Posted on 06/11/2006 11:16:58 AM PDT by Alama
Was Peter a married man?
That is the point. As the article says, this conversion has been going on for a few years now, but it's only being reported now. Maybe the typist had arthritis, and it took that long to type the article. Where is the story in Le Monde or L'Express? Perhaps there is an epidemic of arthritis in Paris. Remind me to send a get-well card.
Doesn't matter, they are losing far more of their own people through low birth rate, abortion, gayness, assimilation and indifference than they can possibly hope to gain from proselytising converts.
Two words: Pope Leo
Right... because the sale of indulgences and not putting the gospel into a language teh commone people could read had nothing to do with it.... /sarcasm
I Tim 3:2 & Tit 1:6 are pretty much clear on the issue concerning married Elders of an assembly of like-minded believers. The English translation "Bishop" translated out of the Greek Episkope and Episkopos, the same Greek being rendered "overseeer" in Acts 20:28.
Moreover, I Tim 3:12 is quite clear respecting marital status of a Bishop's (Elder) assistant: Deacon. And both the qualifications for the only two Scripturally defined offices are given admonishment concerning their households: "ruling their children and their houses well" (I Tim 3:4b & 3:12b). Its extremely illogical to infer an absolute restrictive sense to the meanging of these passages.
The phrase "husband of one wife" does not mean that the Bishop (overseer/Elder) or Deacon was never married, else this would exclude a remarried widower, nor does it exclude from holding office those who've never been married. In Romans 7:1-3, Paul placed no restriction upon a widower to remarry; the restriction being that one seeking an office of the church should not be married to more than one woman simultaneously (and there would definitely be issues concerning that regarding divorcees).
The total context speaks of the exemplary moral conduct required of those who hold an office in the church.
I just simply think the Church which has Christ's authority felt it was better to have their priests single since they are often in poverty and would have no means or time for a regular family.
Priests usually serve very large congregations into the thousands these days especially.
"Jews are still God's Chosen People... Or do you believe that God lied?"
God didn't lie. They were his chosen people to bring about the Christ.
In case you missed it, once Christ established His kingdom (the church), the Jewish era had only 40 years left (1 generation). In 70 AD, the Jewish era and the Law of Moses was fully ended with the destruction of Jerusalem.
The tearing of the veil in the Tabernacle upon Christ's death at His crucifixion is of utmost importance with respect to this. The Temple in Jerusalem was divided into two portions, an outer room called the Holy Place in which a number of priests served, and an inner room called the Most Holy Place or Holy of Holies. This inner room represented God's presence. It was so sacred that the only person allowed in was the High Priest, and then only on one day of the year to make atonement for the sins of himself and the people.
This sacred room, the Holy of Holies, was separated from the rest of the temple by an elaborate and beautifully embroidered curtain. According to Jewish descriptions of the temple, this curtain was truly massive - measuring some 30 feet wide, 60 feet high and three inches thick. Its tearing in two from top to bottom at Jesus' death was a shocking and bewildering event! Not only that it tore is significant, but that it tore top to bottom signifies truly remarkable meaning: that not only was God Himself the cause of this event, He deliberately tore the curtain to make a point: mankind's sins, which had cut us off from Him (Isaiah 59:2), could now be forgiven through Jesus Christ's shed blood.
The old Levitical High Priest went into the inner chamber to perform the annual rituals only after a ritual of purification, and adherence to a strict ritual of conduct concerning the sacrifice itself. These priests entered the Holy of Holies with bells attached to their priestly garb, and a rope attached to their leg. The priests in the outer chamber listened intently, hoping the sound of the bells would not cease. If the sound of the bells ceased, the priests in the outer chamber would have to drag the dead ex-High Priest out by the rope attached to his leg (and they had to start the process all over again). Nobody could go in there to retreive a fallen High Priest, lest they be struck dead themselves. That they had to complete the annual sacrifice was beyond any question whatsoever. Any blemish whatsoever in either the purification ritual for the priest, or in the sacrifice ritual performed in the inner sanctum of the Temple would cause the High Priest to be instantly struck dead.
Comparing how the High Priest had previously only been able to pass through the curtain once a year to offer atonement for sins, Hebrews 10:19-22 explains that a new High Priest, Jesus Christ, through the sacrifice of Himself superceded this ritual for all time and gives mankind direct access to God. Imagine the incredulity and astonishment of the first janitor (or lowly stable-hand) of the Temple when he was able to peer unhindered right into the very inner sanctum of the Temple!
Heb 7-8 makes it clear that the old priesthood under the Levitical system came to an end on that day (and why). A distinction now being made concerning differnt ministries: Israel's being inward (everybody going to the Temple in Jerusalem), while the Church is called out (now a foriegn missionary society - as is seen in The Great Commission) and while Israel had a priesthood, all born-again believers in Christ not mere priests (I Pet 2:5), but members of a Royal priesthood (I Pet 2:9-10; cf. Ex 19:5,6; Rev 1:6; 5:10). To Israel God the Father was Jehovah, to the Universal Church he is Abba Father. To Israel God the Son is Messiah, while to the Church He is Saviour, Bridegroom, Head of the Body of Believers (the Church being itself the Bride of Christ), and while God the Holy Spirit was with Israel, He indwells each and every believer. The latter being underscored in Heb 9:24, and references of being "filled with the Spirit" (cf. Eph 5:18; I Cor 3:16; 6:19; II Cor 6:16, etc.)
There is no system of distintion between clergy and laity having any Scriptural basis other than the offices specifically defined: Bishop (overseer/Elder) and Deacon. The office of Pastor is actually doctrinal error, in that pastorship is not an office, but a gift of the spirit. (I Cor 12:1-11). Moreover, in Eph 4:8-16 there is no stipulation or qualifications specified (while there are qualifications for the offices of Elder and Deacon). Furthermore, while the offices are restricted exclusively for men (in accordance to the doctrine of headship), gifts of the Spirit are asexual.
The organization of the local expression of the Universal Church is clearly defined in Scripture. Acts 20:6-10 (esp. v7) intimates the church having stated meetings, each local church chooses its own leaders (Acts 6:1-3), these leaders are universally recognized as being leaders of The Faith, that a corporate discipline exists (I Cor 5), they have responsibilities to orhpans and widows (I Tim 5), have a united effort to raise money (I Cor 16: II Cor 8-9), have letters of commendation (Acts 18:27; Rom 16) and churches are autonomous from one another.
The office of "elder" emphasizes that aspect of the office of a leader within the Church pertaining to maturity; "overseer" emphasizes the accountability of the office of leader within the Church before God (Acts 20:17-28 esp. v17 & 28), while "pastor" describes the ministry of the office of leader within the Church, i.e., as shepherd - to heed, lead and feed the local flock (however, "pastor" is not an Scripturally defined office). Furthermore, each church had a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23; Phil 1:1). This being actually an essential part to maintain the purity of doctrine adhered to by any arbitrary church, in that a plurality of elders would be far less likely being led astray and teach false doctrines and heresy to the congregation. While it is common for many congregations to have one man preside as minister or pastor, with all activities under his control, this is not entirely Sciptural nor actually desireable. Nor is it Scriptural that all minstry be relegated intirely to the leader(s) of an assembly; anybody who adheres to sound doctrine as taught by the Scriptures may be permitted by Church leadership (so far as they don't preach heresy).
The finished work of Christ upon the cross has removed all human distinctions of privelege (Gal 3:28). Every believer in Christ (whether male or female), is a priest to God (Heb 13:15), both holy (I Pet 2: 5) and Royal (I Pet 2:9), able to worship and witness all they desire., not only able to partake, but to participate in the two Scriptural ordinances appointed by Christ (I Cor 11; Mt 28:19), i.e., "the breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42; 20:7), and the practice of baptism (from the Greek baptizo - placing into, or submerging, not "sprinkling") after conversion into The Faith and before taking their place in a local church (Acts 2:41; 8:12; Rom 6:1-11).
Scripture talks about a Church order, similiar to the voluntary order of subservience evident of God Himself (Father - Son - Holy Ghost). Nothing explicitely (or implicitely) respecting this order, is implied (or can be inferred), whereby married men are precluded from assuming an office (except for a lack of the specific qualifications cited in Scripture pertaining to these two offices).
Are you suggesting that Peter abandoned his wife, effectively divorcing here?
In the Bible, Christ did establish the Authority of the Church with Peter as it's head and it has been passed from Peter down.
There is the Word, but also the Authority of the Church Christ established Himself. So when some broke away to form other Churches that only followed the Word, they abandoned the Authority Christ established (which was also written about in the Word). :-)
I think Peter made Christ and not his wife the focus of his life after Christ asked him to come give up all you own and to follow Him.
I think the marriage was NOT a typical marriage after that, but I do think he supported her.
I think the wife sacraficed in a way as much as Peter so Peter could serve Christ and the Church.
According to the Bible, Christ states that none of the Apostles would have authority other any of the others and He would not have contradicted Himself by naming one of the them to have authority over the others.
In the Bible, Christ did establish the Authority of the Church with Peter as it's head and it has been passed from Peter down.Wrong. The Bible teaches nothing of that sort.
...the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between [Mt 16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies "Thou art Peter" to anybody but Peter. One after another they analyse it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants... ...not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him...there is no hint of an abiding Petrene office.1Even if for arguments sake, Peter was the first pope, there exists a quite serious problem with that premise: the very next words out of Peters mouth after Jesus' statement in Mt 16:18 caused Jesus to rebuke him: "Get behind me Satan." His initial ex cathedra declaration to the whole Church on faith and morals was not one of infallibility but outright heresy!
In the very next chapter, Peter makes another pronouncement on faith and morals to the entire Church, only to be rebuked by God the Father Himself in Mt 17:5 (Peter here attempting to place Jesus on par with Elias & Moses).
Later, Peter fearing for his life, with oaths and curses - another declaration on faith and morals to the entire Church - uttered denial of Christ Himself.
The Catholic Church does not even offer a single scriptural argument in its Cathechism respecting the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor. It can not, for there is none. Instead the Magesterium resorts to human reasoning and conjecture [834, 882, 936]. Roman Catholic scholars teach a continuity of succession, together with Tradition and the doctrine of papal infallibility, thereby establishes that it is historically certain the Roman pontiff by divine right is Peter's successor.
These claims can not be be establishd either biblically, or historically. Scripture makes no reference to Peter being the Bishop of Rome, ruling the Universal Church, or having a successor. Neither is there any scriptural intimation that Rome was the governmental center of the early Church. Peter's apostlship was excercised in a special way to the Jewish nation (Gal 2:7,8), and it would be illogical to infer he to be based in Rome. In fact, in 50 A.D., Claudius commanded that all Jews leave Rome. About 58 A.D. Paul neither addresses Peter, nor makes any mention of him whatsoever in his epistle to the Romans, although addressing 26 other people directly and by name explicitly (Rm 16:1-16). Neither is Peter referred to by Paul in any of his four other epistles from Roman prison in 61 A.D. (Eph, Phi, Col, & Phil). In fact, in his last letter (II Tim 4:16), Paul declares "no one has supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them." and stating that "Only Luke is with me." (II Tim 4:11).
Historically, Church historian Philip Schaff writes:
The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness.2Although published lists of popes down through the centuries look impressive, it should be pointed out that comparison of the present list with those of earlier years reveals continuing revision, the last being made in 1947 by A. Mercati. Since then other changes have been found necessary. It is not even clear how some of the men listed have any claim whatsoever to being Peter's sucessor, in that from 1305 to 1378 seven consecutive popes chose their residence and seat of government in Avignon, France.
But that notwithstanding, there's the issue of antipopes, of which over 30 men are labled false claiments. And something even more damning to the concept of papal succession is that of heresy. It is well known that heresy brings automatic excommunication. Even a single papal heretic, if not restored by repenting of their heresy, would break any supposed or alleged line of succession stemming from Peter. Adrian VI, pope during 1522-3, personally pronounced Celestine III, pope during 1191-8 a heretic, and declared John XXII only one in a long line of heretics.
Among the earliest known heretics to sit on Peter's alleged throne was Liberius (352-66) who was forced into exile because of a quarrel with the emperor; he was offered repatriation if he would denounce Anathanasius, who had led the fight against the Arian heresy. Liberius not being a stickler for doctrine, obliged and sided with those who claim the Son is lesser than the Father - an opinion that the Church has consitently denounced as heresy of the worst sort.
This pope was followed by Innocent I (401-17), Gelasius (492-6) who proclaimed that babies went to hell if they died (though baptized) before receiving communion (these guys took Jn 6:53 literally). That veiw being condemned as heresy by the Council of Trent.
The foreging notwithstanding, is in any case immaterial albeit not entirely irrelevent, in that any doctrinally sound basis for succession (if grounded on doctrine taught in Scripture) would be based on the "laying of hands", as the Apostles did, and not some system of election as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church; something undoubtedly and historicaly undisputed to being the source of a most egregious and heinous source of bribery and corruption of the papal electorate.
1. Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy (Crown Publishers, 1988), pp. 24-25
2. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), vol 2, pp. 164-163
Jesus did three things that established the framework of His Church.The first two assertions can be categorically refuted by proper application of the hermeneutic method pertaining to the relevant Scripture passages. The third item being so beyond reproach it needs absolutely no further discussion. However, the last allegation made is so patently false that it crosses into absurdity.[snip]
- He chose humans to carry out His work. He appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. Jesus said to Peter, "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church." (Matthew 16: 18) Jesus said "build," as in to create a structure. Jesus built His structure on specifically chosen human beings Peter and the apostles.
- Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power and authority to carry out His work. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."(Matthew 16:19; 18:18) "Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained."(John 20:23)
- Jesus gave Peter and the apostles commands as to what that work should be. At the last supper, He commanded, "Do this in memory of Me." (Luke 22:19) He commanded them to "Make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), and to "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)
We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, "Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days." (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches.
First off the bat, that the popes have for centuries relied upon fraudulent documents, e.g., Donation of Constantine or the False Decretals, in order to justify their pomp and power (long after the exposure of these documents as being deliberate counterfeits, betrays how little these "vicars of Christ" cared for the truth. It also tells us that in those days popes didn't rely for justification of their papal power upon Mt 16:18 and alleged apostolic succession from Peter, or they would not have needed false documents such as these in authenticating their position. The application of the argument derived from "thou art Peter" was invented much later.
Upon which rock?
The truth of the matter depends not the least upon the interpretation of a few disputable verses of Scripture, but on the whole totality of Scripture.
Without any wiggle room whatsoever, Scripture is clear who the Rock is:
God Himself is described as the unfailing "Rock" of our salvation throughout the entirety of the Old Testament (Dt 32:3,4; Psa 62:1,2; etc.) The Bible unequivocally declares beyond reproach that God is the only Rock (Psa 18:31). So how can Peter be the rock?
Just as equally clear is the New Testament whereby Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Church is built and the He, being God and one with the Father, is therefore the only Rock; He is the rock upon which the wise man built his house (Mt 7:24-29), and this can not be construed as being Peter (without serious and ominous risk of charges of heresy being leveled). Peter himself would be quite emphatic with anger in such charges (as evidenced by his words in I Pt 2:6-8. There's no wiggle room there whatsoever, in that Peter cites Isa 28:16 not merely for effect (but as foundation of his assertion). Paul concurs in Eph 2:20, that Christ is the chief cornerstone of the Church, built upon the foundation of [all] the apostles and prophets. Without a most egregious violence done to the normal meaning and use of words (and logic itself), the position is absolutely untenable concerning any special position concerning Peter respecting the Church's foundation.
This becomes absolutely crystal in conjunction with the meanings attributed to the Greek out of which the English "Peter" and "rock" are translated from. Petros [Strong's &4047] is translated into English as the diminutive for Simon Bar-jona, i.e., Peter, which Strong's Concordance renders as "a piece of stone larger than &3037." According to Strong, the connotation for &3037 is of millstone sized stone. When Christ asked Peter "who am I" (Mt 16:15), Christ blessed Peter upon his answer and first used Peter's proper name (Simon Bar-jona), but immediately proceeded to address him with his dimminutive (akin to addressing somebody as Bob, when the proper name is Robert), and in so doing presents a quite clashing contrast respecting petra [Strong's &4073] and petros. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary renders petra as:
a mass of rock, distinct from petros (a detached stone or boulder or one that may be easily moved or thrown). For the nature of petra see: Mt 7:24, 25; 27:51, 60; Mk 15:46; Lk 6:48 (twice), confering a connotation of a sure foundation; Rev 6:15, 16 (cf. Isa 2:199, ff.; Hos 10:8); Lk 8:6, 13 (illustratively); I cor 10:4 (twice), figuratively of Christ; Rm 9:33 and I Pt 2:8, metaphorically of Christ and the testimony concerning Him (the distinction here concerning the Lord Himself and Peter being quite clear)And with similar rigor concerning the second issue, no unique promise can be seen being made to Peter exclusively. Before Mt 16:19 can be understood with the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit, a distinction must be understood between the Church (v18), and the kingdom of heaven alluded to in v19. Clearly the Church comprises the body of all believers here on earth (since the death of Christ), while the kingdom of heaven is made up of both earthly and heavenly realms. With that distinction made, the teaching of these passages becomes quite clear that those things which are conclusively decided by God in the kingdom of heaven, having been so decided upon, are emulated by the Church on Earth. The Church is composed of true believers who acknowledge who acknowlege the deity of Jesus Christ (as did Peter). And in similar fashion to Peter's acknowledgement, Christ is the Rock upon which the Church is built (I Cor 3:11). No implication (implicitely or explicitely) is made, nor can any inference be made, of binding and loosing of individual persons. It can be noted these passages speak exclusively of things because of the neuter gender of the indefinite pronouns ho [Strong's &3739], i.e., "whatever" in v19, and hosa [Strong's &3745], i.e., "whatever" in v18.
It can be categorically stated, without fear of repercussion, that believers on the Earth can never make conclusive decisions about things, but can only confirm those decisions already made by God Himself as conclusive about the general context about His kingdom both on Earth and in heaven. The two verbs dedemenon [from deo Strong's &1210] and lelumenon [Strong's &3089], are both perfect passive participles which should have been translated respectively as "having been bound" and "having been loosed" already in heaven. It is quite clear that Jn 3:16 and Eph 2:8,9 stipulate quite clearly what the basis for salvation is. This has been determined by God in heaven, and that decision's effect felt both in heaven and on Earth. Those who proclaim this Gospel affect that decision explicitely "as it has been foreordained since before the foundation of the universe". Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by preaching, how shall they be saved if they go not to preach? There's you're binding and loosing, because without the faith that comes by hearing, without the preaching there's no hearing, everybody is already damned.
The special authority claimed by the Roman Catholic popes as Peter's alleged successors was never excercised by Peter. In his epistles Peter exhorts equals; he does not command subordinates (I Pt 5:1). He offers as a basis for his writings no exhalted ecclesiastical position or power. He declares himself a witness of the sufferings of Christ (I Pt 5:1) along with all the other Apostles, who were eyewitnesses of His majesty (II Pt 1:16). Peter makes no unique claims for himself, but simply takes his place with the other Apostles. In fact, Paul states that he himself would be the chief of all Apostles.
The gathering of Apostles and elders at Jerusalem around 45-50 A.D. as described in Acts 15:4-29 was convened on Paul's initiative. Neither was this the first Church Council, in that there was no Church heirarchy, no delegates, from afar, all present being resident in Jerusalem. Furthermore, it was James that who seemed to take the leadership role. While Peter made an important statement, that can not be construed as doctrinal. He merely making a summation of his experience in first bringing out the Gospel to the Gentiles. James, however, drew upon Scriptures and argued from a doctrinal point of view. Moreover, James said "Wherefore my sentance [judgement] is..." was his declaration that became the basis of the official letter sent back to Antioch.
Moreover, there's no evidence that Peter intimidated others, but it is clear that James intimidated Peter. Fear of James and his influence (and James' leadership) caused Peter to revert to traditional Jewish separation from the Gentiles (and as a result, Paul, who wrote far more of the NT than did Peter and whose ministry was obviously much broader than Peter's, publicly rebuked Peter for his error (Gal 2:11-14). How many rebukes does the first infallible pope need, before that issue is recognized as the fraud that it is? There's no Biblical basis for the supposition that Peter has ever acted like any of the popes, nor was he treated as being such by any other.
It is true that Paul went to stay with Peter (Cephas) for a while. And it because of what he discussed with Peter (in the company of James and John), who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me (Gal 2:9). It was only because they perceived that, in that nobody could know the things that Paul talked about unless he had personally met Christ and everybody was concerned about Paul, because in his own words he had previously persecuted the Church akin to a boar rooting around in the vineyards. If you know anything about boars, let me say one thing emphatically: Paul was a man to be feared, in that he was most likely a Jew's Jew (probably having the Pentatuch memorized). If you've ever been treed by a boar, you'll understand perfectly well who Paul was: a boar will think nothing of circling your tree for 8 to 16 hours straight (waiting for you to fall out of it).
And finally, with respect to a supposed dearth of Scriptural evidence pertaining to independent local churches, that ludicrous assertion is (at best) pure nonsense. As if the historical record is insufficient.
Throughout history there have been independent local churches free from outside control, dependent simply upon the Lord Jesus as the Head, the Holy Spirit as the Power, and the Bible as the Guide. The churches established by the First Century apostles of Christ began as independent local churches. Those churches were self-governing which means they:
The churches begun by the First Century apostles of Christ were also self-supporting which means they:
Following this pattern, each of today's independent local churches depends upon the Holy Spirit's direction (Acts 13:1-3) and chooses its own name, government and programs. It is free to call their own leaders and invite to its pulpit any speakers it considers true to the Word of God. It is also free to seek God's direction in supporting those evangelistic ministries they find Scripturally acceptable and choosing the Christian education materials they believe are best to teach Bible truths to their people. They are also free to support whatever schools and institutions they believe are valuable for training their own young people and preparing their men for the Gospel ministry; mandatory obligation to protect a tradition or an investment is not involved in an independent local church's decision to support an educational institution.
The concept of the independent local church can be greatly misunderstood to justify isolationism and a spirit of exclusivity. It should be remembered that the body of Christ transcends all earthly denominations and organizations (Eph 1:22-23). The Church is composed of all who have trusted Christ as Savior, regardless of organizational affiliation. Biblically independent churches strive to be loyal to Christ and His Word rather than to any organization. They seek to establish, preserve, and expand local churches according to the New Testament pattern. Yet the First Century apostles of Christ also encouraged cooperative interdependence between local churches:
I sincerly pray in Jesus' name that the Holy Spirit convicts you (or anybody who's reading this), of the Truth, and wisdom behind what I preach. Let me tell you something quite clearly: this is no matter of purely intellectual excercise, this is a matter of life and death. Jude 3 and Gal 1:8 is quite clear there is only one saving faith. There is no way the whole issue can be chalked up to merely being some sort of semantic misunderstanding, whereby all the hundreds of thousands put to death during the Inquisition was merely one big oopsie.
You're right, apparently you seem to have difficulty in that regard. You know what is colloquially stated concerning opinion: everybody has one, and there's about as many as there are mouths (but an opionion doesn't subsitute for thinking).
Its clear to me that you haven't a clue what humanism actually is all about. Cain was the very first humanist (in that it was all about his efforts, and nothing abut what God said (or His interests). Cain was also the very first person who staked their life on "religion" (I'd say he invented it). The very essence of Roman Catholicism with all of its indulgences, rituals, sacraments, penances, confessions, etc. is the very epitome of humanism and religion. While I hold devoutly religous ideals, I despise "religion."
I've gone way out of my way trying to set the record straight respecting Scripturally based doctrine, however, the colloquial wisdom remains: for those who won't (no amount of proof is sufficient), for those that will (no proof is necessary). It is clear to me that without the work of the Holy Spirit in your heart that you will not. I pray that the Holy Spirit proves to be a thorn in your concience until your last breath (and I pray that based on our recent exchange your last breath won't be for millenia)...
I'm curious about the epistimology of these things that you seem to be so adament in staking your everlasting soul upon? Is it because of what you know. Or is it because of what you've been told? In my mind it seems quite clear that you don't know how to think.
Actually that's anathema to the Lord, in that Isaiah was told, "let us reason together" (Isa 1:18). That statement is actually repeated again, but I can never remember where it is without my Thompson's chain-refernce Bible handy. I believe I've done well enough without it, and keep in mind there are lurkers out there at any moment (who just could be doctrinal divinity majors).
I don't believe that I'd be going out on a limb saying you couldn't support the doctrine you believe would save your from eternal hell-fire (except "that's what they told me"), while I could (through citation of Scripture as I've proven to be capable of).
Frankly, your position really makes you no different than the Islamists (in that they really don't know much except for what they've told) about which this thread was originated. Don't try to tell me there's a difference because you believe in Jesus. In response I'll demand to know, "WHICH JESUS?". If you tell me about salvation that's dependent upon some mythical and Scripturaly unsuported cult of Mary, I'll tell you that you're sadly mistaken (and I'm horrified at the ramifications of that for you). The Islamists believe in Jesus, so do the Seventh Day Adventists (as do the demons). Which of all aforementioned go to heaven?
I'm praying that your life from hereon out will prove to be most agonizing misery. I challenge you to tell me about your knowledge of your eternal security the second you step out of the church you worship at. I don't have to go out on a limb whatsoever, and I don't care what reply or response that you return; because I know the misery your harbor in your heart. You can comfort yourselves with all sorts of nonsense, but the bottom line is you know diddle-squat, and until you actually stick your nose into the Book, you're not going to know anything.
Let me present the following analogy: you've been convicted of a capital crime, for which you're about to be put to death for. You suddenly find out 15 minutes prior to your excution that your legal-advocate made a most heinous and egregious error respecting your defense. The supreme court refuses to hear your case in that the error made had no bearing on the "fairness" of your trial.
Let me tell you something, you - as is everybody else that has ever lived - are guilty in the eyes of God. There's nothing that you can do for yourself. To think so is not only illogical, it would absolutely defeat the purpose of Christ humbling Himself into human form, and being killed by sinful humans.
Let me ask you something. How is your theology different than what Islamists believe?
They believe that perfection comes from corruption.
They believe that despite perfection being the standard, one can get "extra-credit" respecting the destination of their eternal souls. They believe that finite, temporally-limited corrupt beings can impress in any way whatsoever some infinitely spacious, trans-dimensional, all-powerful, all-knowing, being in some manner that they could "work their way to heaven" Let me ask again, just what was the reason why Christ came to town?
I pray with all of my conviction and being that it becomes apparent for all to see (of any faith whatsoever) just how ridiculous such a position is.
Well to begin with, the fruits of Islam starts with the physical abuse of their women and Christianity isn't into that.
We condemn sin, but love the sinner. We don't approve of the sin, we don't enable the sin in Church or in parades, but we do pray for the sinner's salvation.
We have the Authority of the Church established by Christ here on earth going all the way back to Jesus. So we have the scholars and Pope in the church that help us go into murky the murky waters of self interpretation which is a form of humanism without the Authority of the Church.
The Catholic Church is the only one in the world where no matter what Church you go into, that day you will get the same Gospel and messages throughout the world.
The Success of the United States itself is based on eight of the ten commandments that have been adapted through 3000 other laws.
The fruits of Christianity are love and salvation. The Fruits of Islam are non-productivity, poverty, abuse of women in human rights offenses and the worshiping of a false idol in allah the small g moon god.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.