[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Why I Am Still A Catholic  (Read 19123 times)

Chicago Bear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Gender: Male
  • A Chicagoan Named Bear
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2007, 04:33:49 PM »
Doug, I've given you this before, but you didn't read it. For all of you fence sitters and line straddlers, there are only two types of religions in the world. False ones and the true one. Try and get that through your heads because only one has to do with real love of God.

   Roman Catholicism: A Biblical Analysis

         http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/rc.htm

  By: Brian Schwertley
Either the Bible will Keep you from Sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible

Rebel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Do I dare disturb the universe?
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2007, 06:01:16 PM »
Doug?  Wow . . .  I  can't  believe  you're  still  here!  And  just  as  stubborn  as  ever  too.  You  remember  me,  don't  you?  Rebel-rouser?  The  unruly  child  of  Geneva?  Yay,  now  I  can  get  my  Doug  fix  again!! :D

Quote
Matthew 16:18
 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

Uh-huh . . .  fascinating.  The  problem  with  using  this  verse  to  defend  your  pope  thing  is  that  it's  a bit  vague.  Just  because  Peter  was  a  major  founder  of  the  early  church  doesn't  make  him  a  pope!  And  even  if  (God  forbid!)  it  did . . .  where  do  you  get  the  idea  that  he  handed  that  authority  to  someone  else?  Did  he  actually  name  a  successor?  I  just  don't  understand  how  you  make  the  jump  from  this  verse  all  the  way  to  papal  authority  as  it  is  today.  That's  weird.  And  what  about  when  the  apostle  Paul  challenged  Peter's  behavior  at  Antioch?

Galatians 2:11-21
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

So  Pope  Peter  wasn't  always  correct?  Pope  Peter  led  potentially  dozens  of  believers  astray  from  the  gospel.  Pope  Peter  deviated  from  the  gospel  because  he  was  afraid  of  what  other  people  would  think.  How  did  Paul  know  Peter  wasn't  right?  Peter  was  Pope,  after  all.  Was  it  right  of  Paul  to  rebuke  him?  How  did  Paul  know  Peter  was  wrong?  What  was  he  using  as  his  standard?  Peter  had  been  part  of  Jesus'  inner  circle,  and  Paul  was  "as  of  one  born  out  of  due  time"  (I  Corinthians  15:8 ).  What  gave  Paul  the  confidence  and  courage  to  confront  him?  I  guess  he  wasn't  a  believer  in  papal  infallibility!  So  it  was  okay  for  Paul  to  rebel  against  Peter  (the  very  first  Pope)  but  it's  not  okay  for  Luther  to  rebel  against  Leo  the  umpteenth?  Don't  forget,  we  didn't  leave  the  Catholic  church;  y'all  kicked  us  out.

Quote
I am still a Catholic because of the beauty of Catholicism, beauty being truth in its most attractive form. It is the beauty of the images and stories of Catholicism which keep me in the Church, not the wisdom or intelligence or the virtue of the Church leadership. Beauty, truth in its most attractive form, is not weaker than prosaic truth but stronger. I am also still a Catholic because of the warmth of the social support which the Catholic community provides, most often though not always through the neighborhood parish...

I  do  appreciate  many  of  the  beautiful  contributions  the  Catholic  church  has  made  to  history  and  to  the  church.  I  appreciate  what  pagans  have  done  too,  even  though  I  know  their  accomplishments  are  merely  an  extension  of  God's  grace  to  mankind  in  general.  I  also  see  beauty  in  the  Reformed  tradition  even  if  you  don't,  sir.  But  beauty  isn't  enough  to  make  me  chain  myself  to  a  system  of  dogma  that  could  easily  lead  me  astray  without  a  second  thought.  I  will  never  be  a  hutch  rabbit,  no  matter  how  cozy  the  cage  looks.  I  don't  need  to  be  cuddled  and  breastfed  by  some  pope  and  his  henchmen  and  their  followers.  My  worldview  allows  me  to  stand  in  the  rain  even  when  my  own  people  turn  against  me.  I'm  wild,  you  know.  Not  like  a  tame  Calvinist.  If  chasing  the  truth  with  all  its  ugly  edges  means  living  the  life  of  an  outcast  pirate,  so  be  it.  Pirate  is  in  my  blood.  Remember  the  Sea  Beggars:  harsh,  ruthless,  idealistic . . .  not  safe,  but  good.

I'm  afraid  I  don't understand  you,  and  I  never  will.  How  can  you  be  content  to  have  a  faith  that  is  safe?  Even  G.K.  Chesterton  didn't  want  that!

You're  like  Aunt  Josephine  from  "A  Series  of  Unfortunate  Events".  You  don't  care  that  80%  of  your  house  is  overhanging  a  cliff.  You'll  never  leave  it,  and  on  top  of  that  you'll  never  use  the  doorknobs  because  you  don't  want  splinters  in  your  eyes.  That's  no  way  for  any  Christian  to  live.

Quote
I would agree. Accept that it's not the Church. There is only one true holy Church, and I'm sure you will agree with that. That's why we don't have the thousands of different sects that the Protestant have, all preaching something different. One Holy catholic Church agreeing with the magisterium and preaching what the Church teaches, not what each individual teaches.

I've  never  considered  the  inability  to  think  for  oneself  a  bragging  point,  O  prince  of  Rome  ;) 

I've  heard  born-and-raised  Catholics  say  that  there  are  thousands  of  differences  of  beliefs  between  Catholics;  they  just  don't  admit  it.  They  shut  out  the  possibility  of  division.  They  maintain  a  unified  front,  but  inwardly  they're  no  better  off  than  Protestants.  The  only  reason  you  don't  have  that  many  actual  sects  within  your  church  is  because  of  the  lethargy  that  pervades  your  followers.  They  have  differences;  they're  just  too  cowardly  and  lazy  to  do  anything  about  it.  The  sense  of  security  you  get  from  your  church  is  false.  Doctrinal  lethargy  is  almost  a  requirement  to  be  a  Catholic!  (with  a  few  notable  exceptions)

Quote
Doug, let me ask you a question. Is your Church a necessity for a personal relationship with God? Are we saved by our membership in your church? Do we need to be a member to be 'born again'?


Yes! You don't seem to have the propper respect for Catholic ecclesiology. Because whether you like it or not, for over a billion good Christians all around the world, the answer is yes. Absolutely, the Church literally is necessary for salvation. The Catholic Church body is absolutely essential to the ongoing progress of any Christian's sanctification, salvation, fellowship,service to God and maturity. The Catholic Church body is part of the ongoing process of an individual believer's salvation.

Is  that  your  mission  here,  Doug?  To  tame  the  wild  reformers?  You'll  have  to  catch  us  first   8)

Quote
Reformer, you wouldn't even have a bible if not for the catholic Church.

And  y'all  have  regretted  it  ever  since . . .

I  don't  know  why  you're  so  proud  of  that  fact.  it's  not  like  it's  the  first  time  God's  used  a  donkey.

Rebel
Until  you  find  something  worth  dying  for,  you're  not  really  living.

     "Deo  Valente"

Reformer

  • Affiliate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1824
  • Reformed and Evangelical
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2007, 06:25:33 PM »
Quote
Reformer, you wouldn't even have a bible if not for the catholic Church.

And  y'all  have  regretted  it  ever  since . . .

Rebel


LoL, had to laugh at that one!

 Rebel, the Rebel!!!!  8)

Good points, and Good to hear from you again. And to know that youth is not always wasted on youth   ;)

Rebel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Do I dare disturb the universe?
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2007, 01:29:48 AM »
Quote
Hello,
Iīm Brazilian.
I,m Catholic too.
I would like to participe this forum

"Goody!  More  Romans!"  as  Obelix  would  say. 

Quote
About the Truth Chuch. It is the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.

Funny,  there's  been  a  rumor  going  around  here  lately  to  that  effect.  So  kind  of  you  to  try  and  validate  it  for  us.

Quote
What Church still live in century I, II, III, IV... VIII, IX. Any Church reformed? No.

There  has  been  a  reforming  element  within  the  church  for  much  longer  than  most  people  think.  We  would  like  to  have  stayed  longer,  but  you  threw  us  out.  What'd  you  expect  us  to  do?  It's  not  our  fault  you  decided  to  break  away  from  us  and  turn  the  church  into  your  own  exclusive  Catholic  club.  We  didn't  abandon  you;  you  abandoned  us.  'Reformed'  is  the  key  word  here.  The  church  evolved.  Get  over  it.

Quote
If the Church Catholic failed, so Jesus lies because the powers of death shall prevail agains it.

Exactly!  That's  why  we  survived  in  spite  of  you  trying  to  kill  us!

Quote
I tm3,15.   if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This  verse  doesn't  exactly  have  a  label  on  it  that  says  "Roman  Catholic",  now  does  it?  Any  denomination  could  claim  that  this  statement  is  talking  about  them.

Quote
I Peter3,21.   Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Just  because  baptism  is  typically  included  as  part  of  the  salvation  process  doesn't  mean  it's  a  *necessary*  part.  The  thief  on  the  cross  received  no  sacraments  before  his  death,  and  yet  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  he  was  with  Jesus  in  paradise  that  very  day  (Luke 23:32-43).

Quote
Mt 28,20.   teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

There  is  no  mention  in  this  verse  of  an  individual  person  becoming  a  sort  of  vicarious  connection  to  Jesus  Christ.  His  omnipresence  alone  validates  His  statement,  but  besides  that,  Jesus  specifically  stated  that  He  was  sending  the  *Holy  Spirit*  to  be  with us  after  He  left  (John  14:16,  14:26,  15:26,  16:7).  He  never  mentions  another  human  infallible  presence  on  the  way.  'Pope'  Peter  doesn't  count;  he  was  anything  but  infallible.  The  responsibility  to  teach  Christ's  commandments  was  given  to  all  of  us,  even  though  we  will  each  do  so  with  some  degree  of  imperfection.

Quote
II mac 12,45.   But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

We  don't  recognize  this  as  canon,  but  that's  another  story  (Doug,  don't  spit  out  your  soda.  That's  gross.) 

Quote
There is no Biblical support for not perpertual virginity of Mary.

[There's  a  fancy  Latin  term  for  the  above  logical  fallacy,  but  I  obviously  didn't  pay  enough  attention  to  my  Logic  professors  to  remember  it]

I  beg  to  differ.  When  questioning  the  deity  of  Christ,  people  pointed  out  that  Jesus  had  brothers  and  sisters,  which  implies  that  Mary  had  other  children  after  Jesus.

"Matthew 13:53-58
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. 54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. "

Jesus  was  the  firstborn  of  the  family.  He  had  four  brothers  and  at  least  two  sisters,  giving  his  family  a  minimum  of  seven  children.  They  had  to  come  from  somewhere,  didn't  they?  (Oops,  there's  that  fun  thing  that  adults  are  always  telling  us  teens  to  keep  away  from,  Casey!)  Ah,  I  guess  Mary  and  Joseph  didn't  stop  using  the  same  toothbrush.  Pity.

Don't  try  to  tell  me  that  those  were  Jesus'  stepsiblings  or  cousins  or  something.  I'm  not  gonna  buy  it.

  Also,  it  is  written  that  Joseph  "knew  her  not"  (Matthew  1:25)  until   she  had  brought  forth  her  firstborn.  This  implies  that  Joseph  did  (ahem!)  consummate  their  marriage  after  Jesus  was  born,  otherwise  it  would  have  just  said  that  he  "knew  her  not"  and  left  it  at  that,  or  specified  that  she  remained  a  virgin  all  her  life.  I  know  this  because  the  Bible  made  it  very  clear  in  II  Samuel  20:3  when  David  ceased  to  have  relations  with  ten  of  his  concubines  from  a  certain  point  all  the  way  up  to  their  deaths.  I  doubt  such  an  important  detail  about  Mary  would  be  shrouded  in  silence.

Quote
Mt 19,12.   For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

This  says  nothing  about  celibacy.  You're  reading  too  much  into  the  verse.

Quote
I Cor 7,34.   and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.

Wait.  What  was  that  thing  Tony  Warren  was  always  thunking  people  on  the  head  with  once  upon  a  time?  Oh  yeah,  context.  "Context,  context,  context!"  (Thunk,  thunk,  thunk!)

The  apostle  Paul  made  this  statement  about  marriage  and  singleness  in  general,  but  in  no  way  states  that  celibacy  should  be  a  requirement  for  church  leadership.  Peter  was  married,  after  all.  (He  doesn't  seem  to  be  living  up  to  your  ideal  expectations  as  the  first  pope,  now  does  he?  Tsk,  tsk!  That  darn  Peter!)

Quote
rev14,4.   It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb,

This  is  the  part  where  I'm  supposed  to  insert  a  snide  comment  about  Catholic  priests  defiling  themselves  with  little  boys  instead,  isn't  it?  Pass.  Too  easy.  This  verse  is  also  out  of  context.

Traditions? The protestantism is full of Traditions. Where is in Holy Bible the Sunday is holiday?

Oh,  I  won't  deny  that  we  have  our  traditions.  (Boy,  do  we  have'em!)  The  difference,  at  least  for  some  reformed  believers,  is  that  the  Catholic  church  has  doctrine  and  tradition  all  tangled  up  in  each  other  when  the  two  should  really  have  a  more  balanced  relationship.  Doctrine  should  influence  tradition,  not  vice  versa.  Tradition  should  always  submit  to  doctrine.  I  can't  think  of  any  denomination  who  hasn't  confused  the  two  at  some  point,  however.

Quote
False prophet: Lutero.

Friendly  suggestion:  Prove  it.  Just  because  someone's  the  father  of  Lutheran  dorkiness  doesn't  mean  they're  a  false  prophet.

Quote
True Christians try what people like you say, and we reject it.


People  like  us?  And  just  what  are  we?  Freaks?  Rebels?  Heretics?  Heathen?  All  of  the  above?  We're  part  of  the  body  of  Christ  whether  you  like  it  or  not.  Either  you  learn  to  work  alongside  us,  or  get  out  of  the  way!

Quote
Where is in Holy Bible ONLY Holy Bible is the maximum authority?

I  think  this  is  probably  the  main  area  of  conflict  between  Catholics  and  Protestants  and  the  reason  we  can't  come  to  any  doctrinal  agreement  (unless  we  just  ignore  each  other's  core  beliefs  under  the  guise  of  ecumenism).  I'll  work  this  one  out  in  another  post.  The  answer  will  probably  be  dissatisfying  to  both  Catholics  and  Protestants  here  because  it  has  to  do  with  that  horrid  worldly  stuff  known  as---gasp!---  logic.  *cue  dramatic  music*  Stay  tuned.

Rebel.
Until  you  find  something  worth  dying  for,  you're  not  really  living.

     "Deo  Valente"

Doug Johnson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2007, 09:05:37 AM »
Doug, I've given you this before, but you didn't read it. For all of you fence sitters and line straddlers, there are only two types of religions in the world. False ones and the true one. Try and get that through your heads because only one has to do with real love of God.

   Roman Catholicism: A Biblical Analysis

 

 Yeah, Right!   ::)

  That's what happens with a bad doctrine like Sola Scriptura. You can't analyse the Catholic Church.



Doug Johnson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2007, 09:07:09 AM »

"Goody!  More  Romans!"  as  Obelix  would  say. 

Rebel.

 Rebel Rouser! When is your first opening comedy show? ..Oh, was that it?

Rebel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Do I dare disturb the universe?
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2007, 10:57:58 AM »
Laugh  all  you  want,  Bead  Boy.  That  doesn't  make  my  arguments  less  valid.

You  can  analyze  the  Catholic  church  with  Sola  Scriptura.  It's  just  not  easy.  It's  a  problem  with  axioms.
Until  you  find  something  worth  dying  for,  you're  not  really  living.

     "Deo  Valente"

Dave Taylor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2007, 11:41:35 AM »
What Church still live in century I, II, III, IV... VIII, IX. Any Church reformed? No.

I'll go ask my Greek Orthodox neighbor and see if he can remember.   :P

Rebel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Do I dare disturb the universe?
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2007, 09:55:55 AM »
Quote
Toc. Toc. Toc. You is blind? Iīm Brazilian. Not Roman.


I'm  talking  about  Rome  as  in  the  Catholic  church,  not  Rome  as  in  Italians.  It's  a  play  on  Obelix's  words  about  his  oppressive  opponents,  as  you  know  zeggactly,  furpectly  well.   ;D

Quote
Better than Protestant. Reform? Not. Pseudo-Reform.

Yes,  ah--  you've  made  your  feelings  about  us  unmistakeably  clear.  Charming.

Quote
Many talk poor argument. Lutero was excluded and not the Catholicism.


You  made  the  split.  Lutero  was  "excommunicated"  and  left  to  fend  for  himself.  Did  you  just  expect  him  to  disappear?

Quote
In Centuries ago donīt existed Reformed Church.


Sorry  we're  late.  We  had  a  little  trouble  along  the  way.  Actually,  a  lot  of  trouble.  Church  history  is  dotted  with  small  pockets  of  resistance  to  church  dogma  who  usually  paid  for  their  reformation  attempts  with  their  lives.  They  got  squished  so  many  times  that  it's  a  miracle  Luther  finally  managed  to  get  his  work  off  the  ground.  He's  not  the  first  to  try.  There  were  others  before  him,  some  of  them  in  grave  error  and  others  coming  close  to  the  truth.  If  Luther  didn't  have  a  breakthrough,  someone  else  would  have  eventually.  It's  not  fair  to  blame  him  completely  for  rocking  the  boat.  We  happen  to  be . . .  well . . .  as  one  born  out  of  due  time.

Quote
Survived? from nothing? Aswer the question above.

I  wouldn't  call  the  Inquisition  nothing  (you  knew  that  was  coming,  didn't  you?).  And  the  Spanish  Catholics  once  condemned  the  entire  Netherlands  to  death  for  heresy  because  some  Calvinists  there  caused  a  ruckus.  Thousands  of  innocent  people  were  slaughtered,  and  it  took  the  Dutch  over  80  years  to  get  out  from  under  Spanish  tyranny.  I'd  say  we've  had  it  pretty  rough.

Quote
What Church Jesus talked? Luteran. Not until 1517. Pelagian? Donatist? Gnostic?

Tsc. Tsc.

Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  that  God's  church  could  be  made  up  of  members  from  more

 than  one  denomination?  We  have  Old  Testament  saints  who  died  long  before  Jesus 

was  born.  Where  do  they  fit  into  Catholic  tradition?  Are  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 

sweating  it  out  in  Purgatory  because  they  weren't  Catholic?

The  Catholic  church  didn't  even  exist  when  Jesus  said  that.  And  I  don't  really 

consider  the  early  church  to  be  Roman  Catholic.  A  lot  happened  between  the  apostolic

 age  and  the  reformation  to  make  your  denomination  what  it  is  today.  Why  can't  you 

just  admit  that  the  church  made  mistakes  and  picked  up  bad  habits  along  the  way?

Quote
What confusion!!! Baptism in process of salvation? Protestantism. Salvation donīt is

process. Santification is. If the Baptis is included not necessary?

Anything  worthwhile  has  some  sort  of  process  behind  it.  God  was  planning  salvation  before  He  even  made  the  world.  He  set  it  in  motion  at  just  the  right  point  in  history.  It  was  a  long,  detailed,  flawless  process.

What  other  conclusion  do  you  expect  me  to  reach  about  water  baptism?  Chances  are  not  every  person  who  received  salvation  received  water  baptism.  Deathbed  conversions  are  shaky,  but  they're  not  automatically  invalid.

Quote
The Thief was baptized because:
Ro6,3.   Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into his death?

He  received  baptism  from  Christ,  but  it  couldn't  have  been  water  baptism.  They  were  nailed  to  crosses!  It  had  to  have  been  a  baptism  that  doesn't  require  water,  maybe  the  baptism  John  the  Baptist  mentioned  during  his  ministry,  the  one  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.

Quote
Hello Mummy! Jesus talked about your apostles and post apostles and not any reformed. A

long time ago not protestatism.

A  long  time  ago  not  Catholicism  either.  Just  the  early  church,  full  of  sects  and  divisions  and  strife  and  mistakes  and  problems.  Kind  of  like  Protestantism,  only . . .  not.

I  meant  "us"  as  in  Christians  in  general,  not  just  reformers!

Quote
It,s not true. Jesus not give commandments to all of us, but your apostles. You talked:He  was 

sending  the  *Holy  Spirit*  to  be  with us after  He  left. In fact, the Holy Spirit ensinaments

are infalibles.

There  were  only  eleven  apostles,  and  Jesus  gave  the  promise  about  the  Holy  Spirit  just  to  them.  Yet  120  people  received  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  and  plenty  more  after  that.  That's  a  lot  of  extras  to  account  for. And  you  still  haven't  accounted  for  Peter's  fallibility  at  Antioch.

Quote
Itīs your problem.

No,  it's  your  problem.  You're  on  our  turf.  You  know  the  rules.

Quote
He.He.He. Lutero excluded this book and others because losed for John Eck. He called the

Jamesīs Espitole "weedsīs gospel". Poor Lutero.

He  was  quite  the  potty  mouth,  too,  or  so  I've  read.  Poor  Lutero  did  pretty  well  coming  from  a  background  steeped  in  dogma  and  error.  You  can't  possibly  expect  him  to  get  everything  right.  Good  thing  the  reformation  didn't  end  with  him.

Quote
Protestantim.


Har  har,  nice  try.  A  quick  Google  search  would  have  revealed  that  the  fallacy  in  question  is  called  an  argument  ad  ignorantium  (appeal  to  ignorance).  No,  I'm  not  kidding.  You  said  that  the  lack  of  evidence  against  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary  supports  your  claim.  This  is  an  argument  ad  ignorantium, and  it  wouldn't  be  valid  even  if  it  were  true  (which  it  isn't).

Quote
Explain it (if you can explain).

So  not  the  drama.

Quote
Ga 1,19.   But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

James (apostle) is the Lordīs brother.

List of apostles:
Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his

brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James  and

Thaddaeus;
We have two James. One son of Zebīedee. And the Other?

Acts 1,13.   and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were

staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and

Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.

Ops! James the son of Alphaeus? Wouldnīt be son of Joseph? Protestantism Mistery or Mary

knew Alphaeus.
Yeah,  big  oops.  I  think  you  have  your  Jameses  mixed  up.

James  Jesus'  brother  was  an  apostle,  but  not  one  of  the  original  twelve,  which  is  why  he  wouldn't  appear  on  the  roster  with  the  other  two  men  called  James.

James  was  one  of  Jesus'  brethren.  According  to  John,  Jesus'  brethren  weren't  among  His  followers  during  a  large  portion  of  His  ministry.  He  kicked  off  said  ministry  by  choosing  twelve  people  to  be  His  disciples.  These  twelve  eventually  became  the  twelve  apostles  we  know  so  well,  sans  one  (to  be  replaced  by  Matthias  later).  But  while  Jesus  had  the  twelve  following  Him  throughout  His  ministry,  His  own  brothers  didn't  even  believe  in  Him!  We  don't  know  exactly  when  they  were  finally  converted  (or  how  many  of  them  were  converted  for  that  matter),  but  we  do  know  that  James  must  have  become  an  apostle  later  because  he  was  not  one  of  the  original  twelve.  There  were  at  least  three  apostles  with  the  name  James.

Quote
The "until" mean time continued.

It  doesn't  either.  "Until"  means  "until" . . .  something,  in  this  case  the  birth  of  Jesus.

Quote
Ho. Ho.Ho. Jesus asked for us to castrate.

Ew.  You'll  have  to  do  better  than  that,  Santa  Claus.

Quote
Context is lack of protestantism.

As  if.

Quote
Poor protestant. He donīt know the Oriental Catholic Church have priests married. Celibacy is not a teological requeriment, but pastoral requeriment.
I  don't  follow  you  on  this  one.  Could  you  please  elaborate?  Oh,  and  he  is  a  she. 

*flutters  eyelashes*

Quote
Individuals erros are not in discussion.

I'm  sorry  the  irony  of  my  comment  was  lost  on  you.  To  play  the  pedophilic  priest  card  (as  some  Protestants  do,  shame  on  them)  would  not  only  be  a  cheap  shot  in  poor  taste,  but  also  irrelevant  to  a  discussion  like  this  one.  I  wouldn't  dream  of  it.  Of  course,  some  of  us  young  people  like  to  think  of  irony  as  any  words  or  actions  that  are  free  from  moral  obligation  ;).

Quote
Out of context because you want it? No, explain again. Lack of argumentation.

Revelation  is  full  of  symbolism.  The  verse  is  talking  about  martyrs.  Saying  that  they  didn't  defile  themselves  with  "women"  probably  isn't  referring  to  celibacy,  especially  since  one  of  the  main  evil  characters  in  Revelation  is  a  whore  called  "mystery  Babylon  the  great"  with  whom  the  nations  of  the  earth  'fornicate'  (but  not  literally).

Contradiction for principle SOLA SCRIPTURA.

No  it  isn't.  You  can't  escape  having  traditions.  It's  part  of  being  human.  Our  doctrine  is  guided  by  scripture.  The  scripture  leaves  us  room  for  tradition--  but  not  too  much.  It's  not  that  complicated.

Quote
Foolishness! The Catholicīs Tradition from the apostles.

Some  of  it,  maybe,  but  all  of  it?  Probably  not.  You  got  into  trouble  somewhere  along  the  line,  that's  for  sure.

Quote
Without reply. Logical.

Heresy: Sola Scriptura not encountered in Holy Bible.
The  case  isn't  closed  yet.  I'm  on  vacation,  sunbathing  on  a  nearly  deserted  island  in  an  immodest  swimsuit  for  a  week.  I'm  afraid  you'll  just  have  to  wait.
Until  you  find  something  worth  dying  for,  you're  not  really  living.

     "Deo  Valente"

Rebel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Do I dare disturb the universe?
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2007, 09:50:32 PM »
Quote
This is pure falacy protestant

Don't  be  cute.  "Roman  Catholic"  may  not  be  your  preferred  name,  but  it  is  correct.  If  it  bothers  you  so  much,  I  won't  say  it  anymore---  well,  at  least  not  very  often  ;)

Quote
Others? Wycliff was motived for others cause like politics. The English did not want french

priests.
John Huss did not defend same luteran tesis.
And before?
Where was the Church reformed?


You  don't  know  what  the  motives  of  those  men  were.  They're  dead  now.  They  can't  speak  for  themselves.

There  was  no  'church'  reformed.  They  wanted  to  be  with  you  and  work  within  the  existing  church.  They  didn't  have  to  form  a  'church'  of  their  own  until  they  were  cast  out.


Quote
The Spanish Inquisition dont it was Catholic. It was from State.
You donīt hear about Protestant Inquisition?

Sounds  like  a  group  effort  to  me.   ::)

I  know  about  the  Protestant  Inquisition.  I  know  about  lots  of  Protestant  misdeeds.  You're  missing  the  point.  You  said  we  survived  nothing.  That's  not  true.  People  have  been  trying  to  wipe  us  out  for  centuries,  and  we're  still  here.  People  have  tried  to  wipe  Catholics  out,  and  you're  still  here.  Maybe  both  were  meant  to  survive  the  powers  of  death.  Maybe  there  are  some  members  of  God's  universal  church  in  both  groups.

Quote
The Catholic Church is the Celestial Jerusalem out from her donīt have salvation. The Catholic Church is a one Godīs Church. or you defend the heresys of pelagians, gnostics, etc?

Now  that's  definitely  not  true.  According  to  Romans  10:9,  the  requirements  for  salvation  are  to  confess  with  your  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus  and  believe  in  your  heart  that  God  raised  him  from  the  dead.  Salvation  comes  from  faith  in  Jesus,  not  from  an  institution.  You  don't  have  to  be  'Catholic'  to  be  saved.  You  just  have  to  be  a  Christian.

And  the  Catholic  church  does  have  errors,  just  like  all  other  denominations  do.

Quote
Peterīs text talk about Imediate salvation.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,


Of  course  salvation  is  immediate.  No  one  denied  that.

Quote
Batism or save ou dont save. For us Catholics it save.

But  which  baptism?  You  say  you're  not  talking  about  water  baptism,  but  the  original  argument  was  about  the  baptism  sacrament.  Can  you  define  what  you  mean  by  baptism  if  it  isn't  water  baptism?  I  thought  the  sacrament  of  baptism  was  water  baptism.  It's  obvious  that  water  baptism  doesn't  save  you,  not  unless  something  else  goes  with  it.  I  think  we've  had  a  communication  problem.

Quote
Inácio de Antioquia. "Onde se encontra o bispo, se encontra a Igreja Católica.
Que é a Igreja de Cristo"

Whew!  Hooray  for  online  translators.

Quote
In fact, where it did not have divisions, problems because all was united in Catholic Church. out of her: pelagians. novacians, arians, donatists...

But  Catholic  didn't  mean  then  what  it  does  now.  You  all  decided  to  turn  it  into  a  [very  large,  bossy  and  powerful]  sect.  Things  were  different  then.

Quote
First, they were Twelve. See: Acts 1,26.   And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

That  happened  after  Jesus'  ascension,  after  He'd  given  the  promise.  There  were  only  eleven  apostles  at  the  time  of  His  ascension.

Quote
You is confunded Infability with impecablility. Peter is infalible when teaches about faith and moral.


No,  Peter  by  his  behavior  was  teaching  the  inferiority  of  Gentile  believers  to  Jewish  believers,  and  Paul  set  him  straight.  Peter  was  putting  a  faulty  doctrine  into  practice  (even  though  he  knew  better)  and  others  followed  him.  No  way  am  I  entrusting  my  spiritual  well-being  to  someone  who  can  lead  me  astray;  I  do  a  good  enough  job  getting  into  trouble  all  on  my  own.

Quote
If he to maked a mistake with James he to maked a mistake with the others too. yet others errors

So  what?  He  wasn't  asserting  *his*  infallibility.  The  reformation  movement  doesn't  depend  on  Luther.  It  depends  on  the  Bible.  Luther  was  just  a  messenger.  I'm  sure  he'd  be  the  first  to  tell  you  that  if  he  were  here.


Quote
Where is this in the Holy Bible? Sola Scriptura ONLY.

Sorry,  I  thought  you  knew  where  it  was.

Quote
James can have united at apostles during Jesus ministery. The Holy Bible dont express when

all apostles add to Jesus.
Pure hipotesis.


Not  quite.  John  6  and  7  make  for  some  interesting  reading.  Look  at  the  latter  part  of  John  6.

60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
 66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
 69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
 70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
 71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Jesus  is  addressing  the  twelve  that  He  chose,  right?  The  ones  whose  names  appear  on  the  list.  So  we  do  have  a  general  idea  of  when  Jesus  had  all  His  apostles,  and  their  faith  in  Jesus  was  affirmed  here  (except  Judas,  whom  Jesus  singled  out  as  a  traitor). 

Now,  John  7:
 1After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
 2Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand.
 3His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
 4For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
 5For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Here  we  have  Jesus'  brothers  being  identified  among  the  unbelievers  *after*  the  twelve  were  already  chosen.  You  can  almost  hear  the  sarcasm  dripping  in  their  voices  as  they  tell  Jesus  to  put  on  a  real  show  for  those  disciples  of  His.  Then  at  least  they'd  have  *something*  to  believe  in.

Anyway,  the  main  point  is  that  Jesus  had  already  chosen  the  twelve  and  His  brothers  weren't  among  them.  It  seems  they  didn't  even  believe  in  Him  at  all  at  the  time.
They  clearly  didn't  become  disciples  until  sometime  after  the  twelve  were  chosen.  James  Jesus'  brother  can't  be  one  of  the  guys  on  that  list.

Quote
You dont knows the gospel in language greek?

I  admit  I  am  a  little  rusty.  I  studied  NT  Greek  when  I  was  twelve.  That  was  five  years  ago.

Quote
See:

Mt 1,25.   but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

1,25.   kai ouk eginwsken authn ewV ou eteken ton uion authV ton prwtotokon kai ekalesen to

onoma autou ihsoun

ewV=until

Mt 28,20.   teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you

always, to the close of the age."
Mt 28, 20.   didaskonteV autouV threin panta osa eneteilamhn umin kai idou egw meq umwn

eimi pasaV taV hmeraV ewV thV sunteleiaV tou aiwnoV amhn

ewV=until
II sm 6,23.   And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
II sm 6,23.   kai th melcol qugatri saoul ouk egeneto paidion ewV thV hmeraV tou apoqanein

authn

ewV=until

Protestant Tesis: Michal have childs after your death.
hahahahahahahahahhahahahahah a hahahhahahahahhahah   


Okay,  now  you're  just  being  silly.  Jesus  specifically  said  He  would  "always"  be  with  them  along  with  His  promise  to  be  with  them  to  the  end  of  the  age.  The  "always"  extends  the  promise  into  eternity.  We  have  no  such  assurance  about  Mary's  virginity  lasting  that  long.  We  know  that  Michal  didn't  have  children  after  her  death  because  that's  impossible.  (Duh.)  But  if  the  had  passage  read,  "Michal  had  no  child  until  the  thirtieth  year  of  David's  reign"  or  something,  we  would  conclude  that  she  did  have  a  child  after  that  time.  Such  is  the  case  with  Mary.  It  says  Joseph  knew  her  not  until  the  time  of  Jesus'  birth.  It  would  be  appropriate,  normal,  and  correct  for  them  to  have  marital  relations  after  that  time.  You'd  have  to  have  preconceived  notions  of  perpetual  virginity  to  ever  come  to  the  conclusion  from  this  passage  that  he  never  knew  her,  ever,  especially  when  the  Bible  mentions  Jesus  having  brothers  and  sisters.

Quote
Where is in the Holy Bible 25 december is Christmas?

I  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  December  25th  is  Jesus'  birthday.  I  don't  even  like  Christmas  all  that  much.  You're  the  one  going   "ho  ho  ho"  in  the  middle  of  January. :P 

Quote
Exist the Orthodox Churchs and Catolic Oriental Churchs. The orthodox priests are married and Catholic Oriental Churchs too.

Okay,  but  how  does  that  figure  into  the  argument  for  celibacy?  Work  with  me  here.  This  is  really  interesting  stuff.

Quote
Protestants pedophilics exist too.

You're  missing  the  point  again.  The  comment  was  directed  towards  some  Protestants  who  would  (erroneously)  use  that  fact  in  their  argument  against  catholicism.  It's  a  very  poor  tactic,  but  it  appears  to  be  popular.  I  was  highlighting  this  problem  with  a  dose  of  sarcasm  in  hopes  of  discouraging  some  people  from  doing  it  anymore.  Do  you  understand?  I'm  sorry  if  I  confused  you.

Quote
You talked: ""women"  probably  isn't  referring  to  celibacy""
"Probably" dont is certainty.

Lack argumentation.

I  hate  to  do  this,  but . . .  tu  quoque.  You  don't  have  certainty  either.  I'd  rather  have  lack  argumentation  than  weak  argumentation.  The  verse  is  swimming  in  a  book  full  of  symbolic  references  to  fornication  and  defilement,  and  you're  going  to  tell  me  (without  anything  so  far  to  support  your  claim)  that  it's  talking  about  literal  celibacy?  Why?

Quote
you talked:"Our  doctrine  is  guided  by  scripture. "

Strange for a reformed. Lutero defended Sola Scriptura. You text would be: Our doctrine is guided by ONLY the scripture.

You  obviously  don't  understand  the  full  nature  and  implications  of  Sola  Scriptura.  Sola  Scriptura  allows  me  to  eat  chocolate  ice  cream  if  I  want  to,  but  not  to  steal  my  sister's  ice  cream,  all  without  the  Bible  ever  saying  a  word  about  chocolate  ice  cream.

Someone  might  say,  "But  you  believe  in  Sola  Scriptura!  You  can't  eat  ice  cream  because  the  Bible  doesn't  say  anything  about  eating  ice  cream.  Sola  Scriptura,  you  dumb  Protestant!"

The  Bible  says  to  glorify  God  in  what  I  eat,  to  avoid  gluttony,  to  care  for  my  body  as  the  Lord's  temple.  Moderate  amounts  of  chocolate  ice  cream  give  me  protein,  calcium,  and  a  bit  of  happiness,  all  which  are  good  for  my  body  and  glorifying  to  God.  But  the  Bible  says  not  to  steal,  so  I  can't  steal  chocolate  ice  cream  from  other  people  even  if  it's  good  for  me  and  makes  me  happy.

Now,  if  a  church  decided  to  have  a  chocolate  ice  cream  social  every  month,  that  would  also  be  perfectly  compatible  with  the  Bible's  guidelines.  If  they  made  a  tradition  out  of  it  and  passed  it  down  over  a  hundred  years'  time,  that  would  still  be  within  the  guidelines  of  Sola  Scriptura,  since  it  doesn't  contradict  the  Bible  and  it  isn't  being  enforced  as  doctrine.

But . . .  if  a  leader  in  the  church  tries  to  impose  that  tradition  on  his  congregation  as  if  it  were  doctrine,  that  is  wrong.  He  is  giving  the  ice  cream  social  an  authority  that  it  does  not  possess.  The  Bible  in  no  way  dictates  that  churches  MUST  have  ice  cream  socials  every  month.  The  ice  cream  social  and  the  Bible  are  now  in  competition.  In  such  a  case,  ONLY  the  scripture  has  the  right  to  claim  supreme  authority  because  it  is  the  word  of  God,  not  the  church  leader  or  the  100-year-old  ice  cream  traditions  of  the  church.  The  leader  and  the  traditions  would  be  forced  to  submit  to  the  Bible  and  make  the  ice  cream  social  optional,  not  mandatory. 

That's  what  Sola  Scriptura  means.  Sola  Scriptura=  scripture  alone=  scripture  alone  has  supreme,  infallible  authority  above  everything  else,  people,  traditions,  etc.  If  anything  comes  into  conflict  with  scripture,  scripture  wins  every  time.  That  doesn't  mean  the  other  stuff  can't  exist.  It  just  means  that  any  authority  in  the  church  has  to  be  derived  from  the  Bible,  which  is  the  only  ultimate  authority  source.

Most  Protestants  these  days  don't  seem  to  believe  that,  unfortunately,  but  I  do  with  all  my  heart.

Quote
Too bad.

Actually,  not  too  bad.  I  look  pretty  hot  in  a  swimsuit.

Quote
Petit Principio: Sola Scriptura in The Holy Bible. Not exist? Break petit principio.

Not  on  my  watch.
Until  you  find  something  worth  dying  for,  you're  not  really  living.

     "Deo  Valente"

Rebel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Do I dare disturb the universe?
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2007, 10:29:29 PM »
Hey,  that's  Eck  in  your  avatar.  Is  that  coincidence  or  are  you  trying  to  tell  me  something  in  connection  with  my  avatar  picture? ;)

Luther's  way  cuter. :-*
Until  you  find  something  worth  dying  for,  you're  not  really  living.

     "Deo  Valente"

Rebel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
  • Do I dare disturb the universe?
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2007, 10:37:11 AM »
Quote
The name correct is in portuguese: Igreja (Church) Católica (Catholic) Apostólica (Apostolic?) Romana (Roman)


Maybe  I  should  just  call  you  CAR . . .  vroom  vroom.

Quote
The History talk about him.

History  is  interpreted  by  its  biased  writers  and  readers.  Catholics  are  going  to  interpret  it  in  light  of  their  worldview,  and  Protestants  are  going  to  interpret  it  in  light  of  theirs.  I'm  sure  the  last  thing  you'll  ever  want  to  admit  is  that  Hus  and  Wycliffe  were  reformers  for  the  right  reasons.  Anyway,  to  attack  their  character  is  a  fallacy  ad  hominem.  The  truth  isn't  determined  by  the  motives  of  the  messengers.

Quote
Is easy talk about this. However, the principle Sola Scriptura never was defended for Godīs Church.

I Jo2,19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us. 


First  of  all,  we  didn't  go  out  from  you;  you  left  us  en  masse.

Second,  who  is  the  "us"  in  the  verse?  The  Igreja  Catolica  Apostolica  Romana  or  the  universal  "catholic"  church  made  up  only  of  believers  in  Christ?  I  already  know  what  you  think  it  is,  and  I  heartily  disagree.

Finally,  Sola  Scriptura  seems  to  have  been  taken  for  granted  by  the  early  church.  The  word  of  God  had  the  final  say  on  everything.
Until  you  find  something  worth  dying  for,  you're  not  really  living.

     "Deo  Valente"

SEEN_CHA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • Running the good race
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2007, 08:08:17 PM »
Reformer, you wouldn't even have a bible if not for the catholic Church. You know that, right? All of you Protestants know that.

  I will have to disagree with this statement that ALMIGHTY GOD could not give us HIS word if not for the catholic church. First let's not focus on who HE used to bring forth HIS word to mankind, but lets be thankful HE did. Secondly, may you see your error in limiting GOD, because the GOD I serve will get HIS will accomplished one way or another, chatholic church or not, GOD would have gotten HIS word to us.

                                                                                                            GOD Bless,
                                                                                                                   scott
GOD BLESS,
   SCOTT

RedeemedinHim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Gender: Female
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2007, 06:19:13 PM »
Greetings,
I've read, obviously, the lead post and only some of the responses.  To be honest, I will agree that this is probably one of the more sillier explanations as to why someone will remain in the catholic church.  It is an emotional reason and not a thought out or logical reason.

Doug Johnson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Why I Am Still A Catholic
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2008, 11:31:23 AM »
Greetings,
I've read, obviously, the lead post and only some of the responses.  To be honest, I will agree that this is probably one of the more sillier explanations as to why someone will remain in the catholic church.  It is an emotional reason and not a thought out or logical reason.


That's just your opinion, I could also say that what you've written is silly, but what does that acomplish. It's just chest-beating on your part. On the other hand, I remain a roman catholic because it is the one true Church. All others are just contenders or pretenders. The roman catholic church is the only church that can trace it's heritage all the way back to Peter. Can your church? It is the only church that has authority. That's a lot considering the protestant church is only a few hundred years old, and started by a bunch of rebels that were thrown out of the catholic church.




 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]