Posted on 07/13/2020 7:27:43 PM PDT by metmom
"For those who disbelieve, 'the stone which the builders rejected, this became the very corner stone,' and, 'a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense'; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed" (1 Pet. 2:7-8).
Rejecting Christ leads to spiritual damnation.
Israel was a unique nation, chosen by God to be the guardian of His Word and proclaimer of His kingdom. The Old Testament records His miraculous and providential care for her throughout the centuries, and the prophets told of One who would come as her great Deliverer. Israel eagerly awaited the promised Messiah.
But the story has a surprise ending. In the Person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah finally came and presented Himself to Israel. The religious leaders examined Him carefully, measuring Him in every way they could. But He didn't fit their blueprint. They expected a reigning political Messiah who would instantly deliver them from Roman oppression. They felt no need for a spiritual deliverer, so they rejected Him and tossed Him aside like a worthless rock.
That rejected cornerstone is precious to believers but remains a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to unbelievers. A "stone of stumbling" was a stone on which someone tripped while walking along the road. A "rock of offense" was a rock large enough to crush a person. The point: rejecting Christ brings spiritual devastation of enormous proportions.
All who reject Christ do so because they are disobedient to the Word. Rebellion against the written Word inevitably leads to rejection of the living Word. Of such people Peter said, "To this doom they were also appointed" (v. 8). They weren't appointed to reject Christ, but to receive the judgment that their rejection demands. That's a frightening reality that should motivate you to take every opportunity to evangelize the lost.
Suggestions for Prayer
If you have family or friends who are rejecting Christ, pray for them often, asking God to grant them saving faith.
For Further Study
Read Romans 9:30-10:17, noting Israel's false standard of righteousness and Paul's prayer for her salvation.
(So much for to your use of "judge not.") Rather, the devil approves of your deception. The reality is that while Peter was the street-leader leader among brethren (who never is seen ordering any of the apostles, nor is the church ever told to submit to him as the supreme head) and the first to use the keys (gospel) for Jews and Gentiles, yet as concerns the rock upon which the church is built, the fact is that 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 so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
Moreover, the Peter of Scripture is that of Rome, and her papacy (which the EOs also much reject) was a later development, as so many of your own scholars testify. Thus you need to submit to what the NT church believed, and not mock and disbelieve the Words of Jesus and His NT Church. Maybe one day you will understand and really believe God’s Truth and not sin against the 8th Commandment. May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Just ask ADSUM's brethren who make such charges as,
"Bergoglio the Heretic;"
"preaches and authors heresy;"
"the material and formal heretic;"
this fraud of a pope;
“an apostate,”
"he's not a Catholic;"
"Pope Frank..protestant;"
"The Impopester;"
"The Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell;"
"...for which our poor, beleaguered pontiff is nothing more than the ultimate poster boy."
Your comment: “Jesus only is the one who saves as HE is the one who died for us, in our place.”
We agree. The Catholic Catechism states: “In the words of Christian Tradition, Jesus’ sacrifice merits salvation for us because it retains forever the power to draw us to Him and to the Father.”
Your comment: “Catholicism can’t save as it’s a religious system of works and not one person is ever saved by law keeping or works doing.”
The Catholic faith has never claimed that anyone other than Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross provided for our salvation. You keep making false statements and lies about the Catholic faith.
The mission of the Catholic Church is to lead us to eternal life with God with the Mass and Sacraments that Jesus established to help us keep His commandments that are documented in the Bible. Yes our works shows our faith and love of God and neighbor.
Yes. It is possible that one can learn about Jesus through reading of the Scriptures as long as they do not follow the man made (or Satan’s) understanding that reject the Truth of the words of Jesus and His Catholic Church. Without the Catholic Church, one misses out on most of the Sacraments that Jesus left for us with sanctifying graces to help us follow God’s will.
I suspect that Jesus will not look favorably on former Catholics that reject His Church because they know an easier way and make false statements about His Church.
Your parroted but unattributed (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-really-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church) propaganda is just that, but rather than not up for debate among Catholics, the meaning of this is indeed debated, and you are providing just one of the interpretations of it, which Rome manifestly allows by not clarifying what she meant by her with clarifying of so much historical RC teaching (which unequivocally damned all who did not submit to the pope, from pagans to schismatics - the latter of which many "faithful RC's here are), using such phrases as "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus teaching includes.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html Confirmed by Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 19 December 1516.
Those many even here who who reject Francis as Pope certainly disagree with the above teaching, since they have no living acting pope functioning as pope to submit to. Meanwhile I certainly do not know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ - only that she claims to be - but simply cannot essentially be the church of Scripture, and in good conscience I cannot become part of here, of which church I know well. Yet I desire to be with fellow born-again believers, and can be friends with some simple humble Catholics who I believe have come to a saving faith in Him, as per Ps. 34:18.
Part of non Catholics understanding is that they only accept what they read in the Bible after 7 books were removed by Luther.
And then they reject or try to change meanings of God’s Truth or even deny the Truth that doesn’t meet their protestant doctrines.
Catholic understand that Jesus and the Apostles passed down the teachings of Jesus in the oral tradition which continues today. Catholic authors wrote the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament (inspired by God) and all the books were organized into the Bible by Church councils.
Non Catholics try to tell us only to believe in inspired Bible. Somehow the protestants or “bible christians” (name change came into existence after the invention of the printing press and were able to promote alternative teachings contrary to Jesus Christ and aided by Satan.
Non Catholics ignore or dispute the words of Jesus. John 6:52-58; Matt 16:18-19; among many other verses.
How does the Cardinal see in Mary a warrant for the “equilibrium of faith”? He lists six points, “six reasons for not forgetting.” It is most revealing that these reasons are not primarily characterizations or privileges of Mary herself, but theological indicators of what Mary and Mariology mean for our faith. These six reminders may not come as a surprise:
1. In Marian dogma and tradition we have a solid foundation for authentic Christology.
2. Mariology expresses the right relationship and integration of Scripture and tradition.
3. Mary, both Jewish girl and mother of the Messiah, “binds together, in a living and indissoluble way, the old and the new People of God, Israel and Christianity, synagogue and Church.” (Messori, 107)
4. Correct Marian devotion strikes an indispensable balance between heart and mind, assuring the faith its full dimension.
5. Mary is figure and archetype of the Church, the human face of the Church. In her “the Church again finds her own visage as mother.” Mary is the antidote against faith as abstraction, and Church as mere organization, party and pressure group.
6. Finally, Mary projects a “light upon that which the Creator intended for women in every age…: through her virginity and motherhood, the mystery of woman receives a very lofty destiny from which she cannot be torn away.” (Messori, 108) Quoting Lumen Gentium (#65) which states that Mary “unites in her person and reechoes the most important mysteries of the faith,” Cardinal Ratzinger does not hesitate to remind his readers that authentic Mariology is a true guardian of revealed truths: the truths about Christ, the relation between Scripture and Tradition, Old and New Testament, heart and reason in faith, the Marian and Petrine Church, and the essence of femininity.
Mary—”Completely a Christian”
Fifteen years later, in 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger’s reflections about Mary seem more relaxed and reflective, even meditative. Questioned about Mary in Scripture and dogma, about Marian devotion and apparitions, he develops a portrait of Mary adorned with a throng of interesting insights and original formulations. This woman, he says, had “a quite unique union with God,” but she was fearless. Her story shows that we do not need to be afraid of God. God, in his greatness, makes himself small, he saves and does not frighten. He brings life. Being the mother of the One who is life and gives life, Mary is mother “of life and of the living,” the fulfillment of what Eve was meant to be. Ratzinger sees in Mary the “original image of woman.” She is the “pure figure of humanity and the Church,” and this not withstanding the little information about her in Scripture. “I would say here,” the Cardinal remarks, “people were discreet so long as she was alive. And obviously she herself was always discreet.” (Seewald, 297) In Luke she appears as the mother not only in her body but in her mind and heart, mother of those who hear and believe, and keep the Word. In John, at Cana and at Calvary, her role as mother “has been more clearly worked out.” At Cana she is the “prototype of the interceding Church.” At the cross, Jesus’ “new family” begins, in which Mary holds a new and essential place. The name woman is a “theological image,” pointing out that Mary “plays a role beyond that of an individual: She appears as the “image of the New Eve.”
As the “New Eve,” Mary was His (Jesus’) mother “and could not afterward belong to anyone else.” She is the “actual door into history” through which came the Messiah. “She remains in the same reserved position as the gate (scil. Ezekiel), which belongs to the king alone” (Seewald, 303). This means, for Cardinal Ratzinger, that the notion of brothers and sisters can be understood only in the “framework of clan thinking.” Her being set apart for Christ—the Immaculate Conception—”was the characteristic trait of her life. . . She stands from the outset, in a special way, in the sight of God, who had looked upon her (Magnificat) and allowed her to look upon him.” (Seewald, 304) The Immaculate Conception brings with it “a complete state of grace,” which with the Assumption is transformed into full community with Christ. Notwithstanding the difficulties of this dogma, for example, what is meant by heaven, by glorified body? The “essential point of this dogma is that Mary is wholly with God, entirely with Christ, completely a ‘Christian’” (in another corporal identity, which we cannot imagine).” (Seewald, 305)
“It has always been the Mother”
Mary may belong to the King alone, she is set apart for Christ, but she is not separated from us in splendid isolation. Mary has tended the hearts of men and women, and thus produced prayers and a popular piety which “never lost their freshness and immediacy.” The Cardinal goes a step further: “Mariology has expressed the inmost feelings of Christianity. Here people can have direct experience of Christianity as the religion of trust, of certainty.” (Seewald, 299) Through the mother they find God. Religion is no longer a burden but a help in coping with life. Mary, in a special way, is the key to missionary activity. “There is one thing we must not forget,” says the Cardinal, “it has always been the mother who reached people in a missionary situation and made Christ accessible to them.” (Seewald, 300) He is thinking in particular of the Latin American situation: “In Mexico, at first, absolutely nothing could be done about missionary work—until the occurrence of that phenomenon of Guadalupe, and then the Son was suddenly near by way of his mother.” (Seewald, 300) He also salutes the “timid efforts” made by Protestants to recapture the figure of Mary, because woman stands at the center of Christianity. “Through Mary, and the other holy women, the feminine element stands at the heart of Christian religion. To think of Christ and Mary as being in competition means ignoring the essential distinction between these two figures… That is not competition but a most profound intimacy.” (Seewald, 302) And the Cardinal perceives in Mary and Mariology—though warning against “mere sentimentality, which no longer keeps in touch with reality”—a reaction against the exaggerations of Enlightenment: “. . . we have experienced such an enormous trend toward rationalizing and Puritanism, if I may so express it, that the heart of man sets itself against this development and holds tight to Mariology.” (Seewald, 300) People hold tight to Mary because she is “the open door to God,” the key to a deeper understanding of God. Cardinal Ratzinger uses this symbolism with some frequency: “Through Mary they are able to look upon the face of Christ and of God, so that they are able to understand God,” or in a different context: : . . The mystery of the Son and the mystery of God are made accessible to men in a special way through the mother.” (Seewald, 307) The basis for this relationship is trust, often mentioned—and varied—by the Cardinal. In her presence we can be “completely unselfconscious,” like “little children, trustingly, in a way people often would not dare to do with Christ.” Apparitions, healings, miracles—though escaping human understanding—have a foundation in trust and trust answered: “Faith becomes such a living thing in this trust that it spills out into the physical, everyday realm and thereby permits the kind hand of God to become actually effective, through the power of the kindness of his Mother.” (Seewald, 308)
Most important, Mary is the fertile ground where the seed of the Word becomes fruit. The Marian character of our being Christian is expressed in Luke’s definition of true blessedness. Blessed are those who “hear the word of God and observe it.” (Lk 11.28) Ratzinger sees in this Marian attitude a sure direction and trustworthy reference for all those pilgrims in route to eternity who have to brave confusion and contradictions, trial and hardship, anxiety and rejection.
https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/p/pope-benedict-xvi-and-mary.php
Some of the biblical texts used in the encyclical to illustrate the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption include:
- Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. (Ps 131:8)
- [the Spouse of Canticles] that goeth up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh, and frankincense (Cant 3:6)
- The Woman clothed with the Sun (Rev 12)
- I will glorify the place of my feet. (Is 61:13)
- Who is this that cometh up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved? (Cant 8:5)
Consider how these passages could be related to the Assumption dogma. Commentators often compared Mary to the bride in Canticles. Her arising like incense to God, or coming up to lean on her beloved could be interpreted as assumption into Jesus’ company. Mary was also likened to the Ark of the Covenant; since she contained the Eternal Word in her Womb. Hence, arising to rest with the Lord could allude to Mary’s Assumption. The Woman of the Apocalypse appeared as ‘a great sign in the heavens’. Mary is called ‘Woman’ in John’s Gospel. At her Assumption, she is said to enter ‘into heavenly glory’. Revelation 12 could be a poetic description of these facts. Finally, the place of the Lord’s feet mentioned in Is 61, His resting place at the Incarnation, was Mary. The glorification mentioned could refer to glorification in heaven.
The encyclical also offers a number of scripturally based arguments of fittingness in support of Mary’s Assumption. For example, the fullness of grace ascribed to Mary in Lk 1:28, and the accommodation of Gen 3:15 to her, indicate that Mary “was exempted from the fourfold curse that had been laid upon Eve.” (#30) (e.g. bodily death and corruption) Also, the commandment to honor parents (cf. Ex 20:11) was seen to imply Jesus’ care for Mary’s body after her death (cf. #35). Finally, the bodily resurrection won by Jesus’ Resurrection in which “Death is swallowed up in victory,” (I Cor 15:54) is applicable to Mary as to all believers. However, because Scripture and Tradition indicate the close link between Jesus and His Mother on earth, the link between Jesus’ bodily Resurrection and Mary’s share in it was assumed to be equally close. None of this constitutes explicit Scriptural proof of the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption. Its status as infallibly revealed dogma rests on the living authority of the Church as the interpreter of Scripture, especially as to its comprehensiveness and overall finality. However, the Catholic Church considers this Marian privilege to be “in wonderful accord with those divine truths given us in Holy Scripture.” (#24)
Tags
Sure it does.
One is that the CCC itself states that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation, so that makes salvation contingent on being Catholics or adhering to Catholicism.
The other is the requirement of baptism for salvation.
There are two, right off the bat.
Then there's the Law keeping where is you commit a mortal sin and die with that on your soul, you go to hell.
That makes it a works based salvation, not one based on the merits of Christ, but on our own personal merit. Which none of us have.
1 Corinthians 1:11-17 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
The mission of any Christian is to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
And the basis for faith is the word of God, not Catholicism and its religious rituals.
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Nonsense.
It doesn't take Catholicism or a priest to share in communion or baptize someone.
And Jesus left no sacraments. There's not one place in Scripture where He uses the terms or sets up rituals for man to observe to help us follow Christ.
Galatians 4:8-11 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.
Following Christ is not about going to church and observing holy days and doing church sanctioned rituals called sacraments that are supposed to magically confer God's grace on you.
God LAVISHES His grace on us in Christ Jesus. He doesn't dole it out in stingy little parcels for people who do the *right* prescribed activities.
Ephesians 1:3-10 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Following Christ is a lifestyle, not a time specific activity.
This is true worship, which mass is not.
Romans 12:1-2 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Jesus died once for all and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father.
This nonsense about Him continually dying and participating in killing Him over and over again is an affront to His finished work on the cross.
It's showing disbelief that what Jesus did, once for all, done deal, was adequate.
Luther removed nothing from the Bible.
Here, read and learn to correct your misunderstanding of actual history.
Catholic church stole Luther's translation.
The Catholic Bible was so-opted from Luther.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3558019/posts?page=213#213
Luther's canon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon
Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his translation of the German Bible, but he did relocate them to after the Old Testament, calling them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." He also considered the relocation of the Book of Esther from the canon to the Apocrypha, because without the deuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God.
Some Catholic sources state and certain historians contend that until the definition of the Council of Trent issued on April 8, 1546, the Roman Catholic Church had not yet dogmatically defined the contents of the biblical canon for Catholics and thus settled the matter.[6][7][8][9][10][11] though in the 4th century the Council of Rome had outlined the books which now appear in the Catholic Canon,[12] Luther considered Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation to be "disputed books", which he included in his translation but placed separately at the end in his New Testament published in 1522. This group of books begins with the book of Hebrews, and in its preface Luther states, "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."
A simple google search of *Did Luther remove books from the Bible* will correct the misinformation under which you have been operating.
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
Show us where Paul says that tradition trumps Scripture.
What “oral tradition” do you keep that is not found in scripture but that you can prove the apostles taught?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
Catholic authors wrote the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament (inspired by God) and all the books were organized into the Bible by Church councils.
Wrong. With the exception of Luke, who was either Roman or Greek, and was a physician, the authors of the NT were Jewish.
And assembling the known books of Scripture into one handy source is hardly a feat of great mental or spiritual acumen.
Someone would have done it sooner or later simply from a practicality standpoint.
Laying claim to assembling Scripture does not mean those who did it own it or can control it, or dictate how it's to be read and understood or interpreted.
“ Without the Catholic Church, one misses out on most of the Sacraments that Jesus left for us with sanctifying graces to help us follow God’s will.”
There are two sacraments commanded:
Baptism of believers who have expressed saving faith and want to publicly follow Christ.
Lord’s supper - not a mass, nor sacrifice again
They do not save.
The other Catholic “sacraments” are not from Christ.
There are so may unscriptural things in that screed, it isn’t worth the time to correct...
Not to mention all the oh so MANY, MANY times the exact same assertions have been slam-dunk corrected and disproved on these threads so that you'd think anyone would be embarrassed to keep on claiming them! Yet here we are...
I don't see how you can keep making this claim when you SHOULD know by now it is flat out wrong! Aren't you embarrassed for trying that when it has been shown to be a lie for YEARS on these threads??? One more time see HERE. Besides the fact that Luther didn't "remove" but even included those seven Apocryphal books in his German translation of the Bible, just what ARE all those important Roman Catholic doctrines that you imagine we miss out on that you get from them? Can they be backed up by the mutually undisputed Divinely-inspired books of the Bible? If not, why not?
You are so correct.
I believe there is one reason that explains this...
They *want* to believe it beyond any desire to know what is True.
And to open the mind to consider Truth invalidates their life experience.
Take Mary out of Catholicism and the whole house of cards collapses.
Most Catholics wouldn’t know what to do with just Jesus Himself.
Heck, you can’t get a Catholic to even go a month with focusing on just Jesus, without paying any attention to Mary.
Challenge them to pray only to God in Jesus name and to not pray to Mary for a whole month, and their world comes to an end. They’d sooner cut off their right arm than not pray to Mary.
I committed so many mortal sins, I just couldn’t resist sin. I already said, if I had a sin meter, that spun around, every time I committed a mortal sin, they could have used it on a contra rotating Russian Bear. That’s when I thought I couldn’t make it, and looked for another plan of salvation. 👍
“after 7 books were removed by Luther.”
First off those 7 books wasn’t in the early church’s Bible. When you read early church writers those books are not mentioned, but the other books of our current Bible was. It’s obvious they were not included until later (centuries) later and still it was for historical purposes not canonical. It was the roman church that added them as canon way later, so to remove them was not illogical, but the only thing that really makes sense.
Be it as it may...
ADSUM,
Do those 7 books belong in the Old or New Covenant?
If they are Old Covenant theology how exactly does that pertain to a New Covenant Christian?
If they are New Covenant books please explain this...
How are they New Covenant when they are clearly before Jesus Christ was manifested in the flesh at Bethlehem?
What theological significance such as salvation, heaven, or hell do they bring to the New Covenant that wasn’t clearly explained in our current New Testament?
I have asked this question before and never get and answer, so either explain it or quit using it. With no explanation it appears that you rcc’s are simply mouth peices of propaganda with no real understanding of Rome’s beliefs.
Please help me to understand why you rcc’s hang on to those 7 books like they contain the ultimate secrets to eternal life or eternal hell.
“Please help me to understand why you rcc’s hang on to those 7 books like they contain the ultimate secrets to eternal life or eternal hell.”
Residuls?
(I am kidding. I thought it a funny answer.)
+1!
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.