padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

My definition of the Gospel is the same as your own. My understanding and interpretation of the Bible is in agreement with the faith, Tradition and teachings of the ancient one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, not my own personal understanding and interpretation. I believe Protestants are sometimes confused between the difference of interpretation and inspiration. Interpretation is according to that apostolic Church that created the Bible. Remember that the Church created the Bible. The Bible did not create the Church. Inspirations of a piece of scripture can range into the thousands.

Rose42

Protestants aren't an island unto themselves. Yet it is up to each individual to be discerning about what they learn. We have to be careful how we listen.



Some are maybe. There are no more confused protestants than Catholics though. The bottom line is whether or not God's word is perfect. That scripture is perfect is also in the Catholic version. Psalm 19 is one example. The question is, if His word is perfect then why place anything else above it or in place of it? That is what Catholicism does.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

You claim "Protestants aren't an island unto themselves. Yet it is up to each individual to be discerning about what they learn. We have to be careful how we listen. "

But in truth, Protestants are actually thousands of different islands unto themselves, all using the same bible all having different interpretations. Even from the very earliest days of the Reformation, Protestants have been forced to deal with the fact, that given the Bible and the reasoning power of the individual alone, people could not agree upon the meaning of many of the most basic questions of Christian doctrine. Within Luther's own lifetime dozens of differing groups had already arisen, claiming to "just believe the Bible," but none agreeing with one another on what the Bible said. As an example, Luther himself stood courageously before the Diet of Worms with the challenge that, unless he were persuaded by Scripture or by plain reason, he would not retract anything he had been teaching. But later, when the Anabaptist, who disagreed with the Lutherans on a number of points, simply asked for the same indulgence, Lutherans butchered them by the thousands. So much for the rhetoric about the right of the individual to read and interpret Scriptures for himself.

Rose42

And this is justification for the false doctrine of the Catholic church? I don't think so. Just as past and present atrocities by the Catholic church don't puff up protestants.



I don't know anyone who goes it alone. Even pastors don't go it alone. But all individuals are to test the spirits and discern. Someone else can't do that for you. Even among priests there isn't 100% agreement.

Luther exposed a lot of false Catholic doctrine. He wasn't perfect and I'm sure he wouldn't say he was perfect either.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

I once had an English Teacher in High School who told me, "Michael, be specific, say Pacific not 'the ocean"' I never forgot her teaching. With that thought in the forefront, be specific regarding the false doctrinal teachings you believe in error. Understand that Orthodox and Catholics are not in 100% agreement but the most important agreement is that both possess valid sacraments. They both celebrate, possess and consume the very same Eucharist, acknowledge the same rite of baptism, Holy Matrimony, Confession of sin, Holy Unction, Holy Orders (Bishops, priests, Deacons), Confirmation/Chrismation.

One of the many things I approve about Orthodoxy is that if someone comes along and has a "new idea" the response of the Church is to say"let us think about it. Come back in three or four hundred years and we'll talk about it." You know how that works out I'm sure. I should tell you that I am a convert to Orthodoxy.

What Luther failed to do was to continue address and fight for his concerns within the Church. He was not alone but he struck out on his own and created a new religion. Historically when troubles arose within the Catholic Church, as they do from time to time, the religious orders helped correct the course and when the religious orders went askew the Church was in a position to correct them. Balance! This is the beauty of the Holy Spirit leading the Church into balance. Luther committed as horrible a sin imaginable. He committed schism, dividing and separating the Body of Christ. St. John Chrysostom said that schism was much worse that heresy for the precise and exact reason that all this bitching, fighting and name calling back and forth that we are witnessing here on this forum. Schism divides and separates the people of God; exactly as Satan desires. And this Truth you can chip in stone. Take a look at Luther's unintended fruits......thousands of schismatic churches. Unquestionably they were unintended. Nevertheless.......

bahmer

About the only problem with Luther leaving the Catholic Church is that he didn't remove more of the Roman Catholic Teachings and go more of what the Bible says instead of following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. That is more where the so called schisms exist and as we learned and received concordances the word of God became more clear and people want to worship in spirit and truth and not to be bogged down by unnecessary rules and regulations that are not in the Bible nor supported by the Bible. You can now take Hebrew classes and learn Hebrew and you can take classes in other languages as well. When that happens it shines a light on what the Roman Catholic Priests have been saying and what is actually the truth and sometimes they are miles apart. I myself am still learning and there are some religions that are further from the truth than others.

Rose42

I've laid them out many times with scripture to show they are false. The burden of proof is on Catholics to show Mary remained a virgin, was sinless and ascended into heaven. How can I document that none of that is in the Bible?

Praying to saints and Mary is idol worship. That's pretty cut and dried.

Transubstantiation -

In his book The Faith of Millions, John O’Brien, a Catholic priest, explains the procedure of the mass.

When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.

Yet scripture states in Heb 9:24-28 -

24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear ca second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

In the Old Testament repeated sacrifices were made for sin. But Christ was the perfect sacrifice and only had to be done once. To negate that with transubstantiation is outright blasphemy and it perverts what He did on the cross.

There were others that criticized Catholicism but Luther brought its heresies to the forefront. Praise the Lord he did!

There are many false doctrines - Zemirah posted a list I think. Purgatory is another. That's not Biblical either nor are indulgences.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

And towards his life's end it is reported that Luther said something to the effect that now every milk maid thinks she can interpret Scripture. If you're being taught by people who are already in error, bahmer, all that is accomplished is perpetuating the very same error.

Presented with the thousands of groups that arose under the banner of the Reformation that could not agree on the interpretation of Scriptures, Protestant scholars proposed as a solution the assertion that the Holy Spirit would guide pious Protestants to interpret the Scriptures rightly. But obviously everyone who disagreed doctrinally could not possibly be guided by the same spirit. The result was that each group tended to de-Christianize those who differed from it. Bahmer, if this approach were a valid one, we would be left with one group of Protestants which had rightly interpreted the Scriptures. But which one of the thousands of denominations could it be? The answer depends solely on which Protestant you are speaking to. One thing you can be sure of - those who use this argument invariably are convinced their group is it.

May the confusing, contradictory, and disagreeable peace of the Lord be with you? How's that working out for you? I know you hate that idea as much as I do. But isn't where Christians are today? Shun those who teach hatred.

Rose42

If you notice, Catholics can't defend a lot of their doctrine with the Bible. There's a reason for that.

A lot of protestants don't agree with each other but that doesn't validate Catholicism. There isn't total agreement there either.

We need to remember that God's word is perfect (Psalm 19), to be careful how we listen to our pastors, be like the Bereans and always test the spirits.

bahmer

One of the things that I remember being brought up Lutheran was infant baptism and as I grew up I realized it was also part and parcel of the Roman Catholic Church and was probably brought into Lutheranism out of ignorance and was taught the same way as in the Roman Catholic Church. But later in life I realized that Christ set the example for us to live and that it also included baptism and he was baptized in the river Jordan by John the Baptist. And when he came up our of the river the Spirit of the descended on Him in the form of a dove. That indicated to me that the Lord was immersed in the river Jordan and not sprinkled with it as if you were ironing a shirt or something. From then on I believed in immersion as the correct form of baptism and it also meant that the person must be able to answer for themselves as to what the believe and that they want to be baptized. All that would rule out infant baptism as a means of baptism. There were others as I went along that I questioned and have had to do some digging to find the truth or to what I would claim to be the truth.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Let us us begin your education which I'm afraid is predetermined to be rejected because of your prejudice, and therefore a total waste of my time! I answer as an Orthodox Christian, an ancient catholic faith, and part of the One, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.

Prayer to Mary and the saints:
Orthodox Christians ask Mary and other saints to "intercede" for us before God in prayer. Orthodox believe that the reality of the Church encompasses both the living and those who have died and are now "with Christ" (Phil. 1:23). Those who have died in Christ do not care any less, nor do they cease to pray for us because they have passed into eternal life and they still remain part of the Christian Church. Don't kick them out! We approach the saints with veneration, not worship, as we ask for their prayers. There is no difference in me asking my wife to pray for me or for me to pray for you than seeking the intercession from a saint. In no way can this be compared to the worship we offer the Triune God.

We do not worship Mary. Worship is reserved for God alone. Mary is greatly esteemed and honored as the one chosen by God to bring forth His Only Begotten Son into the world. Because of this she is the most exalted of all creatures. She herself prophesied "all generations shall call me blessed"(Luke 1:48). Of course at that time she did not know there would be people who found it necessary to rob her of her virginity because of their disdain for her. Jesus Christ is an eternal divine Person Who took on a complete human nature through the Virgin Mary (cf. John 1:1,14). He is expressly called "God" in the Scriptures (cf John 20:28). As Mary gave birth to and nurtured a divine Person, she is rightly called the "Mother of God." I already explained this thoroughly previously on this thread and showed how the title Theotokos prevented a heresy that would have changed the very person of Christ you worship as Lord. As I said previously, what I'm doing here for you now is a waste of time because ignorance loves darkness; I think it actually craves darkness.

How can we know if the saints hear us? Easy! The experience of the church for 2000 years confirms that they do. God has been pleased to grant many miracles and blessings by the intercession of the saints. The prayers of a righteous person are just as effective after death as they are before, if not even more so. God glorifies His saints in the Holy Spirit (cf John 17:22). A holy Russian Monk, Silouan, expressed it like this: "once upon a time I did not understand how it was that the holy inhabitants of heaven could see our lives, but....I realized that they see us in the Holy Spirit and know our entire lives.... In the Kingdom of Heaven the holy saints look upon the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ; but through the Holy Spirit they see too the sufferings of men on earth." It is through their intimate union with God that the saints see us, hear us and know us. Jesus showed that the departed can be aware of events on earth when He asserted "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it and was glad" (John 8:56). Let me throw in a real distractor for a protestant, that of holy relics. Holy relics have been known countless times to have caused a miracle. Your hair on fire yet? I hope not. Acts 19:2, St. Paul's handkerchief was known to heal the sick. Every Orthodox altar contains a relic of a saint; more often than not it's a piece of bone. I'm running for a fire extinguisher for you right now. When the priest celebrates the "bloodless sacrifice" The Holy Eucharist, St. John Chrysostom says angels surround the altar because where else would one find angels if not round the Real Presence of Christ. A saint of old is present with a whole host of other witnesses, those for whom Christ gave up His life are present to give worship and thanks and these people are given the life sustaining Bread of Life that many choose to deny and reject. After baptism, the greatest grace is received in the Eucharist exactly as Christ intended.

My battery is running low. I leave you for now with that thousand yard stare!

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Sorry bamer, you and I don't get to make up th rules. I have to follow them but evidently you opt to make up your own. The water of baptism must be "flowing" water to "wash" away sin, not sprinkled. The only people I know who sprinkle are Protestants. Methodists have even been known to use rose petals. Flowing water can be poured from an urn as ancient Christian drawings in the catacombs of Rome depict and they do show infants being baptised. Flowing water can even be in the form of pouring from a hand. Reason would dictate not to immerse someone in a frozen river during winter I would think. What do you think? I would agree immersion in the Mississippi River over sprinkling is more preferable. One more thing, Jesus did not need baptism. Baptism needed Jesus.

When you speak of the Holy Spirit descending "on" Jesus after baptism you might be interested to know that the Greek word for "on" Him could also, in this case, be interpreted as "in" Him. The ancient, historical one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church nipped that heresy in the bud. If the Spirit descended "in" Him at that time then Jesus was not divine until that moment in time. Changes everything we believe about Jesus. No protestant was around when the Church was battling one heresy after another because of different individuals interpreting Scripture.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

"But Jesus answered, “It is written"...

"Jesus replied, "It is also written...

"Away from me, Satan!” Jesus declared,"For it is written,...
(Matthew 4:4, 7, 10)


The word tradition occurs only 14 times in the whole New Testament, in the Old Testament not once. We find 8 references are from Jesus himself, all of which are derogatory of traditions.

Nowhere does Jesus teach there is a tradition of men and of God.
He goes on to give an example of their tradition that went against Scripture. It was the written Scripture that was the authority for any other teaching.

Upon only 3 verses that have the word “tradition” in the Scriptures, Catholicism’s entire practice for traditions being of equal status with scripture are founded on these. Despite the fact that the same Scripture that mentions the word tradition makes it clear from both Jesus and the apostles writings that they are to be our source of life. So lets look at these Scriptures carefully and see what they say and what they do not say.

1) 1 Cor.11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; Here Paul states he is presenting in writing what he had previously taught them in person, that which I also delivered unto you.”

This pertains to the communion and how it is to be taken. So what he had taught orally was inscripturated, so there no validation for oral tradition here. Paul most likely learned of the communion by the other apostles as they fellowshipped and broke bread each week. However Paul learned more of this from the Lord and is the only apostle to write in detail about it.

2) 2 Thess. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

Both which were taught were the same that was written down. What traditions is Paul talking about? In v.5 Paul previously stated “ Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” This Paul says he already taught them in person but now is writing it down. Consistent with the rest of the teachings, everything said was written down that would be used to have one practice their Christian relationship.

He was giving them and us in writing what he had previously taught. Which was about the man of sin, to provide further understanding clarifying any misconceptions they had, Since the epistle starts off with the church shaken up by a false letter or word they received that the resurrection already taking place and they thought they missed out. So presently he is elaborating on the details of the tribulation and the falling away.

3) 2 Thess. 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (some translations have teaching, at any rate teaching can be passed on orally before it is committed to writing) which he received from us.” Again if we go further we find what is being said which proves all should be read in its context. V.10 “for even when we were with you we commanded you this, If anyone does not work neither shall they eat.” It was the same thing by personal word or by letter. They showed this teaching by example as they were with the Corinthians and he put in writing what he had taught them earlier. This way they would not forget or corrupt it after his death.

None of these scriptures have any relationship to the traditions presently taught and practiced in the Roman Catholic Church. Further no one has ever documented any specific teaching to be accredited to Paul in their traditions. Obviously not everything the apostles “said” is written down but the doctrines are. So there is nothing spoken that was not written that we would need to know about salvation and living. For example Paul says in 1 Cor.15:1 “Moreover brethren I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you...” Here it is written out.

The only revelation we have today is the same committed to the apostles that was written down, this was what the church accepted and practiced after the apostles, that which was written, not what is spoken. The same Paul who is claimed to write of traditions specifically tell us in 1 Cor.4:6 “do not go beyond what is written.” How could he do this if he approved of the apostles oral teaching alongside the writings? He couldn't. That is why what was taught was penned on paper, pointing to the Scripture as our final authority.

Every time the Pharisees the religious men brought up traditions as equal to the Scripture Jesus brought them to the word. This is why he called them the traditions of men because they did not come from God but by religious men who no longer intended to obey the word.

In Acts 20:29 Paul warns the Ephesian elders about savage wolves that would come after his departure. It would unlikely to think that Paul did not put in writing what the Holy Spirit inspired as teaching to all the churches. It would be much easier to distort what is orally handed down and left up to individual re-translating.

As time would go on generations would pass on memories that would be inaccurate to recall the original teachings by word of mouth. This is why God had Moses write everything down in the book of the law, so there would be no question what was said, any mistakes would be minimized. If God did so in the Old Testament would he change this policy in the new. Jesus pointed to the Old Testament word. The early church pointed to the word written as well.

When we look at the examples of tradition in the Scripture we find its purpose does the very opposite of the word written. If the traditions the Catholics hold are suppose to be a body of teaching that was passed down by the apostles oral tradition, why are they written down? Why are they not included in the bible if they are written down. After all they are suppose to be apostolic teaching.

Catholics “Sacred Tradition” becomes invalid if in any point it contradicts the Bible. Catholic teachings of purgatory, penance, indulgences, Mass, praying the rosary, praying to saints and Mary, wearing scapulars, are not found in the Scripture and they contradict scriptures teachings. Any verses found to validate these by Catholics are always subject to being redefined or pulled from its actual context. The Catholic Church has used their Traditions to make them equal to word when. The fact is that God says nothing has this kind of authority except the word itself.

In the New Testament Period Jesus whole ministry was a contention with the Pharisees traditions. They wanted him to validate and approve what they called the tradition of the elders (fathers) Mk.7:1-9 Mt.15:1-4 contention grew between Jesus and the religious leaders as they wanted his approval of their traditions to be considered equal with Scripture. Jesus was clear he was not going to approve of their traditions saying you lay aside the commandment of God and hold higher the tradition of men.”

They challenged Jesus on the cleansing rituals. Jesus responded its not cleansing from the outside, but mans heart from the inside is what needs the cleansing. The Pharisee’s set up a barrier between God and man making the commandments of no effect because they stopped people from seeing the word of God. Jesus always brought their traditions to the ultimate authority the word of God. Mk.7: “These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me and in vain they worship me teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.” By adding traditions alongside the word they watered down the truth This is why Jesus quoted Mt.11:28 “Come to ME all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you REST.”

The Pharisees laws were burdens that God never intended, it brought the people into bondage because it went beyond Scripture and was never intended to do what God inspired to be written. Nowhere is it written to continue to have traditions by word of mouth after the apostles.

Not once did Jesus speak well about traditions, Neither did Paul as he said in Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, And Not After Christ.” He said to” let the word of God dwell in you richly.”

It is the word of God that is living and active (Hebrews 4:12) to change one from the inside, traditions can never be a alternative or of equal value to what God has spoken and written down for all generations to live by.

Not once does he insinuate they are useful or scriptural. Paul has 5 references, 2 of which are derogatory (Col.2:8; Gal.1:14). Peter also has one reference also derogatory 1 Pt.1:18. (the aimless conduct received by the tradition of the fathers).

Paul explains in Gal 1:14 “And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” Paul understood the differences of what tradition was and what was Scripture is.

Apostolic "tradition" guided the early 1st century church only until the Revelation of Jesus to John completed the New Testament in 96-97 A.D.

That Apostolic tradition was written down and became immediately, and is now Holy Scripture.

It was identified as "tradition" only during the sixty years between Jesus' ascension and the completion of "Revelation" finished God's Canon;" because before that time it was taught by word of mouth by the Apostles before it's written completion, recording it for all time and for all men.

With the closure of Revelation is the warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book:
If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy,
God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city,
which are described in this book.
(Revelation 22:18-19)

It mirrors the Old Testament warnings found in Deuteronomy:

"You must not add to or subtract from what I command you, so that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God I am giving you." Deuteronomy 4:2

"See that you do everything I command you; do not add to it or subtract from it." (Deuteronomy 12:32)


"Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar." (Proverbs 30:6)

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

When all you have is sola scriptura, a perversion of Holy Scripture, incorporating thousands of different interpretations, no history, no Holy Tradition; when you pick a verse here and a verse there, like they are magical talisman, and put them together, you create a new strange religion which is exactly what you have done. You are a false teacher, a heretic, a deceiver to the people of God. You are no friend of the Lord Jesus Christ. You are a fool because you damn the very thing you need to be a Christian possessing the fullness of the faith contained within the teachings and Traditions of the One, holy, catholic and apostolic church. You're ignorant because you cannot differentiate between the traditions of men and the Holy Traditions of which I speak. Holy Traditions mean that which is passed on exactly. What you pass on, the individualistic and different understanding of Holy Scripture, is precisely the traditions of man scripture warns us about. Rarely does one encounter someone as corrupted as you regarding the Christian faith. You need to be deprogrammed if there is any hope for you. You may have purposely tempted Satan at some time giving him permission to test your faith. That is one thing no one should ever do. It might, however, explain your phobia towards the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church because Satan hates her even more than you, and has tried, unsuccessfully, to destroy her from the beginning; he recruits people like you to assist him. That Church has our Lord's promise that the gates of hell cannot destroy her. We keep the faith, we do not compromise, and we will persevere. To you He might very well say, "I never knew you" You better get down on your knees and stay there until they look like they belong on a camel. I believe you and I are finally done!

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Padre,
You said "But in truth, Protestants are actually thousands of different islands unto themselves, all using the same bible all having different interpretations".

This is grossly false.

First Protestant is a broad brush that identifies cults in the same package as born again believers.

Everyone on these last few days have never met each or discussed indebth doctrine, with the exception of a few interactions on previous post. Before a few days ago I never met Rose, just yesterday I learned of the churches Balmer attended.
I prefer nondenominational churches such as calvary chaple, Rose if I recall a First Baptist, Balmer Assembly of God/ Pentecostal.
How can you explain that we never before have compared notes on what we believe........
Yet we believe the exact same gospel
We believe Israel became a new nation (re-birth) may 1948
We believe Israel becoming a new nation was in God's time piece or marker for born again believers to know we are the last generation of the church age.
We believe the antichrist will acknowledge a seven year peace plan with Israel which will mark the beginning of the seven year tribulation.
We believe God does not assign his believers to his wrath and will call born again believers to meet him in the air, and the marriage supper between Jesus (the groom) and his Bride (the church /body of believers) will begin while God focuses on Israel and his wrath is poured out upon the earth/rejecting mankind.

We believe Jesus is the final authority over the Church our mediator to the Father and because of the work Jesus did on the cross, the believer saved by grace, that we have direct access to the father. We don't need man, pastor, priest, apostle, pope but can speak directly to the father.
We believe the apostles were for a specific purpose and when the last one died so did the need for apostles.

We believe that man has but one chance in his life to accept or reject God's free gift of salvation and after death in the flesh judgement for hell (the unbeliever) and judgement of crowns for the believer. There is no second chances, no purgatory, no praying for the Dead.

We believe once saved, the born again believers name is written in the book of life and nothing he, man, nothing can take a born again believer out of God's hand.

Forgive me for writing this quickly without detail. It's not points to argue theology, rather a point that the Holy Spirit has taught us the same.

I feel like Pete and Repete giving this to Doc110 and Radiance3 several times.

Majority of all churches within the body of Christ have names after the city/town or emphasis on a specific doctrine. That falsely the Catholic church has labeled different beliefs or doctrine. One church emphasis is discipleship another evangelizing, another overseas ministry while another outreach to orphanages.
"a rose by any other name, is still a rose.

Then of course there has been division in a church over doctrine but what the Catholic church does not reveal is the division is not aggressive rather minor, having nothing to do with Gospel, deity, salvation rather should a woman cover her head in church? Who cares, that's not division within the body of Christ.

Let's repeat that many churches call themselves Christian churches that the Catholic church loves to include yet preach another gospel.

Last, let us not forget the prophesy that in the end days (end of the church age) there will be a falling away and just as Gods word said it would happen, many churches that once preached the word of God have compromised it to serve another God, the God of humanism, to be politically correct and to serve itching ears, the LGBT having become a herisy or the mega churches that have fully compromised the word of God no different than the current pope that recently stated there are many paths to heaven or that the Catholic church serves the same God as Islam (which Doc110 and Radiance3 are just fine with because the pope said it, then it must be right and from God.

Padre you seem far more even tempered and rational than Doc110 or Radiance3. If you read back over the last few months of postings that we interacted you may consider separating yourself... Just a thought.
We disagree but you engage. Thanks for that