Are Roman Catholics Christians
- Thread starter MarkWilliams
- 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.
I was born into a Catholic family and was baptized a few days after birth. Just before I started school my parents taught me the basic Catholic prayers then I started Catholic school. We were taught the Catholic faith but there was no appeal to scripture to back up doctrines. We just accepted what we were told as fact.
When I was about 12 years old I first became aware that there were Christians that did not believe the same truths we had been taught. A local Church of Christ took out ads in the newspaper attacking Catholic beliefs. It did not affect me.
In college I got to know more about what Bible Christians taught about justification. It did not ring true and what the Catholic church taught made more sense.
When I was about 35 I think it was something on the Catholic television station EWTN that inspired me to read the Bible for the first time. I read it from cover to cover. I subscribed to Catholic Answers magazine. They had really good articles teaching about various Catholic beliefs and backing it up with scripture. I also became aware of several great Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid and many more. I read their books which basically did what Catholic Answers magazine did but with more detail.
Some subjects were too difficult for me to understand. I understood it from Catholic teaching but I could not find clear concise info in the Bible to back it up.
One thing I did become sure of was that the doctrine of OSAS was false. This is clearly taught in 2 Pet 2:20-23
20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire
It is beyond question that these people start out justified because Peter says they escaped (past tense) the defilements of the world through the knowledge of Jesus. He says then if they again become entangled in the defilements of the world this condition is worse than if they had never been saved. We know those who do not believe go to hell so those who fall away into sin after being saved go to a lower place in hell.
Another thing my Bible study convinced me of is that Baptism is necessary for salvation and it forgives sins. You will of course cite the thief on the cross. He did not have the opportunity for Baptism so he received the Baptism of desire. God is greater than his commands and so he saved the thief. That Baptism is necessary for salvation is no where more clearly stated than in Mk 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
What could be clearer? Yet Bible Christians twist this verse to their own destruction and say it does not require Baptism.
Another verse is Acts 2:38
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The definition of the bold face “for” is key. In English for has several meanings. Bible Christians say it means because your sins have been forgiven you should be baptized. The underlying Greek word (eis) however does not have multiple meanings. Let’s look at another use of this word in scripture.
Mt 26:28
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins
The bold faced “for” is (eis) in Greek. In this context no one can deny that the blood of Christ leads to the forgiveness of sins. So in Acts 2:38 baptism leads to the forgiveness of sins.
Continue....
When I was about 12 years old I first became aware that there were Christians that did not believe the same truths we had been taught. A local Church of Christ took out ads in the newspaper attacking Catholic beliefs. It did not affect me.
In college I got to know more about what Bible Christians taught about justification. It did not ring true and what the Catholic church taught made more sense.
When I was about 35 I think it was something on the Catholic television station EWTN that inspired me to read the Bible for the first time. I read it from cover to cover. I subscribed to Catholic Answers magazine. They had really good articles teaching about various Catholic beliefs and backing it up with scripture. I also became aware of several great Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid and many more. I read their books which basically did what Catholic Answers magazine did but with more detail.
Some subjects were too difficult for me to understand. I understood it from Catholic teaching but I could not find clear concise info in the Bible to back it up.
One thing I did become sure of was that the doctrine of OSAS was false. This is clearly taught in 2 Pet 2:20-23
20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire
It is beyond question that these people start out justified because Peter says they escaped (past tense) the defilements of the world through the knowledge of Jesus. He says then if they again become entangled in the defilements of the world this condition is worse than if they had never been saved. We know those who do not believe go to hell so those who fall away into sin after being saved go to a lower place in hell.
Another thing my Bible study convinced me of is that Baptism is necessary for salvation and it forgives sins. You will of course cite the thief on the cross. He did not have the opportunity for Baptism so he received the Baptism of desire. God is greater than his commands and so he saved the thief. That Baptism is necessary for salvation is no where more clearly stated than in Mk 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
What could be clearer? Yet Bible Christians twist this verse to their own destruction and say it does not require Baptism.
Another verse is Acts 2:38
38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The definition of the bold face “for” is key. In English for has several meanings. Bible Christians say it means because your sins have been forgiven you should be baptized. The underlying Greek word (eis) however does not have multiple meanings. Let’s look at another use of this word in scripture.
Mt 26:28
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins
The bold faced “for” is (eis) in Greek. In this context no one can deny that the blood of Christ leads to the forgiveness of sins. So in Acts 2:38 baptism leads to the forgiveness of sins.
Continue....
A uniquely Catholic doctrine is that of the Eucharist. A couple of things need to be established before we get into the text in question Jn 6:51-69. First, recorded in the Gospels in a couple of places Jesus says something figurative and his disciples misunderstand and take him literally. Jesus does not leave them in ignorance but corrects them. The first example occurs in Mt 16:5-12. The disciples have forgotten to bring bread on their journey. Jesus then tells them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, The disciples think he has said this because they forgot to bring bread. Jesus then explains clearly that he is not talking about bread but the teachings of the Pharisees. The next example is Jn 4:31-34. Here again Jesus speaks about food in a figurative way. The disciples encourage Jesus to eat something. Jesus says he has food to eat. The disciples think someone else had brought him food. Jesus then tells them that his food is to do the will of his Father.
Second, the most controversial thing Jesus says in this discourse is that we must eat his flesh to have eternal life. This is biblical metaphorical language. It means to violently assault someone. Here are some examples. Is 9:18-20, Is 49:26, Micah 3:2-3
Third, is the word “eat”. This passage has numerous occurrences of this word or a form of it. Although it is translated as eat there are two different greek words used. One is phago. This is the ordinary word used for human eating and in this passage the most used. The other greek word is trogo. It means to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables. It is also used for animals feeding. You can see the detailed definitions below from the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon
5315 ἐσθίω [phago /fag·o/] v. A primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); GK 2266; 97 occurrences; AV translates as “eat” 94 times, and “meat” three times. 1 to eat. 2 to eat (consume) a thing. 2a to take food, eat a meal. 2b metaph. to devour, consume.
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
5176 τρώγω [trogo /tro·go/] v. Probably strengthened from a collateral form of the base of 5134 and 5147 through the idea of corrosion or wear, or perhaps rather of a base of 5167 and 5149 through the idea of a crunching sound; TDNT 8:236; TDNTA 1191; GK 5592; Six occurrences; AV translates as “eat” six times. 1 to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds). 1a of animals feeding. 1b of men. 2 to eat.
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
Now let us consider Jn chapter 6 where Jesus talks about food everyone of his followers must eat to have eternal life. Here is Jn 6:51-69.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats(phago) of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat(phago)?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat(phago) the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats(trogo) me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats(trogo) this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
At first Jesus uses the ordinary word for eat, phago, Then in v54 he switches to a stronger word for eat, trogo, and to continue to use it for the rest of the discourse to hammer home that he is speaking literally.
If Jesus was trying to teach something else why would he use language that means to violently assault someone.
In verse 51 Jesus says he is the bread that came down from heaven and the bread that he would give for the life of the world was his flesh. Now I can understand how some one might not be sure what Jesus meant by this. They would need for him to elaborate. But in v 52 the Jews take him literally to mean they had to eat his actual flesh. I am sure they imagined walking up to Jesus and taking a bite out of his arm and then having to chew it up and swallow it. This is a horrifying and disgusting thought. And besides how many people could he feed? A few hundred and he would be all gone.
In v 53 Jesus does not explain that he is speaking figuratively but doubles down and in the most clear and concise manner says 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
Jesus goes on to repeat this teaching by my count 4 times. Then in v 60 and 66 it says many of his disciples fell away over this teaching. Remember Jesus is God and he could read the thoughts of everyone of these disciples. He knew they understood him correctly so there was no need to correct them. What is going on here is that Jesus is testing the faith of his disciples and apostles. Just like God tested Abraham several times and Abraham says to himself “God says it and God does not lie so therefore I believe.” Jesus could have told them how he would do this. He would work a miracle at the Last Supper and change bread into his flesh and wine into his blood. It would still look and taste like bread and wine but would actually be his flesh and blood. They did not have the faith of Abraham. Either they did not believe it was God speaking to them or they did not believe in the truthfulness of God.
Many non-Catholics say that in v 63 Jesus is telling the crowd that he is speaking figuratively. When Jesus uses the word flesh here he is not talking about his actual own flesh but in the sense St Paul does in Rom 8:3 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,. Furthermore no where in scripture is the word spirit used to mean metaphorical or figurative. If this were true he let many disciples walk away and lose their salvation over a misunderstanding. Jesus wants to save everyone and he would not do that. Remember the disciples leave in v 66 which is after v63 where some say Jesus says he is speaking figuratively.
You might ask why Jesus would have us do such a thing. Well at Passover everyone must eat some of the lamb. John the Baptist calls Jesus the Lamb of God. For whatever reason God had the Jews eat the lamb it is probably something similar with the flesh of Jesus.
Finally the whole economy of salvation makes mores sense in the Catholic church. You see your fellow Christian commit sins but you do not judge because you commit similar sins. But when a Christian commits adultery or murder or theft of a large sum of money you question whether they were really saved. This distinction in sins in the Catholic church is called venial and mortal sins. Venial sins do not cause you to lose you salvation but mortal sins causes a loss of sanctifying grace which necessary to enter heaven. These mortal sins must be repented of and then confessed to a priest who absolves you from you sin. Remember Jesus breathed on the apostles and told them those whose sins they forgive are forgiven and those who they retain are retained.
For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic.
Second, the most controversial thing Jesus says in this discourse is that we must eat his flesh to have eternal life. This is biblical metaphorical language. It means to violently assault someone. Here are some examples. Is 9:18-20, Is 49:26, Micah 3:2-3
Third, is the word “eat”. This passage has numerous occurrences of this word or a form of it. Although it is translated as eat there are two different greek words used. One is phago. This is the ordinary word used for human eating and in this passage the most used. The other greek word is trogo. It means to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables. It is also used for animals feeding. You can see the detailed definitions below from the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon
5315 ἐσθίω [phago /fag·o/] v. A primary verb (used as an alternate of 2068 in certain tenses); GK 2266; 97 occurrences; AV translates as “eat” 94 times, and “meat” three times. 1 to eat. 2 to eat (consume) a thing. 2a to take food, eat a meal. 2b metaph. to devour, consume.
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
5176 τρώγω [trogo /tro·go/] v. Probably strengthened from a collateral form of the base of 5134 and 5147 through the idea of corrosion or wear, or perhaps rather of a base of 5167 and 5149 through the idea of a crunching sound; TDNT 8:236; TDNTA 1191; GK 5592; Six occurrences; AV translates as “eat” six times. 1 to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds). 1a of animals feeding. 1b of men. 2 to eat.
Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
Now let us consider Jn chapter 6 where Jesus talks about food everyone of his followers must eat to have eternal life. Here is Jn 6:51-69.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats(phago) of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat(phago)?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat(phago) the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats(trogo) my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats(trogo) me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats(trogo) this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
At first Jesus uses the ordinary word for eat, phago, Then in v54 he switches to a stronger word for eat, trogo, and to continue to use it for the rest of the discourse to hammer home that he is speaking literally.
If Jesus was trying to teach something else why would he use language that means to violently assault someone.
In verse 51 Jesus says he is the bread that came down from heaven and the bread that he would give for the life of the world was his flesh. Now I can understand how some one might not be sure what Jesus meant by this. They would need for him to elaborate. But in v 52 the Jews take him literally to mean they had to eat his actual flesh. I am sure they imagined walking up to Jesus and taking a bite out of his arm and then having to chew it up and swallow it. This is a horrifying and disgusting thought. And besides how many people could he feed? A few hundred and he would be all gone.
In v 53 Jesus does not explain that he is speaking figuratively but doubles down and in the most clear and concise manner says 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
Jesus goes on to repeat this teaching by my count 4 times. Then in v 60 and 66 it says many of his disciples fell away over this teaching. Remember Jesus is God and he could read the thoughts of everyone of these disciples. He knew they understood him correctly so there was no need to correct them. What is going on here is that Jesus is testing the faith of his disciples and apostles. Just like God tested Abraham several times and Abraham says to himself “God says it and God does not lie so therefore I believe.” Jesus could have told them how he would do this. He would work a miracle at the Last Supper and change bread into his flesh and wine into his blood. It would still look and taste like bread and wine but would actually be his flesh and blood. They did not have the faith of Abraham. Either they did not believe it was God speaking to them or they did not believe in the truthfulness of God.
Many non-Catholics say that in v 63 Jesus is telling the crowd that he is speaking figuratively. When Jesus uses the word flesh here he is not talking about his actual own flesh but in the sense St Paul does in Rom 8:3 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,. Furthermore no where in scripture is the word spirit used to mean metaphorical or figurative. If this were true he let many disciples walk away and lose their salvation over a misunderstanding. Jesus wants to save everyone and he would not do that. Remember the disciples leave in v 66 which is after v63 where some say Jesus says he is speaking figuratively.
You might ask why Jesus would have us do such a thing. Well at Passover everyone must eat some of the lamb. John the Baptist calls Jesus the Lamb of God. For whatever reason God had the Jews eat the lamb it is probably something similar with the flesh of Jesus.
Finally the whole economy of salvation makes mores sense in the Catholic church. You see your fellow Christian commit sins but you do not judge because you commit similar sins. But when a Christian commits adultery or murder or theft of a large sum of money you question whether they were really saved. This distinction in sins in the Catholic church is called venial and mortal sins. Venial sins do not cause you to lose you salvation but mortal sins causes a loss of sanctifying grace which necessary to enter heaven. These mortal sins must be repented of and then confessed to a priest who absolves you from you sin. Remember Jesus breathed on the apostles and told them those whose sins they forgive are forgiven and those who they retain are retained.
For these and many other reasons I remain a devout Catholic.
-
1
- Show all
Anti Catholic Evangelicals are so courageous posting their anti Catholic ideas here but fear to argue with Catholic Apologetic experts such as Scott Hahn/Frs Steve Shott and Fr Abe Arganiosa.
Are Roman Catholics Christian? Well even I am also a Catholic I still consider from other Christian sects real Christians as long as they are meek/patient etc. with the fruits of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23 and believes that Jesus is his Savior of his soul and Lord.
but if you're intelligent man then why will you believe that a Christian sect that was only established in 1970s (Born Again groups) as God's true Church?
if you don't believe that the real Christian Church will always continue existing after the death of apostles then you should acknowledge that Christian religions that can be traced from 1st Century AD are the best candidates of the true Christian Church.
These are Orthodox Church/Catholic Church and Coptic Church.
it is impossible that newly founded Born Again groups to be God's real Church because i know that most if not all are just created to milk members' money by their greedy pastors who make religion as their form of business.
no wonder why some Westerners especially in the US lost faith in religion and in God because of these pastors and became atheists/agnostics/deists etc.
Are Roman Catholics Christian? Well even I am also a Catholic I still consider from other Christian sects real Christians as long as they are meek/patient etc. with the fruits of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23 and believes that Jesus is his Savior of his soul and Lord.
but if you're intelligent man then why will you believe that a Christian sect that was only established in 1970s (Born Again groups) as God's true Church?
if you don't believe that the real Christian Church will always continue existing after the death of apostles then you should acknowledge that Christian religions that can be traced from 1st Century AD are the best candidates of the true Christian Church.
These are Orthodox Church/Catholic Church and Coptic Church.
it is impossible that newly founded Born Again groups to be God's real Church because i know that most if not all are just created to milk members' money by their greedy pastors who make religion as their form of business.
no wonder why some Westerners especially in the US lost faith in religion and in God because of these pastors and became atheists/agnostics/deists etc.
common if you don't believe that the Church of the 1st century will temporarily collapse and restored by a deceiver then you must believe that the real Christian Church can be traced its existence from 1st century.
only Roman Catholic/Coptic and Orthox Church are the religions whose existence can be traced from 1st century (it is up to each individual to choose and investigate which of these 3 I MENTIONED is the true Christian Church)
and before attacking our doctrines please read Catholic Apologetic online and even argue on the blog of Fr. Abe Arganiosa if you wish. just google it if you're interested. (Catholic Apologetic has Biblical basis)
I even bet my eternal salvation for saying that most if not all newly founded Bible groups such as Born again groups are only religious scams founded by greedy pastors that milk members' money out of it for profit.
no wonder why some people became ex Christians then turned atheists or agnostics because of this discovery.
PS If there are Catholics on this thread then please follow me because I am your Catholic brother in faith.
only Roman Catholic/Coptic and Orthox Church are the religions whose existence can be traced from 1st century (it is up to each individual to choose and investigate which of these 3 I MENTIONED is the true Christian Church)
and before attacking our doctrines please read Catholic Apologetic online and even argue on the blog of Fr. Abe Arganiosa if you wish. just google it if you're interested. (Catholic Apologetic has Biblical basis)
I even bet my eternal salvation for saying that most if not all newly founded Bible groups such as Born again groups are only religious scams founded by greedy pastors that milk members' money out of it for profit.
no wonder why some people became ex Christians then turned atheists or agnostics because of this discovery.
PS If there are Catholics on this thread then please follow me because I am your Catholic brother in faith.
I am not defend a pastor that work for money, catholic was also sale the forgiveness certificate. But why you say catholic teaching is inline with first century Christian, first century Christian teaching is documented as bible, where in the Bible teach to pray to Mary, or sale forgiveness certificate.
Where in the Bible teach that Moslim share the same God with Abraham. Abraham god teach that Jesus is God, Muslim God teach that Jesus is only human.
Where in the Bible teach that Moslim share the same God with Abraham. Abraham god teach that Jesus is God, Muslim God teach that Jesus is only human.
You believe only catholic and orthodox are Christian because you believe all born again group pastor are milking their member, so there are not Christian. If all pastor are only milking their member, I will make my own fellowship with 2 or 3 fellow bible believer.
But why you follow catholic, don't you know catholic was milking their member by saling forgiveness certificate. The same action that make you accused born again group are not Christian
Are you double standard?
But why you follow catholic, don't you know catholic was milking their member by saling forgiveness certificate. The same action that make you accused born again group are not Christian
Are you double standard?
-
1
- Show all
Yes, I pray to Mary. This is not necromancy. Necromancy is conjuring spirits to reveal the future to you or do something for you. When we pray to Mary we are asking for her prayers to God for our petitions. James says that a prayer of a righteous man is of great effect. Of all people who are only human Mary is the most righteous.
I believe firmly that after the consecration the bread and wine are the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
I believe firmly that after the consecration the bread and wine are the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
Not all Catholics worship Mary, some just see her as a mediatrix
I wonder why Jesus never encouraged us to pray to His mother. You would think He would have included her when He said, nobody comes to the Father but by Me. He didn't say by Me and My mother.
I also think the transubstantiation of the bread and wine is not a Biblical concept, it sounds like superstition
I wonder why Jesus never encouraged us to pray to His mother. You would think He would have included her when He said, nobody comes to the Father but by Me. He didn't say by Me and My mother.
I also think the transubstantiation of the bread and wine is not a Biblical concept, it sounds like superstition
That's not even close to what I asked.
I gave you John 3 where Jesus said that some men refuse to come to the Light because the love evil. They will not come even though Christ bids them to come.
I am always looking for the John 16:8-11 experience in the life of any person who claims to know Christ. Absent a testimony of the Holy Spirit drawing a man to Christ I cannot see how they could be saved.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I gave you John 3 where Jesus said that some men refuse to come to the Light because the love evil. They will not come even though Christ bids them to come.
I am always looking for the John 16:8-11 experience in the life of any person who claims to know Christ. Absent a testimony of the Holy Spirit drawing a man to Christ I cannot see how they could be saved.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
That's right, the Holy Spirit draws a person to repent and to have faith in Christ. It's not a work of the flesh, lest anyone should boast.
It's still a mystery why some believe and obey and others reject and don't believe, even though so much good evidence is shown to them. I know some really good people, who live impeccable lives yet they don't believe in Christ.
It's still a mystery why some believe and obey and others reject and don't believe, even though so much good evidence is shown to them. I know some really good people, who live impeccable lives yet they don't believe in Christ.
Well it's less of a mystery than most people are willing to admit.
Jesus shows us in John 3 that men love sin more than the righteousness of God. Cain loved himself more than God. God offered Cain a sin offering and Cain refused.
Religious people see no need of Christ's blood shed for them at Calvary. Self righteousness through religion is at the heart of the Roman Catholic church. It also produces a very superstitious fashion of worship.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Jesus shows us in John 3 that men love sin more than the righteousness of God. Cain loved himself more than God. God offered Cain a sin offering and Cain refused.
Religious people see no need of Christ's blood shed for them at Calvary. Self righteousness through religion is at the heart of the Roman Catholic church. It also produces a very superstitious fashion of worship.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
