Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 13:57:33 GMT -5
I think you have described the process quite accurately Ron.
Most church views held in common are sacred cows to most F&Ws. If a problem arose because of those views, doctrines, rules, etc, the issue is either shuffled aside or blame is assigned on an individual basis. However, no one wants to examine the root causes of something systemically unsound because of the "only perfect way" syndrome.
If something wrong about the church offends us, we willingly pluck out our eyes instead of examining and fixing it. It's amazing really, and it has taught me about the power of faith which is powerful whether it is affixed on something right......or wrong. Misplaced faith can be blinding.
|
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 28, 2010 14:49:03 GMT -5
What is at play, though, in my opinion is the concept of repentance being taught is repentance at a personal level and I would say this is taught rather well. The typical 'cog in the wheel' professing person is honest, contrite, meek and approachable, i.e., good folks most would love to have as a next door neighbor and would welcome their daughter to date their neighbor's son. What is not taught, or really even remotely considered by most, is that there would be any occasion to repent at the overall church level. The reason is that this is the "Truth", "True Way", "Only Way", "Perfect Way" etc. One of our Hymns goes: "We love the perfect way of God . . . ." What goes through my mind when this is sung is the perfect way is what someone looking on would define as the overall church level. I think most of us make that same interpretation. Sooooo . . . . . What need is there to improve on perfection. The whole concept of repenting from perfection becomes rather silly viewed from this viewpoint. Then when a problem or deficiency comes to light that is endemic to the entire church, we shift our focus away from the church, believing it is perfect and point fingers to individuals who just happen to be the most entangled in the problem within the church as the culprits and attempt correction at this level, i.e. the personal level. Whether this is the right approach or the wrong approach -- I haven't had time to form an opinion on it yet. Perhaps some others are quicker thinking than I. It might make for a good subject to ponder. Ron, I think you're right that most friends believe the fellowship is "the perfect way of God". However, I expect the writer of the hymn had in mind the "way of God" being the "road of God" or the "pathway of God" rather than some kind of group infallibility. The infallibility doctrine of our church is not unlike the infallibility doctrine of StAnne's church. And its not unlike the infallibility of groups in bible days. The church at Laodicea is one example. The message initially seems directed to the church collectively, yet it goes on to speak to individuals. God can only reform a group by reforming the individuals within it. Rev 3:15-21 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.
Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2010 15:18:28 GMT -5
You tend to have outstanding insight into so many matters of importance. Your stance on these two issues directly affecting family and morals abolutely blows me away. How does either affect family or morals? familyAn exclusive group of people who share a close relationship. |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 16:17:42 GMT -5
What is at play, though, in my opinion is the concept of repentance being taught is repentance at a personal level and I would say this is taught rather well. The typical 'cog in the wheel' professing person is honest, contrite, meek and approachable, i.e., good folks most would love to have as a next door neighbor and would welcome their daughter to date their neighbor's son. What is not taught, or really even remotely considered by most, is that there would be any occasion to repent at the overall church level. The reason is that this is the "Truth", "True Way", "Only Way", "Perfect Way" etc. One of our Hymns goes: "We love the perfect way of God . . . ." What goes through my mind when this is sung is the perfect way is what someone looking on would define as the overall church level. I think most of us make that same interpretation. Sooooo . . . . . What need is there to improve on perfection. The whole concept of repenting from perfection becomes rather silly viewed from this viewpoint. Then when a problem or deficiency comes to light that is endemic to the entire church, we shift our focus away from the church, believing it is perfect and point fingers to individuals who just happen to be the most entangled in the problem within the church as the culprits and attempt correction at this level, i.e. the personal level. Whether this is the right approach or the wrong approach -- I haven't had time to form an opinion on it yet. Perhaps some others are quicker thinking than I. It might make for a good subject to ponder. Ron, I think you're right that most friends believe the fellowship is "the perfect way of God". However, I expect the writer of the hymn had in mind the "way of God" being the "road of God" or the "pathway of God" rather than some kind of group infallibility. The infallibility doctrine of our church is not unlike the infallibility doctrine of StAnne's church. And its not unlike the infallibility of groups in bible days. The church at Laodicea is one example. The message initially seems directed to the church collectively, yet it goes on to speak to individuals. God can only reform a group by reforming the individuals within it. Rev 3:15-21 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.
Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.While I have a certain appreciation for the comparison, I would like to point out that there is indeed a difference. The charism of infallibilty of the Catholic Church stems from the (Scripturally documented) authority Christ imposed upon Blessed Peter. Without authentic apostolic succession, there is no authority for the claim of infallibility. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 28, 2010 16:57:02 GMT -5
StAnne, Peter was an itinerant preacher so wouldn't you think his successors would be itinerant preachers?
|
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 17:10:00 GMT -5
StAnne, Peter was an itinerant preacher so wouldn't you think his successors would be itinerant preachers? Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule). Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles. Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail. Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ. Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority. Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ. Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth. Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings. Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him. Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him. Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree. Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader. Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ. Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth. Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men." Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him. Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples. Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved. Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration. Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven. Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles. Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first. Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33. John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse. John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet. John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred. John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church. John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God. John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see. John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles. Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room. Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course. Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel. Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray. Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles. Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ. Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority. Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power. Morewww.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 17:42:23 GMT -5
You tend to have outstanding insight into so many matters of importance. Your stance on these two issues directly affecting family and morals absolutely blows me away. How does either affect family or morals? familyAn exclusive group of people who share a close relationship.I don't mind responding to your question, rational, although I question some elements of common ground between us (Divine Law) on which to base the essentials. In my lifetime, and I'm guessing yours as well, we've gone from the family values of the 1950's and before, down the slippery slope to increased divorce, living together without the bond of marriage, increased domestic violence including violence against children, numerous single parent homes with latch-key children, increased teen pregnancies, millions and millions and millions of abortions, pornography, sex trade trafficking, illegal drug usage and trafficking, children born of egg or sperm donors who will never know who they really are, and worse than that the culture of death has invaded fertility practices--disposal or experimentation on early life, potential cloning and cloning for body parts--body parts for sale--at the expense of fetal life. Is this a pretty picture of family life and morals for millions of children? No. It is not. The future of family life isn't looking too rosy either in the ever increasing culture of death mentality in which we live. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 18:33:48 GMT -5
The thing is, every church group can trace its succession back to Peter. That makes them at least equally authoritative with the modern version of the RCC.
Furthermore, many non-RCC claim even higher ground than the RCC when they view their split from the RCC was because the RCC went in the wrong direction and they went in the right direction.
What does all that prove? Not much, except that man's wisdom leads into a maze, and a confusing one at that. The first departure from the truth was probably when the first group claimed exclusive righteousness and a sole monopoly on God.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 28, 2010 18:41:16 GMT -5
The Perfect Way of God" is Jesus and Jesus ONLY!
|
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 19:02:56 GMT -5
The thing is, every church group can trace its succession back to Peter. That makes them at least equally authoritative with the modern version of the RCC. Furthermore, many non-RCC claim even higher ground than the RCC when they view their split from the RCC was because the RCC went in the wrong direction and they went in the right direction. What does all that prove? Not much, except that man's wisdom leads into a maze, and a confusing one at that. The first departure from the truth was probably when the first group claimed exclusive righteousness and a sole monopoly on God.
The original apostles ordained men as bishops (through prayers and laying on of hands), who in turn ordained others, and this process continues in the Catholic Church today. "Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops). The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach." www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.aspman's wisdom leads into a maze, and a confusing one at thatYes. On that we can agree. That is why it is of the utmost importance to be a part of the Church that Jesus established upon the earthly authority of the Chair of Peter. Mt 16:18
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 19:17:15 GMT -5
Clearday, a cursory reading of the NT shows many apostate churches. Their claim wasn't exclusitivity at all. More like:
challenging the preachers
loving this world
abusing their liberty
making merchandise of the congregation
returning to the law
The murderous monopies came centuries later....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 19:28:34 GMT -5
Hey there StAnne, you have too many trick words in there!  , especially the "validly ordained bishops" bit. It's not difficult at all the trace the origins of almost every modern day church (all the big ones for sure) today back to the RCC......even the 2x2's since Irvine came to faith through Rev McNeil of the Presbyterian Church, Cooney from the Church of Ireland, George Walker from the Methodists, etc. Regardless, the premise is flawed. Apostolic succession doesn't automatically make anyone right. Sure but the flaw in that thinking is the same as me saying I'm right before God because I'm approved by the workers. It's actually a silly notion when you think of it. I'm glad we can agree a little bit. Personally though, I prefer authority to come from Christ, not man. Paul got his direction of ministry directly from Christ, not Peter, and especially not Peter according to the record.. |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 20:14:05 GMT -5
Personally though, I prefer authority to come from Christ, not man. Paul got his direction of ministry directly from Christ, not Peter, and especially not Peter according to the record..
In view of all of the following Scriptural evidence, are you suggesting that Peter's authority and direction could be even remotely inferior to that of Paul? ...after Jesus confirms Peter's revelation from God the Father, changes Simon's name to Peter (rock), and calls Peter blessed?Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ. Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the FatherMatt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority. Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles. John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2010 20:32:54 GMT -5
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail. Jesus thought he had little faith. His faith, in your example, did fail. |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 20:46:23 GMT -5
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail. Jesus thought he had little faith. His faith, in your example, did fail. Peter did what Jesus asked him to do even though his faith was weak, didn't he. It has been said that we can see the strength of some of God's greatest work thru vessels that were the weakest. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2010 20:51:43 GMT -5
Jesus thought he had little faith. His faith, in your example, did fail. Peter did what Jesus asked him to do even though his faith was weak, didn't he. It has been said that we can see the strength of some of God's greatest work thru vessels that were the weakest. I was responding to your statement that his faith did not fail. It actually did. Peter did as Jesus said and then sank as expected. |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 21:12:03 GMT -5
Peter did what Jesus asked him to do even though his faith was weak, didn't he. It has been said that we can see the strength of some of God's greatest work thru vessels that were the weakest. I was responding to your statement that his faith did not fail. It actually did. Peter did as Jesus said and then sank as expected. Ver. 30. He was afraid. As long as Peter had his eye and faith fixed on Christ, the liquid element yielded not to his steps; but the moment he turns his thoughts on himself, his own weakness, and the violence of the winds and waves, he begins to lose confidence, and on that account to sink. Again his faith saves him; he calls upon the Lord, who stretcheth forth his arm, and takes hold of him. (Jansenius) --- By his confidence in God, we learn what we can do by the divine assistance; and by his fear, what we are of ourselves: also, that no one receives from God the strength he stands in need of, but he who feels that of himself he can do nothing. (St. Augustine, serm. 76.) haydock1859.tripod.com/id32.htmlI was responding to your statement that his faith did not fail. Wasn't mine entirely--it was quoted from Scripture Catholic link. |
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jul 28, 2010 21:48:32 GMT -5
While I have a certain appreciation for the comparison, I would like to point out that there is indeed a difference. The charism of infallibilty of the Catholic Church stems from the (Scripturally documented) authority Christ imposed upon Blessed Peter. Without authentic apostolic succession, there is no authority for the claim of infallibility. Sorry St. Anne, on this one you are closing in on the ranks of Bert and kiwi. In your interpretation authority Christ imposed on Peter. Not my interpretation. The rock Christ was talking about was the rock of revelation...however, no matter how many times you argue differently you can not change the revelation I have from God. Yours is simply your revelation, and when you raise up the catholic church you are no different than kiwi or Bert raising up the f&w church as the one true church. Your church is just like this church with all the same problems. All denominational churches are the same, fraught with failure while full of humans, because that is what we all are...human. Thank God we are not to unite under one denomination but rather under Christ, our Saviour, as many members of His Church. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 28, 2010 22:14:22 GMT -5
Thank you, SG.
Humans are tribal by nature and have a tendency to place way too much importance on the church organization we belong to.
I'm thankful that God is calling us beyond that and into a closer relationship with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by tassie tiger on Jul 28, 2010 22:32:32 GMT -5
Most of the posts in this thread have nothing to do with Vic or Tassie. Does anyone know what's been happening? We've not had any worker visit or explanation  |
|
|
|
Post by victoria bitter on Jul 28, 2010 22:50:10 GMT -5
It is all a bit of a mystery tt! Not sure what the workers are doing in Victoria.....we have not had a visit either! Maybe they are working out what to say, or sticking their heads in the sand |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 23:11:43 GMT -5
While I have a certain appreciation for the comparison, I would like to point out that there is indeed a difference. The charism of infallibilty of the Catholic Church stems from the (Scripturally documented) authority Christ imposed upon Blessed Peter. Without authentic apostolic succession, there is no authority for the claim of infallibility. Sorry St. Anne, on this one you are closing in on the ranks of Bert and kiwi. In your interpretation authority Christ imposed on Peter. Not my interpretation. The rock Christ was talking about was the rock of revelation...however, no matter how many times you argue differently you can not change the revelation I have from God. Yours is simply your revelation, and when you raise up the catholic church you are no different than kiwi or Bert raising up the f&w church as the one true church. Your church is just like this church with all the same problems. All denominational churches are the same, fraught with failure while full of humans, because that is what we all are...human. Thank God we are not to unite under one denomination but rather under Christ, our Saviour, as many members of His Church. Wiki--"Elsewhere in Scripture such a name change always denotes a change in status (e.g., Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, and Saul to Paul." Wiki-- "A literal translation, in the style of the King James Version, of the words presumably used by Jesus would be " Thou art Rock, and upon this rock will I build my church". Hmmmm...Wiki-- "Jesus also said to Peter in verse 19, "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Especially for the Hebrew people, keys were a symbol of authority. Indeed, Jesus declares in the Book of Revelation, that He has the "keys of death and hell," which means that He has power over death and hell; Isaiah 22:21-22 also supports this." Now if the rock of revelation is what Jesus intended to build his church upon, why did he give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven--and the power to bind and loose--and to feed his lambs and to feed his sheep. These are not just words. There is a powerful significance to all of these.
You may want to study up on these things and see what else God may have to reveal to you. No, I'm not joking around--I'm quite serious.Sorry St. Anne, on this one you are closing in on the ranks of Bert and kiwi.
S'okay.
Jesus didn't say "I will build my churches", did he. Churches come and go. The one Jesus built is still here... www.scborromeo.org/images/fig1.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 28, 2010 23:29:52 GMT -5
Hey there StAnne, you have too many trick words in there! , especially the "validly ordained bishops" bit. It's not difficult at all the trace the origins of almost every modern day church (all the big ones for sure) today back to the RCC......even the 2x2's since Irvine came to faith through Rev McNeil of the Presbyterian Church, Cooney from the Church of Ireland, George Walker from the Methodists, etc. Regardless, the premise is flawed. Apostolic succession doesn't automatically make anyone right. |
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jul 28, 2010 23:55:37 GMT -5
Thank you, SG. Humans are tribal by nature and have a tendency to place way too much importance on the church organization we belong to. I'm thankful that God is calling us beyond that and into a closer relationship with him. The true tragedy with all this organization talk is that the organization becomes a substitute for what Jesus was really about, a real living relationship with Him and with Father. We have something tangible with an organization so people naturally or easily can shift focus from God to thing. Different characters, same story, told time and time again. |
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jul 29, 2010 0:05:39 GMT -5
Wiki-- "Jesus also said to Peter in verse 19, "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Especially for the Hebrew people, keys were a symbol of authority. Indeed, Jesus declares in the Book of Revelation, that He has the "keys of death and hell," which means that He has power over death and hell; Isaiah 22:21-22 also supports this." Now if the rock of revelation is what Jesus intended to build his church upon, why did he give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven--and the power to bind and loose--and to feed his lambs and to feed his sheep. These are not just words. There is a powerful significance to all of these.
You may want to study up on these things and see what else God may have to reveal to you. No, I'm not joking around--I'm quite serious.I know you are serious, but many here would argue the same to you. Do a real study and remove the catholic blinders you have on. We all have blinders on of some sort is what I am getting at. The constant talk about the great catholic church is sort of funny if not a tad bit ironic. You are thankful to leave one church that claims to be true and then jump headlong into another that has the same claim. Same story, different blinders. We all wear the blinders of our personal experience and really it is never a problem until one person decides that they are right and they know better than another. We all know that the f&w church has warts but so does your church. I am ok with both but to claim yours is somehow superior...sigh...whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by hardearned thirst on Jul 29, 2010 0:08:21 GMT -5
hey VB, you can get it anyhow. Matter of fact I've got it now.. A hard earned thirst needs a big cold beer, and the best cold beer is Vic.. Victoria Bitter  James Boags is better! |
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 29, 2010 0:47:09 GMT -5
Wiki-- "Jesus also said to Peter in verse 19, "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Especially for the Hebrew people, keys were a symbol of authority. Indeed, Jesus declares in the Book of Revelation, that He has the "keys of death and hell," which means that He has power over death and hell; Isaiah 22:21-22 also supports this." Now if the rock of revelation is what Jesus intended to build his church upon, why did he give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven--and the power to bind and loose--and to feed his lambs and to feed his sheep. These are not just words. There is a powerful significance to all of these.
You may want to study up on these things and see what else God may have to reveal to you. No, I'm not joking around--I'm quite serious.I know you are serious, but many here would argue the same to you. Do a real study and remove the catholic blinders you have on. We all have blinders on of some sort is what I am getting at. The constant talk about the great catholic church is sort of funny if not a tad bit ironic. You are thankful to leave one church that claims to be true and then jump headlong into another that has the same claim. Same story, different blinders. We all wear the blinders of our personal experience and really it is never a problem until one person decides that they are right and they know better than another. We all know that the f&w church has warts but so does your church. I am ok with both but to claim yours is somehow superior...sigh...whatever. I was out of the 2x2 in about 1966 or so. Unchurched for a number of years. A number of years attending Baptist (never a member). I began my journey into the Catholic Church mid-2005 and was received into the Church April 2007 -- so not exactly what you would call a headlong jump -- rather a time of study and conversion. We all know that the f&w church has warts but so does your church.If you're speaking doctrinally, I would have to disagree. The doctrine of the Catholic Church is quite sound. The constant talk about the great catholic church is sort of funny if not a tad bit ironic. It isn't just talk...everything the Church teaches is written. I am ok with both but to claim yours is somehow superior...sigh...whateverMmmm...that's a bit unfair...not to fuss with you, but to clear the record. Those are not my words. |
|
|
|
Post by victoria bitter on Jul 29, 2010 1:02:56 GMT -5
hey VB, you can get it anyhow. Matter of fact I've got it now.. A hard earned thirst needs a big cold beer, and the best cold beer is Vic.. Victoria Bitter James Boags is better! You are right.. Boags is better........and if you are in Brisbane XXXX is not too bad ;D I think I need something stronger than a beer after all that's going on |
|
Prayers for all who have requested prayer, or for whom prayer has been requested.
, especially the "validly ordained bishops" bit.
