10/20/2015, 2:40:11 PM · 50 of 88
Since Jun 26, 2007
And that (in contrast) man is a sinner in nature and in heart and deed, and is damned for his sins and destitute of any merit or means of his own, or that of his church etc., to escape his just and eternal punishment in Hell-fire or to earn eternal life with God.
And thus he desperately needs salvation, and for which he must turn in faith to the risen Divine Son of God, sent by the Father to be the Savior of the world, casting all his faith in the Lord Jesus to save Him by His sinless shed blood, out of a poor and contrite heart, which God has regard to. (Jn. 1:1-3,14; 20:28; Rm. 3:25-5:1; 1Jn. 4:14; Col. 1:14; Rm. 10:9,10,13; Ps. 34:18)
And that such are forgiven and born again by the Divine Spirit of God, sent by the Father through the Son, and which faith decision is shown in baptism and in characteristic obedience toward the Object of said repentant faith. (Jn. 3:3; 10:27-29; 14:16,26; 16:7; Acts 2:38; 10:43-47; 15:8,9; Heb. 5:9; 6:9) And which includes repentance when convicted of not doing so. (1Jn. 1:8,9; 2Cor. 7:9-11)
Thus damnation is what is earned by our works, while salvation is a gift (Rm. 6:23) given on God's blood-expense and righteousness, and is all of grace, as the Lord draws all to Himself, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) convicting souls of sin, righteousness and judgment, (Jn. 16:9), and opens hearts, (Acts 16:14) and gives faith, (Eph. 2:8,9), so that man does what he could not and otherwise would not do.
And as it is by faith, and believers are kept by faith, (1Pt. 1:5) those who are of Christs house are those who hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end, (Heb. 3:6) and which faith hath great recompense of reward, (Heb. 10:35) versus drawing back unto perdition in unbelief, (Heb. 10:38,39) having an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, against which apostasy they are warned. (Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39; Gal. 5:1-5) For they are stewards of the manifold grace of God. (1Pt. 4:10)
And thus God chastens wayward believers in working to bring them to repentance, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1Cor. 11:32).
For Jesus is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb. 7:25)
May we always be Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; " (Ephesians 5:20)
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him. (Hebrews 2:3)
And while i seek to serve the Lord and be holy, i have far to go in heart, and in deed, yet trust that the Lord will perfect that which concerneth me. (Ps. 138:8) .
It seems that I have a call into apologetics, meaning giving an answer for the faith, and which, due to my upbringing and location, seem to mostly be exercised in regards to Catholicism.
Much of this here has been in reaction to certain RCs who constantly posted articles about their church. Which, in the light of its elitist claim to alone be the one true church, to whom all are to submit, are provocative even by the advertising and promotion of it.
However, in addition there have been many articles and posts promoting certain doctrines unique to Catholicism, and attacking Protestantism (often broadly defined so as to include men such as Jim Jones) and specific Protestant doctrines.
And the religion forum has also has seen articles posts refuting Catholic presumption and errors and below are a few I have selected.
Note that I am not driven by some sort of personal anger against Rome, but the esteem and commitment for the Truth of Scripture that moved me to write such things as an extensive refutation of prohomosexual polemics , by the grace of God, also moves me to oppose the inventions of Rome, in the light of Scripture.
Neither do my contentions for Truth mean that I consider myself to be necessarily superior in virtue than others, as I certainly do not, but seek to be an overcomer in all holiness, by the grace of almighty God.
In so doing we must look to the Lord of Scripture, and also see the faith of the prima NT church, and compare it with ourselves and churches which claim to be of that faith.
While all come short of what they could be and ought to be, the church of Rome is the largest profound deformation of the NT church.
BRINGING EX-CATHOLICS BACK TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A PERSONAL STORY
Partial list of contrasts between the New Testament church and Roman Catholicism.
Commentary (a short summary, as by God's grace, defenders of Rome have been refuted time and time again into silence or there recourse to spitwads, as can be shown).
No apostles elected by voting.
No successors after Judas, with the only continuously perpetuated pastoral office by way of ordination being that of presbuteros/episkopos.
Peter as as non-assertive street-level leader among the 11, with no succession or preparation for one.
No corporate view of Peter as their first of supreme infallible popes in Rome.
Nowhere in the NT, interpretive of Mt. 16:18, is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built.
No leadership claiming/possessing ensured perpetual infallibility.
No leadership with unique sacrificial function, offering food as sacrifice.
No leadership distinctively titled hiereus (priests): only presbuteros/ episkopos (same office: Titus 1:5-7).
No leadership with unique sacrificial function, offering food as sacrifice.
The primary function of pastors was that of prayer and preaching the word of God.
No required celibacy for leadership. Most were married.
There were no apostolic successors after Judas, which was (in order to maintain foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)
Peter was the initial, non-assertive street-level leader among the 11, once even listed after James (who provided the conclusive judgment in Acts 15) in Gal. 2 as one of 3 present who appeared to be pillars. To whom Rome's ensured perpetual formulaic infallibility is nowhere promised, and in contrast holy (he was) Peter was the only apostle directly publicly rebuked.
No succession for Peter or preparation for one is seen in the NT, an incongruous conspicuous omission for a cardinal doctrine, while ordination of leaders is described and taught. For the only continuously perpetuated pastoral office (unless deacons are included) by way of formal ordination was that of presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), both of which refer to those in the same office. (Titus 1:5-7)
Nowhere is the church described as looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads in Rome, nor told to even in any of the church epistles or in the Lord's commendations and criticisms of the 7 churches of Asia.
Nowhere interpretive of Mt. 16:18 is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. Instead, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (petra) or "stone" (lithos, and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
Nowhere is leadership/magisterial office promised ensured perpetual infallibility. RCs extrapolate support for this out of promises of God's presence and preservation, but which Israel has as well. They also hold that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God (writing and men) and their meaning, but which was never required before, and is contrary to how the church began.
Nowhere is leadership distinctively titled hiereus (priests), which distinctive title is only used for Jewish and pagan priests. Catholics try to defend the use of priests by relying on an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy ">etymological fallacy </a>, since "priest," from old English "preost," etymologically is derived from "presbyteros," but which is not what the latter means. Instead the use of the title priests was a latter development due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as a primary function, which they did not.
Nowhere is leadership even shown distributing food as part of their specific ordained function, (Acts 6:3,4) and is nowhere is the Lords' Supper shown to be led by priests conducting it, let alone offering it as a sacrifice for sins to be consumed to obtain eternal life. The command to do this in memory of Me is nowhere shown to be specifically and uniquely given to leadership, let alone a class titled priests.
The primary function of pastors was that of prayer and preaching the word of God, (Acts 6:3,4) which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9)
Nowhere is celibacy a requirement for leadership, as in contrast marriage was the norm for pastors, include most of the apostles. Paul and Barnabas under a vow to stay single. (1Cor. 9:4; 1Tim. 3:1-7)
The Lord's Supper
The Lord's Supper is ordained as an ordinance by which that believers remember the Lord's death and show fellowship with Christ by a commemorative shared meal.
Nowhere is spiritual life obtaining by literally eating anything physical. Instead, spiritual life is obtained by hearing and believing the gospel of grace.
Nowhere, interpretive of of the gospels, is