Response To A Lying Catholic Who Can’t Read Pt. 3
We will look at part 3 of this series today. For the background to these responses, please see the first article in our series of responses to newlin83.
As usual, my comments are in bold.
Christ came to fulfill the law, not to abolish everything and replace it completely. The context to this comment is that I showed how usury is allowed except for between Jews in the Old Testament. The main verse against usury is Deut 23:19 and IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE, God says that usury is allowed outside of the Jewish Old Testament context. “Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.” Deu 23:20. Newlin83’s response is that “Christ came not to abolish the law.” What a ridiculous response. No where did I even hint that Christ abolished the Law. That is why I say newlin83 can’t read. All Christians believed usury was a sin (i.e. any interest on a loan to anyone is a sin) until the antichrist Renaissance papacy started to allow for usury (Leo X, Alexander VI, Clement VII). Who cares? What saith the Scriptures? Even the reformers were against usury. Who cares? What saith the Scriptures? Martin Luther wrote heavily against usury. To claim they were all wrong is a wild claim since this belief was unanimously held and is still held by Catholics and Protestants. Who cares? What saith the Scriptures? I go by the Scriptures. TO BLAZES WITH WHAT THE CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS SAY. I’m not sure what group you belong to, but it’s truly not Christianity to reject such a basic and widespread teaching. Who cares? Go by the Bible. Can you find any example in the first 1500 years where Christians said usury isn’t a sin? I’ve seen nothing but condemnation against usury for the first 1500 years. Who cares? What saith the Scriptures?
Some Protestants go further and further from the truth each day. Of course, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing If they don’t find explicit condemnation by Christ, that it must be allowed, even if all Christians held unanimous belief for nearly 2000 years. All Protestant women covered their heads until the 1960s per 1 Cor, but today you hear nothing but excuses why women don’t need to cover their heads. This topic has been covered in Pt. 1. All Christians believed you should be married once only, and that second marriages were tolerated at best, but are discouraged. This topic has been covered in Pt. 2. With liberal Protestants, marriage today has become a free-for-all for perversity, and they see no limits to divorce and remarriage. This is ridiculous slander and a strawman. Plus, there is no basis for the utterly degenerate Cat-o-holics to claim a moral high ground as we shall see. Especially in Part 4.
With nothing but personal interpretation and excuses, Instead of having to worry about “personal interpretation”, Cat-o-holics like newlin83 submit their consciences to the Pope and let him do the thinking for him. They’re on a road that leads to hell, but at least they supposedly won’t be guilty of “personal interpretation”. They let someone else do the “personal interpretation” for them and then they are too LAZY to see that the Pope’s “personal interpretation” contradicts the Bible. everyone will come up with their own religion and beliefs and things will become more fractured by the day. Who cares? The Scriptures will still be right and God will straighten all this junk out at the Judgment Seat of Christ. The Trinity isn’t explicit in scripture, Yes it is, who told you this? “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1John 5:7. That is explicit. and the anti-trinitarians use scripture to prove their point. Yep, and if you knew your Bible, then you would know that they LEAVE OUT verses that prove them wrong. They operate just like the pagan cannibals in Rome that claim to eat Christ on Sunday morning. Contraception isn’t in scripture. Neither are toilets. Do you use toilets? The words of Christ end up becoming whatever you want them to be, hence why there have been hundreds of various heresies and believing all kinds of things about the nature of Christ. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Scripture is clear. Go by the plain words of the Bible.
Usury is a bizarre example, because condemnation against it was unanimous, even among various heretical groups. I’ve never seen one group prior to the Renaissance say usury isn’t a sin. “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;” Rom 3:4
We hope this is enlightening for you. We see once again the clear rejection of the words of truth by this poor, lost, Bible rejecting Catholic. Newlin83 is going to have plenty of stuff to answer for when he stands before God.
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded.” Proverbs 13:13.
Dear friend, don’t make the same mistake.