Coming Against Reformed Theology

[David1701]

I'll just respond to one of your Wilhelm fantasies....

The seven hills of Rome are separate from Vatican Hill. So, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole will not work.... 7+1=8, not 7

You've been corrected about this on numerous occasions...

1) The "Pope's" "throne" is not on Vatican Hill.

2) Rome has expanded considerably, since the 1st C., but it is still called, worldwide, "the city on seven hills".

 

[Carbon]

You've been corrected about this on numerous occasions...

1) The "Pope's" "throne" is not on Vatican Hill.

2) Rome has expanded considerably, since the 1st C., but it is still called, worldwide, "the city on seven hills".

Indeed.

 

[Arch Stanton]

You've been corrected about this on numerous occasions...

The Vatican does not sit on one of the 7 hills of Rome, which are Aventine Hill, Caelian Hill, Capitoline Hill, Esquiline Hill, Palatine Hill, Quirinal Hill, and Viminal Hill. Vatican Hill sits across the Tiber River from ancient Rome, and was a crucifixion site (where Peter was crucified upside down). It was not made part of the city of Rome until the 9th Century, well after John wrote the book of Revelation.

 

[Mr GLee]

The Vatican does not sit on one of the 7 hills of Rome, which are Aventine Hill, Caelian Hill, Capitoline Hill, Esquiline Hill, Palatine Hill, Quirinal Hill, and Viminal Hill. Vatican Hill sits across the Tiber River from ancient Rome, and was a crucifixion site (where Peter was crucified upside down). It was not made part of the city of Rome until the 9th Century, well after John wrote the book of Revelation.

Interesting parable . Seven complete perfect mountains the authority of all the kingdoms of this world Sitting in the place of the strange would the false bride

Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

I would think. Short space 33years

Five throughout the bible signifies redemption .The one who did come finished the propmised demonstration of the unseen Holy Father empowering the Son of man seen to do the will of the Father .

 

[David1701]

The Vatican does not sit on one of the 7 hills of Rome, which are Aventine Hill, Caelian Hill, Capitoline Hill, Esquiline Hill, Palatine Hill, Quirinal Hill, and Viminal Hill. Vatican Hill sits across the Tiber River from ancient Rome, and was a crucifixion site (where Peter was crucified upside down). It was not made part of the city of Rome until the 9th Century, well after John wrote the book of Revelation.

Who said anything about the Vatican? The so-called "Pope's" "throne" is not in the Vatican, as I'm sure you know. In any case, it's irrelevant, since the city is still called the "city on seven hills", and that's what matters.

John was writing about the future (future to him, although not all future to us).

There is no proof that the apostle Peter was ever in Rome, nor that he was crucified upside down; not that either of those things makes any difference anyway.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Who said anything about the Vatican? The so-called "Pope's" "throne" is not in the Vatican, as I'm sure you know. In any case, it's irrelevant, since the city is still called the "city on seven hills", and that's what matters.

John was writing about the future (future to him, although not all future to us).

There is no proof that the apostle Peter was ever in Rome, nor that he was crucified upside down; not that either of those things makes any difference anyway.

Babylon is Israel

Babylon, represents Jerusalem and Israel.

Let us correlate some Scriptures (note, all Scripture references are from the King James version, a Protestant version of the Bible):

Babylon described as a whore:

Revelation 17 1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Israel is described as a whore:

Hosea 9 1Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.

Jerusalem described as a harlot (which is another word for whore):

Isaiah 1 21How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

Ezekiel 16 1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, ….15But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

Babylon is clothed in finery:

Rev 17 4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Jerusalem clothed in finery:

Ez 16 10I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 11I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD. 15But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

Babylon kills the prophets and saints:

Rev 17 6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Jerusalem kills the prophets and saints:

Matthew 23 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Babylon is described as "that great city":

Rev 17: 18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Rev 18: 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

The "great city" is the city in which Jesus was crucified:

Rev 11: 8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. . The Kings of the earth gathered in Jerusalem to crucify Christ.

Rev 17: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication

Acts 4: 26The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Babylon is built on seven mountains:

Revelation 17: 9And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings:

Jerusalem is built on seven mountains:

Mt. Goath, Mt. Gareb, Mt. Acra, Mt. Bezetha, Mt. Zion, Mt. Ophel, and Mt. Moriah.

Babylon is destroyed by fire:

Rev 18: 8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire

Jerusalem is destroyed by fire:

Ez 23: 25And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire.

God calls His people out of Babylon:

Rev 18: 4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Paul calls people out of Jerusalem:

Heb 13: 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

All of that is directly from Scripture.

Nowhere does Scripture refer to the Church as Babylon or a harlot. But the Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ.

[CA?]

 

[donadams]

Is Mary necessary for salvation?

 

[Josheb]

2) Rome has expanded considerably, since the 1st C., but it is still called, worldwide, "the city on seven hills".

For the record: So too is Jerusalem a city built on seven hills.


Just saying.

 

[David1701]

For the record: So too is Jerusalem a city built on seven hills.


Just saying.

Yes, I know; so is Edinburgh (where I was born); but, only Rome is known worldwide by that apellation.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I know; so is Edinburgh (where I was born); but, only Rome is known worldwide by that apellation.

Yeah, okay. I'll leave you to the inanity going on with @Arch Stanton (although I encourage everyone not to take the RCC bait) but go on record stating the RCC did not exist when Revelation was written so the seven hills city is more likely that of Jerusalem, not Rome. Any first century reference to Rome would have been Caesar, not the Pope. Neither city was known worldwide in the first century (the Moche of South America had no idea either city existed). You and I have discussed this before, so I won't belabor the points further.

But, in support of your position with Arch, the Reformation could legitimately be understood as an effort to return to the early days of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice, which would include the ECFs prior to the subsequent abuses the increasingly institutionalized religion fomented institutionally. Beza, Bucer, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, et al were all Catholic and all subscribers, to one degree or another, to folks like Irenaeus, Tertulian, Cyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom and Agustine. They all thought they were reflecting positions more consistent with early Church doctrines and practices than the 16th century Roman Catholic Church. What the two main RCs here do is defend 16th century RCism (and later), not RCism as it was in its early days, and most definitely not any RCism that could remotely be considered with whole scripture and actual apostolic tradition. Huge differences. They don't just argue strawmen of Protestantism, the RCism they defend is not that of the ECFs. Praying to Mary and "saints" was not a Christian practice for centuries, so there were no associated doctrines. The selling of indulgences did not exist prior to the 11th century so, again, not precedent in Christ and thought or doctrine, either. The same with unmarried priests. Wholly unscriptural and not espoused or asserted by the apostolic tradition or the ECFs. The primacy of scripture? Readily and frequently demonstrated throughout the NT and the history of the ECFs. When the first pope was caught in hypocrisy scripture (and not some other authority) was used to correct him. Scripture, the apostles, and the ECFs taught "inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh." And while those early Reformers were stuck more than they may have realized in RC thinking, Luther was 100% correct to ask, "Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend," and rightly call it "legend" instead of "history." Who knows if purgatory is a thing?

1. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.
2. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
3. Christians are to be taught that the buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
4. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
5. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
6. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
7. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

All of it throwbacks to earlier, orthodox views and practices and NOT a start of an entirely new and different religion.


And that is why Post 23 is bait.

 

[fastfredy0]

And that is why Post 23 is bait.

... and that's why I have poster's of such things on "ignore" *giggle*

 

[Arch Stanton]

but go on record stating the RCC did not exist when Revelation was written

proof? speculation

But, in support of your position with Arch, the Reformation could legitimately be understood as an effort to return to the early days of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice, which would include the ECFs prior to the subsequent abuses the increasingly institutionalized religion fomented institutionally.

and yet none of them had the authority to do so.... have you even read the ECF's? How do you not see Catholicism?

Beza, Bucer, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, et al were all Catholic and all subscribers, to one degree or another, to folks like Irenaeus, Tertulian, Cyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom and Agustine.

Irenaeus, Jerome, Chrysostom and Augustine were Catholics.

They all thought they were reflecting positions more consistent with early Church doctrines and practices than the 16th century Roman Catholic Church.

We were warned about this --

Gal 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” [thousands of denominations with different doctrines]

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. ** [thousands of denominations with different doctrine]

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock [The Church splitting due to personal interpretation – Martin Luther/John Calvin/John Knox/Wycliffe/Zwingli etc.]

Mt 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.

Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.

What the two main RCs here do is defend 16th century RCism (and later), not RCism as it was in its early days

false.... @donadams and I show ECF's as well.

 

[Josheb]

proof? speculation

N. Proof. The seat of the Church was in Jerusalem, not Rome when Revelation was written.

and yet none of them had the authority to do so....

That is correct: none of the Catholics had the authority to abuse scripture or tradition.

have you even read the ECF's?

Yep. Every single one of them, and in chronological order.

How do you not see Catholicism?

No. I do not have the problem of RC confirmation bias or indoctrination.

Irenaeus, Jerome, Chrysostom and Augustine were Catholics.

So were Bucer, Luther, and Calvin. NONE of the practices of the RCC in the 16th century were things taught or practiced by any of those men. All you've done is confirm what I posted. And I will not participate with your attempt to deny the facts of history or hijack the op.

 

[Arch Stanton]

N. Proof. The seat of the Church was in Jerusalem, not Rome when Revelation was written.

has nothing whatsoever to do with the city.... Peter could have stayed in Antioch and it wouldn't change a thing

That is correct: none of the Catholics had the authority to abuse scripture or tradition.

you mean the former catholics --Luther, etc.

Yep. Every single one of them, and in chronological order.

you may be on your way to crossing the Tiber

So were Bucer, Luther, and Calvin.

and that makes me think of another verse...

1Jn2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

NONE of the practices of the RCC in the 16th century were things taught or practiced by any of those men.

Paleeeezzzzzze ... the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from error [faith/morals]

 

[Arial]

1Jn2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

A prime example of the abuse of Scripture. Just call your religion the "us" and the "our," and wallah---you have proof!

Should the Catholic reformers have stayed with a religion that forbid lay people from possessing the Bible in the common language? That hanged, burned, decapitated and hung heads on bridge spikes, any who were caught translating the Bible into languages they could read and speak? A church organization that did the same to all dissenters of their tyrannical reign, who failed to bow down to them? WHo had self appointed priests, full of sexual perversions, greed, self seeking, self serving, men of ill character, putting them in the place of Christ? Who invented doctrines nowhere found in Scripture, worshiped human saints they named as saints, extracted indulgences with the promise of heaven, set up idols and prayed to them?

Should they have stayed? Was that truly Christ's one true church? The only thing that has changed is the human slaughter.

 

[David1701]

Yeah, okay. I'll leave you to the inanity going on with @Arch Stanton (although I encourage everyone not to take the RCC bait) but go on record stating the RCC did not exist when Revelation was written so the seven hills city is more likely that of Jerusalem, not Rome. Any first century reference to Rome would have been Caesar, not the Pope. Neither city was known worldwide in the first century (the Moche of South America had no idea either city existed). You and I have discussed this before, so I won't belabor the points further.

But, in support of your position with Arch, the Reformation could legitimately be understood as an effort to return to the early days of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice, which would include the ECFs prior to the subsequent abuses the increasingly institutionalized religion fomented institutionally. Beza, Bucer, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, et al were all Catholic and all subscribers, to one degree or another, to folks like Irenaeus, Tertulian, Cyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom and Agustine. They all thought they were reflecting positions more consistent with early Church doctrines and practices than the 16th century Roman Catholic Church. What the two main RCs here do is defend 16th century RCism (and later), not RCism as it was in its early days, and most definitely not any RCism that could remotely be considered with whole scripture and actual apostolic tradition. Huge differences. They don't just argue strawmen of Protestantism, the RCism they defend is not that of the ECFs. Praying to Mary and "saints" was not a Christian practice for centuries, so there were no associated doctrines. The selling of indulgences did not exist prior to the 11th century so, again, not precedent in Christ and thought or doctrine, either. The same with unmarried priests. Wholly unscriptural and not espoused or asserted by the apostolic tradition or the ECFs. The primacy of scripture? Readily and frequently demonstrated throughout the NT and the history of the ECFs. When the first pope was caught in hypocrisy scripture (and not some other authority) was used to correct him. Scripture, the apostles, and the ECFs taught "inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh." And while those early Reformers were stuck more than they may have realized in RC thinking, Luther was 100% correct to ask, "Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend," and rightly call it "legend" instead of "history." Who knows if purgatory is a thing?

1. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.
2. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
3. Christians are to be taught that the buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
4. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
5. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
6. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
7. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

All of it throwbacks to earlier, orthodox views and practices and NOT a start of an entirely new and different religion.


And that is why Post 23 is bait.

Re. your comment about Rome and Catholicism: the papacy is the continuation of the spiritual aspects of the latter Roman Caesars. Even the pagan title "Pontifex Maximus" was passed on from a Caesar to the office of Pope. The alleged "god-man" Caesars morphed into the alleged "god-man" Popes, with their claim to all authority in heaven, on earth and under the earth. This is the real unbroken papal succession.

Roman Catholicism is simply pagan spiritual Rome continued; and the Reformers, almost to a man, acknowledged the office of Pope as the anti-Christ (sitting in the temple of God (the professing church) proclaiming that he is God) and Roman Catholicism as the Whore of Babylon.

This Reformation was only said to really take off, upon the realisation of the office of Pope as the anti-Christ (not one man, but a succession of men in one office). This doctrine was still very prominent, until it was undermined by that jesuitical deception Dispensationalism.

 

[Arch Stanton]

A prime example of the abuse of Scripture.

only if one does not see the early church Catholic

 

[Arial]

only if one does not see the early church Catholic

catholic not Catholic. Regardless what I listed in your abuse of Scripture is what the Reformers left. And it is not what John was talking about or the "us" he was writing to.

 

[Arch Stanton]

catholic not Catholic.

same - universal/catholic/the way/nazarene/christian

succession through the laying on of hands through the centuries

 

[donadams]

proof? speculation

and yet none of them had the authority to do so.... have you even read the ECF's? How do you not see Catholicism?

Irenaeus, Jerome, Chrysostom and Augustine were Catholics.

We were warned about this --

Gal 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” [thousands of denominations with different doctrines]

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. ** [thousands of denominations with different doctrine]

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock [The Church splitting due to personal interpretation – Martin Luther/John Calvin/John Knox/Wycliffe/Zwingli etc.]

Mt 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.

Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.

false.... @donadams and I show ECF's as well.

Yep

Continuity & consistency!

Opposed to any and all change all novelties!

Nothing of the faith may be changed!!!

The holy church found by Christ on Peter and the apostles have the duty to Guard the deposit of faith and to explain it faithfully. Never change!

Pope Agatho 7c

This Apostolic Church never turned from the way of truth nor held any kind of error. It is imperative that nothing of the truths which have been defined be lessened, nothing altered, nothing added, but that they be preserved intact in word and meaning. This is the true rule of faith.