Is there still hope for my relationship?
- Thread starter blasiangirl
- 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.
First of all The bible says that A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. The Bible also says we are to be in one accord in faith and doctrine. Also I have spoken to a muslim who admitted that Islam teaches it's ok to lie to glorify the Islamic religion.
I have to tell you that it's a bad idea to pursue this guy on multiple levels. I suggest you study the Islamic religion and find out more about it before going any further with him.
Also the attack on the catholic church isn't an attack, It's considered evil because of it's false teachings like the Infant
baptism, No where in scripture does it teach to baptise an infant, A person must be born again to be baptised.
(Must have repented of sins and accepted Jesus Christ for Salvation)
Also prayers to the Holy mother of God and the Rosary, The Scripture is clear that our prayers are to be directed to God almighty himself. That we are not to use vain repetitions as the heathen do. (Vain repetitions is the same prayer over and over again.)
I could go into a lot more but I am using these as examples for why the Catholic church is considered evil.
My advice to you, if you want to be happy is this, First forget the Muslim guy, I know it's going to hurt because you have strong feelings for him. Second the differences in the 2 religions will make it very difficult raise children or agree on important issues. Next, When you do get over him Find yourself a guy who shares your beliefs and faith. You'll be much happier with a man who is in agreement with everything you believe and where neither of you have to make sacrifices or compromises.
Agree on the important issues and make reasonable compromises on unimportant issues. If you stay friends with the muslim guy, make sure you try and win him to Christ, don't consider anything more than a friendship with him. Even that is pushing the lines on sound advice.
I have to tell you that it's a bad idea to pursue this guy on multiple levels. I suggest you study the Islamic religion and find out more about it before going any further with him.
Also the attack on the catholic church isn't an attack, It's considered evil because of it's false teachings like the Infant
baptism, No where in scripture does it teach to baptise an infant, A person must be born again to be baptised.
(Must have repented of sins and accepted Jesus Christ for Salvation)
Also prayers to the Holy mother of God and the Rosary, The Scripture is clear that our prayers are to be directed to God almighty himself. That we are not to use vain repetitions as the heathen do. (Vain repetitions is the same prayer over and over again.)
I could go into a lot more but I am using these as examples for why the Catholic church is considered evil.
My advice to you, if you want to be happy is this, First forget the Muslim guy, I know it's going to hurt because you have strong feelings for him. Second the differences in the 2 religions will make it very difficult raise children or agree on important issues. Next, When you do get over him Find yourself a guy who shares your beliefs and faith. You'll be much happier with a man who is in agreement with everything you believe and where neither of you have to make sacrifices or compromises.
Agree on the important issues and make reasonable compromises on unimportant issues. If you stay friends with the muslim guy, make sure you try and win him to Christ, don't consider anything more than a friendship with him. Even that is pushing the lines on sound advice.
Feelings are not love! Love is a commitment. First, you both need to have a relationship with Jesus, who is God. Muslims abhor the fact that people would say Jesus is God. For a Muslim, God is only transcendent, meaning holy and far above us. The Muslim god, Allah, is caprious and demanding, but gives no love in return. Jesus is both transcendent and immanent. God is above us, and his ways are marvelous. But, God is also just, and loving. So loving, he sent his only son as a sacrifice for sin on Calvary, that we might be saved. Through the Holy Spirit, we can be saved, and have a relationship with the Creator of the Universe.
Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ?
A Muslim is expecting Jesus to return, but Jesus is only a good man. Jesus came to save those who believe, from their sins. A Muslim has no such assurance. They believe they have to perform works, and even then, they have no idea if they will make it to paradise or wherever.
I think Catholics believe something similar, in that you have to do certain sacraments (works) to be saved. The Bible is clear that we are saved by belief, not by works.
”They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:31
“because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.” Romans 10:9-10
God gives us faith, the RCC church does not hold that faith, but God alone!
”For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.” Eph. 2:8-10
Here is my advice - walk away from this dishonest relationship, which has problems already. He will want you to convert to Islam. There will be incredible pressure on you. Women have virtually no status in Islam. Muslim men can be very entitled and abusive. I think someone mentioned “a user.”
My second piece that is of vital importance is to read the Bible on your own. Start with the New Testament. Use a modern version like NIV or ESV or NET Bible. If you want a good translation, that is Catholic, try the NAB. That is what I was reading when I was saved. When I was saved, I knew immediately the Catholic Church was wrong! It was not the gospel. (The gospel message is in any translation!)
As for the RCC being the “oldest” church, just no! The first “pope” was the bishop in Alexandria, in the 3rd century, which the bishop of Rome stole in the 4th century. The Orthodox also claims to be the “first” church. At least they are located in the Middle East and kept their Greek. The Coptic Church also claims to be the first church. Not that it matters which “church” was first. What matters is knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Here is a brief excerpt: (Notice the “papacy” wasn’t started until after 312 AD. No backdating allowed!)
“From the Council of Nicaea to the Fall of the Roman Empire (325–590)Momentous changes occurred both in the church and in the political structure of the West during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. The Western Roman Empire disappeared under the repeated assaults of the German barbarian tribes on its northern frontier. Christianity, a persecuted minority faith at Constantine's conversion in AD 312, had become the religion of the Empire by the end of the century. The bishop of Rome, whose leadership in the church had been largely a primacy of honour, now claimed supreme and universal authority in Christian lands, and began to make good this claim in the West, at least over the church. By the time of Pope Gregory I (590–604) the collapse of the Western Empire left the Roman bishop the real ruler of much of central Italy.”
https://www.theopedia.com/church-history
Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ?
A Muslim is expecting Jesus to return, but Jesus is only a good man. Jesus came to save those who believe, from their sins. A Muslim has no such assurance. They believe they have to perform works, and even then, they have no idea if they will make it to paradise or wherever.
I think Catholics believe something similar, in that you have to do certain sacraments (works) to be saved. The Bible is clear that we are saved by belief, not by works.
”They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:31
“because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.” Romans 10:9-10
God gives us faith, the RCC church does not hold that faith, but God alone!
”For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.” Eph. 2:8-10
Here is my advice - walk away from this dishonest relationship, which has problems already. He will want you to convert to Islam. There will be incredible pressure on you. Women have virtually no status in Islam. Muslim men can be very entitled and abusive. I think someone mentioned “a user.”
My second piece that is of vital importance is to read the Bible on your own. Start with the New Testament. Use a modern version like NIV or ESV or NET Bible. If you want a good translation, that is Catholic, try the NAB. That is what I was reading when I was saved. When I was saved, I knew immediately the Catholic Church was wrong! It was not the gospel. (The gospel message is in any translation!)
As for the RCC being the “oldest” church, just no! The first “pope” was the bishop in Alexandria, in the 3rd century, which the bishop of Rome stole in the 4th century. The Orthodox also claims to be the “first” church. At least they are located in the Middle East and kept their Greek. The Coptic Church also claims to be the first church. Not that it matters which “church” was first. What matters is knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Here is a brief excerpt: (Notice the “papacy” wasn’t started until after 312 AD. No backdating allowed!)
“From the Council of Nicaea to the Fall of the Roman Empire (325–590)Momentous changes occurred both in the church and in the political structure of the West during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. The Western Roman Empire disappeared under the repeated assaults of the German barbarian tribes on its northern frontier. Christianity, a persecuted minority faith at Constantine's conversion in AD 312, had become the religion of the Empire by the end of the century. The bishop of Rome, whose leadership in the church had been largely a primacy of honour, now claimed supreme and universal authority in Christian lands, and began to make good this claim in the West, at least over the church. By the time of Pope Gregory I (590–604) the collapse of the Western Empire left the Roman bishop the real ruler of much of central Italy.”
https://www.theopedia.com/church-history
Here is some more information for you, specifically on Peter being the first “pope.”
Question: "Was Saint Peter the first pope?"
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.
But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
https://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html
Question: "Was Saint Peter the first pope?"
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.
But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
https://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html
Feel free to do some research on Peter being the first pope from non-Catholic sources.
But more important, forget about churches/denominations and seek God. He will make himself known!
PS. So much more, like “penance” being a bad translation of the word “repentance.” Repentance means to turn away from your sins and to God. Penance is a deal you make with a priest to have some “vain repetitions, or works, to make you a better person. That is NOT the Biblical definition of repentance!
”And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.” Matt 6:7
But more important, forget about churches/denominations and seek God. He will make himself known!
PS. So much more, like “penance” being a bad translation of the word “repentance.” Repentance means to turn away from your sins and to God. Penance is a deal you make with a priest to have some “vain repetitions, or works, to make you a better person. That is NOT the Biblical definition of repentance!
”And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.” Matt 6:7