Ask Me Help Desk - Do dead people go to Heaven or Hell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

heh heh heh - got to start sniping eh? Must be running short of arguments!

No on both counts. But you seem to be.

Quote:

If you stop there without reading Jesus' explanation, then you are relying on your own private interpretation. I'll take Jesus' interpretation over that of any man any day.

Well, I've gone all the way through the entire Bread of Life discourse with you several times.

Again, Jesus is always talking about His Flesh when it avails to eternal life.

But He specifically says, "THE" flesh avails nothing.

Now, if He meant to contradict what He was saying, I believe He would say, "My flesh and My blood" avail nothing. Because throughout the Bread of Life discourse He says that His flesh and His Blood avail to eternal life.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

Actually, that is the teaching of the Roman Church. I posted a link to the information on here (cannot remember if it was the same thread) not too long ago.

Quote:

N0help4u agrees: yeah I am surprised he didn't KNOW that already!!

You must have left out paragraph number 847 which I have copied prior.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 847

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

But He specifically says, "THE" flesh avails nothing.

Now, if He meant to contradict what He was saying, I believe He would say, "My flesh and My blood" avail nothing. Because throughout the Bread of Life discourse He says that His flesh and His Blood avail to eternal life.

You cannot simply divide up sentences into parts and interpret them the way that you want out of the context of not just the sentence, but of the whole paragraph and chapter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

You must have left out paragraph number 847 which I have copied prior.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 847

I understand and the claim is that they are saved through the church though they don't know it. But let's look at what one of your "infallible popes" said:

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins... "

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
(Source: UNAM SANCTAM, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302)

Was Pope Boniface VIII wrong? Or is this a case where your tradition contradicts itself?

My opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that there are different perspectives on the resurrection.

One perspective if OBJECTIVE andETERNAL and the other is SUBJECTIVE and TEMPORAL.

We, who dwell on this earth have no ability in human logic except to consider the resurrection within the scope of TIME; ( temporal, with a beginning and an end). To us the resurrection is in the future. Could be today, but still, it's in the future and not now.

My opinion is that when a person dies they "exit time" and are in the eternal(which we can't even understand).

Scripture says that the resurrection will all be on one "day". We'll all meet together at that "time". From our perspective those resurrected are now "asleep". We don't have any relationship with them "now". Yet, their resurrection will be ours and ours theirs.

We don't precede them, they don't precede us. Therefore, they are NOT looking down from heaven on us. They have not entered into the judgement and not already separated to heaven or hell... according to our temporal perspective.

Heb 9:26-28
26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once , and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
NIV

(I am not a Chilaist and so see no value in arguing about another resurrection.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

You cannot simply divide up sentences into parts and interpret them the way that you want out of the context of not just the sentence, but of the whole paragraph and chapter.

I keep telling you that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

I understand and the claim is that they are saved through the church though they don't know it. But let's look at what one of your "infallible popes" said:

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...."

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
(Source: UNAM SANCTAM, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302)

Was Pope Boniface VIII wrong? or is this a case where your tradition contradicts itself?

Neither.

Which tradition do you think is violated here? Or do you mean doctrine? And where do you consider Pope Boniface to have erred?

1. The doctrine of Papal infallibility is not violated because Pope Boniface was not addressing the whole Church.

Papal Bulls must be taken in context of the situation in which they are addressing.
Pope Boniface was not speaking to the entire Church but to a certain group of French Catholics who were rebelling against the Church. Therefore, this was not intended as a universal teaching but as a warning to any Catholics who willfully disobey the Pope and the Church. And of course to any Catholics who wanted to create a schism.

2. The doctrine of Nulla Salus, no salvation outside the Church is not violated because he is addressing Catholics who are threatening to leave the Church. Not people who are not aware of the Church or her doctrines.

3. Every human creature is subject to the Pontiff because he is Jesus' vicar or representative. Jesus' gave him the mandate to "feed my sheep". This is true whether the individual is aware of it or not.

4. Recognizing that the Pontiff is addressing Catholics in this Papal document, the assumption is that "every human being" to which he is referring has not willfully rejected the Church and thus the authority of the Pontiff who rules over her.

So, no, I see no error here.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Neither.

You cannot wriggle out of it that easily.

Quote:

1. The doctrine of Papal infallibility is not violated because Pope Boniface was not addressing the whole Church.

He proclaims it under the authority of God, for example:

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: "There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God", but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth . Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Is your argument therefore that he was wrong, wrongly invoked the name of God and is therefore a false prophet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

You cannot wriggle out of it that easily.

He proclaims it under the authority of God, for example:

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: "There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God", but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth . Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Is your argument therefore that he was wrong, wrongly invoked the name of God and is therefore a false prophet?

It's a very simple argument which he is using to persuade the rebels not to separate from the Church and to submit to her authority.

He is simply explaining that all authority is from God. Therefore, if they resist the authority of the Church, they are resisting God.

Luke 10 16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Very simple logic.

Oh and it is absolutely true. Anyone who rejects the Church, knowing she is the Body of Christ and the Household of God, rejects God and is lost.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Its a very simple argument which he is using to persuade the rebels not to separate from the Church and to submit to her authority.

You did not answer my question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

You did not answer my question.

I told you before, I don't answer loaded questions. You'll have to be satisfied with my response. Here it is again so you don't have to research it.

Quote:

It's a very simple argument which he is using to persuade the rebels not to separate from the Church and to submit to her authority.

He is simply explaining that all authority is from God. Therefore, if they resist the authority of the Church, they are resisting God.

Luke 10 16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Very simple logic.

Oh and it is absolutely true. Anyone who rejects the Church, knowing she is the Body of Christ and the Household of God, rejects God and is lost.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

I told you before, I don't answer loaded questions. You'll have to be satisfied with my response.

I understand that you don't answer questions. Especially when you have no option but to accept that your argument makes that pope a false prophet. Your only other options are to accept that it contradicts your denominational tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintjoan

Response to TJ3

The popes are infallible.

saintjoan,

What would you say about Pope Honorius who was excommunicated for heresy.

Was the infallible Honorius in error, or the subsequent infallible Popes who excommunicated Him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintjoan

TJ3
Your example seems to make papal infallibility illogical, but our final authority must not be logic or the word of God, it must lie with the traditions of the church (Roman Catholic).
"The Spirit of truth guarantees that when the Pope declares that he is teaching infallibility as Christ’s representative and visible head of the Church on basic matters of faith or morals, he cannot lead the church into error. This gift from the Spirit is called papal infallibility." Handbook for Today’s Catholic, page 23

Ignore logic and the Bible for the sake of the Roman Church? But God is a God of reason:

Isa 1:18
18 "Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the LORD,
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool.
NKJV

That would mean that logic was give to us by God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintjoan

You forget that papal infallibility allows for the evolution of doctrine. Some examples of how popes have revealed new truths to the church (Roman Catholic) would include:
300 AD. Prayers for the dead
300 AD. Making the sign of the cross
375 AD. Veneration of angels and dead saints
375 AD. Use of images in worship
394 AD. The mass as a daily celebration
431 AD. The beginning of the exaltation of Mary; The term mother of God applied at the council of Ephesus
526 AD. Extreme Unction. (Last Rites)
593 AD. Doctrine of purgatory
600 AD. Prayers to Mary and dead saints
786 AD. Worship of cross, images and relics
995 AD. Canonization of dead saints
1079 AD. Celibacy of priesthood
1090 AD. The Rosary
1190 AD. Indulgences
1215 AD. Transubstantiation
1215 AD. Auricular confessions of sins to a priest
1120 AD. The adoration of the host
1414 AD. Cup forbidden to the people at communion
1439 AD. Purgatory proclaimed as dogma
1439 AD. The doctrine of the seven sacraments confirmed
1545 AD. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent
1546 AD. Apocryphal books added to the Bible
1854 Immaculate conception of Mary
1870 Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by Vatican Council
1950 Assumption of the Virgin Mary
1965 Mary proclaimed mother of the church

Then what you are telling us is that the popes have been changing doctrine of the Roman Church over the centuries, moving ever further from Biblical teachings. Is that correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintjoan

TJ3
Your example seems to make papal infallibility illogical, but our final authority must not be logic or the word of God, it must lie with the traditions of the church (Roman Catholic).
"The Spirit of truth guarantees that when the Pope declares that he is teaching infallibility as Christ’s representative and visible head of the Church on basic matters of faith or morals, he cannot lead the church into error. This gift from the Spirit is called papal infallibility." Handbook for Today’s Catholic, page 23

Close but not quite correct. I think you meant to say that our final authority must not be logic or OUR PRIVATE interpretation of the Word of God.

You see, the Traditions of the Church are the Word of God. Therefore our final authority is the Word of God as it is explained by the Church.

97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/newrep...eply&p=1214295

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintjoan

You forget that papal infallibility allows for the evolution of doctrine. Some examples of how popes have revealed new truths to the church (Roman Catholic) would include:

New truths? Veneration of angels and dead saints?

LOL!! Ok you got me!

The jig is up. You aren't Catholic. The list below is from an anti-Catholic website entitled

ROMES HERETICAL INVENTIONS
Rome's Heretical Inventions

For a while I thought you were a Catholic who simply misunderstood the Catechism.

Well, let me assure you, the Church does not teach new truths. Everyone of these truths is more ancient than even the Catholic Church:

The following references are from the Old Testament which is Before Christ (i.e. BC).

Quote:

300 AD. Prayers for the dead

2 Machabees 12 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Quote:

300 AD. Making the sign of the cross

Ezechiel 9 4 And the Lord said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem: and mark Thau upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and mourn for all the abominations that are committed in the midst thereof.

6 Utterly destroy old and young, maidens, children and women: but upon whomsoever you shall see Thau, kill him not, and begin ye at my sanctuary. So they began at the ancient men who mere before the house.

Quote:

375 AD. Veneration of angels and dead saints

Correction, the Church teaches that the saints are alive in Christ. It is only Protestant theology that teaches that those who die in Christ do not have eternal life.

1 John 5 13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

And yes we do venerate the Saints because even touching their bones can heal.

4 Kings 13 21 And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.

Josue 5 14 And he answered: No: but I am prince of the host of the Lord, and now I am come.15 Josue fell on his face to the ground. And worshipping, add: What saith my lord to his servant?

Quote:

375 AD. Use of images in worship

1 Kings 4 4 So the people sent to Silo, and they brought from thence the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts sitting upon the cherubims: and the two sons of Heli, Ophni and Phinees, were with the ark of the covenant of God.

Note that both the ark and the cherubims are images.

Quote:

394 AD. The mass as a daily celebration

Can't go to BC sources for this since Jesus established the Mass. But, the Apostles were already celebrating daily:

Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

Quote:

431 AD. The beginning of the exaltation of Mary; The term mother of God applied at the council of Ephesus

Again, this is traced to the Apostles.

Luke 1 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

John 2 1 And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.

Quote:

526 AD. Extreme Unction. (Last Rites)

James 5 14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Quote:

593 AD. Doctrine of purgatory

1 Corinthians 3 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
The Roots of Purgatory

Quote:

600 AD. Prayers to Mary and dead saints

The very first prayer to Mary is recorded in Scripture by St. Luke and it is an angel saying the prayer:

Luke 1 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

And again, those who die in Christ are not dead but have eternal life.

Quote:

786 AD. Worship of cross, images and relics

We venerate the cross, images and relics of the Saints. The Cross is of course a relic of Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 1 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:

Acts Of Apostles 19 11 And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. 12 So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.

Quote:

995 AD. Canonization of dead saints

Saints are alive. But yeah, that is true. Before 995, the Saints were canonized by the people based upon their prayers answered. These Saints were remembered by tradition of the faithful.

Quote:

1079 AD. Celibacy of priesthood

Close to the truth. But not quite true. Celibacy in the priesthood was already voluntary practiced in the time of the Apostles. It was in fact, recommended by St. Paul:

1 Cor 7 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.....32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.

However, the Church began to formally enforce the discipline in the Roman rite around the year 1000.

Quote:

1090 AD. The Rosary

True. Although priests were counting their prayers with beads and stones before Christ. And although the prayers and meditations of the Rosary are in the Bible. The actual entire Rosary was not put together until around the year 1000.

Quote:

1190 AD. Indulgences

No, actually Jesus makes a pretty good explanation of indulgences here:

Mark 12 43 And calling his disciples together, he saith to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury.

Quote:

1215 AD. Transubstantiation

Jesus explains transubstantiation here:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Quote:

1215 AD. Auricular confessions of sins to a priest

John 20 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Quote:

1120 AD. The adoration of the host

You must mean apart from the Mass. We have always adored the Host. St. Augustine lived in the early centuries and he said:

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

Quote:

1414 AD. Cup forbidden to the people at communion

True. That was in response to a heresy which claimed that communion had to be in both forms in order to be effective.

But Jesus said:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever

Therefore eating the Bread of Life fulfills the command.

Quote:

1439 AD. Purgatory proclaimed as dogma

True, but prayers to the dead that they may be loosed from their sins was taught before Christ as has been shown. And purgatory is described in many places in Scripture. Therefore, proclaiming the dogma simply confirms the ancient teaching.

Quote:

1439 AD. The doctrine of the seven sacraments confirmed

Correct.

Quote:

1545 AD. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent

Again simply confirming the Scriptural teaching:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Quote:

1546 AD. Apocryphal books added to the Bible

No, this is the approximate year that they were removed from the Bible in Protestant versions. The Catholic Apocrypha have never been in the Bible. What the Protestants call Apocrypha is what Catholics call the Deuterocanonicals. A completely different set of books than the Catholic Apocrypha.

The Deuterocanonicals have always been in the Catholic Bible and were first removed from the Jewish version of the Scriptures in 100 ad. The reason they took them out is because they were in the version used by Jesus Christ whom they detested.

However, Christians kept them in the Bible until the time of Luther. Unbelievably, Luther then proceeded to take them out. He also wanted to throw out St. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews but there was too much resistance to that idea so he was forced to keep them in the Bible.

Anyway, the Catholic Bible containing 73 books has been so since 300 ad when the Catholic Church canonized the bible:

There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul's time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
The Canon of the Bible

Quote:

1854 Immaculate conception of Mary

This is inferred from Scripture:
Genesis 3
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

and has been taught by Christians from the early centuries:
The Early Church Fathers believed that Mary was full of grace and thus sinless.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_imma...conception.htm

Quote:

1870 Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by Vatican Council

True. That is from Scripture:

Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Quote:

1950 Assumption of the Virgin Mary

Apocalypse 12 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

Quote:

1965 Mary proclaimed mother of the church

From Scripture:
Apocalypse 12 17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

Originally Posted by De Maria

Close but not quite correct. I think you meant to say that our final authority must not be logic or OUR PRIVATE interpretation of the Word of God.

You conceded yesterday that your denomination promotes man's understanding which is private interpretation. So are you saying that your denomination is wrong?

Quote:

You see, the Traditions of the Church are the Word of God. Therefore our final authority is the Word of God as it is explained by the Church.

They cannot both be - we have shown contradictions. God does not contradict Himself.

De Maria, I think that your problem is that you don't have a relationship with Jesus, you don't even know Him.
You may know about Him, but you don't really KNOW Him as you best friend, some-one whom you would confide in, before you you seek advice from anybody else.
But you DO have religion, BOY, do you have religion!
I went onto a Catholic website and was reading the Catechism, it truly is mesmerizing.
I can see how people want to accept it as truth, it sure fits with what Paul said to Timothy about the last days, 2 Tim 4
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
And as he writes in Timothy about the end time church,"having a form of godliness but denying the power there-of."
Where's the power in your church, when was the last time some-one was healed or delivered from demons or raised from the dead.
From the Florida revivals, the last count was 16 people raised from the dead!
Of course, you would deny that power, why, you might say, would God work miracles in a "Prostestant" Church and not the Catholic Church.
I will give you a hint, because His power is not there!
You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus, or else He will say,

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Get to know Jesus as your best friend, it's a must!

Peace.:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

You conceded yesterday that your denomination promotes man's understanding which is private interpretation.

Nope. Where is it written that man's understanding MEANS private interpretation. Are you a man? Do you understand the Scripture? Then you have a man's understanding of Scripture.

So your statement is proven false. Obviously, every Christian must have an understanding of the Word of God. And Scripture ITSELF commands that we must obey those men whom have been appointed our leaders:

Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

Quote:

They cannot both be - we have shown contradictions. God does not contradict Himself.

Read my comments which you quoted. I said that the Word of God is final authority. I didn't say that man's understanding was final authority. Obviously there can only be ONE final authority. But there can be many authorities at different levels. God has said that we must obey and follow the faith of our leaders as I've proven above. And there are many prooftexts which tell us that we must obey our leaders. Nowhere did I say that they were both final authority.

Sincerely,

De Maria