How are we saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJ59
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ed, I will give you an AMEN, AMEN, AND AMEN. Keep on preaching Brother. Remember, we are the head and not the tail. 👍👍👍
Code:
       Peace,   Golfjack
What do you guys think this is about? Are you preaching to us? And if so, what message are you trying to give us? Are you trying to tell us that your know the way to heaven better than the Catholics? If so, please tell us what is the source of you confidence. After all, you need to give us a reason to follow you. And it needs to be a better reason than we already have to follow the Catholic Church. To date, the only reason you three (Golfjack, Ed, and Ralph) have supplied is that Ralph claims to be inspired by the holy spirit to read scripture. Well, any one can claim that. For instance, both Charles Manson and Jim Jones claimed the same thing. Afterall Charles Manson was able to convince his followers that Revelations was talking about the Beatles and that led to mass murder. So what sets you guys apart from the rest? Why should we entrust our souls to three guys who think that once you proclaim your faith in Jesus, that nothing you do thereafter will keep you out of heaven? Help us to understand…

In the interim, please try to absorb the fact that unlike you, the Catholic Church has tremendous credibility. It can clearly be shown that the Catholic teachings extend back to the Apostles through the Early church fathers. Can you do that?
 
What are we, in highschool now? Can I get an Amen?? Really, Ed?

How about we skip the “amen”, Ed…and give you a response that might someday enable you to see the light…

Who did Jesus say that to, Ed? Let’s start there. Notice Jesus never commands just anybody, any believer, to go out and make disciples. Jesus had plenty of encounters with believers, Ed. Why did He never once instruct them to do what He instructed the apostles to do? Do you not find that intriguing? I also notice you didn’t want to talk about the second half of Matt 28:19, “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”. Notice that this is a commission to BAPTIZE and TEACH. This was the SPECIFIC GIFT of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles Ed…not you.

Show me biblically this “chain” of yours. I can show you four generations of apostolic succession, in just one verse, Ed. And I can show you numerous occasions of the laying on of hands as the instrument by which other specific men are granted apostolic authority.

I beg to differ. You are living proof of that, my friend. Ed, the gospel is only “simple” to you because you have bought into a watered-down version of Christianity, an easy-believism that leads so many astray. It’s a “just believe, and you’re covered” gospel for you…and it’s false, my friend. No wonder you claim it’s “simple”. I would too if I abandoned Christ’s Church for the realm of partial truth.
Hmm…and WHO exactly was Jesus stating this to, Ed? Masses of believers?? Or a small number of specific, “breathed on” men? Well, at least it seems you now agree that baptism is required for salvation, because that’s also part of Mk 16: 15-16. Glad to see you’ve come around to Church teaching finally.

Oh well, guess you blew off half of Mk 16:15-16 after all.

Careful, my friend. NEVER presume to think you can TEACH a devout Catholic about the Trinity. And you insult me by suggesting I discount the Spirit of God, without whom I cannot have grace, nor faith, nor charity or obedience, eternal life. So, check yourself, sir - lest I accuse you of discounting God.

Jesus was talking to the apostles, Ed. Not you. Catching on now?

No. This verse is NOT saying that. That’s a nice try though, Ed. Verse 13 is a follow on from verse 12, which is touching on the immeasurable greatness of God, reminding us that He is all powerful, all knowing…and no one teaches HIM.

Well lookie here, I can give you an Amen, afterall. Amen, Ed. How very Catholic of you to recognize these particular characteristics of the Spirit.

Hmm. Well, yes…in a certain sense, those indwelt with the Spirit are empowered and protected (primarily against sin)…but in THOSE particular verses, the Spirit gives power and protection to the apostles, not you, Ed. The specifc “power” in Acts 1 is full knowledge of truth, and the protection to forever guard it from error.

Do you have the full mind of Christ, Ed? Do you know the fullness of what this verse means? Do you think because you love and believe in Christ, that you now have full knowledge of Truth? Surely you are not so arrogant?

All baptized believers are Catholic, Ed. Some just don’t recognize it, like yourself. What’s wrong with being “organized”, anyway? The Apostles certainly seemed to have an “organization” about them, no? Or did you throw that word in there to make it sound “man-made”? Shame on you, Ed.

He wanted to, and He did. Well, did Jesus come to abolish the law? Things don’t go away, Ed…they just get reformed and redefined from the old to the new.

It WAS the Church in all of Acts. It wasn’t yet in Rome, and it wasn’t officially titled “Catholic” yet…but it was ALL of Acts, my friend.

Well, atleast you don’t let measely things like “facts” get in your way. Amen, brother.
Canto, I look at things in this manner, I once was where you are now, but you are not where I am now. It’s not only the Bible that shows me that I should come out from among them, It’s the church history too. The Oxford dictionary of popes reads like an soap opera. Read about the “Corpse Trials” . The Roman Catholic church sold church offices for money, One pope ordained an 8 year old relative to be a CARDINAL, That’s as close as one can get to a pope. etc. etc. Three Popes excummunicating each other, Is this the Holy church that Jesus founded? Did Jesus say kill everyone who opposes our doctrine? NO! Peter was called to preached to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to Gentiles. As you say, Jesus changed Peter’s name to rock, Jesus also changed Saul’s name to Paul. Since Paul hasn’t arrived yet,the keys were given to Peter. 3/4 of the New T. was written by Paul and he started the Gentile churches, Peter wrote two epistles and started the Jerusalem (Jewish) church. Paul ought to know, this is Paul speaking Gal.2:7 On the contrary, they (apostles) saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. Acts 18:2 If Peter started a church in Rome, where there is no account of it, he and all the Jews were kicked out of Rome by Cladius. Sometimes, truth offends, but facts are facts. ED
 
Canto, I look at things in this manner, I once was where you are now, but you are not where I am now.
How do you know where Canto is?
It’s not only the Bible that shows me that I should come out from among them, It’s the church history too. The Oxford dictionary of popes reads like an soap opera.
Do the lives of the christians around you read any differently. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints.
Read about the “Corpse Trials” . The Roman Catholic church sold church offices for money, One pope ordained an 8 year old relative to be a CARDINAL, That’s as close as one can get to a pope. etc. etc. Three Popes excummunicating each other, Is this the Holy church that Jesus founded? Did Jesus say kill everyone who opposes our doctrine?
How do the bad acts of individuals invalidate the teachings.
NO! Peter was called to preached to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to Gentiles. As you say, Jesus changed Peter’s name to rock, Jesus also changed Saul’s name to Paul.
Where in scripture is this name change recorded?
Since Paul hasn’t arrived yet,the keys were given to Peter. 3/4 of the New T. was written by Paul and he started the Gentile churches, Peter wrote two epistles and started the Jerusalem (Jewish) church. Paul ought to know, this is Paul speaking Gal.2:7
How does the volume of writing have anything to do who was given leadership?
On the contrary, they (apostles) saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. Acts 18:2 If Peter started a church in Rome, where there is no account of it, he and all the Jews were kicked out of Rome by Cladius. Sometimes, truth offends, but facts are facts. ED
Facts aren’t facts unless they are true.
 
Canto, I look at things in this manner, I once was where you are now, but you are not where I am now. It’s not only the Bible that shows me that I should come out from among them, It’s the church history too. The Oxford dictionary of popes reads like an soap opera. Read about the “Corpse Trials” . The Roman Catholic church sold church offices for money, One pope ordained an 8 year old relative to be a CARDINAL, That’s as close as one can get to a pope. etc. etc. Three Popes excummunicating each other, Is this the Holy church that Jesus founded? Did Jesus say kill everyone who opposes our doctrine? NO! Peter was called to preached to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to Gentiles. As you say, Jesus changed Peter’s name to rock, Jesus also changed Saul’s name to Paul. Since Paul hasn’t arrived yet,the keys were given to Peter. 3/4 of the New T. was written by Paul and he started the Gentile churches, Peter wrote two epistles and started the Jerusalem (Jewish) church. Paul ought to know, this is Paul speaking Gal.2:7 On the contrary, they (apostles) saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. Acts 18:2 If Peter started a church in Rome, where there is no account of it, he and all the Jews were kicked out of Rome by Cladius. Sometimes, truth offends, but facts are facts. ED
Ed, your facts are more than a bit distorted. In Acts 15, which describes the council of Jerusalem, Peter makes the statemetn that he was chosen from among the apostles to bring the message to the Gentiles. This was not disputed. In Galatians, Paul notes that he had gone to Jerusalem to see Peter at the beginning of his ministry and then 14 years later to make sure that he was not running in vain. In the first epistle, Peter notes that he was writng from Babylon, the code name for Rome. And Jesus didn’t change Saul’s name to Paul. That is simply the Greek rendering of Saul. And yes, there were some personally corrupt Popes, but not in the last 500 years, and none of those corrupt popes ever changed Church doctrine. That was always protected by the Holy Spirit.
 
What do you guys think this is about? Are you preaching to us? And if so, what message are you trying to give us? Are you trying to tell us that your know the way to heaven better than the Catholics? If so, please tell us what is the source of you confidence. After all, you need to give us a reason to follow you. And it needs to be a better reason than we already have to follow the Catholic Church. To date, the only reason you three (Golfjack, Ed, and Ralph) have supplied is that Ralph claims to be inspired by the holy spirit to read scripture. Well, any one can claim that. For instance, both Charles Manson and Jim Jones claimed the same thing. Afterall Charles Manson was able to convince his followers that Revelations was talking about the Beatles and that led to mass murder. So what sets you guys apart from the rest? Why should we entrust our souls to three guys who think that once you proclaim your faith in Jesus, that nothing you do thereafter will keep you out of heaven? Help us to understand…

In the interim, please try to absorb the fact that unlike you, the Catholic Church has tremendous credibility. It can clearly be shown that the Catholic teachings extend back to the Apostles through the Early church fathers. Can you do that?
PaulC Let’s get something straight. Those church Fathers that you seem to think that you own and can refer to, are our church Fathers too. When the Protestants saw the corruption in the Church, they came out and left you with the records. The church Fathers were like saved people of today, except they wrote letters, we now have the Bible. You have their letters, we left them with you and got out. Is that understanable? ED
 
Ed, your facts are more than a bit distorted. In Acts 15, which describes the council of Jerusalem, Peter makes the statemetn that he was chosen from among the apostles to bring the message to the Gentiles. This was not disputed. In Galatians, Paul notes that he had gone to Jerusalem to see Peter at the beginning of his ministry and then 14 years later to make sure that he was not running in vain. In the first epistle, Peter notes that he was writng from Babylon, the code name for Rome. And Jesus didn’t change Saul’s name to Paul. That is simply the Greek rendering of Saul. And yes, there were some personally corrupt Popes, but not in the last 500 years, and none of those corrupt popes ever changed Church doctrine. That was always protected by the Holy Spirit.
PaulC, I’m asking you, you say that there hasn’t been any corruption with the Papacy in the last 500 years, then why does the Roman Catholic church allow a book called “In God’s name” by David Yallop to be printed and over 6 million copies been sold which states that Pope John Paul1 (just prior to the Polish Pope) lasted only 30 days, was murdered because he was going to exposed Vatican’s corrupt banking system? If it’s not true, why does the Roman Catholic church allow such a book to continue to be printed? I’m asking not stating a fact.
 
PaulC, I’m asking you, you say that there hasn’t been any corruption with the Papacy in the last 500 years, then why does the Roman Catholic church allow a book called “In God’s name” by David Yallop to be printed and over 6 million copies been sold which states that Pope John Paul1 (just prior to the Polish Pope) lasted only 30 days, was murdered because he was going to exposed Vatican’s corrupt banking system? If it’s not true, why does the Roman Catholic church allow such a book to continue to be printed? I’m asking not stating a fact.
How does the Vatican stop someone from writing a book? Its a church not a book burning government. If it did somehow try ot stop the publishing of this book, would you not be among those complaining about sensorship?
 
PaulC Let’s get something straight. Those church Fathers that you seem to think that you own and can refer to, are our church Fathers too. When the Protestants saw the corruption in the Church, they came out and left you with the records. The church Fathers were like saved people of today, except they wrote letters, we now have the Bible. You have their letters, we left them with you and got out. Is that understanable? ED
You are missing the point entirely. The chruch fathers wrote down what they believed and where they got those beliefs. Those beliefs are consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches. They are NOT consistent with the truths of Protestantism because those are not the Truths of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. You and your Protestant forebearers got out because they didn’t like what was being taught and wanted a theology more to their liking. For instance, Martin Luther wanted to be a married priest so he created a religion where priests could marry. He was uncomfortable with his own sinful tendencies so he created a religion where faith was all that mattered. he was excommunicated from the Church for these things so he created a religion where Apostolic succession wasn’t necessary (the priesthood of the people) and where the only authority was scripture (which he manipulated and changed to his liking). this freed up others to do the same and now there are thousands of individual Protestant churches, all claiming to be the one true church but all making up their own truths.
 
You are missing the point entirely. The chruch fathers wrote down what they believed and where they got those beliefs. Those beliefs are consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches. They are NOT consistent with the truths of Protestantism because those are not the Truths of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. You and your Protestant forebearers got out because they didn’t like what was being taught and wanted a theology more to their liking. For instance, Martin Luther wanted to be a married priest so he created a religion where priests could marry. He was uncomfortable with his own sinful tendencies so he created a religion where faith was all that mattered. he was excommunicated from the Church for these things so he created a religion where Apostolic succession wasn’t necessary (the priesthood of the people) and where the only authority was scripture (which he manipulated and changed to his liking). this freed up others to do the same and now there are thousands of individual Protestant churches, all claiming to be the one true church but all making up their own truths.
PaulC, you are critical of Martin Luther for wanting to be a married priest and creating his own religion. My Bible , as well as yours, very clearly states 1Tim 3:2, “For a Bishop must be a good man whose life cannot be spoken against. He must have only one WIFE, etc.etc.”. So what are you talking about Luther wanting to start a new religion? Didn’t you know that Peter was MARRIED too. Now see if this does not describe the Roman Catholic religion, 1Tim 4:2, “These teachers will tell lies with straight faces and do it so often that their consciences, won’t bother them. They will say it is wrong to be MARRIED and wrong to eat meat etc.etc.”. I was told in Catholic school that it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays, then later it was no longer a sin. Did God change His mind?
 
You are missing the point entirely. The chruch fathers wrote down what they believed and where they got those beliefs. Those beliefs are consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches. They are NOT consistent with the truths of Protestantism because those are not the Truths of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. You and your Protestant forebearers got out because they didn’t like what was being taught and wanted a theology more to their liking. For instance, Martin Luther wanted to be a married priest so he created a religion where priests could marry. He was uncomfortable with his own sinful tendencies so he created a religion where faith was all that mattered. he was excommunicated from the Church for these things so he created a religion where Apostolic succession wasn’t necessary (the priesthood of the people) and where the only authority was scripture (which he manipulated and changed to his liking). this freed up others to do the same and now there are thousands of individual Protestant churches, all claiming to be the one true church but all making up their own truths.
PaulC, you are critizing Martin Luther for wanting to be a married priest and creating his own religion. My Bible , as well as yours, very clearly states 1Tim 3:2, “For a Bishop must be a good man whose life cannot be spoken against. He must have only one WIFE, etc.etc.”. So what are you talking about Luther wanting to start a new religion? Didn’t you know that Peter was MARRIED too. Now see if this does not describe the Roman Catholic religion, 1Tim 4:2, “These teachers will tell lies with straight faces and do it so often that their consciences, won’t bother them. They will say it is wrong to be MARRIED and wrong to eat meat etc.etc.”. I was told in Catholic school that it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays, then later it was no longer a sin. Did God change His mind?
 
PaulC, you are critizing Martin Luther for wanting to be a married priest and creating his own religion. My Bible , as well as yours, very clearly states 1Tim 3:2, “For a Bishop must be a good man whose life cannot be spoken against. He must have only one WIFE, etc.etc.”. So what are you talking about Luther wanting to start a new religion? Didn’t you know that Peter was MARRIED too. Now see if this does not describe the Roman Catholic religion, 1Tim 4:2, “These teachers will tell lies with straight faces and do it so often that their consciences, won’t bother them. They will say it is wrong to be MARRIED and wrong to eat meat etc.etc.”. I was told in Catholic school that it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays, then later it was no longer a sin. Did God change His mind?
God does not change His mind. The Church, with the authority given to it by Jesus, changes disciplinary requirements as the conditions warrant.

I also do not accept your interpretation of 1 Tim 3:2 as it is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
 
How does the Vatican stop someone from writing a book? Its a church not a book burning government. If it did somehow try ot stop the publishing of this book, would you not be among those complaining about sensorship?
PaulC it’s very easy to stop a book that contains false information, if it’s false. One letter from a suing attorney would stop that book very fast. As of now, 6 million copies had been sold. And No it would not be censorship,if people didn’t know about it.
 
God does not change His mind. The Church, with the authority given to it by Jesus, changes disciplinary requirements as the conditions warrant.

I also do not accept your interpretation of 1 Tim 3:2 as it is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
davidv,If my interpretation of 1 Tim 3:2 is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible, show me where. ED
 
PaulC, I’m asking you, you say that there hasn’t been any corruption with the Papacy in the last 500 years, then why does the Roman Catholic church allow a book called “In God’s name” by David Yallop to be printed and over 6 million copies been sold which states that Pope John Paul1 (just prior to the Polish Pope) lasted only 30 days, was murdered because he was going to exposed Vatican’s corrupt banking system? If it’s not true, why does the Roman Catholic church allow such a book to continue to be printed? I’m asking not stating a fact.
Hello Ed,

How do you suppose the Church stop a book from being printed, then sold?

There are great multitudes of anti-Catholic literature, what makes this book so special as to deserve a lawsuit that in all honesty would not stop the freedom of speech enjoyed by authors? Wasn’t David Yallop’s book a “theory”? Was the author a reknown author for several books and contributions to comedy shows on British television?

Remember, the Church does not support the movies the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, yet there were no lawsuits there. I just can’t see your point from a logical point of view here.

The Church hasn’t tried to stop Jack Chick, does that validate his “comic books”?
 
Have you any idea who or what the church is. Let me hear your interpretation please. Thank you. Ralph
Of course.

According to the Bible, the Church is the Body of Christ that Jesus established with Peter (and his successors) as the the earthly head.

The marks of the true Church are that the Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
 
Notice how in the beginning Matthew 16:18 everything hangs on the RCC interpretation of it.
No, we also have this:

Peter’s Role as Head of the Earthly Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19
, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter receives this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus take great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle receives this focus.

(cont.)
 
Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.
 
What do you guys think this is about? Are you preaching to us? And if so, what message are you trying to give us? Are you trying to tell us that your know the way to heaven better than the Catholics? If so, please tell us what is the source of you confidence. After all, you need to give us a reason to follow you. And it needs to be a better reason than we already have to follow the Catholic Church. To date, the only reason you three (Golfjack, Ed, and Ralph) have supplied is that Ralph claims to be inspired by the holy spirit to read scripture. Well, any one can claim that. For instance, both Charles Manson and Jim Jones claimed the same thing. Afterall Charles Manson was able to convince his followers that Revelations was talking about the Beatles and that led to mass murder. So what sets you guys apart from the rest? Why should we entrust our souls to three guys who think that once you proclaim your faith in Jesus, that nothing you do thereafter will keep you out of heaven? Help us to understand…

In the interim, please try to absorb the fact that unlike you, the Catholic Church has tremendous credibility. It can clearly be shown that the Catholic teachings extend back to the Apostles through the Early church fathers. Can you do that?
PaulC, Let’s say I’m an atheist, and I came up to you and very sincerely asked you how I could get to heaven, and after you had explained the Roman Catholics method, I would know precicely without any question that I would go to heaven. Could you do that for me now?
 
davidv,If my interpretation of 1 Tim 3:2 is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible, show me where. ED
Paul, himself was celebate:
Here’s what he says in 1corinithians 7:1-7

Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,” but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

He also says in another place that he that marries does well, he that does not does better still. A Celibate priesthood lends tremendous moral authority to Catholics because our priests are focused on serving their congregations, not thier families and they are willing to give up personal gratification for the Kingdom of God.

The argument in 1 Timothy 4 was against extremism where no one would marry. That is clearly not the Catholic way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top