Archive for category Catholic Doctrines

Condemning the misconceptions on “No Salvation outside the Church”


This post is intended to end the confusions among Protestants who were insisting that the church believes in Sola Ecclesia.

This article is given to me by a member of a certain protestant church during the time we had a dialogue with regards to the Catholic Faith and its doctrine. Unexpectedly, this article shows a certain argument based on the idea on Salvation through the church. So, here as a Catholic would like to refute this article in order to let him understand that what he thought to be true is not true..

Let me open to you this guys that the Catholic Church believes in the idea of salvation, that Salvation (total liberation of sins)= faith (received by grace) + good works (maintains the grace received)

But in the article, he suggested to open up that the Catechism of the Catholic Church believes in Sola Ecclesia (Church-Alone) in salvation.

He quote:

“ For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of means of salvation can be obtained.” (p.215, #816)

My reply: let me tell you that this part of Catechism never suggested that the Catholic Church-alone is the only way to salvation or leads to salvation, but rather it gives us the idea that the Catholic Church alone, can give the fullness of means of salvation, or in other words, the church made by Christ is the only one who could give us the ultimate knowledge on the salvation that faithful individuals wanted to know and follow. But it doesn’t mean that since you are a member of the Catholic Church, you are considered as saved while our separated brethren are not. The Bible is clear and the church also agrees that salvation is for all. So it is important to know that the Church is considering those whom we call as separated has also their idea on how to make their people be saved, but it would be much important to accept that Christ established ONLY a Church, and not churches.

In the Bible also, it tells us that the church is “the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23). Now, as Jesus accomplished His objective redemption, the “plan of mystery hidden for ages in God” is “that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:9–10). It is clear that the statement of the Cathecism is connected on its Biblical realities.

Many theologians agree that since then, the Catholic Church is the basis on all early Christian events and practices not until the schism, heresies, and reformation made by our separated brethren. There were numerous articles in the library and internet that shows the fact that the Catholic Church never believes in Sola Ecclesia= salvation.

He quoted again on the 1994 Catechism where it says:

“…all salvation comes from Christ the head through the church which is His body; basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches the church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.”

Reply: in this part of Cathecism, I firmly believe that this pertains to Christ and not to the church. It explains that the church is given all of the revelations of God that the people must believe..in practices, doctrines and belief, that’s why it is necessary for our salvation, but it’s not the only way . And It is through the church that let us know that the salvation really comes from Christ..so the church in here is demonstrating her role in letting us believe to Christ, since we all know that Christ is our salvation. As what was explained to this cathecism that “…ALL SALVATION COMES FROM CHRIST…” not “…ALL SALVATION COMES FROM THE CHURCH.”. This is a common misunderstanding of a person who tries to concoct to us that the Catholic Church teaches sola ecclesia is the only way to salvation.

He pointed out also that Pope John Paul II said:

“You cannot be a Christian if you reject the church founded on Jesus Christ.”

Reply: it is true that we can’t really be Christians if we will reject the church (if we initially believe that she is the true church made by Christ) founded by Him since the Bible itself is clear on Mark 3;24 that His church must be one, not divided into different sects/ churches and there’s no other biblical accounts that suggest there would be thousands of churches with different doctrine that will be built, and if we take a closer look on the accounts in the Bible, it also conveys the idea that His church will not be prevailed by any evil. But this man is suggesting that it would be awkward to reason out that the church made by Christ is only the Catholic Church, is he suggesting that the church made by Christ is divided already? I could not see any verses in the Bible that says the church will be like that, and you admitted already during our discussion that:

“(Nauna ang Catholic Church sa pagkahimo…) The Catholic Church is the 1st one to be established”

I also did not get his point that if we will carefully complete all of the statements that the late pope said:

In order to properly understand the Church’s teaching about its role in Christ’s scheme of salvation, two truths must be held together: “the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all humanity” and “the necessity of the Church for salvation” (Redemptoris Missio 18). John Paul taught us that the Church is “the seed, sign, and instrument” of God’s kingdom and referred several times to Vatican II’s designation of the Catholic Church as the “universal sacrament of salvation”:

• “The Church is the sacrament of salvation for all humankind, and her activity is not limited only to those who accept her message” (RM 20).
• “Christ won the Church for himself at the price of his own blood and made the Church his co-worker in the salvation of the world. . . . He carries out his mission through her” (RM 9).
• In an address to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (January 28, 2000), John Paul stated, “The Lord Jesus . . . established his Church as a saving reality: as his body, through which he himself accomplishes salvation in history.” He then quoted Vatican II’s teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation.

[note: the quote he pointed out never mentioned on sola ecclesia, but a testimony of the late pope regarding the importance to be in a true church, since he is expressing the unity of the faithful as being part of a true church than making it easy to reject the church and be to another church in proclaiming Jesus according on how they interpreted the scripture, the Bible already warned us on personal interpretation.]

The writer of this article uses Romans 10:13,

Reply: the verse is clear that in order to be saved, each and one of us must call upon the Name of the Lord. But this did not mention if even there are thousands of churches and of different interpretations, as long as they call the name of the Lord, they will be automatically considered as saved because since Catholics consider protestants as Christ-believers (since technically, they believe in Jesus Christ as their saviour), they may have different style knowing who really Christ is, because others may believe on the Trinity, while others didn’t.

If we will never consider this, then the idea that they believe will contradict on the promises that Christ wanted to His church. So, If we only reason out on the points that we don’t need the church (since many only believes to the definition of the church as invinsible) to learn and nourish the salvation that God wanted us to do, then it would disagree with the fact that Christ established His church (if we say established, it must have foundation and a visible unity amongst believers, and His church is the “way”( Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 ) in letting us be guided from the heresies that will try to eliminate the orthodoxy of the Christian faith.

The article said: When Jesus died on the cross, He paid the full price for the sins of all mankind. According to God’s word, anyone can go directly to Him for salvation. Jesus Himself announced that John 3:36;

“He hath believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and He hath believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on Him.”

No one from the Catholic Church disagrees to this point that we must believe in the Son whom will redeem us from the slavery of sins. But in this verse, it never mentions anything that it’s normal that His church will be divided into different interpretations, since it is clear that at the start He build a church which is one in doctrine, one in faith and one in baptism, it is very obvious that those churches outside the church never have that kind of unity, the fact is that all of them are not in connivance with regards on what is to be correctly understood with regards to the teachings written in the Bible, it is because of their personal interpretations.

Now, as to connect this idea to his accusation against the stand on the church with regards to the “no salvation outside the church”, the Vatican II under Pope Pius IX,

in his encyclical “On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore),” said the following:
We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accord with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment (no. 7).
So, in this letter-alone, it is connected to John 3:36 in which the Catholic Church never teaches on sola ecclesia=salvation, and is false in the idea that protestants would like to concoct to the innocent Catholics.

He further said that

John 6:47

He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

My reply: this is again not a contrary to the Catholic stand on the church-alone that gives the fullness of the means of salvation because this verse is generally a tipping idea that since man will have everlasting life if we believe in Him, we are also entitled to believe all of the things he shared unto us, especially when the Bible is clear that we must have one sanctuary. In 2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14, God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth and it was fulfilled in Matt. 1:1 where St. Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven. Remember, he pointed out to the house of david, a house which is not divided and indestructible by many intruders who will assume that they are also a house of David, look what happened to the protestant churches, they may be correct in the saying that they believe in Jesus Christ, but the question will always be like this, why are they not united to faith? Does this mean, they are not the house of david? Well, you better reflect on it.

The article further stated that:
“Jesus repeats this message in John 3:16, 3:18 and 6:40. If the Catholic Church really is necessary for salvation, then Jesus Christ is a liar.

My reply: The writer is confused and is trying to say that a church is not needed in learning the salvation that a believer must attain. Remember, if we believe in Jesus Christ as our personal saviour, and if we are truly sincere in our faith to Him, then all of His command and promises must be followed, especially as He is the one who built the church, He is the one who organized it, and He is the one who revealed to us the importance of being a member of His assembly and He is the one who promised that His church will not be divided and be prevailed by any evil.

Then why the church is also a great help in letting us cherish the moments when we receive Christ as our saviour? Because as the Bible says: The Church is “the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23). So it is in His visible assembly that fills all our imperfections. Nothing from other churches who were only been formed during the schism and reformation and heresy attacks does fill them in Christ because they rejected the Catholic Church in her teachings when they started to split up. Where you admitted it to be true, don’t deny it.

The Apostle Paul gives step by step instructions on how to be saved
Romans 10:9-10
“That if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation
.”

My reply: notice how the writer is suggesting that there’s no need for the church and it’s the personal option of man to believe Christ in order to be saved. And take a careful study on the verse, does this mean anything of a divided belief? Or a united action that St. Paul wanted us to do? The verse is speaking on the people are capable to attain salvation, even if you are a greek or a jew (v. 12), all of the people who believes in Him will be saved (v. 13). What this verse suggests is that the salvation is really open for all, and is for free as long as you believe in Him, but in no ways it opens the idea that even if you have Jesus but you interpreted Him according to how you standardize it using the Bible, it’s ok and the church is just only a haven for believers and has nothing to deal with the salvation of mankind. That is a rude notion because the church has a big role in giving us the complete knowledge about salvation, if it is not true, then the Bible is false.
Jesus told his followers, “I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16). After his Resurrection, Jesus gave the threefold command to Peter: “Feed my lambs. . . . Tend my sheep. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:15–17). The word translated as “tend” (poimaine) means “to direct” or “to superintend”—in other words, “to govern.” So although there are sheep that are not of Christ’s fold, it is through the Church that they are able to receive his salvation.

Notice, no church is required. So if Catholicism is right, then the Apostle Paul is also a liar: And since he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is a liar as well.

My reply: the verse did not say no church is required. This is another tactic of misrepresenting the scripture, if we are careful enough in reading the epistles made by St. Paul, all of them are for the churches, and on how they faithfully nourished the unity among the believers despite the distance that make them far from each other. And because of his epistles, every church was surrounded with unity, prosperity and hope because of their deep faith to God. All of them have unified faith, the same as their perceptions. That’s why the church has a great role in giving the nourishment in filling all that Jesus also has. Because Jesus wants unity, and this unity is impossible on those protestant churches since they are fully divided with each other.

It is funny when he admitted that evangelicals follow the teachings of Luther but differ in some of their principles or forms of worship, others like a live band-style of worship, while some would prefer a solemn-like form of worship…he even explain that he doesn’t prefer Baptists as evangelicals because he told me that they have the OSAS doctrine, but hey! This is the thing that they differ, they have divided doctrines, worship, and perceptions with regards to knowing who Christ is and that’s make them false churches. But because the Catholic Church is very considerate since they are still Christ-believers, the Cathecism also stressed out that:
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (no. 16). “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)

So where is the claim that the Catholics are exclusivists? I see none from any of the documents.
The writer must reflect through answering this question: if believing Christ without the need of a church in knowing what salvation means is true, then, st. Paul is a liar when he made those epistles in order to make the churches be united in faith after believing in Christ?

Acts 10:43…”To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”

My reply: look how he twisted the idea in this verse, it is true that by believing in Christ, we will receive remission of sins, but in this verse, it never even mentioned a single point that the church is not necessary for salvation. The verse is clear for those who disbelieved Him will receive remission of sins if they will have faith in Him, but where can we find that true faith? Can it be found to those who only sprung during/ after time of reformation due to the personal interpretations of Luther?

The key is belief in Christ, not a church
Romans 1:16

My reply: otherwise, his claim is false, because in Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives St. Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” The kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term “keys,” Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom). While Romans 1:16 is referring to the faith of man that they must hear and believe Jesus as the one who can attain them the salvation that they are hoping, where if we are going to reconcile this verse to Matthew, They both agree that there must be a true faith that must dwell in order to determine the right Jesus, but at where can we find the true faith? Is it for divided churches? Or to a church that existed for about 2000 years whom had felt the ministry made by Jesus through His apostles in propagating Christianity to hardcore pagan places?

Acts 10:43. Romans 1: 16, 2 Timothy 3:15, Acts 16:31, Luke 23:42-43, Romans 6:23, 1 John 4:9, Romans 5:9, Acts 4:10 and 12.

You know what readers, these verses did not pertain to anything in disagreement to the church as the only one who gives us the fullness of the salvation that God wanted us to achieve, because these only gives us the idea that Jesus is our salvation and we must not really forget that Christ built His only church, a church that is not diversified in doctrines, not diversified in faith and not diversified on how they interpreted the practices written in the scriptures.

 

The reason why anti-Catholics put more attention in attacking the Catholic Church its because some of them were misinformed by Leonard Feeney, S.J., who began teaching in the 1940s that the Catholic Church can only be saved, which is not true because the Catechism never says it so. Many people where misrepresented to this dogma because they followed the interpretation of his, and same as anti-Catholics as well who devoted their lives attacking the Catholic Church not knowing that what they interpreted is based in the misrepresentation of Fr. Fenney, and because of his malicious interpretation, he was excommunicated and later on reconciled to the Church as he accepted his mistake with regards to interpreting the teaching.

 

In John 16:13, Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time where in Eph. 3:20, God’s glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church’s leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ. But the Bible never mentions on division of churches in doctrines because as what the Bible says, in John 10:16, Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church and in Rom. 16:17, St. Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another. We need to avoid their teaching, and bring them back into the one fold of Christ.

Source: scripturecatholic.com

ewtn.com

newadvent.com

catholic.com

catholicconverts.com

Wikipedia.com

Advertisements

3 Comments

Purgatory


Here I will start defending the Catholic teaching on purgatory.

Protestants often argue on Catholics by citing bunch of verses in which they often say that it is the proper way of debunking our doctrines, but some Catholics as they argue with them rather put more attention in citing one verse at a time on order to make the discussion good and will put it in order. In a certain non-Catholic but ecumenical forum site, in their Bible and Theology Section, I defended the Catholic faith in its doctrines, practices and recent issues that concerns the validity of the Catholic Church as the Church made by Christ.

In this article, I will put more attention about purgatory. This covers some parts of our argument that I and a certain spefert dealt with.

Here’s the background about the argument:

The title of the thread is:

Naniniwala ba kayo sa purgatoryo? (Do you believe in Purgatory?)

At that thread, I defended the existence of purgatory by using one verse, or citing a source and asking the readers to pick and choose a verse from that source and will see how they disagree on it. At first, it became smooth since forum members will either post their replies and after they read my response, they don’t continue posting again, maybe because they were satisfied of it or they were busy that’s why they were not able to read my response and didn’t pursue to rebut according to their own principle.

But this certain spefert is different; he asked me if where in the Bible that states that Jesus is present in purgatory. So I was challenged to dig verses using my old leaflets/books that prove the presence of Jesus in purgatory. But scanning the internet is at most my fastest way in order to answer his question. Until I read www.scripturecatholic.com that puts almost all of the verses in the Bible that supports all of the doctrines of the Catholic faith. And I found 2 related verses:

1 Peter 3:19-20 (NAB)

“…In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison. Who had ONCE BEEN DISOBEDIENT while God patiently waited in the days of Noah DURING the building of the ark…”

and

1 Peter 4:5-9 (DRV)

Wherein they think it strange that you run not with them into the same confusion of riotousness: speaking evil of you. Who shall render account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: That they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh: but may live according to God, in the Spirit.

I thought spefert will try to reason out using at least 1 verse or questioning those verses by his explanation and on how he comprehend it, but I was flabbergasted when he put a long post concerning it and explained by citing many verses wherein he almost literally pointed out the words that was mentioned on those verses especially 1 Peter 3:19. That’s why when I replied, I was not that prepared to answer him directly since I had limited time to answer him right away and I was onboard the ship that time. So, some of the verses whom I know already to be not relevant are being replied as irrelevant/ not relevant in a frank way, but I responded to some of it by questioning the relevance or the contextual analysis of those verses he cited. The argument went rude and it turned out that he is diverting the issue on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and sola fide. But anyway in my recent post in there, I answered point by point the verses he quoted except those that are not related to the issue due to his demand.

So here are some parts of our discussion and I want you to read the Bible to scan and study the verses I quoted and he cited.

[the black ones are mine while the red ones are from speferts]

Note: in this article, I only pointed out the latest post, so that it would not be too awkward for you when you will try to read this. And this might be long, but is useful enough as a starter in apologetics (some are edited because of grammatical errors and redundancies):

The discussion went to the point by point examination of those two verses I posted and spefert disagree those to be a hint for purgatory (purification process), the point discussed are:

  1. Noah as the preacher of righteousness
  2. the word “Spirit” used in the preceding verse
  3. the word “prison” at those verses.
  4. The Dead misunderstanding

And here are his claims and verses used as his disagreement to the Catholic teaching on purgatory. (Pls. try to open your Bible and study it clearly)

  • 2 Peter 2:5
  • Ephesians 2:5
  • Romans 8:9
  • Isaiah 14:12-17
  • 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
  • Colossians 1:13

let us see, at first he used 2 Peter 2:5 (NAB)

I quote:

“…and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he preserved Noah, a HERALD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, together with seven others, who he brought a flood of a godless world…”

In that verse, we agreed that Noah is a preacher/herald of righteousness. But the Bible is also telling us, together with theologians agree that Jesus is the greatest preacher of all and is also a preacher of righteousness. In this case, he is trying to formulate an idea that it was a Noah that is spirited by is the one who preached in 1 Peter because as what he always insisted, Jesus was not there during the time of Noah, so it is the spirit of Christ that dwells inside Noah to preach the people during the time BEFORE the great flood began.

Here is a protestant site regarding Jesus as the greatest preacher of all and a herald of righteousness: http://www.pentecostalpioneers.org/JesusPreacher.html

But why flewen says NO! No! to his notion?

Because of various reasons, but I will point out two explanations for this part first:

  1. Noah didn’t know Jesus when he was physically alive whilst he preached to the people about the incoming great flood.
  2. 1 Peter 3:19 is an event AFTER the great flood existed. So if we take it into context, Jesus preached to those WHO DIED during the great flood that are IN PRISON, not as what he insisted to be NOAH who preached BEFORE the great flood began. see the difference?

Here is the verse for the information of everybody

1 Peter 3:19-20 (NAB)

“…In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison. Who had ONCE BEEN DISOBEDIENT while God patiently waited in the days of Noah DURING the building of the ark…”

Notice how he obviously interpreted wrongly the verse: the obvious words in there are:

* ONCE BEEN DISOBEDIENT

* DURING

=those words emphasizes past events that was progressively done by Jesus through preaching in the PRISON. Noah has nothing to do in there because it was done by Jesus AFTER the event, not during the event. Little analysis will see how spefert is disorienting us the real interpretation to that verse.

Now here’s another verse that he pointed out.

Romans 8:9 (NAB)

“But you are not in the flesh; on the contrary, you are in the spirit, if only spirit of God dwells in you. Whoever does not have the spirit of Christ does not belong to Him.”

Spefert said:

Now Flewen, look at the very end of 1 Peter 3:18, “
but QUICKENED BY THE SPIRIT:”

He presumes that Noah has the spirit of Jesus when he preached to the people before the great flood began. Good analysis, but it is absurd because:

  • How could Noah be aware of Jesus if during his time, Jesus was not literally and physically been felt nor seen by anybody?
  • How can Romans 8:9 connected to 1 Peter 3:18 if the spirit referred there does not touch the notion that it was Noah but rather expresses that statement to Jesus’ sacrifice during His passion and death who was brought to life in the spirit?
  • And Romans 8:9 only reveals the importance of the spirit of Christ, that if man would not bear This, he is none for Him.

Then why spefert is insisting the notion on the term “spirit” agenda? Because he is tricking the readers that when 1 Peter mentioned about the spirit who brought to life to our Saviour, he is poisoning your mind by connecting a wrong dot by saying if every man is entitled to bear the spirit of Christ, then Noah is also entitled to bear that spirit of Christ, hmmm… how sweet his propaganda, isn’t it?

To tell you the fact, it is not the scenario during the time of Noah for the reason that Jesus did not exist literally during his time.

When I say literally, it means that Noah was not yet aware about Jesus, the problem also is that how come Noah bear Christ’s spirit if he wasn’t been informed by God on who is Christ during his time? Tsk tsk tsk, spefert is trying to trick you guys, have a little understanding on it. 😉

And try to Observe the scenario: those are two different events and not even mentioning the relationship of those two verses, so readers, be careful how spefert diverts your attention to his literalist style of posting verses.

Now, he pointed this verse through his own explanation as I quote:

Do you know that every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ quickened (made alive) by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?.

Then who cares if every believer must bear the spirit of Christ?  Because that is absolutely not the topic and that is ridiculously non-sense to his notion as an opposition on the Catholic teaching in purgatory! Because:

Notice that he is forcing me to believe that it was Noah that must be depicted there rather than Christ simply because he used an irrelevant Romans 8:9 which’s totally not connected with each other.

And here’s the fact, no one dares to disagree that every believer must dwell in the spirit through Christ, but what is he suggesting? He is telling the readers to believe in his own interpretation that IT WAS NOAH, not Jesus that preached in the prison, or in the other way where you will see how he always contradict his own very twisted statements.

(by the way, Noah is not yet a believer of Jesus, God the Son, but of Yahweh, God the father because OT saints were not yet aware about Jesus in their time)

Notice the preceding statements that he have and on how he fooled you guys:

The same Spirit quickened the Old Testament Saints as well as all those on the New Testament side of the cross. The Lord Jesus is not walking on earth today, yet He is preaching to the world through His regenerated Saints by the quickening of the Holy Spirit.

notice again how he is trying to disorient us, coz he is telling to us at his first sentence that the spirit of Christ quickened in the OT saints, the same as those in the NT saints. I fully agree in the NT, but in the OT? No! because:

  • Christ was not literally preached by the OT prophets to the believers, but only been prophesized by them, that’s why it is impossible for the OT saints to accept Christ as their Saviour. So it is a sweet propaganda of spefert to us, be careful.
  • Christ is not yet in the mind of the people of OT because they’re only aware of the term God, it may be true that Christ is God, but in the OT, Jesus is a stranger to them, so the notion of spefert on the “spirit” agenda is absurd.

Now let us continue answering properly his demolition job:

He said:

Flewen do you remember that Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord?

Where he supported it with a verse on Genesis 6:8(NAB), and I quote:

“…But Noah found glory with the Lord”

Let us examine the verse: this verse is literally an OT account, indeed it is true right? But how come he comes up with an idea that Jesus’ spirit is in Noah? Simple, because of the word ‘LORD”.

Let us review Genesis. God the father is said to be the Lord and Master of the Jews according to the accounts of OT. BUT NOWHERE IN THIS BOOK states that Noah is aware of Christ’s spirit except to God the father who is their Lord. So literally speaking, it is God the Father that found favour for Noah, and not Jesus who is God the Son, and in this account, we discover the role of God the father that bless the people through Noah. So the notion of spefert about the “spirit agenda” cannot be portrayed to this account because:

  • Noah is again not aware of Christ as God the Son, but he is aware of God the father.
  • 1 Peter speaks of a progressive activity of Christ and not a past event of Noah (though he was mentioned in there as a preacher of righteousness).

Grace in the life of a person is what? Salvation! Noah was a saved individual who preached the word of Christ to his generation.

This is a sweet diversion again of spefert, he is trying to delude us in his own idea that during the time of Noah, Christ or JESUS already been scripturally and spiritually visible in the minds of every OT people. Readers, try to open up your mind, coz THIS man is trying to fool your minds with his sweet diversions.

  • Noah did not preached about Jesus in His time, but rather he preached about God the father.
  • Noah cannot bear the spirit of Christ, because he is still unaware on the mission of Christ.
  • Christ cannot be in the mind of Noah because He is still a prophecy in the OT. So it is impossible for Noah to know Christ.

Now you see Flewen that this does not speak of the time AFTER the people died BUT the time NOAH is preaching to the UNBELIEVERS (Spirits in Prison)

Guys, he is trying to divert your attention to his notion on Noah as the one who preach the unbelievers, he is also trying to toxin your mind because the verse clearly demonstrates ON JESUS HIMSELF, not on Noah who is only been depicted by Peter as a preacher of righteousness. Remember, I already gave you the words to focus in order not to be fooled by his demolition job.

So then what is the prison that is in view? In Isaiah 14, you can read about Satan, that he would not open the house of his PRISONERS

Here now, he is using the word prisoners as his proof that the prison mentioned in Peter is all about Satan’s house of Prison..hmmm..quite yummy, but let us examine the verse:

Isaiah 14: 12-17 (NAB)

“Have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star son of the dawn! How are you cut down to the ground, you who mowed down to the nations! You said in your heart, I will scale the heavens; Above the stars of God, I will set up my throne; I will take my seat on the mount of Assembly, in the recesses of thee North, I will ascend above the tops of the clouds, I will be like the most high! Yet down to the nether world you go to the recess of the pit, when they see you they will stare, pondering over you, Is the man who made the earth tremble, and kingdoms quake? Who made the world a desert, razed its cities, and gave his captives no release.”

It makes me wonder how he used this verse in order to poison the meaning of prison of 1 Peter as referred to Isaiah. Readers come to think of it, the verse gives us the idea that the captivity event of this is all about Satan who is aware that he have numbers of people as his comrades in destructing the world, confuse the people, making each nations in conflict etc etc…But 1Peter only deals to those ONCE WHO DISOBEYED God when they denied the warnings of Noah before the great flood existed.

You see, he is trying to make a literalist view and gave us an irrelevant verse to the issue: here’s the fact that you must be aware with:

  • The captivity no release idea of Isaiah deals of Satan who has comrades whom he imprisoned and poisoned the mind not just once but many times, just like him which cannot get out of it FOREVER.
  • While 1 Peter only deals to those WHO ONCE DISOBEYED God’s will on the warnings of Noah to the great flood.
  • The notion that Isaiah deals with is the place of hell where those who fell out of God’s glory is doomed and is declared to be unsaved and members of the Satanic world cannot get out of it. As what I told spefert before, this place must not be preached since this is already a place of the damned and they are not bound to listen what JESUS will preach to them.
  • While the prison mentioned in 1 Peter is a depiction of those who are deserving for the beatific vision but is not yet oriented on the preaching of Christ because they had disobeyed God once (referred as venial sins) when they were STILL ALIVE here on earth. That’s why Jesus was present to preach them.
  • If 1 Peter’s prison portrays of a place that Jesus can preach, whilst Satan’s prison can’t be preached, then how come spefert try to insist his twisted Idea?

Because he used an irrelevant verse again on 2 Cor 4:3-4.

Let us study the verse:

2 Cor 4:3-4 (NAB)

“And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing, In whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God”

It is totally clear to us that unbelievers do not deserve to hear any preaching of Christ because they are already been blinded and considered as damned and unsaved. But how come spefert posted this verse, simple, as how he depicts the prison as Satan’s prison and the place of the unbelief. This man is again doing another kind of sweet diversion because:

* It is a fact that all of the things coming from satan is not already bound for any change because they are considered as hopeless. So, the supposed to be preaching of Christ to them (if there is), is useless because they are considered as people who fell out of God’s Glory.

* The unbelievers agenda of spefert cannot be depicted in 1 Peter because, 1 Peter talks on the ONCE DISOBEYED, NOT UNBELIEVERS. Because once only depicts on the imperfection of man through not listening to Noah’s warning, not on the total disbelieving attempt of spefert. See the difference?

He continued to another verse.

(Col 1:13 KJV) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

He used Colossians to make another kind of demolition job:

Colossians does not even think of any idea that portrays 1 Peter because it only explains on the deliverance of man from darkness through Christ.

It is true that man came short of God’s glory because we once disobeyed Him, but  those two verses above (Isaiah and 2 Cor.) is giving us the idea on the UNBELIEVERS who were consistently became adamant in their decision to become members of Satan’s world, so how come spefert connect those 2 verses to this innocent Colossians?

Because he is tricking us in order to divert the issue to its original proposition. But he made an alibi by saying: read the red one, below

Now flewen, let us go back to the time of Noah. What does this translate into? It means that Noah was preaching to all the unbelievers for the duration of the building of the ark.

Hmm..let us review the events in the Old testament. During Noah’s time, he was able to inform everybody that an incoming great flood would come. Since men, are not capable enough to understand what God had told to Noah, they didn’t listen to his warning and thus became disobedient to what God wanted them to do. And yes! The great flood existed and some who didn’t join but realized that his warning is true asked Noah’s mercy to let the ark be opened and this is a mark that those men, repented and seek God through Noah. So in this account, this only shows that not all who became rebellious during the public statement of Noah to the flood are unbelievers, but who only became ONCE disobedient that’s why they faced their death as their end result.

As to connect it in 1 Peter, this only shows that JESUS is not preaching to the unbelievers but to those who ONLY ONCE DISOBEYED GOD during the great flood. So:

  • spefert is false when he recklessly pointed out Isaiah and Colossians as support on his notion
  • he didn’t consider the fact that not all who drowned and died during the great flood were unbelievers because Peter stressed out those WHO ONCE disobeyed, not those who disbelieved God..

You see that those in spiritual prison are the UNSAVED. When a person becomes saved, they become FREE.

Let us review his post:

  • he stated that prison is  satan’s prison of unbelievers, and in which Isaiah revealed that those persons who situated in there cannot get out from it.
  • But now he is stating to us that since prison is a spiritual prison, they can be free when they become saved.

Confusing right?

Another contradiction:

  • he stated that Christ’s spirit is in Noah that’s why 1 Peter is speaking about him, not Jesus Himself that preach to the prison.
  • But now, he is emphasizing a point that Jesus preached and those allegedly unsaved will be saved from those who are in spiritual prison.

I thought it is literal that Noah preached to the UNBELIEVERS and now he is connecting a wrong dot to Jesus as the one who is speaking again in 1 Peter? Nah! Ang gulo!

And to continue how he used verses eisegetically, he pursued by pointing out Romans 6:22.

(Rom 6:22 KJV) But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

What the heck he is doing, he is poisoning your mind readers by stating that an unsaved individual who were imprisoned in the Satan’s prison of UNBELIEVERS can get out of it. This is not the story that Isaiah is telling us because the verse he stated before (Isaiah) mentions that those people who were imprisoned in his captive can’t get out of it! Beware how he tries to make a demolition job. Because this is another contradiction of spefert.

In Romans 6:22. the verse is telling us that we made free from sin because we had accepted Christ and received the fruit unto holiness, but nowhere it mentions nor orienting us the notion about Satan’s prison, because:

  • Those who became captive in Satan can’t get out of it, because it is already a place of the damned, Isaiah is already clear that Satan would not allow his comrades to get out from his place.
  • While Romans only deals of those once who disobeyed God’s will that made them sin.

In short, Romans is telling us the idea on those persons who disobeyed at first but later on believed and obeyed that’s why they were freed from sins and received unto holiness in which contrary to the captivity of Satan where he won’t allow them to be freed, as described in Isaiah. So logically, his notion is absurd since then.

But he still continued to reason out that:

So the prisoners that Christ was preaching to were all the unbelievers at the time of Noah, through Him indwelling Noah with the Holy Spirit.

Hmm..notice how he again contradicted his words according to his own dilemma because:

  • he insisted a while ago that it was Noah who preached to those who disbelieved.
  • But later, in order for his supposed 1st statement to come to its existence, he suggested that Christ’s spirit indwells in Noah when he preached to those who allegedly unbelievers.
  • He confused us that Christ preached in that place in the person of Noah through His spirit.

Again: here\s the problem:

  • How can Noah be aware that Christ is indwelling to him if he always believes that it is the God the father that informs him that the great flood would come?
  • The passage that 1 Peter suggested are those who once disobeyed, not totally violated until their final breathe since not all who disbelieved at Noah totally defied him since at the end part, many people who later on realized that the great flood is true repented and asked Noah to open the door of his ark, but it just so happened that he didn’t opened it because it is fully closed and full.

They were not in any special place (“purgatory”) but were all walking around the earth.

Ahh..so when Jesus preached to those who ONCE DISOBEYED, does it mean they were alive after they ONCE DISOBEYED?

Readers, spefert is trying to plead the idea that the verse (1 Peter) is applicable for those who were alive.But the verse suggested to those who once disobeyed. So it literally speaks of the after events that Jesus did, not to the “fore” events during the time of Noah. Try to review those 2 words that I mentioned above.

You can also apply it today flewen, It is just the same principle,

Now, in this part of his statement, spefert is telling us that we can apply what he literally endorsed us to believe according to his personal interpretation, he may have that idea, but his case is not the case mentioned in 1 Peter. Why? Because:

  • the verse speaks of the afterevents that Christ did, not fore events.
  • The verse didn’t mention of anything on those who were physically alive, but rather those who died during the great flood when they once disbelieved the warnings of Noah.

because all the unbelievers are still in spiritual prison and the only way a person becomes free from that prison is by receiving a full “Heavenly Pardon.”

Now, in his statement, he is endorsing an idea that the verse is speaking of a spiritual prison.

  • It is true that 1 Peter describes it as a spiritual prison technically because that speaks of a certain place/state after a person dies!
  • But, It is not illustrating the idea of a person who experienced the satan’s prison of Unbelievers because Isaiah already admitted that when a person is said to be at that place, he can’t get out of it.
  • So it is contrary to his idea that there’s a way of a person, when once gone to that place can get out of it. Try to review Isaiah how it isn’t connected to 1 Peter.

Once this takes place, they are transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of God.

Spefert is assuming that the scene is like that, but still the problem is on how he interpreted it is his burden to prove it right, that’s why I posted in my earlier posts that his verses were not connected to each other because of various reasons and questionable points to consider.

1 Pet 4:5 (KJV)
Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the DEAD.

Now, we are in 1 Peter 4:5-9 (NAB), but I will post here a much clearer version of it in order for the readers to understand it well:

<font color=red> 4 Wherein they think it strange that you run not with them into the same confusion of riotousness: speaking evil of you.

5 Who shall render account to him who is ready to<font judge the living and the dead.

6 For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: That they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh: but may live according to God, in the Spirit.

Now in this verse, he insisted of a peculiar alibi:

This verse is not saying that the gospel was preached to physically dead because that would make no sense you actually agreed to it. The dead in view here are the SPIRITUALLY DEAD.

An alibi coming from a heretic point of view!

When we speak about judgement, it is in agreement that it is totally not just for those who were alive (physically alive) but also those who died, who just died and dies (physically). This verse is in connection to the 1st verse wherein it agrees to the idea that there is a certain place where Christ preached that no man (who is alive physically) were able to reach it. And since he points out to a spiritual death, let me reiterate the verse:

  • Christ preached to those who died.
  • Getting the idea of the word judgement, this means that it is the final decision of God to man on where they belong, so the spiritual death notion of spefert is impossible in this verse.
  • It is useless for those who were in the Isaiah’s point on Satan’s prison of unbelievers because those who were in there can’t get out of it, and need not to be preached because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for them to hear anything about the gospel since they are damned. Remember, can’t get out of it.
  • The reckless idea on spiritual dead is not to be depicted in there because it entails to the judgement of what they did. Those who were considered unsaved and died cannot be saved because they did not repent and is subjected to receive the total damnation in hell. On the contrary,  those people that ONCE DISOBEYED is given to hear the preaching of Jesus in preparation of their lifting up to heaven.

Then how did spefert tried to twist its meaning, because of the word ‘dead”,

Let’s see how he is starting to insist a not relevant verse:

(Eph 2:5 KJV) Even when we were DEAD in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Notice how he twist again the scenario, he is trying to point out that the “dead” mentioned in 1 Peter is the same to the word dead that is described in Ephesians, actually readers, he is misleading you, then why I said that he is misleading you? Because:

  • dead in 1 Peter does not mean anything about spiritual dead because it entails the judgement that God will do in the end days, so it is for the physically dead persons, not spiritually dead in faith.
  • Dead in Ephesians is focusing ONLY to the fact that men are supposed to be dead in the spirit, but because of the grace of God, he had quickened us. It is different in 1 Peter because it is telling to us that God will judge the living and the dead, and since not all dead are considered as damned, Jesus is also preaching to those who deserve to see the light in heaven but in some parts of their life, they became disobedient and sinned. Readers must not be confused on those terms, since THIS MAN is trying to eisegete and para paimpress by posting loaded verses which is in fact not connected with each other.

This is something that spefert should admit, protestants/ evangelicals do agree that it is for the judgement of the PHYSICALLY LIVING AND PHYSICALLY DEAD.

Here is the statement of a protestant/ evangelical commentator:

“This means that no one will escape the judgment of God. When that day comes the living will be judged, and the dead do not escape God’s judgment either.”

http://www.ccboise.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1207

Mapagkakatiwalaan ba itong si spefert when he made an alibi and said after I posted this part:

Yes, I Peter demonstrated about judgement BUT I was emphasizing on the word “DEAD” that according to Ephesians dead involves spiritual deadness I was not pointing out to the word “JUDGE”.

That’s ridiculous, how can the “dead” notion of 1 Peter be the same to Ephesians? And how did he eisegetically interpret it wrongly? Simply because those two verses depicts another scene and events. Here is the fact about the verse”

  • I Peter explains about God’s judgement on the living and the dead where protestant/evangelical commentators agree that dead there is not of a spiritual dead notion but of a real physical dead that is to be judged also by God which according from the commentator, cannot escape that process.
  • Ephesians cannot be connected to I peter because Ephesians deal to the salvation of man by grace, while I Peter demonstrates on the judgement of God to the living and the dead.

So readers, beware, because he is hallucinating and having a daydream by pinpointing not connected verses.

Brothers and Sisters in faith, this is the start of the unending propaganda of spefert, and until now, I am waiting for his reply to this issue. Pls. be reminded that this article does not mean the end of all, but rather the beginning of a more crucial discussion that we may be tackling in the future, and I will update you again if he uses another bunch of verses in order for you to have an idea if ever a preacher like spefert will try to trick you using his eisegetical approach in interpreting the scripture.

God Bless,

flewen

9 Comments