ears to hear?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brother_rick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brother_rick

Guest
First and foremost Sam, Colin, and David, I would like to thank you for taking time to respond. I do appreciate your willingness to sacrifice a bit of time to do so.

The interesting “irony” if you will in regard to Mr. Clifford’s account and life story is that I too have known a few individuals personally (including myself) who grew up Catholic and have converted to Mormonism. I grew up in an “inactive” Catholic family and never once went to church. When asking others, however, why they chose to make the switch—the universal response has been, “The Holy Ghost came into my heart and mind and I just knew beyond any doubt that it was true.”

Indeed, there are millions of LDS members that will testify to this very same experience. Is it possible that each and every one of us has been fooled by the undeniable feeling of peace, happiness, and mental clarity that enveloped us as we truly and sincerely accepted the restored gospel of Jesus Christ? Perhaps—but not likely.

The Apostle James wrote "“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.” And Jesus said, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.”

So how do we come to know real, objective, universal truth? As Jesus stated “by the Comforter.”

Please don’t get me wrong—I have found intellectual study and research necessary in determining spiritual/religious truth as well and in ascertaining the historical accuracy of claims made by both the Catholic and Mormon Churches, and along this line of reasoning one thing I can say without equivocation is this:

There are many, many “intellectually honest” reasons as to why the Catholic Church cannot still possess Priesthood Authority.

Obviously not among the least of these are:

A. Popes killing and murdering one another throughout recorded history.

B. Oppression, torture and murder of its own members for centuries.

C. The former practice of forgiving sins for money.

D. The very real probability of the existence of a “Pope Joan”.

E. The “rule of the harlots” who actually ruled the Vatican for over 50 years in wickedness.

F. The dark ages, holy wars, unfair taxes, elaborate apparel, fine jewelry, distasteful ornamentation and opulence, denying personal revelation, preventing reproduction (by any means) of the Bible for centuries, and on and on and on.

Likewise, in large part to pin over a billion members’ faith to:
  1. A Bishop’s personal belief and statement that the Catholic Church possessed Authority after all of the Apostles had been killed off because he (Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch) said and I quote: “Wherever the bishop is, there let the people be, as where Jesus is there is the Catholic Church.”
    Code: 
                                   ---and---
B. “hearsay evidence” as related by one Irenaeus (as clearly described in my last e-mail) and I quote: “Irenaeus had in his youth seen Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna”, and goes on to say that, “Polycarp, he informs us, had been instructed by Saint John and the other Apostles, and had talked with many who had seen Christ.”)

is by far more irresponsible and considerably less credible than any platform the LDS Church has utilized in supporting its claim to Authority since its earliest beginnings in the Spring of 1820.

Furthermore, Mr. Clifford’s assertion that “The Mormon teaching of a “Total Apostasy” in the early Church established by Jesus Christ was simply not true.” and that “The overwhelming historical evidence available supports the Catholic teaching on Apostolic succession.”—is directly contradicted by several Prophets’ and Apostles’ teachings and is therefore void of supporting Biblical evidence.

No offense intended whatsoever, but Mr. Clifford must have been studying a different “Holy Bible” than the one I am studying when he made the claim that the Bible does not support the reality of an apostasy and subsequent restoration after Jesus Christ’s ministry and crucifixion. Isaiah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, John and other Prophets and Apostles were very clear on this matter. Isaiah (ISA 29: 10-13, 24: 5, 60: 2); (2 Peter 2: 1,); Paul (Gal. 1: 6, 2 Thes. 2: 3, 2 Tim. 4: 3-4), and John the Revelator (Rev. 2: 2) and several others.
 
First and foremost Sam, Colin, and David, I would like to thank you for taking time to respond. I do appreciate your willingness to sacrifice a bit of time to do so.

The interesting “irony” if you will in regard to Mr. Clifford’s account and life story is that I too have known a few individuals personally (including myself) who grew up Catholic and have converted to Mormonism. I grew up in an “inactive” Catholic family and never once went to church. When asking others, however, why they chose to make the switch—the universal response has been, “The Holy Ghost came into my heart and mind and I just knew beyond any doubt that it was true.”

Indeed, there are millions of LDS members that will testify to this very same experience. Is it possible that each and every one of us has been fooled by the undeniable feeling of peace, happiness, and mental clarity that enveloped us as we truly and sincerely accepted the restored gospel of Jesus Christ? Perhaps—but not likely.

The Apostle James wrote "“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.” And Jesus said, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.”

So how do we come to know real, objective, universal truth? As Jesus stated “by the Comforter.”

Please don’t get me wrong—I have found intellectual study and research necessary in determining spiritual/religious truth as well and in ascertaining the historical accuracy of claims made by both the Catholic and Mormon Churches, and along this line of reasoning one thing I can say without equivocation is this:

There are many, many “intellectually honest” reasons as to why the Catholic Church cannot still possess Priesthood Authority.

Obviously not among the least of these are:

A. Popes killing and murdering one another throughout recorded history.

B. Oppression, torture and murder of its own members for centuries.

C. The former practice of forgiving sins for money.

D. The very real probability of the existence of a “Pope Joan”.

E. The “rule of the harlots” who actually ruled the Vatican for over 50 years in wickedness.

F. The dark ages, holy wars, unfair taxes, elaborate apparel, fine jewelry, distasteful ornamentation and opulence, denying personal revelation, preventing reproduction (by any means) of the Bible for centuries, and on and on and on.

Likewise, in large part to pin over a billion members’ faith to:
  1. A Bishop’s personal belief and statement that the Catholic Church possessed Authority after all of the Apostles had been killed off because he (Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch) said and I quote: “Wherever the bishop is, there let the people be, as where Jesus is there is the Catholic Church.”
—and—

B. “hearsay evidence” as related by one Irenaeus (as clearly described in my last e-mail) and I quote: “Irenaeus had in his youth seen Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna”, and goes on to say that, “Polycarp, he informs us, had been instructed by Saint John and the other Apostles, and had talked with many who had seen Christ.”)

is by far more irresponsible and considerably less credible than any platform the LDS Church has utilized in supporting its claim to Authority since its earliest beginnings in the Spring of 1820.

Furthermore, Mr. Clifford’s assertion that “The Mormon teaching of a “Total Apostasy” in the early Church established by Jesus Christ was simply not true.” and that “The overwhelming historical evidence available supports the Catholic teaching on Apostolic succession.”—is directly contradicted by several Prophets’ and Apostles’ teachings and is therefore void of supporting Biblical evidence.

No offense intended whatsoever, but Mr. Clifford must have been studying a different “Holy Bible” than the one I am studying when he made the claim that the Bible does not support the reality of an apostasy and subsequent restoration after Jesus Christ’s ministry and crucifixion. Isaiah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, John and other Prophets and Apostles were very clear on this matter. Isaiah (ISA 29: 10-13, 24: 5, 60: 2); (2 Peter 2: 1,); Paul (Gal. 1: 6, 2 Thes. 2: 3, 2 Tim. 4: 3-4), and John the Revelator (Rev. 2: 2) and several others.
 
Wow, that was amusing. The first thing I don’t like is you attributing truth to the LDS because you feel good. Frankly, LSD would do a better job. The problem with using feelings to say what is truth is that other people get “emotional highs” from their religion as well. This is a sure pathway to subjective truth, or at the very least abrasively claiming that no one else gets as happy (though “giddy” is the better word) from their religion as you do.

Fortunately you do try to supply some intellect. Let me begin addressing your points A-F by stating that you supply no evidence for them. Sure, some are obvious and don’t need citation, but others such as point D and E are useless without proof. Provide some next time. Point A is insignificant. If the sins of the Church mattered then there cannot be a Church. Judas betraying Jesus is a graver sin than anything that has been committed since. Because you are speaking in general terms, I have no idea what point B is referring to, but I assure you that the practice of monogamy does not qualify as oppression (just a joke, of course). Point C: indulgences remit the temporal punishment of sins already forgiven, so you’re claim is misinformed. Again, D and E mean nothing unless you provide a source. Then we can discuss it.

F has many points, so I’ll make a new paragraph. First, the dark ages were caused by barbarians, so I don’t know what you’re trying to get at. Besides, it was the monastary of the Church that preserved the ideals of Greco-Roman culture, so they were helpful. Holy Wars are not necessarily bad, and do not reflect issues of faith or morals. The “pageantry” of the Church hardly stands as an argument against it. The beauty is used to glorify God.

Personal revelation is unscriptural. The eunuch says he cannot interpret scripture without someone to guide him. Also consider Romans 10:15 “And how can people preach unless they are sent?” Who sends them? The apostles. Consider Acts 15:22-29. Some people among the church were preaching about Christ, “without any mandate from us [the apostles and presbyters]”, so they sent someone they approved.

Why would the Church limit the Bible. Early on it was because no one could read or write. Later on, it was probably through the wisdom of the Church. Take a look at 2 Pet 3:16 and see what I mean.

I’d like to cover the rest of your points, but I have to head to dinner. I wouldn’t mind a dialogue, but you need some sources to gain credibility.
 
Mr. Clifford might also want to try and explain some of the following verses taken directly out of the King James Version of the Holy Bible in relation to his mistaken assumptions that God doesn’t have a body of flesh and bone and that there is no need for baptism for the dead:

The true church must teach that God the Father and Jesus Christhave bodies of flesh and bone Luke 24:36-39

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of
them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The true church must teach that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct individuals John 17:11 and John 20:17

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world,
and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

The true church must practice baptism for the dead
1 Corinthians 15: 15-16 and 29.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not
up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the
dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Paul was arguing in favor of the necessity of performing baptisms for the dead to further bolster his claim that there is a resurrection from the dead and that those that died without baptism on earth need to be given an opportunity to choose (in the spirit world) to be baptized by proxy by those that possess the necessary Priesthood Authority here on earth.

Bizarre misinterpretations of this scripture by the rest of the “Christian” world have cropped up for centuries but are not surprising considering the volumes of scripture that have been ignored, altered or misinterpreted right along side this one.

In reference to Mr. Clifford’s conclusion about the pre-mortal existence, I will appeal to Jeremiah. 1: 5

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Code: 
                   --and--
Revelation 12: 7-9

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Any truthful investigation of these few scriptures (there are many others) will speak contrary to the mistaken idea that:
  1. No “total” apostasy would take place after the martyrdom of the 12 Apostles,
  2. God does not possess a tangible body of flesh and bone,
  3. Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father are not two distinct individuals,
  4. no pre-mortal existence took place,
  5. Baptisms for the dead are not necessary within the Church of Jesus Christ.
 
I experienced the whole burning in the bosom thing myself. I spent five years as a Mormon, went to temple. In fact, I was serving as elders quorum president when I left.

Emotional experiences as the basis of faith will eventually leave you cold. When the feeling goes away, so does the faith. When that happens, you are left, in the case of Mormonism, with a self-contradictory body of doctrine, most of which the church routinely changes its opinion on as to what is actually doctrine and what was simply a personal opinion of the prophet and not actually a teaching of the church. A very, very convenient tool when a teaching becomes unfashionable or embarassing.

Mormonism falls entirely on its own merits without reference to other faiths. The contradictory multiple accounts of the First Vision are a good place to start. If you think violence by church officials is a problem, then look into non-LDS sources on exactly what role Porter Rockwell and the Danites played in early LDS history. Changing doctrine such as polygamy, the United Order, ordination of Blacks, the Adam-God doctrine espoused by Brigham Young, etc. Temple ceremonies have been changed multiple times based on the sensitivities of the modern world or church members, from the removal of the penalties tied to the oaths, to the much more recent elimination of the rite of Washing and Anointing (which I actually felt was the most significant part of the temple rites). Joseph Smith’s false prophecies, such as the one in the D&C (sorry, been to long, foget the section) where he tells someone to prepare to go on a missionary journey in the spring who died in the winter before spring arrives.

I’m still waiting for any evidience to be unearthed of elephants and horses in the Americas circa AD 600, not mention steel weapons and enormous battles. The business with the Book of Abraham alone should be sufficient to convince a rational person that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God.

Joseph Smith may well have been convinced of the reality of his visions, but looking at the evidence, it seems pretty clear to me that he was either hallucinating or deceived.
 
Aaron I.,
Ok, fair enough. If you genuinely believe that when the Holy Ghost or Comforter descends upon someone that this “feeling” is limited exclusively to giddiness or what you have labeled as an “emotional high”, then apparently you have never truly experienced the same thing that I am referring to. Mental Clarity, profound peace and contentment, and joy (not mere happiness) are the fruits of the Spirit. This is what I was referring to—just as to avoid any further misunderstandings on this topic.

YOUR WORDS: “Point A is insignificant. If the sins of the Church mattered then there cannot be a Church”

Where do you think your “traditional” belief came from in the first place that the sins of the church are insignificant? Where did you learn this originally? You didn’t learn it from any other religion or institution other than Catholicism am I a right? Emmmm. Lets see here. Could that be because maybe Catholicism has something to gain from such a belief? Oh yeah—that’s it. Catholicism (by its own admission) has committed more atrocities (overall) than Hitler and Stalin combined. Would an organization of this nature have anything to gain in establishing a FALSE decree that major sin within the church doesn’t matter? The answer is fairly obvious.

The notion that God’s Church must necessarily exist and continue unchecked even with grievous (extremely severe—not minor) sin within its highest ranks and leadership is one of the most miserable and repugnant deceptions mankind has ever perpetuated.

Have you ever heard the saying "if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck… You probably know the rest. I’ll tell you what—if you can prove that a female pope didn’t exist then i will prove that the “rule of the harlots” actually happened. Fair deal? Who do you think possesses access to the documentation for these types of allegations? You can’t go to your county library and find copies of official church documents confirming the existence of female popes or of whores running the Vatican for over 50 years. Why? Same reason the Bible was kept away from the common folk for centuries. But just for argument sake—try explaining the testicle examination seat which was used for centuries (by the church’s own admission) before each new pope was ordained.

Your statement, “indulgences remit the temporal punishment of sins already forgiven, so you’re claim is misinformed” ------is just simply not substantiated by the Bible in any way, shape or form, and is bereft of truth.

Ever wondered why there were Barbarians? Could it possibly be because the Jews, Greeks and Romans killed off all of Christ’s Apostles and the vast majority of their followers and the world (Dare I say it) fell into a Great Apostasy? I realize that you would probably argue with this specific issue even if the truth ran over you with a dumptruck—but trust me when I tell you—The Dark Ages were a result of denying Jesus Christ and the Light of Truth that emanates from Him. No light—what do you get? Darkness. The Catholic Church certainly didn’t contribute to the amount of light in the world by trying to enforce its religious beliefs by the sword. Popes murdering popes probably didn’t help illuminate the world too much either.

In regard to the opulence issue, the problem is that God didn’t wear that stuff himself. If He (Christ) is our example by washing the disciples feet wearing nothing but a towell, and the rest of the time walking around ministering wearing a very simple robe with sandles, how can wearing opulent and elaborate clothing, excessive amounts of fine jewelry, head dresses etc be Christ-like?

Finally, if personal revelation were unscriptural, how do you explain Saul’s startling revelation on the road to Damascus? How would you explain Peter’s revelation about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles before the Church was even established? How would you explain Moses’ inspiration to climb Mt. Sinai and receive instruction from the Lord on how to rescue His people Israel before he was called as a prophet?

Every father that lives on earth who is at the head of his family, just as Father Abraham was at the head of his family, is also entitled to receive personal revelation from the Lord for his family if he asks for it properly. Every human being, man, woman or child is entitled to receive instruction directly from the Lord if they ask with an honest and sincere heart.

YOUR WORDS: I’d like to cover the rest of your points, but I have to head to dinner. I wouldn’t mind a dialogue, but you need some sources to gain credibility.

(Were you referring to such (credible) sources as----- the Holy Bible?)
 
40.png
Lapsed:
I’m still waiting for any evidience to be unearthed of elephants and horses in the Americas circa AD 600, not mention steel weapons and enormous battles. The business with the Book of Abraham alone should be sufficient to convince a rational person that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God.

Joseph Smith may well have been convinced of the reality of his visions, but looking at the evidence, it seems pretty clear to me that he was either hallucinating or deceived.
Click to expand...
Forgive my intrusion in two Christian discussing. But once I read that there was a novel written in the 1800’s that had a story about the same as that which is writ in the Mormon book. The likeness makes it look that Mr. Smiths may have taken his book from the other. It does not look to me that Mormons are really Christians.
 
Lapsed,
Porter Rockwell, Brigham Young and Joseph Smith would be the first to admit that they made mistakes along the way—as would the current leaders of the LDS Church. But to compare the relatively mild behavior of these few men to the atrocities committed by many, many different kings, popes, archbishops, bishops, etc for centuries, if this comparison could be likened to armament, would literally be like comparing a bb gun to a 20 inch howitzer.

As far as blacks and the priesthood, please study biblical history in regard to the Hamitic blood line—and you will receive your answer as to why (the vast majority of them) were not offered the priesthood until the 1970’s. There were, contrary to common myth, blacks that did possess the priesthood well before the 1970’s, and worthy blacks were always accepted into the Church by Baptism and always received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, without exception. Incidentally, there were black men who held the priesthood back in the early 1900’s because it was shown that they had no connection to the Hamitic bloodline. This is a fact. Do the research.

On a more fundamental level, do you believe that Martin Luther King was a man of God? I do. I believe he was one of the greatest men who ever walked the earth. Would blacks have received equal rights without him? Sure—God would have made it happen one way or the other.

The point is this. God the Father in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge of all things knew from before the foundation of the world that Martin Luther King Jr. would be his instrument in bringing about equal rights to blacks on this earth in these latter days. So when did He decide in his infinite wisdom that it was time for this to take place and inspire Dr. King to do what he did? The 1960’s. God raised up that man to do His work when He knew the time was right.

This being said, to then attack and accuse the LDS Church for not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood until the 1970’s (just a few years after King’s legacy was established by the hand of the Lord himself) would be very superficial and self-serving. Why then should the LDS Church have been held to some unprecedented level of inclusion when just 20 years earlier the KKK was burning black churches to the ground all over America?

I agree that revisions and alterations to what we thought were established ceremonies, rites, ordinations etc. can create curiosity. All I will say, however, from what I have witnessed inside of the temple, is that the vast majority of what has been changed (which is remarkably little considering the 160+years that these things have been practiced) has been changed for good reason and is not worthy of any further comment.

As far as elephants and horses and weapons—do you think the Lord would just automatically leave them lying around for us to find and pin our faith to? Do you think the Lord would prefer that we pin our faith to His word (the Book of Mormon) or to the rusty hilt of a sword bio-degrading in a heap of earth off the shores of peru? Think about it.

Here is the bottom line—No intellectual jousting and selective presentation of one’s opinion of this or that is ever going to bring one to the truth…certainly not as the Savior intended for one to know of the truth. James could not have said it better than when he said “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.”

Jesus said, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.”

Given the Savior’s teachings on how we are able to learn the truth, perhaps it’s no wonder that Joseph Smith taught the following: “Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

And if it be by some other way it is not of God. And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? If it be some other way it is not of God.

Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth? Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.”
 
brother rick:
Ok, fair enough. If you genuinely believe that when the Holy Ghost or Comforter descends upon someone that this “feeling” is limited exclusively to giddiness or what you have labeled as an “emotional high”, then apparently you have never truly experienced the same thing that I am referring to. Mental Clarity, profound peace and contentment, and joy (not mere happiness) are the fruits of the Spirit. This is what I was referring to—just as to avoid any further misunderstandings on this topic.

Agreed. My only point is that this feeling is not exclusive to any religion. Therefore it has no place in an intelligent discussion.

YOUR WORDS: “Point A is insignificant. If the sins of the Church mattered then there cannot be a Church”

Where do you think your “traditional” belief came from in the first place that the sins of the church are insignificant? Where did you learn this originally? You didn’t learn it from any other religion or institution other than Catholicism am I a right? Emmmm. Lets see here. Could that be because maybe Catholicism has something to gain from such a belief? Oh yeah—that’s it. Catholicism (by its own admission) has committed more atrocities (overall) than Hitler and Stalin combined. Would an organization of this nature have anything to gain in establishing a FALSE decree that major sin within the church doesn’t matter? The answer is fairly obvious.

The notion that God’s Church must necessarily exist and continue unchecked even with grievous (extremely severe—not minor) sin within its highest ranks and leadership is one of the most miserable and repugnant deceptions mankind has ever perpetuated.

Matthew 23 “Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.” I’ve provided the source for my “tradition”, where do you get yours?

Have you ever heard the saying "if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck… You probably know the rest. I’ll tell you what—if you can prove that a female pope didn’t exist then i will prove that the “rule of the harlots” actually happened. Fair deal? Who do you think possesses access to the documentation for these types of allegations? You can’t go to your county library and find copies of official church documents confirming the existence of female popes or of whores running the Vatican for over 50 years. Why? Same reason the Bible was kept away from the common folk for centuries. But just for argument sake—try explaining the testicle examination seat which was used for centuries (by the church’s own admission) before each new pope was ordained.

I’ve heard the female pope claim, but I must admit I’ve never heard of the “reign of the harlots” or the testicle examination. If you provide a link I’ll look into it.

Your statement, “indulgences remit the temporal punishment of sins already forgiven, so you’re claim is misinformed” ------is just simply not substantiated by the Bible in any way, shape or form, and is bereft of truth.
**
All I was doing was stating the position of the Church because your explanation was misleading. Almsgiving remitted temporal punishment but did not forgive the sins. I never tried to give a Biblical justification. Here’s** something that would get more into that. If you have specific questions on it, feel free to bring them up.

Ever wondered why there were Barbarians? Could it possibly be because the Jews, Greeks and Romans killed off all of Christ’s Apostles and the vast majority of their followers and the world (Dare I say it) fell into a Great Apostasy? I realize that you would probably argue with this specific issue even if the truth ran over you with a dumptruck—but trust me when I tell you—The Dark Ages were a result of denying Jesus Christ and the Light of Truth that emanates from Him. No light—what do you get? Darkness. The Catholic Church certainly didn’t contribute to the amount of light in the world by trying to enforce its religious beliefs by the sword. Popes murdering popes probably didn’t help illuminate the world too much either.
**
The vast majority of believers fell into apostacy, only to be saved by the Catholic Church from every manner of heresy. The gates of hell shall not prevail.**
Click to expand...
 
In regard to the opulence issue, the problem is that God didn’t wear that stuff himself. If He (Christ) is our example by washing the disciples feet wearing nothing but a towell, and the rest of the time walking around ministering wearing a very simple robe with sandles, how can wearing opulent and elaborate clothing, excessive amounts of fine jewelry, head dresses etc be Christ-like?
**
I’ve seen justifications for it in the past, but can’t remember any. I could try to justify it with reason, but we both know that that would be pointless. You’d respond with your reasoning, and we would go nowhere. In the Church’s defense, monasticism is the closest vocation to that of the apostles. Where outside of monasticism do you see anything close? Missionaries do a great service to be sure, but they have nothing on the virtue of monasticism.**

Finally, if personal revelation were unscriptural, how do you explain Saul’s startling revelation on the road to Damascus? How would you explain Peter’s revelation about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles before the Church was even established? How would you explain Moses’ inspiration to climb Mt. Sinai and receive instruction from the Lord on how to rescue His people Israel before he was called as a prophet?

Every father that lives on earth who is at the head of his family, just as Father Abraham was at the head of his family, is also entitled to receive personal revelation from the Lord for his family if he asks for it properly. Every human being, man, woman or child is entitled to receive instruction directly from the Lord if they ask with an honest and sincere heart.

And with that honest and sincere heart I bow to the authority (Rom 13) that Christ set in place for me. If everyone is entitled to recieve divine instruction, then why isn’t God doing his job? Does the truth change for everyone, or are you the only one asking with the aforementioned honest heart. Consider Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren. Satan demands each of us, but God shall only pray for Peter. This makes sense. After all Peter is the Rock. Matt 7:24-27 "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruinded."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top