I should’ve been more clear, the office of the pope/papacy is the antichrist, not just Pope Francis. the major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope. There is no biblical support for it, only the vain tradition that Catholics and EOs hold onto. now Protestantism is not perfect, and there is more wrong with them than most Catholics. You can’t just open a Catholic Church and wave a LGBTQIA+ flag, unlike “Protestants”. I mean, Catholics have the Pope, Joe Biden and Pelosi. Protestants have Furtick, Todd White and other heretics. which is why I stick to classic reformed theology.
The pope isn't necessarily the anti-christ, depending on how you define it. The anti-christ is really just someone in the church who denies Christ. Don't base it at all on the fictional left behind series. Remember, Anti-Christ isn't mentioned anywhere in Revelations. The Beast is mentioned, but not the Anti-Christ.
No Pope has spoke against the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification. And while I agree there is no *THE* antichrist, the pope is *an* antichrist.
God caring that you do your best, while also not caring about the results, are not incompatible.
OK so God, who created all things, according to many, created Eliud and Galen, and God is losing sleep over whether Eliud and Galen do their best, but this same God doesn’t even want to know the result even though the result is difficult to distinguish from the effort especially to this Creator of these beings. The only reason this could make sense is if you know the effort you know the result so your curiosity about the result is extinguished due to already knowing. Of course none of this makes sense period. None of it.
Props to you Galen for using your platform to preach the Gospel! It's more important now than ever before given the state of our country and world. A true role model for all to follow!
This thread speaks volumes about how much people have lost interest in Galen Rupp. He is no longer the star in his own threads.
The former Pope, Pope Ratzinger, was a Nazi. Once, when he was giving a speech at a WWII German soldier cemetery, he blamed WII on the Allies.
Rather, Joseph Ratzinger was conscripted as a teenager into the military when Hitler led Germany.
The all purpose Nuremberg defense/excuse. The whole German nation was just beguiled by Hitler's abundant charisma and good looks into doing things they would never otherwise have wanted to do. Ratzinger was a big fan of that play.
Have you a credible reference for your assertion that Ratzinger blamed WII {sic} on the Allies?
On the 60th anniversary of D-Day (Allied invasion of Normandy), an anniversary day on which decent human beings traditionally honor Allied soldiers who sacrificed their lives defending the free world from Germany, Pope Ratzinger took a detour and went to La Cambe cemetery where thousands of German Schutzstaffel (SS) thugs are buried. Ratzinger knows who he wants to really honor, and its not Allied soldiers.
There at La Cambe, Ratzinger invoked the Nuremburg excuse and said that the idealism of the SS scumbags buried there had been exploited by those at the top of Nazi Germany, and that their honor and sacrifice to the "Fatherland" was not diminished. Indeed, according to Ratzinger, it was not even Hitler's fault, but rather the Allies' fault for being so mean to Germany after WWI.
Even when it was first announced last December, Pope Benedict’s visit to Israel looked misguided. Today, as he steps on to Israeli soil, it seems likely to worsen, rather than improve, damaged rela…
In the latest issue of the New Yorker, Timothy Ryback examines the little known story of Joseph Ratzinger’s visit to La Cambe, to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the D-Day invasion in 2004. La Cambe is a German cemete...
Well if that doesn't convince everyone, what will?
Many informed faithful Catholics have a rather dim view of Pope Francis. I have a much dimmer view of the Society of Jesus - the Jesuits - the order to which Francis belongs, and feel that many of its priests in recent decades have been traitorous to Catholicism.
But I respect the Office of the Papacy. Christians have been split into three broad groups for the last half-millennium: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. (By my lights, the Anglicans (Episcopalians here in the USA), fit into Protestantism because they do not recognize the Bishop of Rome's primacy - they broke with King Henry VIII from Catholicism, though they often consider themselves intermediate between Catholicism and Protestantism). Yet the majority of Christians do recognize the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as having a special role. While the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not see eye-to-eye on how this role is exercised, at least the Eastern Orthodox acknowledge a special role of the Pope as instituted by Jesus Christ. So the two most ancient communities, the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, recognize the pope. Protestantism denies this belief, however, but seems to have not so much no pope as it has thousands of self-appointed super popes who reverse the previous doctrines of their communities with ease (for example, the prohibition against artificial contraception, of which no Christian community I am aware of approved until the Anglicans did so in 1930 at their decennial Lambeth Conference).
I should’ve been more clear, the office of the pope/papacy is the antichrist, not just Pope Francis. the major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope. There is no biblical support for it, only the vain tradition that Catholics and EOs hold onto. now Protestantism is not perfect, and there is more wrong with them than most Catholics. You can’t just open a Catholic Church and wave a LGBTQIA+ flag, unlike “Protestants”. I mean, Catholics have the Pope, Joe Biden and Pelosi. Protestants have Furtick, Todd White and other heretics. which is why I stick to classic reformed theology.
coachcommentsnicely wrote: "{T}he major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope."
No, I wrote that Christ instituted the papacy. Please be more careful. The Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, the two most antique Christian communities, agree on this. It is the Protestants who didn't arrive until the 16th century who disagree, claiming there is no biblical support for it. Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox respond that Protestants have little historical awareness. Catholics and Orthodox claim there IS abundant biblical support for this, and that the early Christians supported those interpretations.
There was great respect and deference to the special authority of the Bishop of Rome, and it came from holy luminaries in the Church:
+ St. Clement of Rome, the third or fourth pope, intervened in a dispute in Corinth circa 95 AD (why did a Roman bishop get involved to settle a problem more than 1000 miles away in Corinth?).
+ St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was blood-martyred by not much later than 110 AD, said the Church at Rome has the "presidency of love" though he was bishop of Antioch, a term he withheld from the other recipients of his valedictory letters (Ephesians, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Magnesians, etc.).
+ St. Irenaeus of Lyons (died circa 202 AD), said the Church of Rome must be believed, though he was bishop of Lyons.
+ St. Augustine (354-430 AD) famously wrote that "Rome has spoken; the case is closed," though he himself was bishop of Hippo.
Fr. William Jurgens' three-volume set "The Faith of the Early Fathers" and Fr. John R. Willis' "The Teachings of the Church Fathers" are good resources for this who wish to see for themselves.
I should’ve been more clear, the office of the pope/papacy is the antichrist, not just Pope Francis. the major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope. There is no biblical support for it, only the vain tradition that Catholics and EOs hold onto. now Protestantism is not perfect, and there is more wrong with them than most Catholics. You can’t just open a Catholic Church and wave a LGBTQIA+ flag, unlike “Protestants”. I mean, Catholics have the Pope, Joe Biden and Pelosi. Protestants have Furtick, Todd White and other heretics. which is why I stick to classic reformed theology.
coachcommentsnicely wrote: "{T}he major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope."
No, I wrote that Christ instituted the papacy. Please be more careful. The Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, the two most antique Christian communities, agree on this. It is the Protestants who didn't arrive until the 16th century who disagree, claiming there is no biblical support for it. Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox respond that Protestants have little historical awareness. Catholics and Orthodox claim there IS abundant biblical support for this, and that the early Christians supported those interpretations.
There was great respect and deference to the special authority of the Bishop of Rome, and it came from holy luminaries in the Church:
+ St. Clement of Rome, the third or fourth pope, intervened in a dispute in Corinth circa 95 AD (why did a Roman bishop get involved to settle a problem more than 1000 kms away in Corinth?).
+ St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was blood-martyred by not much later than 110 AD, said the Church at Rome has the "presidency of love" though he was bishop of Antioch, a term he withheld from the other recipients of his valedictory letters (Ephesians, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Magnesians, etc.).
+ St. Irenaeus of Lyons (died circa 202 AD), said the Church of Rome must be believed, though he was bishop of Lyons.
+ St. Augustine (354-430 AD) famously wrote that "Rome has spoken; the case is closed," though he himself was bishop of Hippo.
Fr. William Jurgens' three-volume set "The Faith of the Early Fathers" and Fr. John R. Willis' "The Teachings of the Church Fathers" are good resources for this who wish to see for themselves.
I should’ve been more clear, the office of the pope/papacy is the antichrist, not just Pope Francis. the major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope. There is no biblical support for it, only the vain tradition that Catholics and EOs hold onto. now Protestantism is not perfect, and there is more wrong with them than most Catholics. You can’t just open a Catholic Church and wave a LGBTQIA+ flag, unlike “Protestants”. I mean, Catholics have the Pope, Joe Biden and Pelosi. Protestants have Furtick, Todd White and other heretics. which is why I stick to classic reformed theology.
coachcommentsnicely wrote: "{T}he major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope."
No, I wrote that Christ instituted the papacy. Please be more careful. The Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, the two most antique Christian communities, agree on this. It is the Protestants who didn't arrive until the 16th century who disagree, claiming there is no biblical support for it. Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox respond that Protestants have little historical awareness. Catholics and Orthodox claim there IS abundant biblical support for this, and that the early Christians supported those interpretations.
There was great respect and deference to the special authority of the Bishop of Rome, and it came from holy luminaries in the Church:
+ St. Clement of Rome, the third or fourth pope, intervened in a dispute in Corinth circa 95 AD (why did a Roman bishop get involved to settle a problem more than 1000 miles away in Corinth?).
+ St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was blood-martyred by not much later than 110 AD, said the Church at Rome has the "presidency of love" though he was bishop of Antioch, a term he withheld from the other recipients of his valedictory letters (Ephesians, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Magnesians, etc.).
+ St. Irenaeus of Lyons (died circa 202 AD), said the Church of Rome must be believed, though he was bishop of Lyons.
+ St. Augustine (354-430 AD) famously wrote that "Rome has spoken; the case is closed," though he himself was bishop of Hippo.
Fr. William Jurgens' three-volume set "The Faith of the Early Fathers" and Fr. John R. Willis' "The Teachings of the Church Fathers" are good resources for this who wish to see for themselves.
Sorry about that. I had pope on my mind! the papacy was made by man, and was not described or prescribed in scripture. did any of the early church fathers (like Augustine) address the bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ? Or did he just respect the man in charge, As I would respect my own pastor or R.C. Sproul (RIP)?
Is there Biblical or secular proof that Peter was even in Rome?
When we say that the laws of physics prelude God's existence that's a logical fallacy, a category error. A creator/designer/artist doesn't follow the rules of the creation/design/art, he is the one who is making the rules. The Creator/Creation Artist/Art distinction must not be confused in terms of a philosophical argument.
coachcommentsnicely wrote: "{T}he major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope."
No, I wrote that Christ instituted the papacy. Please be more careful. The Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, the two most antique Christian communities, agree on this. It is the Protestants who didn't arrive until the 16th century who disagree, claiming there is no biblical support for it. Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox respond that Protestants have little historical awareness. Catholics and Orthodox claim there IS abundant biblical support for this, and that the early Christians supported those interpretations.
There was great respect and deference to the special authority of the Bishop of Rome, and it came from holy luminaries in the Church:
+ St. Clement of Rome, the third or fourth pope, intervened in a dispute in Corinth circa 95 AD (why did a Roman bishop get involved to settle a problem more than 1000 miles away in Corinth?).
+ St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was blood-martyred by not much later than 110 AD, said the Church at Rome has the "presidency of love" though he was bishop of Antioch, a term he withheld from the other recipients of his valedictory letters (Ephesians, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Magnesians, etc.).
+ St. Irenaeus of Lyons (died circa 202 AD), said the Church of Rome must be believed, though he was bishop of Lyons.
+ St. Augustine (354-430 AD) famously wrote that "Rome has spoken; the case is closed," though he himself was bishop of Hippo.
Fr. William Jurgens' three-volume set "The Faith of the Early Fathers" and Fr. John R. Willis' "The Teachings of the Church Fathers" are good resources for this who wish to see for themselves.
Sorry about that. I had pope on my mind! the papacy was made by man, and was not described or prescribed in scripture. did any of the early church fathers (like Augustine) address the bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ? Or did he just respect the man in charge, As I would respect my own pastor or R.C. Sproul (RIP)?
Is there Biblical or secular proof that Peter was even in Rome?
Not described or prescribed in Sacred Scripture? Wow, Peter's primacy in nearly every list of the apostles, Jesus's renaming him from "Simon" to "Peter" (in contrast to Saul's renaming himself Paul), Jesus's giving Peter the keys of the kingdom, Jesus's calling Peter "Rock," Jesus's commanding Peter to feed the sheep even after Peter had denied knowing Jesus, etc. - these are all aspects of Sacred Scripture that Catholics and even Orthodox would adduce to Protestants on Peter's privileges.
The early Church fathers recognized that the bishop of Rome had the authority to settle matters even outside of the diocese of Rome, as the quotes I furnished revealed, confirming Catholic claims of Peter's primacy and the primacy of his successors.
There is archeological evidence that Peter is buried beneath the Vatican. Numerous accounts testify to Peter's crucifixion in Rome. Somewhere I once thought I read that some early historian claimed that Peter and Paul were martyred on the same day in Rome (Lactantius, maybe?), but perhaps nobody else seems to have their deaths so nearly coincidental.
Anyone, there is a biblical allusion to Peter's presence in Rome, at the end of his first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). 'Babylon' is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
I've never understood why atheist have such trouble believing there could be a creator. The entire universe at one point, didn't exist.
A "creator" meaning what? A giant man? Something mystical? Be more specfic. What is this thing that existed before the universe (which generally means everything that exists) existed. Logic must not have existed yet either.
Until you can articulate this stuff, there's nothing there to be believed or disbelieved and only a fool would bother with it.
When we say that the laws of physics prelude God's existence that's a logical fallacy, a category error. A creator/designer/artist doesn't follow the rules of the creation/design/art, he is the one who is making the rules. The Creator/Creation Artist/Art distinction must not be confused in terms of a philosophical argument.
The Universe isn’t a work of art. We have a very good idea of the history of the Universe going back to the Plank Epoch, 10^-43 seconds after inflation, cooling and the division of the unified force into the four fundamental forces of nature that we know today. It’s incredible, but not supernatural. Beyond 10^-43 seconds? It’s tough to say because the nature of the Universe was so fundamentally different compared to what it is now. But there’s nothing to suggest that there was any intent in the creation of this Universe.
And it was pointed out earlier that subatomic particles do pop into existence on their own all the time. That something exists doesn’t infer a being that created it.
