Jmj

Dear Moderator,
I don't know if the problem is that you have been extremely busy and unable to spend a lot of time reading threads, but I have needed your attention to something for the last 24 hours and I have been unable to capture it. (At least, I hope that you have overlooked, rather than ignored, my questions to you.)

Please go to a thread that I am about to link for you, and read the comments I directed to you in two posts, one yesterday (Dec. 4) and one today. Then, please respond, either there or here to my questions and comments, so that I will no longer be in "no-man's-land."

My first message to you on the thread in question actually starts with brief comments to Laurent and Regina. The first words are:
"Laurent, please ignore what I said to you last time."
My second message begins with these words:
"Moderator, I am surprised that you have not yet responded."

The thread is here.

One more thing, please. You may have overlooked an urgent appeal from Paul H to delete an incredible mass (over 50 pages, 300K) of garbage that has just been copied and pasted on this thread.

Thank you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003

Answers

I have "cleaned up" the first-referenced thread, removing posts that had no relevance whatsoever to the topic of the thread. Obviously topics frequently tend to wander from that of the original post, and I cannot, nor do I have any desire to take such action on all threads which deviate from the original topic. But this one really had become a free-for-all with no coherent topic at all, and included a large number of ad hominem posts containing nothing relative to the purpose of the Forum.

The second-referenced thread I have deleted entirely. It never did have any relevance to Catholicism, and virtually everything posted there consisted of attacks against the Church and/or support for the self-styled "prophet" William Marion Branham. The presence of that thread just invited abuses such as that posted there today.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 05, 2003.

MODERATOR! Why are you selectively removing posts to make me look like I am saying things I am not! You know I read today that it used to be against the church to own a Bible! So, I guess this is typical of the CHURCH sensoring information! You are going to burn in hell for that! Being a member of the very church of THE ANTICHRIST isn't going to save you!

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

jeanie, calm yourself, there was never a church ban on people having bibles... you are misinformed yet again

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2003.

Jeanie, there is nothing to show that the church censered bibles and so on, if you dont have grounds for your claims please dont make them.

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), December 05, 2003.

I do!

A rather remarkable change has taken place in Rome’s attitude toward the use of the Bible by the laity. During the Middle Ages certain restrictions were put on the reading of the Bible. In 1199 Innocent III declared that reading of the Bible without the supervision of the duly appointed priest was not to be tolerated. A priest had to be present to interpret the Bible. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have the books of the Bible, with the exception of the Psalter, the breviary, and the horas beatae Mariae. The Council of Trent established a commission to prepare an Index librorum prohibitorum et expurgandorum. Pius IV in 1564 laid down ten rules to guide the commission, the congregatio indicis. The fourth rule required the laity to obtain written permission from the bishop to read the Bible in the vernacular. Even then, the translation had to be one made by Catholic writers. The rule added, “But whosoever shall presume to read these Bibles or have them in possession without such permit shall not be capable of receiving absolution for their sins, unless they have first given up their Bibles to the ordinary [the bishop].” It is not difficult to see why many lay people concluded that the safest course for them to follow would be not to own a Bible of any kind. Rome never issued an absolute prohibition of the reading of the Bible by the laity, but it did everything it could to discourage it! This attitude toward Bible reading explains also why Rome objected to the work of the Bible Societies, which were established to publish the Bible without note or comment and to distribute it as widely as possible. Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Inter Praecipuas of May 8, 1844, declared, for example, “Among the chief machinations by which in our times non-Catholics of various denominations try to ensnare Catholic believers and turn their minds away from the holiness of their Faith, a prominent place is held by the Bible Societies. These societies, first instituted in England and since extended far and wide, we now behold in battle array, conspiring to translate the books of divine Scripture into all the popular languages, to issue immense numbers of copies, to spread them indiscriminately among Christians and heathen, and to entice every individual to read them without guidance.” In striking contrast to this frontal attack on the Bible Societies is the new spirit of friendly, limited interest, at least, in their work. Evidence of this is found in the American Bible Society’s News Release of September 10, 1968, reporting on a meeting in which the worldwide work of the United Bible Societies for the coming year was planned. “A Consultant at one session,” the Release informs us, “was the Rev. Walter M. Abbott, S. J., Assistant to His Eminence Cardinal Bea of the Vatican.” While one could not go so far as to say that Rome is now cooperating with the existing Bible Societies, it no longer condemns them as severely as it formerly did.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

where did you plaguerize those slanted and out of context history fakes jeanie?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2003.

It's not fake history. Lying is a sin. It came from the WELS and we don't lie! How can you be so blind and stupid as to not see the truth in front of your face!

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

Jeanie,

Please study history. This question came up in one of my classes about the Christianity during the Middle Ages. And the Prof., who by the way is a specialist in the Reformation and Protestant Theology, said that there was never a pronouncement by the Church saying that lay people could not own a Bible.

Most lay people couldn't own a Bible because books were incredibly expensive because they were hand-made. Not only hand-made but also hand written and laced with precious metals, like gold. It might help if you actually got to see a 600 year old Bible. They are really cool.

Also most lay people wouldn't have been able to read the Bible since it was in Latin and not the vernacular. But this did not mean that lay people could not know what the Bible said. Many lay people had little prayer books that were cheap and in the vernacular. These books had Bible verses in them. Also some people just memorized the Bible word for word.

There might be a reason that this Pope said what he did. Augustine, which I have talked about before on this forum, says that to study the Bible you need someone to help you do it. Why? Because we have teachers for everything. Everything you know someone has taught you. It might be through a book, a sermon, or a lecture, but the fact is that what you know is not because you taught it to yourself. If we deny the fact of needing teachers we diminish God's creation. Why? Because God created us as social beings, needing one another for things.

WELS, "we don't lie." Can you think of one reason for WELS to show the Catholic Church in a good light? Do give me your coup out crap about WELS not lieing.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

sorry, moderator you can delete this post

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

Bold off

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

Here is the old Catholic Encyclopedia on Bible Societies

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02544a.htm

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

"I have "cleaned up" the first-referenced thread, removing posts that had no relevance whatsoever to the topic of the thread."

You mean you cleaned out references to the traditional Mass; the Tridentine, or Mass of Trent. That's what really happened. I put up pictures of the traditional Mass, and they were considered, well, provocative.

That's because there's disdain for it, and for those who promote it. This disdain is contrary to Catholicism.

The topic of the thread was "No more clapping and dancing at Mass".

The traditional Mass is a most perfect antidote to such abuses, and in fact, His Holiness Pope John Paul II has demanded, in his own words:

"By virtue of my Apostolic Authority I Decree ... respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition..."

I will stay in the forum, and I will continue to promote the traditional Mass. If I am prevented from promoting the traditional Mass, then I will make the case that those preventing me from promoting the traditional Mass are disobeying the Pope.

Because they are, and they are wrong for doing so.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 05, 2003.

No change whatsoever has taken place in the Church's teaching concerning the use of its scriptures by its people. As is typical when fundamentalists try to criticize the Church of God, there are some "facts" upon which you base your accusations, but your total cluelessness concerning those facts makes your comments silly. (You're SURE you don't read Chick Publications? This nonsense is right out of his crazy books.)

You state: "In 1199 Innocent III declared that reading of the Bible without the supervision of the duly appointed priest was not to be tolerated."

A: True! At this time in history the only Bibles that existed were the huge ornate hand-lettered versions laboriously produced by Catholic monks in monasteries. These were extremely valuable. Not uncommonly, efforts were made to steal them. Such a book could be sold on the black market for the equivalent of three years honest wages. In addition, enemies of Christianity sometimes attempted to deface or destroy the Word of God. Naturally, no private individual owned such a Bible. A Bible could be found only in the local church, where it was chained in a prominent place to help thwart thieves and vandals while keeping the Word of God available to whoever might wish to read it. Of course, more than 95% of the population was illiterate, so there were not hoards of people availing themselves of this opportunity. Given the problems of the time, a disciplinary decision was made that a clergyman would oversee the use of the Book by any non-clergy who wished to use it. Pretty reasonable, wouldn't you say?

You state: "A priest had to be present to interpret the Bible."

A: This is pure nonsense - either your own interpretation of facts you didn't understand, or a fabrication by the writer of some anti-Catholic literature you read. In any case, totally false and totally ridiculous. Certainly a priest could provide some guidance in the reading of scripture; but the Catholic Church has recognized the inherent dangers of doctrinal definition by private interpretation from the beginning, LONG before the Protestant rebellion demonstrated how right the Church was on this issue. If every priest was allowed to privately interpret the Word of God, Catholic doctrine would be in the same chaotic state as Protestant doctrine.

You state: "The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have the books of the Bible, with the exception of the Psalter, the breviary, and the horas beatae Mariae."

A: Close, but not quite. The Council of Toulouse was called in response to the prominent heresy of Albigensianism, which taught that the flesh and everything related to the flesh, including marriage, was inherently evil. They also encouraged suicide as a means of being released from the evil of the flesh. The Albigensians, like many other prominent heretical groups, produced their own version of the "bible", with passages added, omitted, or rewritten to support their heretical ideas. Therefore the bishops of the Church wisely recommended a restriction on personal, unguided reading of the Bible in the area affected (mainly southern France) until such time as the heresy was ended and the heretical "bibles" were gathered up and burned. This was one of several times the Church had to briefly limit its usual policy of encouraging scriptural reading, in order to preserve and protect the purity of the Holy Scriptures which were entrusted to it by God Himself.

"It is not difficult to see why many lay people concluded that the safest course for them to follow would be not to own a Bible of any kind. Rome never issued an absolute prohibition of the reading of the Bible by the laity, but it did everything it could to discourage it!"

A: This again is pure nonsense. The laity did not have to "decide" not to own a Bible, since the printing press had not been invented yet, and there were no Bibles available for the common man to own. Furthermore the great majority of people were illiterate, and could not read a Bible even if one were available. But they didn't need a Bible! They learned the fullness of Christian truth the same way every generation had learned it since the time of the Apostles - by the preaching and teaching of the Church He founded - the one He commanded to "make disciples of all peoples".

"This attitude toward Bible reading explains also why Rome objected to the work of the Bible Societies, which were established to publish the Bible without note or comment and to distribute it as widely as possible. Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Inter Praecipuas of May 8, 1844, declared, for example, “Among the chief machinations by which in our times non-Catholics of various denominations try to ensnare Catholic believers and turn their minds away from the holiness of their Faith, a prominent place is held by the Bible Societies'

A: This quote from Pope Gregory makes it quite clear why the Church opposed unauthorized "Bible societies" - not because of any objection to people reading the Bible, but rather because of a firm commitment to ensure that what people were reading really WAS the Bible, not one of the many poor, unauthorized, often blatantly heretical versions being distributed by such societies.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 05, 2003.

jeanie says

It came from the WELS and we don't lie!

but i would say that if her behavior here is representative of wels then the whole group is nothing but a band of hypocritical lying bigots who worship the beast of revelation and hate everyone who doesnt follow them into the lake of sulfer

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2003.

WELS doesn't lie! All the other denominations do! I have asked for a viable reason why I should believe that. So far, none has been offered. What gives WELS any more authority, or any greater likelihood of being correct, than any Baptist or Presbyterian or Methodist or Pentecostal church? They all find their beliefs "in the Bible".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 05, 2003.

>WELS doesn't lie!

It could be they are passing on a teaching that is not correct and tainted by a hatred of the Church over the years. I wouldn't call it ia lie. I would call it an error. So now you know what the Church really taught during those centuries. Call it edification.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Just how far has Jeanie got to go; and does her anti- Catholicism have to glow blood-red in every post?--

Before our good Moderator sees fit to delete her altogether from our forum and ban her entries into it for good ???? She has been here much too long. ENOUGH!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2003.

Paul asked:

WELS doesn't lie! All the other denominations do! I have asked for a viable reason why I should believe that. So far, none has been offered. What gives WELS any more authority, or any greater likelihood of being correct, than any Baptist or Presbyterian or Methodist or Pentecostal church? They all find their beliefs "in the Bible".

Since it is a valid question and not just an example of the hatred that naturally spews from your venimous hearts, I'll answer it.

First of all Paul, you have to realize that Satan is at war with Christ and his bride the church. He lost that war on Easter morning when Christ rose from the dead proclaiming victory over death, hell, sin and Satan. So he's going down and he knows it, and he is going to take as many as he can with him.

Satan's favorite weapon agaist us is false doctrine. The Bible says this. Paul called them "doctrines of devils". Obviously, there can only be one truth not several. False doctrine is always a danger to your faith. If there is no faith there is no salvation.

There are two churches. The invisible church and the visible church. The invisible church are all those who believe or have faith in Christ. They are found in every denomination race and nation. They are the 144,000 in Revelation. Then there is the visible church. The visible church is where the Word is preached in truth and purity and where the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion are rightly administered. Does the WELS have the marks of the Church? I believe so. The WELS, however, never says this.

The other churches you mention all claim to be Scripture Alone and faithful to the Bible(Well the UMC doesn't they are pretty liberal) yet they all have false doctrine. Every one of the churches you mentioned deny that the Sacraments are means of grace. That we through them we receive God's grace and forgiveness of sins. That is probably the most obvious and the most dangerous.

They say they are "scripture alone" but change the meaning. The WELS and other churches in our fellowship, and some who are not, take the Bible and allow it to interpret itself. We don't pass judgment over scripture or use our sinful human reasoning and wisdom to to interpret it. We take passages that are not so clear and find other like passages in the Bible to help us interpret them since God doesn't contridict himself.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

"First of all Paul, you have to realize that Satan is at war with Christ and his bride the church. He lost that war on Easter morning when Christ rose from the dead proclaiming victory over death, hell, sin and Satan. So he's going down and he knows it, and he is going to take as many as he can with him."

A: I do realize this, and yes, so far so good.

"Satan's favorite weapon agaist us is false doctrine. Obviously, there can only be one truth not several"

A: Right - and that fact alone proves that Protestantism as a tradition is riddled through and through with false doctrine. Which is why I asked what makes you think your particular little corner of the chaos has the true doctrine and the thousands of others all have the false doctrine.

"There are two churches. The invisible church and the visible church. The invisible church are all those who believe or have faith in Christ. They are found in every denomination race and nation."

A: Every denomination? Really! So this "invisible church" includes people with all kinds of false and contradictory beliefs? And yet they comprise one church? Jesus said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Seems like a church made up of people with thousands of conflicting and contradictory beliefs wouldn't last long. Where in the Bible can I find a reference to these two churches? My Bible speaks frequently of "the Church" - one church, not two. Jesus said "upon this rock I will build my Church" - Church, not churches. Ephesians says "ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism".

"Then there is the visible church. The visible church is where the Word is preached in truth and purity and where the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion are rightly administered."

A: I see. So the invisible church, made up of people of every denomination, with their thousands of conflicting manmade false beliefs, are the same people who participate in the visible church, where the Word is preached in truth and purity? I see thousands of churches that are plainly visible, yet which preach contradictory beliefs. Which brings me back to my original question. What makes you think that your visible church is any more authoritative than any other visible manmade church? So far you still haven't told me.

"Does the WELS have the marks of the Church? I believe so. The WELS, however, never says this."

A: Well, let's see ... - The true Church is ONE. It teaches in untity and in truth, and worships in unity. WELS is one small fragment of a tradition which broke away from the original Christian Church, and which is characterized by doctrinal chaos. It doesn't matter that each little fragment of the tradition has a certain amount of unity within itself. The problem is that the whole tradition is a tradition of disunity. - The true Church is HOLY because it was founded by God and is maintained by the Holy Spirit. WELS was founded by men, ann offshoot of a church which came into existence by rebelling against the original Christian Church. It has no more claim to being Spirit led than any other Protestant sect. Where are the great saints of the WELS church? - The true Church is UNIVERSAL, spanning all centuries since Christ, and all countries on earth. WELS is a modern tradition, a little over 150 hundred years old, and quite localized. - The true Church is APOSTOLIC, tracing its origins directly to the Apostles, and through them to Christ Himself. WELS traces it's origins to a German Bible society, 150 years ago, just one division among thousands in the manmade tradition of Protestantism, an offshoot of sect which owes its origins to a single arrogant, misled Catholic priest.

"The other churches you mention all claim to be Scripture Alone and faithful to the Bible(Well the UMC doesn't they are pretty liberal) yet they all have false doctrine."

A: Yes they certainly do. My original question - what makes you think your church is any more authoritative than these others? Still looking for an answer.

"Every one of the churches you mentioned deny that the Sacraments are means of grace. That we through them we receive God's grace and forgiveness of sins.

A: And your church doesn't deny this. Fine. But the fact that their beliefs differ from yours doesn't prove that the others are wrong, unless you can demonstrate why your denomination is right. Saying 'we are right, therefore they are wrong" doesn't prove anything. That's what they all say about you. That's the nature of Protestantism.

"They say they are "scripture alone" but change the meaning"

A: No, they don't CHANGE the meaning. They simply decide what they think it means - just like you do. And your denomination has no more authority to make such interpretations than they have. Which is why you are all in the same boat, a boat which is in the process of self-destruction.

"The WELS and other churches in our fellowship, and some who are not, take the Bible and allow it to interpret itself."

A: A catchy little phrase which means absolutely nothing. A book is an inanimate object. It doesn't have a mind of its own. Interpretation is a work of the mind. Interpretation of printed material is done by the reader, not by the material itself. No printed text can interpret anything. Surely if the Word of God could interpret itself, all who read it would arrive at the same beliefs, guided by the self-interpreting text. 450 years of ongoing division in the protestant tradition clearly demonstrate not only that the Bible cannot interpret itself, but that its readers cannot correctly interpret it either without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who speaks through the teaching authority of the Church Christ founded for all men.

"We don't pass judgment over scripture or use our sinful human reasoning and wisdom to to interpret it."

A: Of course you do! That's all you have as a means of interpreting it. Which is why your interpretations inevitably lead to division, while true interpretation leads to unity.

"We take passages that are not so clear and find other like passages in the Bible to help us interpret them since God doesn't contridict himself."

A: So does every other denomination. Face it - your system doesn't work. It does not and cannot reveal the truth. The Word of God was given to one Church, not as interpretations of a collection of writings, but from His own lips to the ears of the Apostles, the first bishops of the Church He founded for all men.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2003.

We know we are right and they are wrong because we know what the Bible says. We are the true Lutheran Church. Our doctrine hasn't changed in 500 years. Why don't you ask one of these other churches why their doctrine changes with the times. Every single one of the churches you mentioned ordains women clergy and says we are in the dark ages. If they are all faithful to God then why do they do that!

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Here are the answers to ur question one by one!

What are the differences between WELS and a Southern Baptist church?

There are a number of doctrinal differences between the two denominations. Listed below are a selected few. Original sin: Southern Baptists believe that although human beings inherit a sinful nature, they are not under God's condemnation until they are capable of moral action. We believe that every human being stands under God's just condemnation from conception and birth because of original sin (Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:18-19, John 3:5-6).

Perseverance of the saints: Southern Baptists teach: "Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the cause of Christ, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." We believe that a believe can turn his back on his Savior and fall from faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Corinthians 10:12).

Baptism: Southern Baptists believe that baptism is an act of obedience symbolizing a believer's faith. They do not baptize infants. We believe that baptism is a means of grace through which the Holy Spirit works faith, offers and conveys the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation (Titus 3:5-7, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1Peter 3:21). We believe that infants are to be baptized because they are included in Christ's command to baptize all nations (Matthew 28:19). They are sinful and need to be born again (Psalm 51:5, John 3:5-6). Babies also can believe (Luke 18:15-17).

Lord's Supper: The Southern Baptists believe that the Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church memorialize the death of Jesus. They deny the real Presence in the Lord's Supper. We believe that believe that Christ's true body and blood are given with the bread and wine to assure us that our sins are forgiven (Matthew 26:26-28, 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Q: How do the doctrines of WELS and Presbyterian Church compare?

A: WELS says, "Scripture alone" as the source of doctrine. Presbyterians (like other "Reformed" churches) say, "Scripture and reason" are the sources of doctrine.

WELS says, "Christ and his saving work are the focus of the Bible and key to understanding the Bible." Presbyterians make the sovereignty of God the key to understanding the Bible.

WELS says, "The two natures (human and divine) of Christ are united in one Person so that one cannot be thought of without the other. What the one is, the other is; where the one is the other is; what the one does, the other does." Presbyterians say, "The human nature of Christ does not have all the characteristics of the divine nature, and so Christ's human nature is localized or limited to heaven."

As a result, WELS says, "In the Lord's Supper, Christ's body and blood are truly present and received by those who commune." Presbyterians say, "Christ is present in the Supper only as to his divine nature, and his body and blood are not received in the Sacrament."

WELS says, "Word and Sacrament are means of grace through which the Holy Spirit uses the gospel to create and preserve faith." Presbyterians say, "Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not means of grace, but ordinances that God wants us to observe in order show our allegiance to him (Baptism) and to be reminded of what Christ has done for us (Lord's Supper). The Holy Spirit does not work through the gospel in Word and Sacrament but directly."

WELS says, "In Christ, and on the basis of his saving work, God has elected (predestined) some to be saved. Those who are saved are saved by God's grace alone. Those who are lost are lost by their own fault." Presbyterians say (or historically have said), "God has also elected some to be damned."

Not all Presbyterians believe and teach what has been taught in the past by the Presbyterian Church. On the other hand, no Presbyterians believe what WELS believes and teaches.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Q: In what ways is WELS different from the United Methodist?

A: There are many differences between the United Methodists and the WELS. I will note some of the most basic.

Following the father of Methodism, John Wesley, United Methodist theology is basically Arminian. The United Methodists teach that unconverted people have free will in spiritual matters or the ability to accept or reject God's offer of salvation.

Lutherans teach that unconverted human beings are dead in their trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, 5), hostile to God (Romans 8:6- 8), and cannot accept the gospel message (1 Corinthians 2:14). Human beings play no part in their own conversion, but are purely passive.

The United Methodists teach that God's "prevenient grace" surrounds all humanity and "prompts our first wish to please God" and "our first glimmer of understanding of God's will." This grace surrounds everyone whether they have ever heard the gospel or not. Lutherans believe that God's grace comes to us only through the means of grace, the gospel in God's Word and the sacraments. There is no salvation apart from the means of grace (Romans 10:13-17).

Lutherans put the primary theological emphasis on justification and what God has done for us in sending his Son to live and die for us, forgiving all of our sins and giving us eternal life and salvation. Methodists put their primary theological emphasis on sanctification and what God does in us to lead us to do his will. Lutherans teach that every Christian is both sinner and saint at the same time and will remain so until we reach the perfection of heaven. Methodists teach the possibility of reaching Christian perfection in this life.

The United Methodists see Scripture as the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine. They emphasize the importance of tradition, experience and reason for Christian doctrine. Lutherans teach that the Bible is the sole source for Christian doctrine. The truths of Scripture do not need to be authenticated by tradition, human experience or reason. Scripture is self authenticating and is true in and of itself.

The United Methodists believe that the church has a responsibility toward the structures of society and therefore commit themselves "to the rights of men, women, children, youth, young adults, the aging, and people with disabilities; to improvement of the quality of life; and to the rights and dignity of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities...collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress."

WELS teaches that although Christians are to be concerned about the welfare of their fellow creatures and have the right and responsibility to participate in government and the political process, the task of the church is to proclaim the gospel to all people so that they might be saved eternally (Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:18-20). Jesus' kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36, Romans 14:17) and does not direct itself toward correcting the structures of society. The church's only prophetic mission is a call to repentance, exposing sin and its consequences through the law and proclaiming forgiveness through the gospel. This is its God-given mission to the whole of society. As Christ rules in the hearts of more and more people in society, this will as a by-product effect improvements in the structures, patterns, and institutions of society.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Q: Since I have several relatives who are members of the Assembly of God church(Pentecostal), please give a brief summary of their teachings (or list any books on this subject). Also highlight any unscriptural doctrinal beliefs of the AOG's.

A: The Assemblies of God are fundamentalists who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. They confess the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ along with his virgin birth, substitutionary work on the cross, his bodily resurrection from the dead and his exaltation to the right hand of God.

They teach that faith is a condition of salvation rather than teaching that faith is the way God has chosen for us to receive salvation. The implication is that an unconverted, sinful human being must "decide" for Christ. They teach that baptism and Holy Communion are ordinances whereby Christians declare to the world that they have died with Christ and share in the divine nature. They do not believe that the sacraments are means of grace through which the Holy Spirit works to create or strengthen faith. They insist on baptism by immersion and deny the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper.

As Pentecostals they also differ from Lutherans in the following teachings. They believe that all believers are entitled to and should seek "the baptism in the Holy Spirit" with its empowerment for life and service. They believe that this "baptism" is distinct from and subsequent to the new birth. They teach that baptism in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking in tongues. They believe that all of the charismatic gifts, including faith healing, should be evident in the normal New Testament church. They also believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth some time in the future.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

As you can see! Every single one of these churches denies the real present at the sacrament and that Baptism is for babies too and that it offers salvation and forgiveness of sin. Is that what the Bible says? NO! You should know that!

Paul said:

1 John 4

Test the Spirits

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. 4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[1] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

That is how we know! Is what they say according to the Word of God? No it's NOT!

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Oh and one more thing! Not one of those churches uses the ecumenical creeds. We do. We use them as a standard to help keep us from falling into error. We pray one of the creeds(Usually Nicene or Apostles) every sunday in church. And personally, I pray the Apostles Creed every morning and every night.

Of course they are going to fall into heresy! To what do they have to compare their doctrine to to make sure it remains pure and without error?

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

"They(the Pentecostals) teach that baptism in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking in tongues"

Isn't that a symptom of demon possession?

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Jeanie quoted someone: "They(the Pentecostals) teach that baptism in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking in tongues"

and she replied: 'Isn't that a symptom of demon possession? '

I thought I was keeping up with this thread... where did that statement come from? Anyway, watch out here, the Apostles spoke in toungs we are told in the Bible and they were not possessed by a demon but by the Holy Spirit. Speaking in a language you do not understand is a sign of some kind of possession, not necessarily demonic in nature. There is a lot to diagnosing demonic possession.

But shouldn't this be in a separate thread if people are interested in persuing this topic?

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

It's still a symtom of demon possession!

SPEAKING IN TONGUES Coupled with this change in voice is a phenomenon that might be classified as speaking in tongues. The Roman Catholic Ritual of Exorcism lists as one of the peculiar symptoms of devil possession “when the subject speaks unknown languages with many words or understands unknown languages.”27 That this actually happens seems to be borne out by the tape recordings made at Roman Catholic exorcisms, and it is a phenomenon often mentioned in the discussion of possession. We have noted that Marianne K., whose case is described by Malachi Martin, spoke in Hebrew, (she also spoke in Latin) and Robert Peterson speaks of a possessed woman in Borneo who was able to speak in Malay, even though she had never learned that language and was unable to speak it when she was normal. 28 Kurt Koch sees such speaking in tongues as evidence that there is a sharp distinction between insanity and possession. He writes, A mental patient will never be able to speak in a voice or a language he has previously not learned. Yet this is exactly what has happened and still does happen in many cases of possession.29 Something very similar is reported by Nevius who says that a Chinese Christian who had some experience with possessed people told him that people who cannot sing and those who are unable to compose poetry are able to do so with ease when in a state of possession.30 We may be reminded here once more of what was said about Mohammed in the previous lecture. This is something that we might keep in mind also in assessing charismatic speaking in tongues. (Dr. Seigbert Becker; Wizards that Peep; NorthWestern Publishing house-The official Publisher for the WELS)

There is actually a lot going on in that church that reminds us of the Occult.

If you want to start a new thread fine with me:)

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Jmj
Dear Moderator:

I started this thread as an "urgent" appeal to you. What in God's holy Name have you allowed this thread to become?

This thread was intended for me to request something terribly important of you -- having been unable to reach you otherwise -- and to get a terribly important, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous response from you.

BUT I DID NOT GET THE RESPONSE!!!
Instead, this thread has become another cesspool, and (amazinginly) you even contributed to the irrelevant junk within it. My God, man, you spent lots of time and hundreds of words replying to an interloping Catholic-basher on this thread, but you didn't have the decency to reply fully, and with relevance, to me, who started this thread!

Sir, in the name of heaven, TAKE FULL CONTROL -- first, control of your own impulse to reply to turkeys, and then, control of the forum!!! You will have to answer to God for this some day!!! You have done me and the forum a grave disservice for days on end, and I ask you to undo the harm done without any further delay whatsoever.

In my opening message, I made the following request of you:
"Please go to a thread that I am about to link for you, and read the comments I directed to you in two posts, one yesterday (Dec. 4) and one today. Then, please respond, either there or here to my questions and comments, so that I will no longer be in 'no-man's-land.'"

Moderator, you did not respond to my posts on that linked thread.
You did not respond to my posts on this thread.
Worst of all, you DELETED my posts on the linked thread -- posts on which I had worked for a long time, to be able to communicate my great distress to you and to beg you for a clear explanation of what you are going to permit, and not permit, at this forum.

Do you need for me to repeat my questions to you -- or do you remember them? I hope that it is the latter, because I did not copy my questions, and I think that I will never be able to put the words together as well as I had them before you mercilessly deleted them.

I do remember that I made it clear to you that, if the forum is going in a certain direction, I need to know that, because it will mean that I must leave soon. And I made it clear to you that, if the forum is going in the other direction, I need to know that, because it will mean that I will stay and that I want to proceed with restoration of threads today.

Because of your continued silence and/or ambiguity on key matters that need immediate, clear resolution, I am already seeing a couple of disturbed people trying again to play word and mind games, to try to get away with as much mischief as they can. I BEG you again to put an immediate stop to this state of uncertainty. Even if you want to ban me, here and now, please do it. I don't care. I just need total "closure" on this.

So PLEASE now do the following:
(1) Delete all the junk from this thread that has nothing to do with my opening post. In fact, everything other than (a) my opening post, (b) the second paragraph of your reply, and this (c) current message of mine should be deleted. [That includes the response that you yourself should never have posted to Jeanie. (Impose some discipline on yourself, please.) I didn't ask you to clean up the first linked thread, so your telling me (above) that you did so was irrelevant. I asked you to respond to my questions on that thread!]
(2) Respond publicly and fully to what I asked you on the 4th and 5th (now deleted) about what is going to be permitted and what is going to be forbidden at the forum (and I don't mean "temporarily forbidden"). I will not stay at this forum, and I will not restore threads, if certain individuals are ever going to be allowed to start threads (or contribute to threads) with posts (a) that mention any aspect whatsoever of what we have called "pseudo-traditionalism" or (b) that criticize the pope or what we consider "orthodox Catholicism."

It's a clear-cut choice, sir. You can give "thumbs up" to orthodox Catholicism or to chaos.
May the Holy Spirit give you the fortitude at last to choose the former, so that I may remain here indefinitely, restore the deleted threads, and enjoy watching new people come to the forum to really learn about the True Faith.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Our doctrine hasn't changed in 500 years.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, jeanie belongs to the WISCONSIN synod. their doctrine hasnt changed in 500 years. funny thing though, wisconson hasnt been around for nearly five hundred years...

could this mean that, GASP, jeanie is LYING??? or, oh no, does that point to the fact that EVERYTHING she has posted is probably a slant on truth?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 06, 2003.

How do the doctrines of WELS and Presbyterian Church compare? WELS says, "Scripture alone" as the source of doctrine. Presbyterians (like other "Reformed" churches) say, "Scripture and reason" are the sources of doctrine.

For Catholics it is Scripture and Tradition.

WELS says, "Christ and his saving work are the focus of the Bible and key to understanding the Bible." Presbyterians make the sovereignty of God the key to understanding the Bible.

For Catholics the focus of scripture is Christ’s saving work and a guide for us Christians on how to be with Christ in heaven. This is the most important aspect of the scriptures. Hence all the talk about faith, works, commandments, how can I be perfect. Salvation is what the Bible is about. But we also know what Christ did, and that is where Catholics get sacred tradition.

WELS says, "The two natures (human and divine) of Christ are united in one Person so that one cannot be thought of without the other. What the one is, the other is; where the one is the other is; what the one does, the other does." Presbyterians say, "The human nature of Christ does not have all the characteristics of the divine nature, and so Christ's human nature is localized or limited to heaven."

Catholics believe that Christ’s Nature is both human and divine united in one person.

As a result, WELS says, "In the Lord's Supper, Christ's body and blood are truly present and received by those who commune." Presbyterians say, "Christ is present in the Supper only as to his divine nature, and his body and blood are not received in the Sacrament."

Catholic believe Christ is fully present in the bread and wine, turned into the Body and Blood of Christ.

WELS says, "Word and Sacrament are means of grace through which the Holy Spirit uses the gospel to create and preserve faith." Presbyterians say, "Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not means of grace, but ordinances that God wants us to observe in order show our allegiance to him (Baptism) and to be reminded of what Christ has done for us (Lord's Supper). The Holy Spirit does not work through the gospel in Word and Sacrament but directly."

Sacraments are a way of obtaining grace for Catholics. Others include holy acts, prayers, reading the Bible and so on.

WELS says, "In Christ, and on the basis of his saving work, God has elected (predestined) some to be saved. Those who are saved are saved by God's grace alone. Those who are lost are lost by their own fault." Presbyterians say (or historically have said), "God has also elected some to be damned."

Catholics believe that Christians are saved through God’s grace because they have faith and do good works. Only God can save us. Faith and works are required for us because Christ says we need faith and works are a sign of our faith.

I am noticing many similarities in teaching. I also understand that many of my answers are simplistic but that is the jist of it.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

>WELS says, "Scripture alone" as the source of doctrine... >For Catholics it is Scripture and Tradition.

Not to belabor a point, but they are not equivalent ideas. Sola Scriptura (only Scripture) is a man made rule. So is Faith Alone. These are the two core doctrines that most Protestants share. The first is nowhere to be found in Scripture. And the second, while found in Scripture, is balanced by many other passages which say just the opposite. To disregard the latter in favor of the former is a man-made decision going purely against the admonition of Sola Scriptura. In short, a logical fallacy on its own merits.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

LOL Scott you do have a good point! We have many differences that divide us but there are many things we share too. Other protestants admire Luther but say his reforms did not go far enough. I disagree of course. It would also intrest you to know that our services are almost identical. We sing the same songs have the same traditions etc.

Bill I totally disagree with you. :)

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Our doctrine hasn't changed in 500 years. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, jeanie belongs to the WISCONSIN synod. their doctrine hasnt changed in 500 years. funny thing though, wisconson hasnt been around for nearly five hundred years...

could this mean that, GASP, jeanie is LYING??? or, oh no, does that point to the fact that EVERYTHING she has posted is probably a slant on truth?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 06, 2003.

paul h, you are right that the WELS itself is only 150 years old. After all it was created to serve the German immegrants (sorry always misspell that word) who came to the USA during the 19th century and settled in Wisconsin. However, you will not find another group of Lutherans who are as close as we are to the teachings of Martin Luther 500 years ago. Our doctrine is the same doctrine that you will find in the Book of Concord of 1580.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Yes: Luther and his fellow heretics had been Catholics from birth. No other Christian assembly even existed other than the Church; if we leave out schismatics. They also were unfaithful to the Church of Saint Peter.

The first (Catholic) Church being the Church of Christ's apostles. Not good enough for Martin Luther. He figured Christ had broken His promises to His Church.

This woman ids the only christian I ever met who seems proud her church was founded in the 16th century.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2003.

Jeanie said: "Bill I totally disagree with you. :) "

Jeanie, I know.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

you know whats funny jeanie?

However, you will not find another group of Lutherans who are as close as we are to the teachings of Martin Luther 500 years ago. Our doctrine is the same doctrine that you will find in the Book of Concord of 1580.

the lutherans in the city of worms, where martin luther started the whole thing, say the EXACT same thing...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 06, 2003.

paul h: That's because we have a church there!

Bill: ;)

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

paul h: this is the ELFK the German version of WELS. We are in fellowship with them meaning that we are in complete doctrinal agreement http://www.elfk.de/index.asp but don't go there if you can't speak German.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

After all WELS was created to serve the German immegrants (sorry always misspell that word) ...

A person who is too lazy even to look up and memorize the correct spelling is going to be too lazy to determine where the true Church of Jesus Christ subsists: the Catholic Church.

-- Not by Scripture Alone (Faith@And.Works), December 07, 2003.

Well I tell you what! I only became a WELS 2 years ago and I have had many questions on doctrine. Every time the pastor at my church opens up his Bible and says to me, "We believe this because this is what the Bible says," and shows me what the Bible says on the matter. Can you do that? If you can show me where in the Bible it says that Mary was a partner with Christ in the work of Salvation, I will join the Cult of Mary.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

Ask your pastor where in the Bible anyone other than Jesus Christ is authorized to found a church. Point out to him that his church is only 150 years old, and that it clearly could not have been founded by Christ. While you are at it, ask him where in the Bible it says that all Christian beliefs can be found in the Bible, and ask him where it says that each person can define doctrine by private interpretation of scripture.

It's really amazing how members of unauthorized, unbiblical churches can use unbiblical principles to challenge the only Church that is truly biblical and truly founded by Jesus Christ.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2003.

''Can YOU do that?''

Jeannie could but she won't. We know she won't because at some crossroads her own reason would direct her back into the Church.

Her objections to ''the cult'' of Mary are not just insensitive, but based on a protestant myth. Catholics know since 33 A.D. the author of our salvation is Christ alone. To make the accusation we were taught Mary saves us is another calumny. She co-operates with the Will of Almighty God. We love her and exalt her for her motherhood. This motherhood of Christ proving precisely God's exaltation of the same Blessed Virgin. We only do what God did first; love her above all women: ''Blessed art thou among women,'' (Luke 1 :28.) Is god the ''cult'' leader of those who follow Jesus Christ? Is this passage not biblical?

Jeannie would like to say it means NOTHING. Only, Martin Luther himself had devotion to the virgin Mary. She can't go that far and call herself Lutheran. Jeannie would not know Christ at all, if Luther hadn't been a Catholic to start with. He was an unfaithful one; but he's all she has. Take what you can get; that's the protestant choice. Just DON"T go back to the apostle's faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2003.

Moderator, please remove the filth from the bottom of this thread.

I recommend that you glance at new and updated "saints" threads each day, even if they don't interest you, to catch things like this. That garbage was on the forum for perhaps 24 hours. I wrongly assumed that you would see it and get rid of it, so I didn't contact you yesterday, when I first saw it.

-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 30, 2005.

Got it, John. Thanks for directing my attention to it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 30, 2005.