Calling on all Protestants on this forum!

[Neithan]

SirShaun: Consubstantiation which does not expect actual human flesh and blood in the bread and wine is, like Transubstantiation, not contradictory to observation, since they both assert that the appearance of bread and wine remains. There is of course no *observable *evidence of this change, but we are not basing our Faith on observation. It’s in the reasoning we encounter difficulty, but most especially we encounter difficulty in Revelation (the words of Scripture and Tradition).

But again, I ask, which is more plausable: that something that is entirely something new has the same appearance, or something which is partly changed?

I answered this in the sentence after which you quoted:

If [Consubstantiation] does not expect normal human flesh and blood in the bread and wine, but Christ is only “partially” present, we have difficulties in reasoning, such as “which crumb, molecule, atom etc. is Christ, and which is merely bread?” “How do we know if we are receiving a crumb, molecule atom etc. which is truly Christ and not merely bread?” Most importantly, Consubstantiation is against Revelation, which is found foremost in Scripture, and states clearly a full presence, rather than a partial (see catholic encyclopaedia’s [article ](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3<font face=)on Transubstantiation, in particular III, b.)

As the above iterates: why is it more reasonable, if the appearances of bread and wine remain, that Christ only becomes part of it and not the whole of it?

The rock that grows quartz crystals is partially changed, but this change is *observable *by further examination of the rock. The Eucharist is an wholly unobservable change. Considering that we are physically partaking of Christ’s body and blood, and this body and blood are unobservable within the bread and wine, a partial change limits the Incarnation and introduces uncertainty as to which of the two substances we are consuming. Naturally, two substances cannot coexist in the same space.

Again, the bread **is Christ. It doesn’t contain His body,it is His body.

Anyway, this argument has been raging for centuries, and I doubt that we will forge agreement about it here. If one does not trust Christian Tradition and the Magisterium, then no amount of debate will help.

Pax

 

[m_dinwiddie]

In response to the posts about Lutherns and the Real Presence–since the Luthern Church seperated from the Catholic Church, they don’t have the Sacrament of HOLY ORDERS, therefore their priests cannot consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. There is no way that Lutherns can have the REAL PRESENCE.

 

[Contarini]

Neithan:

why is it more reasonable, if the appearances of bread and wine remain, that Christ only becomes part of it and not the whole of it?

I’ve never understood the Lutherans to be saying that Christ is “part” of the bread and wine. Lutherans generally use the analogy of the union of the two natures in Christ–and certainly Christ is not “part” human and part divine. Your argument fails because you’re attacking a straw man of your own invention.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[cyprian]

jamesclaude:

What a TIMELY observation ! ( President Bush uses it quite effectively - over half of our voting population bought it - and believes it ) .

Is all the “stuff” that has been “added” since the Early Church what you refer to as “The Magisterium” ? One thing that keeps me in the Anglican ( Episcopal ) Church is that we don’t have it - and like it that way.

Also, we don’t embrace many “newer” doctrines ( Sacred Heart, etc. If a nun has a dream, does that change everything ? A committee is appointed to decide whether or not it was a “VALID” dream ? )

Some prefer a more primitive catholicism without too many bells and whistles. If you get the basics down proficiently, THEN sweat the small stuff - or let a city full of elderly single men sit around and think it up - for you to believe and do…

Some folks are ready to believe anything. And, some simply aren’t.

Say it and say it and say it - that still doesn’t justify making it so…

I tend to agree with Dennis !

You don’t know the difference between a doctrine and personal revelation. The Church investigates some personal revelations, no nearly all claimed…very long process…similar to how you need to learn about what you talk about so people don’t get the wrong idea when you mis-represent.

Peace and Love

 

[cyprian]

cyprian:

You don’t know the difference between a doctrine and personal revelation. The Church investigates some personal revelations, no nearly all claimed…very long process…similar to how you need to learn about what you talk about so people don’t get the wrong idea when you mis-represent.

Peace and Love

Are you denying the fact that God chooses to sometimes work through people in his Church? Sorry to get off topic but what do you make of a guy like Padre Pio who was a very pious Catholic and bore the wounds of Christ(gift). Or the martyrs(oops more Catholics, sorry) What do you make of these people? The Anglican Church as one example in the 16th century might have said that the opinion of a peasant(private revelation or apparition) wasn’t to be trusted, because he was a peasant and peasants coulden’t be trusted.(In case you wanted to use this reasoning)

So what do you make of these things that Catholics look to occasionally as models of faith? The Church doesn’t make a saint a saint because of what he or she may have seen but rather the example of Christian piety they left. What do you all make of these things??? I’m curious…The world awaits!

 

[klimtj]

I did not read every response but being a protestant(raised Methodist) and married to a catholic and having given birth to 2 possibly 3 (the jury is still out on my oldest, although she is confirmed catholic).

My basis for my faith is the Holy Bible. The inspired work of God as put forth by the Council of Nicea. I believe it was in the 3rd century, is that not early enough?

Where in this work is there any validity for the Virgin Mary being sinless or concieved without sin? Not anywhere. “Hail Mary full of Grace” does indicate that she is blessed by God but Christ, you know the words in red, says that “All have sinned.”, he also says that only “God is good”. “Call none but God Father”. Was she blessed beyond any other woman or person ever to walk the earth yes. Sinless no.

Transubstanation (sp) is a difficult question and maybe protestants are in error regarding the metaphysical but does not the Holy scripture continually refer to salvation as being obtained by our belief? Christ said that “the only way to the father is thru the son”. Peter’s belief and declaration of Jesus being the Son of God gave him the keys to the kingdom. I believe that by taking communion I am reaffirming the sacrifice that Christ made. He is our pascal lamb, but and this is a big one, my salvation or lack thereof is due to my belief or lack thereof. What makes any sacrement precious is my belief. To a pagan or heathen these things are nothing. It is our faith that gives them measure.

Personally I don’t believe in original sin and I don’t see it as a biblical tenant. A sinful nature that we ALL have inherited is a definite. Genesis and on tell us this. Adam was not created with sin but with a nature that enabled him to sin. We all chose to sin because we all chose to rebel against his will. That is what we inherit from Adam.

I am sorry I didn’t mean to be so verbose. I also want to say that isn’t it a better thing to focus on our commonalities than our differences?

 

[MacMi169]

dennisknapp:

And in the early Church those who were writing could not be said to be “victors” in any sense except that they had victory in Christ. They were hunted and persecuted and wrote things down knowing that if discovered could be put to death.

This is an excellent point. For too long, the philosphical foundations of the church have been overlooked. Any modern church is an earthly institutionattempting to commune with the divine and *** such will be influenced by the philosophy of others. As my school chaplain, an ordained Anglican priest, is found of saying the roots of Catholic dogma can be found in Aristotle, and the roots of Protestanism can be found in Plato. Thus we must look at the works outside the scope of the Bible to understand the roots of any modern Catholic or Protestant dogma. And now for the evidence. The first work to address the ideal of Apostolic Succession was written by St. Clement, or for those protestants reading Clement the Fourth Bishop of Rome. In an open pastoral letter to the church at Corinth written forty-one years after Paul’s first letter Clement declares, “The apostles received the gospel form the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent from God and the aoostles from Christ.” This is a justification of the principle of Apostolic that directly addresses the Biblical ideal that is expressed in Matthew 16: 18-20. And more importantly it comes from a man who was converted by Peter and Paul, and who studied under them. As Matthew 16:19 declares, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” From Clement’s close relationship with Peter and Paul we can assume that he shared strikingly similar theological ideals. As such I feel 100% comfortable declaring that the principle of Apostolic Succession to be Biblically based and theologically sound. (I know that Dennis Knapp originally asked for Protestant justification of dogmatic elements, but I just wanted to demonstrate how such a principle might be justified.)

 

[Neithan]

Originally posted by Contarini:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neithan
why is it more reasonable, if the appearances of bread and wine remain, that Christ only becomes part of it and not the whole of it?

I’ve never understood the Lutherans to be saying that Christ is “part” of the bread and wine. Lutherans generally use the analogy of the union of the two natures in Christ–and certainly Christ is not “part” human and part divine. Your argument fails because you’re attacking a straw man of your own invention.

In Christ,

Edwin

As usual, assumptions isolating individual words based on misunderstandings of applicable terminology are “straw” attacks of their own.
By part of, I mean exactly that Christ unites Himself to bread. The Lutheran view is that Christ is “in, with and under” bread. Consubstantiation insists that the presence of *mere bread *remains. Transubstantiation insists that Christ *wholly *becomes the bread itself. Christ is the bread. There is no union here, there is a change in substance, from mere bread, to Christ *as *bread (under the *appearance *of mere bread).

The point of the rhetorical question above is to open up the holes in reasoning which result from a belief in the mere union of Christ’s Body with normal bread, rather than His Body wholly becoming the bread. There must be acknowledgement of a *full *substance change.

and certainly Christ is not “part” human and part divine.

Amen! Christ is fully Man and fully God.
Now, we are not paralleling Christ’s relationship between His Divinity and His Humanity, with the relationship of His Body to the bread. His Divinity is consubstantial with His Humanity! There is an intimate, full, and mysterious *union *between the two Natures.

His Humanity, however, is not consubstantial with His Body (his human form). His Humanity is His Body, not merely in union with it. So, His Body is not “in, with and under” mere human flesh, it ***is ***human flesh. Christ did not unite Himself to a mere Human, he is Human! This is the relationship which Transubstantiation explains for the Real Presence. Just as Christ *fully *took on human flesh as His Body in the Incarnation, he fully takes on bread (and wine) as His Body (and Blood) in the Eucharist. Herein lies the difference: Christ does not unite to bread (Consubstantiation). He becomes bread (Transubstantiation). The appearance of the mere bread remains after consecration, but it is now Christ Himself under the form of bread.

Pax

 

[cyprian]

klimtj:

I did not read every response but being a protestant(raised Methodist) and married to a catholic and having given birth to 2 possibly 3 (the jury is still out on my oldest, although she is confirmed catholic).

My basis for my faith is the Holy Bible. The inspired work of God as put forth by the Council of Nicea. I believe it was in the 3rd century, is that not early enough?

Where in this work is there any validity for the Virgin Mary being sinless or concieved without sin? Not anywhere. “Hail Mary full of Grace” does indicate that she is blessed by God but Christ, you know the words in red, says that “All have sinned.”, he also says that only “God is good”. “Call none but God Father”. Was she blessed beyond any other woman or person ever to walk the earth yes. Sinless no.

Transubstanation (sp) is a difficult question and maybe protestants are in error regarding the metaphysical but does not the Holy scripture continually refer to salvation as being obtained by our belief? Christ said that “the only way to the father is thru the son”. Peter’s belief and declaration of Jesus being the Son of God gave him the keys to the kingdom. I believe that by taking communion I am reaffirming the sacrifice that Christ made. He is our pascal lamb, but and this is a big one, my salvation or lack thereof is due to my belief or lack thereof. What makes any sacrement precious is my belief. To a pagan or heathen these things are nothing. It is our faith that gives them measure.

Personally I don’t believe in original sin and I don’t see it as a biblical tenant. A sinful nature that we ALL have inherited is a definite. Genesis and on tell us this. Adam was not created with sin but with a nature that enabled him to sin. We all chose to sin because we all chose to rebel against his will. That is what we inherit from Adam.

I am sorry I didn’t mean to be so verbose. I also want to say that isn’t it a better thing to focus on our commonalities than our differences?

Do you not ever call your earthly father, “father”?

What do the keys to the kingdom mean? Something from the old test.? Jesus using the Jewish idioms of the day to convey a deeper meaning, more important responsibility? Watching over a house when the owner is away?

The new test. gives about 6 or 7 ways by which one has “Life”, is raised up, is saved, why do you only choose one? Do all all of these expression’s mean salvation and if not what do they mean separately. Can’t one take them as a "whole way, instead of choosing one over the other. Jesus did say “Do everything I have commanded you”. Was he talking in riddles? Do you think the Apostles had opportunity to ask lots of questions? And so we wind up seeing that the Acts, Epistles and the early fathers do indeed overlap, for they were contemporaries, and there is nothing in contradiction(essential) written by these men who succeeded the Apostles, but rather we see them teaching directly from scripture(orally then, and the Bible we now have/remember they had no bible yet)
Were the Apostles teaching them incorrectly? In fact Ignatius of Antioch, Luke’s hometown, calls the Church “Catholic”, not as some new announcement but states rather as binding, like it was already held. Why not have the Mother of God be preserved from sin if God so chose?

Your on your way, Bless you and your children and search deeper. Get out of your own way! Remember it doesn’t matter what “we” think, like when we thought we knew better than our parents and didn’t follow their guidance.
Peace and Love

 

[Jim_B]

Greetings Fellow Catholics and Protestants,

Funny how misinformation can lead to stereotypes. Back in November one of my students remarked to me, “You’re Catholic so you’re voting for Kerry, right?”
“No Katie, I’m voting for Bush.” As a matter of fact, more Catholics voted for Bush than for Kerry.

Another student remarked to me last month, “My dad was Catholic, but now he joined our church(Protestant) and he’s a Christian.”
“Jess, Catholics are the first Christians.”
And on it goes with misconceptions about Catholicism.

What is the greatest gift God could give us here on earth?
I posed this question to two Mormon missionaries who stopped by once and one replied, “eternal life”. I agree that is a great gift, but we won’t experience that here on earth.
The answer is, “Himself”. The giver is greater than His gifts.
That is why the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is both the ‘source and summit’ of our Catholic faith. For any non-Catholics reading this, ask yourself, ‘if Jesus really meant what he said (“This is my body.”) - they why am I trading that for what my present church is offering me?’

After WWII, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, converted to Catholicism. His conversion was a very gradual and beautiful story of God’s grace. (his book, Before the Dawn is where you can read it for yourself)
When asked by a reporter, “Why didn’t you choose some Protestant denomination instead? It would have been so much easier than the demands of Catholicism.”
Zolli replied, “Because protesting is not attesting.”

I gave that some thought and marveled at the elegant simplicity of his answer. In Catholicism we state what we believe in the Apostles Creed. But the premise of Protestantism is - 'here is what we do not believe / the pope, the sacrament of confession,the rosary, etc. . . .
It occured to me that in my conversations with Protestants the foundation of their faith is that ‘Catholicism is wrong’ - and then they proceed to replace it with their beliefs.
But Catholicism doesn’t take such an approach to ‘prove’ itself. The Catholic religion stands on its own, and doesn’t need to ‘replace’ the beliefs of other. I have never in my life heard a Catholic priest belittle a Protestant denomination. But I have heard plenty of Protestants knock Catholicism.

In Catholicism we enjoy a ‘certainty’ that Jesus founded our faith. This inner peace and certainty is reinforced when we are confirmed. This does not make us holier than others. But it does preserve us from the insecurity that I see in those who insist on knocking down Catholicism in order to show that their denomination is the truest one.
For my Protestant friends, our Catholic Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic (universal), and Apostolic, is not a shrine for saints. It is a hospital for sinners. Everyone is welcome!

God Love Ya!
Jim

 

[dennisknapp]

Greetings Fellow Catholics and Protestants,

Funny how misinformation can lead to stereotypes. Back in November one of my students remarked to me, “You’re Catholic so you’re voting for Kerry, right?”
“No Katie, I’m voting for Bush.” As a matter of fact, more Catholics voted for Bush than for Kerry.

Another student remarked to me last month, “My dad was Catholic, but now he joined our church(Protestant) and he’s a Christian.”
“Jess, Catholics are the first Christians.”
And on it goes with misconceptions about Catholicism.

What is the greatest gift God could give us here on earth?
I posed this question to two Mormon missionaries who stopped by once and one replied, “eternal life”. I agree that is a great gift, but we won’t experience that here on earth.
The answer is, “Himself”. The giver is greater than His gifts.
That is why the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is both the ‘source and summit’ of our Catholic faith. For any non-Catholics reading this, ask yourself, ‘if Jesus really meant what he said (“This is my body.”) - they why am I trading that for what my present church is offering me?’

After WWII, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, converted to Catholicism. His conversion was a very gradual and beautiful story of God’s grace. (his book, Before the Dawn is where you can read it for yourself)
When asked by a reporter, “Why didn’t you choose some Protestant denomination instead? It would have been so much easier than the demands of Catholicism.”
Zolli replied, “Because protesting is not attesting.”

I gave that some thought and marveled at the elegant simplicity of his answer. In Catholicism we state what we believe in the Apostles Creed. But the premise of Protestantism is - 'here is what we do not believe / the pope, the sacrament of confession,the rosary, etc. . . .
It occured to me that in my conversations with Protestants the foundation of their faith is that ‘Catholicism is wrong’ - and then they proceed to replace it with their beliefs.
But Catholicism doesn’t take such an approach to ‘prove’ itself. The Catholic religion stands on its own, and doesn’t need to ‘replace’ the beliefs of other. I have never in my life heard a Catholic priest belittle a Protestant denomination. But I have heard plenty of Protestants knock Catholicism.

In Catholicism we enjoy a ‘certainty’ that Jesus founded our faith. This inner peace and certainty is reinforced when we are confirmed. This does not make us holier than others. But it does preserve us from the insecurity that I see in those who insist on knocking down Catholicism in order to show that their denomination is the truest one.
For my Protestant friends, our Catholic Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic (universal), and Apostolic, is not a shrine for saints. It is a hospital for sinners. Everyone is welcome!

God Love Ya!
Jim
[/quote]

Beautifully put, brother! Amen.

 

[cyprian]

Shibboleth:

I don’t understand this summation at all…

First off Protestants are constantly accused of Interpreting Scriptures any way that they like. Well if you are speaking of Protestant churches then you may have an argument but Protestants people as a whole do not do this.

Most believe and profess exactly what they were taught in Church, be that Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, etc., without much question. Many Catholic individuals do the same. So do they interpret scriptures for themselves? – no they leave that up to their Ministers, Pastors, Reverends, Priest, etc. Do those beliefs differ from Catholic beliefs? - most certainly but they are not really their own interpretations. So one must say that Protestants follow the interpretations that they are taught and Catholic follow the interpretations that they are taught.

Are they unbelieving or the most unbelieving people? Absolutely not, they are firm in their beliefs – want to test this go to a Church of Christ website and chat for a while – they have beliefs that they are very very strong about. Do they disbelieve some Catholic doctrines? – most certainly but disbelieving a doctrine is not the same as unbelieving, else one could say that Catholics are unbelieving because they disbelieve some Protestant doctrine.

So in the end it still comes down to, I am right and you are wrong. We will probably see just this kind of behavior as a few Catholics will come on and say – but they are disbelieving because this is the way that it is and they choose to believe differently. We are the first – 2000 years – etc.

Hey Shib,
I’m curious, do Lutherans condemn contraception?

Peace and Love

 

[scottofindiana]

Shibboleth:

Lutherans do believe in Apostolic Succession, The True Presence, The necessary aspect of Baptism, and that Mary was ever virgin. All of these aspects can be proven to have been held by the Church Fathers.

I, being a Lutheran, have never run into any other Lutheran who believed in Apostolic Succession in the way that Catholics believe in it. I’ve only known us to affirm apostolic tradition; in fact very view Lutheran groups have maintained the historic episcopate. Luther believed Mary was ever virgin, but no Lutheran denomination I know of specifically affirms this teaching. Either way sola scriptura is the rule for affirming any doctrine as being authoritative.

 

[reggie]

The original question in this thread is what evidence can Protestants produce from early Christianity to show that their beliefs are more true than that of the RCC. I think there has been some good posts showing that there were in fact dissenters and differences of opinion in the early church. Many of the defined doctrines of the RCC were solidified as dogma because of them. What it leads me to understand is that there has always been a need for leaders and teachers of the church to wade through it all and determine which is Biblical and in keeping with the Traditions of the Apostles. Most of the NT was written because of dissenting teachings. The Apostles and their followers saw that without unified teachings, many people were preaching the wrong things. Obviously, the Apostles and their immediate followers did not live forever, therefore, the task of keeping the Faith fell to each successive generation. And in each generation there came opposing opinions. That Jesus would just leave us to muddle along and figure it out ourselves doesn’t make sense in light of His actions and words after His resurrection. He gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose, to forgive or not forgive and told them that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them. The hierarchy of the RCC is not just a bunch of old white men who sit around and make things up as they go along. If Jesus, through the Holy Spirit is not in control, then it is all for nothing for He is not then what He claimed to be nor is His word believable. His church is a farce of the greatest proportions and millions of believers are dupes of the highest order. Especially those who lived and died before Luther came along. The more Protestants differ the stronger is my belief that there is but one place where the fullness of truth can be found. Look what is happening throughout the Protestant faiths even now as we speak. Denominations are fragmenting over doctrine and practices at a rate too fast to keep up. All Catholic doctrine has been tested and through the work of the Holy Spirit, the leaders and teachers of every generation have sought His guidance and determined what we as believers are to hold true. When Jesus castigated the leaders of the Jewish temple, He also told His followers to do as they say, not as they do. Recent Marian doctrines were formulated to answer specific attacks against Her and humans in general. The December issue of Crises has a very good article concerning them. Scripture and Revelation has been and will continue to be revealed like the contents of a dark room as the sun comes up, with not everything fully seen or understood until that time when Jesus the Light of the world returns. Until that time, we who are just Soldiers in His Army must look to our leaders for the battle plan. Praise be to God for His infinite wisdom and mercy in giving us the Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Dennis, You see you want me to provide proof,like I want you to provide proof and the truth is neither will convince each other because you are talking about thing which are happening in the Spirit. Human eyes cannot see what is in the Spirit .You need spiritual eyes to see in the Spirit. Satan does a wonderful job consuming our precious time doesnt he. I,m just as guilty as you…We need to fix our eyes on Above,thats the problem with us. God Bless

SPOKENWORD, old buddy I have to disagree with you here.
History is a matter of verifiable FACTS not some spiritualized interpretation. I mean. Acts of the Apostles is essentially a history book (albiet an inspired history book written by St. Luke) but what about the historic documents that came down to us from the guys who followed the Apostles? Ignatius of Antioch was a close didsciple of St. John and so since he was bishop of the church in Antioch, his writings should tell us what they believed and practiced. (Just for example…). Sadly, I find that most modern American Christians are severely ignorant of even the roots of their own denoms (or non-denoms as in your case. Example: Can you tell me who founded the original congregation of the church that you attend?) When it comes to denoms…most have no idea what that church says they believe. The term “Bible-believing” is tossed around like some sort of magic mantra that insures orthodoxy and orthopraxis…yet the Mormons and JWs and Sheppard’s Chapel all say it too.

The other issue becomes… an unbiased history. (For instance) The SDA have several books that supposedly document stuff that the Catholic Church has done, yet if you do some very simple research, you find that it’s all a pack of lies and misrepresentations meant to make people hate us. So it behooves us to go out and get the most objective histories that we can find. Josephus works for me, as well as a couple of others from the early church era. Later perhaps Hillare Belloc. If we look at the lives of those who followed Christ after the death of the last apostle, we gain insight into the Christian life and inspiration for our own. Unlike us, the early church fathers paid for their faith with their very lives. (Horribly, I might add).

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

SPOKENWORD, old buddy I have to disagree with you here.
History is a matter of verifiable FACTS not some spiritualized interpretation. I mean. Acts of the Apostles is essentially a history book (albiet an inspired history book written by St. Luke) but what about the historic documents that came down to us from the guys who followed the Apostles? Ignatius of Antioch was a close didsciple of St. John and so since he was bishop of the church in Antioch, his writings should tell us what they believed and practiced. (Just for example…). Sadly, I find that most modern American Christians are severely ignorant of even the roots of their own denoms (or non-denoms as in your case. Example: Can you tell me who founded the original congregation of the church that you attend?) When it comes to denoms…most have no idea what that church says they believe. The term “Bible-believing” is tossed around like some sort of magic mantra that insures orthodoxy and orthopraxis…yet the Mormons and JWs and Sheppard’s Chapel all say it too.

The other issue becomes… an unbiased history. (For instance) The SDA have several books that supposedly document stuff that the Catholic Church has done, yet if you do some very simple research, you find that it’s all a pack of lies and misrepresentations meant to make people hate us. So it behooves us to go out and get the most objective histories that we can find. Josephus works for me, as well as a couple of others from the early church era. Later perhaps Hillare Belloc. If we look at the lives of those who followed Christ after the death of the last apostle, we gain insight into the Christian life and inspiration for our own. Unlike us, the early church fathers paid for their faith with their very lives. (Horribly, I might add).

Hi C.M. Hows your day today? For me it gets better everyday,Praise God. I have never considered my church to be denominational.I dont belong to any denomination. Im just a follower of Jesus Christ. What kind of tea are you serving today? God Bless

 

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi C.M. Hows your day today? For me it gets better everyday,Praise God. I have never considered my church to be denominational.I dont belong to any denomination. Im just a follower of Jesus Christ. What kind of tea are you serving today? God Bless

Same old Tea…ate a salad w/ ranch dressing and some tuna Casserole. I’m good for a while now, though the sweet tea is always ready Bro! Wanna glass?

I do wanna push you (gently, gently…) on one part of my post that you somehow missed: it’s this…

Sadly, I find that most modern American Christians are severely ignorant of even the roots of their own denoms (or non-denoms as in your case. Example: Can you tell me who founded the original congregation of the church that you attend?)

I am just curious if you can answer this. Whatcha say Bro?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

Same old Tea…ate a salad w/ ranch dressing and some tuna Casserole. I’m good for a while now, though the sweet tea is always ready Bro! Wanna glass?

I do wanna push you (gently, gently…) on one part of my post that you somehow missed: it’s this…

I am just curious if you can answer this. Whatcha say Bro?

Hi C.M.Yes,It was founded by the spirit of God. It has Jesus Christ as its Head,and a bunch of christians as the rest of his body. God Bless.

 

[Booklover]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi C.M. Hows your day today? For me it gets better everyday,Praise God. I have never considered my church to be denominational.I* dont belong to any denomination. Im just a follower of Jesus Christ.* What kind of tea are you serving today? God Bless

Hi Spokenword!Are you a follower of Jesus Christ on his terms or yours?

 

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi C.M.Yes,It was founded by the spirit of God. It has Jesus Christ as its Head,and a bunch of christians as the rest of his body. God Bless.

LOL! I think you know that I meant the actual church that you attend and the PEOPLE who started it. You’re such a ratfink…LOLhttp://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage16/7.gif