Halloween- the high, holy day of Satanism and birthdate of protestantism.

In his recent article, the Catholic Defender gave a great historical presentation of the historical origins of Halloween. Drawing on pagan influences, Halloween has come to be the high, holy day of Satan worship, which always draws a contrast to Catholicism. Whatever Catholics do, Satanists do the opposite.

This is very instructive. You see, the demons know who Jesus really is and where He really is. (Mark 1:21-28, James 2:19)

That is why Satan choose October 31st- the eve of all hallows- as the pinnacle day of Satan worship. It is also why he chose that same day to create the counterfeit religion of Protestantism with it's purpose to first divide and weaken the Christian flock, then unite the entire world under the Jewish Antichrist. Martin Lucifer founded the protestant cult by nailing his 95 thesis on a church door on October 31st.

It is very frustrating for informed Catholics who see this and want desperately to warn others and save them from this diabolical plan that is moving forward and into place, right before our eyes.

The Book of Revelation shows, with frightening clarity, the imminence of John's warning of Judgement on the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish religion.

Revelation 1:7BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

Those words were an urgent warning that Jerusalem was about to fall and soon. John wrote those words during the reign of the 6th king (Galba) (Revelation 17:10-11). This was in 68 AD. About 2 years later, on the 9th of AV in 70 AD, Babylon the Great, the city that crucified Our Lord (Rev 11:8), the city that killed the prophets (Rev 18:24, Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:33) fell. The Jewish nation and the Jewish religion fell, never to be heard from again.

Today, a counterfeit Jewish nation that is really a synagogue of Satan (Revelation 2:9, 3:9) stands in it's place. The Religion of anti-christ, heralded by the false prophet who looks like a lamb and speaks like a dragon (Revelation 13:11). This is Luther and his religion of Protestantism, created by sinful men, on the devil's day, to herald worship of the beast and his number (Revelation 13:18).

Today, millions of dispensationalists, who call themselves Christians, proudly fly the mark of the beast, on their own websites.

There is nothing holy about the hexagram. It is a symbol of the occult and it is actually condemned in Scripture. It is the mark of the beast and sure proof that protestants who embrace it are, by no means, Christians.

That fact is spookier than Dracula or Frankenstein ever could be.

---

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

Wrap-up of last night's debate

There is no question that Deeper Truth Blog won last night's debate, improving our overall record to 18-0. How close the debate was, however, depends very much on the view of the premise(s) which we were debating.  In this sense, one could take the micro view or the macro view.

If we are taking the micro view, that is, examining each piece of Catholic Marian devotion and theology and measuring it's value, I think anyone listening would argue that it was a very spirited and competitive debate. There were more than a few overreaches by Ketterer but also a few arguments that I failed to capitalize on as sharply as I might have in the past. (The fact that I was exhausted from all the overtime was surely a factor in that).

Overall, I successfully countered most-but not all- of his points and out-pointed him on both style and substance, in the range of about a 55-45 victory. Honestly, I thought Brian made very effective use of the rules and the clock to get as many arguments into a tight space as possible. He failed to respond to a large number of my points but, as I have already conceded, so did I. If we view this debate in this focus "Catholics are incorrect on a number of Marian doctrines", Ketterer held his own, losing a narrow 55-45 victory or perhaps even a few points tighter than that. This would make this, without question, the closest debate we have had yet. He lost it because he failed to counter my Biblical arguments and prove any of his own by anything more than innuendo and empty juxtaposition of Catholicism on pagan religions of the past.

If, however, the debate premise was a macro one, in keeping with the bravado he posted on his own facebook, he lost this debate in a rout of titanic proportions. Never once did Ketterer approach demonstrating that the Catholic Mary is a goddess nor that any Catholic engages in any idolatrous or pagan practice, whatsoever. This is the type of wild-eyed conspiratorial over reach that we have come to know and expect from cultists like George Lujack and Debra JM Smith. In fact, during this very debate, Brian actually denounced the cult of Calvinism that the loopy Debra Smith adheres to.

There is little doubt that Brian sincerely believes that Catholic doctrine about Mary- the Assumption, the Immaculate conception, Intercessory prayer etc- constitutes material worship, as illogical as this position is. However, debates are about winning on the merits of the arguments. When pressed repeatedly, Brian could not scriptural support the bulwark argument of his entire case of worship, the argument that a simple, intercessory prayer constitutes worship. Again, he is free to believe that but, if a debate is built on proof, he whiffed and he whiffed badly.

Even more damaging to his case (in fact, fatally so) is the unsupported and unsupportable position that Mary, who we call "blessed among women" and merely ask to pray for us, is a goddess in our theology.

My guess is that Brian uses unnecessary rhetoric and hyperbole such as this because of some personal animus towards Catholics. Of course, I would never claim I could prove that. Over-reach is not my style.

Brian caught me at the weakest point he likely ever will in this debate and still lost clearly, if closely. He would be well served to brush up on how to construct cogent, well-formed, logically sound and Biblical arguments going forward, and check the inflammatory hyperbole at the door. I suspect the audience would rather hear sound, reasoned, scholarly debates going forward rather than venomous polemics.

In Brian's case, he does not want to play into my hands too much and find himself on the losing end of a rout. Jes' sayin'. He can heed or not at his own peril.

---

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

The Catholic Defender: Debra, Debra, Debra

As Ronald Reagan would say, "Well, Debra, there you go again"? For anyone following this story, you can read the article "Strange Alliance, where I show the back and forth debate over having a debate. I kind of got sucked right in the debate. I was asked to take down the facebook and deepertruth articles related to the nastiness being swirled about over the debate. I spoke with John, and he agreed that we need to do away with the whole thing, so I took down all that pertained to the debate debackle.

There were two remaining articles that John wrote that dealt with Debra's anti-Catholic presence on her blog.

Those two articles had nothing to do with the back and forth fighting but Debra wanted those two articles gone as well. That is when I asked her to take down her anti-Catholic message from her blog, and I would gladly take those articles down. That was the whole reason why John had written those to begin with. Since then, it has kind of gone back and forth responding to the other's messages.

I have not smeared her name but simply continue to respond to Debra's updated anti Catholic rhetoric. She continues to call names and attack us for standing up for the Catholic Faith.

I can understand why Debra would run from John Benko because her arguments are seriously flawed and not well thought out. (That is putting it mildly ~John) The following are some of the things Debra wants Catholics to know. Ephesians 5:11 warns, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather, expose them." So, I will expose the error of Debra's false beliefs.

Debra states, "My goal is not to insult or anger Catholics with this blog. It is to educate them to the wrongs of Catholicism. It is also my goal to arm born again believers with the truth."

Response: Debra, tell that to a Father or Mother of a child you might influence? You would seek to cause untold pain in creating division. Your goal could cause divorce, family separation, not to mention you would be leading people into false doctrine. You want to educate Catholics how to become Protestants. That is very offensive and must be opposed. Yes, we too want to convert Protestants and lead them to the truth, but we do not condemn Protestants, we respect Protestants and we believe that we can have debate in the free market place of ideas.

Consider #29 of our precepts that deepertruth puts forth: 29. "We reject the doctrine that only Catholics can be saved. God will save who He will. That someone cannot reach the fullness of truth, through their honest efforts, will not be held against him. Those who knowingly reject the truth will perish in their sin and be damned. God will judge all by their works- PERIOD."

There is what is called "Invincible Ignorance" or "Material Heresy" that describes someone outside the Catholic Church through no fault of their own. Compare this to Debra's belief system that says a Catholic, following the teaching of the Church, cannot be saved.

Debra says, "The Catholic church teaches that people cannot learn directly from God. It says that the Catholic church leaders interpret scripture, while God's word shows otherwise."

Response: There are two types of revelation, public (Church, Scripture) and private (personal revelation). The Catholic Church rejects the idea that the Holy Spirit will teach opposite truths to whom ever he will speak too? The Holy Spirit will not teach false doctrines. 1 John 4:1 states, Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." These false prophets ST. Paul warns against even if an Angel from heaven should preach a different gospel other than the Apostolic teaching (Gal 1:6-9). We are not to follow them.

Jesus established the Church to teach and lead the flock. St. Paul writes, "Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and THOSE WHO LISTEN TO YOU."

Hebrews 13:17 says, Obey your LEADERS and DEFER to them, for they keep WATCH over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

St. Peter writes, "So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, overseeing not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:1-4).

St. Peter received this message from the Lord himself: "Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He said a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, "Follow me."

For the sake of space, I could go on and on to show that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the Scripture is given to us by the Lord through His Church!

Debra says, "The Catholic church does not teach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ should tell you all you need to know about it not being a biblical church. Ask a devout Catholic if he could leave the Catholic Church and get to heaven by grace, through faith in Jesus. He will tell you that faith alone does not save a person, which goes totally against Acts 16:31"

Response: The only place where the bible says "Fath Alone" says this, "See how a person is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE" (James 2:24). The Catholic Faith is the faith of the New Testament. Jesus Christ is the founder of the Catholic Faith. To renounce it would be to denounce Christ. The Catholic Church covers more Scripture on a given Sunday than anyone else I know! We go through the bible in a Church calender every three years, and every two years if you went to daily Mass. So, the Catholic will hear proclaimed the bible twice every three years. Only a Protestant group who imitates the Catholic Church might come close. The Catholic Church is all about faith in Jesus, he is the mediator between God and man and the only way to salvation. What the anti-Catholic wants you to believe is that Mary and the saints are in competition with Jesus. That is the farthest thing from the truth. Mary and the saints draw people closer to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Debra says, "The message that comes from the Catholic church is not Jesus' message. The Catholic church's message includes the Catholic church itself, the false claim of Mary being a "co-redeemer" with Jesus, and man's works. The Catholic church's message is NOT one of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. --So, no, anyone who comes with the Catholic church's message is coming with a different gospel. And we see in Galatians 1:8 what scripture says about such people"

Response: The truth is that the Catholic Faith proclaims to the world as one voice to all the world does indeed come from Jesus. What is being proclaimed at the Vatican is being proclaimed in Copperas Cove Texas, yes, even in the very town Debra lives! The Catholic Church has never accepted the title "Co-redeemer" to Mary? I think Debra means "Co-redemptrix", The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. Co does not mean "equal" but she was specially chosen to be the Mother of Christ. The anti-Catholic wants to separate them. Just like they do with all the rest of the Lord's teaching.

This is just for starters, but this is given to show how Debra is seeking to cause division in the household of faith.

---

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

Debate victory #16

As the clock passes 2:00 PM eastern, Deeper Truth Blog is proud to announce our 16th debate victory in our history against 0 losses. The latest victory comes by virtue of a forfeit of Debra JM Smith of informingchristians.com.

Smith was formally challenged by us on July 3rd and despite extensive stalling tactics, evasion and outright lies, never made any serious attempt at contesting any point made or working towards any scenario under which she would ever debate.

Given a final offer in which she could establish all of the specifics of the debate including time, subject, venue, moderator and rules, she decided to respond with a vicious ad hominem attack on her website. That 48 hour final notice has expired and victory is ours.

It was clear from the very start that Mrs Smith was woefully over-matched, unable to explain even the most basic Christian doctrines.

Her and her accomplice, Jimmy Z avoided even the appearance of compromise and reason, substituting vicious personal attacks for serious negotiation of a debate. Debra JM Smith knew that a debate with us would expose both her deeply flawed and heretical theology and her inability to formulate any kind of a cohesive argument.

In the same way, Dirk Yarborough (who hides behind the moniker Jimmy Z) proved himself to be no more than a tool for a rabid anti-catholic psycho.

Our trophy will be permanently placed in our debates page along with a statement commemorating our win. All other pertaining posts will remain up permanently too. They will not be removed for any reason, so don't even ask.

Since our victory is clearly established, their lies laid waste and their utter humiliation not in the slightest doubt, this represents the last word on the subject. We get the last word.

John, in congratulations to our 16th straight victory, I offer this video as a prize:

---

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

The Catholic Defender: Strange Alliance

I am compelled to write "Strange Alliance" as a result of what has been happening on the internet the past couple of weeks.

I have tried to stay out of the fray, but I am being sucked into this situation because of the "Strange Alliance" forming against deepertruth and the Catholic Faith.

I have always been all too aware of the "anti-Catholic" going back to the 1970's. I have had my run in with the Jack Chick advocates and the various other groups out there.

There are Protestant denominations built on their foundations against the Catholic Faith.

I have always felt it interesting that many of these groups see the Catholic Faith the real enemy in society as opposed to abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, or what ever else is there.

Instead of coming together to stand up against the rising tide being formed against Christianity, they continue to place their frontal attacks on the Catholic Faith.

An example of this concerns one of the players attacking the Catholic Faith in particular and deepertruth specifically.

I was speaking with Debra, wanting to put an end to the current round of attacks coming from both sides. I offered Debra the opportunity to say three good things to say about the Catholic Faith and I would have John say three things he admires of Protestants.

Debra could not do it. She really believes in her heart of hearts that the Pope is an anti-Christ. She could not bring herself to say anything good about the man?

When I related this to John Benko, he readily began to speak of positive things he knows from Protestant friends. That is a striking contrast that nobody is reading between the lines.

I really regret the situation taking place between John Benko and Jimmy Z who had been friends for several years. I tried to be a peacemaker because I grew to like Jimmy from his participation in the debates.

I certainly respect his political analysis on the politics of our time. I have recieved more than 50 e-mails from Jimmy Z challenging me which I rarely responded. Instead, I tried to send something positive"

"Jimmy, Jesus said you must love your enemies and turn the other cheek if they hit you. "Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". Blessed are the peacemakers... Jimmy, this is what I tell John, sometimes we have trouble living up to it, but that is my encouragement to you. I never called you a coward, nor do I question your courage. I do challenge you to love John regardless and send him an olive branch. That is exactly what Jesus would want!"

Jimmy's response to me was to leave him alone and not to send him anymore e-mails? Considering I sent maybe 5 or 6 to his 50 plus emails, I just let him do as he wants.

John exposed Debra and included her with other known anti-Catholics on the internet such as Dan Petermann, Zach Kueker, and Matt Slick. I went to Debra's blog and clearly she holds no punches, really a no holds barred view against the Catholic Church.

I asked her, "Debra, how can you love someone if you can't respect them"? I respect my Protestant friends but I attempt to stay issue oriented and try not to get personal.

I am amused that Debra has on her wall a statement saying that when someone is beating us in a debate, we block them? That is so bizarre? I told her that we want our opponents to give their best shot! I want them to perform at their best against us! What makes a good debate is for both sides to be given a good opportunity to get their points out. The Catholic Faith is like a lion in a cage, you let it out it doesn't need defending, it really defends itself. We just simply present it. Just a small example of the misinformation Debra is pushing on her website? Anyone who have followed our debates know this is not true. That is why we asked Jimmy Z to moderate in the first place!

Debra also claims that we wanted to fix the debate so that it would have been unfair towards her claiming I would moderate the debate giving John an advantage. That is so far off the charts. The only reason I participated as a moderator in the past was when Jimmy Z backed out and we needed one. I was totally fair to George Lujack as a moderator. No, we would have ensured a moderator that both sides would have agreed to.

Debra and Jimmy also post a clip of the radio show after John got heated up after being called a coward and Johns reaction was over the line. The point is that they are attacking John for what they themselves had done. Jimmy Z left messages that attacked John which I did not publish because I knew how John would react if he had seen them. You do not know this when you listen to their clip, which is not the ordinary flow of our show. John admits he went over the line, we all make mistakes and John published an apology to our listeners. The purpose of their exploitation is to harm Johns reputation and faith. In the end, Debra is only hurting herself playing the victim.

Jimmy and Debra wanted me to take down any negative response from us but they want to print and say what they will towards us. They have teamed up with virtually every anti-Catholic out there who wants to take a pot shot. The two remaining posts were not about the debate, they are about Debra's anti-Catholic position which was the point of the original challenge. She wanted me to take down those two posts and I said we would if she removed her anti-Catholic rhetoric from her webpage. She was not compelled to do so and so neither am I.

(Editors Note) Debra continues to post misrepresentation on her blog and as expected, she is going after me with her attacks. John specifically groups Debra with already mentioned anti-Catholics. John's accusing them of attacking the Catholic Faith but they run when the opportunity comes to defend their positions. She claims this a "smear" tactic when in reality, a basic truth. She is identified by John as an anti-Catholic. It is what it is, which I was correct, this has nothing to do with the debate on who first challenged a debate. Something that I personally could care less who started it! So, Debra is back to her name calling as she is calling me names on her wall. Also, she accuses me of calling her names? I have only called her "Debra"! Just another small misrepresentation on her part! One more thing to note: Debra claims that I am lying about Jimmy Z first using vulgar language during the the course of the radio show. I was correct. Jimmy Z had sent a vulgar post to deepertruth which I intercepted and deleted. I shared it on the show before Jimmy Z even called on the show. Again, a small misrepresentation on Debra's part. Debra, do you want to try again or are you through with this foolishness?

BTW, Debra, when you call or accuse someone of "lying" that is a name that you are identifying a person with. I have not called you a "liar", you have been spreading misinformation, but I think you believe what you write, I chalk it to being simply misinformed. You also basically called me a "bully" which I consider a name calling as well? I have not said anything bad about you. If you look closer, I states I understood why you would not debate on BTR. But all of this is besides the point. There will not be a debate between you and John. We do have it appears another debate series being drafted. We will let the public know when the details are finalized. That is what should of happened here, but it is what it is.

John has had a history with Jimmy Z and Debra and I know that there is a fire between them and it is hard for me to see this as one sided. Both parties have made mistakes, but I will say to you Debra, when you attack the Catholic Faith as a whole, you attack all of us. I do take that personally. The Saints, the martyrs, the Apostles, everything about the Catholic Faith is part of who you are attacking, ultimately, the Lord Himself. I say this only to let you know that your attacks are personal.

Since Debra likes to call us liars and bullies, she doesn't like being identified as an "anti-Catholic". That does not make us a liar nor a bully, just makes her an "anti-Catholic"!

Debra continues to update her blog modifying it based on what we do. She created a new name (talk about name calling) "Catholic Blogger Bullies", yet she can say or print what she wants about Catholics and that is ok? We spoke for sometime before this latest outbreak, and one of her first comparisons she posed about her and Protestants was about Catholic Priests molesting children? It's ok for her to tell Catholics how she loves them and wants to get them to come out of Rome, but it is wrong for us, even personal to her for us to counter her position? When she wants to bring up the priest scandal, she should look at her own back yard. There are many more on her side of the fense that is guilty of this at a much higher rate. This is deplorable no matter who does it! This is becoming more like a sparing session, I am basically counter punching and she continues a new line of attack. In the end, I've only called her "Debra", you can see what she is calling us!

I have stood out on sidewalks arm in arm with others against abortion, against pornography, standing for America. This idea that some will not participate in these things because Catholics are there I find disturbing.

Now entering the mix is George Lujack who is wanting to jump into this fray. A man who was well treated on deepertruth, given every opportunity to speak his views on all topics, wants to jump on John and deepertruth because he sees it as an opportuity to throw a daggar in the back.

Jimmy Z and George Lujack do not have much in common except their anti-Catholic views. This is a strange alliance, but this is exactly what I see all the time.

George sent me Jimmy's presentation of our show concerning Debra's refusal to debate on BTR. I can understand why she does not want to debate on BTR. She was kicked off BTR and she has bitter feelings towards BTR. I can respect that. If I had something simular happen to me I might feel the same way.

I do not think that there could ever be a debate between deepertruth and Debra because they can't civily debate having a debate. It is us against them? It becomes a back and forth tyraid calling each others "liars, cowards, spineless" and even worse.

Debra can post anything she wants about me, but she will someday have to answer for bearing false witness against her neighbors. I participated in nothing of this argument but I'm in the middle of it. The two articles that John has about Debra were based on her anti-Catholic views. That is free game, but I do not recommend any future debate here because it would not be fruitful, we can't get past who made the first challenge?

As this moves forward, I am not bothered with the name calling and the attack on my person. I offered to give Debra some good pictures if she wants. There are plenty on our blog. I know that there will be a willing audience out there who hate the Catholic Faith. It matters not if the issue is true or not, there is no scholarship, they just google to any anti-Catholic site and use it as if it is true. That is what tickles their ears and the tune they want to hear. Like the Pied Piper, they lead themselves to perdition. The truth is this, they will always draw together because of their "Strange Alliance".

edited emphasis mine ~ John (Donald's words, I just emphasized them in Red)

---

Home page DTB facebook Page You Tube Blog Talk Radio Show

*BEST OF DTB #141* Addition by subtraction: How godless heretics like Debra JM Smith create a diffrent gospel by stripping the real gospel of it's core.

There are those (I am one of them) for which anger and hypocrisy are dangerous traps that one must be on guard against, lest they slip and fall. On the other hand, for others, hate and hypocrisy are as comfortable as an old pair of slippers. It is just who they are. These are the people, like Sister Bertha Betterthanyou, mocked by Ray Stevens in the classic Mississippi Squirrel Revival.

Unfortunately, Debra JM Smith of "Informing Christians" is just such a hypocrite. The name of her website is classically ironic in the sense that she is-by no stretch- either informed or Christian. True, she claims to be a Christian but so does Obama. Both fall short, if even from different angles, both theologically and by disposition. Both are woefully ignorant of Scripture and history and both are puffed up to that extreme level of hypocritical self-righteousness that Jesus, John the Baptist and the Apostle Paul so vehemently condemned in the first 18 books of the New Testament. In fact, of the sins Jesus condemned in the Gospels, hypocrisy is, far and away, the biggest.

Luke 18
⁹And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
¹⁰Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. ¹¹The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. ¹²I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. ¹³And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
¹⁴I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

What is most ironic about Debra is that I enjoy a far better relationship with most of the Evangelical pastors and followers that support the very same protestant ideology that she claims to adhere to- that of justification by faith alone. This, despite the fact that I have made no bones about my rejection of this doctrine as, not merely false but, in direct opposition to what Scripture teaches (James 2:24) .

The reason for this is simple. Though I do see my Evangelical brothers and sisters as holding to an ill-informed understanding of just how the process of salvation takes place in the life and heart of the believer, I also see in them that true spark of the Holy Spirit's Divine fire that motivates them to follow the greatest commandments, as recorded in the 22nd chapter of Matthew's gospel;

³⁵And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him: ³⁶Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? ³⁷Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.
³⁸This is the greatest and the first commandment.
³⁹And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Debra JM Smith, on the other hand, hates anyone who doesn't agree with her, even to the extent of hating anyone who doesn't hate anyone that doesn't agree with her. Recently, she added my friend Jimmy Z , and Presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, to the ever-growing list of people not good enough for her.

Gingrich, for being a former adulterer (like King David and Mary Magdalene), and Rick Santorum for being a Catholic who dares to draw breath without her personal, sanctimonious permission. As for Jimmy Z, she has cut off all communication with him and suggested on her website (which, according to Alexa, gets about as much traffic as a dirt road in Ethiopia) that persons like Jimmy Z should be slapped upside the head for their support of Catholic candidates like Gingrich and Santorum. Of course, on her same dysfunctional site, she decries Maxine Waters calling John Beohnner and Eric Cantor demons. Boehnner and Cantor are both devout Catholics.

Jimmy Z has suggested, on his site and his program, that either Gingrich or Santorum would be manifestly better than Obama or Romney. This is about as controversial as suggesting that water is wetter than dirt. This, however, has raised the ire of the wicked witch of the north, who openly opined that it is better that Obama be reelected than she cast her precious vote for one of those Catholic types.

Yes, better to let the babies continue to die so that you can continue to reassure yourself of how pure you are. Jesus, who bled and died for you and picked up Mary Magdalene from the dirt, she was cast down on by her would-be executioners, wouldn't want you to come down from your ivory tower, would he?

Hypocritical viper.

Of course, the irony is that we supposed non-christian catholics were only too happy to put our support behind any evangelical that may have emerged, only to watch the evangelical voters in Iowa, Florida and Nevada flock to Romney the Mormon. You going to blame the Pope for that one, too?

Of course, this problem puts the glaring spotlight on exactly the fatal flaw of evangelicals and protestantism as a whole. It is a house divided, the surest proof that it's origin is men and not Christ. The disunity in protestantism testifies infallibly against it's alleged Divine foundation. God is not divided. The divisions in protestantism are what, ultimately, ensure it's demise...well...that and the Divine revelation that has ordained it so clearly in the Scriptures. I love and have great respect for most of my protestant brothers and sisters, and believe most of them truly love and seek to serve Christ. However, make no mistake, I am Catholic for a reason. That Catholicism is the fullness of truth, as founded by Christ Himself is, for me, an indisputable fact.

Yes, I have said it. I do not believe that protestantism represents the church that Jesus Christ built on the Rock of Peter (Matthew 16:18) (and yes, it is Peter) and the foundation of the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Jesus said very plainly, in Matthew's gospel that a house divided against itself cannot stand. President Abraham Lincoln echoed those words in his Gettysburg address.

Protestantism is built on the foundation of an anti-Semitic, vulgar misogynist named Martin Luther (who is on the record as accusing Christ our savior as having committed adultery at least 3 times ) and a murderer named John Calvin. These men were wolves in sheep's clothing of the very highest order.

Luther attempted, unsuccessfully, to remove both the Book of Revelation and the Epistle of James from the canon of Scripture, calling the latter an epistle of straw and lamenting how he should like to throw Jimmy into the stove.

These are the facts and they are a documented part of the historical record. Denial of these facts is futile. They simply are what they are.

Protestantism, since the late 16th century has only grown into a more fractured entity with new and abhorrent doctrines arising, seemingly by the day, each laughingly purporting to take it's divine foundation in sacred scripture.

Debra's notion of being "born-again" is a perfect example. Having been formed in 1910 in Pilot Point, Texas, this perversion of the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus (John Chapter 3) has no basis in scripture or the history of the Christian church. In describing the necessity of being born of Water and The Spirit (3:5), Jesus is clearly enunciating Sacramental Baptism as a sacrament of initiation in the Christian faith. Those who deny this actually blaspheme Jesus Christ. The historical record is rock solid that the early church understood this.

Justin Martyr

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Tertullian

"[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

Hippolytus

"The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism" (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).

The Recognitions of Clement

"But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

Testimonies Concerning the Jews

"That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works" (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

Council of Carthage VII

"And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ" (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it" (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).

Athanasius

"[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened" (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3:26[33] [A.D. 360]).

Basil the Great

"This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit’s presence there" (The Holy Spirit 15:35 [A.D. 375]).

Ambrose of Milan

"Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God" (The Holy Spirit1:6[75–76] [A.D. 381]).

"The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (Abraham 2:11:79–84 [A.D. 387]).

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).

Gregory of Nyssa

"[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit" (Against Eunomius 2:8 [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom

"[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]" (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths" (Oration on Holy Baptism 7–8 [A.D. 388]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12–13]. . . . [H]e that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, ‘Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ And again, ‘He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned’" [Mark 16:16] (Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:15 [A.D. 400]).

Augustine

"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).

"Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’" [Matt. 10:32] (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).

It is fitting to note that all of these quotes occur before the absurd date that Debra suggests as the start of Catholicism. (approx 430 AD by her nutty calculation) and all but the last 2 occur before the date that we actually got our first Bible (from the Catholic Church) in 393 AD. So, the historical record is clear. The church of the Bible not only believed that Baptism was necessary for Salvation but saw it explicitly in John 3

In addition, God's inspired Word, the Scriptures say that Baptism saves us, in no uncertain terms-

1 Peter 3:21
Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2:12
Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.

This is why I laugh out loud when I read Debra claiming that she believes the Bible. She flat out doesn't! Debra JM Smith believes in a different gospel than that preached by Jesus and the Apostles. Her gospel is addition by subtraction. She, and those of like mind, follow an ala carte theology of cherry-picked, reinterpreted verses that turn the original intent of the sacred writers on it's ear. If I adhered to her "Scripture alone" belief system, it would only make me that much more a Catholic because it is clear to me that every Catholic doctrine is right there, plainly in the Scriptures. One only has to read.

This notion of being "born again", according to the protestant rendering is a classic example. Nowhere, in any writing in the Scriptures or in the first 19 centuries of Christianity can this abhorrent interpretation be found. "Water and the Spirit" has always been properly understood as Sacramental Baptism. Sacramental Baptism was initiated by Jesus Christ in the Jordan River, at the hands of His Cousin John. That is when John's merely symbolic water baptism became infused with Jesus Christ's salvific grace.

There is not one jot or tittle of Scriptural support for Debra's absurd interpretation of John 3, nor is there any historical support older than 1910. Those are the facts and they are indisputable.

Like I said, addition by subtraction. Debra zooms in on John 3 and reinterprets it in her own sinful image while dismissing the almost 2 dozen other verses on baptism that give it it's proper context. The fact is that any Baptized Christian is a born-again Christian. When one is baptized in the name of The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are incorporated into God's universal (Catholic) Church. Any baptized Christian can be saved by Grace, according to the light within them. Catholics do not hold that non-Catholics cannot possibly be saved. Some obviously will. However, none...not one....will be saved in the manner Debra claims, simply by a profession of faith. This is a clear and unambiguous perversion of scripture caused by wrenching a handful of scriptures from their context. Like I said, addition by subtraction.

More addition by subtraction- Quoting Ephesians 2: 8-9, leaving out the rest of the chapter that gives it it's proper context. What's more, She claims that verses 8 and 9 say that salvation is a free gift when an honest examination of the structure of the sentence clearly shows that it is GRACE that is the free gift. The sentence clearly says that you are saved by the free gift of grace not that you are freely saved by the gift of grace. v10 proves this context by telling us that the purpose of that Grace is to give us the ability to perform the work that has been prepared for us to do.

Debra will always deliberately leave off v10. How she reconciles this with her alleged faith is a mystery to me.

However, Debra's heretical and blasphemous theology is no mystery to me, or anyone else who (unlike her) has actually read the Bible. You simply cannot get through Matthew 25 or Romans 2 or James 2 holding fast to Salvation by faith alone or Once saved, always saved. It is simply impossible.

There are numerous other invented doctrines Debra believes. The Rapture is one. There is not one scintilla of Scriptural support for this man-made doctrine. Dispensationalists cite parts of Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 as support for this doctrine. (wrenched from their context, of course). Simply reading the entire chapters makes it clear enough that they are about the second coming, which occurs on the last day, and that the dead must rise first. Rapture refuted.

The gospels put Debra to the lie. Catholics do not add one letter to the gospels. We simply extract what is there. If Debra's Bible only included that which she actually believes, you could fit it in an envelope. This is the difference between those who claim to read and follow the Bible, and those who actually do.

It is also an example of those wholly ignorant of history. Debra's contention that the New Testament Scriptures predate Catholicism by 400 years only manifests her abject ignorance. The historical record clearly shows just the opposite. In 110 AD, Saint Ignatius of Antioch said "Where Jesus is, there is His Catholic Church". Ignatius was a disciple of Saint John and, in saying this, actually used the same greek phraseology as found in Acts 9:31
ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης. Ekklesia Kath Olos, literally translated is The Catholic Church. It's right there in the Scriptures. See for yourself.

The Bible, on the other hand, wasn't produced until 393 AD. So, yes, the Catholic Church actually preexisted the Bible by almost 400 years, not the other way around. These are the facts and they cannot be disputed.

Now, let's get to the meat of the matter. The great commission.

The mission of a Christian is to attract people to Jesus Christ. Debra JM Smith repels people from following Jesus because she is a hate-filled demoniac. There is nothing about Debra JM Smith that reflects Christ. That is the clearest proof that she is no Christian.

Now Debra is pontificating that she can vote for non-other than a so-called Born again Christian. Interesting. It was Debra Smith who not only voted for John McCain but so enthusiastically supported him as to proclaim that he would win the state of New York.

McCain, and his nasty daughter, as you know, have nothing but utter contempt for Evangelicals. He once called them agents of intolerance. Obama's contempt for Christians is even more stark. Yet, Debra hates Catholics so much that she would rather see the blood of babies run in the street, the agenda of radical homosexuals markedly advanced, our national and economic security eviscerated, than to vote for someone who will respect and protect people's faith.....

....even the faith of a godless hypocrite like her.

Note: Materials copied from informingchristians.com, a public domain, were used for the purpose of Criticism and, thus, constitute fair use , under the legal definition. The website has been credited for the production of such material and any claims of copyright infringement are futile.

---

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show