NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
peter the rock
Peter the Rock
One of the points I try to emphasize when giving a seminar is that you can begin to be an effective apologist right away; you don’t have to wait until you become a theological whiz. Just work with what you know, even if it’s only one fact.
I illustrate this from my own experience, and you can use this technique the next time you have verses thrown at you by an anti-Catholic.
Some years ago, before I took a real interest in reading the Bible, I tried to avoid missionaries who came to the door. I had been burned too often. Why open the door, or why prolong the conversation (if they caught me outside the house), when I had nothing to say?
Sure, I had a Bible. I used it perhaps the way you use yours today: to catch dust that otherwise would gather on the top shelf of the bookcase. It was one of those "family" Bibles, crammed with beautiful color plates and so heavy that my son didn’t outweigh it until he turned five.
As I said, I had a Bible, but I didn’t turn to it much; so I had little to say about the Bible when missionaries cornered me. I didn’t know to which verses I should refer when explaining the Catholic position.
For a layman, I suppose I was reasonably well informed about my faith—at least I never doubted it or ceased to practice it—but my own reading had not equipped me for verbal duels.
Then, one day, I came across a nugget of information that sent a shock wave through the next missionary who rang the bell and that proved to me that becoming skilled in apologetics isn’t really all that difficult. Here’s what happened.
When I answered the door, the lone missionary introduced himself as a Seventh-Day Adventist. He asked if he could "share" with me some insights from the Bible. I told him to go ahead.
He flipped from one page to another, quoting this verse and that, trying to demonstrate the errors of the Church of Rome and the manifest truth of his own denomination’s position.
Not much to say
Some of the verses I had encountered before. I wasn’t entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didn’t know enough about the Bible to respond effectively.
Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."
"Hold it right there!" I said. "I know that verse. That’s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That’s where he appointed him the first pope." I paused and smiled broadly, knowing what the missionary would say in response.
I knew he usually didn’t get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it.
"I understand your thinking," he said, "but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you don’t know any Greek. That’s the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people don’t know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek."
"Is that so?" I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.
"Yes," he said. "In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble."
In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros andpetra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).
"You Catholics," the missionary continued, "because you don’t know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn’t remotely qualified to be it."
"Case closed," he thought.
It was the missionary’s turn to pause and smile broadly. He had followed the training he had been given. He had been told that a rare Catholic might have heard of Matthew 16:18 and might argue that it proved the establishment of the papacy. He knew what he was supposed to say to prove otherwise, and he had said it.
"Well," I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, "I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek." He smiled some more and nodded. "But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic."
"The what?" he asked.
"The Aramaic," I said. "As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place."
"I thought Greek was."
"No," I answered. "Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.
"I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."
I stopped for a moment and looked at the missionary. He seemed a bit uncomfortable, perhaps doubting that I was a Catholic because I seemed to know what I was talking about. I continued.
Aramaic in the New Testament
"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
"What’s more," I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on thiskepha I will build my Church.’
"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."
For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.
"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"
"Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
"I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek."
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
My turn to pause
I stopped and smiled. The missionary smiled back uncomfortably, but said nothing. We exchanged smiles for about thirty seconds. Then he looked at his watch, noticed how time had flown, and excused himself. I never saw him again.
So what came of this encounter? Two things—one for me, one for him.
I began to develop a sense of confidence. I began to see that I could defend my faith if I engaged in a little homework. The more homework, the better the defense.
I realized that any literate Catholic—including you—could do the same. You don’t have to suspect your faith might be untrue when you can’t come up with an answer to a pointed question.
Once you develop a sense of confidence, you can say to yourself, "I may not know the answer to that, but I know I could find the answer if I hit the books. The answer is there, if only I spend the time to look for it."
And what about the missionary? Did he go away with anything? I think so. I think he went away with a doubt regarding his understanding (or lack of understanding) of Catholics and the Catholic faith. I hope his doubt has since matured into a sense that maybe, just maybe, Catholics have something to say on behalf of their religion and that he should look more carefully into the Faith he once so confidently opposed.
—Karl Keating
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Monday, April 23, 2012
FREE Download of The Catholic Church Vs. the Bible Here
Free Downloads
Get Your FREE Download of The Catholic Church Vs. the Bible Here
The Catholic Church vs.the Bible.pdf
| http://AmazingBible.org | Leading the Way with Dr. Michael | Excellent Bible Software | |||
| A mega site of Bible and Christian | Youssef.. Great content | FOR FREE | |||
| information and much more | Compare to Logos at $1300 | ||||
| Check it out, you will love it | http://www.leadingtheway.org | I use Logos an I'm switching | |||
Try It -you will like it
 | |||||
| htttp://dreamstime.com | Bible History | ||||
| Great Photos Check them out | Great Content | ||||
| good video eries on "mere | |||||
| Christianity" | |||||
| CARM | http://www.bible-history.com/ | ||||
| http://carm.org/ | |||||
| Christian ministry dedicated to | |||||
| glory of the Lord Jesus Christ | |||||
| the promotion and defense of |
Seven Unities God Grants His Catholic Church
and one (1) little lie... commentary addition P1saint
The Ties that Bind Christ to
His One Church and we to Christ
by
Pat Moron vs every-1 else
Matthew 7: 21, 24 - 27
"Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
"Every one then who hears these words of mine and
does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon
the
rock;'
Most mature Christians recognize that the "rock" is the knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God (Yahweh)..
But the RCC likes to believe that a disciple Peter is the rock..
But it's just a LITTLE LIE
What is the keys to the kingdom?
well it starts with Jesus is the messiah and the son of God
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TmQdJGTyQWg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on ...
bible.cc/acts/1-8.htm
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall... The apostles had impatiently asked him if he was then about to restore the ...
The Smith Wigglesworth Blog: Ye shall receive power.
smithwigglesworth.blogspot.com/2008/.../ye-shall-receive-power.htm...
Mar 30, 2008 – “Ye shall receive power after the Holy Ghost is come upon you.” The disciples had been asking whether the Lord would at that time restore ...
and the rain fell,
and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did
not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does
not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds
blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of
it."
Eph. 2:19-20 “So
then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens
with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation
of the apostles and prophets, Christ
Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy
temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place
of God in the Spirit.”
Christ is a Perfect God, and knew precisely the intent, the meaning and the
future-implications of the language He
used in choosing Peter as the “Rock” to build His new Church upon…. Yes, Christ is the Cornerstone that
holds it all together; and prevents it’s collapse. But Peter; “the ROCK” is the
“building’s” foundation.
There
IS continuity in the bible, because there MUST BE, in order to insure
that Christ Message of salvation be clear, concise, understood, and acceptable.
….
Therefore
No one part of God’s Word can contradict another
teaching is the most elementary Rule
of RIGHT Understanding of God’s Inspired Biblical WORDS. …. This is an
unfailing, infallible truth.
The message that I hope to share with you today is
in many ways the same message that Jesus was relating in above passages of Matthews Gospel. It will likely be more clear
to those who mostly don’t need to hear it [because they are already doing it],
and quite possibly be missed, or ignored, or misunderstood by those who Do NEED
to hear it, WHO Do NEED to understand it, and WHO Do NEED to respond to it. Still I am firmly
convinced that God is ever-present and remains FULLY in charge.
LET US PRAY
Holy Spirit; Almighty God who influences our
thoughts; who grants true Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding, we pray to you
for the promised fruits of a TRUE and Lively Faith. Open our minds, our hearts,
and move or wills to, in humility, accept, learn and love what you, the Father
and the Son have always and everywhere
taught, with unfailing consistently, and held as one of the many singular
truths of your Divine Will. Enflame is
us a powerful desire us to know what your Holy Bible actually teaches. We
ask this through Jesus Our Lord. Amen!
“Let those “who have ears hear”
Matt.13:9-12 “He who has ears, let him hear." Then the disciples [Apostles] came and said to him,
"Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them,
"To you it has been given to know the secrets of the
kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” For to him who has will more be
given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he
has will be taken away. [Jesus speaks here of true Faith and Right Understanding.]
2nd.
Peter 1: 17-21 “You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a
dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must
understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own
interpretation, because no prophecy ever
came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
2nd.
Peter 3: 14-17 “Therefore,
beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot
or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation.
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom
given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them 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 error of lawless men and lose your own stability”
In order to, God willing, improve the odds of
those needing to get this message, actually being able to grasp its
importance, I will be extremely blunt
and clear. PLEASE do not take offense to what I am saying. My tone is
NOT accusatory; rather it is shared out of a sincere love of my neighbors; our
brethren in the non-Catholic, Christian communions. And a deep concern for the salvation of all-possible
souls.
God Teaches and permits ONLY of
one each of the Seven signs of unity. “Seven” is a biblical number signifying
“Perfect.”
1. One Body = Church, One single Faith organization
2. One Spirit = Love of God, self and neighbor as ourselves
3. One Hope = Salvation, which is a process of many
essential-components
4. One Christ = Redeemer and Savior: Are not synonymous terms
5. One Faith= Only What God Actually teaches in its totality
6. One Baptism= Water and the Spirit, Desire, and or Blood
7. One God =Triune: Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Shown below is
an amazing biblical summary-confirmation of what God has always held too as key
elements of the singular truths necessary for anyone’s salvation. It expresses
the essential unity and doctrines that relate most directly to the broad issue
of “salvation.” It is in a nearly
complete “outline” form, what each of us
must know the details of, then accept and live
fully, if our “hope” of our own and others salvation is to bear the
fruit of reality. Each of the elements has a direct, irrevocable connection
to today’s Catholic Church, led of
course by the Roman Catholic Church, as the “keeper of the Key’s”, those
men that God Himself chooses, like Peter, to Lead and to teach to “the ends of
the earth” [Mt. 28:16-20] , all that Christ has
Ordained and commands.
Eph.4 Verses 1 to 24
“ I [Paul] therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, [Christ] one faith, one baptism, one God and Father [Triune] of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.”
“ I [Paul] therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, [Christ] one faith, one baptism, one God and Father [Triune] of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.”
The use of
the number “One,” made even
more significant by its repetition, is
highly reflective of Paul’s extensive
training as a Scholar of “The
Jewish-Law.” As a trained Pharisee, Paul
knew intimately, the Pentateuch. The first five books of the Bible taken collectively,
that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, written from
about 1400 to 1300 B.C.” In his pre-called” to apostleship position Paul would
also have known all of the hundreds of added “LAWS” that were expected to be
kept in fulfilling the Jews commitments to Yahweh.
I mention this because “numbers” were of extreme importance in
the Old Testament Bible. They in a sense had meanings, often far beyond the
actual numerical indication given. I‘d like to share from the agapebilblestudy.com , site, the meanings of the numbers “ONE“ and the number “SEVEN.” This
understanding is highly significant to our present discussion.
ONE: In sacred
Scripture "one", ehad, in Hebrew represents unity and is the
quintessential number of monotheism, the worship of one God.
This concept of one as a unity of one God is expressed
in the opening lines of the first profession of faith found in Scripture, the Shema:
"Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is One" [Deuteronomy 6:4].
One as a cardinal number symbolizes Unity. The
number One is indivisible and not made up of any other number representing the
unity of the One true God in which there is no division
One as an ordinal number denotes primacy,
sovereignty, divine completeness or perfection.
Christians recognized the
number "one" in Scripture as symbolic of the First Person of the Most
Holy Trinity, God the Father.
SEVEN: Spiritual perfection and fullness or completion. It is the
number of Covenant and of the Holy Spirit.
7 is the second perfect number.
In Hebrew 7 is shevah (shebah) from the root shava
(shaba or sheba), to be full.
To swear an oath in Hebrew is "to seven
oneself"
The sacred Menorah has 7 branches, six on each side of
a central shaft, and 7 cup shaped lamps for the olive oil
There were 7 classes of furniture in the Tabernacle: Bronze
Altar, Bronze Laver, Golden Menorah, Golden Table of the Bread of the Presence,
Golden Altar of Incense, Ark of the Covenant, and the Seat of Atonement
The Feast of Passover is the 1st month of
the liturgical year but the 7th month of the civil year. [Exodus 12:1-2]
The
Feast of Tabernacles completes the cycle of Holy Days on the 7th
month of the liturgical year.[Leviticus 23:33-43]
So when Paul
uses “numbers” we need to reflect and ask is there a significance beyond
what seems evident to today’s readers of
the bible? Clearly in the repetition of the Number “One,”
Paul is
conveying a meaning of VERY GREAT significance. The “common denominator” which
is used “SEVEN” times, of the seven
nouns Paul uses in conjunction with
the number “One,“ is “UNITY.” But not simply “unity,” but a “Perfect Unity.” Unable to be divided,
unable to be split, unable to be multiplied.
This then becomes Thee key
to “The Key” given to
Peter by Christ. Notice the similarity of the singular terms carefully
chosen by God. The very fact that the Bible is at the same time God’s OWN
words, and the Divinely Inspired and guided language of those God choose to
author the Bible is NOT to over be looked. Also NOT to be overlooked in the
fact that Matthews Gospel is the FIRST to be written. When God is involved, we can
and we MUST rule out coincidences as a possibility.
Matthew 16:
15-19 “He [Jesus] said to them, [Plural] "But
who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the
Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, [Singular] "Blessed
are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but
my Father who is in heaven. And I [Singular] tell you, [Singular] you
are Peter, and on this rock [Singular] I will build my church, [Singular]
and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [Singular]. I
will give you [Singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever
you [Singular] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you [Singular]
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Allow me now to
share and apply what we have just learned to the Seven
Unities.
Addressing briefly what is the
meaning and implications of each “Unity.” I
would also like to point out that time and grace have permitted me to accept,
and partially understand [I KNOW God is behind it], why so many different
understandings of what is written in the bible exist. The One issue that I
personally continue to struggle with however, is the Obvious Fact that in the
totality of the Bible; God never so much as hints at being willing to accept
belief in more than One God, or His One set of Faith Beliefs, as taught by
those He personally puts in charge. I am strangely able to recognize the
differences in understanding [pride-filled-human nature], but unable to grasp
how it is not obvious that God has always, consistently and constantly
permitted only One set of faith beliefs. The very foundation for other
faith-beliefs being acceptable to God is to me somewhat of a mystery. YES, I
know: they think we are the ones who are wrong. BUT we were here some 1,500
years before they “became right?”
1. One Body = Church, One single Faith organization
The New testament alone has over 100
references to but One Church, meaning one set of Faith beliefs, confined in a
single faith-organization. God Choose only “One” Chirch influenced by Divine
Prudence, Justice and Fairness. Any more than one would increase the potential
for error. Would permit a double jeopardy. 1. The
choice of knowing and loving God or hating God. 2. A possibility of “loving
God” in a manner NOT of His Divine choosing.
Quite possibly insufficient for ones personal salvation?
2. One Spirit = Love of God, self and neighbor as ourselves
Here, Paul is speaking of “the New
Commandment.” [John 13:34] “Love one another as I [God] Love you“. This implies more
than what is at first evident. Because in fulfilling this AGAPE Love, one must
be humble enough to accept everything that is taught by the Commandments, and
ALSO those God has placed over us to teach, guide, guard and protect our souls.
The Magisterium of our Catholic Church. That friends means ALL those in
authority who align themselves with our Pope. Catholism, mimicking the practice
of the Old Testament Jewish- faith, allows for no picking and choosing. Agape
love MUST strive for perfection, which is attainable only in fullness of
humility, obedience and application.
3. One Hope = Salvation, which is a process of many
essential-components
This one is easier to understand. It
floes naturally from the other two and through the remaining four.
There is only one unforgivable sin man
can freely choose. That being NOT to freely choose to Know, Love, Obey and
serve our God, through His [our] faith. This
is the First Commandment. Every other
wrong, incomplete, or imperfect act, can, with God’s help and intervention, be
corrected and forgiven. That friends is why; no matter how bad, or desperate
things appear to us we ought never loose HOPE, as we always have access to our
God. Amen!
I would be in grave error if I failed
to point out that ALL Salvation must and does flow through the Catholic Church.
Further, those outside Her Embrace, who have been offered this information, and
then choose to deny, ignore or try to reinvent it, do so at great personal risk
to there souls. Man-made, innovative and easier ways to attain assurance
of salvation, taught by so many faiths, are myths, false-hopes, and of no
salvation value.
4. One Christ = Redeemer and Savior: Are not synonymous terms
Both Independent actions, clearly are
in, by, from, and through Jesus Christ. This
“One” is as stated above, seemly easy for all of Christianity to accept. The
problem is that nearly half of us [the non-catholic-Christians] have often an
overly optimistic , simplistic, unrealistic and incorrect understanding of both
terms. Their hope is [biblically and factually] unfounded and therefore
salvation is very clearly and definitely
not assured.
Redemption is for “all-humanity.” Past, present and future. It is a fully
accomplished act. BUT The FACT that
we ARE “Redeemed,” does not imply or guarantee that anyone of us has assured or
“attained” salvation. Nor may we believe
that any one or two things will be sufficient for our salvation. If what we
choose to believe does not conform to what God commands, such beliefs are
worthless.
Salvation is a PROCESS that always and
every time must include grace, faith, Christian Baptism, complete obedience to
ALL of the Commandments and ALL that they entail [the ten being only categories
of sins; not the list of], and as stated earlier, also to the Church and the
authorities God makes us subject too. And we are also required to do good works
as a condition of salvation. And YES, each of these is biblically supportable.
5. One Faith= Only What God Actually teaches in its totality
Here I shall be brief. [IMO]… There is absolutely to record, no reference,
no tradition that our God ever, EVER, permitted more than only His One
set of faith-beliefs. Given the multitude of biblical evidence for Only One
Church, the lack of any historical, traditional or even logical evidence that
God somewhere along the line changed His mind. The idea that mortal men can
come along 1,500 YEARS later, and claim without evidence beyond there own
opinions, that despite abundant biblical proof that God Himself warrants what
His One Church teaches [Jn. 14:16-17;
Jn. 17:15-19; Jn. 20: 19-22, Mt. 16:15-19, Mt. 18:18, Mt. 28:16-20], and then still insist on knowing more or knowing better
that what God Himself Ordained, implemented, protects and guides, is quite
amazing. Very HUMAN, but truly astonishing.
6. One Baptism= Water and the Spirit, Desire, and or Blood
As this is NOT a lesson on the
sacraments, I’ll leave this alone. Know that the norm is “by water and the
Spirit.” And that God himself is the judge of the effectiveness of the other
two forms, which are required because of the Divine Nature, Justice and
Fairness of God Himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)