M
mercygate
Guest
Is it available on the Internet?
- Status
M
Makaveli
Guest
Let me post up what Mercygate quoted eralier ‘If people “knew what they were talking about” they wouldn’t be asking the questions.’ So MY question is, if you know what YOU are talking about why are you asking questions?
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
well im going to have to catch up after mar 8 on this im going for some r & r in florida so I will be the cat who came back 
R
Randb
Guest
I just don’t get it. The non catholics don’t believe what the Bible really says or else they would listen to the words "THIS IS MY BODY ,THIS IS MY BLOOD’!!
I have a friend and we are debating, I really don’t know what kind of Baptist she is because , if I ask Southern Baptist, she says no, we don’t believe--------- if I say conservative , she says no we don’t believe-------------if I say fundalmental, she says no, we don’t believe ----------- but anything I say about the RCC is wrong !! Of course she is right! What we believe is always the same in all the RCC but up above I have mentioned 3 different ,might as well say religions, & they are all different in their beliefs. She also says the baptist came about the year 100 ish , no mention of a bible but I suppose they also had one then. When I mention that the Catholics got the Bible together she says but Constance, Jerome,
& Origin either put in or took out, changed it, but they have the UNCHANGED one KJV, It’s almost too funny!!! Sorry if this sounds like a vent. It is.
I have a friend and we are debating, I really don’t know what kind of Baptist she is because , if I ask Southern Baptist, she says no, we don’t believe--------- if I say conservative , she says no we don’t believe-------------if I say fundalmental, she says no, we don’t believe ----------- but anything I say about the RCC is wrong !! Of course she is right! What we believe is always the same in all the RCC but up above I have mentioned 3 different ,might as well say religions, & they are all different in their beliefs. She also says the baptist came about the year 100 ish , no mention of a bible but I suppose they also had one then. When I mention that the Catholics got the Bible together she says but Constance, Jerome,
& Origin either put in or took out, changed it, but they have the UNCHANGED one KJV, It’s almost too funny!!! Sorry if this sounds like a vent. It is.
D
Doreen
Guest
Few Christians of any denomination doubt that Christ gave up His body and his blood for them. So I am not sure what you’re really venting about.
The debate about the Bible is another thing. And when you say “Catholics got the Bible together” – would you say that statement would be pleasing to God? Is it not HIS SPIRIT that “got the Bible together?”
See…we have to be careful about putting everyone who thinks differently in a camp with some who don’t think much at all.
And when we don’t understand someone, we have to be careful about judging them. For God is at work in the hearts of those who seek Him. So…who are we to judge?
I’ve only learned this myself recently, so I am not saying I haven’t judged others…but it’s become very clear to me that the devil would love for us to continue to argue and remain divided, and to disregard others because they don’t agree with us. This can lead to prejudice which can lead to hatred for others…and what a dangerous road that is!
Guard your hearts and minds, love your neighbors, and win them over by your Christ-like nature…not condemning, but loving.
Amen?
The debate about the Bible is another thing. And when you say “Catholics got the Bible together” – would you say that statement would be pleasing to God? Is it not HIS SPIRIT that “got the Bible together?”
See…we have to be careful about putting everyone who thinks differently in a camp with some who don’t think much at all.
And when we don’t understand someone, we have to be careful about judging them. For God is at work in the hearts of those who seek Him. So…who are we to judge?
I’ve only learned this myself recently, so I am not saying I haven’t judged others…but it’s become very clear to me that the devil would love for us to continue to argue and remain divided, and to disregard others because they don’t agree with us. This can lead to prejudice which can lead to hatred for others…and what a dangerous road that is!
Guard your hearts and minds, love your neighbors, and win them over by your Christ-like nature…not condemning, but loving.
Amen?
M
Mickey
Guest
D
DARichards
Guest
I haven’t gone back and read all three hundred and some odd posts to this thread, so I hope that I am not being repetitive to some of the points already made. There was one point that strongly swayed me as a Reformed Protestant to make a decision to come Home to the Church. This is something that is very hard to see as a protestant, and that is the link between the Passover in Exodus and Jesus institution on John 6. St. Augustine said that “In the Old Testament the New is concealed; in the New Testament the Old is revealed.” Look at the amazing parallels between the two: Old: God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the lamb and using hyssop branches, spread the blood on the doorposts and the lentel of the doors. New: Christ is sacrificed on the cross and he is offered wine with hyssop. Old: The lamb is prepared on the evening prior to the passing of the Angel of Death. New: John states in his gospel that Christ was condemned on the evening of preparation of the Passover. Old: God told the Israelites to consume the lamb. They HAD TO EAT IT…ALL OF IT… It could not be left over. New: Jesus states that if you do not eat (the greek word means “to gnaw or munch”) of my body and drink of my blood then you have no part in Me. When many disciples left, he chose not to correct or change their perceptions of what He said. My pastor says that Christ would not have meant that because an Jew would have never said such, being that it was a violation of the Torah. But that is the EXACT reason that Jesus said what He said. The reason He said that was to show that He was greater than the Torah and that He was the fulfillment to the Torah…
This is the main reason I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist…
This is the main reason I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist…
D
Darrel
Guest
I used to say the exact same thing as a protestant. The problem is authority. We have more then 20,000 protestant choices out there and they all say something different. Christ did not come to sow the seeds of confusion and dissent.
The Eucharist is the center of Christ’s Church and he never said how often we should “do this” in memory of him. He just said to do it. How can a mere symbol be taken unworthily? Why did Jesus say to the apostles that they could retain or forgive sins? Every protestant gets an uneasy feeling in there stomach when they read these scriptures that don’t make sense. At least I always did.
God literally resides over this covenant just like the ark. The Holy Spirit is available to all and Christ will answer anyone who calls, but the complete fullness of Gods truth only resides in the Catholic Church. He told Peter upon this rock I will build my church. That was church in the singular. Can any protestant show an example of God in the bible not establishing authority and clarity over his covenants or commands? Does 20,000 choices for Jesus equate to authority or clarity?
-D
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
First, in order to explain it better, maybe we should get down what the Eucharist is. It is a sacrament. A sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace. In all of the Apostolic Churches (Latin-Rite Catholicism, Eastern-Rite Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church of the East)… So, how does this bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus? Through His Grace… He commanded all to “eat his flesh and drink his blood”, He also stated “my flesh is real food an my blood is real drink” and when the Jews heard this many of them left Him because they didn’t understand the sacramental nature of which He spoke. We believe not that we recrucify the Lord everyday, but that it is that ONE sacrifice which we partake of when we go to communion. Some Protestants claim that Jesus did not mean for this to be taken literally, but the Jews that left Him did. I don’t think the Lord would have let His disciples leave over a misunderstanding. He would have cleared this up with them. So, how does the bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord? Through His grace, acting through mortal hands (the same way Saint Peter was able to raise people from the dead), He is made eternally present for all who confess His name. Saint Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. It’s interesting that Saint Paul says “till he come,” because this is strictly Catholic theology. We believe that when we partake of the Eucharist, that we partake of that ONE sacrifice Jesus Christ made for us when He was crucified on the cross. We believe as Lord, that Jesus can be present anywhere because He is omnipotent and omnipresent, the Alpha and Omega. He commanded us to do so. In verse 27, he goes onto say… Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Now, if this were just a symbol, it would be impossible for you to be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. From these 2 passages alone we can prove that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not symbolic, because that interpretation does not fit these passages nor the 2,000 years of history for which all of the Church Fathers confessed that the bread and wine became the body and blood of the Lord.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Doreen, that would not be intellectually honest, it’s partly true. The Holy Spirit acted through Bishops who decided which books were to be in the New Testament. Those Bishops were Catholics. Protestants and Catholics agree which books are in the New Testament (except for Luther maybe), but this is an interesting question because it points to the Bishops as the authority of the Church and that Jesus founded a visible church on Earth, not an invisible one that Protestants subsribe to. Catholic Bishops at the Council of Carthage with the grace of the Holy Spirit decided which books were to be in the canon of the New Testament. If you accept the New Testament canon, you do not accept Sola Scriptura as Martin Luther interpreted it. Because Martin Luther got his authority from Sola Scriptura, not from the deposit of faith or the Magisterium, he didn’t feel the need to obey the Council (that was validated by the Pope) and as such had a very low opinion of some books of which you and me consider scripture. If you accept the New Testament as it is, you in part accept the authority of the bishops of the Catholic Church who decided which books should be in the New Testament. If not, you could just throw some books out like Martin Luther did. The manner in which the New Testament canon was decided disproves one of the tenets of Protestantism wrong.
H
Huguenot
Guest
Well it’s true that 20 000 choices is a bit much, I’ll need a good GPS …
There aren’t so many Protestant denominations in France, and some are very close together ; usually, if there happens to be several Evangelical churches of different denominations in the same town ( in France it seldom happens because anyway there is a very small number of Evangelicals, even of Protestants in general ) we all collaborate, our ministers study in the same theological schools, and so on : it’s a bit as if they were …several Catholic parish churches or something of the kind …
You also have some differences within the Catholic church, and its history is not as “linear” as some of you think ; for example the bishop of Rome’s authority was not recognized by all at the very beginning, it came gradually ; recently I’ve read that the bishops of Milano didn’t recognize Rome’s authority in the 4th ( or 5th , I don’t remember exactly ) century, and they recognized only two sacraments ( the Eucharist and baptisme ) whereas “Rome” already had more …
Some doctrines came after many discussions, disagreements …
And even now you have a lot of voices in the Catholic Church …
Yes, I do think we can take a symbol unworthily.
As for the other verse about forgiving sins, then why does Jesus say that only God can forgive sins ???
I’ve heard other ways of interpreting the verse you quote …
Don’t worry for me, I don’t feel uneasy at all …
E
exoflare
Guest
I’m starting to wonder about Protestants then, just where do you draw the line with interpretations? So you’ve “heard other ways” of interpreting that verse… and that means they’re all just as valid as each other? Does it really make any difference at all WHAT you believe? It seems that the only thing that all Protestant beliefs I have seen have in common is that they can believe whatever they want, just as long as they are not Catholic and they call themselves “Christians”
H
Huguenot
Guest
and where do YOU draw the line with interpretations ?? Why should YOUR interpretations always be right, and ours be wrong ???
“as long as they are not Catholic…” …
Well, you react as if I had decided not to be Catholic just for the fun of it or what …
If there are things I don’t agree with in the Catholic Church, or things I don’t understand ( and sometimes both are probably linked ) is it my fault ???
Even if you think we are wrong, well, be at least as kind as to consider that even when we are wrong, we want to do exactly the same thing as you : do our best to serve the Lord …
we act according to what we have understood, just as YOU do …
Even if I don’t agree with Catholics, my starting point when I talk with them is that they, too, want to do their best to serve the Lord, and that different conceptions come from the fact that we are not perfect …
If I think I can serve the Lord better where I am why should I convert ( to Catholicism ? )
I think I’m as near to the Catholic Church as I can, sorry if for you it’s not enough …
Any way I’m nearer now since before becoming a Christian first and a Protestant afterwards, I was an atheist …
E
Eden
Guest
Huguenot, you are genuinely seeking Truth. I can see that you are asking sincere questions and really looking for the answers. This is very refreshing because most Protestants that I have encountered on this forum come here to convert us. I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you to Truth.
J
Jim_B
Guest
Who to believe, the teaching of the Church for 20 centuries, or the Protestant interpretation as a ‘symbol’?
I offer this response with the sincere hope that it will be received in the spirit of genuine love towards neighbor. When confronting a situation of how to interpret Sacred Scripture, St. Paul is a reliable authority.
1 Tim 3:15 "so that if I should be delayed you will know what kind of conduct befits a member of God’s household, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth". (emphasis added)
If the Church is the ‘pillar of truth’, the the question regarding The Real Presence of Christ can be answered definitively by this standard. Of course, if one rejects the above scriptural quotation, then one must find some other ‘pillar of truth’.
I offer further evidence in a few minutes.
God Love Ya!
I offer this response with the sincere hope that it will be received in the spirit of genuine love towards neighbor. When confronting a situation of how to interpret Sacred Scripture, St. Paul is a reliable authority.
1 Tim 3:15 "so that if I should be delayed you will know what kind of conduct befits a member of God’s household, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth". (emphasis added)
If the Church is the ‘pillar of truth’, the the question regarding The Real Presence of Christ can be answered definitively by this standard. Of course, if one rejects the above scriptural quotation, then one must find some other ‘pillar of truth’.
I offer further evidence in a few minutes.
God Love Ya!
J
Jim_B
Guest
What is the history of the two interpretations of the Eucharist?
First, the Catholic belief, that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body,blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ - interpretting Christ literally.
(In the interest of space, I’ll quote only a few here.)
1st Century
St. Paul - “Is not the cup of blessing we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” 1 Cor 10:15
St. Paul - “He who eats and drinks *without recognizing the body *eats a drinks a judgment on himself.” 1 Cor 11:29
(If the Eucharist were merely a symbol, then there could be no violation in eating it ‘unawares’ - without recognizing the body.)
The Church Fathers
110 AD - Ignatius of Antioch
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2
350 AD - Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocations of the adorable Trinity were simply bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.”
Catechetical Lectures 19:7
411 AD - St. Augustine
“That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God is the blood of Christ.”
2006 - Catechism of the Catholic Church
“In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore, *the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” *(emphasis in the original). St. Thomas Aquinas
. . .it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” CCC - pp1374
1330-1384 AD John Wyclif - Revolutionary English philosopher, he believed in predestination - and if a man was already predestined for Heaven or Hell, what need had he of clergy or the sacraments? He was opposed the rational Thomisitic theology.
He was the first person in history (that I can find) who declared that the Eucharist was merely a ‘symbol’. Triumph, page 200,
H.W. Crocker III
Dear Protestant Brothers, I ask you to honestly consider, ’ what is the origin my belief in the Eucharist as merely a symbol?’
For Christ did not say it was a symbol, St. Paul did not, all the Church Doctors, saints, and Catholics of the past 20 centuries did not call it a symbol. The reality is that a belief in the Eucharist as only a symbol, is a man-made interpretation that sprung up many centuries after Christ instituted the Eucharist.
And there’s more . . .
First, the Catholic belief, that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body,blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ - interpretting Christ literally.
(In the interest of space, I’ll quote only a few here.)
1st Century
St. Paul - “Is not the cup of blessing we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” 1 Cor 10:15
St. Paul - “He who eats and drinks *without recognizing the body *eats a drinks a judgment on himself.” 1 Cor 11:29
(If the Eucharist were merely a symbol, then there could be no violation in eating it ‘unawares’ - without recognizing the body.)
The Church Fathers
110 AD - Ignatius of Antioch
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2
350 AD - Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocations of the adorable Trinity were simply bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.”
Catechetical Lectures 19:7
411 AD - St. Augustine
“That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God is the blood of Christ.”
2006 - Catechism of the Catholic Church
“In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore, *the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” *(emphasis in the original). St. Thomas Aquinas
. . .it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” CCC - pp1374
- So there is the foundation of Catholic belief, beginning with the words of Jesus himself at the Last Supper, “Take, eat, this is my body.” Matt 26:26
… following 20 centuries of consistent Church teaching through the Doctors of the Church, and present today in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
We believe, because Christ has said it so. Through the eyes of faith, we understand.
1330-1384 AD John Wyclif - Revolutionary English philosopher, he believed in predestination - and if a man was already predestined for Heaven or Hell, what need had he of clergy or the sacraments? He was opposed the rational Thomisitic theology.
He was the first person in history (that I can find) who declared that the Eucharist was merely a ‘symbol’. Triumph, page 200,
H.W. Crocker III
Dear Protestant Brothers, I ask you to honestly consider, ’ what is the origin my belief in the Eucharist as merely a symbol?’
For Christ did not say it was a symbol, St. Paul did not, all the Church Doctors, saints, and Catholics of the past 20 centuries did not call it a symbol. The reality is that a belief in the Eucharist as only a symbol, is a man-made interpretation that sprung up many centuries after Christ instituted the Eucharist.
And there’s more . . .
J
Jim_B
Guest
Have you ever heard, “the giver is greater than the gift?”
In the case of the Eucharist, the gift is the very giver Himself!!
Could our Lord have given us any greater gift than Himself?
How can one understand such a gift? We must first ask for the grace of faith to believe. Once we believe (because Jesus is Truth) then we can understand. We Catholics call this the ‘mysterium fidei’ - the mystery of faith.
St. Jerome once said, ‘ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.’
So too, denial of the Eucharist is denial of Christ - for Jesus is present in the Eucharist.
As Christians, we love Jesus and want to enter into an ever deeper relationship with our Savior. Christ waits for each of us in the Eucharist and when we receive Him worthily - we increase the grace He sends into our lives. Now that we know this, how could any of us want to deprive ourselves of the Eucharist?
What a wonderful thing when a Jew discovers Jesus as his messiah. And what a greater thing still, when a Protestant enters into the fullness of the truth and discovers Jesus for the first time, fully present in the Eucharist. I have known both types of persons and their joy goes beyond my description. I invite our Protestant friends to consider the
a)faith and
b) reason
for believing in the words of Christ, just as He spoke them.
God Love Ya!
Jim from Lincoln
In the case of the Eucharist, the gift is the very giver Himself!!
Could our Lord have given us any greater gift than Himself?
How can one understand such a gift? We must first ask for the grace of faith to believe. Once we believe (because Jesus is Truth) then we can understand. We Catholics call this the ‘mysterium fidei’ - the mystery of faith.
St. Jerome once said, ‘ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.’
So too, denial of the Eucharist is denial of Christ - for Jesus is present in the Eucharist.
As Christians, we love Jesus and want to enter into an ever deeper relationship with our Savior. Christ waits for each of us in the Eucharist and when we receive Him worthily - we increase the grace He sends into our lives. Now that we know this, how could any of us want to deprive ourselves of the Eucharist?
What a wonderful thing when a Jew discovers Jesus as his messiah. And what a greater thing still, when a Protestant enters into the fullness of the truth and discovers Jesus for the first time, fully present in the Eucharist. I have known both types of persons and their joy goes beyond my description. I invite our Protestant friends to consider the
a)faith and
b) reason
for believing in the words of Christ, just as He spoke them.
God Love Ya!
Jim from Lincoln
A
Alfie
Guest
Can you be more specific in naming some of the differences in Protestant beliefs? Most differences between Protestants don’t have much bearing on whether someone will make it to heaven . For example if one group of Protestants believes in the rapture and another doesn’t that won’t prevent either side from going to heaven.Why would it? If one group wants to worship on Saturdays…so what? The same thing can be said of baptism where one church believes in emerssion and another believes in sprinkling. None of these differences are important in ones salvation. If one denomination believes in divorce…so what? Divorce is not the unpardonable sin. The only sin that cannot be forgiven is rejection of Jesus. Most differences between Protestants are merely based on tradition.
I could criticize Catholics for having had so many homosexuals in their seminars throughout the years. Your church teaches that homosexuality is wrong and then it turns around and promotes the very behavior that it says the church has condemned for two thousand years. Then you will use the excuse that as long as church doctrine never changes that it is OK to have a gay priest.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Alfie!
You are SOOOOO far outta line here that you should outright be ashamed of yourself. I am going to report you to the mods for your blatant disrespect for Catholics by the highlighted parts.
First of the remarks that you “could criticize” would be total untruths, and you make no effort whatever to offer any proof that it is, but the simple fact is that there is no evidence that homosexuality is a greater problem among Catholic clergy than your church or any other. See this LINK!
I’m not gonna waste time dragging this thread further off topic by attempting to answer your earlier comments other than to point out that that very relativistic attitude towards salvation and truth is why there is so very much error among n-C churches.
Baptism for instance…the issue is NOT whether one should be immersed, sprinkled, or poured upon, but whether it is necessary for salvation at all! Jesus Himself said it is and then the New Testament reiterates that again and again. The Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years that it is, in compliance with the Word of God and yet non-Catholics hardly concern themsleves with it and most treat it as some pious option that is irrelevent to one’s salvation!
So these things ARE important…just like the Eucharist.
Otherwise what you have is an altered gospel of men…and a shame.
D
Doreen
Guest
I’ve heard this question asked a lot on this site…the misunderstanding comes from the Catholic not realizing that most Protestants are led by the Holy Spirit…they are sheep who follow a common voice.
Having said this, remember that some protestants have given other protestants a bad name because they were like the seed falling by the wayside and getting trampled, and some have been like the seed that fell on rocky ground, while others fell on thorns that choked it…there are Catholics, as well, who have been like these seeds. While others, both protestant and Catholic have landed on good soil, sprouted and have been fruitful.
If we do not “remain in Him” He does not remain in us. If we abide in Him, He will give us the Holy Spirit which will empower us to be a vessel He can use. We can do nothing without His Spirit.
And further, once we decide to truly follow Him, we become His sheep and we learn to KNOW HIS VOICE.
If we know His voice, we no longer will be washed to and fro as the waves of the sea.
So—this partly explains the 20K churches, but there is more. If you look at OT examples…for example the people in the time of Babel…Gen 11…*The people said to each other, “Come let us build for ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the Lord scattered them from there all over the earth…*
See the Lord’s church will prevail in that He will not allow us to “build monasteries” that keep some people out. He desires that we spread out…and if it takes human dissension to get folks to “spread” then the Lord will use our weakness for His glory.
So, to think that these 20,000 churches are a terrible thing, is to ignore God’s providential ways. People are being reached all over the world because of the many denominations, just as the Gospels taught…the body of Christ is made up of more than just an eye or an arm…diversity is what allows more people to be brought to Him.
And finally, the claim that protestants just accept whatever tickles their ears is to degrade, even blaspheme the Holy Spirit. There is clearly a lack of understanding of the Holy Spirit when this is the assumption. Many do not understand that Jesus did promise to lead us by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit, our Counselor. And some of us choose to stand on that promise.
In my recent study of the Word, I have found that even Paul was challenged by the other apostles. See 2 Corinthians 11 and 12. He’s having to defend himself…that He speaks only and boasts only what the Spirit of God shows Him.
How did Paul know that his interpretation of the Gospel was of God through the Spirit when it conflicted with another apostle?
Paul’s advice was:
“Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test.” … “Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.” 2 Corinthians 13: 5 and 11
Now, can we assume he’s only speaking to the apostles at Corinth? Or was he addressing the entire church? I would say the latter.
Jesus said, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Does this not suggest that it was His intention for His word to spread? The fact that the apostles were persecuted causing them to spread out early on…shows us, that what we see as evil, God uses for good.
You may see the many denominations as evil, but you also (many of you) proclaim that Christ said His body (church) shall prevail. This is right. The body of Christ, His witnesses, shall go to the “ends of the earth” bringing His truth to all.
- Status