I would say correct. We don’t get to GOD through the law anymore. It’s through Jesus. But remember Jesus said HE didn’t come to abolish the law. So yes there are no outward actions that get us to GOD. Meaning a set of laws that if performed properly gain access to GOD with respect to eternal life. But that also doesn’t mean that we can just start breaking the law and committing sin. The 2 just don’t go together.
Its supposed to be both. For those who had a chance to learn the Truth of the Church, its through Jesus alone. For those who had no chance, its through natural law.
I think what the person was driving at was that someone can live a Christian life by discerning the laws of the universe (psychology, metaphysics, etc.), and behaving accordingly. For example, Plato discerned that there is a Heaven. He didn’t know what it was like, but he discerned its existence through observation and logical deduction.
Hello again,
Oh my, Buddha was a follower of Jesus? Somethings not quite right there. Anyway that idea opens a can of worms. Like what then is the point of creating christianity if mankind was equally being guided by god in the first place? And why did it take jesus so long to create it? And why were people not equally exposed to the teachings of Jesus?
No idea - sorry!! But life doesn’t make any better sense under other systems, so I’m going with this one.Oh my, Buddha was a follower of Jesus? Somethings not quite right there. Anyway that idea opens a can of worms. Like what then is the point of creating christianity if mankind was equally being guided by god in the first place? And why did it take jesus so long to create it? And why were people not equally exposed to the teachings of Jesus?
whats the point?
No one ELSE held the presidency.
He said "where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church]
watch the sequence
As I understand it, (someone correct me if I’m wrong) once we die we are judged immediately. We will know right there where we will be for eternity. there are no second chances after death.
There was, is and always will be only ONE Church. That Church, the Church of Christ, subsists in the Catholic Church. If you don’t know what that means, these two documents will clarify it:
The verse also doesn’t mention Bobo’s Seventh Protestant Church of Fifth and Main.
Its both. Catholic is both the proper name and one of the marks. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic (cf. Nicene Creed). The faith is orthodox, which mean right belief (cf. Eucharistic Prayer I).
Ah-huh, I agree.
Yes, according to Rome’s interpretation. But not according to Scripture and the words of the Apostle Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit:Gal. 2:7-9 "But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles), just as Peter {had been} to the circumcised (Jews) (for He who effectually worked for Peter in {his} apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we {might} {go} to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.Read the book of Acts, Steve, Peter was given the privilege of unlocking the door to the Gentiles, but Christ commissioned Paul to be their Apostle:Acts 9:11-16 And the Lord {said} to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight. But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.” But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;"If you look in the Epistles of the N.T. Peter only wrote to his fellow Jews, but it was Paul who suffered for the Gentiles and labored amongst them, and whose heart ached for their spiritual growth.
There is no documented history, contemporary with Peter, that can prove he even ministered in Rome. We do know however, without a doubt, that Paul ministered there for at least two full years (Acts 28:30). And it was he, not Peter, who wrote the doctrinal Epistle to the Romans. A literary form of “feeding” them.
I agree there is only one church. But that church is the Body/Bride of Christ which is made up of every true believer since Pentecost. The Scriptures teach this.
The O.T. prophets knew nothing of, nor spoke nothing of, this church age. They prophesied of Christ (Messiah), His birth, death and bodily resurrection, the New Covenant in His blood, and His future Kingdom rule on this present earth from Jerusalem. But as for Christ building His church, calling it out from both individual Jews and Gentiles through faith in Him; making the “two into one new man,” reconciling them both in “one body” to God through the cross (Eph. 2:15-16), no, they knew nothing of it.
If that’s your criterion, then neither are the Latin and Greek. And within these there are many internal “fractures.”
Well, let’s see. Since Jesus was born in about 4 b.c., and He began to build His church with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (those believers being the first to be baptized into the body of Christ), I would say it is approx. 1,971 years old. Now that predates, by centuries, when the western “church” name itself “Catholic” and the eastern “Orthodox.” And based on your criterion, neither of these can qualify as the “one universal church” because both were part of a “fracture.”
Do true believers knowingly associate themselves with heresy?
Here are more genuine historical writings attesting to the fact that Peter was indeed in Rome.
You’ll have to clarify this question for me. Must a true believer grow in knowledge of Christ, the knowledge of his salvation? Does a true believer know everything at the moment of spiritual regeneration? Can he err in doctrine along the way? You’ll have to define “heresy.” To many RCs a heretic is anyone who disagrees with anything taught by the church of Rome.
Yes, I’ve seen all of these many times before. However, there are no writings contemporary with Peter that testify of his alleged position in the church at Rome. Nor do any of these people give the source of their assertions. None were contemporaries of Peter.
Protestantism is divided into some number of sects larger than one. Various wild numbers are bandied about, but that’s not the point.
No to your last question. Jesus is the final and complete revelation of God.
I could easily make the same statements here against catholics. Catholics also believe all kinds of different things. I have seen catholics on these forums say a catholic must believe all that the catholic church teaches but when i ask exactly what that is for the past 1000 years they can’t tell me. There is just as much contradictions in the catholic church as there is in protestant churches.
Here is another quotation from a none-catholic author;
I don’t think you read my posts. I said we know without a doubt that Paul was in Rome for 2 years. We get that from the Book of Acts, last chapter.