WHY DO PROTESTANTS ATTACK JESUS CHRIST

Why do Non-Non-Catholic Christians Attack Jesus?

And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Now Jesus did say Church and not churches didn't He? So He founded a single Church and none other, right? And what about the gates of hell not prevailing against it? That means His Church will last to the end of the world, doesn't it?

Matthew 28:19-20, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Hmmm, this is a second time that Jesus said His Church would last forever and He would be with it every day in every century until the end of time. He said that around 2000 years ago so it is obvious that His ONE and ONLY Church is still with us today. Remember, that was His promise.

Many Protestants have told me that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy at some unknown time after the last Apostle died and of course they can never tell me when, or provide me with a genuine historical document of proof. So what they really said to me is that Jesus was a liar for His promises of His perpetual Church.

1John 5:10, "He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son."

Jesus would never lie to us, He couldn't. Remember, He IS God and God cannot lie. However protestants can. Just start counting their lies in this page.

Please note that when I use the word 'protestant' from this point on, I refer to all who call themselves 'Christian' but are not in the one Church that Jesus Christ founded in about 29-30 A.D..

Hebrews 6:18, "That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, we who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us." This is more biblical proof that Jesus Christ could not lie.

Acts 5:38-39, "And now, therefore, I say to you: Refrain from these men and let them alone. FOR IF THIS COUNCIL OR THIS WORK BE OF MEN, IT WILL COME TO NAUGHT: BUT IF IT BE OF GOD, YOU CANNOT OVERTHROW IT, LEST PERHAPS YOU BE FOUND EVEN TO FIGHT AGAINST GOD. And they consented to him."

WOW! Those two verses fit protestantism to a 'T'. They have been trying to overthrow the Catholic Church for almost 500 years, from 1520 when Martin Luther broke from the Catholic Church and formed the first protestant denomination, and right to this day.

Oh and by the way read all you can about Luther and you will find in 1520 and many years before and after that time, the Catholic Church was mentioned by name many times. So it was still here in Luthers time almost 1500 years after it was founded by Jesus Christ.

The Body of Christ:

Gee whiz look at these verses:

Ephesians 1:22-23 "and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, WHICH IS HIS BODY, the fullness of him who fills all in all."

So the Church that Jesus Christ founded that will last forever is really and truly His Body. Do Protestants believe those verses? Apparently not since they are always attacking His body, His one and only Catholic Church.

Did you ever think of how many people who attack the Body of Christ will be taken to Heaven? Read on for much more that proves that it is the Catholic Church that is the Body of Christ and NONE OTHER.

Judaism:

John 4:7-9, "There came a woman of Samar'ia to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink." For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samar'ia? For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans."

Jesus was a Jew, right?

Judaism had only one temple for all and it was located in Jerusalem, so many Jews had to travel long distances to worship there.

Long distances in those days could be 70 miles or more, a hardship for the Jews but they did it. Things changed drastically for that situation since Jesus established a world wide 'universal' Church.

The Universal Church:

Acts 1:7-8, He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem (Local) and in all Judea and Sama'ria (Expanding out) and to the end of the earth (World Wide, 'Universal')."

There you have it. His Church is not confined to one city where the people had to go long distances to worship. Instead He is bringing His Church to the people all over the whole world in time, making it 'Universal'.

Acts 9:31, "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied."

So His Church, now being built up as it is spreading out, had a second person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit comforting it. Did you notice in the first three words of that verse it says 'So THE church', singular?

Take a look at Revelation chapters 2 and 3. All of those churches listed are examples of the expansion made by the Apostles and their followers of the one Church that Jesus Christ founded. They had gone long distances establishing more Churches farther away towards becoming 'Universal'.

THOSE CHURCHES ARE NOT PROTESTANT CHURCHES AS PROTESTANTS WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE. The word protest-ant did not even come into being until 1529, about 1500 years after the Catholic Church was founded.

More > >

WHEN GOOD IS EVIL

Can a system which teaches good things actually be evil? How we judge between religious world views..
 
By: Gregory Koukl

A caller referred to a movie like Malcom X, which apparently attacked Christianity and promoted the Nation of Islam and said that in his mind the movement is more evil than a serial murderer. He wanted to get my response to that and I guess I'm going to have to say that I agree with him, as long as I qualify what I mean. It is at this point that I have to do some very, very careful distinguishing between things so that I make it clear what it is that I mean.

It is possible for a thing to be good and evil at the same time -- good in one way and evil in a different kind of way. It's possible for something to be good in the short term but have devastating consequences in the long term. Let me give you an illustration. Let's take a sumptuous meal. Someone makes you a tremendous meal and it's delicious. It has all this wonderful food. You eat it and are deeply satisfied. You have something that fills your body and satisfies your soul through a great satisfying meal, and in that sense it's good. However, what if in that delicious meal there is just a bit of arsenic, and a couple of days later you keel over and die. This meal that was good in a temporal sense had a long term negative consequence that was really terribly evil. So it's hard to call the meal a good thing because of the overwhelmingly evil consequence that it happened to have.

Now this kind of illustration applies to many things that we would call good in themselves. We might see religious movements, for example, that would have an ethic that's very fine and very exalted, an ethic in which we are enjoined to treat people in a way that's very consistent with Christian teaching. We could look at the religion that is promoting a temporal good and we can say that it's a good thing, as far as it goes. But the problem is that the religions that promote temporal good don't just go that far. Generally what they are promoting is not only to help others in a temporal sense, which we can say is good, but they are promoting an entire view of the world which underlies this moral code of conduct. And if one accepts this total view of the world then that view would exclude a Christian view of the world.

For example, if you teach Judaism and the fine moral teaching that often accompanies Judaism, you have done a good thing by teaching good morality. People do good things, and follow a moral code, and have a good impact on the world in a temporal sense. But if in the process you are teaching that God decides on your eternal fate merely on the basis of your good works, generally what's built-in is the idea that your good works will outweigh your bad works. One therefore denies the need for forgiveness in salvation through a Messiah. If he denies that Jesus is the Messiah and the source of that salvation then, though in short term you may exhibit more good actions in your life which is good, the long term effect is you have not dealt with the eternal problem, which is the consequence of your own sin before a holy God and you haven't received forgiveness.

So even though you've done some good things temporally, eternally you must be punished for the things you did wrong. The eternal outcome of accepting that point of view is eternal condemnation. The arsenic kills the patient, and the good that has come temporally is completely and infinitely overshadowed by the bad of eternal condemnation.

That's why I think the caller is correct when he said that this movie is desperately evil in that it leads to the destruction of people's souls. That is the greatest concern that anyone could ever have. Jesus said, "Do not fear those who can destroy the body and not the soul, but fear rather him who can throw both body and soul into Hell," which makes the point that there certainly is value to our human lives. It is tragic when our lives are taken away from us against our will in murder like in a serial murderer, but it is much, much more tragic when both body and soul are thrown in Hell forever.

The second issue is the one that has the greater weight of truth, the greater substance from my perspective and overshadows the other issue. That's why we can say it is an egregious evil when a person is murdered, but it's much more damaging because of the length of the consequence of the act -- in this case eternal -- when someone is lost because they have rejected the forgiveness that God offers for the sins that they have committed in this lifetime. If a person is compelled to reject forgiveness because he has embraced an ideology that denies that kind of forgiveness through the Messiah Jesus Christ, even though it offers some other good things in a temporal fashion, then I think it's right and appropriate to judge that system of belief as something that is evil in the final analysis.

I don't know how to get around that. I realize that it sounds very, very harsh, but those people who teach salvation by good works -- even though temporally what they are teaching is something that is good -- ultimately are enemies of the cross of Christ because they have removed the stumbling block of the cross. And as enemies of Christ they are actually doing something that in the long term has an evil consequence, therefore it is evil.

Hard medicine. And this is why I've taken some time to explain very precisely what I mean when I agree with my last caller -- that ideologies are as evil, or even more evil, than the acts of sin that spawn them.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show"Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1994 Gregory Koukl