Posted on 04/27/2016 8:41:02 AM PDT by Salvation
The second reading from last Sunday’s Mass (5th Sunday of Easter) is very Catholic, and too informative to merely pass up. It presents the Church as rather highly organized and possessed of some of the structures we know today in full form. Granted, some of these structures are in seminal form, but they are there.
We will also notice qualities of the original kerygma that are at variance with what some modern thinkers declare should be the methodology of the Church. The soft Christianity of those who replace the cross with a pillow and who insist on solely inclusion and affirmation is strangely absent in this early setting.
Let’s look the first reading from the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 14:21-27) and see there the true path of priests, teachers, and leaders in the Church. Four steps are prescribed for our consideration, by noting that they went forth announcing, admonishing, appointing, and accounting.
I. Announcing – The text says, After Paul and Barnabas had proclaimed the good news to that city and made a considerable number of disciples …
Notice that the happiness is linked to the harvest. By proclaiming the Good News, they yield a great harvest. As Catholics, we are not sent out merely to proclaim a list of duties; we are sent to proclaim the Gospel. And the Gospel is this: God so loved the world that He sent his Son, who by dying and rising from the dead has purchased for us a whole new life, free from sin and the rebellious obsessions of this world. He is victorious over all the death-directed drives of this world. Simply put, he has triumphed over these forces and enabled us to walk in newness of life.
God save us from brands of the faith in which rules and obligations are all that is heard by sour-faced saints, dead disciples, fussy Pharisees, bored believers, and frozen chosen. Save us from Pharisaical philosophers who are obsessed with particulars not even commanded by God, who sneer at things they consider beneath than their preferences.
No, we are sent to announce a new life, a life free from the bondage of sin, rebellion, sensuality, greed, lust, domination, and revenge. We are sent to announce a life of joy, confidence, purity, chastity, generosity, and devotion to the truth rooted in Love.
Yes, here is a joyful announcement rooted in the cry Anastasis (Resurrection)! New Life! The old order of sin is gone and a new life of freedom from sin is here!
Did everyone accept this as good news? No. Some, indeed many, were offended and sought to convict Christians as “disturbers of the peace.” Some don’t like to have their sin and bondage called out as such. They prefer bondage, sin, and darkness to light, holiness, and freedom.
As Catholics, we announce what is intrinsically good news, and we ought to start sounding like it by proclaiming it with joy. We must proclaim it without the bitterness and anger that are indicative of those who are more interested in winning an argument than in joyfully announcing something wonderful, freeing, and true.
II. Admonishing – The text says, … they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch. They strengthened the spirits of the disciples and exhorted them to persevere in the faith, saying, “It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.”
Preaching/teaching is a process. You don’t just preach or teach once and then move on; you return and reiterate. Paul and Barnabas are retracing their steps back through towns they have already evangelized. They do not just come, have a tent revival, and move on. They return and, as we shall see, they establish the Church.
Notice what they do:
1. Encourage – They strengthened the spirits of the disciples.
2. Exhort – They exhorted them to persevere in the faith.
3. Explain – They explained by saying, “It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.”
Let’s focus especially on the last the point. Paul and Barnabas teach that if you’re not willing to endure the cross, no crown will come your way. If you can’t stand a little disappointment, if you can’t stand being talked about, if you think you should always be up and never down, then I’ve come to remind you: No cross, no crown.
Yes, beware of “cross-less” Christianity. We do have good news to proclaim but there is also the truth that we get to the resurrection and the glory through the cross. There is a test in every testimony, a trial in every triumph. There are demands of discipleship, requirements for renewal, laws of love, and sufferings set forth for Saints.
Good preaching combines the hardship and the happiness in one message. It is a joy to follow in the footsteps of our Lord, who endured hostility, hardship, and the horrors of the cross but still triumphed and showed that the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. Yes, He caught the wise in their craftiness and showed that the thoughts of the wise in this word are futile (cf 1 Cor 3:20). He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them (paradoxically) by the cross (cf Col 2:15).
Thus, St. Paul and Barnabas announce the cross, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles (cf 1 Cor 1:23). Many today insist that the Church soft-pedal the cross, that she use honey, not vinegar. No can do. We joyfully announce and uphold the paradox of the cross. We must be willing to be a sign of contradiction to this world, which sees only pleasure and the indulgence of sinful drives as the way forward, which exalts freedom without truth or obedience, and which calls good what God calls sinful.
Too many so-called Christian denominations have adopted the pillow as their image and have a “give the people what they want” mentality. That is 180 degrees out of phase with the cross.
The Catholic Church does not exist to reflect the views of its members, but to reflect the views of its founder and head, Jesus Christ. As He went out to die, Jesus announced the cross without ambiguity, saying, Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me (John 12:31-32).
And so we announce the cross not merely as suffering, but as life, power, and love. By the power of the cross, it is possible to live without sin, to overcome rebellion, pride, lust, and greed; it is possible to learn to forgive and to live the truth in love.
The world will hate us for this. But such hardships, such crosses, are necessary preludes to the hallelujah of Heaven. The Church can do no less than to point to the cross. The center of our faith is a cross not a pillow. And the cross is our only hope (Ave Crux spes unica nostra (Hail, O Cross, our only hope).
Yes, the Church announces the cross and admonishes a world obsessed with pleasure and with passing, fake happiness.
III. Appointing – The text says, They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith. Then they traveled through Pisidia and reached Pamphylia. After proclaiming the word at Perga they went down to Attalia.
And thus we see the ordination of priest leaders in every place. “Priest” is just an English mispronunciation of the word “presbyter.” Paul and Barnabas did not simply go about vaguely preaching and then moving on. They established local churches with a structure of authority. The whole Pauline corpus of writings indicates a need to continue oversight of these local churches and to stay in touch with the priest leaders established to lead these local parishes.
Later, St. Paul spoke of the need for this structure in other places when he wrote (to Titus),
This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you (Titus 1:5).
This appointment was done through the laying on of hands and is called ordination today. It was a way of establishing order and office in the Church to make sure that the work continued and that the Church was governed by order. This is why we call the sacrament involved here the “Sacrament of Holy Orders.”
Note, too, that a critical task for leaders in the Church is to develop and train new leaders. Too many parishes depend on individual charismatic and gifted leaders whose inevitable departure leaves a void, not an ongoing ministry or organization. This should not be so. Good leaders train new leaders.
IV. Accounting – The text says, From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now accomplished. And when they arrived, they called the church together and reported what God had done with them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.
Note that Paul and Barnabas are now returning to render an account for what they have done. Accountability is part of a healthy Church. Every priest should render an account to his bishop, every bishop to his metropolitan and to the Pope. Today’s ad limina visits of bishops to the Pope is the way this is done. Further, priests are accountable to their bishop through various mechanisms such as yearly reports and other meetings.
A further background to this text is that Paul and Barnabas are returning to Antioch because it was from there that they were sent forth by the local bishops and priests on this missionary task.
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off (Acts 13:2).
Thus St. Paul was not the lone ranger that some think him to be. He was sent and was accountable.
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days (Gal 1:15-18).
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain (Gal 2:1).
The preacher and teacher must be accountable: For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So each of us shall give account of himself to God (Rom 14:10-12).
And thus we see some paths for priests, preachers, teachers, and leaders. We must announce the Gospel as good news, with joy and confidence. We must admonish a world obsessed with pleasures to embrace the cross as our only hope. We must continue to develop, train, and appoint leaders to follow after us. And we must be accountable to one another.
A nice and quick portrait of some healthy traits for the Church!
But which you fail to establish, and which is contrary to the evidence otherwise which you hardly interact with, as your argumentation is much that of assertions and arguments that the texts do not teach.
And, applying the Granville Sharp Rule, the pastors are a separate group from the teachers (the διδασκαλοι didaskaloi), and that doesn't leave much room for them.
They are a separate group, as are apostles from teachers, and we see in Acts 13:1 that there were "certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen," but (applying the rule against a false dilemma) pastors being listed separate from teachers does not mean pastors do not teach and do not have much "room" for ministry any more than apostles being separate from pastors and teachers means they do not engage in both. Nor does it mean that the persons in each office could not have more than one gift.
But as per the term, the main function of pastors is to shepherd the flock: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine" (1 Timothy 5:17) They need not have the gift of teaching, but they still must be able to. For while apostles were the chief pastors, and deacons in some sense also pastured, yet the apostles appointed presbuteros/episkopos to "take care of the church of God" (1Tim. 3:5) thus requiring them being "apt to teach" and threby "feed the flock" with the word of God as its overseers, (Acts 20:28,32) and to "reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine," (2 Timothy 4:2) and to whom obedience is enjoined. (Heb. 13:17) This is incontrovertible, and which pastoring is not said of deacons, while you have not shown why presbuteros/episkopos does not refer to the same persons, as Scripture shows they did.
Now, the literal pastors of the first local church, the prototype at Jerusalem, were the seven deacons.
Which assertion can only mean that they help the head pastors in ministering to temporal needs, though as with Phillip, such could also function as evangelists. But it is clear that besides apostles, presbuteros/episkopos are the ones charged with teaching and functioning as pastors of the flock.
That ministry was separated so that the twelve could give themselves continually over to the ministry of the Word and prayer, which would be the figurative "feeding" of the spiritual needs of the "flock" of the assembly (as well as each other), which is--now guess, eh?--teaching. Thus, this asrrangement defined who the pastors and teachers were, and what they did.
For the moment leaving the issue of episkopoi and presbuteroi aside,
You left them aside for sure, only to later leap to asserting that episkopos, and presbuteros are not truly interchangeable, equivalent, synonomous despite the fact that this is what the Holy Spirit describes them as being.
So who are the pastors in Eph. 4:11? If the office of deacon is not comprised by "pastor" there is no place for the deacon, is there?
No, as again, besides apostles it is clear that presbuteros/episkopos are described and charged with functioning as pastors. The best you can say is that the term pastors no more excludes presbuteros than it excludes deacons, but the latter are not the ones shown or described spiritually pastoring the flock.
[Peter] is commanded to "feed" the lambs of the flock (1 Pet. 2:2,3) while the Shepherd is away. Here, he is given the task of getting little new lambs to suckle on their mother ewes, getting the "milk" of the Gospel, which is sustaining the saving faith until full assurance is a real felt experience, and the stronger food of discernment is in the offing (Heb. 5:13-14). You see the analogy, do you not? There is only one Spiritual Pastor, One Shepherd (Jn. 10:16). A teacher is just a nurse for the little spiritual babes, a mower who distributes hay for the weak ones, and shows the stronger where to graze.
Wrong, as presbuteros/episkopos are clearly described as shepherding the flock, as its overseers. And which includes rebuking rebellious souls sharply, (Titus 1:13) as well as leaders who sin. (1Tim. 5:20)
As a presbuteros Peter would not forsake the needs of the assembly and "go a-fishing." He woyuld be present as a didaslalos as they gather together to teach everything whatsoever he had heard Jesus command,
But presbuteros are the ones charged with teaching and spiritually pastoring under the apostles, and nowhere are deacons charged with teaching, but they minister, and the word is even used for a female who ministered, (Rm. 16:1) but not by teaching men.
The functions of pastor, episkopos, and presbuteros are not truly interchangeable, and most certainly are not equivalent, nor are they at all synonomous. To think so is dramatically wrong.
Which is just as baseless and absurd as it was the first time someone said it, and your laborious description of Peter or the preceding utterly fails to teach what you assert. Titus is charged by Paul to ordain presbuteros in every city, and which are called episkopos, (Titus 1:5,7) and gives Timothy the requirements for episkopos, taking care of the church, as he did in keeping his own children in subjection, (1Tim, 3:1-7) and goes on state that presbuteros who rule well are to be counted worthy of double honour. (1Tim. 5:17) Paul calls all the Ephesian presbuteros together and charges them with feeding the flock as its episkopos, (Acts 20;17,32) never inferring any distinction btwn the two, but showing that episkopos are presbuteros and presbuteros are episkopos.
Please read 1 Peter 5:1-11, and come to terms with the fact that the common current church manifestation of rule is so way out of balance, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or Baptist, that none of such congregations are any longer effective of prospering in their worldly-oriented polities. They need to be restored to the New Testament model.
It is aberrant teaching as yours that gives Rome ammunition. While all the above have problems, with Catholicism being in its own class, esp. Rome, the main theme in your ecclesiology is that of rejection of authority. However, as said, Paul charges pastors to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine," (2 Timothy 4:2) "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee," (Titus 2:15) and the writer of Hebrews charges, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:17)
The deacons diakonoi, when functioning scripturally, are the pastors literally serving and managing the physical needs of the constituents of the assembly, exclusively.
Which is simply not what they are charged with or described as as doing, as instead the only description of their duties was to take care of the physical feeding, though some as Philip also functioned as evangelists. You whole eisegesis seems driven by an animus against authority.
The episkopos is the business manager and ruler of the physical plant, the personnel relationships, and interactions with the worldly community.
Which simply more reading into the text what is not there, as while they are to have a good testimony, their active functions are to care for the church, and be "apt to teach," and "feed the flock," rebuke, exhort," etc. as shown.
A bishop [episkopos] then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:2-5)
The presbuteroi, the elders, have responsibility for the teaching of the assembly, especially as directed toward one-on-one or one-on- or -very few disciple-making and training in the never-ending process of bringing constituents to full stature in the Lord, following the Great Commission in detail, and making the recruitment of new disciples the overruling concern for even having an assembly.
As shown, presbuteroi are charged with feeding the flock as its episkopos, (Acts 20:28,32) and the terms are elsewhere shown to be synonymous, and never in any manifest distinction, despite the desire of some to see such.
Each local assembly is scripturally meant to be autonomous, not "catholic" in polity nor engaging in attempts to rule beyond the local church.
And how do you get this out of Acts 15? Granted, the limited unity of the NT church was under clearly abundantly manifest men of God, (2Co. 6:4-10; 12:12) of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12) but the principal of consensual centralized leadership, in scope as far as practical, with the veracity of its judgments resting upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation, is certainly what is Scriptural and a goal to be sought, despite the Roman abomination of it. A lot of autonomous churches of variegated variant beliefs, and so that heretics can jump from one to another, is not.
You went to a Catholic high school and didn't have a Bible??????I graduated from a Catholic high school in 1957 and by the time that I graduated, I had read through the Bible twice....have done so several times since.
Your concept of Christianity is totally skewed...Catholicism IS Christianity, fully and completely. The various "denominations" which sprang up as the result of the revolution, are all either in error or at best incomplete.. Catholics are not Christians because they believe in the Sacraments and Baptism, but believe in those things because they are TOTALLY Christian.....to deny the Sacraments and still claim Christianity is in error and incomplete.
No wonder that seminary-trained young men are handed the key role in a local church, and tries to be all three with no relief. Then is physically, mentally, and spiritually worn out and burned out before the age of fifty.
Peter called himself an elder, not a pastor. Peter didn't identify himself as a theologian, either, but instead pointed to Paul.
Your argument goes on and on continually misidentifying function with title and titles with other titles until none has any meaning except that which you assign to them. You need to unravel in a systematic way until you get back to basics. Then you will have a New Testament Church.
If you want to get an idea of how one operates, attend a "Plymouth"-brethren-type church, where there are no pastors of the kind found in the Reformed descendants of the Roman episcopacy. In the Romanist-modeled military-type episcopacy, you have the commissioned officers, then you have other ranks. Just like the armies of thew world. That's not the kind of church that Paul gave to the Gentile world. He didn't set them up as a two-class, clergy-run vs subjugated lay people hierarchies. They were assemblies governed by a plurality of spiritually mature elders.
=============
Just a couple of comments on a typical volume, "Reimagining Church," by Frank Viola which treats this issue:
The body of Christ has been stifled by human traditions for far too long. Reimagining Church charts a fresh course for the church that recovers the simplicity of Christ and listens seriously to what the voice of the Great Shepherd is saying to His people.”
Jon Zens,
editor of Searching Together
and author of A Church Building Every ½ Mile: What Makes American Christianity Tick?
----
“If Pagan Christianity exposes the reality that much of our current church practice has little basis in the Bible, Reimagining Church takes the next step to establish what truly biblical church life looks like. With the inner life of the Trinity as the starting point, Viola paints an amazing picture of organic church life.”
John White, community facilitator at LK10:
A Community of Practice for Church Planters
==========
What I have written, though different than your preferred model, is not aberrant to scripture, nor does it give ammunition to the Romanists. Rather, it does fatally undercut the paganicity with which the Roman model and its poor Protestant models are shot through. The Protestants had a good start on reforming the catholic faith, but failed to carry it through to completion and wound up with several dividing flaws, one being keeping the two-class culture, were the Protestant pastor/elder/bishop is roughly equivalent to a Catholic priest.
No wonder that seminary-trained young men are handed the key role in a local church, and tries to be all three with no relief. Then is physically, mentally, and spiritually worn out and burned out before the age of fifty.
Peter called himself an elder, not a pastor. Peter didn't identify himself as a theologian, either, but instead pointed to Paul.
Your argument goes on and on continually misidentifying function with title and titles with other titles until none has any meaning except that which you assign to them. You need to unravel in a systematic way until you get back to basics. Then you will have a New Testament Church.
If you want to get an idea of how one operates, attend a "Plymouth"-brethren-type church, where there are no pastors of the kind found in the Reformed descendants of the Roman episcopacy. In the Romanist-modeled military-type episcopacy, you have the commissioned officers, then you have other ranks. Just like the armies of thew world. That's not the kind of church that Paul gave to the Gentile world. He didn't set them up as a two-class, clergy-run vs subjugated lay people hierarchies. They were assemblies governed by a plurality of spiritually mature elders.
=============
Just a couple of comments on a typical volume, "Reimagining Church," by Frank Viola which treats this issue:
The body of Christ has been stifled by human traditions for far too long. Reimagining Church charts a fresh course for the church that recovers the simplicity of Christ and listens seriously to what the voice of the Great Shepherd is saying to His people.”
Jon Zens,
editor of Searching Together
and author of A Church Building Every ½ Mile: What Makes American Christianity Tick?
----
“If Pagan Christianity exposes the reality that much of our current church practice has little basis in the Bible, Reimagining Church takes the next step to establish what truly biblical church life looks like. With the inner life of the Trinity as the starting point, Viola paints an amazing picture of organic church life.”
John White, community facilitator at LK10:
A Community of Practice for Church Planters
==========
What I have written, though different than your preferred model, is not aberrant to scripture, nor does it give ammunition to the Romanists. Rather, it does fatally undercut the paganicity with which the Roman model and its poor Protestant models are shot through. The Protestants had a good start on reforming the catholic faith, but failed to carry it through to completion and wound up with several dividing flaws, one being keeping the two-class culture, were the Protestant pastor/elder/bishop is roughly equivalent to a Catholic priest.
We never had a Bible in our house nor did I ever see one in the Catholic school I attended for almost five years.
Holy moly TC, you graduated high school in 1957? Man, you are older than dirt, but that's ok.
No, I didn't have a Bible, and we did not study it. We did have to listen to the priest in religion class, because we were told we could not read the Bible, unless the priest told us what it meant. We did get catechism, but I was not really interested in ANY religion, so I didn't pay much attention. I was a man of the world, so to speak to speak. I couldn't be bothered with any kind of "religion."
Then, the Navigator dudes came along. What impressed me about them, is they were not hypocrites. They talked the talk, and walked the walk. No one in that "other religion" I was in, ever did that. They GAVE me a ASV, and said read it. I did, that I is why I am no longer in that "other religion."
If others want to remain in "other religions," that's on them. I just want to know how they plan to bluff their way into Heaven, cuz if "religious people" go to Hell, what difference does it all make?
Now, I have Bible studies, and I ONLY invite my Catholic friends, and yes, I have many catholic friends. We have some good discussions. It's ok, I guess. 😄😀😇
I suppose a lot of Catholics can't understand anyone coming away from Catholicism
I too never had a bible, just a Baltimore Catechism ...
Still remember #1 ...
Who is God ?
God is the creator of heaven and earth and all things
it served us little kids but Catholicism never much planned for little kids to grow up to be adults and have a healthy curiosity about "What's it all about, Alfie ?"
I met Jesus in '81 and HE had all the answers I needed for every question
I suppose not. Such is life, as they say. Anyway, I was a pretty rough sinner, and I enjoyed sinning. A true man of the world was I.
I do remember, however, telling my science teacher nun, that I wanted to go to Heaven. She looked at me, and her facial expression told me, that the concept of Heaven was a total shock to her psyche. My opinion is, she didn't think anyone was going to Heaven, least of all, me.
Now, I don't like sin much, but there is one sin I enjoy committing, the sin of presumption, since I have assurance of salvation. If some people don't have it, that's on them.
We had two bibles in our house. My Dad’s Catholic bible and Mom’s King James Bible.
My S-I-L's house was damaged by one blowing up just a street over from her's.
I'd have to agree.
With a LOT of other, unneeded, stuff tossed in.
If others want to remain in "other religions," that's on them.
True.
After we've TOLD them; over and over again; their choice is theirs alone.
They can choose to be reconciled to GOD, or reconciled to an organization.
It worked; didn't it; for a while: "..the pleasures of sin for a season..."
It appears that many of our Catholic FRiends here feel the same way about us Prots.
Which edition was your dad using?
Really? My impression is the opposite. Protestantism -- at least as represented on these threads -- looks like little kids playing house. They mimic the grown-ups without grasping the reality they mimic. Like 10-year olds, they're given to schoolyard taunts, they're literal minded (when it suits them), they have a flat, one-dimensional, linear view of reality, they ridicule what they don't understand, and resist anything that doesn't fit their childish perceptions.
It worked; didn't it; for a while: "..the pleasures of sin for a season..."
Yes it did, but now that I am an ex Catholic, I hate sin, except for the sin of presumption. I kind of like that one. Care to join me?
By the way Elsmeister, do you think that a lot of problems go all the way back to Nimrod? 😇😎
I protest nothing
Those whacko's outside the Trump rally in California are protestants
(English is a fine language if people would learn it and use it correctly)
I am a Christian by the scriptural definition of having searched the Scriptures and learning .. without being dogmatically coerced or forced ... for myself what I must do to go to heaven
I don't care about baptism or priests or denominations or ANYTHING like that ...
I want to go to Heaven and I don't want to go to Hell
I got the answer out of a book the Catholics never gave me nor encouraged me to read for myself .. and I will not consider any modern treatise about how Catholics do TOO read the bible .... NOT IN THE 1950'S OF MY YOUTH ! ! !
I was born again after a friend witnessed to me about Jesus and I asked Jesus to save me in 1981
Something happened immediately that night, up Fallen Timber Rd ... and that something was the direct result of my prayer to ask Jesus to save me
Those words
Jesus ... save me
They were never in Catholic conversation in MY life
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.