If you’ve ever been accused of being an idol worshiper (yes, I have), then perhaps you should click on this link.
One of those rare moments of pure clarity hit me while I was studying this issue some years back. I looked at the Old Testament injunction against making images of God (specifically images of God – not other personages or creatures). I believe this can be found in Deuteronomy and it states: “Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure”
Since you saw no form . . . I’ll never forget when it hit me – Christ says, “When you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” He is called the Godhead in bodily form. Christ himself overturned this injunction by His Incarnation. It hit me like a ton of bricks and I’ve never been bothered by the feeling I’m worshiping an idol. Never. It seems to me that those who think that icons or religious art somehow insult God perhaps haven’t meditated on the overwhelming topsyturviness of the Incarnation.
April 21, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
Yes, I agree. Jesus was God in bodily form. That is why He accepted worship and did not forbid it. Bit I miss the connection – Yes it was right to worship Jesus in His bodily form because He is God but how does that make it right to make an image and pray to it? Is the image really a person in bodily form?
In addition, the verse you quoted is just one of many verses prohibiting images. For example,
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth…” (Ex 20:4)
Are you really willing to take the chance that you are wrong on this when you are in direct conflict with the 2nd commandment?
Suppose that you decided that you would only pray to God, just like Jesus taught us, “Our Father…”, and not to any others. Would you be missing anything? Is it better to pray to Mary then to pray to the Father?
April 21, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
God forbade images on Himself on this context alone – that the people of Israel saw no form. Yet in Christ, the Godhead dwells bodily. Whereas God on Horeb was hidden by the cloud and fire, Christ on Tabor was revealed in purity of light. The veil had been rolled back , and the revelation of God through Christ turned the world upside down (or rightside up, as it were). The significance of the Incarnation, the union of creation and creator – it’s often missed in Protestant circles. It never was missed in the Church. It was those who were influenced by the Islamic teaching against imagery that took the Church to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, where the truths of Christian worship were defined.
BTW, I would recommend you read the article I referenced before you declare that I’m “in direct conflict with the 2nd commandment”. God himself ordered images to be made – in the temple and elsewhere.
And yes, I’m more than willing to stand with the Church on this issue – as I know She’s right. As she’s been right on such issues as the Trinity, Christology, Soteriology, and any other issue throughout history. It’s the iconoclast who is the innovator, the denier of the Church’s teaching.
It’s you who sets up false dichotomies (as if I’m saying it is better to pray to Mary).
April 22, 2008 at 9:53 am |
Tizzidale,
Thank you for the link you provided. I did read most of it but, honestly, some of the responses do not hold water IMO.
For example, yes it is true that Israel did have religious “art” – the cherubim and the oxen for example – but the difference is that Israel never bowed down to them. They never lit candles to the oxen and prayed to them. Do you see the difference?
In addition, the cherubim were in the “Holy of holies” – a place that only the high priest could go once a year – so you could never pray to them even if you wanted to. None of the people could even see them.
And the oxen – they were in the area where the priests were slaughtering hundreds of sheep and goats and bulls – blood everywhere – noise and the smell of dead animals being burnt on the alter – you would never kneel down in the bloody soil to pray to one of these images.
The fact is that the incarnation is God in the flesh and He is to be worshiped but any other image is not an incarnation and is not to be worshiped.
Tell me, can you find any prayer in the Bible to anyone but God? Why didn’t Peter pray to Moses or to Stephen? The apostles never prayed to anyone but God alone – just as Jesus taught them.
April 22, 2008 at 10:16 am |
What is prayer? If I ‘pray’ you to do something, I’m merely asking you. So, yes, you do find instances of people ‘praying’ to those other than God. I would recommend http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603btb.asp .
I’m not here to convince anyone. I do think, however, that the Protestant has the harder case to prove, as it is his position that is anti-historical and outside the mainstream of Christianity as it has been practiced in East, West, North and South for two-thousand years.
April 22, 2008 at 10:27 am |
“…the Protestant has the harder case to prove, as it is his position that is anti-historical and outside the mainstream of Christianity as it has been practiced in East, West, North and South for two-thousand years.”
Exactly. The Catholic places their trust in the traditions and teachings of the church while the protestant places their trust in the writings of the Apostles themselves. The very ones who heard Jesus speak and witnessed His death and resurrection and themselves died for their testimony.
So the question is, when the two contradict each other – prayers to saints for example – which one is more reliable – the teachings of those who were eyewitnesses or the ones that came later?
April 22, 2008 at 11:32 am |
The problem you have, of course, is that the Protestant relies as much upon Church tradition as the Catholic. The very canon of Scripture itself comes from the living tradition of the Church. The definition of the Trinity and of the natures of Christ – all of this is the result of this tradition which you declare contradictory to scripture. It isn’t. Your position, however, is outside the tradition of the Church, in that it benefits from it but blindly disavows the heritage. “By What Authority” by Mark Shea (which I recommend below) is a great book for anyone wondering about these issues.
April 22, 2008 at 1:11 pm |
So, if the church had not recognized the book of Hebrews for example, I guess that God would have just had to submit to the authority of the church. And that is the problem. In Catholicism the word of God must submit to the teachings of man instead of man submitting to the word of God. So then, the church is greater than God.
No matter what the Bible says it is meaningless in light of tradition. So what if the Bible forbids idolatry, church tradition has more authority than the Bible. So what if the Bible teaches us to pray only to God and to NEVER make an idol in the image of anything, as long as tradition says it is ok, we will just ignore all that God says in His word.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The fear of man is a snare and a trap.
He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” (Mark 7:9)
April 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm |
You are creating a false dichotomy. The Scripture can’t be separated from Tradition. Never. Regardless if you don’t want to ’submit’ to Tradition’s dictum as to what is canonical or not – you are indeed submitted to it if you take the Biblical (especially New Testament) canon as authoritative. There’s no getting around it.
Paul says to hold fast to his teachings, whether through writing or through his oral preaching. And that’s what the Church has done. You can’t claim the patrimony of the Church in deciding such things as the canon, the Trinity, the natures of Christ at the same time as explicitly denying its authority to do those very things. It’s nonsensical and partly what drove me to Catholicism.
I suppose you think that the Catholic Church allows idolatry then? Then you are not listening and attempting to be charitable to what we do indeed teach. We forbid idolatry. We do not practice idolatry.
Unless you have something new to offer, instead of quoting scripture at me (I’m more than capable of doing the same) – why don’t we just agree to disagree.
April 22, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
This entire argument would be quite funny…if it wasn’t so sad. Christ came to set up the kingdom. He preaches on this more than any other topic. Christ set up his kingdom, the Church, as He wanted it. He promised that the Gates of Hell would never overcome it. It was the only Church for centuries. It is the oldest institution in the world and the gates of hell still haven’t overthrown it, but they will never stop trying.
Protestants protest the Church because they have no idea what it is; they have no idea of the Kingdom of God. They want the King, but not His kingdom. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time were the same. It hasn’t changed. Man is still responding to Satan’s empty promise in the garden to be your own God. If you don’t like the Church, hey…start your own. If you don’t like the Scriptures, change them. If you don’t like God’s way, be your own God.
What they don’t understand, won’t understand, refuse to understand is that you can’t separate the Church from Christ. You can’t pit one against the other, because they are the same. There can be no contradiction between the Scriptures and the Church. It’s hard when you have no concept of what the Church is, no concept of a history. It is indeed a stumbling stone.
April 23, 2008 at 8:11 am |
Paul,
Suppose I want to become part of this church you speak of, how do I become a member?
April 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
Well, Russ, it’s not like joining a Protestant church. You can’t just say a prayer and you’re in. There’s actually quite a bit to learn before you know enough to stand before God and make a lifelong vow. Making a vow to God is serious business; it’s not something to be taken lightly. You have to really understand Who God is, Who Jesus is and why He came. You have to know what the Church is and what it means to be a member of the Family of God. And, of course, you have to learn what it means to be a Catholic.
So we have a program called the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA). In that program you study for at least a year. In the early Church it was 3 years. You are assigned a baptized, confirmed Catholic to act as your sponsor. They make you feel loved and welcome, they answer your questions. There is no rush and no one is forced to make a commitment. You can go through the program just to learn what the Church teaches without ever becoming Catholic. If you want to join the Church, when you feel you are ready, and the Church feels you are ready you can become baptized at Easter, just like in the early Church.
April 24, 2008 at 10:23 am |
Paul,
Was there something wrong with the way the apostles received new members into the church that the Catholic Church had to change? Was Philip wrong to baptize the “man of Ethiopia” (Acts 8:37)? Why didn’t he first require him to “stand before God and make a lifelong vow”?
Was Peter wrong to Baptize 3000 people on the day of Pentecost without first “learning what it means to be a Catholic”?
What has changed from the time of the Apostles so radically that it now takes “at least 1 year” when in the early church it was nearly instantaneous? “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.” (Act 10:44)
Does the Catholic Church understand the way of salvation better than the Apostles? Better than the Holy Spirit?
Was Paul wrong to write to the Romans and say, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”?
Why is the teaching of the APOSTLES insufficient for the APOSTALLIC Church?
Yes, I know your answer. No matter what your answer is, in essence you are saying that the Bible is not trustworthy. You cannot believe what it clearly teaches. Instead, you must look to the generations that followed the Apostles instead of looking to the Apostles themselves.
Either the Bibles is the Word of God and has authority, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” – or it does not. If it has authority then you do not need to change it – you need to follow it. If it does not have authority then throw all of it in the trash.
Do you believe this verse?
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. (John 5:24)
If not, then this verse applies to you.
But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. (John 5:38)
April 24, 2008 at 7:08 pm |
Russ,
The Church has always maintained that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and the Church should know, since it was the Church that put the Bible together and protected it and passed it on so that we have it today. It was the Church that determined what books should be in the New Testament, so you wouldn’t have a Bible to argue with if it weren’t for the Church. An honest search of history shows this to be true. It is not the Word of God that is not trustworthy, but your faulty interpretation of it.
It always comes down to a matter of authority. Jesus did not tell the Apostles to go forth and write a book, but to go forth and preach. For about 300 years the Church was there without a New Testament. And the only version of the Scriptures they knew had books in it your version of the Bible rejects. Everything in the Bible is truth, but not all truth is in the Bible, and the Bible never makes that claim, only Protestants do. In fact the Bible makes the exact opposite claim. T
I sincerely pray that one day you will get over your anger at Christ’s Church long enough to take a serious look at it. An honest investigation can only lead to the conclusion that if the Catholic Church is wrong, then Jesus isn’t God. It really is that simple.
In the meanwhile, we have gotten way too far afield from the thread of this conversation.
April 25, 2008 at 10:50 am |
Paul,
I asked a fairly simple question. Why has the way of salvation been changed? Why was simple faith in Jesus Christ the only prerequisite for salvation in the time of the Apostles but now it is no longer sufficient?
Has God changed? Has the nature of man changed? Is God not, “the same yesterday, today and forever”?
Why has the Roman Catholic Church changed the gospel?
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)
And what was the Gospel that Paul preached?
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28)
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Gal 2:16)
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4)
Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20)
April 27, 2008 at 8:24 pm |
Now we have come full circle, Russ, to my original post. I honestly believe that you think you asked a simple question and gave “proofs” to substantiate your position. However, that is not the case at all.
Your question is not a simple one. There are 2,000 years of Church history, of which you have no frame of reference. That was the point of my original post. That is the entire problem with the way in which most Evangelical Protestants use the Scriptures. You don’t bother with learning the story behind the story, so you just quote away with what honestly seems to be the plain sense interpretation of the Scriptures.
Sorry, it’s just not that simple. Please also try to understand that while you asked a question about baptism, your real question is one of authority: the Church or the Bible. And even that is not simple. Because there really can never be any point on which the Church and the Scriptures contradict each other. If your interpretation of the Scriptures contradicts the teaching of the Church, then your interpretation is wrong. Study how the Church interprets the Scriptures and you will see that it is different.
So, in a spirit of Christian brotherly love I will address your question, but I seriously doubt you will understand it, and I further doubt you are willing to do the study and work it takes to get to the real truth. You think Catholics put traditions before the Scriptures, and you don’t even realize that your beliefs stem, not from the Scriptures, but from a presupposed interpretation that is merely the tradition of men.
Let me explain that. You quote all your favorite verses about salvation by faith alone, probably without even realizing that the doctrine of sola scriptura was invented by Martin Luther in the 16th century, which means that it was unknown to Christianity for 1500 years. How could it have been unknown, when the Scriptures teach it? Because Martin Luther invented that interpretation, and you have been taught that this is what those verses in Romans means, so naturally that’s how you interpret them.
So let’s look at some of those verses. All the Scriptures you use from Paul’s letter to the Galatians are taken totally out of the context from which they were written. Paul, whose writings are very Catholic when properly interpreted, was writing to the Galatians because they had been confused by the Judaizers from Jerusalem.
Some of the Jewish-Christians from the Church in Jerusalem went to Galatia, to the Gentile Christians Paul had brought into the Church, and told them they couldn’t receive Christ unless they became Jews first. That is unless they received circumcision and lived up to the tenets of first century Judaism. Which, by the way, was very different from the ancient Judaism of Moses and was very different from modern Judaism today, even though they have always had the same five books of Moses, the Torah. Paul returned to Galatia to find his converts believing that they would have to become Jews in order to be Christians, which was the “other gospel” Paul refers to. It has nothing to do with this discussion.
Then you ask, “Has God changed?” “Has the nature of man changed?” No, of course not. But the historical and cultural context did change. It was a simpler matter when Jews or the “righteous Gentiles” of the early Church age converted to Christianity because they already knew the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament from which the Catholic Old Testament comes. They already knew about God’s covenants, they already knew about the Messianic prophecies from Moses to Malachi. So once they had the Gospel message of Christ preached to them they were ready for baptism.
Not so with the pagan Gentiles. Once the Gospel was preached to them they still had to learn all these things. The Church has to adapt its message and its methods for the people it is addressing at the time. So the catechumenate (period of instruction) was introduced to make up for the many things they didn’t know. But the Church NEVER brought people into the Church who didn’t know what was expected of them as the Protestant churches do. When the entire known world was Christian, the Church did not use the catechumenate. But today’s world is as pagan as the world the early Church faced, therefore, the instruction is necessary if people are to know what the Christian faith consists of.
Paul himself teaches that the Church is the pillar of truth. (1 Tim 3:15). The New Testament Church already had the same structure of bishops, priests and deacons the Church still has today. By the 2nd century AD the Church was already calling itself “the Catholic Church.” Read St Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop and martyr of the early Church who had been taught by the Apostle John himself. Here is a link, read chapter VIII http://www.depositofthefaith.com/fathers/ignatius/smyraeans.html
But the ultimate test of truth is found in Matthew 16:18. There Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Since the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for 1500 years, that has to be His Church. If the Catholic Church became corrupt and had to be reformed in the 16th century, then the gates of hell did, in fact, prevail against His Church. If that is the case then either Jesus lied, or He meant what He said, but couldn’t prevent it. In either case, Jesus is not God. If the Catholic Church became corrupt, then Jesus is not God. If not, then there was no need for the Protestant Reformation and the splintering of the Church into the 30,000 different Protestant denominations we have today.
But the fact of the matter is, Jesus is God, the gates of Hell have never prevailed against His Church which He established as the Kingdom of God on earth. Now think about this: how can you say you love the King, when you despise His Kingdom that He has protected for 2,000 years? Don’t just throw out some Bible verses someone has told you the meaning of, and don’t just accept what I say either. Search it out yourself, do the work, study the history. Study what the disciples of the Apostles taught and you will find that every one of them was Catholic as were their beliefs.
Paul-Joseph Stines
http://www.depositofhefaith.com
April 28, 2008 at 11:47 am |
Paul,
Thank you for your reply. I wish I could have written more briefly but the objections you raised were too numerous to respond to with just a few words.
“…there really can never be any point on which the Church and the Scriptures contradict each other. If your interpretation of the Scriptures contradicts the teaching of the Church, then your interpretation is wrong.” This argument assumes that the word of God is not clear but instead that the teaching of the church is clear. It assumes that God is unable to communicate clearly with man and that only the “learned” can understand the spiritual truths contained within it and even then, only with exhaustive study of 2000 years of history. The problem with this argument is that it is in direct conflict with the Word itself.
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. [Luke 10:21]
For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. [1 Cor 1:26-29]
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God… …But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. [1 Cor 2:10-15]
Now don’t tell me that these verses are not clear. They could not be clearer. The problem is not that God is not clear in His word. The problem is that, “…you do not have His word abiding in you…” [John 5:3]
——————————————————-
sola scriptura
If the traditions of the Church are on equal par with the word of God and if both are inspired by the Holy Spirit, then there should be no CLEAR contradictions between the two for the Holy Spirit would never contradict Himself.
Tell me then, it is a mortal sin to miss mass on Sunday?
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/is-missing-mass-a-mortal-sin/
This teaching is clearly founded in the Law of Moses, from the big TEN even. So what is the believer’s relationship to the Law of Moses in the New Covenant? I will only quote one here for the sake of redundancy:
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. [Gal 5:4] Also see [Gal 2:16, 4:9-11, 2:21, Rom 7:6, 8:1-2 and many others]
If there is only ONE message in the NT it is this – that man can NEVER be justified by the works of the law. Again, the problem is not that God is not clear in His word. The problem is that, “…you do not have His word abiding in you…” [John 5:3]
——————————————————
“The New Testament Church already had the same structure of bishops, priests and deacons the Church still has today.” This is not true. The NT church has NO record of ANY priest other than Jesus Christ. There is NO earthly priesthood in the NT to offer sacrifices, because they have ceased nor is the office of priest required for mediation because there is only ONE mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.
The Greek word for “priest” is “hiereous” and is used throughout the NT [Mark 8:4, 12:4,5, Luke 1:5, John 1:19, Heb 8:4, etc.] but never is it used to describe ANY NT believer.
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. (1 Cor 12:28). In the previous chapter we find Paul giving instruction on communion but in neither chapter do we find any reference to the office of priest.
One reason that we never see the office of priest in the New Testament is because every believer has access to God through Jesus Christ.
Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:25)
Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (Heb 10:19-22)
This new relationship between every believer that the Father was prophesied in the OT.
“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah– not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers…” (Jer 31:31,32)
Notice that this “new covenant” is NOT according to the old covenant that God made in the law of Moses – a covenant requiring earthly priests.
But instead it is a covenant where, “No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD…” JER 31:34)
Another reason that there in no earthly priesthood to replace the OT priesthood is because God no longer requires earthly sacrifices to be offered. Instead, there is only one sacrifice – the blood of Jesus Christ – who, “…does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” (Heb 7:27) If there are no more sacrifices to be offered, there is no need for an earthly priest.
Again, the Bible is clear. The problem is, “…you do not have His word abiding in you…” [John 5:3]
———————————————————-
“…the ultimate test of truth is found in Matthew 16:18…”
God made similar promises to the Jews, did He not? Yet, the nation was taken into captivity in Babylon. Even while the majority of the Jewish nation was in apostasy, God always has His “remnant”.
Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. [Rom 11:5]
And consider God’s view of His own church:
“AND to the angel of the church in Sardis write, ‘These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.” [Rev 3:1]
“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love.” [Rev 2:4]
“Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. “And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. “Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. [Rev 2:20-22]
I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’–and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked… [Rev 3:15-17]
If you only consider one verse, “the gates of hell shall not prevail…” you can try to paint a rosy picture of the church but we must consider all that the word teaches, not just your favorite verse.
The cure for the above condition of the church is to repent and return to the faith that was, “once for all delivered to the saints” – The faith of the Apostles found in the writings of the Apostles – The Bible.
April 29, 2008 at 9:10 am |
Russ, this is nothing more than an exercise in futility. You and I can banter back and forth until judgement day, accomplishing nothing. You throw around Scriptures you do not understand, talking about the Church you do not understand, and you are obviously not willing to do the work it would take in prayer, study and deliberation to come to understand.
None of your Scriptural arguments make sense. You are trying to use the Bible, written by the Church for the Church, against the Church. God did deliver the faith to the saints and they passed it on. Your reject that. Jesus told his Apostles “he who rejects you rejects me.” Like it or not that’s the side of the fence you are on.
I pray that someday you may let go of some of your preconceived notions and truly seek the living Jesus where He may be found, within the Church He built upon the rock.
April 29, 2008 at 5:51 pm |
Paul,
I think the current subject matter is too broad. Why don’t we take one small subject where I am not seeing things clearly and if I can come understand you point of view, I can do more in-depth study on the remaining subjects on my own?