Posted on 06/23/2005 9:06:58 AM PDT by murphE
Actually, you could be:
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
For the forgiveness of sins . . .
1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.
And that is straight from the Chatechism.
So, It is clear that the official Catholic Chatechism is against what the Bible teaches.
This is also not the Catholic belief. All our salvation is based on the Mercy of Christ. Either he admits you to heaven or not. God does not work off punchlists.
That is not true, either, The OFFICIAL Chatechism demands that tradition be equal to Scripture, and THAT means that whatever is consider trqdition is equal to Scripture or else words dont have meaning.
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
If BOTh tradition and Scripture must be accepted, and BOTH are equal, then Salvation, which is learned form the Bible, is also held hostage to Tradition.
Said to Peter and the Apostles, not just to Peter.
That would depend on whether they actually read the Bible in the first place, and just how they defend their answer.
Peter is not the Rock mentione in the Bible, Jesus is.
Only the Roman Catholic Church states that, because in the Bible, Jesus clearly states HE is the Rock; the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
THAT is the Rock, not Peter.
Peter is not the Rock mentione in the Bible, Jesus is.
Sorry, that just doesn't fly.
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee:[Simon Bar-Jona]
That thou [Simon Bar-Jona] art "Peter"; [which means "rock"] and upon this "rock" [ie. Peter] I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
And whatsoever thou [Peter] shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven:
and whatsoever thou [Peter] shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.
Not only is Jesus making Peter the rock he will build his Church upon, He's also giving him the charism of infallibility, because error cannot exist in Heaven. And since he has the Keys, no one can get into Heaven without being subject to the Vicar of Christ.
----from him to another----Do you have any Scripture to back up your claim?
Actually, the Catholics are the only ones that can really claim a link back to Jesus Christ. Yes, I know that some years there were multiple popes, years with missing popes, and so on, but they are about the only ones that really trace their history back that far.
Mr. Graham should be respected for the movement he helped create and for the good person he was. I am thankful we were lucky to have such a great man in our modern times.
I like your last comment. They are words we should live by.
Wasn't the trinity doctrine finalized in the council with Constantine? Not sure.
What is important to remember in what follows, is the question: Do you read the Bible in the light of the doctrine you were taught; or; do you read the Bible and THEN decide on what your doctrine is? Too many people hear something about the Bible, ABOUT what it says, ABOUT what it means, and they never, ever critically ever read what some passage was supposed to be teaching in the first place.
Here is my copy and paste:
Yes it is obvious, and I will take the time to show you.
First off, Most Catholics never read the section before or after this part:
(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
That is one reason some people do not find it obvious.
Here is what it says::
(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
What was the original topic of discussion?
(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Jesus asked,
That was the topic of discussion.
What was the response?
(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
They were all over the place, it seems that there was not many who were catching on to exactly who Jesus was.
So, what was the next sentence?
(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus asked the disciples themselves what THEY thought, not just one disciple, but ALL of them.
Peter gave the best answer, that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Right from there, many people ignore what was just said, and only concentrate on what comes next.
However, that is where the error lies, in ignoring what was just said.
It is like explaining to someone that people put sodas in the soda machine first, then act surprised when soda comes out of the machine when you put money into it. People forget what happened first: someone loaded the machine.
In the same respect, Jesus set the tone for the conversation: WHO IS HE?
Peter had it right: Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
That was the point of what Jesus was saying. That He was the Christ.
That was what He just said!
We all know what comes next, and it is because people ignore what was just said, that they get this part wrong:The Context of the ongoing conversation is important:
(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus explains that Peter's revelation did not come from His logic, it came from God the Father Himself. This type of instruction was done on a spiritual level, not fleshly, it was something that Peter would have never figured out for himself.
What did Jesus say next? Peter is blessed because he was BLESSED with this information.
What information?
That Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
That is the point.
What Jesus said next is the most misused verse in the entire New Testament.
(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Peter and Rock. Is Peter the rock spoken of here, or is the IMPORTANT POINT THAT GOD REVEALED TO PETER the rock?
17 And [ 2532] Jesus [2424] answered [ 611] (5679) and said [ 2036] (5627) unto him [846], Blessed [ 3107] art thou [ 1488] (5748), Simon [ 4613] Barjona [ 920]: for [ 3754] flesh [ 4561] and [ 2532] blood [ 129] hath [ 601] [0] not [3756] revealed [601] (5656) it unto thee [4671], but [ 235] my [ 3450] Father [ 3962] which [ 3588] is in [ 1722] heaven [ 3772].
18 And [ 1161] I say [ 3004] (5719) also [ 2504] unto thee [ 4671], That [ 3754] thou [ 4771] art [ 1488] (5748) Peter [ 4074], and [ 2532] upon [ 1909] this [ 5026] rock [ 4073] I will build [ 3618] (5692) my [ 3450] church [ 1577]; and [ 2532] the gates [ 4439] of hell [ 86] shall [ 2729] [0] not [ 3756] prevail against [ 2729] (5692) it [ 846].
18 kagw [ 2504] de [ 1161] soi [ 4671] legw [ 3004] (5719) oti [ 3754] su [ 4771] ei [ 1488] (5748) petroj [ 4074] kai [ 2532] epi [ 1909] tauth [ 3778] th [ 3588] petra [ 4073] oikodomhsw [ 3618] (5692) mou [ 3450] thn [ 3588] ekklhsian [ 1577] kai [ 2532] pulai [ 4439] adou [ 86] ou [ 3756] katiscusousin [ 2729] (5692) authj [ 846]
Peter =
4074 petroj Petros pet'-ros
apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m
AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
rock =
4073 petra petra pet'-ra
from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f
AV - rock 16; 16
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
Due to what Jesus was talking about, the ROCK had to be the truth Peter had revealed to him from God the Father, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
There is no other sensible explanation of the verse unless it is twisted to make someone believe what is not there in the text.
Too many people form what they believe around their doctrine, and then interpret the Bible in the light of that doctrine.
That is wrong. Doctrine should come from what the Bible clearly says, and then base their doctrine on what it clearly says!
The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.
Jesus is also called the ROCK or CORNER STONE in many other verses, but PETER IS NOT!
Notice what is said in this passage::
(Mat 7:24 KJV) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
(Mat 7:25 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
(Mat 7:26 KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
(Mat 7:27 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
What is it that a person built their house upon and survived? A ROCK.
If a person is foolish, what does a person build their house upon? SAND. What did Jesus say that those who rejected his words built upon? SAND.
If the foolish reject Jesus and build upon SAND, then those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE what Jesus said, which of the two men is Jesus comparing them to, the SAND builder or the ROCK builder?
It is CLEAR that Jesus is referring to those who BELIEVE on HIM and trust HIM as one who builds their house UPON A ROCK.
That is JESUS own words several chapters before Peter's declaration.
This is repeated in more detail in Luke::
(Luke 6:47 KJV) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
(Luke 6:48 KJV) He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
(Luke 6:49 KJV) But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
Note again, the PERSON who believes on the WORD OF GOD, is likened to someone building their house UPON A ROCK.
So, what does the reference to A ROCK in ALL these cases refer to?
Is it a MAN or is it the WORD OF GOD revealed?
This is not difficult to read, but too many people have been taught to interpret the passage in Matthew in such a way to twist what is actually being said, and these alternate passages repeat the same basic message: THAT GOD is what matters, not men or a single man.
Paul wrote in Romans 9::
(Rom 9:33 KJV) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Who is Paul speaking of when he SAYS A ROCK of offense? A Stumbling stone? It is Jesus, and refers to those who refuse to believe.
(1 Cor 10:4 KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Who is the ROCK?
It plainly says the ROCK WAS JESUS, not Peter.
There is no other place where Peter is praised or given any authority, in fact Peter is rebuked for his actions by other persons.
(Gal 2:11 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(Gal 2:12 KJV) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
(Gal 2:13 KJV) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
(Gal 2:14 KJV) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
If PETER is the ROCK of the Church, then WHO IS PAUL to REBUKE PETER?
Paul clearly rebuked Peter in this passage because PETER was WRONG and at FAULT!
The ROCK of the Church CANNOT HAVE ANY FAULT, or else there is NO FOUNDATION to stand upon but error!!
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, also. While the book of Acts clearly tells Peter to witness to a Gentile first, Peter is NOWHERE granted any position or title that PETER is the Apostle to the Gentiles, but PAUL clearly IS named as SUCH!
(Rom 15:15 KJV) Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
(Rom 15:16 KJV) That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
The Book of Galatians is the clearest refutation to many false doctrines concerning this::
(Gal 2:1 KJV) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
(Gal 2:2 KJV) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Now, read the next passage carefully:: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY??
(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION WAS GIVEN TO PAUL, NOT PETER.
PETER WAS TO BE THE APOSTLE TO THE JEWS.
(Eph 3:1 KJV) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
WHO WAS? PAUL was, not Peter.
(Eph 3:8 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
WHO WAS?? Paul was!!
(1 Tim 2:7 KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
WHO IS A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES?
Paul is! NOT Peter, evey time Peter is mentioned as to WHAT PEOPLE Peter is to be associated with it is the JEWS, WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION, and that is Acts chapter 10.
Only ONCE, while PAUL is repeatedly and openly called or referred to as the Apostle of the Gentiles.
In fact, there might even be more references to PAUL witnessing to Jews then there are references to PETER witnessing to Gentiles! And this from the man who is KNOWN as THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES!
(Acts 9:19 KJV) And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
(Acts 9:20 KJV) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
(Acts 9:21 KJV) But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
(Acts 9:22 KJV) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.
Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
(Acts 18:4 KJV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
(Acts 18:5 KJV) And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
(Acts 20:21 KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2 Tim 1:11 KJV) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
(2 Tim 4:17 KJV) Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
Strengthened who? PETER?? NO!
Paul!
The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.
That cannot be denied by anyone who knows how to read for themselves.
(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
(Acts 17:11 KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(Acts 17:12 KJV) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
"Jesus spoke Aramaic"
We have absolutely no evidence of what language Jesus spoke, only evidence of what language the Bible was written in, and I have yet to find a definite source declaring that Matthew was written in Aramaic. I don't doubt it, but I have been trying to find an Aramaic/English Interlinear online and cant. If you know of one, please ping me.
I personally believe Jesus spoke Hebrew. Hebrew is the language of the Jews, their formal language and also their common language, regardless of how common Aramaic was in that time period.
Neither did Jesus rename Peter, he clearly called Peter a stone. To believe otherwise means you believe Jesus changed the subject of His being the Messiah. Jesus entire passage was n the Church, His founding of it being the Messiah, and the fact that HIS church would have no end.
It had NOTHING to do with a sinful man being any sort of a foundation. The only foundation for the Church was Jesus Christ Himself.
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
Jesus clearly says HE is the rock that the man built his house upon, not Peter.
What did Paul say about building upon a MAN'S foundational work?
(Rom 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
Paul said he would NOT go anywhere another man had alreayd preached. Since we KNOW Peter was in Rome after Paul, and they may have met there, Peter surely would have known this verse and this course of action and would NOT have built upon Paul's work in Rome.
(1 Cor 3:10 KJV) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Paul makes it clear: The FOUNDATION of the Church is JESUS CHRIST, not Peter.
(Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In that last passage, ALL the Apostles are called foundations, NOT JUST PETER, and it is CLEAR:: Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, NOT PETER, and ALL the Apostles are given the same rank and status, and PETER is NOT NAMED ONCE.
(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
(Gal 2:9 KJV) 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.
And Again, Paul clearly states PAUL is the Apostle to the Uncircumcision, and also noteworthy, in Gal 2:9, Look again what PAUL said::
(Gal 2:9 KJV) 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.
Paul called 3 men, 3 Apostles the pillars of the Church, 3 men, not just Peter!!
Like I said before: Doctrine needs to be based on the Bible and what it says. People who read the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of their doctrine are in error. The Bible should tell you what your doctrine is, instead of your doctrine telling you what the Bible clearly says.
There are just too many ways to Biblically defeat the doctrine of Peter's supremacy in the Church. He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical.
Sorry, Simon Peter is the common name we know him as, and Jesus never renamed him, where in the world did you ever get that?
Read my previous post, you seem to make the common mistake of using Doctrine to interpretet the Bible instead of letting the Bible determine doctrine.
And as for the rest you posted, again, go back and read my last post before this one, I show what the Bible actually teaches on this, and how Peter is NOWHERE given any supremecy over anyone in the Bible, only in RCC doctrine.
If you want to read on the origin of the Catholic Church, read FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS.
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/historyfbns.htm
Here is one source with some of the original documents online on Church History
I've wondered about that too. We may never understand some of his decisions, but there is no doubt he raised his son well.
Now, you KNOW that isn't totally true! The RCC FORBADE people to own their own Bible for centries and even killed people who printed the Bible in English! And, Killed people who they found with those copies.
Nowadays, also, I heard it from the kids I gew up with, RCC people were taught in the 60's and 70's that the RCC practitioner CANNOT understand the Scriptures without a Priest explaining it to them!
I was CLEARLY told by those kids that they didnt read their Bibles and their parents didnt read their Bibles because there was no way they would understand them unless there was a Priest to explain it to them!
So, my comment is based on personal experience, and many Freepers here who are ex-Catholic have testified to having been taught those things themself, so, I am not wrong on that point.
You don't think, in the entire history of Christianity, there hasn't been one single person who read the Bible on face value, and ended up Catholic?
Nope. Not by just trusting what it says, no Maam, I dont. :)
What about the people who take "This is my Body" on face value? What makes your personal interpretation of that verse better than theirs?
I dont have a personal interpretation, I just go by what it says, and listen to those who tell me to remember CONTEXT/CONTEXT/CONTEXT when reading.
Jesus used the words, surely, but He never told His disciples to physically EAT HIM. In fact, when He said it at the Last Supper, were they eating Jesus or the Passover meal?
(Mat 26:26 KJV) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
(Mat 26:27 KJV) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
(Mat 26:28 KJV) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(Mat 26:29 KJV) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
So, since Jesus actually used these words at the dinner table, and th disciples were physically eating then, did He mean His body or was it a Spiritual Message He referred to?
After all, if He meant HIS PHYSICAL BODY AND BLOOD, how did He make it out of the room alive? The RCC church really needs to re-think that doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Some Protestants have a certain interpretation of Scripture. Then something happens, and their personal interpretation of Scripture changes. Now their personal interpretation is more or less Catholic! By what authority do you say that your personal interpretation is right, and theirs is wrong?
There are a lot of people who start off wrong and get right, and some that start right and go wrong. I would need a better example to answer your question, in general, I would say the Protestant Church is becoming more apostate every day, and their doctrinal changes are for the worse.
And no, you didn't make any ppoint at all because you didn't address anything I posted which showed the Bible says someting totally different than what RCC doctrine says. You didn't refute anything.
And NO, Sola Scripture never was even close to that.
Sola Scripture means that ONLY THE BIBLE is the final word on matters of faith and right and wrong, not the words of men or the traditions of men.
That is why it is said, ONLY THE BIBLE has that authority.
I posted the OFFICIAL RCC doctrine on that already on this thread, where the RCC denies that the Bible has that authority alone, and that traditions are EQUAL to the Bible.
Social activism is a saving of society, and God condemned societies on the cross.
Modern "Christianity" is concerned with a more social message instead of the power of God changing men's hearts to change what is wrong with society.
That is where the Church is failing today; we are more concerned with society instead of a Holy God and the need of men to repent and get saved. When Billy Graham sends people back to the apostate Church they came out of, he is sending them back to the place that failed to teach them to repent and get saved in the first place!
If the local Churches were following what the word of God said, there would be no need of revivals like what we see.
These modern revival meetings are really just rallies where people tend to leave feeling good, with little change in their lives and in the lives of the people around them.
Genuine conversions cause people to change their own lives first, then turn to God fully. Something we all need to consider.
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.