Is Catholicism Christian? Are Catholics Saved?
- Thread starter MessageOfTheCross
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Concerning Peter he is not the first pope.
Whether Jesus meant Himself as the rock the Church will be built upon,or Peter,it does not matter,but it could be that He meant Peter,but the Church is not built upon Peter,and that is why it does not matter for the Church is built upon Christ.
There is no other foundation that can be laid but Christ,who is the chief cornerstone,and the head of the Church,so how can the Church be built upon Peter,when it is built upon Christ.
If Christ meant Himself as the rock it is built upon Christ,for all the Church is built upon Christ,and no other,so how can the Church be built upon Peter,if no other foundation can be laid but Christ,and He is the chief cornerstone of the Church,so all the Church would have to be built upon Him.
If Jesus meant Peter it mean this.Paul said that we are all built upon each other,as bricks being laid upon each other,a lively building,so if Peter is the rock that the Church will be built upon it means that Peter is the first one added to the Church,built upon Christ,and then the saints that come after are built upon Peter.
But the whole Church is built upon Christ,but Peter is the first one added to the Church,and all the rest of the saints are built upon Peter.
Christ is the chief cornerstone,and foundation,and then Peter,and then all who came after in that order,building upon each other like a building.
But the Church cannot be built upon Peter,for the Church is built upon Christ,but Peter is the first one added to the Church,so the rest of the Church would be built upon Peter.
I believe that Jesus meant that Peter is the rock that the Church shall be built upon as the first one added to the Church,but no other foundation can be laid but Christ,who is the chief cornerstone,so all the Church is built upon Christ,who is the head of the Church,and King of kings,King of the saints,and the High Priest,where the saints are priests,for Jesus has made the saints kings and priests unto God the Father.
I do not believe that Peter is the first pope,for there is only one person that is solo in our spiritual walk with God,and that is Christ,and all others who would be bishops oversee a certain amount of Churches,but do not oversee them all,for Christ oversees them all.
And also the Bible says we are complete in Christ,so what can the pope do to benefit us if we are complete in Christ,for all we need is in Him.
The pope would only be a preacher at best,maybe looking after a few Churches,and not the person they make him out to be.
Concerning the positions of the Catholic Church,pope,cardinals,archbishops,and bishops,I can see the appeal of it to be given an honorary title,and position,that would be to the liking of many people,like the Pharisees that liked the praises of men more than the praises of God,and to be seen of men that they would look at them as something special because they claimed to be with God,but that is of the flesh.
Peter was not a pope,nor does the Bible say he was,nor does the Bible say God gave us a pope.
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Paul told Peter to his face that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,and is Paul a pope,or above a pope,and who is Paul to be up in Peter the pope's face,and tell him what is up,and that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,and should not Peter the pope not have fallen to such disgrace that Paul who is beneath him had to tell him that he was in error according to the truth of the Gospel,and how could Peter the pope fall to such disgrace that Paul had to correct him,that said that he is less than the least of the saints.
Peter are you going to take that from Paul getting all up in your face,and telling you that you are in error according to the truth of the Gospel,from such a low life as Paul who said he is less than the least of the saints.Yes you are going to take it Peter because you are not a pope.
But despite Peter being in error he is saved,for at the New Jerusalem,the final destination of the saints,the names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb are written in the 12 foundations of the city,and his name would not be written in that holy place unless he were saved.
Whether Jesus meant Himself as the rock the Church will be built upon,or Peter,it does not matter,but it could be that He meant Peter,but the Church is not built upon Peter,and that is why it does not matter for the Church is built upon Christ.
There is no other foundation that can be laid but Christ,who is the chief cornerstone,and the head of the Church,so how can the Church be built upon Peter,when it is built upon Christ.
If Christ meant Himself as the rock it is built upon Christ,for all the Church is built upon Christ,and no other,so how can the Church be built upon Peter,if no other foundation can be laid but Christ,and He is the chief cornerstone of the Church,so all the Church would have to be built upon Him.
If Jesus meant Peter it mean this.Paul said that we are all built upon each other,as bricks being laid upon each other,a lively building,so if Peter is the rock that the Church will be built upon it means that Peter is the first one added to the Church,built upon Christ,and then the saints that come after are built upon Peter.
But the whole Church is built upon Christ,but Peter is the first one added to the Church,and all the rest of the saints are built upon Peter.
Christ is the chief cornerstone,and foundation,and then Peter,and then all who came after in that order,building upon each other like a building.
But the Church cannot be built upon Peter,for the Church is built upon Christ,but Peter is the first one added to the Church,so the rest of the Church would be built upon Peter.
I believe that Jesus meant that Peter is the rock that the Church shall be built upon as the first one added to the Church,but no other foundation can be laid but Christ,who is the chief cornerstone,so all the Church is built upon Christ,who is the head of the Church,and King of kings,King of the saints,and the High Priest,where the saints are priests,for Jesus has made the saints kings and priests unto God the Father.
I do not believe that Peter is the first pope,for there is only one person that is solo in our spiritual walk with God,and that is Christ,and all others who would be bishops oversee a certain amount of Churches,but do not oversee them all,for Christ oversees them all.
And also the Bible says we are complete in Christ,so what can the pope do to benefit us if we are complete in Christ,for all we need is in Him.
The pope would only be a preacher at best,maybe looking after a few Churches,and not the person they make him out to be.
Concerning the positions of the Catholic Church,pope,cardinals,archbishops,and bishops,I can see the appeal of it to be given an honorary title,and position,that would be to the liking of many people,like the Pharisees that liked the praises of men more than the praises of God,and to be seen of men that they would look at them as something special because they claimed to be with God,but that is of the flesh.
Peter was not a pope,nor does the Bible say he was,nor does the Bible say God gave us a pope.
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Paul told Peter to his face that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,and is Paul a pope,or above a pope,and who is Paul to be up in Peter the pope's face,and tell him what is up,and that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,and should not Peter the pope not have fallen to such disgrace that Paul who is beneath him had to tell him that he was in error according to the truth of the Gospel,and how could Peter the pope fall to such disgrace that Paul had to correct him,that said that he is less than the least of the saints.
Peter are you going to take that from Paul getting all up in your face,and telling you that you are in error according to the truth of the Gospel,from such a low life as Paul who said he is less than the least of the saints.Yes you are going to take it Peter because you are not a pope.
But despite Peter being in error he is saved,for at the New Jerusalem,the final destination of the saints,the names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb are written in the 12 foundations of the city,and his name would not be written in that holy place unless he were saved.
it is your salvation brother, do not let people Lie to you, ask your self, is real Jesus teach to brutally murder heretic?
if you say yes, please show me the verse.
How about Jesuit oath is this Jesus teaching? This is part of jesuit oath If you interested to read more please go to this link
Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction
I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.
if you say yes, please show me the verse.
How about Jesuit oath is this Jesus teaching? This is part of jesuit oath If you interested to read more please go to this link
Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction
I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.
The first major departure from the catholic (universal) faith began in the late 1st century AD when single bishops were appointed and ruled over the churches.. They continued more and more over the next 1200 years.
growth of RC doctrine (some dates are approximate)
1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .----------------------------------------- 431 A.D.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ...............................................................................1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals,proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-----------------------------------……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.
growth of RC doctrine (some dates are approximate)
1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .----------------------------------------- 431 A.D.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals,proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-----------------------------------……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.
That was in a private message to Melanchthon who was oversensitive about sin. It was not spoken to people like you and me.
Last edited:
Its easy to see the it is that which was revealed to flesh and blood not flesh and blood (peter) . The it is the gospel it represents the faith of (coming from) God (not seen ) not coming from or of Peter seen..It alone is the key that unlocks the gates of hell as well as binding the lying spirits as demons.
How a person gets from Peter who was blessed by God ..to Peter is the one who does the blessing simply turns things upside down . It what a law of the father as men sen called apostolic succession provides so that the pew sitters can seek the approval of venerated (worship-able) men.rather than our one Father in heaven
Note... my comment in (parentheses).
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed "it" (the faith that comes from hearing God...not hearing Peter) unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.(not the sinful fathers on earth)And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against "it".(the same faith that comes from hearing God)Mat 16:17-18
The it in verse 17 is the same as the it verse 18. (no difference) It represents the faith of Christ the Rock that all the living stones are hewn from that make up the spiritual house of God not seen . We have not received the promise of our new bodies the kingdom of God is not here.. That faith is not of Peter the greatest denier, not of man who is dead in his trespasses and sin.
I would suggest studying the help distinguish the "things of God" (not seen) from "those of men" (seen) .
Peter five minutes after receiving what Catholic say was his own private revelation as the it he proved he was not the infallible key (It) that the gates of hell could never prevail against.
Why would you give the faith that comes from hearing God in respect to men and blaspheme the Holy name by which we are called.. What the hope in that?
Will you discuss the word it in those verses?
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the "things that be of God," but "those that be of men".Mat 16:22
Perhaps studying as to why in respect to the law of the fathers as oral tradition of men of the Catholic sect, a sect not listed in the scriptures would even desire to make the things of God and those of men the same source.
What the purpose for going above that which is written?
Do those laws of the fathers that you must call apostolic succession offend God?
How a person gets from Peter who was blessed by God ..to Peter is the one who does the blessing simply turns things upside down . It what a law of the father as men sen called apostolic succession provides so that the pew sitters can seek the approval of venerated (worship-able) men.rather than our one Father in heaven
Note... my comment in (parentheses).
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed "it" (the faith that comes from hearing God...not hearing Peter) unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.(not the sinful fathers on earth)And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against "it".(the same faith that comes from hearing God)Mat 16:17-18
The it in verse 17 is the same as the it verse 18. (no difference) It represents the faith of Christ the Rock that all the living stones are hewn from that make up the spiritual house of God not seen . We have not received the promise of our new bodies the kingdom of God is not here.. That faith is not of Peter the greatest denier, not of man who is dead in his trespasses and sin.
I would suggest studying the help distinguish the "things of God" (not seen) from "those of men" (seen) .
Peter five minutes after receiving what Catholic say was his own private revelation as the it he proved he was not the infallible key (It) that the gates of hell could never prevail against.
Why would you give the faith that comes from hearing God in respect to men and blaspheme the Holy name by which we are called.. What the hope in that?
Will you discuss the word it in those verses?
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the "things that be of God," but "those that be of men".Mat 16:22
Perhaps studying as to why in respect to the law of the fathers as oral tradition of men of the Catholic sect, a sect not listed in the scriptures would even desire to make the things of God and those of men the same source.
What the purpose for going above that which is written?
Do those laws of the fathers that you must call apostolic succession offend God?
They followed the same as the first century the time of reformation as a law of the father(law of men). Giving letters of approval from the high priest (Pope). walking by sight. the commandment of men.. murder the perceived competition (out of sight out of mind)
Because sola scriptura, the revealed will of God not seen, called all things written in the law and prophets... has no room among the “law of the fathers” ...the oral traditions as commandments of men . The Catholic must defend those oral traditions (walking by sight) .as in out of mind out of sight (kill the perceived competition)
Paul before he became a member of the Nazarene sect ,the first sect mentioned on this side of the cross .he served a form of Godliness but denied the authority of grace as a false zeal for knowing God unseen. The Catholic followed the same kind of "law of the fathers" serving different men as fathers.(as that seen) The Jew used the name Abraham while the Catholic chose the word Peter to usurp the authority of our one Father in heaven (not seen)
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom (the Pope) also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. Act 22:3-5
Those who refuse to walk by faith the unseen called those who did walk by faith the unseen heretics those who teach opinions and not what they considered law (of the fathers)having it in respect to men seen .
They shot themselves in the foot exposing their real enemy...... all things written in the law and the prophets (soal scriptura) it is the bottom line the line of reasoning by Him unseen
Act 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
Neither "can" they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which “they” call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: (sola scriptura) Act 24:13
Today they are still trying to prove the word of God is heresy .The word of God as the fianl authority in matter of faith (the unseen) is still proving the blasphemes of men that try and usurp the authority of all things written in the law and the prophets
Nothing changes nothing.
Because sola scriptura, the revealed will of God not seen, called all things written in the law and prophets... has no room among the “law of the fathers” ...the oral traditions as commandments of men . The Catholic must defend those oral traditions (walking by sight) .as in out of mind out of sight (kill the perceived competition)
Paul before he became a member of the Nazarene sect ,the first sect mentioned on this side of the cross .he served a form of Godliness but denied the authority of grace as a false zeal for knowing God unseen. The Catholic followed the same kind of "law of the fathers" serving different men as fathers.(as that seen) The Jew used the name Abraham while the Catholic chose the word Peter to usurp the authority of our one Father in heaven (not seen)
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom (the Pope) also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. Act 22:3-5
Those who refuse to walk by faith the unseen called those who did walk by faith the unseen heretics those who teach opinions and not what they considered law (of the fathers)having it in respect to men seen .
They shot themselves in the foot exposing their real enemy...... all things written in the law and the prophets (soal scriptura) it is the bottom line the line of reasoning by Him unseen
Act 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
Neither "can" they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which “they” call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: (sola scriptura) Act 24:13
Today they are still trying to prove the word of God is heresy .The word of God as the fianl authority in matter of faith (the unseen) is still proving the blasphemes of men that try and usurp the authority of all things written in the law and the prophets
Nothing changes nothing.
Much of it has to do with redefining words which does violate the warning in Deuteronomy 4:3 not to add others meanings to a word .(singular) Seeing changinf one, word jot or title can change the authors intent.
Take the phrase “private revelation”. The Catholics will say (as must according to the law of their fathers) every other private interpretation other that that of their own private is not of God and therefore in doing so usurp the authority according to the same spirit of faith(Christ’s) as it is written
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2Pe 1:20
By looking at the scripture the meaning is clear.. It represent the interpretation of men that they offer as an opinion of
what God’s interpretation, the Bible teaches us . Its how we seek after his approval .He does the teaching and bring to mind that which he has taught us.
Like the apostate Jew they simply turn that upside down in order to take away the understanding of God..in the end making the faith of Christ, in God to no effect.
o
Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
They forget there are three fingers pointed back at the own private interpretation as private revelations from men .
The word of God offers no living authority to them . They must pretend they are receiving new revelations from God as their own source of living faith.. having the faith of Christ in respect to sinful men and the queen of heaven rather that Christ alone.
They are informed as a law of thier fathers even if the private revelation are proven false that the queen Mother that they call Mary will be happy they are keeping the air way open to give them the illusion of a living faith. Saints are not a source of faith (the unseen)
In other words truth becomes true when you believe it to be even if it is not. Just keep the air ways opend by refusing to obey the not to add to the now complete/perfect word of God. It is sealed up til the end of time... with no laws missing by which we could know him not seen more adequately
Walk by faith the unseen and avoid the lying signs and wonders.
Satan is still allowed to bring them .God is still sending a strong delusion to those who go above that which is written.
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:2Th 2:9
Take the phrase “private revelation”. The Catholics will say (as must according to the law of their fathers) every other private interpretation other that that of their own private is not of God and therefore in doing so usurp the authority according to the same spirit of faith(Christ’s) as it is written
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2Pe 1:20
By looking at the scripture the meaning is clear.. It represent the interpretation of men that they offer as an opinion of
what God’s interpretation, the Bible teaches us . Its how we seek after his approval .He does the teaching and bring to mind that which he has taught us.
Like the apostate Jew they simply turn that upside down in order to take away the understanding of God..in the end making the faith of Christ, in God to no effect.
o
Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
They forget there are three fingers pointed back at the own private interpretation as private revelations from men .
The word of God offers no living authority to them . They must pretend they are receiving new revelations from God as their own source of living faith.. having the faith of Christ in respect to sinful men and the queen of heaven rather that Christ alone.
They are informed as a law of thier fathers even if the private revelation are proven false that the queen Mother that they call Mary will be happy they are keeping the air way open to give them the illusion of a living faith. Saints are not a source of faith (the unseen)
In other words truth becomes true when you believe it to be even if it is not. Just keep the air ways opend by refusing to obey the not to add to the now complete/perfect word of God. It is sealed up til the end of time... with no laws missing by which we could know him not seen more adequately
Walk by faith the unseen and avoid the lying signs and wonders.
Satan is still allowed to bring them .God is still sending a strong delusion to those who go above that which is written.
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:2Th 2:9
God's Grace cannot abound when it is made to no effect? His grace teaches us to say no to foolishness.
The word of God....It is finished to a Catholic means he has given a unknown portion of Christ's work of faith as a labor of His love in respect to the grace,the reward of His work of faith .( Not the fullness thereof) The balance due to a Catholic in monthly, weekly, daily installments has the same criterion to a work of suffering a person. A work in a place they call purgatory or limbo that they must perform for a unknown amount of time all the way up until one day short of eternity, in regard to a know amount of suffering. As a Catholic who must walk by sight, if a person burns their finger with a match that takes away from the unknown amount of grace needed for them to work to gain salvation .
Christian work out the free gift... not work to gain it. If we would work to gain it, it make the work of God that works in us to both will and do His good pleasure as a imputed righteousness without effect . (No grace of God) The foolishness of that which comes from walking by sight after that seen .
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, "work out" (not work for to gain) your own salvation with fear and trembling.For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.Do all things without murmurings and disputings
hi 2:12
The word of God....It is finished to a Catholic means he has given a unknown portion of Christ's work of faith as a labor of His love in respect to the grace,the reward of His work of faith .( Not the fullness thereof) The balance due to a Catholic in monthly, weekly, daily installments has the same criterion to a work of suffering a person. A work in a place they call purgatory or limbo that they must perform for a unknown amount of time all the way up until one day short of eternity, in regard to a know amount of suffering. As a Catholic who must walk by sight, if a person burns their finger with a match that takes away from the unknown amount of grace needed for them to work to gain salvation .
Christian work out the free gift... not work to gain it. If we would work to gain it, it make the work of God that works in us to both will and do His good pleasure as a imputed righteousness without effect . (No grace of God) The foolishness of that which comes from walking by sight after that seen .
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, "work out" (not work for to gain) your own salvation with fear and trembling.For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.Do all things without murmurings and disputings
hi 2:12Hello everyone,
I will try to respond the best I can to all of the responses directed toward me, but I wanted to make an overarching point. All of you are very consistent in your disbelief in the Catholic Church and I truly commend you for your passion as I believe it is based on your love of Jesus and His Word. Although we disagree on an awful lot I think we can agree on loving Jesus and His Word!!
What I've been reading over and over is, in essence, "the Catholic Church is wrong because of what the Bible says...per my interpretation". And that's OK. There is nothing wrong with admitting the Bible needs to be interpreted (if not why so many varying versions of truth?). When it does get wrong is when anyone claims to be interpreting the Bible correctly when they're not. You would put the Catholic Church under the category of wrong while the Catholic Church would say that you're wrong. So whose interpretation is correct...yours or the Catholic Church? Let's do a quick intellectual comparison.
If the Catholic Church is correct it has evidence of being correct from the very early Christian Church. I can name individuals in every century where I believe like they believe. I can turn to church council documents in most every century (there weren't councils in every century) and find evidence that I believe as they believe. Jesus has truly protected this Church in the sense of unity as there is an unbroken chain of beliefs in all centuries. I also can name heretics in most every century...Joahannites, Hippolytus of Rome, Marcion of Pontus, Theodotus and so many others including some church leaders like Paul of Samosata and Bishop Polycrates who did not believe as I believe and were excommunicated by the Church. Heresies were brought out into the light and dealt with just as the truth was.
If you are all correct you have no evidence of being correct in the early Christian Church. You can name no individuals that believed as you believe in the first 1300 years of the Church. You can turn to no church documents or any evidence at all that shows you believing as they believe. Not a shred of proof that anyone...not one person believed as you believe in the first 1300 years. It's as if your belief system was just made up one day. Your belief system has resulted in the opposite of what Jesus prayed for in terms of unity as there is massive disunity among non-Catholics themselves yet alone the disunity caused by the splitting away from the Catholic Church as evidenced by the multitude of Christian denominations.
For your belief system to be true you would have to admit that there is more evidence of heresy (Catholic beliefs) than truth (your beliefs) in Jesus' Church. More evidence of idolatry than true worship. More evidence of hate than love. That darkness completely overshadowed the light for centuries. To say that's not the case is to be completely intellectually dishonest or simply blinded. And to say that paints Christ and the Church He said He would build and protect in an awful light.
Stop reading hate sites and balance your research. It's honestly not that hard and won't take a long time. I won't include sites out of respect, but if you desire some Catholic sites to balance your research I can provide them. Worst case is you read it and still decide we're wrong. At least you won't hate what you don't understand. I was where you are.
Thanks.
-Ernie-
I will try to respond the best I can to all of the responses directed toward me, but I wanted to make an overarching point. All of you are very consistent in your disbelief in the Catholic Church and I truly commend you for your passion as I believe it is based on your love of Jesus and His Word. Although we disagree on an awful lot I think we can agree on loving Jesus and His Word!!
What I've been reading over and over is, in essence, "the Catholic Church is wrong because of what the Bible says...per my interpretation". And that's OK. There is nothing wrong with admitting the Bible needs to be interpreted (if not why so many varying versions of truth?). When it does get wrong is when anyone claims to be interpreting the Bible correctly when they're not. You would put the Catholic Church under the category of wrong while the Catholic Church would say that you're wrong. So whose interpretation is correct...yours or the Catholic Church? Let's do a quick intellectual comparison.
If the Catholic Church is correct it has evidence of being correct from the very early Christian Church. I can name individuals in every century where I believe like they believe. I can turn to church council documents in most every century (there weren't councils in every century) and find evidence that I believe as they believe. Jesus has truly protected this Church in the sense of unity as there is an unbroken chain of beliefs in all centuries. I also can name heretics in most every century...Joahannites, Hippolytus of Rome, Marcion of Pontus, Theodotus and so many others including some church leaders like Paul of Samosata and Bishop Polycrates who did not believe as I believe and were excommunicated by the Church. Heresies were brought out into the light and dealt with just as the truth was.
If you are all correct you have no evidence of being correct in the early Christian Church. You can name no individuals that believed as you believe in the first 1300 years of the Church. You can turn to no church documents or any evidence at all that shows you believing as they believe. Not a shred of proof that anyone...not one person believed as you believe in the first 1300 years. It's as if your belief system was just made up one day. Your belief system has resulted in the opposite of what Jesus prayed for in terms of unity as there is massive disunity among non-Catholics themselves yet alone the disunity caused by the splitting away from the Catholic Church as evidenced by the multitude of Christian denominations.
For your belief system to be true you would have to admit that there is more evidence of heresy (Catholic beliefs) than truth (your beliefs) in Jesus' Church. More evidence of idolatry than true worship. More evidence of hate than love. That darkness completely overshadowed the light for centuries. To say that's not the case is to be completely intellectually dishonest or simply blinded. And to say that paints Christ and the Church He said He would build and protect in an awful light.
Stop reading hate sites and balance your research. It's honestly not that hard and won't take a long time. I won't include sites out of respect, but if you desire some Catholic sites to balance your research I can provide them. Worst case is you read it and still decide we're wrong. At least you won't hate what you don't understand. I was where you are.
Thanks.
-Ernie-