Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[mpjw2]

my catholic friends…

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Peter expresses his belief and faith in His Lord (our Lord) Jesus Christ right?

**17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. **

God did not only send Jesus Christ to earth so Peter would believe, so that we all can believe and have faith…right?

**18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, **

Jesus did not say …And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on you Peter, I will build My church…

if Jesus said this …granted there would be absolutely no doubt that Christ’s church was built upon Peter.

In the bible, even though Jesus may be talking to one of HIs desciples or anyone, His words can be made a personal application.

Matt16:18 is a wonderful example…

In this verse Jesus is also saying …

say the following to yourself Paul C…

And Jesus also said to me, that you are Paul C, and on this rock He will build His church

now let that really sink in

or

**And I also say to you that you are christian who believes and has faith in me, and on this rock (meaning His church’s faith) I will build My church, **

My friends, when I was catholic, I never sw the bible as a personal applicatin from God God.

after viewing the following video

I pray that God reveals Himself to you even more than He has already in your lives.

youtube.com/watch?v=BKmdIdQg3Ks

The only way Jesus’s church servives is by all our faith in Him. For if we did not have faith,
we would not have Jesus in our hearts to forgive our sins and threfore we would all be doomed to hell.

hense the verse…

For it is by grace you have been saved,*** through faith***—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
Ephesians 2:8

verse 9 … not by works, so that no one can boast.

God wants us to do good yes…but without having jesus first and foremost in our lives, our good works are meaningless

God bless,

mpjw

 

[inkaneer]

The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly labels Matthias as an apostle. newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm

Then we have 13 or 14 Apostles [depending on Judas] and Revelation 21:14 is in error. Now you explain that because I always thought there was no error in scripture.

 

[inkaneer]

He wrote the words he also preached which is the gospel.
Here is a full exposition of the gospel written by Paul
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

But what Paul preached is not the issue. I say Paul preached the gospel but did not write ithe full gospel in his letters. You are trying to put words in my mouth that Paul did not preach and write the full gospel. That is not what I said Nor is it what you said initially either. Your exact words were:

“If you claim as you did that the writings of Paul do not contain the full gospel, then you are spiritually appraised and know not the gospel.”

Now you want to back off of that statement and try to say that he preached the full gospel. This is not about what Paul preached, its about what he wrote. I stand by my original sttaement which is that the writings of Paul are remedial in nature and do not contain the full gospel. Now if you are so vain that you cannot admit you are in error then further discussion with you by anyone is an exercise in futility.

 

[davidv]

david, satan comes to rob kill and destroy anything he can which God wants to give you.

Salvation is as simple as I stated.

Answer this, after you make a confession, don’t you feel clean and pure and know in your heart that if you were to die at that very moment you will go to heaven?

What I feel is irrelevant. Feelings are fleeting and a not an indication of true love. Nothing impure enters heaven, and not one of us is 100% pure when we leave this earth in death.

Concern was expressed about sins on ones’ soul which may have been forgotten.

if it applies…next time you confess to God, ask Him to forgive all your sin …those you knowingly express and those which you long forgot about.

Having done so…what is there after you confess which would prevent you from entering heaven
I can not think of anything can you??

Yes, obedience must follow repentence.

thank you and God bless,

mpjw

Likewise.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Beth,
The Gospel was passed on by word of mouth in the beginning for very practical reasons:

1. The books of the new testament had not been written
2. Even if it had been written, many couldn’t read.

So how did anyone know what to believe if it wasn’t written down? This is where Apostolic succession comes in. The Apostles were given their teaching authority by Jesus. Peter was made their leader to insure their was a common basis for the teaching. The Apostles gave authority to teach to trustworthy men. To demonstrate this, they were ordained bishops. These bishops were given the authority to name other bishops. The bishop of Rome was given authority over all other bishops to settle disputes. If significant questions arose, councils were called. the first of these, the council of Jerusalem was called in 49 AD and is described in Acts 15. The truth has thus been passed down for 2000 years from man to man, with ordination demonstrating that they were trustworthy.

Eventually, the teachings were written down in the form of the Gospels. to this was added the epistles, Acts, and revelation. It was codified in 382AD The criteria for inclusion in the bible was that the teachings had to be apostolic, had to be well know and had to be orthodox Catholic teaching as agreed in local council and validated by PopeSt. Damascus. He put St. Jerome in charge of converting the bible into Latin. His version, the vulgate was used for over 1000 years to teach the tenets of the faith

With the advent of the printing press, the bible became available to the masses, Arrogant men decided that they could read the bible on their own and understand what it meant better than those that had been trained in the truth by the bishops. These men, like Martin Luther, declared that each man , armed with a copy of the bible, could be his own authority, never acknowledging that by selectively choosing only those words and verses that appealed to them, men could make scripture say anything they pleased. In fact, Satan used scripture to test Jesus, did he not?

Jesus established a church to teach the Gospel and administer the sacraments for a reason. Unfortunately, there are many people who second guess Jesus on this, beleiving to their own detriment that they don’t need what he put in place.

Hi Pete,

The pastoral letters would contain the same message given by mouth on selecting those who meet the qualifications laid down in Scripture. If your or any church follwed those instruction it would have and continue to avoid much of the problems that are still plaguing it today, but when you go off on your own and do not heed to the word of God, then problems always arise regardless of the church yours or mine. Church discipline is discussed in 1 Tim 5 and if this were followed in all churches then many problems would not exist as well.

Succession has nothing to do with the instruction of God it is made by man and when a central authority , other than God, is in control, such as was with Israel, then corruption based on power and greed will mainfest themselves. It is the history of man with government and man with religion. Again, it crosses all religions and even down to the local levels as we see in the mega-health-wealth gospels.

I have seen personally what happens when a pastor is beyond reproach for theft and yet half the congregation wanted to overlook and we are talking 10’s of thousands of dollars, this is the other problem, people are either tares in the church or they know little about the high standards God demands for His ministers of the Word. The man is now serving time in jail, but the church has new and better leadership and has recovered. I also know a priest who got drunk and a parrishner, also a neighbor, tried to to stop him from driving, but he refused to heed the warning and got into a wreck with another vehical (no one got hurt thank God) and was charged with dui, but continues in his duties. This should not be according to the Scriptures.

 

[QuickCat]

Quick Cat,
there are many errors in this post. James did confine his ministry to Israel, but Peter and John did not. John moved to Ephesus in modern day Turkey, with the Virgin Mary and in revelations he addresses the 7 churches of Asia, not Israel. Peter was the universal leader of the church. Read Acts 15:
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

As you can see, he claimed jurisdictiion over the Gentiles and he was not debated. And Paul says that Peter is the Apostles to the circumcized as well in Galatians. As you can clearly see, this makes Peter leader of everyone, circumcized and Gentile alike.

You are clearly confused about what Paul was teaching. He was teaching the same Catholic faith as the other apostles. He said so in 1Corinthians 1:

10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The errors are with you my friend. If John and Peter went to the Gentiles [after pledging to go only to the Jews] then they broke that pledge. Note:

Ga 2:6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’s person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:
Ga 2:7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
Ga 2:8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
Ga 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;
Ga 2:10 only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
Ga 2:11 ¶ But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
Ga 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.

You will notice that James, Peter and John “added nothing” to Paul! Our apostle [Paul] states that Peter was “intrusted” with the “gospel OF the circumcision” [vs7]. Then, James, Peter and John gave to Paul the right hands of fellowship [their pledge] that Paul would go to the Gentiles while they [James, Peter and John] would go to the Jews.

James later writes to the “12 tribes scattered abroad.” Peter writes to “scattered” Jews and John writes to “my little children”, his fellow Jews.

The Body of Christ is not the subject of the book of Revelation. The 7 churches are all Jewish.

Did James, Peter and John lie to Paul when they pledged to go to the circumcision? No, they kept their pledge.

In Acts 15 James seems to be the leader, not Peter. Note:

Ac 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me:
Ac 15:14 Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Ac 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Ac 15:16 After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up:
Ac 15:17 That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,
Ac 15:18 Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.
Ac 15:19 Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;

Vs 19: "…MY JUDGEMENT …

 

[Beth_Martin]

You are reading into this what you want to read into it. They are merely saying that the baptism has its basis in Jesus,not the person administering the baptism. That does not mean that bapitsm is not effective in providing life saving Grace. Thomas and Augustine were Catholic priests who strongly believed in the sacramental nature of baptism. This is not hard to believe, is it? They are afterall, numbered among the doctors of the Church. They would be appalled that you are trying to make baptism unimportant using their words. And they most definitely would not agree with you. Try actually reading their sermons.

Look at what Augustine said rightly; he is saying Jesus did and di not baptize and that Jesus continues to baprize; this is true. He explains it by saying Jesus did not assist His disciples, other than by His presence meaning Jesus was not water baptizing, but then he refers to John 1:33 where is says Juses does baptize and continues.
John 1:33 "I did not recognize Him, but He who ***sent me to baptize in water ***said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'

Compare this in accord with Augustine and another part of Scripture "11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit”

—Augustine nailed this and yet you are unable to see what he is saying and you can see for yourself Augustine accords with the written record. At that time everyone, especially Catholics know that the early use of the word catholic was with the little “c” and nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Then we have 13 or 14 Apostles [depending on Judas] and Revelation 21:14 is in error. Now you explain that because I always thought there was no error in scripture.

Hail, brother!

The “College of the Twelve” has a special place within the circle of apostles as indicated by Paul when he wrote that Jesus appeared “to the twelve,” later to “all of the apostles,” and finally to Paul himself as “the least of the apostles” (1 Cor 15:5, 7, 8). The larger group of apostles includes, for example, Barnabas, who is identified as an apostle in conjunction with Paul in Acts 14:14, and James the Lord’s brother as indicated by Paul in Galatians 1:19. The Twelve are distinguished by being chosen by Christ “to be with Him” during His earthly ministry (Mark 3:14), which was also a requirement for Judas’ replacement (cf. Acts 1:21-22).

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Beth_Martin]

You are reading into this what you want to read into it. They are merely saying that the baptism has its basis in Jesus,not the person administering the baptism. That does not mean that bapitsm is not effective in providing life saving Grace. Thomas and Augustine were Catholic priests who strongly believed in the sacramental nature of baptism. This is not hard to believe, is it? They are afterall, numbered among the doctors of the Church. They would be appalled that you are trying to make baptism unimportant using their words. And they most definitely would not agree with you. Try actually reading their sermons.

Funny, the next post Pete say they would be “Catholic” if they were here today and you say they were “Catholic”

 

[Pete_Holter]

Funny, the next post Pete say they would be “Catholic” if they were here today and you say they were “Catholic”

Paul and I agree (although Augustine was a bishop).

 

[Beth_Martin]

Greetings, Beth!

Thomas and Augustine both believe that the grace of baptism can be received apart from the sacrament in extenuating circumstances, as all Catholics do. But, normatively speaking, this regenerative grace is bestowed on us when we are water baptized, and that is what they have under discussion in the two passages I provided. “Take away the water, it is no baptism” (Tractate 15 on the Gospel of John).

What Augustine wrote in his commentary on John, and what Thomas was saying, was that when the minister of baptism applies the water, Jesus at that same time supplies His Spirit. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not think that you believe this. Unless I am mistaken, you believe that the water signifies what has already been bestowed. We believe that the sacrament bestows what it signifies.

If Augustine and Thomas were alive today, I have no doubt that they would be Catholic. Please spend some time with them and get to know them better.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

Funny, the previous post Paul believes they are Catholic but you say if they were here you believe they would be “Catholic”. One of you knows with certainty and the other with little doubt. There was no “Catholic” then, so both of you would be wrong. That term was used in its original meaning which is universal, not in its present for of “Universal Church in Rome”. You all tell me to read more about these folks, but you have a tendency to misrepresent them in my opinion and even when Augustine makes the brilliant connection you still deny it although he should it from Scripture and I also did and even elaborated more to confirm further what he said and yet you still do not believe even what Augustine said. Paul adds the twist that they happen at the same time, which accord more with Catholic doctrine, but Scripture tells a different story. The Holy Spirit is given to this the moment they believe the gospel by faith according to God and then they are water baptized. Please let us not go back in circles to Acts 2:38, where then we go back to Acts 10 & 11 et al. You hold you belief and I will hold mine and as I have repeatedly said there will be those in heaven on both sides of the isle.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Quote:
Originally posted by inkaneer
Not so fast there lady. First of all, who said Matthias was an Apostle? Second, do you know what Apostolic Succession means? Apostolic Succession is the line of authority from the original Apostles down the centuries to the bishops of the church. It does not mean one Apostle succeeding another. As for Matthias he was no Apostle. He was a bishop. Scripture only says he was “numbered with the eleven Apostles” [Acts 1:26]. If he was made an Apostle shouldn’t Acts 1:26 say He was numbered with the twelve Apostles? And the cumbersome phrase “…was numbered with…” Why not just say he was made an Apostle, if, indeed, he was an Apostle? Also, was Judas ever an Apostle? To be an apostle one had to be picked by God and sent. Judas was never sent. Neither was Matthias. In Acts 1:17 Peter says of Judas:

"17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.’ [Acts 1:17]

To be sure you are correct when you say the term apostle is used sometimes generically in scripture. The Orthodox speak of the seventy apostles sent by Jesus in Luke 10:1. But here we are using the term rather specifically. Now are we to accept Judas and Matthias as Apostles as well as Paul? That gives us fourteen Apostles. However, scripture provides a constraint on the number to only twelve. Look at the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:14:

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” [Re 21:14 RSV]

Who are these twelve Apostles? I think we can safely eliminate Judas. So that leaves us to decide between Matthias and Paul. My opinion and I want to emphasize it is only my opinion. There are Catholics who will disagree with me and are free to do so because the Catholic Church has made no formal declaration on this point. My opinion is that the term Apostle as used in Revelation 21:14 refers specifically to those men chosen by Jesus and also sent by Him. That means Judas, who was chosen by Jesus but was never sent by Jesus is not one of them. Matthias was never chosen by Jesus nor was he sent by Jesus. But Paul was chosen by Jesus as well as sent by Jesus so Paul is the twelfth Apostle. Again in Revelation 4:4 we see there are 24 elders sitting on thrones with gold crowns. These 24 elders are accepted as being the 12 Patriarchs of the OT and the 12 Apostles of the NT.

I’ll know when I enter the gates; it is a good question, but I have a tendency to believe it deals with the original 12, not Iscariot, but with Mattias. Paul was not part of the original 12 therefore he will not be part of that, but no one has been there so we will have to wait and see.

 

[paul_c]

Hi all,

I firmly believe that … whether you are catholic or not catholic, had prior exposure to the catholic church or never set foot in a catholic church … Salvation is for all mankind, no exceptions.

According to the bible, God makes it clear that salvaton is a personal choice.

Yes, salvation is a personal choice. You either choose to follow Jesus by loving God and others and be saved or else you are condemned. Catholics believe you need grace to overcome sin and that grace is gained through the sacraments. This is a huge problem for non-catholics who don’t partake of the live giving sacraments.

If you are like me, hasn’t everyone sinned at one time or another? Broken at least one of the 10 commandments? i.e. (telling a lie, stealing something, lusting over another person or cursed against God)?

from the above example I am a lying adulterer thief who takes the Lord’s name in vain.

I do not believe there is a perfect sinless human living today or will ever be.
There was only one perfect person…His name Jesus Christ.

Sadly, I have communicated with catholics who argued with me that Jesus was not sinless.
Is there anyone here who believes that. I hope not. Jesus was and is without sin…God in the flesh.

Do you agree Jesus was without sin? .

Yes. Catholics believe that Jesus was without sin. They also believe Mary was without sin. No one else has been sinless throughout their lives, but through the sacramental grace, sins can be overcome.

I believe all christians …catholic, baptists, protestant, lutheran, pentecostal, presbyterian etc… all believe the following facts regarding God, Jesus Christ, sin and salvation.

The fact that we all belong to an imperfect sinful world population… is bad news because the bible states, we are all doomed to hell … we must be punished for our sin.

We can not enter heaven with sin …agree?

Yes, Catholics agree that we can not enter heaven without our sins being forgiven and purged away. Forgiven through the sacraments and our sinful nature being removed through penance and repentance, This my require time in purgatory if we have not attained holiness during life. You must end your life in the state of grace to go to heaven.

The good news is…God, because He loves you and I, provided the ONE AND ONLY WAY for us to be with Him in heaven …

2000 years ago God made Himself human and walked the earth in the name of Jesus Christ.
Jesus spent a lot of time teaching and healing which caused a lot of people to believe in
him.

However, there were many who did not believe who Jesus claimed to be (the Messiah, the Son of God) and saw Him as a threat because they were not willing to accept the truth about who Jesus said He was. Thereby, they shouted out for Jesus to be crucified and for Pontius Pilate to release a criminal.

agree?

Of course Jesus died for our sins. That does not excuse us to sin, however. It provided the example and the grace to allow us to be saved. Without Jesus’ we could not be saved. But belief in this fact is not sufficient for salvation alone. We need to cooperate with his grace and choose life.

Before being crucified, Jesus was beaten, tortured and flogged.
In Jesus’s death on the cross He, being a sinless man, took upon Himself all the sins you and I ever committed or will commit.

agree?

sure.

So instead of us having to pay the punishment (hell) for our sin,
Jesus took our place and died for us so we would not have to be punished forever.

agree?

ok. I agree to this statement.

…the bible comfirms this…

**For God so loved **the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Belief is the first step, however just believing God does not forgive your sin.
the bible also says you must confess your sin.

agree?

True. But it requires sacramental confession.

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

also…you will need to repent
agree?

agreed.

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Matthew 9:13

The one and only way to be forgiven of our sins is by the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

agree?

How do you really understand this? Sure, Jesus’ paschal sacrifice was necessary for the forgiveness of sins. But that is not all that is required. As you have pointed out, you need to confess your sins and be truly repentent. If you do this sacramentally, you will be absolved of your sins by the priest who has been given this authority through apostolic succession.

Jesus said … “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through Me John 14:6

This is true. And Jesus set up his Church to teach the truths and administer his sacraments. See Matthew 16: 16-19 and mathew 28: 18-20.

 

[paul_c]

In summary…If we want to go to heaven and be forgiven of all your sin, there is only ONE way…

Ist … Admit that we are sinners
2nd… Believe, Trust in the promise of God and in the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus Christ
3rd… Confess and repent our sin with sincerity from the bottom of our hearts
4th… Trust Jesus, who now reigns in heaven, to be Lord and saviour of our lives
5th … be in continuing prayer and confession to God, unfortunately we are not perfect and will always stumble (sin) until the day we die on earth

Agree?

You miss the most important part. You need the grace of Jesus Christ to be saved that is administered through the sacraments. If you are not baptized, you will not be saved (unless you are invincibly ignorant or foreceably kept from being baptized). In John 6, we are told that if you don’t eat his body and drink his blood, there is no life within you. Do you take Jesus at his word?

Thank God for His loving grace that He is willing to give us 2nd, 3rd, 100, 10 x 10,000 and more chances in life so that we do not have to die a 2nd death and spend eternity in hell for our sin.

The following guidelines are not necessary for salvation. However I believe will help our spiritual growth and relationship with God.

we need to…

Spend some time each day praying and worshipping God.
Daily read the Bible
Begin to develop friendships with sincere Christians
Tell other people about your relationship with God.

mpjw

MPJW,
Christians have more in common than not, but non-Catholic Christians deny themselves the sacraments, which are necessary for salvation. Don’t take that for granted. Jesus established his church to teach and to Administer the sacraments. As Paul said, the Church is the body of Christ. When you separate yourselves from that, you separate yourself from Jesus. If you are serious in your faith, why would you ever do that? Do you really think you know more about salvation than the Church Christ established to bring people to him?

 

[Beth_Martin]

But what Paul preached is not the issue. I say Paul preached the gospel but did not write ithe full gospel in his letters. You are trying to put words in my mouth that Paul did not preach and write the full gospel. That is not what I said Nor is it what you said initially either. Your exact words were:

“If you claim as you did that the writings of Paul do not contain the full gospel, then you are spiritually appraised and know not the gospel.”

Now you want to back off of that statement and try to say that he preached the full gospel. This is not about what Paul preached, its about what he wrote. I stand by my original sttaement which is that the writings of Paul are remedial in nature and do not contain the full gospel. Now if you are so vain that you cannot admit you are in error then further discussion with you by anyone is an exercise in futility.

Here is exactly what I just posted which you responded to just now.

He wrote the words he also preached which is the gospel.
Here is a full exposition of the gospel written by Paul
3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

This is but one example of what Paul wrote; the problem seems to be that you do not know or understand what the gospel or “good news of Jesus Christ” is. There is every indication that what he spoke is also what he wrote. If Paul went around and the only thing he ever said was what I put down in Titus; he would have been faithful in preaching the gospel.

 

[paul_c]

Old argument and a srtetch and imposition on Peter, Jesus and the true church that Jesus continues to build that has yet to be revealved. Peter and the rest of the Apostles were given the special privlidge of opening the Kingdom by the promises of the New Covenant. To make that the Roman Catholic Church you must have quite an imagination in my opinion and only the Catholic buys into it. Three verse later Peter is called Satan by Jesus; so He went from the Church foundation to Satan in a matter of 3-4 verses, please give us all a break.

More than 2/3 of the NT are not the “gospels”, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John; yet they all contain the “good news”.

The great commission applies to all Christians.

Futhermore, Scripture is very clear as to who is in charge of the church and it is not Peter nor the Pope, but Christ Himself who is God and therefore is omnipresent. Your faith teaches otherwise, so stick to what you know and i’ll stick to what I know.

Your denial of the truth does not make it any less true. Jesus said he was founding the Chruch on St. Peter, why won’t you accept that. Do you think Jesus is lying to you?

The great commission was granted to the church in the persons of the apostles. There are not multiple truths but one and that is the Apostolic truths taught by the church. When your view vary from the church, you vary from the truth and are teaching falsehood… A significant portion of the epistles, acts and revelations are spent correcting misconceptions on what the truth is . They are appealiing to people like you to get back in line with what the church teaches.

Jesus founded the Catholic church and put Peter and his successors in place to make sure that the Gospel truth is taught and that the sacraments are administered. Our faith teaches that Jesus will be with the church until the end of the age. That is the truth. If you open your mind to it, you will come to see the wisdom in that.

 

[Beth_Martin]

The errors are with you my friend. If John and Peter went to the Gentiles [after pledging to go only to the Jews] then they broke that pledge. Note:

Ga 2:6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’s person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:
Ga 2:7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
Ga 2:8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
Ga 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;
Ga 2:10 only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
Ga 2:11 ¶ But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
Ga 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.

You will notice that James, Peter and John “added nothing” to Paul! Our apostle [Paul] states that Peter was “intrusted” with the “gospel OF the circumcision” [vs7]. Then, James, Peter and John gave to Paul the right hands of fellowship [their pledge] that Paul would go to the Gentiles while they [James, Peter and John] would go to the Jews.

James later writes to the “12 tribes scattered abroad.” Peter writes to “scattered” Jews and John writes to “my little children”, his fellow Jews.

The Body of Christ is not the subject of the book of Revelation. The 7 churches are all Jewish.

Did James, Peter and John lie to Paul when they pledged to go to the circumcision? No, they kept their pledge.

In Acts 15 James seems to be the leader, not Peter. Note:

Ac 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me:
Ac 15:14 Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Ac 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Ac 15:16 After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up:
Ac 15:17 That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,
Ac 15:18 Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.
Ac 15:19 Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;

Vs 19: "…MY JUDGEMENT …

It is not difficult at all to show that Peter could not have been bishop of Rome based on the lack of greetings in mentioning such a prominent one as Peter. The fact that Paul never treaded on the ground where the church was established by another Apostle, which the beginning of Romans you can see that the there were Christians in Rome, but Paul wanted to come in order to “establish them”. Also as noted before, Peter would have been in direct violation to his duty to the Jews and Paul would have been trading on the other Apostle. It is clear that Peter was assigned to the Jews and spent much time in and around Jersusalem whereas Paul went all over the place seeking the gentiles as he was assigned. It is more likely that Simon Magnus, the magician rebuked by Paul, is the one who took prominence in Rome and not Simon Peter, but that is a whole different area I don’t want to enter. There is no coincidence that Mangnus is missing his head and the burial marked with Simeon Bar jona was found with other prominent figues in Jerusalem, which is exactly where Simeon Peter would have wanted to be buried being a Jew; the last place he would want to be laid to rest would be in pagan territory, but the truth of this matter will be known at the end.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Paul and I agree (although Augustine was a bishop).

i noted that both are in general agreement and also noted that “catholic”, not “Catholic” would have been the correct term and each has a completely different meaning. I believe you both know that is also true, but it makes no different to the topic or to salvation either so all agree you two are on the same page.

 

[paul_c]

Here is exactly what I just posted which you responded to just now.

This is but one example of what Paul wrote; the problem seems to be that you do not know or understand what the gospel or “good news of Jesus Christ” is. There is every indication that what he spoke is also what he wrote. If Paul went around and the only thing he ever said was what I put down in Titus; he would have been faithful in preaching the gospel.

The problem with what you wrote is that is only partially true. You need the whole truth, not just the parts that you like.

 

[paul_c]

The errors are with you my friend. If John and Peter went to the Gentiles [after pledging to go only to the Jews] then they broke that pledge. Note:

Ga 2:6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’s person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:
Ga 2:7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
Ga 2:8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
Ga 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;
Ga 2:10 only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
Ga 2:11 ¶ But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
Ga 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.

You will notice that James, Peter and John “added nothing” to Paul! Our apostle [Paul] states that Peter was “intrusted” with the “gospel OF the circumcision” [vs7]. Then, James, Peter and John gave to Paul the right hands of fellowship [their pledge] that Paul would go to the Gentiles while they [James, Peter and John] would go to the Jews.

James later writes to the “12 tribes scattered abroad.” Peter writes to “scattered” Jews and John writes to “my little children”, his fellow Jews.

The Body of Christ is not the subject of the book of Revelation. The 7 churches are all Jewish.

Did James, Peter and John lie to Paul when they pledged to go to the circumcision? No, they kept their pledge.

In Acts 15 James seems to be the leader, not Peter. Note:

Ac 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me:
Ac 15:14 Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Ac 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Ac 15:16 After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up:
Ac 15:17 That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,
Ac 15:18 Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.
Ac 15:19 Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;

Vs 19: "…MY JUDGEMENT …

Its not surprising that Protestants like to split up the church into pieces and try to devalue Peter. but that is not the truth. In the first example you use from Galatians, you try to make the statement that only Paul and Barnabas were allowed to go to the Gentiles. This is clearly not what is said or meant by the verse. Nor is it supported by the rest of the new testament. As for Acts, understand the situation. St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem and as such, the Jews there were under his direct jurisdiction. It was they who were pushing the Jewish law on the Gentiles. Once Peter made the pronouncement that the gentile Christians were not subject to the Jewish laws, James signaled his agreement and proposed a groundrule that would be acceptable to Jewish law