Ask Pastor Jim
These are ordered from oldest to newest e-mails sent to Pastor Jim
Note: All E-Mails are 100% Authentic, so send one in and I will respond within a day or two!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
"3. Improve the graphics on your site. It will add that professional touch and add to your general credibility."
I'll look into that, thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
It's as real as God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
"God clearly states to love
our enemies...not to
treat them with hate."
By killing them, I know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
When are the last days? Tomorrow or Saturday?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Thanks!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Thank you very much!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||
|
Hehehe...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Hmm..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||
|
What is your e-mail?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
I agree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
God's busy killing people, leave Him alone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Thanks!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
It's all factual to the Bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Sorry I'm not a Catholic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
I don't post parody sites. How dare you try to mock Christianity!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||
|
*Gives you a cookie*
Thank you!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Aww I'm not better!? Pooh!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||
|
14 year olds can figure out what I'm doing and you cant?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Thank you!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Its a circle with four corners.
Isaiah 11:12:
"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof
are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth
them out as a tent to dwell in:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
"If the Earth is flat, and all of our countries are on one side, why doesn't the Sun shine on every country at the same time?"
Since the sun is small, close, and revolves around the Earth.
"If the Earth is not round, and therefore has no center with a gravitational pull, how do we stay on the Earth?"
Gravity? Everything falls down. Don't be silly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||||
|
The Practical Applications of 2Peter 3:16-17: Evangelicals Misinterpretation of Two Pauline Themes- Papal Primacy and the Church Gerard-Marie Anthony Student #229-35-3236 Introduction to Scripture March 2, 2006 Practical Applications of 2Peter 3:16-17 St. Peter was known for many things in his lifetime. He was a sinner, a fisherman, and the first Pope. He also was a prophet; a prophet that speaks to our times. In 2Pet. 3:16-17 he states, “There are some things in them [Paul‘s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You, therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the errors of the lawless men and lose your stability.” Many Protestants misunderstand Paul’s teachings and letters and have come up with doctrine that is not at all in line with Paul’s teaching or for that matter, Christ’s Revelation. Justification, the Second coming of Christ, and even the indissolubility of marriage are just a few examples. There are two areas in particular however that this paper will focus on, those being Papal authority and the Church. Each of these shall be examined from both points of view and then explained. The first area which Evangelical Protestants misread Paul’s writings concern Papal authority. The Evangelicals will misinterpret Eph. 2:20; 2Cor. 2:11; and Gal. 2:11-14 as evidence that Peter and his successors do not maintain a superior authority in the Church. Norman Geisler, Dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary and Ralph MacKenzie, a graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary, state this clearly: What is more, the same authority Jesus gives to Peter (Matt. 16:18) is given later to all the apostles (Mt. 18:18)…Whatever the case, all the apostles, not just Peter, possessed this power [of binding and loosing]. Further, Scripture affirms that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone“ (Eph. 2:20). Two things are clear from this: all the apostles-not just Peter-are the foundation of the Church, and the only one who was given place of uniqueness or prominence was Christ, the capstone…Peter gives no indication that he was given a special place of prominence in the foundation of the Church above the rest of the apostles and below Christ. He is just one “stone” along with the other eleven apostles (Eph. 2:20). Third, Peter’s role in the New Testament falls far short of the Catholic claim that he was given unique authority among the apostles…In fact, by God’s inspiration the apostle Paul taught that no apostle was really superior: “I was in no way inferior to these [so-called] ’superapostles’” (2Cor. 12:11). (3)No one reading Galatians carefully can come away with the impression that any apostle including Peter, was inferior to the apostle Paul. For Paul claimed to get his revelation independently of the other apostles (Gal. 1:12; 2:2), to be on the same level as Peter (Gal. 2:8) and even used his revelation to rebuke Peter (Gal. 2:11-14)!…(5) Indeed, if Peter was the God-ordained superior apostle it is strange that Acts gives more attention to Paul’s ministry than to Peter’s. Peter is the focus only in Chapters 1-12, but Paul is the dominant figure in 13-28...In short, there is no evidence in Matthew 16 or any other text for the Roman Catholic dogma of the superiority or infallibility of Peter. Therefore, according to Evangelicals, Peter did not have primacy because all the apostles were given the power to bind and loose (Matt. 18:18), all the Apostles-not just Peter-are the foundation of the Church (2Cor. 12:11), Paul independently received his revelation from the apostles and rebuked Peter with his (Paul’s) revelation (Gal. 2:11-14), and that Acts (the story of the beginnings of the early Church), spends more time on Paul than it does on Peter. These are seemingly good interpretations pointing to a lack of Papal superiority, but as St. Peter predicted, many would misunderstand Paul’s writings in many ways. Scripture and history refutes the Evangelical interpretation of these two Pauline text of 2Cor. 12:11 and Gal. 2:11-14 as well as their basis for interpreting Matt. 18:18 and the book of Acts. Let us begin by setting the record straight on the book of Acts. It is known from the historical-critical method that the writer of the Acts was Luke. St. Jerome tells us: Luke a physician of Antioch as his writings gas indicate was not unskilled in the Greek language. An adherent of the apostle Paul, and companion of all his journeying, he wrote a Gospel…" He also wrote another excellent volume to which he prefixed the title Acts of the Apostles, a history which extends to the second year of Paul's sojourn at Rome, that is to the fourth year of Nero, from which we learn that the book was composed in that same city… So he wrote the gospel as he had heard it, but composed the Acts of the apostles as he himself had seen. We can also see through text criticism that Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts are both written by him because both address the same person, “Theophilus”-see Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1. We also see that Acts is a continuation of the Gospel, “In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.” We also know that Luke was a companion of Paul. Scripture states this as Paul calls Luke, “the beloved physician” in Col. 4:14 and mentions him in 2Tim. 4:11 and Philem. 24. The Navarre Bible even notes, “some passages in the Acts are written in the first person plural (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16), indicating that their author was with St. Paul when the events occurred.” Since Luke was a companion of Paul, he wrote his writings with Paul’s mission in mind, which was primarily concerned with the gentiles: For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, ‘I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, That you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth.’”-Acts 13:47. Again: Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous and thus save some of them.-Rom 11:13-14. Thus, Luke’s writings fittingly are directed towards the Gentiles. This is the reason he spends more time on Paul’s mission to the Gentiles in the book of Acts than on anything else. Also, since he was a companion of Paul, he would write more naturally on the things he had experienced opposed to things from other sources. Finally, if quantity of mention is an indicator of apostolic authority, Peter definitely takes precedence: The names Peter, Simon, or Cephas are used 191 times in the New Testament. Except for Christ himself, no other person receives nearly as much attention as Simon Peter does through Biblical references…This is especially significant when we recall that the Gospels were written many years after the historical events… “John, often regarded as equal in eminence with Peter (or nearly so), is next in frequency with only forty-eight appearances, and James considerably less than that…Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned one hundred and thirty times. Assuming this is correct Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to…Surely, such consistent predominance is beyond coincidence.” So we see that Luke spends more time on Paul because of his mission to the Gentiles and that overall, Peter by far is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other Apostle, thus showing supremacy if based on quantity, not inferiority. In dealing with the other three verses that object to the Papal primacy, we must apply a theory that Scott Hahn points out. He states that, “most Protestants will read the Bible in light of Paul, including the Gospels. But we must read Paul in light of the Gospels because the Gospels have a place of primacy in Scripture.” The primacy of the Gospels are also stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures ‘because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior.’” Therefore we have to interpret the Pauline passages in light of the Gospel and not vice versa. We see how this theory has dire consequences if not applied. The Evangelical takes the two texts of Paul’s letters: Paul rebuking Peter and that of all the apostles as a foundation/living stones; and applies them to Matthew’s Gospel. Thus, they carry the erroneous notions of absolute equality of the apostles from 2Cor. 2:12 and Paul rebuking Peter in Gal. 2:11-14 as the interpreting principle in Jesus giving Peter the authority to bind and loose. Therefore, they conclude that supreme authority is just something due to all the apostles like a democracy. On the other hand, if you take Mt. 16:18-19 first and apply it to Mt. 18:18; 2Cor. 2:12 and Gal. 2:11-14, you get quite a different conclusion. Thus, let us look at Matt. 16:18-19 first: And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. In this passage, a few things happen: The Father reveals something to Peter, Peter makes a profession of Faith, then Jesus gives Peter the keys to Heaven and promises him authority. The Evangelicals miss two crucial points. The first point is a minute one, but, the binding and loosing authority appears in verse 19, not 18. Secondly, they notice that Jesus gives the authority to bind and loose to Peter and the Apostles (as they rightly note in Matt.18:18), but they completely pass by the crucial connecting piece of this entire episode. This piece is that Jesus gives “the keys” to Peter alone! These keys are significant because they are keys of authority. To understand this, we have to go back to the Old Testament passage Jesus is quoting from, Isaiah 22:20-22: On that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah; and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut, and none shall open. Now notice what is happening here. First of all, God is giving his faithful servant Eliakim His authority, the authority of the House of David, the line in which God promises an everlasting covenant (see 1Sam. 7:8-16) . Next, God says that this authority figure shall be a father to the house of Judah. Then he tells him that this ruler’s authority will be binding. In this passage, we see that this applies first of all to Eliakim, but in an allegorical sense to Jesus who gives this authority to Peter. Just as God gave this authority to Eliakim, so God (Jesus Christ, true God and true man) gives this authority to Peter. Peter, like Eliakim is to be a father figure to the new inhabitants of Jerusalem and house of Judah, the Church. St. Paul tells us that the Church is the new Jerusalem and house of Judah in his letter to the Hebrews: The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;…This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people…But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once and for all into the holy place, taking not the blood of goats and calves, but his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption.”-Heb. 8:8-9:12 The new Covenant Christ made was with the Apostles, His Church at the Last Supper, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’”-1Cor. 11:23,25. Thus, Peter and his successors were to be father figures (the Latin word “Papa” and Greek, “Papas”-the two major languages of the world in the early Church-in which we get our word “Pope” ) to the new tribe of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Church. Now if we apply this application to Paul’s writings, we get a truer sense of what he means in 2Cor. 2:12 and Gal. 2:11-14. We know that Paul considered himself under the authority of Peter because he tells us this fact in Galatians, “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”-Gal. 1:18-19. We must first notice something of grave importance that Stephen Ray points out: When Paul finally “made contact” with the Church, it was Peter he went to visit. As is his regular designation for Peter in his epistles, Paul refers to him as “Rock” (Cephas)…By referring to Simon Peter as Cephas, Paul acknowledges the special position of Peter signified by that name…The purpose of Paul going to Jerusalem on this occasion was to make the acquaintance of the leading apostle-and not merely to make his acquaintance but to inquire of him (for that is the force of the verb historesai which he uses). For Peter was a primary informant on matters which it was now important that Paul should know-the details of Jesus’ ministry and the ‘tradition’ of teaching that derived from him. Paul purposely sought ought Peter for a fifteen day visit. If he did not view him as an authority, he would not have stayed so long. Secondly, he calls him Cephas, a formal title given to him from Jesus, not simply “Peter” the informal name of a peer. The original Greek verb also shows us that he had to ask him something of importance that he probably needed an answer, hence he inquired of him, not simply sat and talked with him. Hence, we can truly interpret 2Cor. 12:11; Eph. 2:20; and Gal. 2:11-14. In 2Cor. 12:11, Paul is not saying that Peter has no primacy, he is defending his ministry against those who say he has no authority or claim that he is a false apostle. This is stated clearly in the text if you read the previous chapter, “And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.”-2Cor. 11:12-13. So in 2Cor. 12:11, Paul is not denying Peter’s supremacy. Also, in Eph. 2:20, Paul is speaking to the Gentiles telling them that they are “fellow citizens in the house of God”-Eph. 2:19, and one with the house of God because of Christ who is the capstone. He states this in verse 21, “in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord.” Paul is speaking of the unity and equality of Gentiles with the rest of the Church because of Christ in this passage. This is why he speaks of “equality among those in the Church”, not to downgrade Peter’s importance. Lastly, in Gal. 2:11-14, where Paul condemns Peter, He still is not demeaning Peter’s primacy as head of the Church. We see that he once again acknowledges him as Cephas, the title given to him alone as head of the Church. Secondly, he tells us the reason why he admonishes him, “because he stood condemned.”-Gal. 2:11. As a servant of God, he was correcting his brother in Christ because he was saying one thing but doing another. If “the LORD reproves him whom he loves.”-Pro. 3:12, should not the followers of the Lord do the same thing? It does not mean that you do not respect someone’s authority if you correct him, it just means you care about him. That is all that Paul was doing. He cared about the Gentiles whom Peter was insulting, so he corrected Peter. Therefore, we see that the Evangelical interpretation of denying Peter’s primacy is completely false if you align it with the rest of Scripture! In concluding that Peter has primacy in the Church, we come to the topic of the Church herself. Evangelicals base their idea of Church on being an invisible body that is unseen physically here on earth because there are no more original apostles. They view 2Cor. 12:12 as a key text that shows this. According to Evangelicals, the Church is an invisible spiritual reality, “Nowhere in the New Testament does anyone say, ‘Let’s go to church,’ nor is the church referred to as a building, except as a metaphorical ‘body’ and ‘holy nation,’ refer to God’s people. As the hymn writer put it: The Church is not a building, The Church is not a steeple, The Church is not a resting place, The church is a people.” Mr. Geisler states, “Evangelical Protestants reject the Roman Catholic insistence that the Church which Christ and the apostles spoke of must be manifested in a visible organization, namely the Roman Catholic Church.” He then gives Scriptural reasons for this position: Rom. 1:5. First, Paul is speaking here about his apostleship…Further, to be an apostle one had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 1Cor. 9:1; 15:5-7), which clearly disqualifies anyone after the first century, and thus negates the claim that the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church is somehow implied here…However [Paul] was an apostle (Gal. 1:1) who received direct revelation from God (Gal. 1:12), who compared his apostolic authority with that of the other apostles (Gal. 1:17; 2:5-9) and who manifested the “signs of an apostle” (2Cor. 12:12). Further, Paul explicitly listed the appearance of the resurrected Christ to him as qualifying him as an apostle…What is more, it is evident from several text there were no more appearances of Christ to confirm apostolic authority after Paul. First there are no other appearances listed in the 1Corinthians 15 list after that of Paul, which he describes as “the last of all.”…Finally, Paul and the other apostles manifested the “signs of an apostle”(2Cor. 12:12) which included the ability to heal all diseases, even naturally curable ones, immediately (cf. Acts 3:7), to exorcise demons on command (Matt. 10:8; cf. Acts 16:16-18), strike dead some who lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-11), and even perform resurrections from the dead (Matt. 10:7; cf. Acts 20). This automatically excludes anyone alive today, including the Pope, since no one possesses the power to perform these kinds of apostolic signs. Without these kinds of apostolic signs there is no proof of apostolic authority…It is true that when the body of Christ began it was all visible since no believers had died and gone to heaven, so of course it was a visible church when Christ founded it. The invisible church only grew as Christians died and went to heaven. Protestants do not deny that there was a visible Christian church on earth that traces back to the apostles who exercised authority over it, including excommunication. What Protestants object to (and Catholics have not proven) is that Roman Catholic jurisdiction is the sole heir to this original visible Church that began with the apostles and will continue until Christ comes without the gates of hell destroying it.” In other words, since the Apostles are the foundations of the visible Church, there are no more living apostles, so the visible church had to disappear with the apostles. Therefore, there is only an invisible church, which is the mystical body of Christ. This seems to be a clever argument, but upon further review, it is seen that once again this is a misreading of Paul’s writings. First of all, if miracles and cures are signs of the visible Church, we know that the Church has never disappeared because even in the very beginnings of the Post-Apostolic age, miracles occurred. Miracles became a requirement for canonization after St. Francis of Assisi in the 13th century and our late Holy Father Pope John Paul II canonized over 470 saints during his papacy alone, not to mention has driven out demons by performing three known exorcisms. Biblically speaking, this is a misinterpretation of the text as well. If the invisible body of Christ is a result of the disappearance of the visible one, that means that there are two different entities or Churches, which would mean that there are two bodies of Christ. This is a obvious contradiction of Eph. 4:4-5, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as we are all called to one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all, through all, and in all.” We know that Christ does not have two bodies (unless you are Nestorius who believed Jesus was two persons), one visible and another invisible. That would not be union, but a dysfunction! Secondly, we see that the Church is not just made up of Apostles. Paul tells us this in his letter to the Ephesians: And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelist, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ.-Eph. 4:11 So even if the apostles didn’t have succession, other members still would make up a visible portion of the Church. Thirdly, there is clearly a passing on of the apostolic office in the New Testament. This is shown in Acts 1: 20-26: For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’… And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” 1Timothy 4:14 shows that this succession or passing on of the apostolic priestly ministry is passed on by the laying of hands, “Till I come, attend to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands on you.” This verse also shows that the apostolic ministry included preaching and teaching. In Paul‘s letter to Titus we see that this ministry also involves one of governance, “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town I directed you. For a bishop, as God‘s steward, must be blameless.” A steward watches over an area and this involves governance. Furthermore, if there were not to be a passing on of apostolic authority, why even ordain other bishops in the first place? Why would Paul give qualifications for bishops in Tit. 1:7-9; 1Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17? Most of all, why would he tell Titus to appoint them in every town following the example of the other apostles in Acts 14:21-23? The very fact that the Apostles, including Paul, ordained other bishops shows that they intended for others to follow them in their apostolic office. It would not make sense other wise. The words of Christ show a visible Church as well. Jesus says to his disciples, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you”-Jn. 14:16-17. Notice that Jesus tells the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will be with them forever. This is a promise from His great commission in Matt. 28:18-20, “All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” If Christ were to make an invisible Church built on apostles, why would he command them to make disciples of all nations? Jesus, being God, would know that the Apostles themselves would not live until the end of the world. Therefore, he knew they would have to pass on their office through out time. The final proof of a visible Church is the totality of Scripture. It is one complete book with God as its author. Thus, “the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” Israel was God’s chosen people, but also His visible presence in the world. Now, if this was true in the Old Covenant, how much more in the New! Jesus tells us, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.”-Matt. 5:17. This fulfillment would come with Christ and His visible sign of his invisible grace. This fulfillment would come in a visible church that would present an invisible reality; a sacramental Church that would contain Sacraments; physical signs that confer the invisible reality of grace. This logically follows if you understand the New Testament in light of the Old. The Incarnation is a fulfillment of the Ten Commandments. It was by God‘s Word, the Ten Commandments, that Israel knew God was with them, but now “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”-Jn. 1:14, so we know physically God is with us. It is only fitting that the New and Everlasting Covenant should be greater than the Old Covenants, thus the Church would have to be a physical reality and not just a sign of things to come. In conclusion, the Evangelicals misinterpret some key texts from Paul that help distort their view on Papal primacy and the Church. Their errors come for one main reason: it is what Scott Hahn calls the “Either-Or Syndrome“ For the Evangelical, there has to be Papal primacy or equality; a Church that is visible or invisible. Therefore, the Evangelical chooses one or the other and end up wrong. They are wrong because in actuality, God made both of their choices right and to leave one out makes it in error. This is the beauty of the Catholic position. It is not afraid to choose both and thus it is correct. The Church has always held the primacy of Peter because Jesus held the primacy of Peter. As an apostle, he was equal to the others in his mission to bind and loose, but higher than them in his role as the chief pastor of God’s flock. The Catholic Church does not say the Church is an invisible unity or simply a mystical/spiritual organism. She says that she is a physical, governing body as well. In God’s Wisdom, I think He did this purposely because we human beings are organisms made up of a physical body and a spiritual soul and would need to sanctify both in order to glorify God. In this, the Church also imitates Christ in a physical human nature and a spiritual nature. Thus, we see that Peter was not only the head of the Church, but a great prophet. We must take his advice and beware not to misread Paul’s writings to our own destruction! |
No.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
No, sorry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
"I don't understand how you can allow this to happen."
Because I allow it to happen.
"It makes me sick to know that there may be people who actually believe the stuff that you are putting on that website."
Sick of yourself?
"I'm sorry that you get hate mail and threats"
A lot of death threats from loving Christians.
"Jesus is the Savior."
And he picks strawberries.
"I'll be praying that God will open your eyes and show you that you have headed down the wrong road and you are leading others down that same road."
God's busy killing people, leave Him alone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
"JESUS US TAUGHT US TO HATE"
I can tell.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
That's nice. Now mow my lawn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
The website is as real as God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
"You are clearly an ignorant, uneducated person"
Not really.
"Your grammar sucks"
Really?
"Try measuring a pefect"
Point proved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||
|
You need to get laid.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
This website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
I understand that. I solved the problem by editing the last letter of the e-mail addresses of my fans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Jesus abolished the Old Testament law of circumcision:
John 7:21-23
21Jesus
answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.
22Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
23If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||||||||||
|
Nearly all Christians say they believe the Bible 100% without even reading it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|