Posted on 05/18/2015 6:05:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller
For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.
It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)
It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.
And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.
But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”
Hey, if you think Roamer is long winded, check out Daniel1212.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3291227/posts?page=836#836
I think I know my audience.
This is why I tend to post relatively short items that people can digest easily.
A reasonable argument, while even if the 2nd is what Rome claims she teaches, yet it cannot be equal, and church law supreme, as only Scripture is wholly inspired of God, not what Rome says her amorphous oral tradition says.
- The problem with pedigrees is that they must be perfectly preserved. Yours is not.
You mean the decades of mess before the Reformation was nor perfect preservation? But history (and all else) means whatever autocratic Rome says it is.
Other than that, more appeals to authority and unfounded claims.
You mean the NT church did not begin with the scholars hearing the Lord gladly. Wasn't Peter a lettered rabbi with a yacht when the Lord met him.
And that the discernment of heavyweights such as Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas can be trusted?
Despite his status as one of the early Orthodox theologians of the church, the late 2nd century writer Irenaeus made numerous factual and historical mistakes. While not mentioning a “Petrine” ministry, he was an early source for the “Simon-Magus-as-father-of-all-heresies” myth, for example, a myth which persisted in “the infallible Church” for many centuries.
“During those clashes, it is reported that Peter brought a smoked fish back to life”
No doubt a very shallow fish...
LoL. The first official Pope didn’t get registry until hundreds of years after the sacking of Jerusalem.
;-)
Steelfish says : blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah,blah. blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah!
Then Steelfish says : blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, like somebody cares to see the same blah, blah, blah,blah repeated again and again and again..!
with all the blah, blah, blah,blah, you would think he has something to add to the conversation, but... It’s only more blah, blah, blah,blah!
“Since you and other RCs persist in posting refuted arguments, I wan to ask if some RCs believe they obtain an indulgence for their efforts, though they continue to serve to expose the fallacious nature of Roman reasoning?”
Ya gotta love the irony of somebody posting a comment about fallacious reasoning, that has fallacious reasoning.
>>>Ya gotta love the irony of somebody posting a comment about fallacious reasoning, that has fallacious reasoning.<<<
You RCs don't seem to understand that Free Republic is a discussion board, not a flashing billboard. When one person makes a statement and another person asks a question or challenges that statement, it is polite and proper to respond directly to the question or challenge if it is on-topic - its called a discussion. Instead Steelfish (and other RCs) just blinks on and off with the same old drivel, never actually dealing with any questions or challenges as if one answer answers everything. It is arrogant and insulting behavior that is indeed "fallacious reasoning". But what is even more incredible is that you RCs don't seem to see that it is self-defeating, childish behavior.
If my reasoning on the canonicity of James is fallacious, show me how it is fallacious. Do you not care for my soul? Win me over. Isn't that what you are supposed to do? Why do you instead insult me and harden me against the RC church?
If my reasoning on the bride of Christ is fallacious, show me how it is fallacious. Do you not wish those who are lurking this thread to be won over to your side? Is it not your duty to win over their souls to your "one true church"? You are letting your church down horribly.
Let's have a discussion instead of you simply lecturing me with the same-old, same-old over and over again while never addressing my questions and challenges (or anyone else's). Do you really not care enough to have a real discussion and prove your position as correct? I do not see you as a lost cause, so I will try to win you and other readers of this thread over to my side. Will you not honestly try to win me and readers over to your side? Or is it only your desire to drive away those who are not already on your side? Because, if that is your desire, you are certainly doing a good job of it. Bravo!
So how is it fallacious to reason that RCs would engage in defending Rome if it gained them an indulgence, under the same conditions?
Or do you doubt some could believe that they do, seeing as so many different means of obtaining them, and some are rather general, and RCs excel at extrapolating warrant from statements which do not teach what they use them for. Perhaps adding some pious invocation (tag line) in carrying out carrying out his duty to defend the faith?
Wrong thread. You keep beating the same drum over and over and very few (if any) address this issue because this is the Roman Catholicism: The One True Church? thread. I think everyone understands you have a Jihad against James and if you wish for anybody to respond, I would gently suggest starting your own thread.
Thanks in advance
best wishes
“He has been asked repeatedly to produce the official RC evidence for this doctrine and rebut the argument that Scripture only ever describes the Church as masculine.”
Scriptural evidence as to why you are incorrect.
(CCC 796) The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist (Jn 3:29). The Lord referred to himself as the “bridegroom” (Mk 2:19). The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him (Cf. Mt 22:1-14; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 6:15-17; 2 Cor 11:2). The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb (Cf. Rev 22:17; Eph 1:4; 5:27). “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her” (Eph 5:25-26). He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body (Cf. Eph 5:29): This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many… whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? “The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:31-32). And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mt 19:6). They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union,… as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself “bride” (St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 74:4: PL 36, 948-949).
bump
>>>Wrong thread. You keep beating the same drum over and over and very few (if any) address this issue because this is the Roman Catholicism: The One True Church? thread. I think everyone understands you have a Jihad against James and if you wish for anybody to respond, I would gently suggest starting your own thread.<<<
I have addressed the canonicity of James only to Steelfish and those who have praised his posts. Steelfish has repeatedly claimed in this thread that the RC church formed the NT canon and that this was proof of the RC church being the “one true church”. If it the epistle of James is not canonical, as I provide evidence for, it disproves Steelfish’s claim by illustrating the failure of the “one true church” claim, therefore it is entirely on topic.
(CCC 796) The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist (Jn 3:29). The Lord referred to himself as the “bridegroom” (Mk 2:19). The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him (Cf. Mt 22:1-14; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 6:15-17; 2 Cor 11:2). The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb (Cf. Rev 22:17; Eph 1:4; 5:27). “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her” (Eph 5:25-26). He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body (Cf. Eph 5:29): This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many… whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? “The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:31-32). And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mt 19:6). They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union,… as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself “bride” (St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 74:4: PL 36, 948-949).<<<
Thanks for your response. Most of these I dealt with in post #626. Others just establish that Christ is a bridegroom. I don't dispute this, just who His bride is. Scripture plainly states that the bride is the New Jerusalem, not the RC church.
Ephesians 5:25-27
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
I fully explained Ep.5.23-33 in post #626. Why did you not read it as I suggested in my last post to you?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
823 "The Church . . . is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy. This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as 'alone holy,' loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God."
Wrong. The Church is NEVER described as the bride of Christ in the Scriptures. Indeed, the Church is ALWAYS described as masculine. From MetaChristianity I - How to Unlock Bible Mysteries:
===
Ep.4.13 ...until we reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
The Church is called "mature" which equals "a complete man" (Greek).
---
Ph.3.3a For it is we who are the circumcision
The Church is identified with male circumcision.
---
1Pe.2.5a you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood
The Church is illustrated as a "priesthood". Priests are men.
---
1Pe.2.9a But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood
Again, priests are men.
---
2Th.2.7b till he is taken out of the way.
The Church is called "he".
---
Ga.4.29-31 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. ...Therefore, brothers we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
The Church is identified as a "son".
---
Ph.1.27b I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel
The Church is likened to "one man".
---
Ep.2.15b-16 His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"
---
Lk.15.11-32 The Prodigal Son = the Church
---
The Body of Christ:
Ro.12.5a so in Christ we who are many form one body
See also 1Co.10.17, 1Co.12.12,1 Co.12.27, Ep.1.22-23, Ep.3.6, Ep.4.4, Ep.4.12, Ep.4.15, Ep.4.25, Co.1.18, Co.1.24, Co.2.19, Co.3.15
Christ is a man.
---
It is almost unnecessary to point out the obvious conclusion from the above verses that the Church is over and over referred to as masculine in Scripture, but I am willing to bet this is "news" to you, because the traditional teaching totally ignores that the evidence of these verses even exist. So what does the contemporary Church teach? (And I mean every single denomination, sect and cult!) They tell us that the Church is feminine in gender - actually the "bride of Christ".
So, where does it talk about the bride of Christ?
Re.21.2 I saw the Holy City , the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Re.21.9b-10 "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City , Jerusalem , coming down out of heaven from God.
These are the only two contemporary NT passages that directly identify the bride of Christ. Now, clearly neither of these verses even remotely refers to the Church. Revelation declares that the New Jerusalem will come down to earth from Heaven. The Church, on the other hand, is strictly an earth-based entity. Eventually all members of the Church are purported to be transported to the heavenly Jerusalem , but there is no reason to believe this equates them to be the same. Re.19.7-8 states that the linen of the bride stands for the righteous acts of the Saints. Which Saints? Only those of the Church? What of those prior to the Church? Those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life (Re.21.27), include the Saints of all ages who will live in the New Jerusalem.
He.12.22-24 But you have come to Mount Zion , to the heavenly Jerusalem , the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
The heavenly Jerusalem is listed separate from the Church. To argue that they are the same in this verse one would also have to include Angels in the Church, which is absurd, and even more absurd you would have to hold that God and the Church are equivalent.
So, where could the tradition of equating the Church with the "bride" originate? Church tradition erroneously connects four other passages to the two Revelation passages.
Yeast in the Dough
Mt.13.33 "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
The contention is that the yeast equals the Gospel, the flour equals the world, and the woman is the Church. The problem with this is that yeast is considered very symbolic in Jewish culture throughout the Bible. It always represents evil, sin, impurity, etc., and never represents anything good.
Ex.12.19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel , whether he is an alien or native-born.
Yeast was untouchable during the Passover.
Le.2.11 Every grain offering you bring to the LORD must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire.
Grain offerings to the LORD must be without yeast.
Le.7.12-13 If he offers it as an expression of thankfulness, then along with this thank offering he is to offer cakes of bread made without yeast and mixed with oil, wafers made without yeast and spread with oil, and cakes of fine flour well-kneaded and mixed with oil. 13 Along with his fellowship offering of thanksgiving he is to present an offering with cakes of bread made with yeast.
The cakes and wafers without yeast are a type of Christ (undefiled). The cakes with yeast are a type of man (defiled).
Mt.16.6-12 "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
Verse twelve defines yeast as...the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Lk.12.1 "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."
The fact that the Pharisees don’t keep their own teaching makes the yeast equal to hypocrisy.
1Co.5.6-8 Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
Yeast equals malice and wickedness.
Ga.5.7-9 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."
Paul equates yeast with keeping the Law.
Do not be fooled by the fact that the parable of the yeast in the dough is talking about the Kingdom of Heaven . As is indicated in the parable of the fishermen (Mt.13.47-48) there is good and evil in the Kingdom of Heaven . See also Mt.13.24-30.
So to view the woman as the Church one must also accept that the Church deliberately introduces evil (yeast) into the "kingdom of heaven". This makes no sense.
Forty Other Words
Ro.7.4 that ye should be married...to him (KJV)
The transliterated Greek word, here translated "belong to" (NIV), but translated "married to" in the KJV, is "ginomai". Strong's Concordance states that it can be "used with great latitude" and offers forty other substitutes that have nothing to do with marriage. So to establish this Scripture as definitive in relationship to the bride is unacceptable. Just because Rom. 7:1-3 uses a marriage between a husband and a wife as an example of a covenant relationship, this does not mean that the covenant between Christ and the Church is a marriage. If Paul was definitively trying to convey that Christ and the Church are in a "marriage" covenant he would certainly have used the Greek word "gameo" which can only mean "married to".
Work...in another man's territory
2Co.10.15-11.2 I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.
Paul is not here referring to the whole Church, but his own personal converts, (as opposed to "boasting of work done by others" [vs.15], and "work already done in another man's territory." [vs.16]), in which he was jealous over that he might present them to Christ. Paul says in verse one, "I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness." He is not making a doctrinal statement in verse two, but an illustration. He makes this point to his converts (that they are covenanted to Christ) because they have been easily persuaded otherwise by "those super-apostles" (vs.4 & 5). This presentation of verse two would have to happen in the heavenly Jerusalem (the bride). As far as being described as a virgin in verse two, in the parable of the ten virgins (MT.25) they represent all of mankind, not the bride, so there is nothing special about Paul's wish to present his converts as a "pure virgin". He was simply afraid they had been "led astray" from their "pure devotion to Christ" (vs.3).
Profound Mystery
This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. Ep.5.23-33
The NIV translation of verses 25 to 27 includes the word "her" four times, alluding to the Church. This is a bias in the translation. The Greek is neuter, so the proper translation is the word "it". The comparison is not of the Church with the wife, but with the husband's body.
Ep.5.23-33 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her [it] 26 to make her [it] holy, cleansing her [it] by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her [it] to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church - 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
First and foremost, Paul is not here teaching a formal doctrine about the esoteric dimensions of Christ and the Church. This discourse is about every day living for men and their wives (it is preceded by a discourse on not getting drunk, singing hymns and submission to each other, and followed by a teaching for children to obey their parents).
[Read the following slowly and carefully.] Paul first compares the wife and the Church to "his body" in verses twenty three and twenty four, and if taken in isolation one might become confused about the comparison Paul is making. But Paul continues on to explain his comparison in detail, and it is then that we see that the first two verses were simply an elementary foundation to set the stage for the details of his explanation. The comparison in verse twenty three is just that, a comparison, not a doctrinal statement of equivalence. It say's "his" body, not "her" body. The comparison is that of husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (vs.25), as in husbands loving "their own bodies" (vs.28), and Christ loving "his own body", the Church (vs.29-30). Paul actually already explained this principle. Remember this verse from earlier?
Ep.2.15b-16 His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"
The "profound mystery" is that a husband and wife become "one flesh" (vs.31), but then Paul states, "but I am talking about Christ and the church" (vs.32). Why would Paul say this? Because the husband "also must love his wife as he loves himself" (vs. 33) just as Christ does the Church. The wife is to be included as though her body and his body are "one flesh" or "one body" as in Ep.2.15b-16. But the direct comparison is the husband's body with Christ's body; "we are members of his body" not her body.
John the Baptist
Jn.3.29 The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete.
John was not referring to the Church, but Israel . (John's ministry was strictly to Israel under the Law - this will be further expanded on later.) And applying the same nebulous symbolic linking of the above passages to the bride, John would be illustrating that the Christ was a bridegroom in the present tense. This would mean the bride would already have had to exist at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, so the Church could not be the bride because it would not yet exist at this point.
It is now clear that this tradition of equating the Church with the bride of Christ is completely false. There are a multitude of passages that show that the Church is referred to as masculine in Scripture, the bride is referred to by John the Baptist before the Church even exists, the virgins are depicted in the parable as all of mankind, and the four passages used as tenuous evidence to connect the Church with the bride of Christ are proven to be of no such consequence at all. So what is the true relationship between the Church and the heavenly Jerusalem ? Remember the question about the mother of the Church?
Ga.4.21-26 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem , because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
Is it not amazing how we (as in the whole Church over a span of many, many centuries) can read a verse over and over again that is so unmistakable in its statement, that the heavenly Jerusalem is our mother (beside being declared the bride in Revelation), and yet completely miss its truth every time? (Notice also that the Church is also the son of the free woman.) Surely, the delusion of Church traditions can be the only accounting for this. Is this not also an amazing example of how Church tradition can so completely conceal a truth, (that the Church is referred to as masculine in Scripture in over twenty different passages), while unanimously accepting four ambiguous interpretations of Scripture as definitive of a contrary doctrinal error? And what exactly is it that they would have you believe? Christ is the husband and the Church is the bride. But in order to believe this a number of other convoluted conclusions must be swallowed as well. The heavenly Jerusalem is also the bride and therefore must also be the Church, even though the Church is on earth and the heavenly Jerusalem is in, well, heaven. And even though the Church is supposedly the bride and the heavenly Jerusalem is also the bride, the heavenly Jerusalem is also the mother, but somehow they missed that this would also make the Church the mother of itself?!?
===
The RC church (and the Protestant church, for that matter) see Christ as some sort of perverted transvestite - a male head on a female body that is married to itself. But the Bible tells us that Christ's body is the representation of a masculine Church in over twenty passages, and the Church is never described as feminine or a bride. The New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ and the mother of the Church, her son.
I think that we can conclude that the RC church and the Protestant church are gender-confused.
I I I
Again, your problem. You believe you have the authority to interpret Scripture and you seriously believe that millions upon millions of people should throw away Centuries upon Centuries of Early Church History, Theologians and Fathers and rely upon you to correct them.
It’s absurd.
No, they should study enough of that Church history to know the RCC of today is NOT the same Church when the Apostles walked the earth. If you wish to place your eternal soul on the works of those flawed "Fathers", go ahead. We are all judged individually not denominationally. It is the individual who should study and follow what light they receive. God left us His Word but you say that's not enough! It's too hard! I have the authority to interpret because God gave me/us the responsibility to do so. It has always been that way from Adam down through the ages. Is. 1:18 tells us that is Gods plan.
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.