Posted on 07/26/2014 4:41:46 AM PDT by michaelwlf3
I am coming up on my first year as an ordained minister in a continuing Anglican church, and I have noticed that participating on political forums (even when the topic is religious) I find that my opinions and postings more often than not generate more hatred than anything else. Among the things I often hear are that the laity are the real priests and that I am a Pharisee, that my vocation disqualifies me from offering an opinion on anything Christian because I am too narrow minded, and (my personal favorite) because I look too Catholic I must be a child molester.
Are these people really Christians?
That is absurd, for in reality, is your church - if it even can be called that (yet even the church of the Laodiceans was) - that does not have Scriptural holy orders, as the NT nowhere teaches,
1. Ordaining a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests." (See post 180 before you try to defend it)
2. Ordaining pastors who uniquely offered sacrifices, in distinction from the "laity."
2. Ordaining pastors whose primary function was dispensing physical food which gave spiritual and eternal life, interpretive of the last supper gospel accounts, versus preaching the Word of God.
3. Ordaining clergy who are almost all required to make and keep a vow of celibacy, which is a gift, in contrast to being physical fathers.
Meanwhile, rather than rejecting ordination, it is evangelical churches such as ordain men according to the Scriptural requirements of 1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9 that are the ones which believe in Scriptural holy orders.
And which government was part of historical Protestantism, as seen by the affirmation by Westminster:
The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.
Church censures are necessary,..For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.
It belongs 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 maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same;.. - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
Your objection must be that these magisterial authorities are not held as assuredly infallible, as per Rome, and thus it is possible that the "laity" can be correct and that they are not.
And which means that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
But which is not Scriptural but fallacious, as can be shown by God's grace if you care to argue it.
If he did then he should know that in no place does the Holy Spirit cal NT pastors "priests," while the use of priest is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy, since "priest" etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalence. See here .
Most “clergy” are simply nicolaitans, misleading the sheep.
Yeshua said that he hated them, didn’t he? (Revelation, letters to the churches)
.
DTS has little in common with catholics.
They are pre-trib rapturists, and dispensationalists, which is in conflict with catholic teaching.
.
That is simply an assertion based upon extrapolation, with zero evidence. Peter did not even appoint the first one, but being the (street level) leader among brethren that he was, he called for only one successor to be elected by a non-political OT method Rome has never used, to maintain the original 12 (cf. Rv. 2:14), and did not appoint any others, including Paul, who was one before he met Peter, nor perhaps Barnabas. (Acts 14:14)
And the early church did not look to a supreme infallible head in Rome. That church is simply invisible in Scripture.
Besides the wresting of Scripture used to support this, and the fact that the perpetuation of this purported supreme infallible office is not shown or promised in Scripture, there is the additional testimony of which i provide a part here.
• The Catholic historian Paul Johnson (author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian), writes in his 1976 work “History of Christianity:”
Eusebius [whose history can be dubious] presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...
Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.
• Roger Collins, writing of the Symmachan forgeries”, describes these “pro-Roman” “enhancements” to history:
So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process...
Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true...
It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes. (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).
• Catholic theologian and Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:
Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...
As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century...
Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century.
“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,22,24
• Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)
[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]
"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)
[Lacking such support for the modern concept of the primacy of the church of Rome with its papal jurisdiction, Schatz concludes that, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time?” Schatz therefore goes on to seek support for that as a development.]
“We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.” (Schatz 4).
Schatiz additionally states,
Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." — Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)
• Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:
....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." — The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39
Roman Catholic [if liberal] Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U., author of “Why i am a Catholic:”
"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession" to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession. Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes. Two and three claimants existed at times, and when there were three of them each excommunicating the other two, they all had to be dethroned and the Council of Carthage started the whole thing over again in 1417." — WHAT JESUS MEANT, p. 81
• American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission):
“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
• Raymond Brown [being criticized here], in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly can be read on the internet at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)
>> “Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that is how they should do it.” <<
.
Nonsense!
They decided, without any input from the Holy Spirit, to appoint an apostle, which they did, and then God ignored their appointment and appointed Paul instead, and Mathias was never heard of again.
Only Yeshua could appoint an apostle.
.
Paul was different, as he attests here. The apostles did not select him.
Which still leaves you with zero apostles appointed by Peter, while Acts 1 was by lots, by the community, not a papal appointee of even the candidates.
The title "Pope" only applied to the bishop of Rome.
But was not used of a single head till much later, and never in Scripture.
There was a Jewish cardinal of France who stood up to blessed John Paul II as well; Paul did not deny any apostolic doctrine, he addressed appearance and behavior.
Peter (whom you must mean) did indeed deny any apostolic doctrine, as what you do is what constitutes belief, (Ja. 2:18) and what Peter was believing at that time was inconsistent with what he confessed and had done.
Rome wants to be judged by what she says, but by their fruits ye shall know them.
Finally, the churches of Revelation are addressed separately. If there was "one" church, there would be only one church addressed. Sorry but there is nothing in scripture that supports your view.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints,..
This in no way refutes what was said. Even the epistle you quote from was an individual church, and while it was part of the "household of faith," it remains that the churches of Rev. are not addressed as one church.
The text you should have quoted is from Peter himself, "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." (1Pt. 1:1)
But which shows Peter exercising a general pastoral role, which is not to be denied. But in which he is simply called "an apostle," "an elder," "a servant," and for whom the "more suere word of prophecy" is Scripture. And nothing here or anywhere supports Peter being the first of a line of exalted infallible heads. What you need for that is at least references in the church epistles to look to and submit particularly to Peter, or churches, as in Rv. 2,3, being chastised for not submitting and this being set forth as a solution to their problems. And formulaic infallibility promised for for Peter and successors . But that is nowhere provided, or necessary.
Time for bed. If there was "one" church, there would be only one church addressed. Sorry but there is nothing in scripture that supports your view.
What is this "born again" you erroneously speak of? That is not mentioned in the Bible anywhere.
You might have it confused with "Born from above" which is what the actual original Greek says.
And if you were misinformed about something this simple what else have you been lied to about?
To keep out the riff raff. I will include the /SARC tag, because I realize you are protestant.
“If he did then he should know that in no place does the Holy Spirit cal NT pastors “priests,”
You really think that is properly termed theology? That is a time-wasting, nonsensical irrelevancy.
“while the use of priest is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy, since “priest” etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalence.”
And on you go with silliness intended to divert and waste a person’s intellectual energy on the question of whether a word in a language not even extant at the time of Paul is the etymological equivalent of a Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word that he might have used.
And all, you hope, without alerting anyone to the fact that it doesn’t matter in the least.
Metty Still waiting for you to acknowledge that this thread was started by an ordained protestant Deacon, one that went to a real theological seminary, and got a real degree. Something that some many of the “expert” protestants / former Catholics are lacking here.
Hahahahahahaaaaaa! Surely you are kidding, right?
John 3: 3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again...”
Never about something this important.
Anyone that thinks for a minute that Jesus said "Born again" is either seriously misguided or has been living a lie. Anyone that has been told this lie needs to find the person that lied to them and show them the truth.
Born "from Above" Vs. "Again. The Greek word Anothon occurs exactly 12 times in 12 verses in the New Testament. The four words we are concerned with are Anothon which the Catholics contend means "From above" and the Fundies contend means again. The second word is Apanow, which means above/ over.
The third word is Palon- that really does mean again and Deuteron that means secondly. If the Protestants are correct when we look at each of these verses we should be able to substitute either word and have it make perfect sense. I have included several verses that use the word Palon to document the common use of that word. You will also notice that in John 3:4 that Nicodemus does not use either Palon or Anothon, but rather Deuteron, meaning secondly or second.
Matt 27:50 But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.
Matt 27:51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anthon) to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split.
Mark 15:38 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above anthon) to bottom.
Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source anthon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (Anthon)."
John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"
John 3:31 The one who comes from above (Anthon) is above (Anthon) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).
John 19:11 Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anthon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin."
John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anthon) down.
Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anthon) From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion.
Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anthon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)?
James 1: 17 all good giving and every perfect gift is from above (Anthon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.
James 3: 15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anthon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.
James 3: 17But the wisdom from above (Anthon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity.
All 12 verses with the Greek Translation Matt 27:50But Jesus cried out again (Palon) in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. (Jesus did not cry out from above, he cried out a second time)
Mat 27:50 o de ihsouv palin kraxav fwnh megalh afhken to pneuma
Matt 27:51And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (Anothon) to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,(The veil was not torn "again" it was torn from top to bottom)
Mat 27:51kai idou to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh ap eiv duo apo anwqen ewv katw eiv duo kai h gh eseisqh kai ai petrai esxisqhsan
Mark 15:38 The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top (above Anothon) to bottom. (See above, no pun intended)
Mar 15:38 kai to katapetasma tou naou esxisqh eiv duo ap apo anwqen ewv katw
Luke 1:3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew (From their source Anothon), to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,(This is the only verse that you could conceivably substitute "Again", but the colloquial "From their source makes better sense)
Luke 1:3 edoxe edoxen kamoi parhkolouqhkoti anwqen pasin akribwv kaqexhv soi grayai kratiste qeofile
John 3: 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above (Anothon)."(Verse in contention, no comment required)
John 3:3 apekriqh o ihsouv kai eipen autw amhn amhn legw soi ean mh tiv gennhqh anwqen ou dunatai idein thn basileian tou qeou
John 3: 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again (duetron secondly)? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" (Here is where the Prots really put their foot in it. Nicodemus never says again (Palon) he says Secondly (Deuteron)
John 3:4 legei prov auton o o nikodhmov pwv dunatai anqrwpov gennhqhnai gerwn wn mh dunatai eiv thn koilian thv mhtrov autou deuteron eiselqein kai gennhqhnai
John 3:31The one who comes from above (Anothon) is above (Apanow) all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).(Those that come" again" are "again" all, Makes no sense at all.)
Joh 3:31 o anwqen erxomenov epanw pantwn estin o wn ek thv ghv ek thv ghv estin kai ek thv ghv lalei o ek tou ouranou erxomenov epanw epanw pantwn estin estin
John 19:11Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above (Anothon). For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin." (Pilate was not given power again, he was given it from above, God allowed him to have power)
John 19:11 apekriqh autw o ihsouv ouk eixev exousian oudemian kat emou oudemian ei mh hn soi dedomenon soi anwqen dia touto o paradouv paradidouv me soi meizona amartian exei
John 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top (Anothon) down. (The tunic was not woven again, it was woven from the top down)
John 19:23 oi oun stratiwtai ote estaurwsan ton ihsoun elabon ta imatia autou kai epoihsan tessara merh ekastw stratiwth merov kai ton xitwna hn de o xitwn arafov arrafov ek twn anwqen ufantov di olou
Acts 26:5 They have known about me from the start (Anothon, From the first), if they are willing to testify, that I have lived my life as a Pharisee, the strictest party of our religion. (They did not know about Paul "again" they new about him from the beginning)
Act 26:5 proginwskontev me anwqen ean qelwsi qelwsin marturein oti kata thn akribestathn airesin thv hmeterav qrhskeiav ezhsa farisaiov
Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again (Palon) Untranslated word Anothon (anew) to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again (Palon)? (The phrase "from above" clearly does not fit here)
Gal 4:9 nun de gnontev qeon mallon de gnwsqentev upo qeou pwv epistrefete palin epi ta asqenh kai ptwxa stoixeia oiv palin anwqen douleuein qelete
James 1:17 all good giving and every perfect gift is from above (Anothon), coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change. (Is the gift coming "again", no it is coming from God, who is "From above")
Jas 1:17 pasa dosiv agaqh kai pan dwrhma teleion anwqen estin katabainon apo tou patrov twn fwtwn par w ouk eni parallagh h trophv aposkiasma
James 3:15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above (Anothon) but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. (See Previous)
Jas 3:15 ouk estin auth h sofia anwqen katerxomenh alla all epigeiov yuxikh daimoniwdhv
James 3:17 But the wisdom from above (Anothon) is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. (Again the wisdom is "from above", not "again")
Jas 3:17 h de anwqen sofia prwton men agnh estin epeita eirhnikh epieikhv eupeiqhv mesth eleouv kai karpwn agaqwn adiakritov kai anupokritov
Conclusion: The only reasonable definition of the word "Anthon" is "From above/ from the source or beginning", There is a perfectly good word for "again" but, neither Nicodemus, nor Jesus use that word, instead Nicodemus uses Deuteron. Nicodemus apparent confusion results from Jesus' use of the word "Born" not "From above" Anothon
Anyone that thinks for a minute that Jesus said "Born again" the Pope is head of THE church is either seriously misguided or has been living a lie. ...
Fixed it for you...
I find it quitter tedious to try and refute drollery. It boggles the mind to see the twisting of Scripture to try and make a point by someone pretending to see a truth that nobody else can understand.
Good luck! You should continue your day job!
If you stay in ministry long enough, you will come to realize the truth that ministers/pastors are SERVANTS of God, sent forth to SERVE God through their service to those God sends to them. It takes a servant heart to do this successfully and you will know that you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you. Be an example of Jesus to your assembly - He came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many. Be sold out for Christ and leave the results to Him. See my tagline - it’s true!
I guess you would condemn St. Paul then, because he waited tables and fixed tents so as not to be a burden to those he was ministering unto? I've known some pastors who were more sold out for Christ, on fire to preach the gospel, servant-hearted to ALL the congregation while also holding a full time job in the secular world than some full time pastors of other churches who got a salary, home, car, etc., paid in full and it was their ONLY responsibility. Be careful how you judge others.
You have been told the truth, now your fate is in your hands alone.
I really wish you would learn to read.
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.