What is the one true Church?

[Webers_Home]

.
● Luke 11:1-2 . . He was praying in a certain place, and when he had
finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John
taught his disciples.” He said to them, “When you pray, say: yada, yada,
yada, etc."

When I was a little boy, just about every night at bedtime I recited the
classic lay-me-down-to-sleep children's prayer. In my opinion; a rote prayer
like that one is okay for getting kids started communicating with God.

In the beginning; Jesus' disciples were full-grown men physically. But they
were just babies spiritually. A prayer like the Our Father is a good place for
spiritually immature Christians to begin, but it's not a good place for them to
stay.

● 1Cor 13:11 . .When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child,
reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.

Now take Jesus for example. There is no record of him ever even once
praying the Our Father. In point of fact, when examining Jesus' prayers, it's
readily apparent that he typically prayed in a conversational style instead of
reciting rote. Two good examples of his style are located at Matt 11:25-26
and John 17:1-26. Jesus' style is the style that mature Christians are to
follow as their role model.

● Eph 4:15 . .We should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ

● Eph 4:11-13 . . And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others
as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for
the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to
the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to
the extent of the full stature of Christ

When people have been Christians for some time, and still reciting rote
prayers, I'd have to say that their spiritual growth has been stunted, i.e.
they're not developing properly because they haven't been getting adequate
nourishment.
_

 

[BreadOfLife]

@BreadOfLife PS... Jesus isn't only the Lord of the Sabbath... He is supposed to be your Lord as well, and not the church.

Jesus IS Lord of ALL – and He identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5, Eph. 1:22-23).

You CANNOT serve Him and reject His Church.

 

[amigo de christo]

JESUS and HIS CHURCH . not JESUS and what men say are HIS CHURCH .
The CHURCH of CHRIST dont contradict CHRIST . why would men have ever allowed
themselves to be called MOST HOLY FATHER , MOST HOLY REVERAND
WHEN JESUS Himself , when called good , said there is but ONE WHO IS GOOD .
GOD
AND WE KNOW WHO JESUS WAS AND IS . Rather odd indeed .
Rather odd indeed .

 

[amigo de christo]

JESUS himself never took those titles upon HIMSELF . SO WHY DO MEN .
MANY contradictions are taught by quite a few places WHO claim to BE HIS .
WHERE did JESUS ever have peter or anyone call HIM MOST HOLY FATHER , MOST HOLY REVERAND .
WHEN JESUS said we ought to LIVE as HE DID , well LIVE LIKE HE DID .
Many other contradictions to CHRIST can be seen in CERTAIN places that call themselves HIS CHURCH .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's way beyond time you stopped taking everyone else here on this forum for idiots... Or at least stop treating them as such. Your stubborn bluster and oft repeated assertions don't make something factual. Exodus 16 is not the first time the Sabbath is mentioned in scripture. I already posted above a direct quote from Genesis, but it seems you think that if you talk long enough and loud enough I will succumb to your arrogance and stop believing in scripture. Here is the same passage again... Maybe you will recognize this better...

KJV Genesis 2:2-3
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Rested...

07673 תבַשָׁ shabath shaw-bath’
‭
‭a primitive root; v; [BDB-991b, BDB-992b] {See TWOT on 2323} {See TWOT on 2323 @@ "2323c"}
‭
‭AV-cease 47, rest 11, away 3, fail 2, celebrate 1, misc 7; 71
‭
‭1) to cease, desist, rest
‭ 1a) (Qal)
‭ 1a1) to cease
‭ 1a2) to rest, desist (from labour)
‭ 1b) (Niphal) to cease
‭ 1c) (Hiphil)
‭ 1c1) to cause to cease, put an end to
‭ 1c2) to exterminate, destroy
‭ 1c3) to cause to desist from
‭ 1c4) to remove
‭ 1c5) to cause to fail
‭2) (Qal) to keep or observe the sabbath

KJV Mark 2:27-28
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Jesus is saying above that He was the one who created, made, the Sabbath day. Genesis tells us when. Jesus also tells it's that He made it for man. A day of rest to benefit mankind, a specific day, blessed and sanctified by Jesus Himself whereby gifting man a day in which to better relate to His God. Adam and Eve without doubt were the first to benefit from this. They were created at the very end on the 6th day. The following day was the day that was afterward blessed and made holy by Jesus as He walked with them in the garden, explaining their existence and teaching them to trust Him. That 7th day would have become a sanctuary for their relationship with their Creator. A day blessed and made holy, a day still holy and the subject of the 4th commandment which requires man to remember to keep holy. Are we to therefore forget to obey God on the say so of the church? What authority has the church to dictate to man what is right and what is wrong outside of written inspired revelation?
As shown above, the Sabbath was made at creation by Jesus Himself for the benefit of mankind. Israel was reminded of this later, but that wasn't the first Sabbath. And it wasn't established then for the purpose of giving manna, but to give Israel rest, and on the same day Jesus had blessed and sanctified and made holy for that purpose in the beginning which 400 years of slavery had obliterated.

Conclusion:
It is MY view – and the view of Paul that the Sabbath pointed to Jesus who fulfilled it (Col. 2:16-17).

It’s YOUR view that it does NOT point to Jesus - and that it will never be fulfilled by Him.

I see God’s plan in Scripture with its OT Types and NT Fulfillments.
YOU obviously don’t.

We’ve argued about this for years and I just don’t see us coming to an agreement on this.

 

[Brakelite]

Heya Grailhunter, how ya been?




were you?

But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is right and just, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

None of the crimes he committed shall be remembered against him; he shall live because of the virtue he has practiced.

Do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord GOD. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live?

And if the virtuous man turns from the path of virtue to do evil, the same kind of abominable things that the wicked man does, can he do this and still live? None of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered, because he has broken faith and committed sin; because of this, he shall die.

You say, "The LORD'S way is not fair!" Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair?

When a virtuous man turns away from virtue to commit iniquity, and dies, it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die.

But if a wicked man, turning from the wickedness he has committed, does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life;

since he has turned away from all the sins which he committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

And yet the house of Israel says, "The LORD'S way is not fair!" Is it my way that is not fair, house of Israel, or rather, is it not that your ways are not fair?

Therefore I will judge you, house of Israel, each one according to his ways, says the Lord GOD. Turn and be converted from all your crimes, that they may be no cause of guilt for you.

Cast away from you all the crimes you have committed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel?

For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, says the Lord GOD. Return and live!

Ezekiel 18: 21-32

Pax et Bonum

Seems to me there is no difference between the old and new. Repentance, obedience. And the gospel was first presented to Adam and Eve, along with a blood sacrifice, pointing forward to a Savior to come. The entire OT sanctuary service was the gospel in pictorial form, a type of the true yet to be revealed, yet the conditions of salvation remained the same.

Jesus IS Lord of ALL – and He identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5, Eph. 1:22-23).

You CANNOT serve Him and reject His Church.

Until the church is no longer His. Israel was rejected, the temple destroyed, because they murdered the Son. What manner of church is it whose policy was to murder His brothers and sisters?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Until the church is no longer His. Israel was rejected, the temple destroyed, because they murdered the Son. What manner of church is it whose policy was to murder His brothers and sisters?

Not sure.
Perhaps you can ask your fellow Protestants about that, whose ecclesial ancestors engaged in killing Catholics as well.

This whole “Murderous pas” of the Catholic Church thin is SHARED by Protestants.
There is PLENTY of blood on BOTH sides . . .

 

[Brakelite]

Not sure.
Perhaps you can ask your fellow Protestants about that, whose ecclesial ancestors engaged in killing Catholics as well.

This whole “Murderous pas” of the Catholic Church thin is SHARED by Protestants.
There is PLENTY of blood on BOTH sides . . .

I have no argument with you on that count. Churches as institutions don't have to answer to God for the policies set within them by corrupt sinful power hungry self exalting individuals. Individuals have to answer to God for their own sin... Protestant, Catholic, Islamist, Hindu, pagan and atheist. That doesn't stop God from removing institutions of they pervert and/or oppose the work of the gospel. God's purposes are paramount. Which is why I am not opposed to denominations as such...I have deep reservations about the growing idea we don't need church.
God is a God of order. He has chosen to work through man to spread truth and the message of salvation through Jesus, but the moment any such institution exalts itself as the savior and the only way to salvation, or promotes it's own traditions and teachings above the word of God, then said institution shall lose it's standing, be deprived of the Spirit of God working among it's members, and if there be any remaining within of the true people of God, they will be called out.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have no argument with you on that count. Churches as institutions don't have to answer to God for the policies set within them by corrupt sinful power hungry self exalting individuals. Individuals have to answer to God for their own sin... Protestant, Catholic, Islamist, Hindu, pagan and atheist. That doesn't stop God from removing institutions of they pervert and/or oppose the work of the gospel. God's purposes are paramount. Which is why I am not opposed to denominations as such...I have deep reservations about the growing idea we don't need church.
God is a God of order. He has chosen to work through man to spread truth and the message of salvation through Jesus, but the moment any such institution exalts itself as the savior and the only way to salvation, or promotes it's own traditions and teachings above the word of God, then said institution shall lose it's standing, be deprived of the Spirit of God working among it's members, and if there be any remaining within of the true people of God, they will be called out.

I agree with MOST of this – except the text in RED, where you are obviously referring to the Catholic Church. G
And God doesn’t “remove” His Church because He guaranteed it wouldn’t succumb to darkness (Matt. 16:18).

 

[Brakelite]

I agree with MOST of this – except the text in RED, where you are obviously referring to the Catholic Church. G
And God doesn’t “remove” His Church because He guaranteed it wouldn’t succumb to darkness (Matt. 16:18).

You disagree that traditions exalted above God's word is a sign of apostasy? Like Sunday sacredness for example...a tradition not based on God's word and exalted above sacred scripture.
I know that there is disagreement between us concerning the beginnings of the Catholic Church as an institution. What we cannot discount is the input that came from Constantine in introducing a syncretistic religion, melding together both pagan and Christian practices, which since has become not an uncommon characteristic of Catholicism in various places. Such syncretism is found in many parts around the world, and have developed to become a distinct sub branch of the Catholic faith. Sombalai think it's called in Brazil, and Haiti had a similar version, but can't recall it's name. I have seen such syncretism in my own homeland among the Maori people, with their own distinct ancient practices in remain to ancestral traditions and Catholic traditions. The catholicism of today which we see with the current pope and one encyclical in particular, Laudato Si, has strong elements of pantheism: finding genuine Bible Christianity among all these various Catholic persuasions and diverse cultural traditions is not easy, and almost unrecognizable. The Catholic condemnation of Protestant denominations compared to the pagan spiritualism so prevalent within catholicism is a gross misjudgment to my mind. In fact, everywhere catholicism found itself, it was willing to compromise Bible truth and permit the continuation of certain practices over the centuries so long as the natives adopted what the protests taught as elemental Catholic teachings, such as the Trinity, Sunday, and the eucharist. Oh and by the way, I have never read Hislop. Just in case you are wondering.

 

[Grailhunter]

You disagree that traditions exalted above God's word is a sign of apostasy?

I would like to have my cake and eat it too! I want it both ways!
Sola scriptura what does it mean? Do what the scriptures say? Don't do additional things....don't believe in additional things? Don't make up man-made sins? No matter what some of this is humorous.
Can Christianity be sola scriptura? Just a warning these are kinda trick questions because most of the time people do not know enough to be sola scriptura and usually when they try they error or are fudging on a number of points.
The Protestants realized that a lot had changed since the Bible and they disagreed with most of it.
So fundamentalism is a back to the basics approach to Christianity.... when you do that you throw out a good part of what the Holy Spirit taught Christians since the biblical era....But a lot of Christians like what the Holy Spirit taught us after the biblical era so they look over the fence and see the things they like and pull them back over the fence and pretend it is in the Bible or that it was always that way.
One of the biggest errors is to be sola scriptura of the Old and New Testament as in completely mingle Judaism and Christianity....I have the kind of sense of humor that I just think that is fun to watch.

So then people have to decide....total sola scriptura, depending how far you go with that it can produce a weird kind of Christianity. Here is some of items and it depends on how far you go into it. How much of it applies to you? I don't know...
Some? All? None? The funny thing, if the Bible says something they do not like or does not say what they want.....break out violins because they are going to start tap dancing.

This type of Bible Only’s do not consider science as real or correct.
Because of what the Bible says, they must believe that the world is flat and stars can fall to earth. That the earth is fixed, stationary on a foundation of pillars and the sun and moon and universe revolves around the earth.

And diseases are caused by the devil or demons. Mental illnesses are caused by demons and probably women that are affected with bad cases of PMS are caused by demons. And they do not pay much attention to documented history. If they do not believe this, and conduct themselves accordingly they are not true Bible only.

Because of their distain for science, if they get ill they do not call an ambulance or go to a doctor or hospital. But instead will pray and read the Bible. Maybe some home remedies. Using science to heal is offensive to some of them, thinking something other than God can help being sacrilegious.

They do not own a vehicle or a tractor, they ride horses and use horse drawn equipment.

Because of their distain or unbelief in science. They have none in their life. Their houses are built with saws and axes and hammers. They do not have electricity in there houses, then of course no electrical appliances or equipment. No A/C, no refrigerators, no TV. Running water comes from a hand pump of some sort. And probably entering into a building that had electricity would probably be considered corrupting themselves some how. So of course their churches would not have any of these either.

In accordance with the Bible they can have polygamous marriages and have concubines and can sell their daughters into concubinage. Because the Bible never states a moratorium on these relationships or actions.

They do not have to have wedding ceremonies because the Bible does not require a wedding ceremony to be married. Wedding ceremonies are definitely non-biblical and what would be considered as an additional belief.

The concept of lord and master over their wives is firmly in place and the submissiveness of the wives are required….. the status of females in society and the church are considered subordinates ….no teaching or preaching in church and no authority over any man. Many that subscribe to this do not believe in educating their daughters….maybe their sons too because the Bible does not discuss schools.

They are pacifists.

At best the Bible does not condemn slavery and the Mosaic Law regulated it. So slave ownership is permissible with sola scriptura.

Sunday as the Christian day of worship would probably be debatable.

Some in this group they do not believe in modern miracles, believing that miracles only occurred during the biblical era. So prayers, baptism, and communion is just something nice to do without expecting a miracle.

Christ said that the Holy Spirit would come and help us in many things. Christianity advanced after the biblical era. And I am not saying the Catholic Church was involved with these advances, but the idea that there are no additions and or improvements to the Christian faith is wrong.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You disagree that traditions exalted above God's word is a sign of apostasy? Like Sunday sacredness for example...a tradition not based on God's word and exalted above sacred scripture.
I know that there is disagreement between us concerning the beginnings of the Catholic Church as an institution. What we cannot discount is the input that came from Constantine in introducing a syncretistic religion, melding together both pagan and Christian practices, which since has become not an uncommon characteristic of Catholicism in various places. Such syncretism is found in many parts around the world, and have developed to become a distinct sub branch of the Catholic faith. Sombalai think it's called in Brazil, and Haiti had a similar version, but can't recall it's name. I have seen such syncretism in my own homeland among the Maori people, with their own distinct ancient practices in remain to ancestral traditions and Catholic traditions. The catholicism of today which we see with the current pope and one encyclical in particular, Laudato Si, has strong elements of pantheism: finding genuine Bible Christianity among all these various Catholic persuasions and diverse cultural traditions is not easy, and almost unrecognizable. The Catholic condemnation of Protestant denominations compared to the pagan spiritualism so prevalent within catholicism is a gross misjudgment to my mind. In fact, everywhere catholicism found itself, it was willing to compromise Bible truth and permit the continuation of certain practices over the centuries so long as the natives adopted what the protests taught as elemental Catholic teachings, such as the Trinity, Sunday, and the eucharist. Oh and by the way, I have never read Hislop. Just in case you are wondering.

You don't HAVE to have read Hislop to be pollute by hu manure because it has so permeated every tributary of Protestantism.
As to your charges of "syncretism" with paganism - then comparing it to Brazilian voodoo cults - this is just more of your nonsense.

For example - the wedding ring was originally a pagan symbol that was eventually "Christianized" - that is to say, the meaning was changed. The priest or minister likens the circle shape of the ring to God's eternal existence - completely chamging the original meaning of the ring.
Conversely, South American voodoo cults like Santaria mix actual voodoo belief and practice with Christianity.

Syncretism is a fusion of BOTH belief AND practice. It’s an acceptance of both,so YOUR comparison is a perfect n example of apples and oranges.

Finally – as to your repeated charge that Catholics “exalt” our Traditions OVER God’s Word because of Sunday worship – I will remind you once again that it is about what Jesus fulfilled and NOT about preparation for His coming (Col. 2:16-17).

 

[Brakelite]

Conversely, South American voodoo cults like Santaria mix actual voodoo belief and practice with Christianity

My point exactly, but not Christianity, rather catholicism. Christianity requires pagan occult practices to be cast aside and abandoned, and repented of. Catholicism baptizes them and calls them by another name, thus accepting and melding them with Catholic teaching. Your statement,

Conversely, South American voodoo cults like Santaria mix actual voodoo belief and practice with Christianity.

Syncretism is a fusion of BOTH belief AND practice. It’s an acceptance of both

is what I'm talking about. An acceptance of both. A toleration of sin and error so long as certain other essentials are practiced. They identify as Catholic. They attend mass. They have statues of Mary on their altars. And your Pope Francis is promoting such syncretistic Catholic/pagan philosophies in his current feverish working to bring together all mankind under his papal fascist authority, seen throughout his encyclical Laudato Si. What he is promoting throughout is a mix of Catholicism... His goal of global authority for the common good, and pantheism, the current induced fear over climate change, caring for "mother earth" (Gaia) being used as a vehicle for stamping his mark of authority over mankind.

 

[Brakelite]

His goal of global authority for the common good, and pantheism, the current induced fear over climate change, caring for "mother earth" (Gaia) being used as a vehicle for stamping his mark of authority over mankind.

 

[Brakelite]

Finally – as to your repeated charge that Catholics “exalt” our Traditions OVER God’s Word because of Sunday worship – I will remind you once again that it is about what Jesus fulfilled and NOT about preparation for His coming (Col. 2:16-17

That's contrary to the council of Trent.
The Reformers had constantly charged that the Catholic Church had apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant watchwords; and "The Scripture, as in the written word, the sole standard of appeal," this was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and of Protestantism.

Scripture alone or Scripture and tradition?​

"The Bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the Father," this was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in this issue.

There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates actually wrote to him that there was "a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal." But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claims of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill.

The Archbishop of Reggio​

Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio (whose speech is readily available online) came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone: "The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants' claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false.

PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges."

There was no getting around this, for the Protestants' own statement of faith -- the Augsburg Confession, 1530 -- had clearly admitted that "the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the Church" only.

The argument was hailed in the council as of Inspiration only; the party for "Scripture alone," surrendered; and the council at once unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the Catholic Church; and proceeded, April 8, 1546, "to the promulgation of two decrees, the first of which enacts, under anathema, that Scripture and tradition are to be received and venerated equally, and that the deutero-canonical [the apocryphal] books are part of the canon of Scripture.

At no time did the council appeal to scripture to justify it's Sunday concept, for throughout the discussion the appeal was to tradition, which in the words of the bishop himself overruled the declaration of scripture, for as he said, of the Protestants were obeying scripture, they would be keeping the 7th day as Sabbath, and on that basis affirmed the Catholic position as being the scriptures, interpreted by the church in light of tradition, which has thoughout history at times been contrary to the plain teaching of the Bible. Your constant appeal to the argument that Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath is meaningless. Since when does Jesus' obedience and righteous observation of the law, thus fulfilling all righteousness and meeting the law in obedience and truth, mean such an obligation is removed from men? Would you apply that same idea to the 6th, 7th, or 10th Commandments?

 

[Philip James]

Until the church is no longer His.

Hello Brakelite,

The Church is forever His, and cannot be overcome despite the failings of men...

Either the community that Jesus established through His apostles fulfills His promises or He is shown to be a liar...

If we are not partaking of the One Cup and the One Loaf that Jesus gave to His apostles, where are we?

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.

They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

Any call to abandon the community (Church) that Jesus established through His apostles is a call of the enemy...

Pax et Bonum

 

[Philip James]

Well my friend the Old Testament is not the Gospel.....Good New! Good New of Christ.

Ya know how would you measure change of a God? Do you think Christ would command Christians to kill all that breaths and do not forget the babies? Is that a Change?

God bless you mister!

And God bless you too!

The Gospel appears in the OT right from the beginning. The promise of a saviour made right after the fall..

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel



As for the destruction of 'all that breathes'. if Christ commands it, who are we to argue?

But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker,"Why have you created me so?"

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?

What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?

Pax et Bonum

 

[Grailhunter]

The Gospel appears in the OT right from the beginning. The promise of a saviour made right after the fall..

I would say that is a stretch. Can you find the word Gospel in the Old Testament?

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel

What do you think this means?

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?

God's ability to predestine...

What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?

In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction.

Difficult passage to translate from the Hebrew. And there will not be a whole lot of agreement on its meaning.

 

[BreadOfLife]

My point exactly, but not Christianity, rather catholicism. Christianity requires pagan occult practices to be cast aside and abandoned, and repented of. Catholicism baptizes them and calls them by another name, thus accepting and melding them with Catholic teaching. Your statement,

is what I'm talking about. An acceptance of both. A tolerat

My point exactly, but not Christianity, rather catholicism. Christianity requires pagan occult practices to be cast aside and abandoned, and repented of. Catholicism baptizes them and calls them by another name, thus accepting and melding them with Catholic teaching. Your statement,

is what I'm talking about. An acceptance of both. A toleration of sin and error so long as certain other essentials are practiced. They identify as Catholic. They attend mass. They have statues of Mary on their altars. And your Pope Francis is promoting such syncretistic Catholic/pagan philosophies in his current feverish working to bring together all mankind under his papal fascist authority, seen throughout his encyclical Laudato Si. What he is promoting throughout is a mix of Catholicism... His goal of global authority for the common good, and pantheism, the current induced fear over climate change, caring for "mother earth" (Gaia) being used as a vehicle for stamping his mark of authority over mankind.

nd under his papal fascist authority, seen throughout his encyclical Laudato Si. What he is promoting throughout is a mix of Catholicism... His goal of global authority for the common good, and pantheism, the current induced fear over climate change, caring for "mother earth" (Gaia) being used as a vehicle for stamping his mark of authority over mankind.

REALLY??

EVERY Protestant wedding I’ve ever been to – and I’ve been to DOZENS – involved WEDDING RINGS. As I explained to you before – this was a PAGAN SYMBOL that was absorbed by Christianity and given NEW meaning.

How man PROTESTANT vehicles on the freeway have the “FISH” (ICTHUS) symbol for Christ?

Well – that little symbol came from PAGAN Greece and was cop-opted by Christians who changed the meaning FOREVER.

The CROSS also represents several pagan gods including Bacchus, the Roman god of wine and revelry, Gee – how many PROTESTANT churches and neck are adorned with this symbol??

There are MANY formerly PAGAN symbols that festoon PROTESTANT homes and churches . . .
Christmas wreaths

Christmas Trees

Calendars

Days of the week

Months of the year

FORMER pagan symbols are just that: FORMER.
Nobody remembers or even tries to bring ANY importance to their original meaning.

YOUR sanctimonious objections are nothing more than your usual, patented HYPOCRISY . . .

 

[Brakelite]

The Church is forever His, and cannot be overcome despite the failings of men..

Mmm. By this I would imagine you mean Catholic Church... Pentecostal, Adventist, Presbyterian, Anglican, all of more modern times, and the Celtic, Syrian, Waldensian, Albigensian, Assyrian, Ethiopian churches of more ancient times who your church identifies as heretics, they have all fallen away I presume. You are aware that the word apostasy means divorce right? One cannot be divorced who at some time did not have an intimate amicable relationship. Your church teaches that OSAS is not a thing, and I agree. Why single out your specific church as being held true by Christ, and not others? Why could it not historical be your church that fell away from the growing church elsewhere throughout Asia, the far east, and Europe? Did not the teachings of Paul and Jesus also go to lands beyond the judicial reach, influence and authority of the empire? Before even that the empire became "holy"?

Either the community that Jesus established through His apostles fulfills His promises or He is shown to be a liar

Indeed. So how do you identify that community? Through scripture, tradition, or the say so of the community itself?