tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post5127053001617525921..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: When Did the Pope Become Antichrist? (vs. John Calvin)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-29692471432401956282012-02-23T19:19:36.657-05:002012-02-23T19:19:36.657-05:00As a catholic we all know that the office of the P...As a catholic we all know that the office of the Pope is instituted by our lord Jesus Christ himself and he is so protected by the holy spirit to always abide in Christ. Since Johnny is so against the pope he is the anti-Christ. Lets not forget what the lord say in Luke 10:16 "He who listen to you listen to me. He who reject you reject me and the one who sent me". What in fact johnny wants as to believe is that he is right and the pope is wrong. The worse thing is that he and Martin Luther invented a novelty in the Church and teach it as if and acted like they were like pope without proving that he has the divine providence to teach christian doctrine infallably.Russelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04715454109401447368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-1961210525832907192011-04-10T15:23:22.839-04:002011-04-10T15:23:22.839-04:00You're welcome!You're welcome!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32769083095430878182011-04-10T09:12:23.871-04:002011-04-10T09:12:23.871-04:00Thanks for this post.Thanks for this post.Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05830267799191251140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-66758717870136720472010-06-08T03:33:55.184-04:002010-06-08T03:33:55.184-04:00In case you're interested about my last questi...In case you're interested about my last question, I found a response in this page: http://seanhyland.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/the-truth-about-the-anti-catholic-charge-of-lord-god-the-pope/Aprendiz de contadorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05946166429596817066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-82372258913761761982010-06-05T11:53:39.204-04:002010-06-05T11:53:39.204-04:00I'm not familiar with it, and I'm afraid I...I'm not familiar with it, and I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to get into a textual dispute of that sort; too many other plates spinning . . . sorry.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-73767990794821471342010-06-05T10:48:05.061-04:002010-06-05T10:48:05.061-04:00This page shows the text: http://www.archive.org/s...This page shows the text: http://www.archive.org/stream/worksrobertsand03sanduoft/worksrobertsand03sanduoft_djvu.txt<br /><br />and the extract is:<br /><br />"Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, conditorem <br />dictae Decretalis, et istius, sic non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, haereticum censeretur. The MS. in the Vatican and some editions have Do minum nostrum Papam..."<br /><br />Could be a mistranslation from latin? Thank you in advance.Aprendiz de contadorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05946166429596817066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-2863757899119033042010-06-05T10:38:57.706-04:002010-06-05T10:38:57.706-04:00Mr. Armstrong: Have you ever heard the 'argume...Mr. Armstrong: Have you ever heard the 'argument' of the protestants refer to Pope John XXII saying 'Dominum Deum nostrum Papam' supposedly from a document entitled Declaramus? I think this is just another bluff, but I want to be sureAprendiz de contadorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05946166429596817066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-17202025930597886012010-03-17T04:56:09.120-04:002010-03-17T04:56:09.120-04:00YepYepMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-80861443230780264422010-03-17T03:01:55.575-04:002010-03-17T03:01:55.575-04:00Hi Ben.
What you quoted from saint Bernard,was not...Hi Ben.<br />What you quoted from saint Bernard,was not against the Pope,but against the antipope Anacletus II ,and pope Innocent II have been banished from Rome by Anacletus.<br />So that`s why st Bernard wrote what he wrote,because the one sitting on the throne of Peter,was not a pope but an antipope.<br />GBUMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-12124085145245506592010-03-16T11:57:26.762-04:002010-03-16T11:57:26.762-04:00I don't think it is at all helpful or charitab...I don't think it is at all helpful or charitable to argue in such a fashion. Protestants believe in and follow Jesus Christ. They have other errors that we can and should oppose. But it is foolish to create more division by going on and on about Antichrist and deliberate lying and so forth.<br /><br />I refuse to descend to the level that is so often directed against us Catholics. I ain't gonna be anti-Protestant. I used to be one myself, and I know what motivated <i>me</i>. We need to do better than that.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-8630898940225687722010-03-16T01:09:20.169-04:002010-03-16T01:09:20.169-04:00Hi Dave
AntiChrist means against Christ.Now if mos...Hi Dave<br />AntiChrist means against Christ.Now if most of Calvin`s teachings are not against Christ and against His Church,then who`s teachings are?<br />I can understand if someone says his own opinion and teaches what he thinks is the truth as truth,and if he is wrong,then we could also say that we should correct his or her errors.But that`s not the case with Calvin or many other protestants,they just attacked the truth believed and taught and written and explained by all the church fathers for 1500 years ,and really were against Christ,because being against the Church is being against Christ Himself.<br />What is more against Christ,then saying that He ( God ) is the one which causes some to sin and some others not to sin,some which He wants to save and redeem and some others which He wants to condemn????And so on....<br />So i dont think at all that we are exagerating when we say that the one which is saying lies against the truth,and attacking the Church and teaching false things is a type of antichrist....<br />That`s my humble opinion of course,and i am not saying those things to condemn anyone,but to condemn and refuse the lies,because saying the truth is also a must do for us...<br />So i dont think at all that to call the one which called the popes and the papacy as the antichrist,if we say that that person himself is an antichrist is no exageration nor wrong.Or should we rather call him a deceived and a deceiver and a liar and a false teacher?If this is better?So be it...<br />GBUMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-50098556769888164132010-03-15T23:14:57.679-04:002010-03-15T23:14:57.679-04:00I understand the distinctions that were made betwe...I understand the distinctions that were made between "the" and "an" but I still say it is not a great road to go down. We can oppose and refute the errors (and I do as much as anyone!) without playing the game of making people consciously in league with the devil.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-1979686186375142002010-03-15T19:22:01.715-04:002010-03-15T19:22:01.715-04:00Dave: C'mon, guys. Let's not repeat the mi...Dave: C'mon, guys. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the anti-Catholics, with all this talk of who's the Antichrist.<br /><br />Adomnan: We don't say Calvin is "the" Antichrist. Maroun and I described him as "an" antichrist, following John; and Ben sees Calvin as a "type of antichrist." <br /><br />Calvin, on the other hand, absurdly claimed that the Pope (an office, not any individual) was "the" Antichrist. I don't see that our views are comparable to his. <br /><br />But I do concede that the question of whether Calvin was an antichrist or not is largely a matter of opinion and sensibility.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46240952861824345012010-03-15T16:40:50.496-04:002010-03-15T16:40:50.496-04:00C'mon, guys. Let's not repeat the mistakes...C'mon, guys. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the anti-Catholics, with all this talk of who's the Antichrist.<br /><br />Calvin (like most Protestants) is a radically-mixed bag of Christian belief and heresy.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-85100593136986282432010-03-15T02:43:37.230-04:002010-03-15T02:43:37.230-04:00When Did the Pope Become Antichrist?
I answer.As ...When Did the Pope Become Antichrist?<br /> I answer.As soon as one of the antichrists called the Pope antichrist.<br />Remember that Christ is the truth and so the antichrists are liars,so Calvin like many others are liars and antichrists.<br />And cardinal John Henry Newman , has proved Calvin and whoever calls the Pope and the Papacy as the antichrists , because the antichrists will and can never do anything good or right,but we do know that the Papacy and the Popes have always fought heresies,so the Popes are not antichrists because they fought for Christ and not against Him.<br />So logicaly , whosoever accuses the Popes and the Papacy of being antichrists,is himself a deceived and a deceiver and a liar and an antichrist.<br />GBUMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-83900464127069814692010-03-14T12:34:07.412-04:002010-03-14T12:34:07.412-04:00As Paul uses the term Antichrist, it can only refe...As Paul uses the term Antichrist, it can only refer to one individual, not an office like "the Pope." Just as there is one Christ, so there will be one Antichrist. <br /><br />So right from the start we know there is no biblical basis whatsoever for Calvin's slander against the papacy. Calvin is equivocating by treating the name of an office as if it were an individual. <br /><br />John refers to "antichrists" in the plural, but he is using the term more loosely, to designate anyone who denies that Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4:3). However, John also acknowledges that there will be a single Antichrist "at the final hour": "You have heard that Antichrist is coming, and now many antichrists have already come" (1 John 2:18).<br /><br />Applying John's usage, Calvin's Nestorianism qualifies him as "an antichrist," although he was not "the Antichrist," who has not yet come.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.com