Posted on 11/28/2014 2:33:31 PM PST by NYer
It was the day after Ash Wednesday in 2012 when I called my mom from my dorm room at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.
“You’re not going to become Catholic, you just know you’re not Southern Baptist,” she said.
“No, I don’t think so.”
A pause. “Oh boy,” she sighed.
I started crying.
I cannot stress enough how much I hated the idea of becoming Catholic. I was bargaining to the last moment. I submitted a sermon for a competition days before withdrawing from school. I was memorizing Psalm 119 to convince myself of sola scriptura. I set up meetings with professors to hear the best arguments. I purposefully read Protestant books about Catholicism, rather than books by Catholic authors.
Further, I knew I would lose my housing money and have to pay a scholarship back if I withdrew from school, not to mention disappointing family, friends, and a dedicated church community.
But when I attempted to do my homework, I collapsed on my bed. All I wanted to do was scream at the textbook, “Who says?!”
I had experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about the faith, and the question of apostolic authority loomed larger than ever.
But let’s rewind back a few years.
I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home. My father was a worship and preaching pastor from when I was in fourth grade onwards. Midway through college, I really fell in love with Jesus Christ and His precious Gospel and decided to become a pastor.
It was during that time that I was hardened in my assumption that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t adhere to the Bible. When I asked one pastor friend of mine during my junior year why Catholics thought Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth when the Bible clearly said Jesus had “brothers,” he simply grimaced: “They don’t read the Bible.”
Though I had been in talks with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church about doing an internship with them, John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life clarified my call to missionary work specifically, and I spent the next summer evangelizing Catholics in Poland.
So I was surprised when I visited my parents and found a silly looking book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic on my father’s desk. What was my dad doing reading something like this? I was curious and hadn’t brought anything home to read, so I gave it a look.
David Currie’s memoir of leaving behind his evangelical education and ministries was bothersome. His unapologetic defense of controversial doctrines regarding Mary and the papacy were most shocking, as I had never seriously considered that Catholics would have sensible, scriptural defenses to these beliefs.
The book’s presence on my father’s desk was explained more fully a few months later when he called me and said he was returning to the Catholicism of his youth. My response? “But, can’t you just be Lutheran or something?” I felt angry, betrayed, and indignant. For the next four months I served as a youth pastor at my local church and, in my free time, read up on why Catholicism was wrong.
During that time, I stumbled across a Christianity Today article that depicted an “evangelical identity crisis.” The author painted a picture of young evangelicals, growing up in a post-modern world, yearning to be firmly rooted in history and encouraged that others had stood strong for Christ in changing and troubled times. Yet, in my experience, most evangelical churches did not observe the liturgical calendar, the Apostles’ Creed was never mentioned, many of the songs were written after 1997, and if any anecdotal story was told about a hero from church history, it was certainly from after the Reformation. Most of Christian history was nowhere to be found.
For the first time, I panicked. I found a copy of the Catechism and started leafing through it, finding the most controversial doctrines and laughing at the silliness of the Catholic Church. Indulgences? Papal infallibility? These things, so obviously wrong, reassured me in my Protestantism. The Mass sounded beautiful and the idea of a visible, unified Church was appealing - but at the expense of the Gospel? It seemed obvious that Satan would build a large organization that would lead so many just short of heaven.
I shook off most of the doubts and enjoyed the remainder of my time at college, having fun with the youth group and sharing my faith with the students. Any lingering doubts, I assumed, would be dealt with in seminary.
I started my classes in January with the excitement of a die-hard football fan going to the Super Bowl. The classes were fantastic and I thought I had finally rid myself of any Catholic problems.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1916
by David L. Holmes
Dr. Holmes teaches religion at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. This article appeared in The Christian Century, December 4, 1985, pp. 1120-1122. Copyright by The Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.
As more and more women enter the ministry, the question emerges in a new way. The issue has become especially problematic in the Episcopal Church, where more than 800 women have been ordained since 1976 into a priesthood whose ranks include many called "Father."
What do you call a woman priest? Two Episcopal priests, Julia M. Gatta and Eleanor McLaughlin, argue in an article by that title (Episcopal Times, October 1981) that "Mother" is the appropriate form of address. Gatta and McLaughlin cite precedents ranging from maternal images for the church and its ministry (Matt. 23:37 and Gal. 4:19) to the Christian practice of calling charismatic women in the desert communities "amma" ("mother") and heads of monastic communities of women "abbess" ("mother").
The authors argue that other possible formal titles -- "Sister," "Mrs.," "Miss," "Ms." and "Doctor" -- put women in subordinate, diminutive or secular roles. Only "Mother," they conclude, "can most easily incorporate [ordained] women into the ongoing tradition of the Church -- a tradition which has recognized the spiritual motherhood of saintly women and of the God whom they served" (p. 4).
Linguist Donald D. Hook also endorses "Mother" as the most appropriate title ("‘Mother’ as Title for Women Priests: A Prescriptive Paradigm," Anglican Theological Review [October 1983], pp. 419-424). Finding that Episcopal usage lacks the parallel titles for men and women clergy, Hook sets up a prescriptive paradigm to facilitate the acceptance of the "best possible title." For Hook that word is "Mother" -- a title, he asserts, that is at once not only familiar and descriptive but also reflects for clergy "the right relationship between man and woman in Christ.’’
Gatta, McLaughlin and Hook speak for the growing number who advocate ‘‘Mother" as the appropriate title for Episcopal women priests. Yet the many Episcopalians who resist using "Father" can likewise be expected to oppose the use of "Mother." And most Protestants would undoubtedly reject both titles. "A wall goes up whenever I hear clergy addressed as ‘Father’ and ‘Mother,"’ a Protestant churchwoman recently told me.
Such opposition, however, is ironic in the context of church history. For American Protestants regularly called their clergy "Father" 200 and 300 years ago, and some continued to do so a century ago. And during the same years, Protestants addressed venerated women in their churches as "Mother."
The title "Father" was used in four ways in addressing clergy (see my article, "Fathers and Brethren," Church History [September 1968], pp. 298-318). In early America "Father" was a title of respect for elderly men. Although, for example, "Mister" (the designation of a gentleman and a college graduate) was the normal title for Puritan clergy in colonial New England, Congregationalists. Baptists, Methodists and German Reformed commonly addressed older ministers as "Father" well into the 19th century.
Furthermore, Protestants also employed the title for younger ministers who influenced Christian commitment and served as spiritual fathers. This usage is evident in the correspondence between early American ministers and their theological students. The journals of Methodist circuit riders as well as the records of Protestant missions to Indians and seamen also indicate this usage. Herman Melville, for example, based his character Father Mapple -- the whaleman-chaplain in Moby Dick -- on Father Edward Thompson Taylor, the Methodist pastor of Boston’s Seamen’s Bethel.
Protestants of earlier centuries also addressed founders of denominations and religious communities as "Father." American Methodists, for example, referred to John Wesley not only as "Mr. Wesley" but also as "Father Wesley." Following the custom in both genders, the Shakers called their matriarch ‘‘Mother’’ and their male leaders "Father."
Closely related was the custom of calling missionary pioneers "Father." In the 19th century, Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregationalist, German Reformed, Methodist and Universalist missionaries were given the title throughout the New South and West. And American Lutherans used "Father" for their pioneer pastors, their first missionary to India, and their patriarch, Father Henry Melchior Muhlenberg.
Few in Protestant churches of earlier generations would have seen a theological problem in addressing spiritual fathers, founders or missionary pioneers as ‘Father." Just as the author of I John addressed as "fathers" the elderly who were advanced in the knowledge of Christ (I John 2:13-14), so Protestant churches applied the title to experienced ministers who had been long in the service of the church. "Fathers and Brethren" sat in ecclesiastical assemblies, and in the New Testament "Father" denoted the difference between generations.
Moreover, if calling clergy "Father" had violated biblical norms, the Christian Church and Disciples of Christ surely would have opposed it, for these groups were formed in an attempt to restore not only the doctrine and practice of primitive Christianity, but also its very nomenclature. Warren Stone’s motto was "Bible names for Bible things." And Thomas and Alexander Campbell stood on the phrase, "Where the Bible speaks, we speak: where it is silent, we are silent." Ridiculing "Reverend" and "Doctor" as "unscriptural," Alexander Campbell even employed the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:8-10 as a motto for his magazine, the Christian Baptist.
Yet church history clearly indicates that members of the Restoration Movement commonly addressed both the Campbells and Stone as "Father." Furthermore, the three founders used the term for their own clergy as well as for each other. And none of the movement’s opponents ever seemed to exploit a contradiction in the movement’s use of "Father" as a clerical title. They apparently saw no contradiction.
The use of "Mother" for Mother Ann Lee of the Shakers, for Mother Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science and for Mother Ellen Gould White of the Seventh-day Adventists clearly illustrates that some 19th-century women religious leaders received the title. And from the time that Protestant denominations began ordaining women in the 19th century, some women clergy have been addressed as mother.
But in the mid-19th century, Protestants began to drop the titles. By the 1920s, only Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and some Episcopal clergy and nuns were being addressed as ‘‘Father’’ or "Mother." The evidence suggests three reasons for this change in nomenclature.
Most significantly, the decline of "Father" in Protestantism coincides with the rise of Irish immigration to the United States in the 1840s. Before that time, Roman Catholic priests in America were usually addressed as "Mister," for most were secular (nonmonastic) clergy with roots in Europe or England, where Roman Catholic practice restricted "Father" to priests of monastic orders. Secular priests were called "Mister," "Monsieur," "Don" or other vernacular equivalents.
Irish Roman Catholics, however, addressed all priests -- whether secular or monastic -- as "Father." And by the end of the Victorian period, the Irish had influenced English-speaking Roman Catholicism to call every priest "Father."
This change clearly influenced Protestant usage. Catholic priests called "Mister" and protestant clergy called "Father" had lived side by side in America. Following the Irish immigrations, however, Protestants began to see the title as redolent of priestcraft and popery.
The reaction was quick. As early as the 1840s, a venerable Congregationalist pastor in Massachusetts suddenly rejected being called "Father" because he "hated every rag of the scarlet lady" (Proceedings at the Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Ordination and Settlement of Rev. Richard S. Storrs . . .[Boston, 18611, p.83). As the 19th century progressed, such reactions became more common.
Second, a literalist, increasingly polemic interpretation of Matthew 23:9 ("And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" [KJV]) supported the change in nomenclature. Like the Reformers, early American Protestants tended to believe that the Matthean passage condemned pharisaic vainglory rather than specific titles. That interpretation was natural, for a literal interpretation of the surrounding verses would also forbid Christians from using "Teacher" and "Mister."
Nevertheless, as more and more Irish Catholic priests moved into the United States, Protestants began to assert that "Father" was unbiblical. The literalist interpretation of Matthew 23:9 became a standard weapon in the arsenal of anti-Catholicism. "He didn’t like to be called Father," wrote a minister about a colleague in 19th-century Massachusetts.
"He wanted to be called Brother Jones. He often used to say: Call no man father upon the earth"’ (Richard Eddy. Universalism in Gloucester, Massachusetts [Gloucester, 1892], p. 98). As a result of this reaction, the 20th century brought generations of American Protestants who knew nothing of ministers addressed as "Father."
Finally, "Father" seems to have died out because it was replaced in Protestant clerical circles by "Doctor." During the colonial period, American colleges conferred few honorary D.D.s or S.T.D.s, and then only on ministers of considerable distinction. From 1636 to 1776, Harvard and Yale together awarded only four S.T.D.s and one D.D.
In the 19th century, however, new denominational colleges proliferated across America. To acquire respectability -- and financial support -- they awarded numerous D.D.s. Standards declined, and ministers openly sought the degree. In 1875 alone, church colleges in America conferred 138 honorary D.D.s -- more than the grand total conferred by all American colleges during the colonial period.
Thus the title of ‘Doctor" gradually replaced "Father" as the professional expectation for Protestant parish clergy. Most Protestant ministers now looked forward to being called" Doctor," honoris causa, so "Father" (and its companion "Mother") virtually disappeared from Protestant use.
In a class by itself is "Reverend." The most common designation for contemporary Protestant clergy, it also seems the most objectionable. To be sure, "Reverend" is gender-free. But it possesses neither a biblical nor a patristic lineage. The King James Version employs the word only once (for God, in Psalms 111:9), and modern versions change even that translation. The title was not used for Christian clergy until the 15th century. And above all, calling only the minister "Reverend’’ seems to contradict Protestant teachings about priesthood and vocation.
On first glance the unsexed noun ‘Doctor" would seem to be an appropriate title. It, however, comes from the academy; as such, as Gatta and McLaughlin declare, it fails "to dramatize the unique and intimate relationship" that clergy have with the community of Christians. A whiff of vain-glory may also surround expectations that church colleges should reward service to Christ with a doctorate.
On first glance also, the simple "Mr.," "Mrs.," "Miss" and "Ms." (or the British honorific "Dame") seem acceptable. By using these, women clergy receive a title parallel to those of their male colleagues. That all of these titles were heavily class-oriented in earlier centuries seems a small matter today.
But an overriding problem remains: Titles like "Mr." and "Ms." are secular and unecumenical, and hence remain open to the same criticism as academic titles. As Hook points out, they fail to portray "esteem, trust, and significant pastoral and family-type relationships."
In contrast, "Brother" and "Sister" seem far more appropriate. They place authority within the context of a family, and they are biblical in origin. The titles are historical and ecumenical; Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and most other Christian traditions (including Anglican evangelicals) have used them. Given the words of Jesus in Mark 3:35, the titles could also prove exhortative.
Yet "Brother" and "Sister" carry with them an almost insurmountable practical problem: the expectation that both clergy and laity will receive them. Such a thoroughgoing reform of congregational language seems improbable, if not impossible, in many denominations.
As for "Father" and "Mother," any argument for their revival must overcome at least three obstacles.
First, Protestants seek biblical warrant for doctrine and practice, and there is no scriptural evidence that early Christians used "Father" or "Mother" as titles for ordained people. When it emerged as a church title in the patristic period, "Father" applied only to bishops. To be sure, Paul refers to himself as the "father" of some Christian communities and individuals, but only because he nurtured them in the gospel. No congregation called him "Father Paul."
Second, during the centuries when American Protestants addressed ministers as "Father," they conferred the title voluntarily on deserving ministers; they did not automatically bestow it on every 25-year-old ordinand. Finally, Protestants addressed not only deserving clergy but also revered laity as "Father" and "Mother".
Hence the quest for an appropriate title is elusive. However, one title may -stand out from the others: "Pastor." "Pastor" is at once biblical, historical, gender-free, reflective of a deeply caring relationship, and consistent with Reformation teachings about priesthood and vocation. It is also the most ecumenical of all possible titles, being used by Christian clergy from storefront preachers to the pope.
But until or unless the other major Christian traditions adopt the title of "Pastor," all Protestants might consider lowering walls and contributing in a small but significant way to the ecumenical movement by voluntarily calling their clergy "Father" and "Mother." Protestant churches in America conferred "Father’’ and "Mother" voluntarily without controversy for 200 years; they could surely do so again. And lest ministers "make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long and . . . love . . . salutations in the market places" (Matt. 23:5-7), the titles should remain voluntary.
"Father" and "Mother" do not violate biblical nomenclature, and they have the sanction of Protestant tradition. Neither sacerdotal nor conventual, they have been employed by fervent Baptists as well as by biblicist Disciples of Christ. Not terms of self-exaltation, they were used voluntarily by congregations and colleagues to express affection and respect. More than "Mr.," "Mrs ," "Ms.," "Dame" or "Dr.," "Father" and "Mother" portray the strong familial nature of Christ’s church.
verga, please don’t continue posting this stuff to me. A hyperlink will do nicely. Thanks, sorta. R2z
I did not write "immediately after," but rather "after" setting no time interval for the transition. You erroneously assumed one and attributed the error to me. There were five major churches, the so called Pentarchy, Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria. I suppose the first written evidence shows up in Clement's Epistle sometime around 95-97 AD, but it grew more prominent over time.
On that note of history, can you provide an alternative for the holy catholic apostolic church that is visible and historical ? Will you name the names ? Everyone else I ask either admits there is no alternative, plays dumb, or gives a false reply.
"Nicolaitanism Or The Rise and Growth of the Clerisy" (click here), by F. W. Grant
(excerpt)
"The address to Pergamos follows that to Smyrna. This next stage of the Church’s journey in its departure (alas!) from truth may easily be recognized historically. It applies to the time when, after having passed through the heathen persecution, and the faithfulness of many an Antipas being brought out by it, it got publicly recognized and established in the world. The characteristic of this epistle is, the Church dwelling where Satan’s throne is. "Throne" it should be, not "seat." Now Satan has his throne, not in hell, which is his prison, and where he never reigns at all, but in the world, he is expressly called the "prince of this world." To dwell where Satan’s throne is, is to settle down in the world, under Satan’s government, so to speak, and protection. That is what people call the establishment of the Church. It took place in Constantine’s time. Although amalgamation with the world had been growing for a long time more and more decided, yet it was then that the Church stepped into the seats of the old heathen idolatry. It was what people call the triumph of Christianity, but the result was that the Church had the things of the world now as never before, in secure possession: the chief place in the world was hers, and the principles of the world every-where pervaded her."
Other views have been proposed:
Who were the Nicolaitans? (vclick here)
(excerpt) -- H.A. Ironside:
"...we have the introduction of wrong principles within -- the teaching of the Nicolaitanes. Others have often pointed out that this is an untranslated Greek word meaning, 'rulers over the people.' Nicolaitanism is really clerisy* -- the subjugation of those who were contemptuously styled 'the laity' by a heirarchical order who lorded it over them as their own possessions, forgetting that it is written, 'One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.' In the letter to Ephesus the Lord commended them for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, those who, like Diotrephes, loved to have the preeminence among them. But, in the Pergamos letter, we have Nicolaitanism designated as a distinct system of teaching. It was then that clerisy was accepted as of divine origin, and therefore something that must be bowed to."
=================
The logical conclusion of amother layer to regulate the priests, followed by yet another layer to regulate the regulators, of course, leads to the creation of a papacy, one person high-jacking the supreme role of Jesus the Lord Christ, and pretending to be Christ's right hand man (which Peter tried to do while Jesus was yet alive and teaching the disciples). Jesus rather liberally verbally spanked anyone trying to do that, with Peter as the primary one.
Duh!
I remember seeing a good illustration like that, by one Clarance Larkin. He had illustrations for everything.
Jesus’ command to not call religious figures by the term *Father* is direct and clear cut.
Funny how RC’s castigate non-Catholics for the dangers of sola Scriptura and coming up with interpretations that are not valid, and yet here we see pages of stuff explaining away why they disobey the clear and direct command of Jesus to call no man- no religious leader- father.
That is a total non-answer to bb’s request.
Michael Rood is a false prophet and a fraud.
All kinds of evidence for that can be found anywhere on the internet.
Note that post 821 is written by a protestant author for a protestant publication.
The problem with the Gregorian calendar is the same problem with the Julian.
It is man made..
He gave us His calendar. it is in His sky. It was taught to Israel for the 40 years before they got into the promised land..
It is located throughout scripture.,our Savior’s life followed it..
What makes the Julian and Gregorian ‘bad’ is the fact that scripture, like Daniel 7:25 , says prophetically that the enemy would think to change Times and Laws..
It is something we can test, prove, study just like Bereans.
Change times?
Julian and the latest version Gregorian ? Check
Change law?
Catholics certainly have changed the ten commandments- sort of hiding the commandment about idols..
And certainly most of Christendom has accepted Sunday as their Sabbath and congregation holy time.. Check..
Revelation 13 gives us a satanic trinity. That trinity will cause people to worship the beast (breaking the 1st commandment), they will cause people to worship the image ( breaking the 2nd commandment), they will blaspheme His name ( breaking the 3rd commandment) and cause people to receive a mark on their forehead or hand where they will not be able to buy or sell ( 4th commandment, keep it holy- do not buy or sell- Heavenly Father’s Seal (name,title, territory located in the Sabbath commandment)
From Daniel and Revelation, believers in scripture can test, prove and spot the vessels of the enemy..and see just how he may fulfill the prophecy that he deceives the whole world,even the elect.
in my case, how much a part of it I played in my own worship and faith life..
Considering Rome plays a rather prophetic part in bible history and the fact that the world’s calendar used today is named after a Roman pontiff is not something I discount as just coincidence.. it is just over 400 years old.. not that much older than the reformation itself.
If the calendar said Mohammad, people would question it a lot more..
Satan deceived Eve..He can certainly deceive us.. and has his sites on those people who specifically hold to the Truth of scripture.. he already has the Muslims and the secular humanists and the atheists, etc..
He wants to change times, laws and cause us to break and transgress what our Savior says that if we love Him, we will obey..
Our sins are forgiven Praise Yah!
But some rather bad stuff happens to those who wander after the beast..
And one way to deceive the elect is to convince them they are not wandering after the beast..
My first entry in this forum was about a little Hebrew letters and the number calculating of the beast because in study, it brought to mind ash wednesday, and the article mentions it.
That numbering,
Taw, resh, kaf,kaf, kaf and waw is six hundred three score and six in Hebrew.
Means nothing until one researches what each of those letters mean in a concordance.
Taw- mark, sign
Resh- forehead
Kaf- hand/palm/sole of foot
Kaf- hand/palm/sole of foot
Kaf- hand/palm/sole of foot
Waw- tent peg
Anything about that follow Rome or Christendom in any way?
If we are honest, certainly Rome and ash Wednesday.. and maybe the entire description of the crucifixion..
What if Rome has been a vessel to counterfeit the real Messiah/Savior?
If Rome stood alone, it would be easy to spot... but they don’t.. they are the mother.
Their Jesus is the christian Jesus
Their Christmas is the christian Christmas standard
Their easter is the christian easter standard
Their sunday is the christian Sunday standard
Maybe that is what John was seeing.. a bunch of people using a name he never heard before.. crossing themselves and putting crosses on their foreheads.. bowing to statues. Setting up trees and painting eggs...
And watching them break all the commandments at the same time.
Not because they are not sincere..
They have been deceived.. and following traditions of men.
If one sees no problem with the world and its systems, they may never see how the enemy runs the world..
Praise Yah, Our Savior has overcome the world and calls us to overcome as well..
We all meet Him as Jesus.. He didn’t let me stay there..
And it made no sense until I started studying..
My worry is those things people call harmless or insignificant are actually very significant and harmful to not just the loss of rewards but the loss of salvation..
I can see how my whole worship life was based on Rome even though I had ‘nothing’ to do with the Roman Catholic Church..
I didn’t know how much Rome influenced my life.. and I wasn’t prepared to let them determine my future..
If this is wrong, then I have gotten a headstart in observing His Kingdom calendar and the fact that Christians worship differently makes no difference.
It means that maybe their can be some unity between Catholics and protestants on the forum and less arguing.
If this is right, then lots of folks should study this for themselves and test and see what their ‘faith’ is in or revisit the bible’s warnings.
If the name jesus
December 25
Easter
Sunday
Is your basis of faith and worship, like it was mine, He showed me that this actually could be the beast’s counterfeit version.. an Antichrist.
Not one that stands opposed as we understand the word anti today.. but anti , which in the concordance I have also means ‘instead of’ or ‘in place of’.
I don’t read scripture the same way since. An ‘in place of’ or ‘substitute’.. a fake, phony, counterfeit..
I even found two ‘witnesses’ in the new testament that the name Jesus was replaced with Joshua.
Which would mean that even the name Jesus could be changed as translators have done it in newer bibles ( acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8- those were two Jesus verses in my 1599 Geneva Bible- they deleted those two Jesuses and replaced them with Joshua in updated versions - if they can do that with two, they could certainly have done it with the other 900 plus, and it wouldn’t change one Truth in Scripture- it would change Christendom fundamentally)
And it wouldn’t matter if you are a part of Rome or a daughter..
That isn’t good news.. in fact it is highly offensive news to those preparing for a holy day in a few weeks..
And I was right there with everyone.. until He wouldn’t let me join a church..
I asked, sought and knocked..
And I hope that everyone is saved... I don’t hate the pope.. I feel sorry for him.. and Catholics, and protestants, and Jews and Muslims, and secular humanists and atheists etc..
If He can lead me to this, He can lead anyone to it. it iscontrary to everything one has ever been taught or believed..
Like they have been lied to by the world for their entire lives.
It isn’t just a calendar.. the calendar is just one piece of a journey to what my faith is in and what I can defend scripturally.
Is the mark still future or is it going on today? People better pray it is later..
Because by my observation, December 25 today is a very difficult day to buy or sell anything.. if not for movie theaters, 24/7 diners and maybe some Asian restaurants, lots of places are shut down that day to the pont where it is almost impossible to buy or sell.
And Christians fight for that..defend it.. imagine if that is actually part of what John could see in his revelation? A day where people who did not adhere to Rome and their holy days, one could not buy or sell.
It happened before- by decree.. it was called Sunday centuries ago..and people were not allowed to work.. and that directive came from constantine.. funny, a Roman emperor..
So you abide by the Gregorian calender when it suits your needs. Interesting.
The calendar of the Kingdom is free..
We just look up..
No need to buy it.. He created it for us.. the sun, moon and stars...
Because you and the english world call today Thor’s day doesn’t change the fact Scripture doesn’t..
Read 831... can’t make it much plainer to Bb..or anyone else..
Once again the ugly head of the fraud Michael Rood is raised. His Occult based calender. Did his “millennium” start in 2000 as he predicted?
How lazy.
Besides, it's much more than five paragraphs. :^')
Yet I see that there near the end, you highlighted by bolding the last two double-talking (insisting on having things both ways) paragraphs, when the actual answer is in the paragraph preceding.
Not really, as Holmes himself goes on to include...
There's the answer, staring straight at us all.
No excuses. Let us obey God rather than be cowed by the browbeating of those who love their not-quite-so-biblical, even anti-biblical titles, tradition requiring that members of the church address a select *few* isolated others by the title "Father".
What other than (in this instance) the ill-founded, though admittedly now rather ancient traditions of men established that counter-biblical practice -- which in this regard can and has at time & place (but not always) helped play a part in rendering in effect the teachings of God to have been of no effect?
(it's the only liberation theology worth it's salt and pepper)
He hates any human raising themselves above other humans to dictate the beliefs of others. Only His Scripture of the Holy Ghost has that function, and is the supreme authority of both faith and practice not shared with any human organization.
Yet you will write in on your checks to get your money won’t 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.