I Believe

[Northern Lights]

I think that the Mormans are the fastest growing religion right now,

I would say that one of the biggest concerns for Evangelicals is the Morman Law of Eternal Progression which states:

"As man is God once was, and as God is man may become"

This is very contrary to what's in the bible. God always was and always will be. He's Immutible (sp?) -- unchanging

 

[Timebuilder]

This is what the Bible says about other teachings not included in the Bible: (only three references to keep this short)

Galatians 1: 8-9

8 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. 9 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.

Revelation 22: 19
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Revelation 14:6
Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth--to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people--

First, the Bible describes itself as fully sufficient for our use, and secondly, it is not in character with the Bible for believers to become "gods". This may be a big attraction for many to Mormonism, but this is not true, according to the Bible, which does not describe God as going through any kind of change or metamorphosis to become the God we know, nor does it allude to our changing to become "gods" ourselves.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Timebuilder, I was trying to make a point that science has hindered by Christianity but you would not engage in that discussion except tangentially. I'll live with that, but I disagree with you and I would be interested in someone else's view on the subject.

I do have a few statements on this though:

This is what the Bible says about other teachings not included in the Bible: (only three references to keep this short)

Galatians 1: 8-9

8 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. 9 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.

Ironically I jst spoke of infinitely regressive just a little while ago. This too is infinitely regressisive. By this I mean that you could say that this means
"Only the bible,"
"Only the New Testament,"
"Only the book of Galatians,"
"Only the words of the author of the book of Galatians (regardless of where they are found),"
"Only this chapter in the book of Galatians,"
"Only this verse or group of verses..."

In other words, someone could always come along and claim to be MORE LITERAL than you and cut away even more. And that this could almost happen infinitely. The text really doesn;t preclude that unless you start to (gasp!) INTERPRET IT.

What I would say to you is that you use a very indistinct bright line to identify what is acceptable and then you exclude the rest. I can't think of any reason why the author (Paul I guess?) wasn't refering more broadly to Christian teachings. After all... who are YOU to say that God didn't mean something other than the way you read it.

Revelation 22: 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I am not sure this goes quite where you want it to. It says "take away from". The Book or Mormon does not minimalize the book of Revelation in any way. It removes nothing from it. Contrarily, it adds to it.

Revelation 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth--to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people--

So who are you to say that God didn't intend for there to be another book somewhere else? The bible does not specifically say that, does it? (If it does then I am wrong, but you have not presented it to me).

God spoke to other people, so why not an ancient civilizationfrom this continent (even though there is no archeological evidence whatsoever of this...)?

First, the Bible describes itself as fully sufficient for our use, and secondly, it is not in character with the Bible for believers to become "gods". This may be a big attraction for many to Mormonism, but this is not true, according to the Bible, which does not describe God as going through any kind of change or metamorphosis to become the God we know, nor does it allude to our changing to become "gods" ourselves.

It says in Genesis Chapter one that God made man in his own image.... I don't speak ancient Hebrew, but in English it doesn't seem to preclude what you are saying it does - ie becomming a God. While this does seem a little blasphemous considering my cultural and religious (surprise, surprise) background, why is it precluded?


Timebuilder, to pursue this line maybe to the point of beating up that horse, you can say "Well, that's not MY christianity so its not REALLY christianity" all you want. At some point, you lose your bright line, because you too are drawing conclusions.

I'll leave the nature of the bible itself, and its creation for another time.

 

[Timebuilder]

If you like, you can sit down with a well versed (no pun intended) Bible scholar, and I strongly suspect that they will tell you the same things that I have told you.

I have given you what the Bible says. If you don't like it or don't agree with it, that's your perogative. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but at that point, whose opinion contains the underpinnings of scripture and its study?

I feel very comfortable that the few verses I have cited are appropriate to the discussion, and I am certain that the Bible does not support the idea of a changing God or believers becoming like God. That is a Bible fact that does not require the eye of a trained Bible student. The book of Mormon purports to be "another testimony of Jesus Christ", in which case your argument against Galatians 1: 8-9 falls short. The book of Mormon would DEFINITELY be "any other gospel" compared to the Bible gospel.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I am a Christian. However, I must say that for the most part, I have trouble in the company of other Christians.

Why? The division over theological issues, anger, holier-than-thou attitudes, etc.

To compare to a business:

The church gets a lot of repeat customers, but that marketing, whew! That one's a b!tch.

(Please withold the snide remarks about the church being a business. Some are, some are not.)

In reality, the church as a collective whole should do some soul-searching (no pun intended) and resolve some of the discord. It is only weakening their position.

I'm saved, I know that. If you are too, great. If you are not, for your sake I hope you get saved. If you choose not too, I can't worry about that.

Sometimes I get the impression that some Christians argue their point to excess because they cannot accept that some people will reject God. Sometimes I think that this means that their own faith is weakened by someone else's doubt. They will feel justified only when others agree with them. The more someone argues with them, the more they feel a need to 'convert' them. Even IF you could convert someone through argument, why the heck would you want to?

Some points

If you think someone is rejecting the Gospel, there are reasons this could happen:

1) You are not presenting it very well. Arguing, hamering on someone, etc. Holier-than-thou attitudes won't work either.

2) Gospel means "Good News" in Greek. If it doesn't sound like good news, then just perhaps you aren't preaching the Gospel. (I feel a flame coming on...)

3) They are an unrepentant sinner with the pedal to the metal on the highway to he11.

I'm sure there are more reasons.

Bottom line - remember the parable of the plank and the splinter.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Timebuilder-

If you can't give them proof, why should they believe the Bible over any other "Holy Book?"

 

[fLYbUDDY]

cricket cricket

 

[Timebuilder]

Sometimes I get the impression that some Christians argue their point to excess because they cannot accept that some people will reject God. Sometimes I think that this means that their own faith is weakened by someone else's doubt. They will feel justified only when others agree with them. The more someone argues with them, the more they feel a need to 'convert' them. Even IF you could convert someone through argument, why the heck would you want to?

That's an excellent point. It's precisely what I thought about when people shared the gospel with me. What did they want? What was their angle? Were they just trying to reinforce some insecurity about being a believer?

Later, in fact many years later, when I was saved, I at first told NO ONE, remembering my old reaction to those who witnessed for Christ. Then, I heard a message that changed my attitude. In short, I realized that I will not only have to stand and give account for my actions both before and after being saved, but I will also face the possibility of being made aware of all those with whom I could have shared the gospel, but failed to do so. Knowing who they are, and seeing my failure would be a large burden, even if were immediately forgiven.

Some of the people you may end up becoming aware of during the judgement could be not only strangers, but close friends and relatives. So if you hesitate to share this gift, be aware that your failure to do so may not be limited to a moment in time.

 

[Timebuilder]

If you can't give them proof, why should they believe the Bible over any other "Holy Book?"

A very good question.

My own experience of being prepared for the decision happened over a period of several years, and it was a road populated with various people and experiences, along with many, many discussions. It was a long term process of the softening of my heart, which had been very hard to God for a long time.

The only reason to continue to answer the questions and continue the teaching is the possibility that somewhere down the road, the prepared soil will receive the seed and begin to grow.

I think that's a good enough reason.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I'll go along with that.

I think if we are not careful, we could stir up resentment and hinder the outcome. Maybe?

That's why I don't evangelize a lot - I haven't learned to like people well enough to care. If they don't wanna know God, I let 'em go. Not my problem at that point.

 

[Timebuilder]

Hey, wait a minute!

I'm supposed to be the curmudgeon!!!

 

[fLYbUDDY]

I was raised Catholic and I can offer insight as to that side of the equasion. However, I haven't practiced for several years though. I haven't subscribed to that particular doctrine ever since I became "enlightened".

Me too! "Enlightened" onto the fact that God is alive and available in a personal relationship with Him rather then some routine religion.

In reality, the church as a collective whole should do some soul-searching (no pun intended) and resolve some of the discord. It is only weakening their position.

It will all change anyway as it is outlined in the book of Revelation about the different churches and how the Lord sees it.

Here is something to consider 1 Cor 1:18):

"Divisions in the Church"
10Now, dear brothers and sisters,[1] I appeal to you by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yourselves. Let there be real harmony so there won't be divisions in the church. I plead with you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11For some members of Chloe's household have told me about your arguments, dear brothers and sisters. 12Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter,[2] " or "I follow only Christ." 13Can Christ be divided into pieces?
Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16(Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. I don't remember baptizing anyone else.) 17For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News--and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.

And just to clear anything up 100LL, and this isn't to call you out on anything I just don't want you to misunderstand where I am coming from: I am not trying to convert any of the opposing beliefs posted on here unto my own. That is the Spirit's job. I am simply giving a reason (as the Bible commands) about why something is the way it is. Have I done it 100% in the absolute perfect Christian way? No I'll admit my flesh would rise every now and then and feel like arguing for the sake of arguing, but for the majority of the time I believe the Spirit was more involved in the actual posts (Christian ones) then I was. I apologize for ever coming across as anything better then anyone, or as having a “holier” attitude if that was what appeared to of happened. If I have pleaseeeee forgive me. I have just discovered something I want to share with everyone (and so does He) and sometimes it amazes me someone would rather be the furthest away from God rather then embraced in His loving hands. So I apologize for my forcefulness in any way it appeared to have come out. I do believe however that for the most part it was a healthy intellectual logical conversation between some internet buddies. The changing of the mind isn't expected for someone who has spent the better part of a lifetime trying to disprove God. It is for the watching world that has questions in favor/against both sides of the coin. So I hope what happened here is that someone who strolled through the threads (maybe aren't even a registered user) really did get a two-sided view of the issue (rather then a bias) and can now better make the decision of what they believe themselves. Either way I still love them and ALL you guys/gals in here!
-Gary-

 

[100LL... Again!]

I've been a curmudgeon since I was 10.

You?

I'm probably a lot like Jonah, if you get my drift. Sittin' under that tree just a-waitin' for the you-know-what.

Wish I was like Paul. Maybe someday...

 

[Timebuilder]

What he said.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Flybuddy-

Wasn't directed at you or timebuilder. You guys are fine. More at the Bible thumpers who throw accusations around and preach he11fire and brimstone. Some of it might be true, but they're never gonna win many over.

 

[TurboS7]

If you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and paid the penalty for your imputed sin(all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God) Then you will be saved, and God welcomes you to the Body of Christ. The blood shed on Calvary saves you, works do not. For by grace are you saved through faith, it is a gift from God, not by works lest any man should boast. God did not intend for denominations to be an issue, we are part of the Body and we should love one another and our diffrences. That is what makes Calvary Chapels, Calvary Chapels, they apply sound Bibilcal doctrine. Yet people still don't see it and turn Calvary Chapels into a denomination, when in reality they are just practicing Biblical truth.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

How about a dose of truth here?

You guys bashing the Catholic Church as not really "Christian" crack me up! BTW, you notice how in recent times Protestants no longer refer to themselves as "Protestants" but rather as "Christians"? It's almost like they are ashamed that they are Protestants and think by changing their label, they change their reality....George Carlin would have a field day with that one!

And the guy who said Emperor Constantine founded the Church....YGBSM!!! Then how come there had been a continuous progression of popes for several hundred years already, going back to St Peter himself? (followed by Linus, followed by Clement, etc.) In the latter third century (well before Constantine) St. Iraneous of Lyons gives a list of the unbroken succession of popes, from St Peter to Syslvester...who held the office at the time St Iraneous wrote. And how do you explain all the pecularily Catholic beliefs alreay being universal in the first 2 centuries of the Christian Era?

St Justin Martyr about 150 A.D. writes about the doctrine of trans-substantiation in the Eucharist...this is a Catholic doctrine all Protestants (and "fundies") reject!! And St Justin was clearly not announcing something new...from the tone of his letters, it is clear he takes this belief as being long-established and accepted...and he is merely explaining it clearly to potential convets. And this was in 150 AD - where was Constantine then? He wouldn't even be born for more than 100 years!! Likewise there is plenty of documentation for auricular confession to one's priest, prayer for the dead, veneration of saints, etc....again many years before birth of Constantine.....so nice try with the old "Constantine invented the Catholic Church" BS, but that only works with people who are ignorant of history. Guess that's why Cardinal Newman, after he left the Anglican Church to become a Catholic, said "To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant".

There is much more I could say on this topic, but I think this reply is long enough. So next time you fundies out there want to trash the Catholic Church, maybe you should do some homework first. If you are interested, there are plenty of good books out there...many by Protestant converts to Catholicism.

Try "Catholicism and Fundamentalsim" by Karl Keating, "Rome Sweet Rome" by Scott and Kimberly Hahn, or "Evangelical is not Enough" by Thomas Howard. I would also strongly recommend "On What Authority" by Mark Shea. Many of these can be found at your local bookstore...or you can order them from www.tanbooks.com or www.allcatholicbooks.com.

To finish up on a humorous note....it seems a certain man in France a couple centuries ago confided to a friend that he had lost his faith and had decided to leave the Catholic Church. His friend was somewhat surprised and inquired as to what Protestant denomination his fallen-away friend might consider joining. The man answered with this: "Join a Protestant chuch? Sir, you insult me...I said I had lost my faith, not my reason!"

 

[Timebuilder]

And the guy who said Emperor Constantine founded the Church....YGBSM!!! Then how come there had been a continuous progression of popes for several hundred years already, going back to St Peter himself? (followed by Linus, followed by Clement, etc.) In the latter third century (well before Constantine) St. Iraneous of Lyons gives a list of the unbroken succession of popes, from St Peter to Syslvester...who held the office at the time St Iraneous wrote. And how do you explain all the pecularily Catholic beliefs alreay being universal in the first 2 centuries of the Christian Era?

It's interesting how you might refer to Linus and Clement as popes of a Catholic chucrch that was not yet a Catholic church. A little revisionist history, no doubt officially sanctioned by the Vatican. No matter. As far as protestants not calling themselves protestant, you need to understand what it was that Martin was protesting. The main thrust was the selling of indulgences, but that was only one blatantly non Biblical activity of the so-called "holy" church.



Oh, and to call the beliefs you mention as being "universal" is a matter of opinion. You are welcome to your opinion.

The basis of Chritianity is the Bible. You cannot find the typical Catholic constructs in the Bible because they are just that: constructs. Constructs of Man, to be precise.

St Justin Martyr about 150 A.D. writes about the doctrine of trans-substantiation in the Eucharist...this is a Catholic doctrine all Protestants (and "fundies") reject!!

If it was written by Man and not by inspiration of God, then transubstantiation is a false docrtrine, and NO ONE should follow it.

And St Justin was clearly not announcing something new...from the tone of his letters, it is clear he takes this belief as being long-established and accepted...and he is merely explaining it clearly to potential convets. And this was in 150 AD - where was Constantine then? He wouldn't even be born for more than 100 years!! Likewise there is plenty of documentation for auricular confession to one's priest, prayer for the dead, veneration of saints, etc....again many years before birth of Constantine.....so nice try with the old "Constantine invented the Catholic Church" BS, but that only works with people who are ignorant of history. Guess that's why Cardinal Newman, after he left the Anglican Church to become a Catholic, said "To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant".

All that you are showing, other than a detailed study of Catholic dogma, is that a great deal of incorrect doctrine existed long before the Catholic church became the unifying body of preexisting pagan belief and the misleading beliefs of others. In other words, you are wrong. Sure looks good on paper, though.

There is much more I could say on this topic, but I think this reply is long enough. So next time you fundies out there want to trash the Catholic Church, maybe you should do some homework first. If you are interested, there are plenty of good books out there...many by Protestant converts to Catholicism.

You would be served well to ignore the writings of men. Your homework, written by others who have also been mislead, can only serve to hurt you. Jesus was a fundamentalist Christian. If you do not believe Him and His Word, than you should start worshipping only His mother, as I have seen people doing in countless places as various charlatans reveal statues that "bleed". At least in that case, you would be honest about your rejection of God's word.

I feel as bad as I possibly can for you: believing a teaching written and supported by mortal Man, failing to trust Him according to His Word, blinded as a man who has willingly put out His own eyes!

I will not read your books, but only recommend the one book that is the basis of Christian faith.

If it isn't there, you should not be doing it. Nothing could be simpler than that.

 

[enigma]

Catholics are Christians according to these definitions...


Chris·tian
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Your definitition of a Christian is incorrect. A Christian is one who: recognizes that he is totally unable to reach Heaven/God by himself, who recognizes that Jesus the Christ died in order to provide a way for humans to reach Heaven, and who trusts in Jesus and Jesus alone for salvation(reaching Heaven).

It doesn't matter if one "believes" in Jesus, so does the devil.

It doestn't matter if one "follows a religion based upon the life and teachings of Jesus", nowhere does the Bible say that following a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus will bring one to salvation.

It doesn't matter if one lives according to the teachings of Jesus,

Because the Bible, Gods Word, states that professing faith in Jesus is the only way to Heaven. Believing is not enough. Works are not enough. A good life is not enough. Professing faith and accepting Jesus' sacrific is required.


One must have told Jesus, I need salvation, and I accept you as my Savior.

regards,
enigma

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

My response to Timebuilder

Timebuilder said:

"Oh, and to call the beliefs you mention as being "universal" is a matter of opinion. You are welcome to your opinion."


No, it isn't a matter of my opinion. It's historical fact....there's a difference. Funny how all these Catholic beliefs you excoriate also exist in the various Orthodox churches...why? Simple...because they are also ancient churches.


So I guess this is really the simplicity of your viewpoint:

1. For 1,500 years (beginning in the first generation after Christ) all "Christians" completely and disastrously misunderstood the Lord's teachings and radically changed all His doctrines.

2. These same people gladly suffered persecution and martyrdom rather than abandon their faith and also fought tooth and nail against any and all heretics who tried to change the Faith even slightly (e.g. Donatists, Arians, Gnostics, Manicheans, Monophysites, etc.)

Hmmmmm....sounds like all these saints, apostles, martyrs, bishops, etc were slightly schizophrenic to say the least....but let us continue....

3. The holy and devout people of the Middle Ages (aka the Age of Faith) who built all those beautiful cathedrals, monasteries, convents, churches, poorhouses and orphanages, etc and who fought for the Faith in the Crusades...were not really Christians at all. And St. Francis of Assisi? St Thomas Aquinas? St Dominic? Guess they were all pagans too huh? Even though doctors of the Church like St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St Thomas Aquinas are recognized as towering geniuses of their time and deeply holy men...you know better huh? Guess Mother Theresa was a pagan too...

4. Finally after 1,500 years an unstable, ill-tempered, rabid anti-Semite named Martin Luther comes along. He rebels against all established Christian dogma (both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) and becomes a heresiarch...founding his own religion and Protestanism in general. He rejects the authority of the Church...but claims unlimited authority for himself!! He even claims authority to change the canon of the Bible...which had been settled since Council of Hippo in 400 AD...and proceeds to do so!! He removes 6 books from the O.T. that provide obvious support for Catholic beliefs (such as existence of Purgatory)...and attempts to also remove some N.T. books (Epistle of James and Revelations) but his followers talk him out of it, explaining that the common people will never accept that. Now I ask you...by what authority can a defrocked and ex-communicated monk like Martin Luther take it upon himself to change the canon of Holy Scripture? No Pope of Rome ever claimed to have such power!! And yet YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGES MARTIN LUTHER MADE TO THE BIBLE! Now who is following the traditions of men?

5. And finally....the vast majority of Christians (read: Catholics) reject Martin Luther's heresy (which is specifically condemned as anathema at Council of Trent in 1560's) and continue to adhere to the beliefs of their forefathers. Ditto for the Eastern churches. Meanwhile, Protestantism...lacking any authority whatsoever...devolves into anarchy. There are now over 20,000 different Protestant denominations in the USA alone!! All have different teachings on even the most fundamental dogmas and all condemn the others as being "not real Christians".

So does that about sum it up? Again I repeat what I said earlier...the only way to remain a Protestant is to maintain a serious ignorance of history. Anyone with an open mind who studies secular history going back to the ancients, church history, and especially the writings of the Church Fathers will immediately grasp the falsity of Protestant teachings.

And one final note... You know all the heretical groups of the ancient world I mentioned above? Donatists, Gnostics, Arians, etc? ---BTW vast majority of Protestant churches would agree these were heresies (Arians for example denied Christ was equal to the Father...but rather that He was a created being and therefore not truly God).--- Well, do you know how these ancient heretics defended their beliefs? The answer is simple...they justifed their heresies.....BY CLAIMING THEY WERE GOING BY WHAT IS TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE!! They had scriptural quotes to back up all their views and condemned the traditional Catholic doctrines (such as Jesus Christ being truly God as well as man) as "unscriptural". Sound familiar? The more things change....

Oh I almost forgot...the ridiculous charge that Catholics "worship" the Mother of God is hardly worth addressing... but I guess some may be so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that they might possibly buy into this BS. The Church does not now and never has taught that the Blessed Virgin is equal to God...how could she be, since she is a created being? Rather the Church teaches all the faithful to honor and venerate her in a special way (more than that accorded to any other saint or angel) because God Himself chose her to be His mother. And as the Mother of God she possesses an honor and dignity that far surpasses that of any other created being....whether human or angelic. So yes, Catholics pray to her as they have since the days of the Caesars and ask for her blessings...not a thing wrong with that. And if all you have to confess to Christ on the Judgment Day is "You know Lord, I'm sorry for this...but gosh darn it...I just loved and honored Your holy mother too much and prayed for her to help watch over me".....then I think you are not doing too badly!! LOL

 

[Typhoon1244]

Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fear to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death.

--Roman historian Polybius

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Ohh gosh. Here we go again! Just read the first 4 pages. It is all there!

Here is the simple answer. Catholicism was/is a form of Christianity. It is not the other way around. Catholic doctrine has done things that oppose the teachings of the Bible. Therefore they are causing the division in the church and should be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Timebuilder]

1. For 1,500 years (beginning in the first generation after Christ) all "Christians" completely and disastrously misunderstood the Lord's teachings and radically changed all His doctrines.

Actually, let me correct your interpretation.

For over 1500 years men have tried to add to the total suffiiciency of scripture. Christ says to an apostle "you are the rock on which I will bild my church" and some men believe that this is a basis for a papacy. Others decide to include the practices of repeptitive prayer, which Christ Himself spoke out against, and idol worship (veneration of statues), which Moses found problematic among the Jews.

2. These same people gladly suffered persecution and martyrdom rather than abandon their faith and also fought tooth and nail against any and all heretics who tried to change the Faith even slightly (e.g. Donatists, Arians, Gnostics, Manicheans, Monophysites, etc.)

Merely suffering persecution is not a basis for the accuracy or veracity of a belief.

Many people were also persecuted BY those who strictly adhered to the tenets of Catholicsm. This does not make the persecuted right, nor does it make the faithful Catholics right who inflicted their wounds. Even worshippers of satan will fight to retain what they consider to be the purety of their faith. All these sacrifices are meaningless without the central presence of the savior as directed by the Bible.

3. The holy and devout people of the Middle Ages (aka the Age of Faith) who built all those beautiful cathedrals, monasteries, convents, churches, poorhouses and orphanages, etc and who fought for the Faith in the Crusades...were not really Christians at all. And St. Francis of Assisi? St Thomas Aquinas? St Dominic? Guess they were all pagans too huh? Even though doctors of the Church like St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St Thomas Aquinas are recognized as towering geniuses of their time and deeply holy men...you know better huh? Guess Mother Theresa was a pagan too...

I don't know better, but God certainly does. No building, no matter how beautiful or tall, and no man's genius, no matter how philanthropic is a substitute for the guidance of His Word. And frankly, my friend, I'd leave the crusades out of all of your future arguments. There was no Biblical directive of any kind to cite as an excuse to launch such savagery and mayhem as occured during the crusades, or the inquisition for that matter. Neither is there any excuse for the teachings of the church against the Jews, which has only been recanted in our own lifetime!

Mother Teresa did many good works, but unless she had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which is not a teaching of her church or her order, then she cannot be saved. Ephesians Chapter 2, verses 8 and 9, which were quoted a few posts ago, point out that works are good, but they are not our first responsibility. That number one spot is acceptance of Christ as savior, according to His direct teachings.

It is truly wonderful, the sacrifies she made and the compassion she showed for everyone she met, but without that personal relationship, all of that is simply good works, not a path to salvation. If you want to argue with that, you will have to argue with someone other than me: God.

4. Finally after 1,500 years an unstable, ill-tempered, rabid anti-Semite named Martin Luther comes along. He rebels against all established Christian dogma (both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) and becomes a heresiarch...founding his own religion and Protestanism in general. He rejects the authority of the Church...but claims unlimited authority for himself!!

No, all authority was claimed for God, who had reserved it for Himself, all along.

Now I ask you...by what authority can a defrocked and ex-communicated monk like Martin Luther take it upon himself to change the canon of Holy Scripture?

Let me quietly walk this elephant through this hole, and answer that.

Martin Luther was acting against what was clearly a corrupt and evil church structure, where supposed indulgences were sold to the highest bidder among other blasphemies.

Now, who would have inspired Martin to clean house, or better yet build a house where God was the sovereign authority, and not a mere man? Who might have seen the evil in the church, and inspired to cleanse it? Who would have inspired that? Let's look at a similar situation.

Let's go to Matthew.

21:12
Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.

21:13
And He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of thieves.' "

21:14
Then the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.

21:15
But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant

21:16
and said to Him, "Do You hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes. Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise'?"

21:17
Then He left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and He lodged there.

I'll leave it to you to ponder where Martin Luther might have found inspiration.

Now who is following the traditions of men?

You tell me. The Bible says that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God". So if some scripture was eliminated, it must have been by God's own ordinance. God is above time, and the content of the Bible is under His sovereign control. There is a LOT of writing that is not a part of the Bible. By God's own word, it is as He desires it to be right now.

5. And finally....the vast majority of Christians (read: Catholics) reject Martin Luther's heresy (which is specifically condemned as anathema at Council of Trent in 1560's) and continue to adhere to the beliefs of their forefathers.

Wish I could help you there, but there are zero Christians who reject the work of Martin Luther. And the Council of Trent was a council of the same buch who had been on board for what Luther stood against, so to me that is like Bin Laden holding a council and speaking out agianst America, isn't it?

Meanwhile, Protestantism...lacking any authority whatsoever...devolves into anarchy. There are now over 20,000 different Protestant denominations in the USA alone!! All have different teachings on even the most fundamental dogmas and all condemn the others as being "not real Christians".

This is a great argument (thank you) for not adhering to sectarianism and instead adhering to the sufficiency of scripture. That DOES have authority, in fact the ONLY authority.

So does that about sum it up?

Sure does. You should reject the church and instead, worship God. No coucil of Trent, no Vatican three, no bishops or pope are a substitute for the sovereignty of God almighty.

The Church does not now and never has taught that the Blessed Virgin is equal to God...how could she be, since she is a created being? Rather the Church teaches all the faithful to honor and venerate her in a special way (more than that accorded to any other saint or angel) because God Himself chose her to be His mother. And as the Mother of God she possesses an honor and dignity that far surpasses that of any other created being....whether human or angelic. So yes, Catholics pray to her as they have since the days of the Caesars and ask for her blessings...not a thing wrong with that. And if all you have to confess to Christ on the Judgment Day is "You know Lord, I'm sorry for this...but gosh darn it...I just loved and honored Your holy mother too much and prayed for her to help watch over me".....then I think you are not doing too badly!! LOL

Commandment one:

I am the Lord thy God. You will have no other gods before Me.

Along with the extensive scripture that bars such veneration, it is plain that to do as you described is idol worship where a statue is involved, and praying to ANYONE other than God in three persons is the ultimate sacrilege under commandment one.

If you have to confess to Christ at the judegement that you had known that your belief did not square with His Word, and that you instead followed practices that were devised by men, then he will say something that may surprise you.

Matthew 7:21-23
7:21
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

7:22
Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'

7:23
And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'



He that has ears, let him hear.

 

[enigma]

Re: My response to Timebuilder

[B Anyone with an open mind who studies secular history going back to the ancients, church history, and especially the writings of the Church Fathers will immediately grasp the falsity of Protestant teachings.

[/B]

Kid Charlemagne:

I have an open mind. Tell me how to get to Heaven. What is the official Catholic teaching on salvation? Is it possible for a non-Catholic to go to Heaven? I do have a preconceived notion about the answers to these questions, but I do not truly know the official answers; so here's your chance to correct my misconceptions.

I would also like to say that I have read the Church Fathers: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc. And I can find no mention of anything like the Pope, nothing that says that Mary should be put on a pedestal, etc.

You have identified one of the most puzzling aspects of history though, and I don't have a good answer for you. I really don't know how the Christian world managed to get so far away from first century teachings by the middle ages. The church that Luther broke from, was engaged in some truly evil activities. I just can't find any justification for selling salvation, or torturing unbelievers. A large part of the gospel deals with grace, and I just don't see any room for grace when salvation can be bought.

regards,
enigma

 

[100LL... Again!]

Protestants need one book.

Catholics apparently need many more to justify why the adherents to the one-book principle are wrong.

To be fair, the catholic church has done much good.
To be fair, they have been behind atrocities.

They are human and flawed, as are the rest of us.

I don;t want or need a religion. "The Book" will do nicely on it's own, thank you.

Look at the tremendous cover-ups of the abusive priests.
Apparently the catholic church feels it can ill afford integrity and justice for innocent children if the price is the slightest stain on their image. Just like a politician.

Pride, pride, pride. Goes before a fall.

I fault those in the church who covered up more than I fault the pedophiles, because the pedophiles are SICK.

Show me in the modern protestant church any example of this kind of systemic problem.

Don't bother pointing out Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart. These were individual cases who were outed and discredited.

NOR were they protected by an INTERNATIONAL religious organization.

Look at the deliberate restriction against the layman reading the Bible that existed throughout the years in catholocism.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

One more time....

TimeBuilder, this is really getting old since you refuse to answer any of the questions I pose to you. Instead you continually invent straw men and then proceed to refute them...while ignoring the points I made to you. Typical behavior for a fundy though.....I have seen in many times.

So I just make a couple quick points. Firstly, I find it hard to believe you equate having statues in churches to idol worship, like the Canaanites worshipping Baal. Dude, did you ever stop to realize that a staute is nothing more than a 3-dimensional photograph? So to be consistent, you'd have to rule out the use of any images of any kind that depict human beings. There are actually some fundamentalist Muslims who adhere to this - the Taliban. So you can see you are in good company. No wedding pictures, no photo album, no t.v., no movies. All are idol worship....you see how ridiculous is your argument?

Ask yourself this....if you were away from home a long time....and you came home and walked in unnoticed...and saw your wife staring at your photograph with a tear in her eye....wouldn't you be touched by that? Or let me guess...you'd get mad at her, accusing her of being unfaithful since she is showing to your picture the affection she should reserve for you alone.... that is basically what you're saying and I think the idiocy of it refutes itself.

And secondly, I never said good works alone will get one into Heaven...but neither will faith alone:

"Verily I say to you, not all who say to me 'Lord, Lord' will come into My Kingdom, but only those who DO THE WILL of My Father in Heaven."
----- that's right out of the Gospel. Now the Lord clearly wasn't talking about faith here....."do the will" implies actions, i.e. works.

"So you see it by his works that a man is saved, and not by faith alone."
----- that's from Epistle of James and I think it's self-explanatory. You can see why Martin Luther wanted to pull that epistle out of the N.T. - it didn't fit in very well with his newly invented doctrine of faith ALONE as basis of salvation.

Also keep in mind that when Our Lord described the Judgment in the Gospel....a person's salvation wasn't determined by his faith, but by his actions while alive. ("For I was hungry and you fed me.....etc") And those condemned seemed to have faith also since they addressed Him as "Lord"...("Lord, when did we see you hungry and refuse to feed you..."). But the Lord condemns them to he!! for their ACTIONS..."I was naked and you did not clothe me...etc...now depart from me and go into the unquenchable fire"

So when you say faith is all that matters for salvation...you directly contradict Jesus Christ Himself.

Another thing...you keep saying "such-and-such a doctrine isn't in the Bible". What you really mean is you don't interpret it that way. But the deeper question is: why do you assume every belief must be spelled out in the Bible? Where in the bible does it say that? It doesn't say it anywhere...so your very starting assumption is un-Biblical and your entire belief system is self-contradictory.

Let me be clear: the Bible was NEVER INTENDED TO BE A CATECHISM OF THE FAITH!! It nowhere claims to be so. And if you think about it...how could it? St. Paul for example wrote his epistles to various Christian communities to address concerns peculiar to these individual cities....he never set out to make a comprehensive catechism of the Catholic faith. And he had no idea any of his letters would be adopted much later into Scripture!! And what about the fact that many different people wrote the N.T.? How could each have known what others would write and so ensure the entire deposit of the Faith entrusted to the Apostles would be covered? I mean, this should be so obvious I can't believe I have to point it out.

Jesus Christ founded a Church ("Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church..."), He never instruced anyone to write the Gospels - that we know of....some of the apostles wrote them decades later, on their own under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church existed before the N.T. was written...and would still exist today if not a single line of the N.T. was committed to paper. Remember, the canon on the N.T. was not decided until 400 AD at Council of Hippo...you gonna tell me there were no Christians before that? And what about the fact that until Gutenberg (a faithful Catholic, btw) invented printing press in mid-1400's....very few ever had access to a Bible? And most people for at least the years 500 - 1,000 AD were illiterate anyway and couldn't read the Bible if they had one in front of them? If you accuse Catholics of idolatry regarding statues (a ridiculous charge)...then I accuse you of Bibliolatry. You place the Bible above the Church...and that is not only morally wrong and inevitably leads to spiritual anarchy....but it is also COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL. The Church formed the Bible; the Bible did not form the Church!!!

As St. Augustine said "I would not believe in the Gospels themselves if I was not moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church". You see, his position is logical. But wait, let me guess...St Augustine was not a "real Christian" either right? Well, if that's what you believe...then you've got a real problem my friend. Because guess who presided over the Council of Hippo that formalized the canon of the Bible in 400 AD? Yep - St. Augustine. So every time you read the N.T. you are implicitly affirming the authority of the Catholic Church - since it was the Church that formed the canon and decided which books to keep (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc...) and which to reject (Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Clement, the Didache, etc -- even though many of these books were as ancient as those chosen and were adamantly claimed to be holy by some).

The Catholic Church did not hesitate to make these decisions about which books were canonical...she unabashedly claimed to have the authority to do this...based on the commission given her by her divine founder, Jesus Christ. So your position becomes untenable - you accept the Church's claim to authority (at least implicitly) in regards to settling the canon of the N.T......but reject her authority when it comes to making pronouncements of doctrine and dogma!! Sounds pretty schizophenic to me...please enlighten us as to how you can consistently hold these self-contradictory positions. Because otherwise, some of us may begin to believe the only reason you reject the Church's authority in matters of doctrine and dogma....is your own ignorance, pride, and prejudgices.

At the very least, answer this question directly if you can: How else could you possible claim to know which books are truly inspired and belong in the N.T......if not for reliance on the authority of the Catholic Church which declared the official canon at Councils of Carthage and Hippo (and again at Council of Trent after Martin Luther dared to remove some books form the O.T.)??

One last point: I have no problem defending the Crusades and can't understand why you feel a need to decry them. You say the Bible doesn't sanction war....guess you've never read Joshua huh? Anyway, the point is more common sense than religious anyway...it's called Just War theory...basically states a people or nation has the right to defend itself. The muslims invaded and occupied the Holy Land, North Africa, and Spain...all of which had been Christian lands for centuries. They were often brutal rulers and the Christians were suffering. Finally the European Christians awoke and emerged from the Dark Ages and were able to muster a military repsonse to the Muslim threat...what the heck is wrong with that? Were they just supposed to roll over and die...surrendering their faith and civilization to the Muslims? If they had, we wouldn't we discussing this now - we would be speaking in Arabic, disputing the finer points of the Koran!!

If you condemn the Crusades...then logically you must also condemn the Allied invasion of France in 1944....because both were military efforts to drive back an invader that had become an occupying power. And yes, the Crusaders did commit some atrocities along the way (causing the Pope to threaten them with excommunication if they didn't immediately stop the atrocities and repent...betcha didn't know about that)....but that no more invalidates the entire Crusader effort than the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg invalidates the entire Allied effort in WW II.

No sir...I state clearly and plainly...those brave and noble knights who left everything to go and fight (and often die) on Crusade deserve our utmost respect and admiration....just as those who stormed the beaches at Normandy do also. Both were fighting for Western Civilization as we know it....for our way of life. They were better men than you and I. Don't let your blind hatred of everything Catholic turn you into a traitor to such a glorious and noble cause.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

And about those indulgences.....

P.S. You can drop that whole "Church was selling indulgences" garbage - I know too much history to be suckered in by that. I bet you don't even know what an indulgence is! But anyway here is the truth of the matter: Obtaining an indulgence requires several things....including sacramental Confession, receiving Holy Communion, right intention,etc.....and one of the requirements is the performance of a good work to demonstarte sincerity. Well, since olden days, giving to charity has been regarded as a good work.

So when Friar Johann Tetzel came through Germany in Luther's day, proferring the Jubilee Year indulgence...he wasn't "selling" it. All the usual rules were in place....and he merely pointed out in his sermons that giving money to help the construction of the new Basilica of St. Peter's would be considered sufficient for the "good work" requirement...but note, that since all the usual requirement were in place...giving money alone would avail the repetent sinner nothing without truly repenting his sins, going to Confession, taking Holy Communion, etc.

Martin Luther demigogged the issue and slandered Friar Tetzel...who was in reality a devout and holy man and yet would (thanks to Luther's character assassination) die in shame, a broken man physically and mentally. Justice was not done for poor Tetzel....but Luther was never concerned about that. Let's not forget Luther is the same guy who called the pope an anti-christ, called for the nobles of Germany to slaughter the common people without mercy in the Peasant's Rebellion after he himself had incited the peasants (the nobles took Luther's advice and slaughtered some 100,000 commoners), and called for the annihilation and extermination of the Jews (an eerie presage of Hitlerism). He was also extremely unstable and delusional...once confiding that Satan himself and appeared and thrown an inkwell at him.

Not to mention Luther also advised Philip of Hesse to marry another wife, thereby committing bigamy.....and justified it by saying nothing in Scripture prevents it...and if Philip was too randy to remain faithful to his wife, he would better off to commit bigamy rather than adultery!!! Par for the course, since Luther repeatedly claimed that obeying the Commandments in regards to sexual purity was impossible for mortal men - "To remain faithful to one woman for a lifetime is no more possible for a man than to flap his arms and fly like an eagle". Try telling your wife that!!! And this is your hero? Your "true Christian"? But St Francis and St. Thomas More and Mother Theresa aren't? Anyone who believes that needs serious counseling....

Well, that's more than enough for now. Later.......

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Reply to enigma

enigma said:

"I have an open mind. Tell me how to get to Heaven. What is the official Catholic teaching on salvation? Is it possible for a non-Catholic to go to Heaven? I do have a preconceived notion about the answers to these questions, but I do not truly know the official answers; so here's your chance to correct my misconceptions.

I would also like to say that I have read the Church Fathers: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc. And I can find no mention of anything like the Pope, nothing that says that Mary should be put on a pedestal, etc. "



An interesting question....how do I get to Heaven? Luckily we have the answer...since this exact question was asked of Jesus Christ by the rich young man. Our Lord's answer was simple and direct - "Keep the Commandments". So there is your answer in a nutshell. BTW...when the young man stated that he did keep the commandments, the Lord told him he should go and sell EVERYTHING he has, give it to the poor, and then come and follow Me. I'm willing to bet no one here (including myself) is going to do that...... On the contrary, I bet most if not all of us are trying to accumulate MORE wealth, either to buy a new house, better car, pay for a child's education, or simply deposit in a retirement account. So make of that what you will.

But I have a feeling you want to know the official Church position on this matter. Well, here it is - one is saved by grace alone, through faith and works. The Church specifically rejects that one is saved by faith ALONE, but also rejects that one can be saved by works alone or "earn" his salvation without availing himself of faith and the sacraments.

You asked can a non-Catholic be "saved"? The answer is complicated. The Church has always taught that "outside the Church there is no salvation" (sorry I dont have the Latin handy at the moment...you'll have to make do with the English translation). However, if a person is ignorant of the truths of the Catholic Faith and lives his life the best he knows how to, given the knowledge he has been blessed with....he too can be saved. How can this be? Because it is assumed that such a sincere individual would join the Catholic Church if only he knew of the truth of her doctrines. Such a person is said to have "invincible ignorance" and is considered part of the Church in spirit, if not in fact...often referred to as a "baptism of desire".

It may seem like splitting hairs, but if you think about it, it makes good sense. And the Church has always had the attitude "far be it from us to put limits on the mercy of God". Hope that helps. But think it only fair to point out that "invincible ignorance" is probably pretty rare. If you reject the Catholic faith without considering its claims with an open mind...then you cannot be considered invincibly ignorant, now can you? And keep in mind that NO person, including Catholics can know for a certainty that he is going to be among the elect (unless one received such an assurance through a private revelation). So if Catholics, who have access to true doctrine and the Sacraments, have not an assurance of Heaven, how much more doubtful it must be for Protestants... who have neither right doctrine nor access to the sanctifying grace of the Sacraments.

Also keep in mind regarding Purgatory....most Protestants reject this belief in spite of the fact that it was universally recognized by all Christians before Luther....both Catholics and Orthodox accepted it since apostolic days....and still do. But what most Protestants don't seem to realize is that refusing to believe in the reality of Purgatory WILL NOT PREVENT YOU FROM HAVING TO GO THERE!! But for them it will be much worse than for Catholics...because they don't believe in it, you can assume their friends and family will not be praying for them and so they are abandoned by those who can help them most when they are suffering in the afterlife. They reject the advice from Scripture: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins" - 2nd Maccabees 12:46

One last thing....you said you have read the Church Fathers: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. Thats NOT who I was talking about...or I would simply have said "read the N.T." Have you ever read any of the works of St Clement, St. Polycarp (a disciple of the Apostle John), St. Ignatious, St Ireneous, St. Justin Martyr, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Athanasious, etc? These are the Church Fathers I was referring to. All wrote in the first few centuries of the Christian era - some (like St. Polycarp) were even contemporaries of the original 12 Apostles!! Their writings clearly reflect Catholic doctrine and practices....never Protestant ones. That should tell you something. If you want to learn more....a good starting point would be to get "By What Authority?" by Mark P. Shea....a former Protestant himself who was shocked to discover the unamimous Catholic teaching of these fathers of the Church, many of whom gave their lives for Christ as martyrs.

 

[fLYbUDDY]

But the deeper question is: why do you assume every belief must be spelled out in the Bible? Where in the bible does it say that? It doesn't say it anywhere...so your very starting assumption is un-Biblical and your entire belief system is self-contradictory.

I know that was for Timebuilder but here are some verses about that:
(Deut. 4:2)--2Do not add to or subtract from these commands I am giving you from the LORD your God. Just obey them.
(Deut. 12:32)--32Carefully obey all the commands I give you. Do not add to them or subtract from them.
(Prov. 30:6)--6Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you, and you will be found a liar.

Okay. As far as the whole Catholic thing. It seems obvious that you are a Catholic "Kid." And I think that is fine, as long as Christ is the head of your belief. If that is true then the rest is just issues that can divide the church. Obviously I disagree with the more popular Catholic doctrine out there today, but if when the smoke clears Christ crucified is preached then that is really all that matters. Here is why I believe that (1 Cor. 1:10)

"Divisions in the Church"

10Now, dear brothers and sisters,[1] I appeal to you by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yourselves. Let there be real harmony so there won't be divisions in the church. I plead with you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11For some members of Chloe's household have told me about your arguments, dear brothers and sisters. 12Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter,[2] " or "I follow only Christ." 13Can Christ be divided into pieces?
Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16(Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. I don't remember baptizing anyone else.) 17For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News--and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.

Notice Christ as the head!!

As far as the Roman Catholics--I believe that they are still a Church of Christ except a few things need some attention about certain areas of their doctrine. That doesn't mean it isn't a part of the body. Like was already said we all are humans with flaws. I think the idea should be to point out those flaws (in a loving way) so that we will have an opportunity to sing in harmony. While we are arguing amongst ourselves there is a dying world out there that wants to know Christ but are confused by all the political/social issues of modern day religion. I think Revelation sums up today's modern churches pretty good and the one found in chapter two is a great description of the modern day Catholic church:

(Rev 2:18)
18"Write this letter to the angel of the church in Thyatira. This is the message from the Son of God, whose eyes are bright like flames of fire, whose feet are like polished bronze:


19"I know all the things you do--your love, your faith, your service, and your patient endurance. And I can see your constant improvement in all these things. 20But I have this complaint against you. You are permitting that woman--that Jezebel who calls herself a prophet--to lead my servants astray. She is encouraging them to worship idols, eat food offered to idols, and commit sexual sin. 21I gave her time to repent, but she would not turn away from her immorality. 22Therefore, I will throw her upon a sickbed, and she will suffer greatly with all who commit adultery with her, unless they turn away from all their evil deeds. 23I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am the one who searches out the thoughts and intentions of every person. And I will give to each of you whatever you deserve. 24But I also have a message for the rest of you in Thyatira who have not followed this false teaching (`deeper truths,' as they call them--depths of Satan, really). I will ask nothing more of you 25except that you hold tightly to what you have until I come.


26"To all who are victorious, who obey me to the very end, I will give authority over all the nations. 27They will rule the nations with an iron rod and smash them like clay pots. 28They will have the same authority I received from my Father, and I will also give them the morning star! 29Anyone who is willing to hear should listen to the Spirit and understand what the Spirit is saying to the churches.

Good night all and God bless!
-Gary-

BTW—I apologize if there are any spelling/grammar mistakes. I proof-read it twice and ran spell check. It is just getting to late to be real picky about it any further. Good night again!

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Ohh and BTW to balance out the whole Revelation thing, here is the next letter which I believe, as some scholars suggest is the Protestant Church: (Rev 3:1)

"Write this letter to the angel of[1] the church in Sardis. This is the message from the one who has the sevenfold Spirit[2] of God and the seven stars:


"I know all the things you do, and that you have a reputation for being alive--but you are dead. 2Now wake up! Strengthen what little remains, for even what is left is at the point of death. Your deeds are far from right in the sight of God. 3Go back to what you heard and believed at first; hold to it firmly and turn to me again. Unless you do, I will come upon you suddenly, as unexpected as a thief.


4"Yet even in Sardis there are some who have not soiled their garments with evil deeds. They will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5All who are victorious will be clothed in white. I will never erase their names from the Book of Life, but I will announce before my Father and his angels that they are mine. 6Anyone who is willing to hear should listen to the Spirit and understand what the Spirit is saying to the churches.

Good night again, and stop your bickering because all that matters is Christ on the cross!
-Gary-