-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
A
Hey, I just discovered the emoticon thing at the top of where I'm writing. I seriously never noticed that until now!
Now I can show that I'm either frustrated or my head is pounding
(or frustrated because my head is pounding)
That means I forgot to reapply sunscreen and I have a bad burn
This means I'm not feeling well
This means I'm half asleep
This means I'm wearing sunglasses to prevent my head from pounding later
This means my mechanic just told me what it's going to cost to fix my breaks.
This means I have jaundice, but I'm feeling optimistic about it.
Sorry to get off topic, I just never paid much attention to the toolbar and this is a new discovery for me.
Now I can show that I'm either frustrated or my head is pounding
(or frustrated because my head is pounding) That means I forgot to reapply sunscreen and I have a bad burn This means I'm not feeling well This means I'm half asleep This means I'm wearing sunglasses to prevent my head from pounding later This means my mechanic just told me what it's going to cost to fix my breaks. This means I have jaundice, but I'm feeling optimistic about it.Sorry to get off topic, I just never paid much attention to the toolbar and this is a new discovery for me.
So you in escence are saying more sin more grace?
The more we sin then that will prove we are saved,because we arent doing anything to "help" in our salvation?Or are you just pounding on this subject inorder to justiify what sin is in your life?
Or is there a balance of what we are responcible for and what God is doing in our lives through the Holy Spirit,By accepting the blood sacrifice that Jesus accomplished on the cross.
in other words,are you saying that since Jesus died for our sins that the 10 commandments arent aplicable to us ,and we can steal,murder,fornicate,break covenants(cheat on our spouses),worship false gods,etc.,AS long as we accepted Jesus in a church we're still going to heaven?
The more we sin then that will prove we are saved,because we arent doing anything to "help" in our salvation?Or are you just pounding on this subject inorder to justiify what sin is in your life?
Or is there a balance of what we are responcible for and what God is doing in our lives through the Holy Spirit,By accepting the blood sacrifice that Jesus accomplished on the cross.
in other words,are you saying that since Jesus died for our sins that the 10 commandments arent aplicable to us ,and we can steal,murder,fornicate,break covenants(cheat on our spouses),worship false gods,etc.,AS long as we accepted Jesus in a church we're still going to heaven?
C
"The Two Babylons" was an anti-Catholic religious pamphlet produced by a heretic, Alexander Hislop in 1853. "Hislop's Fables" later expanded in 1858 and finally published as a book in 1919.
It is has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty and a nonsensical thesis".
I guess God broke HIS OWN prohibition against images in Exo 25 when he COMMANDED Moses make the images of two cherubim for His Ark. As for bowing down in front of statues, you might want to see (Joshua 7:6-8) in which Joshua and all the elders of Israel bow to the ark with its statues.
Deut. 5:8 - God's commandment "thou shall not make a graven image" is entirely connected to the worship of false gods. God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped. Should we have burned Michelangelo at the stake? Perhaps, strung Leonardo Da Vinci up by the neck? Maybe we should have gotten to these guys before they learned how to sculpture and paint.
There is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, himself human" (1 Tim 2:5).
A mediator is one who brings estranged parties to an amicable agreement. In New Testament "theology" the term implies that the estranged beings are God and man, and it is appropriated to Christ, the "One" Mediator.
When special friends of God, angels, saints, and men plead our cause before God, they "mediate" "with Christ"; their mediation is only secondary and is better called intercession. Paul asked others to pray on his behalf many times. Between " God " and man there is one mediator, Jesus Christ, but between Christ and men there are many mediators.
A priest is not God, but the priest has the power to confer or convey the forgiveness of God, not by his own power but by the power that Christ conferred on his apostles that day recorded for us in John 20:19–23.
A priest’s authority to convey forgiveness does not come from himself. It comes from Christ. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the priest stands in the place of Christ to declare the sinner forgiven.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - The Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou."
This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood. 1 Cor. 11:24 - The same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.
It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm.
Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.
Besides, the doctrine of transubstantiation wasn’t invented until the thirteenth century.
The truth of a particular term should be established by what it means, not by when it was first used.
Transubstantiation was taught by the Church Fathers long before anyone had ever heard of the term.
The evidence in favor of the Real Presence in the writings of the Church Fathers is unanimous. In fact, it was not until Berengarius of Tours in the eleventh century that the teaching was denied.
The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice as in Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word, poieseis, regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar.
The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10).
It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time. In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial.
Saved by grace thru faith is a partial teaching. Jesus says you have to clothe the naked and feed the hungry as well, or else you rate everlasting ****ation. Matthew 25:31-46 has the entire story
It is has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty and a nonsensical thesis".
I guess God broke HIS OWN prohibition against images in Exo 25 when he COMMANDED Moses make the images of two cherubim for His Ark. As for bowing down in front of statues, you might want to see (Joshua 7:6-8) in which Joshua and all the elders of Israel bow to the ark with its statues.
Deut. 5:8 - God's commandment "thou shall not make a graven image" is entirely connected to the worship of false gods. God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped. Should we have burned Michelangelo at the stake? Perhaps, strung Leonardo Da Vinci up by the neck? Maybe we should have gotten to these guys before they learned how to sculpture and paint.
There is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, himself human" (1 Tim 2:5).
A mediator is one who brings estranged parties to an amicable agreement. In New Testament "theology" the term implies that the estranged beings are God and man, and it is appropriated to Christ, the "One" Mediator.
When special friends of God, angels, saints, and men plead our cause before God, they "mediate" "with Christ"; their mediation is only secondary and is better called intercession. Paul asked others to pray on his behalf many times. Between " God " and man there is one mediator, Jesus Christ, but between Christ and men there are many mediators.
A priest is not God, but the priest has the power to confer or convey the forgiveness of God, not by his own power but by the power that Christ conferred on his apostles that day recorded for us in John 20:19–23.
A priest’s authority to convey forgiveness does not come from himself. It comes from Christ. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the priest stands in the place of Christ to declare the sinner forgiven.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - The Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou."
This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood. 1 Cor. 11:24 - The same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.
It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm.
Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.
Besides, the doctrine of transubstantiation wasn’t invented until the thirteenth century.
The truth of a particular term should be established by what it means, not by when it was first used.
Transubstantiation was taught by the Church Fathers long before anyone had ever heard of the term.
The evidence in favor of the Real Presence in the writings of the Church Fathers is unanimous. In fact, it was not until Berengarius of Tours in the eleventh century that the teaching was denied.
The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice as in Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word, poieseis, regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar.
The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10).
It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time. In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial.
Saved by grace thru faith is a partial teaching. Jesus says you have to clothe the naked and feed the hungry as well, or else you rate everlasting ****ation. Matthew 25:31-46 has the entire story
exodos was written in hebrew not latin,
[QUOTE
The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10).
][/QUOTE]Again Greek Not latin
Catholic traditions are just that,Traditions
Wheather or not you (catholics) today or We (prodestants)today are worshiping the way the early church fathers meant us to or Jesus truely taught has been lost to time and counterfits,herisies,andtraditions in doctrine.
The only wayu to get to the way Jesus truely taught is to get into the ancient hebrew and caldea languages and poor over scripture just as the old rabbis did,
ntill then we(meaning all of us)_ have no room to call one another heritics or false doctrines
[QUOTE
The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10).
][/QUOTE]Again Greek Not latin
Catholic traditions are just that,Traditions
Wheather or not you (catholics) today or We (prodestants)today are worshiping the way the early church fathers meant us to or Jesus truely taught has been lost to time and counterfits,herisies,andtraditions in doctrine.
The only wayu to get to the way Jesus truely taught is to get into the ancient hebrew and caldea languages and poor over scripture just as the old rabbis did,
ntill then we(meaning all of us)_ have no room to call one another heritics or false doctrines
C
The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10).
May I take you to the Greek of Saint Luke? The English is not clear enough. "Do this in memory of me.", In the Greek Jesus says: " Offer this (what he has just done in his blessing of bread and wine and the breaking of the bread).
May I take you to the Greek of Saint Luke? The English is not clear enough. "Do this in memory of me.", In the Greek Jesus says: " Offer this (what he has just done in his blessing of bread and wine and the breaking of the bread).
Really,
The Catholic priest looks at the bread (wafer) and calls it Jesus Christ.
I'm not stupid. I know the piece of wafer is not Christ. Christ is in heaven. Christ is present with us by His Spirit. The wafer is just that, a wafer. nothing more nothing less. The priest waves his hand over it like it is some kind of magic changing it into Christ's flesh. Nuh uh, it doesn't. Open your eyes Catholics, and use some common sense.
only the Priest is allowed to drink the communion wine.
The average catholic doesn't get a drop.
So the average catholic isn't obeying Christ's command only half of it because it is bread only and not wine.
Sounds elitist if you ask me, that the priest gets to drink the wine but the average person doesn't.
The Catholic priest looks at the bread (wafer) and calls it Jesus Christ.
I'm not stupid. I know the piece of wafer is not Christ. Christ is in heaven. Christ is present with us by His Spirit. The wafer is just that, a wafer. nothing more nothing less. The priest waves his hand over it like it is some kind of magic changing it into Christ's flesh. Nuh uh, it doesn't. Open your eyes Catholics, and use some common sense.
only the Priest is allowed to drink the communion wine.
The average catholic doesn't get a drop.
So the average catholic isn't obeying Christ's command only half of it because it is bread only and not wine.
Sounds elitist if you ask me, that the priest gets to drink the wine but the average person doesn't.
C
The dogma of the Real Presence remained unmolested down to the time of Berengarius of Tours who died in 1088. Until that time, the real presence in the Eucharist was understood by all and taken for granted.
He made a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church.
The second controversy was opened by the reformation in the sixteenth century, when Luther was the only one among the reformers who still clung to the teachings of the Apostles and defended it.
He was opposed by Zwingli of Zurich who reduced the Eucharist to an empty, meaningless symbol.
The Council of Trent met the errors of the reformation with the dogmatic definition of the real presence in the Eucharist to oppose Zwingli's signum, realiter to Oecolampadius's figura, and essentialiter to Calvin's virtus (Session. XIII, Canon l).
John Calvin was seeking to bring about a COMPROMISE between the extremes of the Lutheran LITERAL and the Zwinglian FIGURATIVE interpretations, by suggesting instead of the substantial presence in one case or the symbolical in the other, a certain mean, "dynamic", presence, which according to Calvin>>> that at the moment of reception, the efficacy of Christ's Body and Blood is COMMUNICATED from heaven to the souls of the predestined and spiritually nourishes them.
Thanks to Melanchthon's pernicious and dishonest double-dealing, this attractive intermediary position of Calvin made such an impression even in Lutheran circles, that it was not until the Formula of Concord in 1577 that the idea was successfully rejected from the body of Lutheran doctrine.
Now read about Zwingli's signum, realiter to Oecolampadius's figura, and essentialiter to Calvin's virtus (Session. XIII, Canon l).
He made a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church.
The second controversy was opened by the reformation in the sixteenth century, when Luther was the only one among the reformers who still clung to the teachings of the Apostles and defended it.
He was opposed by Zwingli of Zurich who reduced the Eucharist to an empty, meaningless symbol.
The Council of Trent met the errors of the reformation with the dogmatic definition of the real presence in the Eucharist to oppose Zwingli's signum, realiter to Oecolampadius's figura, and essentialiter to Calvin's virtus (Session. XIII, Canon l).
John Calvin was seeking to bring about a COMPROMISE between the extremes of the Lutheran LITERAL and the Zwinglian FIGURATIVE interpretations, by suggesting instead of the substantial presence in one case or the symbolical in the other, a certain mean, "dynamic", presence, which according to Calvin>>> that at the moment of reception, the efficacy of Christ's Body and Blood is COMMUNICATED from heaven to the souls of the predestined and spiritually nourishes them.
Thanks to Melanchthon's pernicious and dishonest double-dealing, this attractive intermediary position of Calvin made such an impression even in Lutheran circles, that it was not until the Formula of Concord in 1577 that the idea was successfully rejected from the body of Lutheran doctrine.
Now read about Zwingli's signum, realiter to Oecolampadius's figura, and essentialiter to Calvin's virtus (Session. XIII, Canon l).
To the contrary, the earliest historical evidence of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
"No consideration of the nature of consecration or the precise moment when it was effected appears in the early sources. In the fourth century, however, the idea of a conversion of the elements finds expression. When that occurred, it became important to define the moment of the change." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107)
A plain and honest reading of early church writings pre-200 AD clearly show the bread and wine is taken as figures (symbols) of Christ.
The words anti-types, figures, symbols, all point to the symbolic, not literal, nature of the elements.
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)
For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)
Ignoring the fact that no bible verses teaches transubstantiation in the Catholic sense, early church writings don't teach transubstantiation either. A natural reading of the texts is that the early church regarded the bread and wine as nothing more than symbols. It takes a lot of imagination to draw out the R.C. doctrine of transubstantiation from the early church writings pre-400 AD.
It is thought that transubstantiation is a doctrine that grew out of the Gnostic controversies of the mid second century. The Gnostics claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood, it only appeared that way.
The bible easily proves transubstantiation wrong. After the said prayers, the priest regards the bread and wine as actually the body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine".
But even IF it is true that the Real Presence was believed from the very beginning as Catholics claim, let's take a look at the hypocrisy and false teaching of the modern-day Catholic church. In 1415 AD the Council of Constance decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This contradicts the Scriptures and earliest church traditions that they all drank from it. Frankly it contradicts the idea that Christ died for sinners. Surely sinners, not the priest, should be the first to have access to the blood of Christ.
When looking at history, we find a steady change of doctrine by the Catholic church from orthodoxy to apostasy, until even today the laity is denied the blood of Christ.
"No consideration of the nature of consecration or the precise moment when it was effected appears in the early sources. In the fourth century, however, the idea of a conversion of the elements finds expression. When that occurred, it became important to define the moment of the change." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107)
A plain and honest reading of early church writings pre-200 AD clearly show the bread and wine is taken as figures (symbols) of Christ.
The words anti-types, figures, symbols, all point to the symbolic, not literal, nature of the elements.
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)
For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)
Ignoring the fact that no bible verses teaches transubstantiation in the Catholic sense, early church writings don't teach transubstantiation either. A natural reading of the texts is that the early church regarded the bread and wine as nothing more than symbols. It takes a lot of imagination to draw out the R.C. doctrine of transubstantiation from the early church writings pre-400 AD.
It is thought that transubstantiation is a doctrine that grew out of the Gnostic controversies of the mid second century. The Gnostics claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood, it only appeared that way.
The bible easily proves transubstantiation wrong. After the said prayers, the priest regards the bread and wine as actually the body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine".
But even IF it is true that the Real Presence was believed from the very beginning as Catholics claim, let's take a look at the hypocrisy and false teaching of the modern-day Catholic church. In 1415 AD the Council of Constance decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This contradicts the Scriptures and earliest church traditions that they all drank from it. Frankly it contradicts the idea that Christ died for sinners. Surely sinners, not the priest, should be the first to have access to the blood of Christ.
When looking at history, we find a steady change of doctrine by the Catholic church from orthodoxy to apostasy, until even today the laity is denied the blood of Christ.
C
"was that befor or after they beheaded the guy who translated the bible into laymans language(english) in 1570?"
Jacques Gouet was tortured and beheaded in 1547, and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553. In England and Ireland, reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions, torture and executions.
Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death. Many were hanged, drawn, and quartered for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become protestant.
Matt. 13:24-30 - scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God's mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time. Your point?
Matt. 13:47-50 - God's plan is that the Church (the kingdom of heaven) is a net which catches fish of every kind, good and bad. God revealed this to us so that we will not get discouraged by the sinfulness of the Church’s members. Your point?
Matt. 16:18 - no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, Jesus promised that the gates of death will never prevail against the Church. Your point?
Matt. 26:70-72; Mark 14:68-70; Luke 22:57; John 18:25-27 - Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly. Your point?
Mark 14:45 - Judas was unfaithful by betraying Jesus. But his apostolic office was preserved and this did not weaken the Church. Your point?
Mark 14:50 - all of Jesus' apostles were unfaithful by abandoning Him in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they are the foundation of the Church. Your point?
John 20:24-25 - Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus' resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India. Your point?
Rom. 3:3-4 - unfaithful members do not nullify the faithfulness of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Your point?
Eph. 5:25-27 - just as Jesus Christ has both a human and a divine nature, the Church, His Bride, is also both human and divine. It is the holy and spotless bride of Christ, with sinful human members. Your point?
1 Tim. 5:19 - Paul acknowledges Church elders might be unfaithful. The Church, not rebellion and schism, deals with these matters. Your point?
2 Tim. 2:20 - a great house has not only gold and silver, but also wood and earthenware, some for noble use, some for ignoble use. Your point?
Jacques Gouet was tortured and beheaded in 1547, and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553. In England and Ireland, reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions, torture and executions.
Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death. Many were hanged, drawn, and quartered for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become protestant.
Matt. 13:24-30 - scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God's mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time. Your point?
Matt. 13:47-50 - God's plan is that the Church (the kingdom of heaven) is a net which catches fish of every kind, good and bad. God revealed this to us so that we will not get discouraged by the sinfulness of the Church’s members. Your point?
Matt. 16:18 - no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, Jesus promised that the gates of death will never prevail against the Church. Your point?
Matt. 26:70-72; Mark 14:68-70; Luke 22:57; John 18:25-27 - Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly. Your point?
Mark 14:45 - Judas was unfaithful by betraying Jesus. But his apostolic office was preserved and this did not weaken the Church. Your point?
Mark 14:50 - all of Jesus' apostles were unfaithful by abandoning Him in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they are the foundation of the Church. Your point?
John 20:24-25 - Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus' resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India. Your point?
Rom. 3:3-4 - unfaithful members do not nullify the faithfulness of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Your point?
Eph. 5:25-27 - just as Jesus Christ has both a human and a divine nature, the Church, His Bride, is also both human and divine. It is the holy and spotless bride of Christ, with sinful human members. Your point?
1 Tim. 5:19 - Paul acknowledges Church elders might be unfaithful. The Church, not rebellion and schism, deals with these matters. Your point?
2 Tim. 2:20 - a great house has not only gold and silver, but also wood and earthenware, some for noble use, some for ignoble use. Your point?
- Status