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?
King James Bible
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Proverbs 26:11
-— ONE mind like Nazi Germany or your own Catholic inquisitions. -—
St. Paul calls Christ’s Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth.” And Jesus has harsh words for those who won’t “listen to the church.”
So where is this visible church? Only one church has been in continuous existence since apostolic times.
Your posting of a papal polemic which you failed to attribute to the source (Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope, The), posting it as if it were your own (which i immediately suspected was not from you) is an example of the fallacious propaganda of Rome as well as the deception RCs can engage in.
The issue of the Aramaic is argumentative and one that continues (see here ), but interpretation must be done in the light of the whole of Scripture.
The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. > This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with, while even modern Catholic scholarship provides testimony against the idea of Peter and immediate successors reigning over the church as its supreme infallible head. See here on both, unless i need to post it.
One example on the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19,
Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. - Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 399.
And indeed, the church corporate that looked to Peter as its infallible supreme head, holding upon this earth the place of God Almighty, which power he can exercise unhindered. is one that is invisible: it simply is not there.
While Peter was the initial street-level leader of the 11, and can be seen exercising a general pastoral role, yet he was not looked to by the churches as the the supreme infallible head.
Peter was the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, the gospel, defining that it is the faith behind baptism that souls are purified by, (Acts 15:7-9) and by which souls are translated into the kingdom of God. (Col. 1:13)
Peter, who was married, (1Cor. 9:5) fades from view after Acts 15, which was not called by Peter and in which James gives the definitive judgment, confirmatory of Peter's counsel and testimony of Paul and Barnabas, while it is Paul who called all the Ephesian pastors to conference, as well as doing many other things that RCs would invoke as testifying to the papacy if said of Peter.
Nowhere in any of the epistles are the churches reminded of Peter being the head of all the church, nor particular submission to him as such enjoined, not even as a solution to their needs nor as fidelity to him being a commendation.
Moreover, not once in the Lord's own letters to the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2 and 3 is the pope even mentioned.
And in Gal. 2:1ff Peter is mentioned as the second among 3 pillars of the church, “who seemed to be somewhat,” and who provided public affirmation of Paul, but who publicly reproved Peter for his duplicity, consistent with Paul's statement that “God accepteth no man's person.”
In addition, the power of binding and loosing was also given to all the disciples, (Mt. 18:15-19)
Nowhere did Peter refer to himself as anything more than “a servant,” “an apostle,” “an elder,” (1Pt. 1:1; 5:1; 2Pt. 1) and was married, (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:4) and evidently poor, (Acts 3:6) living as a guest a tanner's house (Acts 10:6: a smelly profession, thus it was by the sea) who would not let even an unsaved men bow down to him. (Acts 10:25,26)
It is no wonder Rome made "good" use of forgeries to supply what she attempts to egregiously extrapolate from Scripture. But which absence at least evidences that Rome did change the Bible to support her.
Spin that cylinder all you like but no one gets out of here alive and when the chamber is the loaded one you'll be hearing, "I never knew you" unless you take the Scripture seriously and study it as a whole rather than in pieces you like cut up any way you like to make it say what you like.
The very first step in taking up your cross and following Him is abandoning the Eve mindset of deciding for yourself how things should be.
Oh, and "as a whole" includes those seven books of Scripture Luther threw out because Scripture so clearly contradicts him leaving the "Some Scripture Alone" folks to pretend the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisee Approved Luther Subset is the entire Bible.
It's clear to me denying the Holy Spirit enrures you get an, "I never knew you" welocme.
Other people apparently don't agree and deny the power and abilities of the Holy Spirit without a second thought.
Do you know the difference between hatred and confidence in the integrity of our faith?
You attended many denominations and you learned “something” from each of them.....
Which one of them had the whole truth?
Why didn’t you stay?
If you found the ONE with the whole truth, why would you leave?
This isn’t about who has the best appeal to teens.
How many followers of Christ left him when he affirmed his True Presence in the Eucharist?
“The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. (53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (55) He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day. (56) For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. (57) He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. (58) As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me the same also shall live by me. (59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live forever.”
(61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard,’ and who can hear it? (62) But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? (63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?.(64) It is the spirit that quickens: the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. (65) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that, would betray him. (66) And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. (67) After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. (68) Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
Listen detective, this isn’t a college thesis.
I present many Catholic teachings in my posts.
I make no pretense that they are my own, specifically to avoid error in my presentations.
You ARE aware that John 6 took place after the feeding of the 5000, and not at Passover? Why do you read the Lord’s Supper into what happened long before it, and ignore what Jesus said DURING His institution of the Lord’s Supper:
“This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
That's really ironic that a Catholic should make that comment with all the accusations of *hate* that are continually being lobbed at non-Catholics who are challenging Catholic presuppositions and doctrine.
Did you know that on the Internet no one knows you are a typing dog?
You may claim to be Prince George if you wish and people are free to take your claim with a grain of salt.
If you are expecting to get respect on the Internet based on claiming to be an expert in some matter you are sadly deluded. Nobody is going to take your word as authority just because you claim to have some sort of title or piece of paper. You have to have a better argument then "because I say so."
Establish your authority with reason, logic and coherent arguments with links to supporting data. And even then be prepared to have people throw tomatoes at you. Because, after all, it is the Internet.
Citation, please.
Some extraBiblical Catholic doctrine.
The one who related to teens was one who spoke at school assemblies. Nearly every one I knew back then are Christian conservatives today. He was minister at the local Church of Christ. Things were a lot different back then.
Yeah. I have faith and confidence in being Southern Baptist. I read and understand the Bible. It seems like some Catholics on here act like cult members. Believe my way or else.
FWIW, a RC pointed out to me years ago that for them defense of their church is defending their faith. We Evangelical Christians don't look at an institutional church this way. We see the RC institution in conflict with Scripture in so many ways and can't understand why when we point out the errors it's considered "hate". For the RC pointing out that error is attacking their faith and they are obliged to defend it to prove they are faithful and worthy.
It's when the RC leaves that environment and hears The Gospel that they see the errors, but it won't happen while they are still a part of that church.
They don’t know biblical let alone extraBiblical.
I conclude from these comments that modern Baptists do not believe the same doctrine of Inerrancy of the Scriptures as their Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren. Given the doctrine of Sola Scriptura I think they have irreconcilable differences. Those who believe in the holy catholic apostolic church do not have this problem.
Of course they are your own. You have adopted them. You and you alone will answer for those beliefs before God. Taking the beliefs of others hoping that will give you cover will do you no good if those beliefs are contrary to scripture. Your putting your trust in those who formulated those beliefs and made them your own.
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.