The Catholic Clips Page Debunked

It's really no secret that some Catholic apologists actually like to use the pictures of Catholic Clips just as I enjoy using Chick Tracts and artwork for evangelism. While fundamentalist Protestants are using Chick tracts or tracts by Ray Comfort, from Living Waters they have Catholic Clips just as the Jehovah's Witnesses have their Watchtower Art. I just had a thought that I don't even bother entertaining them, they want to stay deceived then stay deceived and that's their problem, I can only tell them the truth. As a former Roman Catholic, I can testify in part of all these errors presented in this annoying page called the Catholic Clips that has been misrepresenting also traditional Protestant beliefs for their own convenience. Also, have they ignored the fact that there are unsaved ecumenical Protestants and unsaved ecumenical Baptists too?

The Facebook page is very good in presenting half-truths and mixing lies with the truths so they can "look good". Which in fact, cherry pick, take things out of context like the Martin Luther picture. So above is just a good example of the whole misrepresentation. So did the Catholics really just do the difficult job first? If you ask me, if they are trying to talk about apostolic succession, that's where they are wrong because since when did the apostles demand celibacy on pastors? Since when did people confess to the apostles? None if they can read the Bible thoroughly which they refuse to do letting their priests interpret it for them. While I'm wary of Christian apologists who are cherry picking, I'm also pointing out against cherry picking the Scriptures.

So don't tell me that Protestant missionaries didn't go out and evangelize? What about British missionaries that went to natives? What about those who went to evangelize to the natives of Papua New Guinea? Since I'm not a Protestant Christian but a Baptist Christian, I would like to make mention of Bible Baptist Church-Cebu's missionary trips to many parts of the globe with various missionaries. Charles Spurgeon was also one of the greatest preachers to pagans as well. Now since when did true Christians let the Catholic missionaries do the "difficult job"? Again, it's another of their misrepresentations. But Christian apologists must be careful not to stoop down to their level! Also I'd like to question them that if they consider Protestants as still "pests" then what about the "Day of Pardon Mass"? You might as well even consider Martin Loser King's audience with Pope Paul VI and the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) movement. Even some of their apologists may be purposely lying in hiding the truth that many corrupt false Christian pastors actually work with the Vatican.

To say that the Pope is the successor of Peter, how many times do they have to actually KEEP on lying about Matthew 16:16-18. It didn't say, "You are Peter and you are the Rock..." and even a Catholic versions says, "You are Peter and you are a rock and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church." Again, grammatical sense will show that Jesus didn't build the Church on Peter. Rather He showed Peter that Church will be built on that Rock. 1 Corinthians 10:4 says in the Catholic Bible calls the Rock as Christ Himself. Clearly, the Church is built on Jesus Christ. Peter could not be the Rock at all. For the Pope to claim the titles for Christ alone makes him an antichrist.

Now for clips Bro. Gerry Soliman has given. He has been a blessing in some way.

Here's one of the many clips Bro. Gerry Soliman my brother-in-Christ brought to be shown in his blog. In fact, I know how those Catholic apologists (and many others) hate my guts but it doesn't mean that I'm simply stopping for good until I'm dead. In fact, above is a severe misrepresentation of eternal security which is none other than the heresy of easy believism. Now again cherry picking. As said, those who are truly saved will continue in the faith, those who don't aren't saved (1 John 2:19). Obviously that cartoon above will make any Arminian proud of it even if a lot of them are anti-Catholic. So what the Catholics may want to purposely ignore is this- born again Christians do not teach a dead faith plus they misrepresent James 2 as a whole. They fail to see James 2:10-11 and James 2:21-23. We see that what James was saying was that salvation that is without resulting to works is not real faith. It was not a you need faith and works otherwise Romans 11:6 would be a lie. Instead, we see that true faith results to works. Truly saved people will continue to blossom in good works while keeping in mind they are saved by faith.

In fact, one of the many weirdest ironies in life is why those many who teach works salvation are suddenly guilty of the grossest sins that the Catholic institution considers as mortal sins? Like that woman who called herself the "Flying Catechist" she despite her religiosity as a Roman Catholic, was seen cheating on her husband with another woman's husband and may have slept with another paramour while having another paramour. Also, it doesn't surprise me a lot of religious Catholics (not all) are very two-faced. They do charity work but also are guilty of what they call mortal sins. Some of the most deadly killers and rapists are religious Catholics. In fact, you can see by its rotten fruit that it's not Christian. A lot of sex scandals in the Vatican were quietly swept under the rug but are now revealed by the grace of God. In fact, true Christians though they may stumble into sin like Lot and Samson, however do not live like the rest of the world.

Another is the accusation of private interpretation. I know some IFB pastors are taking things out of context (ex. Steven Anderson's infamous pisseth against the wall sermon) but don't tell me that Catholic apologists haven't been taking things out of context too? Like I was thinking if they say that Eli Soriano is taking Scripture out of context, that I fully agree. However if you want to know good exposition of the Scriptures we have good expositors like Charles H. Spurgeon and John Gill. Charles Spurgeon took everything verse by verse. Now I'd also like to mention that what John F. Macarthur (The owner of Spurgeon.org just in case you don't know that!) really knows how to take everything verse by verse. I mean, I've started listening to some of his sermons and he really goes verse by verse. Although I don't like him not being a KJV only (which I am), however he does a diligent job with exposition of the Scriptures.

May I also mention that the so-called "infallible" Council of Trent has just not been able to interpret things properly? They are taking things out of context and not in-context. After a Catholic tried to defend the procession by verses with the word "procession" from the Good News Bible, it turned out to be from 1 Timothy 4 where verses 1-4 also show last days apostasy that fits them well. It took centuries to gather together the Deuterocanonical and even some members didn't agree with it. With their mentality that the Council of Trent is the "final authority" they only fall into error without the Bible as the final authority to follow in church practice and tradition.

As said, I just don't mind them nor respond to them neither should I keep updating on their page, I only preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ! In fact, I'm not even looking for any "debunks" by CFDs. I'll just leave them be because they are nothing more than looking for attention and fighting with them won't bring them any closer to Christ.