Good Article. He has another on his website regarding the truth about Roman “Tradition” that also is quite enlightening.
Considering the numbers of Episcopalians lately who, while understandably want to escape the apostasy and nonsense of TEC propose to swim a certain old polluted river in Italy, and the fact that Anglicanism is being dumped on here by Romanists (see above), I thought this should be pinged to the Anglican ping list....
I think you have posted a very admirable, profoundly informative; solidly researched; historically accurate; Biblically accurate document.
I'm slowly starting to make my way through the rest of it. I hope to respond as I go along.
I'm a bit concerned that this thread avoid the personally pointed assaultiveness of so many such threads. I think the issues on the table deserve that. The Biblical priorities require that. The eternal contingencies demand that. Our own individual personal righteousness-es also demand that.
Both sides insist that all individuals must confront, deal with and submit
TO THE TRUTH
SUBMIT TO THE TRUTH, HOWEVER THE CHIPS FALL, WHEREVER THE TRUTH LIES.
INDEED.
The crux returns to, as always, the very shakey air-gel that the RC edifice is founded on. Namely, What did Christ say and mean to Peter in Matt 16:18-19.
I heartily agree with your doc:
"These claims cannot be substantiated by the facts. Matthew 16 does not imply papal primacy, for the passage says absolutely nothing about successors to Peter or his office. . . . "
" . . . we must say that the passage does not contain a single word concerning successors of Peter . . . the intent of Jesus leaves us no possibility of understanding Matthew 167:17ff. in the sense of a succession determined by an episcopal see. 21"
"In addition to this, the unanimous consent of the Fathers opposes the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. The Fathers generally interpret the rock in Matthew 16 as Christ or as Peter's confession of faith in Christ. Some of the Fathers do refer to Peter as the rock but only in the sense that he is the first to confess Christ to be the Son of God and therefore representative of the entire church. The church is built, therefore, not on Peter personally (and subsequently on the bishops of Rome as his successors) but on Peter's confession of faith and ultimately, therefore, ON CHRIST HIMSELF [QE]. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) is typical of the Fathers in this interpretation of Matthew 16:18:"
One might ponder God's allowing/placing such a . . . "vulnerable" wording in the New Testament out of Christ's mouth. We know that Christ spoke nothing The Father had not said to Him/instructed Him to speak.
What reason--what POSSIBLE reason--might The Father have had for allowing/inserting such ultimately conflicted wording in The Canon?
I wonder.
Could it be . . . a magnificent set-up?
Could The Father have insisted--knowing the heart and tendencies of man--Could The Father have insisted on setting up a grand object lesson?
Christ was MOST HOSTILE to the deeply and intensely hierarchical INSTITUTION, EDIFICE of the RELIGIOUS RULERS of His dusty pathed days. MOST HOSTILE. Not a little hostile, FIERCELY HOSTILE--SONS OF SATAN; WHITE-WASHED TOMBS; VIPERS . . .
Could it be that The Father set up yet another grand object lesson
THAT NO SALVATION ACCRUES FROM MAN'S INSTITUTIONS
I think this was pointedly emphasized on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter was all set to build a quickly cobbled-together beginning edifice complete with brush arbor—no doubt until a grander marble version could be erected.
But The Father quickly emphasized that HE wanted NONE OF THAT:
THIS IS MY BELOVED SON—HEAR HIM!
NOT
HEAR THE MAGICSTERICAL. NOT
HEAR THE PONTIFICAL POLITICAL POWER MONGERS!
NOT
HEAR THE TRADITONS OF A PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHIC COLLECTION OF ESPECIALLY POLITICALLY SUCCESSFUL POWER MONGERS IN THE BLOODILY HEATHEN SUPREME CENTER OF POWER MONGERING—ROME
NOT
HEAR THE CONVENIENT SELF-SERVING SCRIPTURE MANGLING OF THE POLITICALLY ASTUTE ‘CHILREN’ OF THE WOLF SUCKLED TIBER RUG RATS.
THIS IS MY BELOVED SON—HEAR
HIM!
And, CHRIST HIMSELF EMPHASIZED—MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE. Hearing and obeying God is STILL THE SUPREME SUPER-ORDINATE CONSTRUCT, PRIORITY, RULE, REQUIREMENT, INVITATION, DESIRE OF GOD . . . DIALOGUE, RELATIONSHIP ONE TO ONE WITH GOD. Why else did Christ die?
Ahhhhhhhhhh, riiiiigggggght Christ—Creator of All came to inhabit the infinitely confining earthly form of a body and die an excruciatingly tortured death in that shell . . .
IN ORDER TO FOSTER, ENGINEER, CONSTRUCT, SET-UP (on volatile Peter’s very flawed shoulders) A DREADFULLY DEADLY RELIGIOUS EDIFICE WORSE THAN THE JEWISH ONES????
No way Hosay.
We shall see if my personal conjectures have any connection with truth, or not. But I will not be surprised if that turns out to be the case. I haven’t thought of a better explanation.
Certainly we know from Jewish history that RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, EDIFICES PERSISTENTLY, RUTHLESSLY, RELENTLESSLY, ALWAYS BECOME DEADLY—AND PARTICULARLY DEADLY REGARDING MAN’S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.
God had plenty of reason to engineer some VERY VIVID object lessons about that troublesome human compulsion to sabotage, poison, pollute, murder, destroy our RELATIONSHIPs with Him by way of RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.
I think The Father wants to make an eternally super galactic exclamation point on that issue, that fact,
. . . THAT ETERNAL, SUPER-ORDINATE TRUTH.
So, He set up a 1500 year illustration for ALL CREATION to have available as EXIHIBIT A from the annals of time in the library of The Timeless Realities.
The other huge issue is the one of !!!TRADITION!!! Or, perhaps we could say T2 for !!!TEVYA TRADITIONS!!! On that score, I think your document makes an excellent point:
"In fact, Jesus has virtually nothing positive to say about tradition (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:17-19; 15:2-9; 22:29-32). Clearly, if the Son of God teaches that ALL [QE = Quix Emphasis] tradition is to be judged by its conformity to the Scriptures, then tradition IS SUBORDINATE [QE] to Scripture and Scripture is logically the ultimate authority.
That, to me is simply HISTORICALLY, BIBLICALLY AND LOGICALLY 100% ACCURATE.
And, denial of that is simply spiritual cliff-edge walking if not blindly or deliberately and rebelliously (perhaps idolatrously) spiritually suicidal.
This is not hyperbole. Those on the other side making comments 180 degrees opposite do not consider their comments hyperbole but basic spiritual fact. I state that as basic spiritual fact. Such a perspective and conviction is not hyperbole but basic truth.
I believe that all who agree that every individual must deal with and submit to truth will be called again of Holy Spirit to such basic spiritual facts until the heart and mind submits.
Some of us are more . . . resistant than others . . . to such wooings of Holy Spirit--perhaps because our !!!TEVYA TRADITIONS!!! have convinced us that such deaf resistances are kosher Gospel when, in fact, they are not.
I'm highly skeptical that many of the usual pontificators hereon will be greatly enlightened by this excellent document. However, I'm also convinced that thousands of lurkers will. So, Praise God for your faithfulness in posting this.
I pray His Spirit will make use of all our humble and flawed word flinging following your felicitous ferocities.
Alas, I get ahead of myself. I should return to earlier sections in the doc. . . . after many other tasks . . . But thanks for a great doc to discuss.
Shameless personal END TIMES PING LIST PING in behalf of at least prayer for the thread and hopefully some Spirit-led contributions.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
read
It dawned on me that the claim of primacy of Peter’s successors would have given successors authority over some of the Apostles. Those who had been breathed on by Jesus, had been His companions & at least one who had been among those involved in the ruling at the Council of Jerusalem held less authority than those who sat in Peter’s chair after his death?
Picture John submitting to the authority of Linus, Anacletus, Clement & Evaristus, because it’s said that they held Peter’s chair during John’s lifetime.
From my p 3 in my Word file of your doc:
"In one of his debates Keating stated that each individual has a solemn responsibility to seek and follow truth no matter how opposed it might be to what one has been taught or what it might cost in personal terms. I cannot agree more.
INDEED. And, as I've observed over the years, hereon, the RC edifice left truth behind a LONG time ago. What's mystifying is how many normally bright, conservative FREEPERS are so blind to that fact. Boggles my mind.
"It places under anathema--that is, it condemns to hell [rather presumes that it does], unless there is repentance--all who disagree with her teachings,2 anathemas that, it is important to add, have never been repudiated. . . . Both Trent and Vatican I state that it is unlawful for anyone to interpret Scripture 'contrary to the unanimous consent of the father.'5 These councils tell us that there is a test by which the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be judged and validated--the test of history--as expressed in the principle of unanimous consent which has been well demonstrated to have NEVER existed]. What do the historical facts really reveal for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church relative to its teachings on Scripture, tradition, the canon, the papacy, and Mary?"
They historical facts reveal a shocking house of deceptive cards piled on a foundation of air-gel.
"SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION Roman Catholic dogma teaches that the doctrine of sola scriptura . . . is unscriptural. This dogma is unfounded because sola scriptura is the express teaching of Scripture and in particular of the Lord Jesus Christ. [INDEED] . . . The doctrine is clearly demonstrated in the life and teaching of Christ. Clearly Scripture was the ultimate authority for Jesus' personal life and ministry [as He relentlessly referred to it in His most piercing declarations, assertions and defenses.] He always appealed to the written Word of God to settle disputes, never to oral tradition."
INDEED. This one fact has NEVER been well responded to by the RC edifice. There is no adequate response because it's the simple historical and Biblical truth. Christ said: IT IS WRITTEN. HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORD SHALL NOT PASS AWAY. MAT24:35. [WHAT MORE STINGING DECLARATION OF THE PRIMACY OF THE WORD OF GOD COULD THERE BE?]
However, the politically inspired arrogance of the RC edifice is that the magicsterical trumps the Word of God. What utter unmitigated brazen nonsense.
I firmly believe that children speaking the Word of God in the end times will repeatedly demonstrate the awesome power of THE WORD OF GOD to devastate literally individuals, groups, buildings, armies. The RC edifice has yet to begin to learn how devastating their affrontery to the Word of God registers in Heaven.
“According to His [Christ’s] teaching, Scripture was the final judge of all tradition. In fact, Jesus has virtually nothing positive to say about tradition (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:17-19; 15:2-9; 22:29-32). Clearly, if the Son of God teaches that all tradition is to be judged by its conformity to the Scriptures, then tradition is subordinate to Scripture and Scripture is logically the ultimate authority.”
INDEED! Ahhhhh, but that would flush a lot of traditions of men; doctrines of demons out of the RC edifice to accept such Biblical, historical truth.
Why Mary would have to take a much more fitting, subordinate and exceedingly sidelined-role. Where would the distinctives of the RC edifice go! Where would the monopoly on the very . . . convenient . . . Mariology industry go? What would they do without the comforting lap and bosom of Mary? Goodness—JESUS WOULD HAVE TO BECOME THEIR ALL SUFFICIENCY! What a horrible travesty that would be! /sar
“Roman Catholic teaching claims that sola scriptura is unhistorical; that is, it contradicts the universal teaching of the early church. The more I have searched for the truth regarding these Roman Catholic beliefs, the more I have been compelled to conclude that the facts will not support this claim. Sola Scriptura was the universal teaching of the church Fathers and for the church as a whole through the later Middle Ages. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) is reflective of the overall view of the fathers:
Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument [Qx: I often think that many of the major foundation air-gel ‘stones’ of the RC edifice are constructed precisely and totally out of “artifices of argument” and poor ones, at that]. Do not then believe me because I tell thee of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what I set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings
[Qx: how better can be described the convoluted preposterousnesses that would foist Mary on the universe as a cobbled together co-redempterix??? I realize that’s not formally been adopted yet but we have seen over recent decades just the same sort of evolution as all the other Marion hogwash developed through.], but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. . . In these articles we comprehend the WHOLE DOCTRINE OF FAITH [QE=Quix Emphasis]. . . .
For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. . . . This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom THE WHOLE KNOWLEDGE OF GODLINESS CONTAINED BOTH IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.[QE] . . . Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the witness of the prophets concerning EACH MATTER BELIEVE NOT WHAT IS SPOKEN; UNLESS THOU LEARN FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE . . . RECEIVE NOT THE WITNESS OF MAN7
INDEED! And this was in the 315-386 years era. I realize that the RC edifice will, no doubt, have many pseudo ingenious pontifications to try and rationalize around the above basic facts. But these are solid, ROCK-CHRIST-JESUS foundational facts of history and of Scripture. Those who are willingly broken on and submitted to them shall find life. Those who are slated to be crushed under the weight of their certainty shall bear their own discipline on their own shoulders.
Catholics sure get riled when a little light is shone on their religion. The real issue is; are you going to bet your eternity on the catholic religion? There will be no second chance. Why is it so many catholics leave the RCC and become Evangelical Christians when they seriously examine salvation and the teaching of the RCC compared to what the Word of God teaches? If your hope of salvation is based on this ‘purgatory’ place you are lost and need to take the time and effort to seek the true for your own sake. Do think you will get away with, “but Lord I was loyal to the Roman Catholic church and they taught me wrong”, “it is their fault.”
The result will be eternal separation from God and hell. And winning any debate here on earth about this will be meaningless when you stand before the Lord of Hosts Who died for the salvation of men.
IIRC, there hasn't been the faintest whiff of an adequate response from the other side to the very telling documentation of
"Cyril of Jerusalem was a bishop of one of the most important sees of the church . . . [noting that tradition] must be proven by Scripture."
Sounds like he'd have made a tolerable Berean.
But I think I've pontificated about him already . . . moving along . . .
And then we have the documentation found in J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 46. . . . to wit:
"It was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.8"
I think that's as close as one gets to UNANIMOUS CONSENT in the early church-- AND IT WAS EMPHATICALLY ON THE SIDE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA.
And then there's the documentation offered found in ref paragraph 9:
"'See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world [read here--POLITICAL BUREAUCRATIC FORCES PARTICULARLY, imho] rather than on Christ' (Col 2:8); 'Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition . . . They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' (Matt. 15:6, 9; cf. Mark 7:3-13; Gal. 1:14; Col 2:22; 1 Peter 1:18).
This is sadly true of ALL HUMAN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS SOONER OR LATER, TO SOME GREATER OR LESSER DEGREE with extremely rare exceptions and then only for a rather temporary period and only to a majority degree--never 100% pure, Biblical, Spirit led. Sadly, the older, larger, more politically, bureaucratically hide bound . . . with longer standing assaults by the enemy of our souls . . . the RC edifice seems to be the most glaring example of such excesses. But even Pentecostal denominations are far from immune . . . likewise Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, . . .
And from my p 5 of your doc, Otto . . .
"How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus's words are important to understand. He was writing against the Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept. The bishops of the [early] church were in the direct line of succession from the apostles [all around the Med. sea] and they were faithful to the apostolic teaching they proclaimed orally, but that doctrine COULD AT EVERY POINT BE VALIDATED BY SCRIPTURE[QE]. Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer affirms this:
For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is NEVER purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally) IS A GNOSTIC LINE OF THOUGHT.11"
REF 11: Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and SCripture in the EArly Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), 133.
"In fact, the APOSTLE PAUL HIMSELF [QE] states that the Gospel he initially preached orally could be verified by the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES.12 THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE, UP TO THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY, NEVER viewed tradition to be a source of revelation. Brian Tierney affirms this:
“Before the thirteenth century, there is little TRACE [QE] in the works of the medieval theologians of the view that Tradition constituted a source of divine revelation separate from Scripture and little inclination to set up a distinction—still less an opposition—between Scriptural revelation and church doctrine . . . For twelfth century theologians (as for the Fathers themselves), church and Scripture ‘coinhered.’ . . . ‘The men of the middle ages lived in the Bible and by the Bible.’”
“When twelfth century theologians observed . . . that many things were held by the church that were not found in Scripture, they seem to have had in mind ONLY LITURGICAL CUSTOMS OR PIOUS PRACTICES. . . . 13.
REF 13: Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 16-17.
CLEARLY, the ONLY UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE EARLY CHURCH—if not the church for the first 11 centuries—WAS THAT SOLA SCRIPTURA WAS THE SOLE GODLY STANDARD REGARDING CHURCH DOCTRINE AND BEHAVIOR.
For the RC edifice to begin in the middle ages to turn that on it’s head is a dreadful historical tragedy for that denomination as well as for the Christian Church Universal as a whole—indeed for the world as a whole.
More or less All of the above can essentially be read from The Scriptures with Holy Spirit perceptiveness and discernment. But it is comforting to see solid documentation affirm what Scripture and Holy Spirit already make clear enough for those with hearts to hear and eyes to see. I don’t know that there is a remedy for those willfully given to construing things UnBiblically. Prayer can sometimes help—especially that Holy Spirit do whatever necessary to soften someone’s heart and open blind eyes. But God is fiercely protective of folks’ free-will. Else their Love of Him and one another would be meaningless.
So, I think it is vitally important to, like Peter noted—offer to every person who might ask or observe . . . an answer for the Hope that lies within us—and particularly a Scripturally valid and referenced, kosher declaration of that HOPE WHO IS CHRIST JESUS AND CHRIST JESUS ALONE.
I happen to be a Catholic and for two reasons. First, I admit I was born into a religious Catholic family; and second, I actually search out the true Catholic position whenever a controversy arises about scripture or dogma or papal statements. Most often the news media gives out false information about anything Catholic. And, the folks who do not like the Catholic church are quick to believe them.
That being said, I have to admire the zeal of evangelical Christians. Thank God for their love of Christ and their willingness to be public about the wonderful God we have who sent His Only Begotten Son into th world to teach us and to die for us on a cross. I just wish the Catholic Church had more leaders with such enthusiasm. Thank God for EWTN.
I also wish the evangelicals would get their act together when it comes to the history of the Catholic Church and Western civilization. The writer above is typical of a man who was probably poorly catechized by his instructors, and he thus never did have a clear understanding of the deep bonding that comes with the recognition of Jesus as a personal savior. So, I feel sorry for him. I can only be happy however that he has found a bond with Jesus now, even though he is outside the sacraments of the Catholic Church. He would better serve the Lord if he came back into the church with his new found zeal and tried to help the church that Jesus founded 2000 years ago.
Religious dogma coming out of Holy Scriptures and the witness of the apostles to the first century church leaders has been erroneously intertwined with admitted errors made by sinful mankind over the course of 2000 years. Just because someone in the church made political errors, committed sins, etc. over 2 millenia, does not negate the truths of the Christian faith as handed down by the apostles. That faith is the faith of the Catholic Church. In the end truth is truth. Of course, back to the beginning - this is my opinion.
"The Roman Catholic Church has departed from the teaching and practice of both the early church and the Word of God Itself.
The early church believed in sola Scriptura, but the Roman Catholic Church has repudiated this prinicple in order to elevate it's !!!!TRADITION!!!! to a position of authority equal to the Scriptures.
Of course, this garners MUCH MORE POWER, PSEUDO-Prestige, clout, !!!!CONTROL!!!! for the political hierarchy. Since God is not very manipulatable, they seem quite content to manipulate the serfs still--with the same swill awash so rampantly in the middle ages. Interestingly, much of it was not evident BEFORE the middle ages--though the edifice tries vainly to insist that such nonsense was there all along. Incredible. Incredibly dishonest. Incredibly destructive to well meaning souls too ignorant and poorly read of the authentic historical documents.
"The heresy of Gnosticism condemned by Irenaeus and Tertullian is embraced in this error. In addition to the concept itself, there is also the issue of the actual doctrinal content of Roman Catholic !!!!TRADITION!!!!, for its specific teachings not only contradict the teaching of Scripture but that of the church of the first centuries. OVER SEVERAL CENTURIES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS ADDED DOCTRINES TO THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION that it says are dogmas of the faith, necessary to be believed for salvation. THESE DOGMAS WERE EITHER NEVER TAUGHT IN THE EARLY CHURCH OR WERE PLAINLY REPUDIATED BY IT. This is clearly seen from the following examples.”
“THE CANON From my early training I learned that [Roman] Catholicism claims that the church established the canon of Scripture in the fourth century and that therefore the church is the ultimate authority, not Scripture. Roman Catholic apologists often ask, “If you accept the limits of the Canon that were authoritatively established by the Roman Catholic Church, why do you reject the ultimate authority of that Church?’
The simple reason is that the premise upon which that logic rests is fallacious because of the specific claims the Church of Rome makes for itself regarding the Canon
ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTS OF HISTORY. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DID NOT AUTHORITATIVELY ESTABLISH THE LIMITS OF THE CANON FOR THE CHURCH. THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS WERE ALREADY RECOGNIZED IN THE CHURCH PRIOR TO THE WESTERN COUNCILS OF HIPPO AND CARTHAGE IN NORTH AFRICA IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.
These were PROVINCIAL COUNCILS that had NO authority for the church universally, and their decrees on the Apocrypha were NEVER accepted in the church AS A WHOLE. The church adopted the views of many of the Eastern Fathers such as Origen and Athanasius and Western Fathers such as Jerome. It expressed the view that these writings were useful for reading in the churches for the purpose of edification, but they were NOT to be counted as part of THE CANON OF INSPIRED SCRIPTURE SINCE THEY WERE NOT PART OF THE HEBREW CANON. So the inclusion of the additional books in the canon of Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church troubled me. Which visible community had this right? In commenting on the apocryphal books, Wisdom of Solomon . . . , Jerome states:
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit . . . but does NOT ADMIT THEM AMONG THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, NOT TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH . . . I say this to show how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon. 14”
I need to get to pottery. But this is sufficient from this section for me to emphasize again . . . The RC edifice has perpetuated A GROSS FRAUD ON IT’S MEMBERS, ON CHRISTIANITY AS A WHOLE AND ON THE WORLD AS A WHOLE. It has done so brazenly and continues to do so brazenly. God is not amused. He WILL deal with it in due course.
SCRIPTURE ILLUMINATED BY HOLY SPIRIT ARE QUITE SUFFICIENT FOR ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. We are exhorted to avoid neglecting to assemble together for fellowship and worship and mutual edification. In numerous places in the Gospels alone, we are warned again and again against the accoutrements of large traditional pontifical vain glorious RELIGIOUS organizations & their related customs, habits of man.
Sorry for starting this discussion and running. I had to help my dad move some stuff across country and after much misadventures involving vehicle transmission problems, I am back home, praise Jesus!
Anyone reading could offer prayers for my dad’s conversion, as well as his continuing travels and safety.
Thanks!
Otto