Should we Evangelize Protestants ?

The Catholic Thing ^ | August 9th, 2020 | Casey Chalk

[MurphsLaw]

We should stop trying to evangelize Protestants, some Catholics say. “Let’s get our own house clean first, before we invite our fellow Christians in,” someone commented on a recent article of mine that presented a Catholic rejoinder to a prominent Baptist theologian. Another reader argued that, rather than trying to persuade Protestants to become Catholic, we should “help each other spread God’s love in this world that seems to be falling to pieces before our eyes.” As a convert from Protestantism, actively engaged in ecumenical dialogue, I’ve heard this kind of thinking quite frequently. And it’s dead wrong.

One common argument in favor of scrapping Catholic evangelism towards Protestants is that the Catholic Church, mired in sex-abuse and corruption scandals, liturgical abuses, heretical movements, and uneven catechesis, is such a mess that it is not, at least for the moment, a place suitable for welcoming other Christians.

There are many problems with this. For starters, when has the Church not been plagued by internal crises? In the fourth century, a majority of bishops were deceived by the Arian heresy. The medieval Church suffered under the weight of simony and a lax priesthood, as well as the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism, culminating in three men claiming, simultaneously, to be pope. The Counter-Reformation, for all its catechetical, missionary and aesthetic glories, was still marred by corruption and heresies (Jansenism). Catholicism has never been able to escape such trials. That didn’t stop St. Martin of Tours, St. Boniface, St. Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius Loyola, or St. Teresa of Calcutta from their missionary efforts.

The “Catholics clean house” argument also undermines our own theology. Is the Eucharist the “source and summit of the Christian life,” as Lumen Gentium preaches, or not? If it is, how could we in good conscience not direct other Christians to its salvific power? Jesus Himself declared: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53) Was our Lord misrepresenting the Eucharist?

Or what of the fact that most Protestant churches allow contraception, a mortal sin? Or that Protestants have no recourse to the sacraments of penance or last rites? To claim Protestants aren’t in need of these essential parts of the Catholic faith is to implicitly suggest we don’t need them either.

* Moreover, in the generations since the Reformation, Rome has been able to win many Protestants back to the fold who have made incalculable contributions to the Church. St. John Henry Newman’s conversion ushered in a Catholic revival in England, and gave us a robust articulation of the concept of doctrinal development. The conversion of French Lutheran pastor Louis Bouyer influenced the teachings of Vatican II. Biblical scholar Scott Hahn’s conversion in the 1980s revitalized lay study of Holy Scripture.

Another popular argument in favor of limiting evangelization of Protestants involves the culture war. Catholics and theologically conservative Protestants, some claim, share significant common ground on various issues: abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, euthanasia, religious freedom, etc. Secularism, the sexual revolution, and anti-religious progressives represent an existential threat to the survival of both Catholics and Protestants, and thus we must work together, not debate one another. “Let’s hold back any criticism of them,” a person commenting on my article wrote. “Believe me, in the times that we are in, we need to all hang together, or we will definitely hang separately on gallows outside our own churches.”

This line of thought certainly has rhetorical force: we don’t have the luxury of debating with Protestants when the progressivists are planning our imminent demise! Ecumenical debate is a distraction from self-preservation. One problem with this argument is that it reduces our Christian witness to a zero-sum game – we have to focus all our efforts on fighting secular progressivism, or we’ll fail. Yet the Church has many missions in the public square – that Catholics invest great energy in the pro-life movement doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also focus our efforts on other important matters: health-care, education, ensuring religious freedom, or fighting poverty and environmental degradation. All of these, in different ways, are a part of human flourishing. Even if we consider some questions more urgent than others, none of them should be ignored.

Besides, there is a vast difference between mere polemics and charitable, fruitful discussions aimed at resolving disagreements. The former can certainly cause bad blood. The latter, however, can actually foster unity and clarity regarding our purposes. Consider how much more fruitful our fight against the devastation of the sexual revolution would be if we persuaded Protestants that they need to reject things like contraception and the more permissive stance towards divorce that they have allowed to seep into their churches. Consider how non-Christians could learn from charitable ecumenical conversations that don’t devolve into name-calling and vilification.

Finally, abandoning or minimizing the evangelizing of Protestants is to fail to recognize how their theological and philosophical premises have contributed to the very problems we now confront. As Brad Gregory’s book The Unintended Reformation demonstrates, the very nature of Protestantism has contributed to the individualism, secularism, and moral relativism of our age. A crucial component to our Catholic witness, then, is helping Protestants to recognize this, since even when they have the best intentions, their very paradigm undermines their contributions to collaborating with us in the culture war.

I for one am very grateful that Catholics – many of them former Protestants – persuaded me to see the problems inherent to Protestantism, and the indisputable truths of Catholicism. My salvation was at stake. I also found and married a devout Catholic woman, and am raising Catholic children. The Catholic tradition taught me how to pray, worship, and think in an entirely different way. It pains me to think what my life would be like if I hadn’t converted to Catholicism.

Why bother to evangelize devout Protestants? Because they are people like me.

[ADSUM]

The special ‘charism’ is based on actual words posted that many do not believe in all of God’s Revelations and reject many teachings of Jesus Christ. Many make false statements about the teachings of the Catholic faith and lead others astray. Many claim their personal false interpretation is the Truth of God without fully understanding the Words of Christ.

The Catholic teaching is that we receive sanctifying grace through our acceptance of God in Baptism by our faith in His revealed truths and by the Sacraments as we progress on our journey toward eternal life with God. Our good works in following God’s will shows our acceptance of our faith and love of God.

Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin). (Serious sin includes making false statements about Catholic Church teaching) Read carefully 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5.

Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions “justification by faith alone” or “salvation by faith alone.” The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted “alone” into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.

But your question deals with John 3:16. Yes, this passage does speak of the saving power of faith, but in no sense does it diminish the role of obedience to Christ in the process of getting to heaven.

In fact, it assumes it. Just as Fundamentalists overlook the rest of the chapter in connection with what being born of water and the Holy Spirit really means—they ignore the water part, which refers to baptism—they also overlook the context when interpreting Christ’s words about obtaining eternal life in John 3:16.

In John 3:36 we are told, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”

This expands on John 3:16. It is another way of saying what Paul says in Romans 6:23: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Although we cannot earn God’s unmerited favor by our good works, we can reject his love by our sins (that is, by our evil works) and thereby lose the eternal life he freely offers us in Christ.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/doesnt-john-316-clearly-indicate-that-faith-alone-is-necessary-for-salvation

I don’t believe that Jesus would encourage anyone to leave the Catholic faith that he established. There are many that see God’s Truth in the Catholic faith and some baptized Catholics no longer practice our Catholic faith. There is always hope that they will return and utilize the Sacrament of Reconciliation that restores our relationship with Christ. Fear can be a positive influence if it helps us do God’s will or it can make us chose the wrong or evil options.

The Catholic Catechism further states “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 remain in it.” ccc846-847 Mk 16:16 John 3:

I am not trying to judge anyone, but I feel too many do not recognize their sins and the consequences of sin and rationalize that they have faith that will save them. I question man made faith that does not fully accept God’s Truth. I believe anyone that rejects their Catholic faith affects their salvation that requires repentance and confession.

Why does someone who doesn’t know if they will die in the state of grace rely on man made assurance of salvation instead of the Sacrament of Reconciliation that provides absolution from sins that was authorized by Jesus Christ?

[MHGinTN]

I see your imagination is full on today ...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Oh Adsum! There you go again - posting things never in Scripture.

The Catholic teaching is that we receive sanctifying grace through our acceptance of God in Baptism by our faith in His revealed truths and by the Sacraments as we progress on our journey toward eternal life with God.

Never in Scripture and made up from pagan origins. Yet you keep pushing it.

Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin).

No, they do not, or they would be saved and have assurance of salvation. They do not.

DO YOU?

Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions “justification by faith alone” or “salvation by faith alone.” The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted “alone” into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.

Your post reflects little to nothing about translation, nor Scripture when you include things like this.

Do you read and write Greek and/or Hebrew??

Have you translated any books of Scripture?

But your question deals with John 3:16. Yes, this passage does speak of the saving power of faith, but in no sense does it diminish the role of obedience to Christ in the process of getting to heaven.

Ditto

I don’t believe that Jesus would encourage anyone to leave the Catholic faith that he established.

Because Christ didn't establish the Roman Catholic religion. Simple as that.

There is always hope that they will return and utilize the Sacrament of Reconciliation that restores our relationship with Christ.

No believer would ever trade assurance of salvation and personal relationship with Christ for a religion of pagan rituals and empty works and guilt.

No sale.

In John 3:36 we are told, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”

And here is an example where knowing language and hermeneutics would give you insight you are not demonstrating in your post FRiend.

John 3:36 In conclusion, John placed the alternatives side by side. Belief in the Son of God results in eternal life (1:12; 3:3, 5, 15, 16), life fitted for eternity with God and enjoyed to a limited extent now. Unbelief results in God’s wrath remaining on the unbeliever and his or her not obtaining eternal life. John spoke of unbelief as disobedience (rejection, NIV) because when God offers salvation unbelief becomes disobedience.
Constable, T. (2003).

The Catholic Catechism further states “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 remain in it.” ccc846-847 Mk 16:16 John 3:

Romanism and her false doctrines have no authority over any but those enslaved to it.

Believers are not under the authority of paganism. Worth noting.

I am not trying to judge anyone, but I feel too many do not recognize their sins and the consequences of sin and rationalize that they have faith that will save them. I question man made faith that does not fully accept God’s Truth. I believe anyone that rejects their Catholic faith affects their salvation that requires repentance and confession.

Thanks for sharing your (non-authoritative) feelings and opinions... but Scripture is an infinitely larger authority that comes direct from God.

Further, Scripture stands in opposition to your posted feelings, beliefs and questions.

Why does someone who doesn’t know if they will die in the state of grace rely on man made assurance of salvation instead of the Sacrament of Reconciliation that provides absolution from sins that was authorized by Jesus Christ?

Let's see... Their assurance of salvation comes directly from Christ and not a religion, there is no Biblical "sacrament of reconcilation" and there is no absolution of sins that doesn't come directly from Christ - no man can give it to another. Nor was this false sacrament authorized by Christ.

Best.

[Luircin]

Oh ADSUM, there you go again, making statements without offering any evidence for why we should believe them.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions “justification by faith alone” or “salvation by faith alone.” The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted “alone” into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine.

..................................................

Totally false.

Perhaps you sincerely believe this and do not know it is false.

I am happy to take a moment to paste some information so you do not continue perpetuating this falsehood unknowingly FRiend.

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] with the word “alone.”

"At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

...............

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further: Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

................

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “nur durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.” [source]

More at the link: https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

[MayflowerMadam]

Good grief.

[Mark17]

I am not trying to judge anyone

Thanks for not judging me, when I say I have assurance of salvation. It’s a beautiful thing. You should try it. You will like it. If you don’t have it, why don’t you have it? I have to admit, when I was in the Catholic Church, I never had ANY assurance of anything. Once I left, I got my assurance. You can do it, unless you simply don’t want it. 🤗

[boatbums]

Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions “justification by faith alone” or “salvation by faith alone.”

Oh, you mean OTHER than:

Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ...

Galatians 3:24
So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. ...

Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Galatians 2:16
So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:11
Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because "the righteous will live by faith." ...

[boatbums]

Thanks for not judging me, when I say I have assurance of salvation. It’s a beautiful thing. You should try it. You will like it. If you don’t have it, why don’t you have it? I have to admit, when I was in the Catholic Church, I never had ANY assurance of anything. Once I left, I got my assurance. You can do it, unless you simply don’t want it.

And would you say that you are now a better Christian than you were under Catholicism? Because that has been my experience. Jesus spoke about giving us abundant life, that His yoke was EASY and His burden was LIGHT. Yet here we have religionists that insist on piling on all kinds of works, obligations and actions that supposedly help us keep our "grace tank" topped up. Every time we commit a sin, we leak/use up our original grace and then we have to go through a process to erase the sin and fill up the tank again. And a MORTAL sin? Oh, my! That drains it completely! Lotta work to fill up the tank then. I can see why some refer to this as a hamster wheel of works. Why can't they understand that it is REJECTING/FALLING FROM grace - making the cross of none effect - when we make our eternal salvation conditional on what WE do?! How the Lord must grieve when we stupid humans imagine we can do better than God! We try to be justified by our on filthy rags of righteousness when ONLY by shedding of blood is there atonement for sins.

I continue to pray God removes the blinders from their spiritual eyes and they may have the power, together with all the saints, to comprehend the length and width and height and depth of His love, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that they may be filled with all the fullness of God.

[metmom]

So then, by that reasoning, (because a specific word or phrase is not found written down in Scripture it's not Scriptural), the Bible must not be “scriptural” and the Holy Trinity must not "scriptural".

Then that must mean that these things are not Scriptural either.

trinity

catholic

pope

eucharist

sacraments

annulment

assumption

immaculate conception

mass

purgatory

magisterium

infallible

confirmation

crucifix

rosary

mortal sin

venial sin

perpetual virginity

indulgences

hyperdulia

catechism

real presence

transubstantiation

liturgy

free will

holy water

monstrance

sacred tradition

apostolic succession

Benefactress

Mediatrix

Queen of Heaven

Mother of God

beatific vision

invincible ignorance

Divine Office

guardian angel

Corporal Works of Mercy

Petrine authority

heresy

Baptism of blood

Baptism of desire

Genuflect

[metmom]

Imagination?

How about hallucinations?

All that gobblty-gook from the catechism of the Catholic “church” is meaningless in terms of a person’s salvation and personal walk with Christ.

[metmom]

Nice work bb.

[metmom]

Second, the Bible nowhere uses the expressions “justification by faith alone” or “salvation by faith alone.”

What GOD tells us in Scripture is this about belief with NO mention of works.

John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

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 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

However, HERE, works is mentioned....

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

And in this verse, works are excluded as being instrumental in saving someone. That leaves only faith.

So while Paul did not state it in a Catholic religion approved way, that salvation is *by grace through faith alone*, by stating that it's by grace through faith and adding the clause of * and NOT OF WORKS,, it is describing salvation by faith alone. Because if it's not of works, there's nothing left but faith. Alone.

Galatians 2:15-21 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

[metmom]

Why does someone who doesn’t know if they will die in the state of grace rely on man made assurance of salvation instead of the Sacrament of Reconciliation that provides absolution from sins that was authorized by Jesus Christ?

All believers are in God's grace, all the time.

Grace is not grace if it's earned or merited.

Absolution from sins, by a fallible, corrupt, likely immoral human being who may have been molesting kids the day before, or providing cover for said molesters?

Why would I go to the likes of cocaine using, homosexual, pedophile Catholic clergy for any spiritual guidance?

That'd be like going to a pusher for cancer treatment.

[metmom]

And would you say that you are now a better Christian than you were under Catholicism?

I wasn't any kind of Christian when I was Catholic.

I was a Catholic.

Which is not to be conflated with being a Christian.

[Mark17]

And would you say that you are now a better Christian than you were under Catholicism?

Absolutely yes. I will qualify that, by saying, that when I was a catholic, I was NOT a Christian at all. If I had croaked while I was a catholic, I would have gone here 🔥 That’s not cool, no pun intended. 👎 I was a spiritually dead soul, on my way to Hell. As a spiritually dead soul, I did not even know I was on my way to hell. That is spiritual blindness. I am sure you remember that too. In fact, after I got saved, and left the Catholic Church, I was amazed at the spiritual deadness and total blindness I had, as a Catholic. It appears to me, there is a lot of spiritual blindness, right here on this thread. Oh well, it doesn’t have to be that way. 👍😁🤪😆☝️
Maybe it was a good thing, that in catechism class, all I wanted to do, was flirt with the girls. 😁🤪🤣 That way, I had less false doctrine to get rid of. 👍

[smvoice]

It’s the conjuctions that the RCC cannot get past
The “if, and, or, but, however”, etc.

That junction functions as a clever weigh station for rejecting God’s word for man’s doctrines.

[MHGinTN]

The truth about Fatima circa 1917 is the most devastating truth about the fraudulent Catholic Religion I have come across. Sadly really, that so many have been so exquisitely deceived and continue to be deceived by a religious ORG using the frauds such as Fatima as an empowerment scheme to support their religious ORG.

[Elsie]

Why does someone who doesn’t know if they will die in the state of grace rely on man made assurance of salvation instead of the Sacrament of Reconciliation that provides absolution from sins that was authorized by Jesus Christ?

HUH?

I don't even know where to begin to parse this!

[Elsie]

The problem with protestants is that do not understand what faith is.

 

 

Lord; remember me when you come into your kingdom.

 

 

Well; I don't know.  Do you fully understand faith??