, Eugene. Do you not believe that those chosen people who have been saved by grace (1 Pet 2:9, Eph 1:4, 2:5, Col 1:22, 2 Thes 1:10, etc.), who have been brought to His eternal glory in heaven (Rom 2:7, 2 Cor 4:17, 2 Tim 2:10, 1 Pet 5:10, etc.) — are “a special class of people”?

        • Eugene Adkins 11:50 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          To quote your own words: “The truth is that we’re talking about two different uses of the word “saint” here.

          If the Catholic Church were simply saying that the “canonized” people were only what they already claim for them to be then why make the claim to begin with? Why not make that claim for every individual instead of certain people chosen through a process that has no biblical foundation whatsoever?

          It’s because, as the pomp and circumstance shows when the “canonization” takes place, that when the Catholic Church proclaims someone to be a “canonized saint” they are creating a distinction, which is necessitated by the very meaning of the word “canonized”, that is separate and apart from the biblical usage of the word – or else there would be no such distinction to be made.

          The Catholic Church uses the word “saint” in a way that causes it to be reserved for individuals of their choosing – or else there would be no choosing to be done at all; for if all were saints of “that recognized stature” then all would be saints and the whole “canonization” process would be completely useless.

          I don’t think there should be anything too confusing about what I’m saying here.

        • Joseph Richardson 12:18 pm on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          I think you might have the wrong idea. Every individual who is in heaven is a saint, whether they are formally canonized or not. Very often we celebrate the “many unknown saints in heaven,” or speak of people we might have known who haven’t been formally canonized as being saints. There is nothing intrinsically “elite” about the canon of saints, other than the fact that they have been canonized: they are popes, priests, nuns, laypeople, farmers, teachers, workers of all kinds, married and single, young and old, European, African, Asian, and Native American.

          All being “canonized” means is that we really, really, really know, without any doubt, that the person is in heaven. Why not declare that “all people” who have died are saints? Because it’s possible they are not all in heaven! Why the process of canonization? Why set apart some people to say that absolutely, assuredly, they are in heaven? Because, yes, it makes a distinction — because some people really were extraordinarily holy people on earth. Look at the canon of saints, especially the early ones, the ones that even many Protestants accept and embrace and celebrate — the likes of Ignatius, Polycarp, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Francis — and it becomes evident why they have been set apart as distinct: because they distinguished themselves in holiness — or rather, God distinguished them by His awesome works of grace. The Church does not make saints; God does. We only recognize the work of His hand.

          You are absolutely, completely right when you say that “if all were saints of ‘that recognized stature’ then all would be saints and the whole “canonization” process would be completely useless.” And that’s exactly, a nutshell, why we do it. 🙂

        • Eugene Adkins 12:30 pm on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          So we’re back to saying that the Catholic Church does indeed recognize “special saints” of its choosing, one without one shred of biblical merit – a sanctified saint of sorts that is separate and apart from, and even above due to their classification, from the rest of the “common” saints.

          We could’ve saved a bit of time here 🙂

        • Joseph Richardson 12:40 pm on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          They are set apart only in that they are known.

          The biblical foundation is the fact that, yes, Christ does save and bring us to perfection and glory in heaven. Beyond that, who needs any further justification to celebrate those brothers and sisters in Christ who are praiseworthy? The biggest problem with Protestants is that they miss out on doing all sorts of good and beneficial things because they must look for a “biblical foundation” to do something. 😉 Do we need a “biblical foundation” in the secular world to create a “hall of fame” for great people in sports, science, or good deeds? If we can celebrate sports figures, why can’t we celebrate holy figures?

          The formal process of canonization as we know it today, by the way, is a fairly modern development. The canon of “saints” originated in the earliest days of the Church as a list of martyrs — whom I don’t think even you would have a problem with setting apart and remembering and celebrating. It was only several centuries later that “confessors” — those people who confessed the name of Christ but did not necessarily win a martyr’s crown — began to be enlisted, usually by popular and unanimous acclamation. Forgive us if today we have to be all scientific and precise about it. 😉 Folks have been declaring Pope John Paul II a “saint” since the day he died and even before. In the early centuries of the Church, they would have accepted that without any further proof.

  • John T. Polk II 12:09 pm on 2013-09-20 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , Roman Catholic Church, statues, , ,   

    Was Jesus Christ Beheaded? 

    If the Roman Catholic Church is right, Jesus Christ was decapitated on September 17, 2013 in Malaga, New Jersey. Among nine statues damaged were 3 five-feet-tall statues of Sacred Heart of Jesus, which was beheaded, Virgin Mary, and Our Lady of Fatima. These were located outside of St. Mary’s Malaga Catholic church. Spokeperson for the Camden Diocese Peter Feuerherd said, “These are important symbols of the Catholic faith and in that way when you attack the symbols of faith you attack the faith.” —CBS Philly, September 19, 2013

    The fact that there is no physical description, drawing, image, or icon of Jesus Christ in Scripture or out of the Scriptures in the 1st Century doesn’t seem to influence anybody. Jesus was “the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9), and God always condemned every attempt to recreate His image. To the Israelites under Moses’ Law, God said: “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image-any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 5:6-9). In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul preached to idolaters: “Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising” (Acts 17:29). There is no physical description of God, whether in the flesh or not, although “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

    Every statue, icon, painting, or other representation of Jesus Christ comes only as “shaped by art and man’s devising,” not God’s revelation! To call a church building or statue “sacred” is purely by the authority of men, and is totally contrary to the Will of God, for Jesus said, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father’” (John 4:21). It is the church of Christ, not a building, but the people, who form the “building” that is “a holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:19-22).

    That physical buildings and statues are “important symbols of the Catholic faith” is yet another proof that the “Catholic faith” and the faith in the Word of God are completely separate and contrary to each other! The Roman Catholic Church is not the church of Christ in the New Testament, and never has been true to the Word of God. The practices of the Roman Catholic Church are based upon idolatry, not the faith of Scripture, for “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17), and the Word of God condemns idolatry (1 John 5:21)! An idol means nothing to a Christian’s faith, for there is only “one God, the Father,” and “one Lord Jesus Christ,” so food sacrificed to an idol is not “sacred.” However, Paul asked: “if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols?” Though such idols mean nothing to a Christian as a matter of faith, Christians are to show respect for the consciences of idol worshippers who are converted to Christ, but still haven’t elevated God to His supreme place in their hearts. This should be done without compromising their own Christian faith (1 Corinthians 8:4-13). A Christian would never offend another Christian’s conscience who has not developed to his own level of understanding, and wouldn’t think of intentionally desecrating those things that are considered religious “symbols” of others. Christians would, however, strive to teach the emptiness of such practices, as Paul did (Acts 14:8-18).

    Instead of considering a statue of Jesus “holy,” why not let Jesus, Himself, be “that Holy One” (Luke 1:35), who died for you and God raised up (Acts 3:12-16), for whom you “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), so that you may be “holy” (Colossians 1:21-23)?  —–John T. Polk II, Dover, TN

     
  • John T. Polk II 11:35 pm on 2013-06-17 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "show of humility", , , , , , , , , Roman Catholic Church, ,   

    God and “The Pope” Agree! 

              According to the “Living faith” section C of The Huntsville Times, Friday, June 14, 2013, the article on Religion & Church News carried an item titled, “NO, I did not want to be Pope.” It was an interview from McClatchy-Tribune that quoted the 3-month-in-office “Pope” of the Roman Catholic Church, Francis, as saying: “’No, I didn’t want to be pope. A person who wants to be pope does not love himself,’ the pontiff added, in a trademark show of humility.’”  Based upon his comments, God would agree that:

    1. Since “Pope” is a Latin term for “father,” and since Jesus Christ forbade anyone using the term “father” as a term for a spiritual leader (Matthew 23:9), then God would agree that Francis should not be “pope!”

    2. Francis “didn’t want to be pope,” a position which is supposed to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church. But the Apostle Paul claimed that “the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ephesians 3:9-11). Since God’s “mighty power” raised Jesus from the dead and “put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:22-23), then God placed Jesus Christ over His church, not a “pope!” Thus, God would agree that He didn’t want Francis to be “pope” over the church!”

    3. Francis said, “A person who wants to be pope does not love himself.” God’s Word has said that, after “the falling away,” “and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4), but whose followers would be “among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10), then Francis must not “love himself” for taking the position of apostasy that God condemns! God would agree that any man who takes such a position “does not love himself” or the truth, either!

    4. Contrary to the article cited above, there is no “trademark show of humility” in anyone who opposes God, sits in God’s temple, or claims to forgive sins which only God can do (Matthew 9:1-8)! Jesus Christ condemned public displays of the Pharisees, which are remarkably like that of a “pope:” “all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues” (Matthew 23:5-6). No “pope” has ever manifested a “trademark show of humility,” while claiming to be equal with God! The real head of the church of Christ, “humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). No “pope” has ever humbled himself to die on a cross for the church of Christ! God would agree that there is no “trademark show of humility” in this, or any other “pope.”

    It’s too bad the “pope” refuses to tell his followers what Jesus said would give salvation in Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Will this “pope” agree with God?

     
    • Joseph Richardson 3:31 pm on 2013-06-22 Permalink | Reply

      Catholics do believe in Christ and are baptized (and do believe they are saved by that faith).

      • John T. Polk II 4:01 pm on 2013-06-22 Permalink | Reply

        Joseph,
        Believing in Christ includes the fact that He is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but why, then, do Catholics use Mary as their Mediatrix?
        “Baptism” throughout the New Testament was a “burial” (Romans 6:3-4), but what Catholics are taught that it is an immersion?
        Mark 16:16 is Jesus’ statement concerning salvation, and it is to be defined as His Holy Spirit led the Apostles to write about these factors (John 16:7-13; Jude 3), not as “Roman Catholicism” has changed its terms over the centuries. What “pope” has explained Mark 16:16 with these Scriptures?
        Thank you for reading and replying. Please tell me wherein this answer isn’t helpful.

        • Joseph Richardson 4:32 pm on 2013-06-22 Permalink | Reply

          Hi John, glad to be reading. I reckon you are a neighbor. I’ve grown up in and live in Decatur; I lived in Huntsville for a few years before I moved back here, and consider Huntsville my second home.

          Catholics definitely affirm that Christ is the only Mediator between God and man, as Scripture itself affirms. Mary is a mediator (“mediatrix” is just the Latin feminine) in the sense that she intercedes for us — in the same way we intercede for each other. That’s not the same way Christ is Mediator, in the sacred relationship between the Persons of God in the Trinity — He doesn’t just intercede; He intervenes.

          I could give you a lot of quotes, but then then would be very long. So here’s just a bit:

          There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, ‘for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all. ‘ (1 Tim. 2:5-6) The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. (Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), Second Vatican Council, 1964)

          Regarding Baptism — the Church definitely teaches that immersion is the ideal method. Infusion (pouring) has been practiced in some cases since the very beginning of the Church, probably since Pentecost itself (how else are you going to baptize 3,000 men in a day, and their families?), and continuing to other cases of necessity (being being baptized on their deathbeds and the like). Pouring didn’t really become as common as it is today until the Middle Ages (there are medieval immersion baptisteries all over Europe), but recently more and more Catholic churches are going back to immersion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

          The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head. (CCC 1239)

          According to the Didache, believed to be the oldest Christian document outside the Bible, possibly dated as early A.D. 60 or 70:

          And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

          I’m not sure what you mean about the Catholic Church changing its terms. But definitely, through Baptism we die with Christ and are buried and born again (Romans 6:3-4, John 3:5); we receive the Holy Spirit and become a part of Christ’s Body (Gal 3:27, 1 Cor 12:13, Eph 4:5).

    • John T. Polk II 1:38 pm on 2013-06-24 Permalink | Reply

      Joseph, you have proven my point: Nothing in the New Testament teaches Roman Catholic doctrine. You claim “Mary is a mediator” who “intercedes for us” but “not the same way Christ is Mediator.” In the New Testament, “mediator” is used of the Prophets Moses (Galatians 3:19-20) and Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), AND NOT ONCE OF MARY, OR CHRISTIANS FOR ONE ANOTHER! Roman Catholicism has had to add Mary as a Mediatrix after God finished writing the New Testament! That explains what you were not sure of when you said: “I’m not sure what you mean about the Catholic Church changing its terms.”
      All of the next quotes you used to establish RC doctrine were written after, and outside of, the New Testament, and therefore are worthless for “the faith” (Jude 3), for it was “once for all delivered to the saints” by the end of the 1st Century. It is meaningless to try to define “the faith” by quoting: (Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), Second Vatican Council, 1964); The Catechism of the Catholic Church; (CCC 1239); the Didache; none of which are contained inside the New Testament.
      IF, as you say, “Catholics do believe in Christ and are baptized (and do believe they are saved by that faith),” then why would they not simply obey the terms of faith and baptism as described in the New Testament, without any or all of the additions of the Roman Catholic Church? “Baptism,” which itself means “immersion,” was never a sprinkling or pouring in the New Testament. Since immersion was required, the logistics involved on the Day of Pentecost were solved by the Apostles without changing “immersion” into “sprinkling;” and there is no New Testament record of any “being baptized on their deathbeds and the like.”
      By-the-way, you haven’t even begun to deal with my original premise: The office of RC “pope” has no New Testament right to even exist, nor is qualified to be the head of the church of Christ!

  • John T. Polk II 9:45 am on 2013-03-12 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , Roman Catholic Church,   

    “Has the church of Christ Lost Its Head?” (a power point presentation) 

    http://doverchurchofchrist.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/HasTheChurchOfChristLostItshead.swf

     
  • John T. Polk II 10:38 am on 2013-02-12 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , dogma, epistle, , , Roman Catholic Church, , ,   

    Where Was “Vatican Smoke” In The New Testament Church?. 

    Please read Acts 15:1-31, then read the following:

    1. There was NO appeal to Peter, but to “apostles, elders” and the “whole church” gathered to hear Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 12 (“all the multitude”), 22

    2. EVERY speaker proclaimed only the Word of God (Oral & Written):

        (1) Acts 15:2-4:  Paul and Barnabas proclaimed what God had been doing among Gentiles (before Acts 13-14 had been written);

        (2) Acts 15:5-11: Peter reminded them of the events of Acts 10-11 in selecting Gentiles to be saved (before it had been written down);

        (3) Acts 15:12-21: James preached God’s Prophecy about the goal of bringing in Gentiles, quoting Amos 9:11-12, THEN gave HIS “judgment”;

        (4) Acts 15:22:  THE CONCLUSION WAS INSPIRED ENTIRELY BY GOD’S WORD (A.K.A. “SCRIPTURE”), AND IT WAS UNANIMOUS – LIKE NO Roman Catholic Church COUNCIL!!!!

    3. The letter sent to the Gentiles with this Apostolic preaching (Acts 15:23-31) was an Apostolic “letter” (Greek: epistole). When copies are actually distributed to the Christians of a Gentile background (Acts 16:4), they are termed “decrees” (Greek: dogmata): The “DOGMA” was necessary and delivered immediately to the Gentiles!!!!  Refer to Acts 15:1-16:5 and notice that:

    (1) The church didn’t wait hundreds of years to know “dogma.”

    (2) This was an epistle of Scripture from the Apostles, and NOT from a Roman Catholic Church “Magisterium,” or “Vatican Council,” or “College of the Cardinals,” or announced by “smoke!” When Peter and the REAL Apostles of Jesus Christ taught and wrote Scripture, it was in writing that WAS “Scripture,” based upon Scripture, NOT the result of political “in-fighting” and out-maneuvering ,as is continually practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. People who “blow smoke” are NOT Apostles of Jesus Christ!

    (3) “So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily” Acts 16:5. The churches of Christ are always strengthened by Scripture and always apostatize when following human commandments (1 Timothy 4:1-5; 2 Timothy 4:1-5). Wrong attitudes always produce and defend wrong doctrines(1 Timothy 6:3-5)!

    4. THERE WAS NO VOTE TAKEN, NOR SUCCESSIVE SESSIONS OF THIS COUNCIL!

    5. There was NO: supremacy of Peter, voting on doctrine; waiting hundreds of years to deal with controversy; multiple sessions to arrive at a conclusion; opposition to the views expressed; PRESENTATION OF ANY OUTSIDE “TRADITION;” “COMMENTARIES;” OR PREVIOUS “COUNCIL” CONCLUSIONS; BUT ONLY SCRIPTURE (BOTH WRITTEN & UNWRITTEN)!

    6. This was the ONLY council gathering like it in Scripture.

        (1) The gathering to replace Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:13-26) did nothing to replace James the brother of John
    when Herod killed him (Acts 12:1-2);

        (2) The gathering to disprove Jewish heretics sent Gentiles their “dogma” (Acts 15:1-31) and never met again!

    —–John T. Polk II

     
  • John T. Polk II 7:30 am on 2013-02-12 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Roman Catholic Church   

    Was Peter the First “Pope?” 

    Matthew 16:13-20: When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”  20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

     1. Jesus had said to “Simon Peter” John 1:40, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which is translated, A Stone [petros])” John 1:42

    a. Why did not Jesus give Peter the name “Petra” (feminine) in this passage, to relieve any confusion later?

    b. Jesus, not Peter, is referred to as petra in the New Testament:  Matthew 16:18: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Romans 9:33:  “As it is written: ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame’” (quoting from Isaiah 8:14; 28:16). 1 Corinthians 10:4: “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Peter 2:8: “’A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.’ They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.”

    c. There is NO original Aramaic manuscript of Matthew known. (1 If Matthew wrote it in Aramaic, God preserved a majority of Greek MSS; (2 Matthew, himself (guided by the Holy Spirit!), would have translated his book into Greek, for Greek was understood by most people then; (3 The only “Aramaism” preserved in this passage would be “Cephas,” but because the Greek word makes a distinction between Peter’s name and the foundation of the church, no appeal to the “Aramaic” would justify making Peter’s name equal to the foundation of the church of Christ! (4 As there are no original MSS of any other New Testament Books, either!

    d. Paul condemned as a “schism” any who followed Peter, not Jesus, as the Head of the church 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.

    e. When Jesus said to Peter “Follow Me” John 21:19, Roman Catholic Church says it is teaching Peter’s Primacy. But when Jesus tells Philip “Follow Me” John 1:43 NO ONE suggests the Roman Church is built upon Philip!!

    2. IF this clearly taught Peter’s Superiority over all the other Apostles, then:

    a. Why were they still disputing the issue later? Matthew 20:20-28

    b. How were James, Cephas & John all “pillars?” Galatians 2:9

    c. Then was Paul the Gentile “Pope?” Galatians 2:7-10

    d. How was the church of Christ “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone?” Ephesians 2:20

     3. Peter IS IN the foundation, but IS NOT “THE Foundation!”

    a. The Church of Christ is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstoneEphesians 2:20

    b. NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE separates Peter from the other apostles in their work of establishing the church of Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:5: “For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.”  1 Corinthians 9:5:  “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”

    c. Peter was never acknowledged as being in Rome, or its “Bishop!” (1 Paul was prisoner in Rome and wrote Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, but NEVER MENTIONED PETER AS BEING IN ROME! (2 Paul wrote Romans and saluted 27 Christians, but NOT Peter!   (3 Peter wrote 2 letters, but never mentioned being in Rome!                 —–John T. Polk II

     
  • Weylan Deaver 2:18 pm on 2011-08-03 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Felix Manz, John Calvin, , Protestant Reformers, , reformation, Roman Catholic Church, Urbanus Rhegius   

    “Compelle Intrare” 

    In Jesus’ banquet parable (Luke 14:12-24), the master sent his servant to gather up guests for the feast. His instructions were, “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” (v. 23, ESV).

    In Latin, “compel people to come in” is written, “compelle intrare.” From early centuries of church history through medieval times and beyond, the Roman Catholic Church leaned on a grotesquely twisted interpretation of “compelle intrare” in Luke 14:23, concluding that governmental authorities had the right to coerce people into the church. In a perverse marriage, Catholicism and the state were so tied together that the former could dictate the latter use deadly force against the church’s enemies. And, the church’s enemies included whatever men and doctrines were not in lock step with what the Catholic Church taught. Forced conformity to Catholicism was the glue holding society together. Naturally, if people were allowed to study the Bible for themselves, voluntarily practice what they believed from their own study, and freely preach their views, it would be a fundamental threat to the church’s power (and the crumbling of society, as they knew it).

    Reformers such as Martin Luther are often hailed for their courage in confronting the status quo in religion (i.e. Catholicism). Yet, what they created in the Reformation was simply another state religion like Catholicism—only with certain different doctrines. In other words, while Luther opposed the Catholic Church, he very much endorsed the idea that the Reformed church could use force against its own enemies.

    While the reformers (such as Luther, John Calvin, etc.) were battling Catholicism, there were others insisting that both sides were wrong in their concept of a church which forced itself on everyone in a given locale. The view of these objectors was that the church of Christ consisted of voluntary believers, and that it had no connection to the state; nor was it biblical to use force in spreading the gospel. They studied their Bibles and clung to their convictions. They also found themselves mercilessly persecuted by both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers.

    Martin Luther commissioned his friend, Urbanus Rhegius, to fight those who were calling for a church formed only of voluntary believers. Rhegius said:

    “The truth leaves you no choice; you must agree that the magistracy has the authority to coerce his subjects to the Gospel. And if you say, ‘Yes, but with admonition and well-chosen words but not by force’ then I answer that to get people to the services with fine words and admonitions is the preacher’s duty, but to keep them there with recourse to force if need be and to frighten them away from error is the proper function of the rulers….What do you suppose ‘Compelle intrare’ means?” (quoted in Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, p. 74).

    Those who thought the church and state were separate, that the state should not interfere with the church, and that the church should be organized along New Testament lines, were considered radicals and hated as enemies. One of them was Felix Manz, of Zurich, Switzerland. His goal was “to bring together those who were willing to accept Christ, obey the Word, and follow in His footsteps, to unite with these by baptism, and to leave the rest in their present conviction” (ibid.). In other words, Manz was opposed to coercion and held that the church should consist of true believers—those who wanted to accept and obey the gospel.

    For his “heretical” ideas, Felix Manz had his hands tied around his bent knees, with a big stick shoved between his elbows and knees so that he could not move his arms. He was put in a boat and rowed into the Limmat River, where he was thrown into the frigid water to drown. The date was January 5, 1527.

    Over the recent centuries, both Catholicism and Protestantism have had to back off of “compelle intrare,” but neither the former nor the denominations that sprang from the latter have gone all the way back to the primitive church’s organization and practice. Therein lies their insuperable problem.

    If we, in the church of Christ, had lived back then, we would have been hunted like dogs by both Catholics and the Reformers. We are still at spiritual war with their religious descendants, but, thanks be, at least they cannot come after us today with a death warrant.

     
    • John T. Polk II 2:30 pm on 2011-08-03 Permalink | Reply

      Waylan,
      Thanks for the historical reminder, since we “have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin” (Hebrews 12:4), but we may yet pay our dues (Hebrews 11:32-40). Islam, like Roman Catholicism, is passively agreeable as a minority of a population, but in a majority, they are like our adversary the Devil, walking about like a lion, seeking whom they may devour (1 Peter 5:8). Whatever our lot, we must not “fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Keep admonishing, brother.

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel