Replies

bowing to the Bishop of Rome.

Still that big hang-up, eh? Your "history" is naught but error, and has been refuted ad nauseaum on the neverending story thread, among other places.

As you perfectly well know, but refuse to acknowledge, Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom to the Apostle Peter, as head of the Apostles. As you well know, from the Acts of the Apostles, and several of St. Paul's letters, the Apolstles appointed successors, whose successors many generations removed we know as the Priests and Bishops of what are today referred to as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The relative youth of your errors does not make them any less errors. Martin Luther's spirit of rebellion, to which you appear in some manner to subscribe, has nothing to do with Christ in particular, God in general, or anything remotely Holy. It has more to do with the Prince of this World, and I strongly suggest you abandon it for the Gospel.

Your choice. Choose wisely

***Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom to the Apostle Peter.***

But what about this?
And when James, Cephas(Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, preceived the grace that was given me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the heathen and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:9

Does this mean that the followers of Peter can only go to the Jews?

Was the first Pope perfect?
But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain (men) came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Galatians 2:12

That don't sound like absolute authority to me.

Still that big hang-up, eh? Your "history" is naught but error, and has been refuted ad nauseaum on the neverending story thread, among other places.

Right. What history would that be?

As you perfectly well know, but refuse to acknowledge, Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom to the Apostle Peter, as head of the Apostles.

Christ said there was no one of the apostles greater than any of the others. That alone strikes down your "claim". It is a claim, not a given. The keys were given to all the apostles, as was the interpretational office of binding and loosing (interpretive, not legislative).

As for a successor - a successor must succeed in spirit, not merely in title. You guys are so caught up on title and your own philosophy that you don't any longer know what they taught - if in fact you ever did. That your churches could have binding and loosing so well misunderstood begs the imagination for any excuse.

You speak to me as though you have a clue either about Luther or about me. You appear to have neither. I'm not a protestant. And Luther wasn't given to a spirit of rebellion, the church was. Luther caved and didn't have the audacity nor the purpose of spirit to carry through properly with what he started. The errors of the protestants are as much his fault as that of Catholicism.

And finally, I'v followed scripture. And that is what turns so many of you rabidly against the message I preach. You are comfortable in your philosophy and would rather follow it than scripture. Anytime scripture puts a kink in your plans you denounce it as being but one input among many. That may work in philosophy and religianity; but it isn't Christianity and it don't work with God. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've no horse in the race you choose. My only concern is for souls and truth. I don't sell a church title or beg athority over anyone. I merely present the gospel. A stumbling block to you, but for us, righteousness.