Discourse with a Reformed Protestor

Recently, I went to Reformed.org to see if I could raise interest in a debate between Reformed Theology and Catholic Faith for a apostolate I work with (I leave un-named as I enjoy me privacy).

Not surprisingly, I was immediately attacked and temporarily suspended. False Christians (not every Protestant is one), especially Calvinists love this tactic-to label you, attack and then suspend and/or boot you from the forum without allowing a rebuttal. Rather like Calvin's Police state of Geneva. I merely went to different categories and posted a honest and respectful challenge. We can see why New England was a miserable place to live pre-Revolution.

The following is the response I got from one of the posters, his response in Red, mine this time in Green:


Dear Sir:

If you are truly interested in being converted from your false religion, then I suggest that you contact Dr. James White. Here is his website where you may contact him:

http://www.aomin.org/

Because of your excessive posting of only one post on our website we have temporarily banned you from it. If you would like to discuss Papist vs Protestant theology on our site we can more than accomodate you.

However, your rude introduction to our site has caused you to be placed on hold. If you desire to continue to post, then you must promise to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion, and to discuss things theological.

Grace and Peace,

Goodwin

Might I suggest anger management, as you seem to have a lot of it. If Catholicism is false, how then to Calvin know ANYTHING about the Bible or basic theological standards. Answer, we wrote it, canonized it and he was educated in it.

As you are a Protestor, conversion to heresy for me is non-optional.

I posted-what?-8 or 9 offers to debate? That is excessive? Geesh, you may want to define on your site what is "excessive".

Thanks for admitting you are a Protestant-ie, a protestor against legitimate authority, we all know the father of that, eh!

BTW- no one of any credibility uses the slur "papist" anymore, just like I try not to call you-just your theology-a heretic and anathema.

Finally, define orderly. Is it 1 post a hour? a minute? a day? Only what you think is "orderly" per....?

You exhibit an angry arrogance I have grown accostomed to from Reformed"true" Christians.

We've debated White, ......next!!??

Dear Sir:

There is nothing "angry" about my reply to you. Are you interested in finding out why Catholicism is a false Christian religion? or, are you one of those confirmed Catholics who just like to bash Protestants with your false traditions? My hope is that you are of the former and not the latter.

John Calvin taught from the writings and sayings of Jesus and His Apostles. We commonly call this the Bible. When Roman Catholic "Traditions" contradict the Bible we (Calvin and Calvinists/Reformed) reject such teaching as false and contrary to the Word of the Living God. Consequently, the Romish Popes are not apostles of Jesus Christ because they constantly contradict the teachings of Jesus on Faith and Morals, and they constantly contradict themselves.

The sand of human opinion (i.e. the edicts of the Popes over the centuries on matters of Faith and Morals) are not the Word of God. For example:

The very Bible which you claim has been handed down to us through the Papal Church reads:"

Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy: having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats..."

The Papal Church is the only Church that has forbidden its priests to marry, and requires celibacy in order for one to become a priest. Such was never taught in the Bible. Marriage is good, and just, and holy, and true, and it was created by God from the very beginning for all men, Gen. 2:18. Only one in league with the "doctrines of demons" would forbid such to a person.

You are a follower of the Pope, and not Jesus Christ. Thus, the term "papist" is rightly applied to you and your religion.I will release your hold on our forum.

But, you are on probation.Grace and Peace,-

CalvinandHodge
Moderator of reformed.org

Your first paragraph states you, apparently, want to "school" me in true doctrine, but then goes on to rail against my supposed "false traditions".I guess that is not a bash, eh?

John Clavin, based on the 1500+ years prior to him, did NOT teach from theBible. Either way, from whence was his authority? And why is it all youReformed folks say "we don't follow Calvin, we follow the Bible...yada,yada.."?

By what authority do you judge what is or is not in the Bible? yourcontinuing fractures tell me that no one really knows.

The Popes contradict, huh? Name specifically when, where , how, what-etc.Further, no one in the Church uses the title "Romish"-a quient slur andone from your past, but not accurate. I am-get this one straight please-a LATIN RITE CATHOLIC. That is the name, that is what it is. There areseveral Eastern Rites in the CHurch that are not "Roman, Romish" etc.

Finally, Paul's exhortation in Corinthians is rather clear to the openminded, he states it is better not to marry for preachers of the word. Hedid not marry and preached. Christ did not marry and preached. Contrary tothe birth control loving Protestant populace, sex urges can be controlled,despite the homosexuality of Calvin (at least in his teens) and the ample supply of filthy writings by Luther-whereas he seemed to love bathroom humor and "sin all you want, just pray and believe all the more"

You Reformed folks really have a fixation on the marrying stuff, yet overlook that it is a discipline, NOT DOCTRINE!. Further, the Eastern Rite clergy (except in America) are allowed to marry and the majority do!Sooo.. if we are this great apostate church, based on your quote below, itis in one Rite only, not the others-yet we are all one big, happy Church.

If clergy not marrying to get out their uncontrolable lusts is bad to you,tell it to the Eastern Rite, the Latin Rite for the first severalcenturies, Paul, Christ...well, that is a start for ya!

As for Demons, I have seen your divisions and your invented doctrines like"essential and nonessential doctrine" to get around this. I have read thewritngs of your founders-Luther, Calvin.

I can see whom is a real Christian. You reject the doctrines, theauthority, the sacrements-that Christ and his Apostales gave the Church.You my friend are a Protestor, your father is the Devil (John 8:44). Ifyou truly followed Christ, you would heed his words (John 10:27)

We gave you the Bible, you decided to follow a self appointed Geneva dictator and recovering Sodomite

.Now, stop wasting my time. I offered for _ to debate your pastors,theologians, Seminary professors, etc-I have not the time to debate theirautomatons.

BTW-marriage was raised to be a sacrement by Christ, followed by his Church. You have been fed a dirty porridge and show your ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches. Yours is a straw man for the weak minded to step up and tear down.


Stay tuned for more updates as I am sure they cannot take a "hint" . Paul sets forth celibacy in 1Cor Chapter 7, here is the passage from DR, w/Challoner's commentary:

Lessons relating to marriage and celibacy. Virginity is preferable to a married state.

1 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

2 "Have his own wife"... That is, keep to his wife, which he hath. His meaning is not to exhort the unmarried to marry: on the contrary, he would have them rather continue as they are. (Ver. 7: 8.) But he speaks here to them that are already married; who must not depart from one another, but live together as they ought to do in the marriage state.

6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 10 But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.

6 "By indulgence"... That is, by a condescension to your weakness. 9 "If they do not contain"... This is spoken of such as are free, and not of such as, by vow, have given their first faith to God; to whom if they will use proper means to obtain it, God will never refuse the gift of continency. Some translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, if they cannot contain.

11 And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. 12 For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.

12 "I speak, not the Lord"... Viz., by any express commandment, or ordinance. 14 "Is sanctified"... The meaning is not, that the faith of the husband or the wife is of itself sufficient to put the unbelieving party, or their children, in the state of grace and salvation; but that it is very often an occasion of their sanctification, by bringing them to the true faith.

16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 17 But as the Lord hath distributed to every one, as God hath called every one, so let him walk: and so in all churches I teach. 18 Is any man called, being circumcised? let him not procure uncircumcision. Is any man called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing: but the observance of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called.

21 Wast thou called, being a bondman? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a bondman, is the freeman of the Lord. Likewise he that is called, being free, is the bondman of Christ. 23 You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. 25 Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful.

26 I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. 29 This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none; 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.

36 But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured, with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will; he sinneth not, if she marry. 37 For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. 38 Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better. 39 A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord. 40 But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel; and I think that I also have the spirit of God.

36 "Let him do what he will. He sinneth not"... The meaning is not, as libertines would have it, that persons may do what they will and not sin, provided they afterwards marry; but that the father, with regard to the giving his virgin in marriage, may do as he pleaseth; and that it will be no sin to him if she marry.



-posted 10/20/06