I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of Mat 16:18. The church is not built on Peter but on Jesus.
You lay a faulty foundation and then endeavor to build upon it. It has no chance of standing. The word of God the bible validates Gods truth. No church organization validates any truth but their own.
You claim to be saved through your faith in Jesus yet you deny that faith with false doctrines.
Here is the Roman Catholic gospel.
Water baptism as an infant to be place into the church.
Confirmation into full status in the church to receive sacraments.
Sacraments to receive grace in keeping salvation through meritorious efforts.
Hope that enough of the above is sufficient but have a back up position of purgatory through the fire of hell.
No real hope and no real peace.
Christ gives real hope and full assurance to those who trust in Him and not the Catholic church. The Holy Spirit lives in the hearts of those who are born again and sealed unto eternal life by Gods grace.
You cannot be honest with me until you are first honest with Christ.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Hi Roger,
I never mentioned Peter as it relates to MT 16:18, actually let's forget Peter for a moment and focus on the part where Jesus says He will build His Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail over it. So who is that Church and how do you prove that Jesus protected it if not by showing an unbroken chain of beliefs? Truth today can't be an untruth yesterday. If the Word of God validates truth on its own then why are there so many Christian denominations with so many different versions of the truth? Which "truth" is actually true?
And while we're on the subject of the Word of God do you read from a 66 bible or the 73 book Bible? If you read a 66 book bible how do you reconcile the fact that you are not reading the Bible the Christian Church used for 1000 years? Your beliefs are not based on reading the entirety of the Bible and with all due respect that is why your beliefs are lacking.
As it relates to your "Roman Catholic gospel" I have a few comments:
- Your portrayal of Baptism is basically accurate (i'm not going to get too deep)
- Confirmation is actually a confirming of the faith your parents stated in your place when you were an infant (typically you would have already received the Eucharist and gone to confession prior to Confirmation, but not always)
- Sacraments do infuse a person with grace...the grace to persevere to the end (MT 24:13). The sacraments were instituted by Jesus Himself. You will disagree with the Church's interpretation and all evidence of belief by the single universal Church and yet provide no evidence yourself.
- Purgatory can be formally validated as a belief of the single universal Church as early as 358 A.D. and since you are not reading the true Bible Purgatory means nothing to you. It's one of the tragic consequences of the Reformation.
- I have great hope and peace as should all faithful Catholics, but I do understand that I must persevere until the end as my Lord, God, and Savior pointed out (MT 24:13)
I trust in the Catholic Church because I trust in Jesus...not vice versa or either/or. I can prove that the Church Jesus speaks of in MT 16:18 is today's Catholic Church and I've been doing that for many of my posts. The frustrating thing for me is that most non-Catholics have no desire to prove Jesus kept His promise. Their interpretation, although well intentioned, takes precedence over being able to validate the promises of our Lord and that makes me very sad.
You still have never answered my question, "when did the Christian Church believe as you believe"? Can you give me even 1 piece of evidence that the Christian Church in 200, 500, 800, 1000 A.D. believed as you believe (or disbelieve in many cases)?
I know our discussions are getting deep and intense, but I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate the open dialogue we are having.
-Ernie-