Posted on 01/03/2010 10:30:30 PM PST by Gamecock
Could you tell me the difference between the Presbyterian church and the Catholic Church.
Short question, potentially very long answer.
I'll try to focus briefly on some basics, beginning with the foundational matter of authority.
The Roman Catholic Church understands the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, as do we, but alongside the Bible, stands the authority of the tradition of the church, the decrees of its councils, and the ex cathedra pronouncements of its popes. Tradition, councils, and popes tell the faithful what the Scriptures teach and can add dogma to what the Scriptures teach (for example, the immaculate conception of Mary). We regard this as man exercising authority over the Word of God rather than sitting in humble submission before it.
In contrast, this is what we confess to the world in our Confession of Faith (a statement which we believe faithfully summarizes what the Bible teaches, but which is wholly derived from the Bible, subordinate to it, and may be corrected by it):
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God....
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men....
7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them....
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
(Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, "Of the Holy Scripture")
With particular reference to the Church, we hold that Christ alone is the Head of His Church, and that there are no princely rulers in the church, but elders and preachers gifted by the Spirit and called to rule and teach in local churches in subordination to the Word of God. Again, our Confession:
6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof." (WCF, Chapter 25, "Of the Church"; see Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22, 1 Peter 5:2-4)
Christ is the King and only Lord of the church. He rules us by His Word, the Holy Spirit who first inspired it continuing to work now by enabling us to understand, believe, and obey the Scriptures. Elders and preachers are gifts He gives to the church to guide and help us understand and obey the Word, but they are not infallible.
Our Confession again,
1. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. (WCF, Chapter 30, "Of Church Censures"; see Acts 14:23, 20:17,28, Heb.13:7,17, Eph.4:11,12, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 5:17-21, etc.)
2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain and remit sins, to shut the kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures, and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures as occasion shall require. (WCF, 30.2)
1. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as a commonly called synods or councils, and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church. (WCF, Chapter 31, "Of Synods and Councils")
2. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of his church, to receive complaints in cases of maladministratiion, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission. (WCF, 31.2)
3. All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both. (WCF, 31.3)
4. Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical, and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs ... [exceptions stated]" (WCF, 31.4)
A key point here is our understanding that church authorities are to act "ministerially" and based always on the Word of God. They cannot make laws in addition to God's revealed Word, but must labor to understand that Word properly and then declare it to the church and base their governing and disciplining actions upon it. We do not claim for any merely human governors of the church a magisterial authority.
From this fundamental difference in regard to authority and to the relative roles of the Bible, tradition, decrees of councils, and edicts of popes, flow the other differences. Why do Presbyterians not pray to Mary and the saints? Because the Bible nowhere tells us to do so; it is an invention by gradual accretion in the tradition of the church. And because, on the other hand, the Bible tells us that "there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," who is our Great High Priest, through whom we have boldness to come to God's throne of grace (1 Tim.2:5, Hebrews 4:14-16). Christ is all the intercessor we need (Heb.7:23-28).
There are fundamentally different approaches to worship, which might be summed up this way:
Roman Catholic:
Whatever the tradition and councils have given us is what we do in public worship.
Presbyterian:
We give to God in worship only what is revealed in His Word as pleasing to Him (see Lev.10:1-3, Exodus 20:4-6, Mark 7:1-8).
While we are looking at worship, we observe that Presbyterians differ fundamentally with Roman Catholics in regard to the Lord's Supper. We both agree that Christ Himself ordained the observance of communion by His church and that this involves bread and wine. From that point on we agree on almost nothing. But let me try to summarize:
Roman Catholics:
By the grace received in his ordination the priest has power to utter the words of consecration by which mere bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ for sacrifice on the altar, and by receiving this mystical body (and blood) of Christ the faithful receive Christ Himself bodily and His grace to wash them clean of all their sins.
Presbyterians:
(a). The minister is not a priest; Christ alone is our priest in the sense of interceding for us before God by sacrifice. The minister is a servant, who declares the Word so that the faithful may understand what is taking place.
(b). The power of the minister is to declare what the Scriptures teach, not to say words that change bread into Christ's body.
(c). The bread and wine symbolically represent the body and blood of Christ. When Jesus at the Last Supper said to His disciples (of the bread), "This is My body which is broken for you", He was standing before them in His body, whole and intact. He meant this bread symbolizes My body. (When He said, "I am the door to the sheepfold," He was similarly speaking symbolically, or "I am the light of the world").
(d). There is no sacrifice of Christ on any altar, for He offered Himself once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:26-28, 10:10). So perfect and acceptable was the sacrifice of the God-Man of Himself for sinners that no other sacrifice is required. When on the cross He said, "It is finished," He meant not only his suffering of death, but also His making atonement by His suffering. By that "one sacrifice for sins for all time," that "one offering." "He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb.10:12,14). We hold it to be a great dishonor to Christ's once-for-all atoning work on Calvary to claim that His body and blood continue to be offered as sacrifice for sin. This is why we speak of the communion "table", not altar.
(e). The faithful receive Christ by faith, not physically. The elements are signs. They point to Christ and what He has done to atone for our sins. They point to Him also as our risen and living Savior and Lord who is present in His Church by the Holy Spirit, continuously offering Himself to believers. The bread and wine call us to draw near to Christ by faith, to receive forgiving and sanctifying grace from Him, to grow in our union with Him. But it is all spiritual and by faith.
I could go on listing differences, but two very important ones remain. I will deal with the most important last.
Presbyterians believe that God's Word is a sufficient revelation of His will for our lives (see above, Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1, especilly Sections 6 and 7, and read 2 Timothy 3:15-17).
We think it is an arrogant usurpation of Christ's authority for church rulers to presume to have authority to add to His word rules and commands. Where does the Bible require ministers in Christ's church to be celibate? It doesn't, but rather teaches the opposite (1 Tim.3:2-5,12, see 1 Cor.9:5). But Catholic authority requires Catholic priests to take vows of celibacy, which are contrary to human nature and create terrible stumbling blocks leading to sin (which is now being plastered shamefully all over the public media). For centuries the Catholic Church told its people they must refrain from eating meat on Fridays; to do otherwise was sin. Now it's okay. It was a sin. Now it's not. The church says so. But the Bible does not say one word, except Colossians 2:20-23 (and 1 Timothy 4:1-5).
Appeal may be made to Matthew 16:19 (and 18:18), which read this way: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (and vice versa). There! The church officers make a binding decision on earth, and heaven will ratify it. But the passage actually says exactly the opposite. The second verbs in each case ("shall be bound" / "loosed"), are future perfect tenses, properly translated: "shall have been bound / loosed". So that the correct reading is: "Whatever you bind / loose on earth shall have been bound / loosed in heaven". That is, officers of the church on earth must base their decisions on what heaven has already determined. And what would that be? That would be what "Heaven," that is, God, has revealed by the Spirit in His Word, the Scriptures.
But the most important issue concerns salvation. We believe the Bible teaches that the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ and the perfect obedience of Christ, offered to His Father in our behalf and given to us as God's gift in the declaration of justification is all the basis for salvation that a sinner needs. See Romans 3:19-30, Philippians 3:2-9, Galatians 3:10-13, Romans 8:1-3. We believe that we receive this gift only by faith, Ephesians 2:8,9. Good works enter in as the fruit of saving faith, as its outworking in our lives. But the moment I throw myself on the mercy of God trusting in Christ's saving work for me, I am then and there and once and for all justified in God's sight and nothing I do after that in the way of good works can add to what Christ has done or to God's justification.
This has gone on quite long. As I noted at the beginning, your question is very short. Maybe you were looking for something other than what I have given you. But I do want to close with a few clarifications.
"Presbyterian": This is from the Greek word in the NT, presbyter, meaning elder. Presbyterian churches are churches which believe that Christ governs his church through the work of elders, a plurality of elders in each local church, and councils of the elders of the churches in a region or a nation.
Historically the "Presbyterian" churches were churches of the Protestant Reformation in Scotland and England that shared with other Protestant churches on the Continent a common understanding of Bible doctrine that is often referred to as "Reformed" (and historically associated with John Calvin in Geneva, Switzerland). In the 1640s the pastors and teachers of the Church of England met to officially reform the English church in the light of Scripture. Among other things they spent several years writing the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. These have since been the defining documents of Presbyterian churches.
Unfortunately, in the last 100 years or so, many Presbyterian churches have wandered away from their Confession because, at bottom, they were accepting man-made philosophies and ideas as being more true than the Bible. So not all "Presbyterians" believe what I have given you above. But those who believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and who still believe - as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church does, by God's grace - the summary of its doctrines in the Westminster Confession, would agree with what I have told you.
I hope this is helpful to you. I have not meant in any way to offend, though sometimes stating things starkly can have that effect. I have tried to be clear about the differences, which is what you asked, and I cannot pretend that I do not think truth is on one side and not on the other. You, of course, may speak with equal frankness and I welcome a reply or further questions.
The Lord guide you in His paths of truth and righteousness. (DK)
If I get well enough to go to church today or tomorrow, I'm going to tackle some of the friars before I get back to you. I have to think what I mean by the Assumption being historical.
Thank you.
Further your thesis that the Dogma was condemned before it was approved has been debunked by multiple poste
One "debunking" at a time, please. You said, "The cut-n-paste claimed proclamation of a Pope that was debunked." So did Pope Hormisdas reaffirm a phony decree or not? Why would Pope Nicolas authoritatively cite a phony decree and falsely attribute it to Pope Gelasius?
And "my thesis" is not that the Dogma was condemned before it was approved, but that the WRITING, IT"S AUTHORS, AND IT"S ADHERENTS, i.e., the Transitus writing of the Assumption of Mary, that theological redaction of ealier accounts, known to be the origin of this teaching into Church teaching via Gregory of Tours, was condemned before the teaching on the Assumption was eventually approved.
What denomination are you?
We' re not going to change the subject that fast. Answer my questions first; Did Pope Nicolas affirm a phony decree or not? Did Pope Nicolas authoritatively cite a phony decree and falsely attribute it to Pope Gelasius, or did he not?
Cordially,
...In all time and all countries the same doctrines...was false because:
Originated by heretics and condemned as heretical by two Popes in the fifth and sixth centuries, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary comes to mind.See? You claimed the DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary was condemned by multiple Popes. That false claim has been laid bare for all to see. You efforts to shift your claims and your cut-n-pastes of limited and unsupported research notwithstanding, your original claim fails.
What denomination are you? And if you again fail to answer, what is it you are ashamed or afraid of?
MD: Okay, serious question: What if someone does not believe the statement above? Note, the question is NOT about the person's trust in Christ alone, but about his thinking about his relationship with Christ, salvation,etc.
That is an interesting question, MD. I would agree with BD that faith in Christ alone for salvation is absolutely essential. But to expand it a bit, we would need to agree on the correct Christ and what "salvation" means. I don't see much problem among Catholics and Reformers as to the former. Most FR Catholics and the Catholic Catechism have convinced me that we agree on the identity of Christ, although we have profound disagreement on many of the things Christ did or did not do.
The next issue occurring to me is WHO does the actual, physical saving? As you know, Reformers would say that Christ does all of it, 100% of it, with no help from or conditions met through our own efforts. I have heard a shorthand for the Catholic faith that amounts to free will faith plus works results in salvation. That is, man cooperates with God and that collaboration results in salvation. Is that fair? If it is, then it sounds like man (including any activity by Mary) is partially responsible (due "credit") for his own salvation. If the relationship with Christ is one of unequals in which both work together and contribute to the desired goal (e.g., a boss and his subordinate work together to complete a project), then I would put that at least to the threshold of a disqualifying error.
However, another view might be that a person must have free will faith and do works and THEN God does all the saving Himself (e.g., a subordinate provides some facts and figures to his boss and his boss then completes the project by himself, taking and deserving all the credit). While I also strongly disagree with this view I would say it is materially different from the first. Is any of this responsive to the issue you were raising?
BTW, I was sorry to read of your illness and I really hope they figure out what's going on soon. I can imagine how frustrating it is to have something like that just keep going. I'll be praying for you. I hope that your being vaporized is of help. :)
I asked for information of the Church’s doctrinal attitude on certain matters. I guess that would be a “corporate you.” I also realize that the instruction you deliver is your “personal” understanding of Church doctrine.
“Help a sick guy out here: what post is that section in quotes from?”
I’m sorry to hear you’re not in good health. You should see a doctor about that before 0bamaCare takes affect. The post was #282.
“Here's a big generalization, probably unfair:”
A generalization functions to help us organize our thinking. If it is “unfair,” or is otherwise maladroit, then it is not helpful. This “binary” Protestant was looking to better understand whether or not the Catholic Church’s doctrinal attitude enables it to join the rest of us who call ourselves ‘Conservative’ in rising to the defense of Western Civilization (in defense of the Judeo-Christian tradition). A nuance is capable of helping us to a sophisticated understanding of a complicated truth. It can also be used to obfuscate an issue. I don’t take your intent to be one of obfuscation. My inquiry was a fairly straight-forward proposition. I was looking for a fairly straight-forward reply. Perhaps that is not possible.
“papist me would be a great deal more likely to be marching and praying with an OPC Presbyterian or a SBC Baptist, (technically, I suppose, heretics and schismatics) than with a modern Episcopalian.”
Nothing technical involved. If one does not formally subscribe to Catholic doctrine, then one is heretic, schismatic, pagan, and ‘outside’ the Church, according to the Catholic point of view. Apparently, you do not take the shunning injunction to the point of not praying or marching in common cause with Christians not of your sect. My assumption is that, like the half of my family that is Catholic, there are many of your persuasion (though certainly not all).
“Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I think OUR differences here are not the threat to the role and place of the Judaeo-Christian in our Countries weltanschauung as is the bastard child liberal progressivism and atheistic humanism.”
Yes. It appears that you and I share a good deal in our worldview. I recognize that there are also many Protestants ‘outside’ Christianity, just as Pelosi, Kennedy, et al, are ‘outside’ Catholicism. The truth is, I consider Pelosi, Kennedy, et al likewise ‘outside’ Christianity. They all (Protestant and Catholic alike) have foresworn their Christian integrity for political expediency or for some other societal ideology.
(2) Actually the question I was raising was (a)How much and in what way do right understanding and/or belief about God 'n Jesus 'n stuff affect one's salvation? (b)See (2a) above but with special reference to right understanding about the faith/works mess.
(3)I am generally concerned that SOME kind of "praxis", some deed or other seems to be involved, however hard we try to get away from it. Sometimes it's amazing and distressing to me that we have so much contention, because I guess that everyone of us in the history of his relationship with Jesus has experienced a moment in which he said, "Yes!" And of that moment, again I GUESS, the best description is, "I did it, yet God did it in me, both to will and to do."
(4)(As an attempt to illuminate a way to think about freedom) I asked someone a trick question the other day: Is God able to lie?
The "trick" is that I'd suggest lying is not an "ability," but a defect or perversion of an ability. The proposed analysis is: The "end" or "object" of communication is to convey what I mean (and to mean the truth.)
The conversations here, even those of the best possible will, show how we are rarely capable even of that. I have wife, child, friends, mentors, students. I strain to tell them what I mean, and I fail again and again. Part is failure of knowledge, part is failure of understanding the person to whom I am communicating (or understanding myself), part is failure in the arts of communication, and part is fear, shame, "need" to control, blah blah.
Even to WANT to convey the truth is a freedom I do not perfectly manifest or experience, at least not often. And when I want to, I still mess up.
So the POWER or ability of God is that He CAN tell the truth, and wants to. For Him to want to lie would be a loss of ability, and since He has neither parts nor passions but is utterly "simple" it would be a loss of "what it is HE is."
Mutatis mutandis and all that other fancy stuff, NOT that we Calflicks are WRONG, mind you, but we have some pretty fancy thinking and talking to do if we are going to maintain that "Free Will" means the "free" act of rejecting Jesus. To act like a corrupt fool MAY be something appropriate to politicians, wait, I mean, MAY sometimes LOOK like freedom (Have sex with, oh, the young Veronica Lake or re-read that tricky passage in Romans, what to do, what to do ...) But it's NOT freedom, it's weakness and failure.
Somehow that seems relevant. Help me out here. At least, if you can, run the same question over the Calvinist matrix, please.
Well, actually I dispute that. I'm busily disputing it with verdadjusticia. I would say NOT that y'all are "outside" but that you're not all the way inside. I also would hesitate to classify all those thing especially "pagan" as having the same degree or kind of outsideness.
If Pelousy et al are Christians, they are very BAD Christians. They certainly are outside the "tradition" of thought which informed the Signers and Founders.
In other news:
I was looking for a fairly straight-forward reply. Perhaps that is not possible.
Well, I fear in my case it's an "improbable possible."
...In all time and all countries the same doctrines...was false because:
Originated by heretics and condemned as heretical by two Popes in the fifth and sixth centuries, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary comes to mind.
It should be clear to any reasonable person that the subject of the statement is the notion of or the belief in the Assumption of Mary, which did not become a DOGMA until 1950. Which, btw itself constitutes a change in "all time and all countries the same doctrines". That which was first not taught for six centuries within the church was brought into the church. That constitutes a change. When it was first brought into the church it was condemned as heretical, but that which began to be taught within the church in the six and seventh centuries constituted a change. When that which was not dogma became dogma in 1950, that also constituted a change.
What denomination are you? And if you again fail to answer, what is it you are ashamed or afraid of?
Did Pope Nicolas affirm a phony decree or not? Did Pope Nicolas authoritatively cite a phony decree and falsely attribute it to Pope Gelasius, or did he not? Answer and then I will answer your question as I promised.
Cordially,
They all (Protestant and Catholic alike) have foresworn their Christian integrity for political expediency or for some other societal ideology.That certainly is the way it looks. Being unable to see into their hearts I cannot be certain but their words and actions simply appear incompatible with the teachings of Our Lord. Sadly often mine fall short as well though. Since we are all certain He is both a Just and a Merciful Judge we can all hope.
Answer and then I will answer your question as I promised.I have no idea. Based on the shoddy research you have been citing I am certain you do not either.
What denomination are you? And if you again (is this the third or is it the fourth time?) fail to answer, what is it you are ashamed or afraid of?
Cordially,
( ^8 }
If you’re saying that our judgments must be tempered by the knowledge of our own shortcomings, then I think you’re right.
Not sure about yours, sadly more sure of mine. :)
It’s wonderful to see you posting again, Forest Keeper. Happy New Year and may God continue to bless you and your family.
And some people think 50-cent words will obscure the fact that Hitler was never ex-communicated from his Roman Catholic church, and that Pius XII was complicit in the Holocaust, and that Ratzinger, current bishop of Rome, was a member of the Hitler Youth.
But I suppose anyone who can believe the magick that men must physically eat the body of Jesus Christ in order to be saved will believe anything.
Once more with feeling...
And some (a) have no sense of humor about 50 cent words (or about much else, least of all themselves) and (b) appear to think that repeating a falsehood makes it true. In some cases they appear to think that repeating several falsehoods, (while insisting that eye-witnesses find corroboration) makes the several falsehoods true.
I think that can be answered in different ways depending on the perspective. I would start with God and say that God sovereignly elects and chooses the yes/no of everyone's salvation. For the "No's" their understanding and/or belief about God, etc. is irrelevant. (Aren't I nice? :) For the "Yes's" God will provide sufficient and necessary understanding and belief about God to ensure salvation, the gift of true faith. This gift includes the requisite applications also, e.g., repentance, perseverance, etc. All of it comes from God.
(b)See (2a) above but with special reference to right understanding about the faith/works mess.
I think from God's perspective He provides all the faith and does all the works, so there is no mess. :) From man's perspective I still don't think there is a mess. True faith produces general good works every single time. Therefore, whether or not a person understands or agrees with that is irrelevant. (Of course to say that I must hold that it is impossible to have true faith and not do works.) In any event, I think there are zillions of people just like you and me, who have true faith, do good works, completely disagree on how faith and works relate to each other, and yet we are probably both fine.
Sometimes it's amazing and distressing to me that we have so much contention, because I guess that everyone of us in the history of his relationship with Jesus has experienced a moment in which he said, "Yes!" And of that moment, again I GUESS, the best description is, "I did it, yet God did it in me, both to will and to do."
Yes, I suppose I separate it by considering the two different perspectives of intellect and experience. Both are good and part of human nature.
(4)(As an attempt to illuminate a way to think about freedom) I asked someone a trick question the other day: Is God able to lie?
I would say "No", God is not able to lie because that would violate His unchanging nature (God is truth) as described in the Bible. If He lied He would cease to be God. Instead, He would be something else, not the God the Bible describes. The same would apply to God ceasing to exist or making a rock He couldn't lift. However, this in no way is a curtailing of God's freedom, which is absolute. When I think of freedom I think of freedom from "what". The only "what" for God would be His own nature, which is defining, so I don't think the issue of freedom would really apply to that.
The "trick" is that I'd suggest lying is not an "ability," but a defect or perversion of an ability. The proposed analysis is: The "end" or "object" of communication is to convey what I mean (and to mean the truth.)
I would say it depends on how "truth" is handled. For example, God asking Adam where he is. The appearance is that the truth is that God doesn't know where Adam is. However, we know the real truth is that He did know where Adam was and the purpose of His communication was to convey to Adam that He required Adam's presence. I would not call this a lie, and God successfully conveyed what He meant and it was the real truth, although it was not necessarily obvious.
Even to WANT to convey the truth is a freedom I do not perfectly manifest or experience, at least not often. And when I want to, I still mess up.
Yes, the remnant of sin is there and we occasionally do not convey the real truth.
So the POWER or ability of God is that He CAN tell the truth, and wants to. For Him to want to lie would be a loss of ability, and since He has neither parts nor passions but is utterly "simple" it would be a loss of "what it is HE is."
I'm not sure I'd put it in those terms, but I think we end in basically the same place. I suppose I wouldn't say that God CAN tell the truth and wants to, but rather that God DOES tell the truth because He IS truth. It is His nature so there is no issue of wanting. We don't think of wanting to breathe air, we just do it because our nature requires it. But as I think you say, if God lost what it is that He is, then He wouldn't be God any more.
To act like a corrupt fool MAY be something appropriate to politicians, wait, I mean, MAY sometimes LOOK like freedom (Have sex with, oh, the young Veronica Lake or re-read that tricky passage in Romans, what to do, what to do ...) But it's NOT freedom, it's weakness and failure.
Yes, and I would add total bondage to sin. Before I became a Christian I sure felt free as a bird in pulling all the crap I did, but little did I know how much in chains I really was. Praise God for rescuing the sorry likes of me. :)
Thanks Dr. E. It’s good to see you again too. I wish a very Happy New Year to you and yours. God bless you.
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.