The Whore of Babylon

[Louis VI the Fat]

'twas the belief of just about every Protestant until really a century or two ago.

And what of your boy Knox? Paisley? That direct line between 'em over the last five centuries?

I wish people didn't take such knee-jerk reactions to it.

Now, I'm not saying it's the only interpretation, but IMO it looks right now to be the best.

Lord knows I'm never the last to speak evil of Rome. But I can't accept this whole Babylon stuff because it describes the Catholic Church from an internal Christian perspective.

Then again, I do not think it is all any more...erm...'at first glance contrary to common logic', than believing that three is really one, or that one can heal the wretched by talking to water and sprinkling it on them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And what of your boy Knox? Paisley? That direct line between 'em over the last five centuries?

Of course there is a link, and I'm glad of it, it's good that some people have kept alive the spirit of the Reformation. When it comes to the Bible, its truth should be no different 500 years ago than it is today.

Although I wouldn't over emphasise the anti-Catholicism within Scottish Protestantism nowadays. If the literature my Plymouth Brethren relatives send me is anything to go by, its still very big in Northern Ireland, but not so much here. Most of the Kirk membership are happy to hold prayer serives with Catholics, and walk around town waving palm leaves and generally being idolatrous. There are some people that are more hardline, a sort of unholy alliance of evangelicals and Orangemen. But really, don't overestimate the strictness of the Kirk and its observance of Protestant principles. If you read the bottom paragraph on this link, it's sadly revealing.

Then again, I do not think it is all any more...erm...'at first glance contrary to common logic', than believing that three is really one, or that one can heal the wretched by talking to water and sprinkling it on them.

Well when you add in the omnipotent God it all makes sense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course there is a link, and I'm glad of it, it's good that some people have kept alive the spirit of the Reformation. When it comes to the Bible, its truth should be no different 500 years ago than it is today.

Although I wouldn't over emphasise the anti-Catholicism within Scottish Protestantism nowadays. If the literature my Plymouth Brethren relatives send me is anything to go by, its still very big in Northern Ireland, but not so much here. Most of the Kirk membership are happy to hold prayer serives with Catholics, and walk around town waving palm leaves and generally being idolatrous. There are some people that are more hardline, a sort of unholy alliance of evangelicals and Orangemen. But really, don't overestimate the strictness of the Kirk and its observance of Protestant principles. If you read the bottom paragraph on this link, it's sadly revealing.



Well when you add in the omnipotent God it all makes sense.

The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church, specifically Augustine and Jerome, edited and translated the Bible. So if Rome is anti-Christ, then the Bible is a product of anti-Christ.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Bible is man-made too. What, did you think it dropped out of the air in exactly the same version you have now?

Jesus wrote the KJV in 25AD and the Catholic Bibles are based off the later Hebrew editions.

The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church, specifically Augustine and Jerome, edited and translated the Bible. So if Rome is anti-Christ, then the Bible is a product of anti-Christ.

It's more the Church that emerged after they started to develop the idea of Papal Supremacy that is criticised. As the quote I gave a few posts up shows, the Papacy clearly shifted it's doctrine in order to push that idea. Until that point, the ancient theologians and scholars that it produced are treated like any other in the Reformation writers. Heck, Augustine was Calvin's hero figure.

[Centurion1]

Jesus wrote the KJV in 25AD and the Catholic Bibles are based off the later Hebrew editions.

First off you are just picking and choosing what you find convinent about he catholic church. "oh well he was okay but they aren't." Second, lol at what you just said. i hope that is a joke. otherwise *facepalm*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's more the Church that emerged after they started to develop the idea of Papal Supremacy that is criticised. As the quote I gave a few posts up shows, the Papacy clearly shifted it's doctrine in order to push that idea. Until that point, the ancient theologians and scholars that it produced are treated like any other in the Reformation writers. Heck, Augustine was Calvin's hero figure.

So God decided that the Roman Church would be good until.... when exactly? 1200? 1382? 1415?

This, more than anything Calvin's legacy. Wyclif may have denounced the Church of his own age as Anti-Christ and irredeemably corrupt, but he was a priest living in a country under pressure from Rome and faced with TWO POPES!

Calvin's theology is deterministic, if the Church has fallen it is because God has withdrawn his Grace, and for no other reason. Ockham's Razor suggests the proposition is absurd, because it makes a mockery of the divine mind and is needlessly complex.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So God decided that the Roman Church would be good until.... when exactly? 1200? 1382? 1415?

It's just been a story of gradually increasing corruption, gradually spreading it's dominion over the earth. Until we get the apocalyptic finale. *yay*

Calvin's theology is deterministic, if the Church has fallen it is because God has withdrawn his Grace, and for no other reason. Ockham's Razor suggests the proposition is absurd, because it makes a mockery of the divine mind and is needlessly complex.

Far from making a mockery of God, the purpose of election is to show his own glory. Rather than people saving themselves through their own merits, God reveals his power through them. Did God make a mockery of himself when he withdrew his presence from the ancient Israelites? No, but rather in returning to them he showed how entirely dependent the church was on him for its deliverence, even for its daily bread when he fed them manna.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's just been a story of gradually increasing corruption, gradually spreading it's dominion over the earth. Until we get the apocalyptic finale. *yay*



Far from making a mockery of God, the purpose of election is to show his own glory. Rather than people saving themselves through their own merits, God reveals his power through them. Did God make a mockery of himself when he withdrew his presence from the ancient Israelites? No, but rather in returning to them he showed how entirely dependent the church was on him for its deliverence, even for its daily bread when he fed them manna.

So the body of Christ is perpetually rotting? That certainly does not glorify God.

As to the reformed definition of election, it simply cuts down the number of the saved from the whole of God's children to merely His prophets. One cannot reconcile with a Reformed Christian because he believes he is justified and sanctified, and his opposer is a limb of the Devil.

Calvinism has caused division within the body of Christ beyond mere schism. It's totalitarian doctrine belittles Man, God's greatest creation and therefore belittles God.

[Hax]

Jesus wrote the KJV in 25AD and the Catholic Bibles are based off the later Hebrew editions.

...why do we call it "the gospel of [apostle]" then?

[Hax]

It's all in your Bible too, just go by it and not your man-made traditions and philosophies.

The Bible is man-made too. What, did you think it dropped out of the air in exactly the same version you have now?