Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was The Papacy Established By Christ?
triablogue ^ | June 23, 2006 | Jason Engwer

Posted on 06/19/2015 12:01:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7

For those who don't have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the doctrine of the papacy, I want to post two introductory articles on the subject today and tomorrow. The first article, this one, will be about the Biblical evidence, and tomorrow's article will be about the early post-Biblical evidence.

Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation. According to the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the papacy was understood and universally accepted as early as the time of Peter:

"At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister....For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome" (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-2)

Different Catholics interpret these claims of the First Vatican Council in different ways. Some Catholics will argue that the concept of the papacy that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations involved universal jurisdiction, so that the differences between how modern Catholics and the most ancient Catholics viewed Peter and the bishops of Rome would be minor. Other Catholics claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn't have associated a concept like universal jurisdiction with Peter and the earliest Roman bishops, and they maintain that the modern view of the papacy developed more gradually. Some Catholics even go as far as to claim that there's no need to show that a concept like universal jurisdiction was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for the papacy on the basis of philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the doctrine.

Catholics who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we're going to accept the papacy just because it seems to produce more denominational unity than other systems of church government, because our parents were Catholic, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the doctrine. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for the papacy.

Those who argue that a seed form of the papacy existed early on, one that wasn't initially associated with universal jurisdiction, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal jurisdiction would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn't be enough to show that the development of universal jurisdiction is possible. We don't believe that something is true just because it's possible. If we're supposed to accept a papacy with universal jurisdiction on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the Catholic hierarchy that teaches the concept, then an objective case will have to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.

If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn't expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government.

That's what we see with the offices of bishop and deacon. Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy.

Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that "most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)" (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], n. 74 on p. 425). The Roman Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz comments:

"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….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 author 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.'…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." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2)

What's said of Peter in Matthew 16 and John 21 is said of other people in other passages. Other people are rocks upon whom the church is built (Ephesians 2:20), other people have the keys of the kingdom that let them bind and loose and open and shut (Matthew 18:18, 23:13), and other people are shepherds of the church (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). Just as Peter is given a second name, so are other people (Mark 3:17). Peter is called "Peter" prior to the events of Matthew 16 (John 1:42), and we can't know whether he was given the name as a result of Matthew 16 or, instead, Jesus' choice of imagery in Matthew 16 was shaped by a name Peter was already given for another reason.

Peter is singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21, but his being singled out doesn't suggest jurisdictional primacy. We could speculate that Peter is singled out in these passages because he's supposed to fulfill the roles in these passages in a greater way than other people, but such a speculation can't be proven. Other people are singled out in other passages, but we don't conclude that those people were Popes. Even if Peter was singled out because he was to fulfill these roles (rock and shepherd) in a greater way than anybody else, he wouldn't need to be a Pope in order to fulfill these roles in a greater way than other people. And he wouldn't need to have successors in that role.

So, if Peter isn't singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21 because he was being made a Pope, then why was he singled out?

In Matthew 16, he's probably singled out because he singles himself out. He's the one who answered Jesus' question. Similarly, John and James are singled out in Mark 10:35-40 because they were the ones who initiated the discussion with Jesus, not because they were being given some sort of primacy.

In John 21, Peter probably is singled out because he was the one in need of restoration. Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times and thus needed to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times. Since the other apostles didn't deny Jesus as Peter did, it would make no sense for Jesus to approach them the way He approached Peter. Similarly, Jesus treats Thomas (John 20:26-29), John (John 21:20-23), and Paul (Acts 9:1-15) differently than He treats the other apostles. But nobody would assume that Thomas, John, or Paul therefore has jurisdictional primacy or that such a primacy was passed on to a succession of bishops.

Catholics sometimes argue for a papacy by interpreting Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22:20-22. But whatever relevance Isaiah 22 would have to Matthew 16, it would have relevance for Matthew 23, Luke 11, and other passages that use such imagery as well. And any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Why can't the Isaiah 22 background convey a general theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature?

Paul refers to "apostles" (plural) as the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20), and he names Peter second among three reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). The most natural reading of the Biblical evidence is to see Peter as a highly reputed pillar of the church who had equal rank, equal jurisdiction, with the other apostles. He could be said to have had some types of primacy in some contexts, and the same could be said of other apostles and early church leaders, but there's no reason to think that papal authority was one of those types of primacy or that such authority was passed on exclusively to a succession of Roman bishops.

There is no papacy in the New Testament. It's not there explicitly or implicitly. This "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture" that the First Vatican Council refers to isn't even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can't be proven and is unlikely.



TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Judaism; Skeptics/Seekers
KEYWORDS: catholicism; globalwarminghoax; history; papacy; popefrancis; romancatholicism; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 721-725 next last
To: metmom

I am wondering if even one catholic posting to these threads has even read the whole short essay at #593. There seem to be no attempts to refute the offering, and it contradicts the teaching of their religion ... there are none so blind as they who Will Not see.


641 posted on 06/23/2015 10:43:49 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; ADSUM
To: ADSUM
>>Yes. Every day I hunger and thirst for the Body and Blood of Christ.<<

Then you obviously don't believe John 6 as you claim you do.

John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

602 posted on 6/23/2015, 4:18:51 AM by CynicalBear
Very telling.

Jesus came so the blind could see and the deaf could hear.

May the Holy Spirit infiltrate the minds of those that resist.

642 posted on 06/23/2015 10:53:36 AM PDT by Syncro (Jesus Christ, the same today, yesterday, and forever!--Holy Bible Quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: metmom

It’s stunning to watch as they slither around the rest of John 6 isn’t it?


643 posted on 06/23/2015 10:57:41 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM; Lazamataz
"Why such animus towards the Real Presence?" Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 3:17, and ...

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

That is upon not at and certainly not in your bellies.

Leviticus 17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

Leviticus 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Deuteronomy 12:16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water. ... Luke 22:20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

By Catholic reasoning, Catholics would have us believe the new covenant is a cup!

To catholics we would say, eat the blood, be cut off [Lev 17:14] This is much more serious than a thread on an Internet website.

644 posted on 06/23/2015 10:59:58 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Acts 17:24-25 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man
I must admit I was gobsmacked when I first saw a Catholic mention (here on Free Republic) going to the adoration.


Imagine being worshiping this "temple made by man" when, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump, Jesus comes.

An interesting fact about the golden calf:

Exodus 32:20 And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.

645 posted on 06/23/2015 11:17:53 AM PDT by Syncro (Jesus Christ, the same today, yesterday, and forever!--Holy Bible Quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

“Imagine being worshiping this “temple made by man” when, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump, Jesus comes.” Won’t even know anything has happened until the din outside reaches their ears.


646 posted on 06/23/2015 12:11:57 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Syncro; MHGinTN; metmom; CynicalBear

Your comment: “May the Holy Spirit infiltrate the minds of those that resist.”

Yes. I agree and hope that the protestors listen to the words of Jesus and really believe in Jesus, instead of their continued insistence that they know better. They give excuses as to why one should not eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus, but do not dispute the clear and strong statement of Jesus.

Jesus said, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you” (John 6:53).

At the Last Supper he took bread and wine and said, “Take and eat. This is my body . . . This is my blood which will be shed for you” (Mark 14:22–24). In this way Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, the sacrificial meal Catholics consume at each Mass.

I take the words of Jesus very seriously and I hope others will do likewise. I have an open mind and I have no reason to change my opinion or my faith about the Real presence in the Eucharist based on the comments from those that do not fully accept or believe Jesus.

May God help all on their faith journey.


647 posted on 06/23/2015 12:22:44 PM PDT by ADSUM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM
LUKE 22

17 He received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, "Take this, and share it among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, I will not drink at all again from the fruit of the vine, until the Kingdom of God comes." 19 He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me." 20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.

648 posted on 06/23/2015 12:25:58 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Roman Catholicism makes salvation a long, complicated process with no assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of all sin. Baptism, Mass, Confession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, good works, and purgatory are all added to faith in Christ. By contrast, the Bible teaches salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Bible salvation is God’s free gift to any sinner who believes that Christ died for their sins and rose again for their defense. Bible salvation gives immediate assurance of eternal life. No church ever saved anyone, but Christ can and will save everyone who will come and trust Him as their Saviour. Membership or faith in a church does not secure salvation for anyone, but trust Christ and Him alone and you will be saved for all eternity.


649 posted on 06/23/2015 1:01:02 PM PDT by wolfman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Except for one verse that they DEMAND that everyone has to take literally when they don’t even take the rest of the chapter literally.

Picking and choosing whether to take something literally or figuratively on a verse by verse basis within one passage is poor Bible exposition, to say the very least.

It’s a mishandling of God’s word and smacks of dishonesty. There needs to be consistency because who’s to decide from one verse to the next if the speaker or writer meant it to be literal or figurative. You can;t make that decision based on preconceived personal preferences.

Either it’s all figurative, or it’s all literal, and we see that John 6 does not work when it’s all literal.


650 posted on 06/23/2015 1:27:37 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM
I take the words of Jesus very seriously and I hope others will do likewise.

So say lots of Catholics.

Do you take these words just as seriously?

Do you get hungry or thirsty? John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst

No mention of eating here and yet Jesus promises eternal life to those who believe.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

If Catholics are going to demand literal physical eating, then consistency demands literally never physically dying.

John 6:50-51 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

John 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

When are Catholics going to stop calling their priests *Father*? After all, Jesus said to call no man *father*.

Or do they not take that seriously after all?

Matthew 23: 8-10 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

651 posted on 06/23/2015 1:37:52 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: wolfman
Luke 18:9-14 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

652 posted on 06/23/2015 1:38:41 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM; Syncro; MHGinTN; metmom
>>I take the words of Jesus very seriously<<

Of course your do. That's why you are heard here bleating like a sheep all the time right? Because Jesus said "my sheep will hear my voice". And of course you don't get hungry or thirsty ever because of course in the same discourse that He said eat my flesh He also said you would never hunger or thirst right? And you will never die either right? Yet Catholics claim Jesus broke the very laws He was sent to keep perfectly. They claim He sinned by eating blood. He said He was bread but they claim they are eating flesh. He conquered the cross and rose again but Catholics have Him still hanging on the cross. He's sitting in triumph at the right hand of the Father but Catholics have Him still being the victim and being crucified daily. Now they have a marxist as their "vicar of Christ" instead of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised to send.

653 posted on 06/23/2015 2:06:56 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: metmom

It’s twisting of scripture to fit the pagan “eating of their gods”.


654 posted on 06/23/2015 2:08:08 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM
Your comment: “May the Holy Spirit infiltrate the minds of those that resist.”

Yes. I agree and hope that the protestors listen to the words of Jesus...

Stopping your projecting in mid misdirection.

Yes, the Catholics started the protesting about a 1000 yrs ago, when they broke away from the Christians because those following the words of Jesus were so orthodox they would not follow false leaders (popes) and the man made doctrines emanating from Rome.

The protesting is still going on by those blinded by false doctrine that they are required to believe.

Catholicism continues to try to convince Christians that they know better than the words of Jesus.

I take the words of Jesus very seriously and I hope others will do likewise.

Twisting them into Catholic talking points shows a lack of in depth of studying the scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

...those that do not fully accept or believe Jesus

More projection, and quite ironic.

[This from a guy that thinks that a "Consecrated Eucharist host" can be soiled.

If the host really contained Jesus, to call it "soiled" is high blaspheme.]

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?--Matthew 7:3
Now here is a "pearl" for you:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.--Romans 10:9
Just pray to Jesus calling on the Holy Spirit and confess like in the Romans verse above and you will be saved.

That is the first step.

655 posted on 06/23/2015 2:08:25 PM PDT by Syncro (Jesus Christ, the same today, yesterday, and forever!--Holy Bible Quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: DeprogramLiberalism
Your reply makes zero sense.

That you would write a book promoting this tangential error is revealing, yet it remains that the idea that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys given was to bind and loose the Law on the Church is absurd. For it depends upon restricting that power to a doctrinal decision, contrary to Scripture, and presumes that Peter is the one who provided the final judgment as to this and what should be done in Acts 15, which is not the case.

As explained, binding and loosing (both in judicial and spiritual application) was not new, and Peter exercised such in preaching the gospel in Acts 2 etc., before Acts 15. In addition he did so in binding Ananias and Saphira to their sins and unto the death in Acts 5.

Moreover, Peter did not judicially loose anything in Acts 15, as it was James who provided the conclusive judgment, with Scriptural substantiation, in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and testimony and that of Paul and Barbabas, who prior to this were also preaching salvation by faith, without needing to obey the ceremonial law.

And which has been said and dismissed, and instead comes verbiage from your book which utterly fails to show or warrant the conclusion that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys was to bind and loose the Law on the Church.

656 posted on 06/23/2015 4:57:03 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: wolfman
Roman Catholicism makes salvation a long, complicated process with no assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of all sin. Baptism, Mass, Confession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, good works, and purgatory are all added to faith in Christ.

You are correct sir. That is why I am an ex catholic. 😇 I never had any assurance of salvation, not even a little bit, and that was not going to cut the mustard. The reason I had no assurance of salvation, was because I did not have salvation at all. If I had croaked at that time, I would have busted hell wide open. I was religious, but lost as a goose. Things are different now. 😎

657 posted on 06/23/2015 5:11:20 PM PDT by Mark17 (Lonely people live in every city, men who face a dark and lonely grave. Lonely voices do I hear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

Placemarker


658 posted on 06/23/2015 7:07:25 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
"You are correct sir. That is why I am an ex catholic. 😇 I never had any assurance of salvation, not even a little bit, and that was not going to cut the mustard. The reason I had no assurance of salvation, was because I did not have salvation at all. If I had croaked at that time, I would have busted hell wide open. I was religious, but lost as a goose. Things are different now. 😎 " +1 "Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!"
659 posted on 06/23/2015 7:08:42 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
"You are correct sir. That is why I am an ex catholic. 😇 I never had any assurance of salvation, not even a little bit, and that was not going to cut the mustard. The reason I had no assurance of salvation, was because I did not have salvation at all. If I had croaked at that time, I would have busted hell wide open. I was religious, but lost as a goose. Things are different now. 😎 " +1 "Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!"
660 posted on 06/23/2015 7:08:52 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 721-725 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson