Posted on 09/25/2009 1:42:15 PM PDT by NYer
I trust my position is clear by now, which i think my first post conveyed.
As for your question, the more accurately appraisal would be that Papal Supremacy is principally based on Mt. 16:13-19. Added to that would be Peter’s commission in Jn. 21:15ff, his initial leadership of the apostles and church in Acts 1-12, his pastoral care evidence in 1Pt. 1:1; his being separately noted in 1Cor. 9:5 and Gal. 1:18. All of which evidence Peter’s type of leadership. Others texts exist which temper any extreme claims, but out of the aforementioned Rome extrapolates a manner of papacy that is more Caesario, and conditionally infallible, as well as its perpetuation, and it is in these respects that it lacks the necessary Scriptural warrant, esp. for this most cardinal doctrine, as regards Rome’s claims.
>That is not the papal office as it has been created or occupied.<
No, as you must well know, for hundreds of years the Pope reigned or sought to reign as a type of Caesar (as Boniface VII distinctly asserted), over those within her body and without, and while you may disagree that the level of exaltation and authority that it claimed (i can supply quotes) and enjoyed when it could constitutes a demi-god, i submit that even having your feet kissed by underlings (which only recently ceased), while seated in a royal palace with its accompaniments, is too close for spiritual comfort, as being contrary to Scripture. That applies to Benney Hinn as well.
I might add that the spiritual manner in which Christ constituted the church, and the commands for it, and its N.T. example, (1Cor. 5:12,13; 1Pt. 2:14; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 6:1-01; 10:4) disallows the use of physical punishment in disciplining it members, such as was sanctioned by Rome in the Inquisitions, or establishing theocracies where the church ruled over those with it (even Pilgrims transgressed here), which was what was behind the Crusades, nor the use carnal force to defend or expand its rule.
>If the office was created, it needed to be perpetuated.<
Acceptable, but not always in the same manner. The priesthood of the O.T., though not necessarily analogous here, ceased with Christ’s death, with the N.T. priesthood of believers (not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) being the form in which it exists.
Yet the real issue is that an especially infallible and supreme human head of the church is not established, much less its Roman manifestation (the absence of the supernatural signs of an apostle also testifies against the pope). However, (hold on) i think a true to God central authority, as that of the apostles in Jerusalem, could be welcomed by real believers, though this could not be enforced, except by spiritual power, as the original were, and Rome is not even in the running, due to its works-merit gospel, and other manifestly false doctrines.
Moreover, the church being essentially a spiritual entity, its authenticity is not based upon formal ecclesiastical linkage to one organic body, for the authenticity of a true church, like that of a true Jew, (Rm. 2:28,29) is based upon apostolic faith in the gospel, not physical or formal ecclesiastical lineage, for it is by faith in Christ that the church exists, and overcomes, and that souls become part of the body of Christ. (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13)
Therefore, unlike the theocratic earthly kingdom of Israel, the body of Christ is not restricted to one formal organic union, and if one of the latter becomes corrupt, or institutionalized, the church that holds to essential salvific doctrine and effectual salvific faith, which the apostles and prophet laid, overcomes by faith in its chief cornerstone and head.
In addition, apostles and prophets were evidently not ordained by men as a line of lineage, like as the Levitical priests were (though Elijah case his mantle upon Elisha: 1Kg. 19:19), or elder/bishops and deacons regularly were, but appear to be sovereigly called and manifest. And if you are able to receive it, i would submit the Luther (among others) was a type of apostle or prophet, imperfect, but used of God to reprove Rome, and lead people into Reformation which has resulted in the great modern increase in the kingdom of Christ, to God be the glory, though it (and i) come much short of the prima N.T. church in purity, power and passion, and for which i need to seek more.
You Roman Catholics here should know you are mostly talking to yourselves... as for other Christians, there is no “Petrine Controversy.”
As us non-Roman Christians really do find it amazing you base the legitimacy of your whole institution on that one little passage...which wasn’t used to argue for the supremacy of the Roman Bishop until centuries after St. Peter’s death.
Can I explain the Matthew 6 passage? NO. However, does this statement about Peter and his faith it really prove that the Bishop or Rome is supreme above all other bishops?
Absolutely not.
This is true.
And while the article claims that “Peter is the topic of the preceding and following verses”, this is only half true, as the real subject is Peter’s response, the revelation referred to in “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, and which in the next verse “this rock” can refers to, revealing that Christ would build His church upon the essential truth that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself.
In contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (petra) or “stone” (lithos) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. Rome’s current catechism even (ecumenically) allows this to be a possible interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”’ (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424).
Hail fellow, well met. I hope you understand that I have meant no personal offense with anything I have said to you.
***>That is not the papal office as it has been created or occupied.<
No, as you must well know, for hundreds of years the Pope reigned or sought to reign as a type of Caesar (as Boniface VII distinctly asserted), over those within her body and without, and while you may disagree that the level of exaltation and authority that it claimed (i can supply quotes) and enjoyed when it could constitutes a demi-god, i submit that even having your feet kissed by underlings (which only recently ceased), while seated in a royal palace with its accompaniments, is too close for spiritual comfort, as being contrary to Scripture. That applies to Benney Hinn as well.***
It does go back for some time. According to New Advent, the probable source of this is Isaiah 49:
22
Thus says the Lord GOD: See, I will lift up my hand to the nations, and raise my signal to the peoples; They shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.
23
Kings shall be your foster fathers, their princesses your nurses; Bowing to the ground, they shall worship you and lick the dust at your feet. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, and those who hope in me shall never be disappointed.
And it is mentioned in Church history early on. We read of it in the first “Ordo Romanus” belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the “Liber Pontificalis” attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope’s foot was spoken of as an ancient one.
It can certainly be misconstrued, I will agree.
***I might add that the spiritual manner in which Christ constituted the church, and the commands for it, and its N.T. example, (1Cor. 5:12,13; 1Pt. 2:14; Eph. 6:12; 2Cor. 6:1-01; 10:4) disallows the use of physical punishment in disciplining it members, such as was sanctioned by Rome in the Inquisitions, or establishing theocracies where the church ruled over those with it (even Pilgrims transgressed here), which was what was behind the Crusades, nor the use carnal force to defend or expand its rule.***
Could you expand on this thought further, please? Remember that Jesus did violence to the moneychangers in the Temple.
***>If the office was created, it needed to be perpetuated.<
Acceptable, but not always in the same manner. The priesthood of the O.T., though not necessarily analogous here, ceased with Christ’s death, with the N.T. priesthood of believers (not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) being the form in which it exists.***
Agreed. The NT priesthood of believers does not mean that the NT priesthood of ordained men does not exist. That is more than adequately shown by the ordaining of men to replace the first bishops.
***Yet the real issue is that an especially infallible and supreme human head of the church is not established, much less its Roman manifestation (the absence of the supernatural signs of an apostle also testifies against the pope). However, (hold on) i think a true to God central authority, as that of the apostles in Jerusalem, could be welcomed by real believers, though this could not be enforced, except by spiritual power, as the original were, and Rome is not even in the running, due to its works-merit gospel, and other manifestly false doctrines.***
That is where the anti Catholic forces are manifestly wrong. Understanding of the requirements of Judgement are key to the doctrine. If one does not act in a Christian manner according to the teachings of Jesus, then one is thrown into the fiery pit. The wicked servant has to repay all. And so on.
***Therefore, unlike the theocratic earthly kingdom of Israel, the body of Christ is not restricted to one formal organic union, and if one of the latter becomes corrupt, or institutionalized, the church that holds to essential salvific doctrine and effectual salvific faith, which the apostles and prophet laid, overcomes by faith in its chief cornerstone and head.***
I would respectfully disagree with this statement. Jesus mentions His Church as a perpetual institution (until He comes again) and promises His Holy Spirit to guide it.
***And if you are able to receive it, i would submit the Luther (among others) was a type of apostle or prophet, imperfect, but used of God to reprove Rome, and lead people into Reformation which has resulted in the great modern increase in the kingdom of Christ, to God be the glory, though it (and i) come much short of the prima N.T. church in purity, power and passion, and for which i need to seek more.***
Again, I must respectfully disagree. Without the Reformation, entities like the LDS and the Jehovah’s Witnesses could not have been created. Joel Osteen and Rick Warren would have been hucking snake oil and not salvation. Benny Hinn and Jimmy Swaggart would have been dealing three card monte on the streets and not having the souls of the would be faithful detour to possible perdition.
***Hail fellow, well met. I hope you understand that I have meant no personal offense with anything I have said to you.***
No, sir. Honest and forthright dialogue as a method of seeking understanding is the hallmark of civilized men.
Hi Mark,
>Could you expand on this thought further, please?<
Certainly. As stated, the N.T. church never used physical force in countering its enemies, as this was contrary to its charter and spiritual constitution, nor did they use deceitful means, and instead the church must have spiritual power and integrity to prevail.
Jn. 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
2Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
1Cor. 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
1Pt. 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Likewise regarding disciplining its members (using spiritual power and the passive means of disfellowship), nor did it rule over those without:
1Cor. 4:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
>Remember that Jesus did violence to the moneychangers in the Temple.<
Yes, and He also allowed Peter the use of 2 swords. But both these were before the institution of the N.T., or covenant, which occurs by His death (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16)
I also think that the use of precisely 2 swords (not armies) was in condescension to the disciples plight in the interim period of the absence of Jesus and endowment of the Holy Spirit, while the Lord’s use of corporal means of force was also His right, as it was His Father’s house, and yet operated under the Old dispensation. I would like to think that this also allows the use of corporal punishment of one’s own children, as needed (it was on me!), which is the only weak link in my position against outlawing physical force in chastising church members. But at the least such could never be used to enforce doctrinal conformity ala the Inquisitions, while the church is not constituted to rule as a civil power.
Yet abstaining from the use of physical force against the non-elect, in preference to spiritual means, need not outlaw any use of force at all times. Physically stopping a person from jumping off a bridge would be one example where it could be sanctioned, and it is hard to argue against reacting with some force as a last resort against an immediate threat in order to protect the innocent, with a willingness to take their place as the victim. But these are derivative arguments from reason and the intent of the law, but the explicit teaching under the New Covenant is that of only the use of spiritual means to defend and expand the church, and to discipline its members.
I would also hold that nothing prevents a Christian from the just use of force when acting for the government, as the use of the sword by them is explicitly sanctioned.
The feet kissing objection was, in context, part of the larger situation of one man being high and lifted up as the supreme human head.
Act 10:5 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man
Gal. 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Though brethren are to wash each others feet, in more ways than that, those that exalt themselves shall be abased, and the greatest shall be servant of all.
Certainly copelled obeisance will take place, in the context of judgment, but it is not to men who hold out their feet to be kissed.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
It is unclear what precisely you are referring to.
Indeed, and what i said is in conformity to it. The point is that the body of Christ is not simply one formal organic union, which Rome since V2 recognizes, though it marginalizes Bible-based evangelicals as “deficient in grace”, compared to Catholics, thorough evidence shows the opposite.
Not so, as heretics always existed, if suppressed. What you have to mean was if Rome had not lost her secular powers by which she suppressed such then they would not have existed. If every Protestant (legitimately or more broadly defined), became Catholic, that that itself would not prevent LDS types from arising. Without secular powers suppressing them, the only way for victory is spiritual superiority in spirit and in doctrine, and it was in that quest that the Reformation began.
As far as political power, if all Catholics became evangelicals that would have more beneficial effect, as consistently studies show that evangelicals are overall more faithful to doctrinal essentials and are more conservative. No that i am satisfied with out present condition.
The true test of spiritual superiority is when there is an even playing field, and even though the deck was overwhelmingly stacked against them, the early church did not overcome the paganism of Rome by the use of secular power, and if the early church had been in the spiritual condition that it was at Luther’s time, then it enemies would have prevailed. Early one it was already showing signs of corruption, and division, as Paul foresaw, and after 313 it was incorporating paganism.
And the litany of wonderfully holy and selfless Protestants would have been suppressed or killed, even as it did to its own Savonarola’s. Matthew Henry’s beloved and extensive practical commentary would not exist, the likes of which, in depth, is not seen in Rome. Likewise many other primary enlightening works (Barnes, Clarke, Gill. Keil and Delitzsch, etc., and other Protestants who even today are the primary voices and soldiers in the war against cults, and false preachers. The multitude of mighty and sacrificial laborers on the mission field who preached the gospel that Peter preached (Acts 10:43-47) would not be found. Absent would the tens of thousands of hymns penned by souls who knew, loved and walked with their Savior, whose glory He shed on their way, (which are such an expression of that relationship, that unless they are all relegated to being psychotic, they are a proof the existence of Christ) and are even sung by Catholics. Some may imagine that such souls would have converted to Rome, but it was their commitment to Biblical integrity that prevented that, while their spiritual fruit was of such a quality that to suppress them would be to fight against God.
P.S. I also want to add that i also do not think Christians cannot play contact sports, and which i do. And thank you for being reasonable.
***Certainly. As stated, the N.T. church never used physical force in countering its enemies, as this was contrary to its charter and spiritual constitution, nor did they use deceitful means, and instead the church must have spiritual power and integrity to prevail.***
Hmm, well, the Church spent most of the first two centuries relatively underground, making extensive use of the Roman catacombs, for instance. I guess that not being extremely visible is not exactly deceitful, so you do have a point.
Yet Augustine did advocate just war, and so have many of the other Church Fathers. Violence in the early Church was rare; certainly.
***Likewise regarding disciplining its members (using spiritual power and the passive means of disfellowship), nor did it rule over those without:***
Jesus made the whole of mankind his business, not just the local church.
***Not so, as heretics always existed, if suppressed. What you have to mean was if Rome had not lost her secular powers by which she suppressed such then they would not have existed. If every Protestant (legitimately or more broadly defined), became Catholic, that that itself would not prevent LDS types from arising. Without secular powers suppressing them, the only way for victory is spiritual superiority in spirit and in doctrine, and it was in that quest that the Reformation began.***
The success of the Reformation was entirely secular, with the German princes seizing on the vehicle of the Reformation with the aim of seizing secular power. Without secular power, and a weakened Church, the Reformation took root and therefore the heresies, relatively unopposed, ran amuck.
***Joel Osteen and Rick Warren would have been hucking snake oil and not salvation.<
And the litany of wonderfully holy and selfless Protestants would have been suppressed or killed, even as it did to its own Savonarola’s. Matthew Henry’s beloved and extensive practical commentary would not exist, the likes of which, in depth, is not seen in Rome. Likewise many other primary enlightening works (Barnes, Clarke, Gill. Keil and Delitzsch, etc., and other Protestants who even today are the primary voices and soldiers in the war against cults, and false preachers.***
If you read up on the first millennium and a half, you will see that the Church dealt quite actively with the heretics and cults and the development of doctrine along with those dealings.
***The multitude of mighty and sacrificial laborers on the mission field who preached the gospel that Peter preached (Acts 10:43-47) would not be found. Absent would the tens of thousands of hymns penned by souls who knew, loved and walked with their Savior, whose glory He shed on their way, (which are such an expression of that relationship, that unless they are all relegated to being psychotic, they are a proof the existence of Christ) and are even sung by Catholics. Some may imagine that such souls would have converted to Rome, but it was their commitment to Biblical integrity that prevented that, while their spiritual fruit was of such a quality that to suppress them would be to fight against God.***
I would disagree completely with this last statement. The Church started, and continues to be Apostolic. Scripture is one of the teachings of the Church. Another is the rest of sacred Tradition, which, as John’s Gospel says, goes beyond what is written in Scripture.
***P.S. I also want to add that i also do not think Christians cannot play contact sports, and which i do. And thank you for being reasonable.***
It is usually easy to be reasonable with a reasonable man.
I’ve heard it said - and it was by one of our parish priests - that he has seen literature from at least one recent Protestant group who claimed Apostolic origin...through...
...get this...
...wait for it, it’s worth it, I promise...
the Nestorians.
I guess they had to find anything that represented rebellion against Rome (and the rest of the Church at that time, too). But I do have to wonder if the poor soul making that claim had any idea what the nature of Nestorian heresy was/is.
Lord, have mercy.
“But I do have to wonder if the poor soul making that claim had any idea what the nature of Nestorian heresy was/is.”
We see so much Arianism and Nestorianism from Protestants on this site that I sincerely doubt he knows whence he speaks.
***I’ve heard it said - and it was by one of our parish priests - that he has seen literature from at least one recent Protestant group who claimed Apostolic origin...through...
...get this...
...wait for it, it’s worth it, I promise...
the Nestorians.***
A fabulous bunch, well connected. You wouldn’t be talking about any of the Calvinists would you? There are a couple on here who seem to separate Christ the man from Jesus the God.
***I guess they had to find anything that represented rebellion against Rome (and the rest of the Church at that time, too). But I do have to wonder if the poor soul making that claim had any idea what the nature of Nestorian heresy was/is.***
It really doesn’t matter to them. The very invention of double predestination (as a feel good method of taking those who were rejected as human beings in the third grade in school and creating a fantasy that somehow you ‘know’ that you are saved unto eternal life when nobody in Scripture is saved in that fashion) serves as an example that emotional basis can completely overwhelm any rational thought.
Look, if you stood up in Church and said that you thought that every Presbyterian and every Presbyterian doggie go to Presbyterian heaven, they’d carefully and comfortably escort you to a rubber room.
***Lord, have mercy.***
This we pray. On our knees, too, which sets us apart from our separated brethren.
>Yet Augustine did advocate just war, and so have many of the other Church Fathers.<
Which is Biblical, but that was not the contention, which is that the use of physical force and the sword of men by the church in subduing enemies, or ruling over those without, or chastising its members is contrary in principal and to precept under the New Covenant.
Certainly, and instituted the New Covenant in His blood, which established the church as spiritual entity, with its organic members using spiritual force to win its battles, and exampling how as seen in Acts, etc.
That is not the issue, but that without its secular power to suppress them Rome would have to deal with LDS types which you blame the Reformation on. Perhaps you agree with sedevacantists that Romes’s more historical position denies freedom of religion.
“Entirely secular” is certainly hyperbole, as while freedom was right and helpful, its success was overall essentially spiritual, and without the people being able to read the Bible the positive aspects of the Reformation would not have happened.
You have just advocated suppression by secular means. Actually, early Protestants as Calvin and the Puritans, not totally leaving Rome, had their own type of civil theocracies, and heretics (or those they considered such, like Williams) did not last long in them, but resrting to this only weakened their position. As for what ran amok, Rome itself promotes manifest heresies, which the Reformation was much a reaction against, but in any case, heresies are able be more visible any place where social and civil freedom in matters religious are upheld, which Rome now upholds. (DIGNITATIS HUMANAE) While such freedom is not absolute, and civil secular gov. may restrict such to different degrees, the only way to really counter heresy is by spiritual means, prayer and the preaching and living of the gospel of grace, as exampled by the N.t. church.
>>. Some may imagine that such souls would have converted to Rome, but it was their commitment to Biblical integrity that prevented that, while their spiritual fruit was of such a quality that to suppress them would be to fight against God.<<
>I would disagree completely with this last statement. The Church started, and continues to be Apostolic. Scripture is one of the teachings of the Church. Another is the rest of sacred Tradition, which, as John’s Gospel says, goes beyond what is written in Scripture..<<
I did not say to that suppress the Bible would be to fight against God, but that Rome would have suppressed by force or killed souls whose words and lives are overall a compliment to the Christian faith.
As for sacred Tradition, sola scriptura does not hold that all spiritual knowledge is restricted to Scripture, though it may be said to essentially contain all, nor that God cannot speak to believers today (just wait till its time for the offering), or that men cannot speak infallible truth at times, but that all must be subject to the scriptures, which is the only identifiable class of revelation (outside the creation) that is assured to be wholly inspired of God.
To declare oneself infallible, and provide infallible interpretation for this claim, and infallibly define when one is (though being ambiguous enough as to allow confusion) is to effectively exalt oneself above the Scriptures. The sola scriptura means is to hold that the Scriptures are infallible, and to reason with men out of them (Acts 17:2), “not handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” Other supernatural means can also attest. (Rm. 15:18.19) Thus the listeners must and can decide if this is the word of God, (Acts 17:11) and will have more valid and defensible assurance and qualitative unity than by implicit truth in man.
The real point here is that by spiritual power, holiness and consistency with what has likewise already been Divinely manifest as from God, is how the Biblical authority and validity of a person or entity is manifest, and not by self-declarations. Like Moses reliance upon miracles, this allows for some competition, and by which souls are tested as to what they want, but the truth will prevail, and prevail against the sword of men, and those who rely upon it to subdue spiritual enemies or such or self-declarations to gain converts reveal their weakness.
1 Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
1 Thessalonians 1:5 “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.”
I must seek to be more like such.
I do actually believe that Peter and the apostles began the early churches. Christ did institute the twelve to begin the church.
However, there is no clear record anywhere that the roman catholic church is any kind of successor to Peter. Paul was the one who went to Rome to spread the gospel.
As far as I can tell from history is that constantine handed over his crown to the first pope when he declared that “christianity” is the new religion in rome. However, they just overlayed their feasts over the top of the christian church and called it the Roman Catholic Church.
The church of Jesus Christ is nothing to do with denominations...that is just man’s outward structure that he has given to the what he thinks the church should be. The real church is those who seek to make their heart pure by practising what Jesus asked them to do. If you have any negative feelings towards any human then you are not doing what Jesus asked you to do. We are called to love one another and to love God. To Love God is to believe on Jesus Christ as our King who has atoned for us and washed us of our sin. That is what Christianity is and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether you call yourself RC, Anglican or baptist...whatever.
Get your hearts right and stop condemning...Its been a long road for me and I have had to go round the mountain a number of times before I could see this. The bible is a book to convict you in your heart to love God and Jesus. It is not there for any of us to start telling people they are right and wrong. We just spread the gospel...Jesus died for us and wants us to take hold of this fundamental faith so that we can live eternally with God in Jesus Christ who is the heart and word of God our Father in Heaven. Nothing I can do will ever get me into heaven. God is our saviour and sent his mercy through his son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ cleans us of our sin. If you don’t grab hold of this sacrifice with all of your mind and heart then you are probably thinking that your good acts will get you into heaven.
Think of the thief who was on the cross...do you think that he could do any righteous act to get in to heaven once he had asked for forgiveness? No...he couldn’t because he was already condemned to die...what other acts could he have done. He knew that he needed a saviour...he asked for forgiveness from Jesus and Jesus promised him that he would be in paradise with him. That is what it took. If you ask Jesus to wash you and cleanse you he will forgive you and release you from your sin. That is all it takes -
Acknowledge that Jesus Christ is your saviour. The rest is just conjecture and argument and you can file it in the bin from where it came from.
AMEN, Every blessing
Colin
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.