Worst sinner in Christian history

[OldSchool2]

i checked online, and the chick tracts have some authenticity and truth - completely different than the papacy which has always been antichrist as Martin Luther and hundreds of other men sent by God have shown from Scripture.

rely on Scripture, give up the satanic doctrines of the roman abomination....

Like most tracts, Chick tracts are simplistic.

"Martin Luther's criticism of the Church initially was that the Church was sending the wrong message, that the Church was ... giving to people the sense that they could save themselves by using the various things the Church offered, including indulgences ... That was his original complaint with the Church. But when the Church did not listen, he came reluctantly to the conclusion that the Church, especially the office of the papacy, was the Antichrist, and that what it was doing was deliberate. It was the devil's attempt to subvert, to submerge the good news, the gospel. The devil was working within the Church. And once he was convinced that that was happening, the papal office was the office of the Antichrist, and he saw the end time near...."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinluther.html

[thereselittleflower]

 

i checked online, and the chick tracts have some authenticity and truth - completely different than the papacy which has always been antichrist as Martin Luther and hundreds of other men sent by God have shown from Scripture.

rely on Scripture, give up the satanic doctrines of the roman abomination....

Like most tracts, Chick tracts are simplistic.

"Martin Luther's criticism of the Church initially was that the Church was sending the wrong message, that the Church was ... giving to people the sense that they could save themselves by using the various things the Church offered, including indulgences ... That was his original complaint with the Church. But when the Church did not listen, he came reluctantly to the conclusion that the Church, especially the office of the papacy, was the Antichrist, and that what it was doing was deliberate. It was the devil's attempt to subvert, to submerge the good news, the gospel. The devil was working within the Church. And once he was convinced that that was happening, the papal office was the office of the Antichrist, and he saw the end time near...."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinluther.html

 

 

And yet the Catholic Church never actually taught this.   Some very over zealous monks went overboard.  

 

This is why in the Catholic Church today, money is never allowed to be used in such a fashion, the risk for misunderstanding and overzealous abuse is too great.

 

The original complaint of Luther was with a particular monk Tetzel.

[thereselittleflower]

[thereselittleflower]

lying won't help.  judas the betrayer never repented.  perhaps he sought repentance, perhaps not;  esau did, he sought repentance with tears, but to no avail.

 

'chick' is righteous compared to any catholic who trusts the devil.

sodom and gomorrah is righteous compared to the leader of the abomination.

 

but no amount of evidence will ever convince anyone who trust the devil to not trust the devil. ---- if they don't believe Jesus, God's Word,  they won't listen to anyone else.

 

catholicism is heresy.  that's enough to know.  there's no rule at all , in God's Word or anywhere , that says we can or should convince a heretic after 2 or 3 warnings.

 

instead;  as noted before , in God's Word, it is written to have nothing to do with a heretic if they continually refuse to repent and yet still

call themselves a believer.   it is written to put out the evil from the assembly,  not to reason with it, after they've been warned.

 

 

Are you saying the bible lied?

 

Matthew 27:3-5

 

Then Judas, who had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.

 

And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed and went and hanged himself.

 

 

He repented, he turned his back on his sin,  but lost hope of forgiveness.

 

 

So did the scriptures lie here since you claim he never repented?

[missmuffet]

Matthew 27:3-10King James Version (KJV)

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.

 

 

Judas did repent.....       I'm not sure about the results of committing suicide concerning heaven and hell.  I think I'd just leave it in the hands of the Lord......       

The Bible clearly says that Judas was not saved.That is what Matthew 26:24 is about.

[OakWood]

lying won't help.  judas the betrayer never repented.  perhaps he sought repentance, perhaps not;  esau did, he sought repentance with tears, but to no avail.

 

'chick' is righteous compared to any catholic who trusts the devil.

sodom and gomorrah is righteous compared to the leader of the abomination.

 

but no amount of evidence will ever convince anyone who trust the devil to not trust the devil. ---- if they don't believe Jesus, God's Word,  they won't listen to anyone else.

 

catholicism is heresy.  that's enough to know.  there's no rule at all , in God's Word or anywhere , that says we can or should convince a heretic after 2 or 3 warnings.

 

instead;  as noted before , in God's Word, it is written to have nothing to do with a heretic if they continually refuse to repent and yet still

call themselves a believer.   it is written to put out the evil from the assembly,  not to reason with it, after they've been warned.

 

I think you'll find that Catholic-bashing is against the rules of the forum.

[OldSchool2]

i checked online, and the chick tracts have some authenticity and truth - completely different than the papacy which has always been antichrist as Martin Luther and hundreds of other men sent by God have shown from Scripture.

rely on Scripture, give up the satanic doctrines of the roman abomination....

Like most tracts, Chick tracts are simplistic.

"Martin Luther's criticism of the Church initially was that the Church was sending the wrong message, that the Church was ... giving to people the sense that they could save themselves by using the various things the Church offered, including indulgences ... That was his original complaint with the Church. But when the Church did not listen, he came reluctantly to the conclusion that the Church, especially the office of the papacy, was the Antichrist, and that what it was doing was deliberate. It was the devil's attempt to subvert, to submerge the good news, the gospel. The devil was working within the Church. And once he was convinced that that was happening, the papal office was the office of the Antichrist, and he saw the end time near...."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinluther.html

 

And yet the Catholic Church never actually taught this.   Some very over zealous monks went overboard.  

 

This is why in the Catholic Church today, money is never allowed to be used in such a fashion, the risk for misunderstanding and overzealous abuse is too great.

 

The original complaint of Luther was with a particular monk Tetzel.

John Tetzel was commissioned on behalf of a papal fund-raising campaign to sell indulgences, the proceeds of which were to complete the construction of St Peter's basilica in Rome.

Tetzel even had a jingle that went: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs," which prompted Luther to post his 95 theses.

Even today, I can find indulgences listed in my Catholic Catechism (1471). Although indulgences are said to remove the temporal punishment for sin, they can be applied to the living or the dead!

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

Worst sinner in Christian history?

 

My guess would be Satan. 

 

EDIT: Then again, "Let He who is without sin, cast the first stone".

Edited August 1, 2015 by AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken

[other one]

 

Matthew 27:3-10King James Version (KJV)

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.

 

 

Judas did repent.....       I'm not sure about the results of committing suicide concerning heaven and hell.  I think I'd just leave it in the hands of the Lord......       

The Bible clearly says that Judas was not saved.That is what Matthew 26:24 is about.

 

i didn't say anything about being saved, I just disputed that he didn't repent.

However saying that it would have been better if he had not been born isn't the same as saying that he was going to hell......   could have just been the rest of his natural life.....    When Satan enters a person, is that person responsible for his/her actions.....    I'm certainly not in a position to know that and I've dealt with demons and demonic powers for many many years.

 

It is not our place to judge even Judas...

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

simplejeff,

 

So our Lord didn't know Judas' heart when he died? Does not our Lord judge our hearts and minds?