Pope John Paul II is in Hell

[Me Died Blue]

Well put, Jie-Huli. We are all ultimately grave sinners, and so honoring someone in such a sense is ultimately saying that they did great things for society relative to other people, which is certainly proper to recognize for many people - but as you said, surely we have absolutely no reason to consider the Pope as worthy of any such recognition.

 

[pastorway]

posted by Lon
What I do mean:
I do mean that is an unspeakable tragedy when someone dies unsaved.
I do mean by the "truth" the gospel of salvation that the Lord has commanded us to speak to make disciples of all nations.
I do mean by speaking the truth in love, to speak as kindly, lovinly and humbly as I know how, but not to avoid speaking because I am afraid for any reason including offending.
I do mean that I care not one whit whether I "am right in and of myself" only that I speak the plain truth of God's Word, which is right.

Agreed

 

[pastorway]

by the way, here is Dr. Al Mohler's blog today - he says what I want to say, only better:

(emphasis added)

John Paul II--The Man and His Legacy

The death of Pope John Paul II brings one of the Roman Catholic Church's longest papal reigns to an end and closes the last chapter on one of the most significant lives of our times. By any measure, John Paul II was one of the most influential figures on the world scene, leading over a billion Roman Catholics worldwide and exercising a significant influence on world affairs during some of the most tumultuous decades of the 20th century.

Inevitably, his death raises fundamental questions about how evangelical Christians should understand the papacy itself, as well as those who hold the papal office. Given the low level of theological knowledge and the high emotionalism of the era, many evangelicals appear confused when confronted with an event like the death of a pope. Furthermore, evangelicals are more likely to have been aware of this pope in contrast with those who held the office in the past. In this age of mass communications and media, John Paul II has been one of the most publicized, televised, and celebrated public figures of our age.

For evangelicals, the crucial question comes with the institution of the papacy itself. After all, the Reformation of the 16th century required a rejection of papal power and authority, and the Reformers soon came to understand the papacy as an unbiblical office that inevitably compromised the authority and sufficiency of scripture. Over time, the heirs of the Reformers came to understand that the papacy is a fundamentally unbiblical office that posits an earthly monarch as the earthly head of the church. Furthermore, this office is then invested with claims to spiritual and temporal power that are combined with claims of apostolic succession and serve as foundational pillars for the comprehensive claims of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Protestant rejection of the papacy was no small matter, though some liberal Protestants and careless evangelicals seem to have forgotten why. Beyond this, the papacy is inextricably linked to the structure of Catholic theology and the superstructure of truth claims, practices, and doctrines that constitute Catholicism. Evangelical Christians simply cannot accept the legitimacy of the papacy and must resist and reject claims of papal authority. To do otherwise would be to compromise biblical truth and reverse the Reformation. With the death of John Paul II, evangelicals are confronted with a sensitive question: Can we recognize genuine virtues in a man who for over a quarter of a century held an office we must expressly reject?

We should be unembarrassed and unhesitant to declare our admiration for John Paul II's courageous stand against Communism, his bold defense of human dignity and human life, and his robust and substantial defense of truth in the face of postmodernism. In many of the great battles of our day, evangelicals found John Paul II to be a key ally. This was especially true with the crucial issues of abortion and euthanasia. With bold strokes and a clear voice, this pope defended human life from the moment of conception until natural death. In his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (1995), he argued for an implacable opposition to what he called the "culture of death"--an age that would increasingly embrace death rather than life and forfeit human dignity on the altar of human autonomy and individual rights.

In Veritatis Splendor (1993), John Paul argued that the modern concept of freedom as unrestrained human liberty would lead to the destruction of Christian ethics and the undermining of all authority. In this powerful statement, the pope defended the very nature of truth against postmodern denials and a culture increasingly attracted to moral relativism.

The legacy of this pope cannot be separated from the facts of his life. Born May 18, 1920 in Wadowice, just south of Krakow in Poland, Karol Wojtyla would come to adulthood in the context of Communist oppression. Throughout his life, he would identify himself as a Pole and a Slav, and the twists and turns of his biography would become a focus of world attention.

Trained as an actor, Karol Wojtyla would later decide to enter the priesthood, following a calling that brought great respect in his native Poland. With remarkable speed, Father Wojtyla moved into the hierarchy of the church. He was consecrated a bishop in 1958--just 12 years after entering the priesthood. In 1964, he was installed as Archbishop of Krakow, and just three years later he was created a cardinal by Pope Paul VI.

Long before he became a cardinal of the church, Karol Wojtyla had attracted the attention of the Vatican. He had studied in Rome and had developed a reputation in the academic circles of the church. Theologically, he was seen as a progressive, and he took an active part in the Second Vatican Council, called into session by Pope John XXIII.

When Pope Paul VI died at Castel Gandolfo on August 6, 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla was already discussed as a potential successor. Nevertheless, when the College of Cardinals elected Albino Luciani on August 25, 1978, it looked as if Cardinal Wojtyla had lost his chance to become pope.

All this changed on September 28, 1978, when Cardinal Luciani--now Pope John Paul I--died in his sleep during the night, barely a month after his election as pope.

The election of Karol Wojtyla as pope came on October 16, 1978, and he immediately announced that he would take the name "John Paul II" as a way of honoring his immediate predecessor. Nevertheless, it was clear that this new pope would take the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church firmly in hand.

In his early years, this Polish pope was known by millions of persons around the globe, primarily as a man who opposed Communist tyranny with personal courage and the weight of his papal office. John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope since 1522, and the historical importance of his election became clear as he used the full influence of his papal office to encourage the Solidarity movement in his native Poland.

Along with President Ronald W. Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II saw Communism as an assault upon human dignity and the human spirit. Like Ronald Reagan, John Paul II grew in international stature after surviving an assassination attempt. In the case of John Paul II, the 1981 assassination attempt that nearly took his life was organized by the Bulgarian secret police, presumably under orders from the KGB in the Soviet Union.

Evangelical Christians should honor the courage of this man and his historic role in bringing Communist tyranny to an end--at least within the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. Added to this, we should honor his defense of human dignity and his eloquent and influential witness against abortion and the Culture of Death.

Even so, we must also recognize that John Paul II also represented the most troubling aspects of Roman Catholicism. He defended and continued the theological directions set loose at the Second Vatican Council. Even as he consolidated authority in the Vatican and disciplined wayward priests and theologians, he never confronted the most pressing issues of evangelical concern.

Even in his most recent book, released in the United States just days before his death, John Paul II continued to define the work of Christ as that which is added to human effort. Like the church he served, John Paul II rejected justification by faith. Beyond this, he rejected the biblical doctrine of hell, embraced inclusivism, and promoted an extreme form of Marian devotion, referring to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," and "Mother of all Graces."

In the end, evangelicals should be thankful for the personal virtues Pope John Paul II demonstrated, and for his advocacy on behalf of life, liberty, and human dignity. Yet we cannot ignore the institution of the papacy itself, nor the complex of doctrines, truth claims, and false doctrines that John Paul II taught, defended, and promulgated. As Roman Catholics mourn the passing of the pope, we should take care to respond with both compassion and conviction, fulfilling our own responsibility to take the measure of this man and his legacy.

Well said.

Phillip

 

[jenson75]

This is an interesting line of discussion going on here. What is the difference if a head of state dies and we fly our flags at half mast and when the Pope dies? I thought he was head of his own "state"?

As for whether the Pope is in Hell, we will speak the truth and please let's practice some common sense. My Grandmother died a fine Buddhist, but if anyone here says to me she is in Hell, I will wished him to be there myself! That does not mean I do not know where she is, but it is a sensitive issue, not to be taken lightly.

So as much as I respect the essay written "Pope John Paul II is in Hell", I cannot endorse every word... I do not send someone to Hell, only God has the right to that.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Originally posted by jenson75
This is an interesting line of discussion going on here. What is the difference if a head of state dies and we fly our flags at half mast and when the Pope dies? I thought he was head of his own "state"?

Quite right Jenson. He is a Head of State and hence the flag flying is perfectly in order in my opinion!

Regarding the rest of your post, yes, it is a very sensitive issue, and I think perhaps we risk alienating people unneccesarily. I think what Matt is trying to do is to respond to all the 'the Pope was a wonderful christian' nonsense that is abounding. Apparently he spent his whole life proclaiming 'the true gospel' according to a priest I heard on radio five live. Its nonsense!

I personally agree that perhaps the term 'xxx is in hell' is not the best way of going about things.

JH

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
Quite right Jenson. He is a Head of State and hence the flag flying is perfectly in order in my opinion!
JH

With due respect, I would disagree that this is the proper way to look at the question of the flag lowering at a "Christian" college.

Does anyone honestly believe that the college lowered the flag simply because the Pope was the head of some tiny little state? If the Prince of Monaco or some other little nation (or some large nation outside of the US for that matter) were to die, do you think that the college would lower the flag for him? It seems clear that when a "Christian" college lowers the flag for a man who was principally the representative of a RELIGIOUS system, the school is making a RELIGIOUS statement, and it is this statement that I believe a true Christian college must not make.

We are not talking about government buildings lowering flags, but about a "Christian" school doing so.

While I do not disagree with Philip's post above, in the sense that in individual conversations where we can speak clearly about such nuances we may express agreement with certain things the Pope did (those things, such as condemnation of abortion, which agree with the Bible's teachings) along with speaking of the tragedy of his dying without truly knowing the Lord, this does not equate with lowering flags for him. What is the message a Christian school sends when it does so? To me it is obvious that the message they are sending is that the Pope was worthy of very special honour, and when a religious institution says this they are presumably basing the honour on matters of religion. Therefore the ultimate message of lowering the flag is one of acceptance of the Pope's religion as true. I honestly cannot see anyway around this conclusion.

The school does not need to hang a banner that says he is in hell. The very existence of a Pope is a tragedy, and surely his death is as well, it is certainly a very grave subject not to be taken lightly. But to give him special recognition and honours is an ecumenical compromise of the pure Gospel, in my opinion.

 

[jenson75]

Quote "Does anyone honestly believe that the college lowered the flag simply because the Pope was the head of some tiny little state?"


Are you sure the Pope is the head of some tiny little state? Money, power, influence, ambassadors, army, and a whole 1700 years of history marked by violence, corruption, greed, even wars. Is that a sign of a "tiny, little state"? Geographically, yes (that is debatable)... but....



Quote "We are not talking about government buildings lowering flags, but about a "Christian" school doing so.



Whether the "Christian" school choose to lower its flag is up to them (personally, I would not). We need to be sensitive in situations like this. What is the government's policy? What about the RC students in the school? We want to convert them, but a show of disrespect by not flying the flag at half-mast will lead (inevitably) to some becoming more hardened against the Gospel (I assume the "Christian" school is an interdenominational type).



[Edited on 4-5-2005 by jenson75]

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by jenson75]

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

I posted my thoughts aganst the pope office and in lowering the flag to honor an antichrist on my school forum. I did this as respectful as I could, yet everyone attacked me like crazy. My biggest pet peeve is when people assert without any clear understanding on what they are asserting. While I posted a huge explanation with scripture nad historic theologians, people would just simply say "your ignorant" and then leave it be with no substance shown. I am so warry of this...

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
But to give him special recognition and honours is an ecumenical compromise of the pure Gospel, in my opinion.

The Pope may have done things that were OUTWARDLY good (good in the sight of men), but if he died without the gospel, they were not good in the eyes of God.

I have to agree with Jie-Huli that the Puritans would have gasped at the idea of honoring the ANTI-Christ! Of all people to honor. George Tiller is influential in my city and to thousands of women around the country, but I would consider it a tradgedy to honor him with a half-staff even though he does SOME things that are outwardly good! He attends "REFORMATION LUTHERAN CHURCH." He tithes his blood money. He contributes to the economy. Yet when it comes to the gospel and anything pretaing to Godliness, the Pope and George Tiller are alike in that they ONLY do damage and perversion.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Would we fly flags at half staff for Hitler just because he was a head of state? On top of that Hitler for the most part just killed bodies. We are talking about an out and out soul destroyer.

CT

 

[lwadkins]

A lot of the agrument here is based on the idea of "seperating the man form the office of POPE." And as nice as it sounds that we should honor the man for his courageous stands on the issues of morality and against communism, I think in the end it will be impossible to seperate Karol Wojtyla from Pope John Paul II. As a practical issue to laud one will appear to be lauding the other and so in a convoluted way also the office of POPE. And so also will be seen as an affirmation of Roman Catholicism. Intentions are great but we also have to consider the practical outworkings of our actions. What we mean by our words is not always what is understood and in this particular instance I think the danger of being misunderstood on this issue is acute.

 

[SolaScriptura]

A friend of mine read Matt's article and said that it didn't give John Paul any credit for his accomplishments. I advised that Matt's intent wasn't to write a biography.

At any rate, I think a good way to keep his pluses and minuses in perspective is to remember Pope John Paul II as follows:
"Pope John Paul II was an anti-homosexual, pro-family, pro-life, pro-democracy anti-Christ."

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
A friend of mine read Matt's article and said that it didn't give John Paul any credit for his accomplishments. I advised that Matt's intent wasn't to write a biography.

At any rate, I think a good way to keep his pluses and minuses in perspective is to remember Pope John Paul II as follows:
"Pope John Paul II was an anti-homosexual, pro-family, pro-life, pro-democracy anti-Christ."

That is just hilarious

 

[BobVigneault]

Thank you Ben for a kinder and gentler summary.

 

[just_grace]

Originally posted by webmaster
With all the nonsense the media is portraying, I had to write "something." A short blurb:

The Pope is in Hell
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by webmaster]

God alone is Judge and has authority to cast into Gehenna, ( Hell is the english translation ) the lake of fire that burns for ever and ever. Shut out from His Glorious Presence...yes a Hell indeed.

"Judge not, that you be not judged"

( quote ) The Lord Jesus Christ. Those who crucified the lamb were wicked, but Jesus said "forgive them Father, they know not what they do"

While I hate sin and unrighteousness I sometimes wonder the spirit of this board.

Try to spend less time condemning people and more time displaying Gods boundless Love and Grace. And dont forget to tell someone about Christ tomorrow. 'God has a work to do and we must help Him.'

David

 

[just_grace]

Originally posted by webmaster
With all the nonsense the media is portraying, I had to write "something." A short blurb:

The Pope is in Hell
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by webmaster]

God alone is Judge and has authority to cast into Gehenna, ( Hell is the english translation ) the lake of fire that burns for ever and ever. Shut out from His Glorious Presence...yes a Hell indeed.

"Judge not, that you be not judged"

( quote ) The Lord Jesus Christ. Those who crucified the lamb were wicked, but Jesus said "forgive them Father, they know not what they do"

While I hate sin and unrighteousness I sometimes wonder the spirit of this board.

Try to spend less time condemning people and more time displaying Gods boundless Love and Grace. And dont forget to tell someone about Christ tomorrow. 'God has a work to do and we must help Him.'

David

 

[just_grace]

Originally posted by webmaster
With all the nonsense the media is portraying, I had to write "something." A short blurb:

The Pope is in Hell
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by webmaster]

God alone is Judge and has authority to cast into Gehenna, ( Hell is the english translation ) the lake of fire that burns for ever and ever. Shut out from His Glorious Presence...yes a Hell indeed.

"Judge not, that you be not judged"

( quote ) The Lord Jesus Christ. Those who crucified the lamb were wicked, but Jesus said "forgive them Father, they know not what they do"

While I hate sin and unrighteousness I sometimes wonder the spirit of this board.

Try to spend less time condemning people and more time displaying Gods boundless Love and Grace. And dont forget to tell someone about Christ tomorrow. 'God has a work to do and we must help Him.'

David

 

[BobVigneault]

I feel I should say something nice about the pope.

After all, I was christened in the mother church as an infant. My priest used to tuck me in and say the rosary on Saturday nights after he and my dad would fill the evening with boozing.

We would talk about my future as a priest. At 12 I kissed the bishops ring in confirmation of my faith. I finished 12 years of RCC catechism. I went to the vatican and was blessed by Pope Paul.

So my conscience is pricked and I am compelled to defend the pontiff.

So here is is, I will put JP 2's frequent flyer miles up against Calvin's, Luther's, Swingli's and Knox's. Take that protest-ants!

(463 posts!)

 

[just_grace]

Originally posted by webmaster
With all the nonsense the media is portraying, I had to write "something." A short blurb:

The Pope is in Hell
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by webmaster]

God alone is Judge and has authority to cast into Gehenna, ( Hell is the english translation ) the lake of fire that burns for ever and ever. Shut out from His Glorious Presence...yes a Hell indeed.

"Judge not, that you be not judged"

( quote ) The Lord Jesus Christ. Those who crucified the lamb were wicked, but Jesus said "forgive them Father, they know not what they do"

While I hate sin and unrighteousness I sometimes wonder the spirit of this board.

Try to spend less time condemning people and more time displaying Gods boundless Love and Grace. And dont forget to tell someone about Christ tomorrow. 'God has a work to do and we must help Him.'

David

 

[BobVigneault]

David,
Christ has done the work and he appoints us to preach the gospel which the Spirit applies to those called by the Father according to His purpose.

It's been said before but I'll repeat it, Matt's language may have been politically incorrect but his teaching was clear. He presented the gospel. He used the occasion of the popes death as an opportunity to both cut through the nonsense and present the true gospel.

There is nothing so crushing as watching the gospel blurred, buried, corrupted, morphed and missed. Since the pope took ill the gospel has been under these assaults. Matt has attacked the spirit and work of anti-Christ whose message has been amplified and dignified by the media and the papal followers.

You may not have liked Matt's language, but the truth was clear and scriptural. It got peoples attention. I would have preferred it remain closed circuit to the board but Matt's article was not judging the pope, it was judging a false gospel and the system that perpetuates it.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by maxdetail]

 

[just_grace]

I do not think Christ would argue with you, He would just say that you do not know what spirit you are of.

I apologize if I have been flippant here.

David

 

[BobVigneault]

He would just say that you do not know what spirit you are of.

David, that is the whole argument. The pope's teachings and Vaticans 1 and 2 are definitely teachings of a different spirit, the spirit of anti-Christ.

If by spirit you mean 'sentiment' then I can understand someone being offended, but if by spirit you mean the Holy Spirit verses anti-Christ then again I have to disagree with you. Matt is representing the Spirit's teaching in the Scriptures.

 

[Me Died Blue]

David, why did you make so many repeat posts at different times?

Originally posted by just_grace
God alone is Judge and has authority to cast into Gehenna, ( Hell is the english translation ) the lake of fire that burns for ever and ever. Shut out from His Glorious Presence...yes a Hell indeed.

Indeed, God alone has authority to cast into hell, but He has also revealed to us in His Word the standard by which He does so, which is faith in the Gospel.

Originally posted by just_grace
"Judge not, that you be not judged"

This has to be one of the most mis-used verses in Scripture. Notice the context in Matthew 7:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

The context in which Christ is warning people not to judge is that they will be judged by the same standard. With that in mind, by what standard are Matt and others on this board judging the Pope? The standard of faith in the Gospel - and none of us have any reason to be afraid of being judged by that standard, for we all meet that standard in Christ and will thus pass the judgment test by that standard on the Last Day. But the Pope perpetually denied that Gospel, which is why we can biblically judge him by that standard. So going by that standard and paralleling the above passage, does Matt or do any of us have a log in our eyes so great that it makes the Pope's complete denial of the Gospel a mere speck in comparison? Hardly - for that is the greatest log one can have.

Originally posted by just_grace
( quote ) The Lord Jesus Christ. Those who crucified the lamb were wicked, but Jesus said "forgive them Father, they know not what they do"

Those who were crucifying Him were still living past that point and thus had a possibility of being redeemed. Likewise, we continue to earnestly and charitably pray for the repentance and redemption of those Roman Catholics still alive. But the Pope is now dead, and has clearly rejected the Gospel with no future chance of repentance remaining.

Originally posted by just_grace
Try to spend less time condemning people and more time displaying Gods boundless Love and Grace. And dont forget to tell someone about Christ tomorrow. 'God has a work to do and we must help Him.'

It indeed would be unhealthy and unbalanced to focus on the condemnation of the wicked without a subsequent Gospel presentation - but we must remember that the former is just as necessary for the latter as the latter is for the former, for without a realization of their corruption, people have no need for a Gospel to embrace. And in Matt's article, he did indeed give a presentation of the true Gospel in discussing the Pope's denial of it, and hopefully Roman Catholics who read it will be granted repentance to accept the Gospel presented therein through the Word.

Also, while we should also not focus solely on the condemnation of deceivers passed away, one as deceptive and blasphemous as the Pope certainly warrants such a rebuke and warning, especially in light of all the current abounding confusion evidenced by the false moral credit evangelicals and Catholics alike are currently giving him, which is actually why Matt said he wrote his piece in the first place.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

"Judge not, that you be not judged"

Let's look at that a bit more closer:

Matthew 7:1-5 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Christ says that we are not to be HYPOPCRITICAL when we judge, not that we are not to judge at all. And this has nothing to do with false teachers. It is referring to "brothers." There is a world of differecne. For example, If I lie, and rebuke someone else for thier lying, while at the same time am lying, then I am judging in the worng way (thought he judgment may be right). It has nothing to do whatsoever with doing "away" with judgment. By your post (AND email), you made TWO judgements.

"Those who crucified the lamb were wicked, but Jesus said "forgive them Father, they know not what they do."

What does that have to do with a false teacher, or someone antichristian? Would you really say that Christ allowed false teaching or was sympathetic to it? Not at all. Brief examples:

Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

2 Peter 2:1 2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.


"While I hate sin and unrighteousness I sometimes wonder the spirit of this board."

What spirit might that be? You are not being very clear.

"Try to spend less time condemning people and more time displaying Gods boundless Love and Grace. And dont forget to tell someone about Christ tomorrow. 'God has a work to do and we must help Him.'"

I would simply ask - what is love?

John 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him."

2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments;

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Thus, was the pope a deciever or not? He was. Of the highest measure.

 

[Robin]

A reminder, from those great Reformed theologians, The Talking Heads, on Life During (Spiritual) Wartime

This ain´t no party, this ain´t no disco,
This ain´t no fooling around
No time for dancing, or lovey dovey,
I ain´t got time for that now



R.

 

[The Lamb]

Matt:

In your last post, I must ask, do you make a practice of answering everything with a question?

I say, Matthew, Love your enemies, you say, What is Love?

I say:Matthew do not judge.
you say, What does it mean to judge?

Matthew, what Spirit did you write that with?
you say "Joseph what Spirit do you mean?

Where did you learn this tactic? I am serious, you use it extremely well and if one did not have control, I could see why one may want to scream. On a good day, I would last about 10 minutes without laughing and walking away.


Just a little aside to take the focus off your article and the pope.

And I know everyone that judges harshly and "Scriptually" (notice the quotes) Love to say "Matt 7 has to be taken in context. It does not mean what it says. Do you ever notice that the only ones who say that are spending the time seperating the sheep and the goats?

I did not read "your" article because instead of worrying about who is in hell, and finding error, I would much rather spend time reading an article you wrote promoting God alone. I could go to paisley or chicks site and read this stuff.

[Edited on 4-7-2005 by The Lamb]

 

[Average Joey]

Originally posted by OS_X
I'm standing right next to Matthew.

Only thing, I posted my take on it on a non-Christian message board.

Time to Hate Kerry again...

Kerry that`s even braver since it wasn`t on a Christian board.

 

[BobVigneault]

In your last post, I must ask, do you make a practice of answering everything with a question?

Hey Joseph, good use of infinite regress! Matthew asks some questions and then you answer him with a non-sequitur and then add some more questions. This will go on for a bit and then one of you will say, "Oh yeah, well.....infinity".

You have got to cool down friend. The enemy isn't in here, he's out there.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by maxdetail

In your last post, I must ask, do you make a practice of answering everything with a question?

Hey Joseph, good use of infinite regress! Matthew asks some questions and then you answer him with a non-sequitur and then add some more questions. This will go on for a bit and then one of you will say, "Oh yeah, well.....infinity".

You have got to cool down friend. The enemy isn't in here, he's out there.

I was beeing quite cool and serious Bob. I have noticed it and it works. I know the enemy is not here. I guess I am tired of this "Is he in hell, is he not" debate everywhere I go on the web.

GOd knows. I have enough to worry about in my own walk to take more than 3 minutes to determine this about anyone.

What fruits can possibly come from this type of discussion? I, for the life of me, cannot find one person doing this in all of the Holy Writ. If it is there I need to have someone show me.

In fact, quiet the opposite happens. When the Apostles questioned Jesus about His dealings with certain sinners, He rebuked them.

"Repent, or ye shall likewise perish"


Joseph

 

[BobVigneault]

Joseph, even Paul had his hot buttons as we learn in Galatians. He was telling fine church leaders that they should emasculate themselves and I'm being more polite than he is.

This thread is dying. Let's let it die. I have read a quote by a so called evangelical on Dobson's site that 'the pope embodied the Gospel in a unique way". That's a hot button in a community like this. There is no salvation outside of the gospel and to have the pope referred to as the embodiment of the gospel is so very frustrating and blasphemous.

Matt cut to the chase and you and I wouldn't have used the same language. It created a dialogue, it offended and it encouraged.

One of my favorite sermons is Rolfe Barnard's "The God that Kills People". Man, that got your attention. It was harsh but it got right to the meat of the matter. God is sovereign. Can we agree Joseph that Matt spoke the gospel truth but he used a dedactic method that you and I would not have?

I did not see hate in his article but a call to those who blindly follow a man, who could most likely fit the office of 'the anti-Christ', and instead turn to the only means of salvation.

I don't want this topic to become an occasion for condescending and snipping remarks about one another.

Let's let this thread die. Maybe we could start another thread about whether or not the pro-life stance of the RCC is but a trojan horse scheme to infiltrate the protestant church and diminish the gospel. We could start that one.... but I'm not going to.

Blessings Joseph

[Edited on 4-7-2005 by maxdetail]