Quote:

---

I can appreciate your enthusiasm for your faith, however, I will remind you of the commandment about bearing false witness against thy neighbor. In my brief reading of some of the things you believe to true (I presume) about the history of the Roman Catholic Church - there are errors, over simplifications and a summary judgement of a faith that numbers in the billions (me included).

I think the nature of this thread and forum is to "share" without "sheep stealing" (the P word). Let's keep it like that OK?

+Pablo

---

I am not bearing false witness here---simply recounting historical events---nor do I hold any theories about the nature of the Roman church as being inherently evil. I think it has been, to borrow a phrase cited by other Catholics, "infiltrated" by those who have evil intent or desire to change the corporate established church into something which no longer worships Jesus Christ (much like other denominations). Nor do I desire Catholics convert to some Pentecostal denomination. Their own Catholic Charismatic movement is sufficient witness to the Roman church as to the Holy Spirit.

That reads like a sixth grade essay. Come on man. You're better than that.

UTExan said:

---

Quote:

---

I can appreciate your enthusiasm for your faith, however, I will remind you of the commandment about bearing false witness against thy neighbor. In my brief reading of some of the things you believe to true (I presume) about the history of the Roman Catholic Church - there are errors, over simplifications and a summary judgement of a faith that numbers in the billions (me included).

I think the nature of this thread and forum is to "share" without "sheep stealing" (the P word). Let's keep it like that OK?

+Pablo

---

I am not bearing false witness here---simply recounting historical events---nor do I hold any theories about the nature of the Roman church as being inherently evil. I think it has been, to borrow a phrase cited by other Catholics, "infiltrated" by those who have evil intent or desire to change the corporate established church into something which no longer worships Jesus Christ (much like other denominations). Nor do I desire Catholics convert to some Pentecostal denomination. Their own Catholic Charismatic movement is sufficient witness to the Roman church as to the Holy Spirit.

---

Ah.. but you insist on a false narrative regarding the history of the medieval church to prove your points and this is not bearing false witness?? I could cite as many articles, books, videos, or whatever to counter each point you have written. You can certainly state your case, but you go further. I don't know why, but some people like to do this and I find it irritating, because they cite the same books, the same arguments, the same historians - like this is some kind of new revelation. If you want to test your theory - go to www.catholicanswers..com or www.newadvent.com - better yet go to a site I like www.godzdogz.op.org. You will find people wayyy more educated than I who can counter your false witness.

+Pablo

k2aggie07 said:

---

That reads like a sixth grade essay. Come on man. You're better than that.

---

Do you doubt the facts of the church's wealth or power?

Again, there was no monolithic church bloc. Some local bishops had a great deal of power, others didn't. Some were very loyal to Rome, some weren't. This waxed and waned over the centuries.

But that entire quote is ridiculous. The church didn't have control over the state as a rule, or the people. The economic / political system was feudalism. The peasants were tied to the land, and the landowner. Some of those lands belonged to the church. Most didn't.

"Most peasants worked for free on most church lands" is just an ignorant way to describe feudalism. Seriously that article is just plain bad. Defining tithes? "According to historians"?

"This has saved them a lot of money and made the institution wealthier than the Kings."

I mean, honestly. It reads like a grade school book report.

Quote:

---

The Religious Causes of the Reformation

To Luther, and the majority of his early followers, Reformation as a movement was a rebellion against abuses in the Catholic Church. It was reported that some clergymen obtained their positions through irregular and fraudulent means. Some clergymen led immoral and scandalous lives. Commenting on some of the abuses, Edward Burns (1973:399) notes that while some of the popes and bishops were living in opulence, the lower cadre of the priesthood occasionally sought to survive through "the incomes from their parishes by keeping taverns, gaming houses, or other establishments for profit.

Not only did some monks habitually ignore their vows of chastity, but a few indifferent members of the clergy surmounted the hardships of the rule of celibacy by keeping mistresses". It is on record that Pope Innocent VIII, who ruled the Roman Catholic Church for twenty-five years before the Reformation, had eight illegitimate children, some born before his election by the College of Cardinals (Burns 1973:399-400).

There were also the scandalous practices of selling ecclesiastical offices to the highest bidder. Pope Leo X generated more than a million dollars in one year from the sale of more than 2000 ecclesiastical offices. Burns (1973:400) observes that: "This abuse was rendered more serious by the fact that the men who bought these positions were under a strong temptation to make up for their investment by levying high fees for their services".

Another abuse that was condoned and legitimated was the sale of dispensations. This was an ecclesiastical graft which granted immunity to the holder from the law of the church, or from some vow previously taken. Closer to the Reformation, the dispensations that were commonly sold were exemptions from fasting and from the marriage laws of the church, "first cousins would be permitted to marry for the payment of a fee of one ducat" (Burns 1973: 400).

There were also abuses connected with the veneration of sacred relics. For centuries; the veneration of sacred relics was an important element in Catholic spirituality. The prevailing doctrinal speculation was that objects use by Jesus, the Virgin Mary, or the saints possessed mystical protective and healing virtues for whoever touched them. "According to Erasmus, the churches of Europe contained enough wood of the cross to build a ship. No fewer than five hip bones of the ass on which Jesus rode to Jerusalem were on exhibition in different places, to say nothing of twelve heads of John the Baptist" (Burns 1973: 400, 401).

Etim Okon
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/17bf/220aaac3baace114cabefd48dd0a7d700583.pdf

---

Although this particular author cites contemporary scholars in believing such clergy abuses were NOT the primary cause of the Protestant Reformation. He continues:

Quote:

---

By the end of the twelfth century, ecclesiological engineering in the medieval church had reached the zenith with the adoption of seven sacraments- baptism, confirmation, penance, marriage, ordination, extreme unction and the Eucharist.
Sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church are instruments whereby divine grace is communicated to men. The church in the last centuries of the middle ages accepted and adopted new sacramental theories. It was the view of late medieval church that the sacraments were indispensable avenues for procurement of God's grace, and that there could be no salvation without the sacraments.

Sacraments were considered to be automatic in their effect that is, the efficacy of the sacraments did not depend upon the spiritual, or moral decency of the priest who administered them. The implication is that even though the priest might be unworthy that does not affect the purity and efficacy of the sacrament. The doctrine of transubstantiation was also integrated into sacramental theory at the Fourth Lateran Council: "This doctrine means that the priest, at a given moment in the Eucharistic ceremony, actually cooperates with God in the performance of a miracle whereby the bread and wine of the sacrament are changed, or transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ" (Burns 1973:311). The adoption of the theory of the priesthood and the theory of the sacraments increased the power of the clergy and strengthened the formal and mechanical elements in the Latin Church. There was also the growth of humanizing spirit.

---

That flies in the face of Wycliffe, who opposed such clergy privileges, especially financial corruption. As a matter of fact, he opposed the primacy of the pope altogether:

Quote:

---

...Rome had demanded financial support from England, a nation struggling to raise money to resist a possible French attack. Wycliffe advised his local lord, John of Gaunt, to tell Parliament not to comply.

He argued that the church was already too wealthy and that Christ called his disciples to poverty, not wealth. If anyone should keep such taxes, it should be local English authorities.

Such opinions got Wycliffe into trouble, and he was brought to London to answer charges of heresy.

The hearing had hardly gotten underway when recriminations on both sides filled the air. Soon they erupted into an open brawl, ending the meeting. Three months later, Pope Gregory XI issued five bulls (church edicts) against Wycliffe, in which Wycliffe was accused on 18 counts and was called "the master of errors."

At a subsequent hearing before the archbishop at Lambeth Palace, Wycliffe replied, "I am ready to defend my convictions even unto death. I have followed the Sacred Scriptures and the holy doctors." He went on to say that the pope and the church were second in authority to Scripture.

---

https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/moversandshakers/john-wycliffe.html


All I can say is thank God for John Wycliffe.

The article continues:

Quote:

---

He wrote against the doctrine of transubstantiation: "The bread while becoming by virtue of Christ's words the body of Christ does not cease to be bread."

He challenged indulgences: "It is plain to me that our prelates in granting indulgences do commonly blaspheme the wisdom of God."

He repudiated the confessional: "Private confession was not ordered by Christ and was not used by the apostles."

He reiterated the biblical teaching on faith: "Trust wholly in Christ; rely altogether on his sufferings; beware of seeking to be justified in any other way than by his righteousness."

Believing that every Christian should have access to Scripture (only Latin translations were available at the time), he began translating the Bible into English, with the help of his good friend John Purvey.

The church bitterly opposed it: "By this translation, the Scriptures have become vulgar, and they are more available to lay, and even to women who can read, than they were to learned scholars, who have a high intelligence. So the pearl of the gospel is scattered and trodden underfoot by swine."
Wycliffe replied, "Englishmen learn Christ's law best in English. Moses heard God's law in his own tongue; so did Christ's apostles."

---

Why are you lecturing about this? What is your point?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Why are you lecturing about this? What is your point?

---

That the liturgical, ceremonial church headed by professional clergy failed to respond to the spiritual needs of the people, hence the rise of the charismatic/Pentecostal movement.

It's hard to ignore the Pentecostal church practices a lot of cultish behavioral compliance techniques. However, they do have many sincere members.

bmks270 said:

---

It's hard to ignore the Pentecostal church practices a lot of cultish behavioral compliance techniques. However, they do have many sincere memebers.

---

Believe in something, even if it costs you everything?

bmks270 said:

---

It's hard to ignore the Pentecostal church practices a lot of cultish behavioral compliance techniques. However, they do have many sincere members.

---

It's a good thing no other church has ever done that.

Again you paint with a broad brush. That last quote and translation wasn't "the Church" it was a man named Henry Knighton. The Church ruled that native tongue translations were a good, and that the trilingual position was a heresy, in the time of Sts Cyril and Methodius. And, for what it's worth, the historical practice of the church has been to teach people and hold services in their native tongue.

In other words, those who opposed it were teaching an error. I don't think errors and heresies by the few justifies schism for the many. It certainly doesn't justify schism after schism.

I don't even know what your main point is. Justifying the Reformation? Criticism of feudalism? Criticism of medieval politics, especially in England and Scotland?

What's the affirmation of Pentecostalism? If you want to lecture, lecture on that.

UTExan said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

It's hard to ignore the Pentecostal church practices a lot of cultish behavioral compliance techniques. However, they do have many sincere members.

---

It's a good thing no other church has ever done that.

---

It's more systemic in Pentecostal churches. It is something every church should watch out for.

I explored some Pentecostal churches in my college years, not until I became a student of psychology did I realize how the Pentecostal church is a bit more cult like than others.

There are even the examples given in this thread. One being a church keeping their Pentecostal associations hidden until they have pulled you in, and suddenly you are at a home and people are all speaking tongues.

Another example of my own is opening the floor to words of knowledge before sermons.

There is enough behavioral studies in my opinion to indicate that the spiritual "gifts" of Pentecostals are psychological phenomena induced through suggestion and peer pressure.

You can go to pretty much any full gospel evangelical church and find people speaking in tongues. Its pretty common.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Again you paint with a broad brush. That last quote and translation wasn't "the Church" it was a man named Henry Knighton. The Church ruled that native tongue translations were a good, and that the trilingual position was a heresy, in the time of Sts Cyril and Methodius. And, for what it's worth, the historical practice of the church has been to teach people and hold services in their native tongue.

In other words, those who opposed it were teaching an error. I don't think errors and heresies by the few justifies schism for the many. It certainly doesn't justify schism after schism.

I don't even know what your main point is. Justifying the Reformation? Criticism of feudalism? Criticism of medieval politics, especially in England and Scotland?

What's the affirmation of Pentecostalism? If you want to lecture, lecture on that.

---

I already did that.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

You can go to pretty much any full gospel evangelical church and find people speaking in tongues. Its pretty common.

---

But you can't find a single interpreter...hmmm

1 Corinthians 14:2

http://www.thywordistruth.com/First_Corinthians/notes/Lesson-20.html#.XT3RpCVOmEc

Hahdhenllksywggsggghnskdkkdjrhwhywyrhrbjdsn
Amen

Paul clearly spoke of it in a positive way.

https://events.rhema.org/4-important-reasons-pray-tongues/

Tongues spoken on the Day of Pentecost and in the early church weren't unintelligible gibberish like you claim to utter. The Bible teaches that miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased at the death of the last person whom the apostles laid their hands.

Modern day gibberish is neither miraculous nor from God...therefore 100% unnecessary.

Maybe actually read the biblical study I offered you when you have more time.

Offer me scripture, not a biased BS source.

With all due respect, the Bible study offered is replete with scripture. It literally breaks down each verse with cross referencing from the OT & NT concerning the miraculous gifts of tongues, which has CEASED! (1 Cor 13:8)

A thorough investigation into the miraculous gifts in scripture reveals their Divine purpose and cessation. It's not a mystery.

Pentecostals or other evangelicals you mention do not posses the miraculous gift of speaking in tongues just as they can't miraculously heal, raise the dead or prophesy. To believe otherwise is silly.

dermdoc said:

---

Not meaning to derail, but have you ever read and/or studied any non Church of Christ sponsored literature?

---

Speaking of, can you send me the literature where you learned Christians can be saved like the thief on the Cross today? Oh, and I read the Left Behind series* once upon a time...ha

Don't be smug. I've dabbled in plenty of denominational nonsense, more than I care to mention.

Regardless, today's "tongue speakers" are merely uttering mindless, unintelligible gibberish. This miraculous gift ceased long ago along with all others. There's nothing edifying about such nonsense in a worship assembly today and conveys a false sense of eternal security to millions of sincere believers.

That may or may not be true. But it is not "regardless" when you cite a verse to prove a point and then that verse doesn't prove your point. Make the point you want, but if it isn't backed by scripture then at least recognize it's simply your opinion.

That's your opinion. There's also a school of thought that scripture supports what I said, that "tongues" will cease and in fact have ceased.

Regardless*, if you feel gibberish is from God, then so be it.

Only bc apostolics cite this very verse (and 1:8) to confirm "tongues" still remain. You know this but use every opportunity to undermine anyone who disagrees with your misguided views of scripture.

That being said, Paul wrote that supernatural gifts will remain only until "the perfect thing" comes (13:10). Many believe this is the complete NT revealing, which we do have today, therefore tongues (no quotes) have ceased my friend. This is understandably difficult for some who don't believe the NT is "perfect" and completely inspired by God.

Your view demands the conclusion there will be no communication or knowledge in heaven then, correct? Or do you believe miracles of the 1st century kind are still occurring today?? Do you babble meaningless, mindless utterances in your "worship"? If not, why not? The link provided earlier by 7nine strongly suggest only Spirit filled Christians speak in "tongues" today.

Once again, if anyone today thinks he or she is in possession of the miraculous gift of tongues today as were the apostles and some in the early church, that person is alarmingly misguided, even foolish.

aggiedad20 said:

---

With all due respect, the Bible study offered is replete with scripture. It literally breaks down each verse with cross referencing from the OT & NT concerning the miraculous gifts of tongues, which has CEASED! (1 Cor 13:8)

A thorough investigation into the miraculous gifts in scripture reveals their Divine purpose and cessation. It's not a mystery.

Pentecostals or other evangelicals you mention do not posses the miraculous gift of speaking in tongues just as they can't miraculously heal, raise the dead or prophesy. To believe otherwise is silly.

---

That verse doesn't mean what you think in the slightest. It is saying all those things are temporary while love endures forever. It does not mean that people will not do it anymore in the future.

I don't believe any of it is miraculous because I don't believe in the Bible anymore. But it's clear what it says about it.

My guess is you never believed in the Bible...

aggiedad20 said:

---

My guess is you never believed in the Bible...

---

If it makes you most comfortable to believe that, go right ahead. I'm here for honest conversations not to scare the weak minded.

Terrifying