March 30, 2007 at 11:43 pm #7982AnonymousInactive
Where did the idea of Sola Scriptura come from?March 31, 2007 at 12:59 am #7983AnonymousInactive
At least you’re thinking (I hope)
That’s one of my points – The Bible is the Word of God – what else can compare even a little? Answer – nothing !!! (please don’t tell me that the Catholic Church gaves us the Bible)March 31, 2007 at 2:00 am #7984AnonymousInactive
Poop on Sola Scriptura it was created by Martin Luther in the 14 century as article says.March 31, 2007 at 2:15 am #7985AnonymousInactive
Well then Mr Know it all, tell me what YOU think is comparible to God’s written word!March 31, 2007 at 2:53 am #7986AnonymousInactive
Before being blasted for saying so, it is not MY Church, but the Body of Christ, who is the Head of the Church. With Peter, and his successors as the Vicars of our Lord.
That being said, and not knowing everything, but knowing where to find that knowledge, I did find the St. Charles Borromeo web-site very well constructed. Thank you Weather for sharing a good resource with everyone here. I found quite good the section on the Bible, it’s development and the divergences of the Protestants in the 15th Century to be a well written and scholarly. The booklet uses ample references to the Word of God, and replete with historical information. Most of all it is written so eveyone can understand it. Some of the more scholarly books I have read on the subject are very informative, but not comprehensable to those who have little exegetical training or backround.
For those who wish an honest discussion of the development of the Bible, the link is. [url:kpiaxljj]http://www.scborromeo.org/index2.htm[/url:kpiaxljj] Then click on the Tab labled “The Truth” Being from the “Bible Belt” The members of this congregation are more at home with the wide variety of doctrines and calumnies against Christ and His Church from “Bible Christians” even though many have hardened there hearts to God’s grace and the Teachings of Christ and His Church, people who seek God in all humilty and honsety will find this booklet something to ponder over. Others may benefit from taking their blood pressure medicine first, because it challanges the misinformation they have been fed from childhood about the Church.March 31, 2007 at 8:17 am #7987AnonymousInactive
Well t doesn’t surprise me thar Mr. LARoberts chimes in with his 2 cents on the “truth” as he knows it. Yet Mr. “how can I be wrong”, don’t evade the issue. Now that we Know that you think the catholics wrote the Bible, tell me the answer to my question. Who or which one wrote anything (you name it) that gets the credit for being the author of the Bible, that is has the very mind of God to give us this info? And I’ll bet you can’t do this simple request.April 1, 2007 at 11:16 am #7989AnonymousInactive
Mr LARoberts and Jon
I sent the following questions and comments to your website that LARoberts has and we’ll see what kind of answers they send back.
This is just FYI.
My questions sre about your claims to be “Tell(ing) You the Whole Truth About the Church and the Holy Bible?”
[quote:3tpb6p1r]I’d like to know how truthfull it is to make such a false statement as that in the first place when the evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite?
1 – you say that you believe in Jesus Christ and that you say He died for us Which IS the truth, but then your church teaches that we need a purgatory?
He took care of my sins at Calvary and yours too if you’d have faith in that. Why do you teach of purgatory?
2 – You teach that God can hear and will answer all of our prayers which is true, and there is Scriptural facts to prove that, but then your church tells us we can pray to Mary and others. Why is that when Scriptures tell us differently?
3 – Your Church claims to give us the Bible yet I find in the Bible that God is the author and finisher of our faith with the Bible as being sufficient as the means of teaching us about His ways. Then tell me what other “whatever” writings or its author that has this”mind of God” that can even compare with the Bible as proof of your Churches claims to back that statement up.
4 – I challenge you to tell me where I am wrong on any of my articles at my website, Biblically speaking. http://WWW.freewebs.com/gospellightmin/
5 My comment is simply – What are you goimg to do about these points?[/quote:3tpb6p1r]April 2, 2007 at 2:07 am #7994AnonymousInactive
[quote:1x93n2vi]I sent the following questions and comments to your website that LARoberts has and we’ll see what kind of answers they send back. [/quote:1x93n2vi]
Garbled and confused as usual, I don’t have a website. I do wish I had the time to spend building and maintaining one though. The questions you have asked have been answered, you have simply refused to accept them as anything but “Catholic Brainwashing” Books written by Former Protestants who have seen the inevidable truth that the only Church that has maintained itself since Christ Jesus is the Catholic Church you have labeld as Evil, without even reading them. I at least have read anti-catholic liturature from cover to cover, prayed for inspiration from the Holy Ghost before and after reading it, and found it to be contorted, filled with half truths when not complete falsifications, or simply uncredible.
What I will do is spend a little time each day this week composing repies to those items which you have rejected the replies to from myself and others, both here and on other websites that you have barraged, I will hopefully post the replies on or shortly after Easter. This week however I will be focusing any time I am not at work on contempating the great work of Christ over the observance of Holy Week. I’ll not be visiting Forums or Boards over Holy Week, so I can focus on our Lord.
I would ask you one thing Ron. Pray that your heart will be open to the truth, even if God’s truth turns out not to be what you expect it to be. Open yourself to the fullness of His Grace. I will not define for you here what that Grace and Truth is, we will let God show you that. If it remains without any manipulation of the facts on your side the 16th Century Christianity that you hold, I’ll continue praying for you. So look for my last reply to you on or after Easter, as I won’t be spending time on someone who asks and does not want to hear a cogent reply.April 2, 2007 at 2:59 am #7995About Catholics TeamKeymaster
I think he means he sent them into scborromeo.org.April 2, 2007 at 5:27 pm #7996AnonymousInactive
[quote:381a4nio]Garbled and confused as usual, I don’t have a website. I do wish I had the time to spend building and maintaining one though. [/quote:381a4nio]
You have to realize that to me you guys are the carbled and confused as I’ve tried to show all of you.
The questions you have asked have been answered, [/quote:381a4nio]
And not very well I might add. Sure there have been some attempts but that is mostly copied from sources such as “Catholic Answers” which doesn’t answer the main points just shows standerd Catholiic reasoning with the same unbiblical rationality that deceives those that swallow the lies in the first place.
you have simply refused to accept them as anything but “Catholic Brainwashing” Books written by Former Protestants who have seen the inevidable truth that the only Church that has maintained itself since Christ Jesus is the Catholic Church you have labeld as Evil, without even reading them.[/quote:381a4nio]
Excuse me but I don’t ignore any off them
[quote:381a4nio] I at least have read anti-catholic liturature from cover to cover, prayed for inspiration from the Holy Ghost before and after reading it, and found it to be contorted, filled with half truths when not complete falsifications, or simply uncredible. [/quote:381a4nio]
I don’t think that you are looking very hard for the truth, sorry but that’s how I see it and very clearly too.
[quote:381a4nio]What I will do is spend a little time each day this week composing repies to those items which you have rejected the replies to from myself and others, both here and on other websites that you have barraged, I will hopefully post the replies on or shortly after Easter. This week however I will be focusing any time I am not at work on contempating the great work of Christ over the observance of Holy Week. I’ll not be visiting Forums or Boards over Holy Week, so I can focus on our Lord. [/quote:381a4nio]
I’d appreciate that
[quote:381a4nio]I would ask you one thing Ron. Pray that your heart will be open to the truth, even if God’s truth turns out not to be what you expect it to be. Open yourself to the fullness of His Grace. [/quote:381a4nio]
I’ve already done that as I’ve already told you, now its your turn
I will not define for you here what that Grace and Truth is, we will let God show you that. [/quote:381a4nio]
I know what the Biblical grace is and how it differs from what Catholicism claims
If it remains without any manipulation of the facts on your side the 16th Century Christianity that you hold, I’ll continue praying for you. So look for my last reply to you on or after Easter, as I won’t be spending time on someone who asks and does not want to hear a cogent reply[/quote:381a4nio]
I’ll simply wait and check your answers with God’s wordApril 3, 2007 at 12:25 am #7997AnonymousInactive
[color=blue:2egopmjy]Your quote[/color:2egopmjy] [color=darkred:2egopmjy]We do it once a month so that it doesn’t become just a meaningless ritual [/color:2egopmjy]
[color=darkred:2egopmjy]SHAME[/color:2egopmjy] on you Ron if you think receiving the body and blood of Christ more then ONCE a month can become meaningless(you must of lost your senses),The body and blood of Christ should be received as many times as possible(daily would be great).There is a so called church in California that uses harden bread and Pepsi for communion and after the service a janitor sweeps up the crumbs on the floor and throws them away(can you believe that?)It’s true,anyhow it sad you broken away from the True meaning of communion.April 3, 2007 at 2:02 am #7998AnonymousInactive
Mr. Weathers says:
[quote:mereg92o]Your quote We do it once a month so that it doesn’t become just a meaningless ritual
SHAME on you Ron if you think receiving the body and blood of Christ more then ONCE a month can become meaningless(you must of lost your senses),The body and blood of Christ should be received as many times as possible(daily would be great).There is a so called church in California that uses harden bread and Pepsi for communion and after the service a janitor sweeps up the crumbs on the floor and throws them away(can you believe that?)It’s true,anyhow it sad you broken away from the True meaning of communion.[/quote:mereg92o]
Shame on me yet you tell me that you are actually eating the body and blood of Jesus…. that’s a crime in itself for the meaning of Jesus was/is to remember how He took care of sins in our place one and for all. Doesn’t Matthew 15:11-17 make any difference to you what Jesus said? Please save the sympathy for yourselves as you really are deceived in and by your church on this and sooooooo many other spots.
Again, I’ve tried to explain, all I can do is to ask you to look at my website where I take each subject and use Scriptures to show you where you are being mislead.April 3, 2007 at 3:11 am #8000About Catholics TeamKeymaster
Ron, if the bread and the wine are merely a symbol then why does Paul say in his first letter to the Corinthian that “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:27)
Sounds like a pretty serious predicament for something that is only a symbol!April 3, 2007 at 3:53 am #8001AnonymousInactive
But Jon that verse does NOT suggest anything about it being the actual body and blood of Jesus, does it. If I was to take communion unworthyly
then since He took my sins to te cross and I rejected His solution then I would have to pay for my sins and spend eternity in Hell.
That is very serious!April 3, 2007 at 7:11 am #8002AnonymousInactive
[quote:33vxmdis]But Jon that verse does NOT suggest anything about it being the actual body and blood of Jesus, does it.[/quote:33vxmdis]It does, actually. The idiom “answer for the body and blood” is a strongly worded way of saying murder.
It is creepy that Ron somehow turns the meaning of that verse a complete 180 degrees.April 3, 2007 at 12:42 pm #8003AnonymousInactive
Benedidt That verse from Jon
“[quote:269c03yk]Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:27)[/quote:269c03yk]
in deed who are the unworthy ones ? Answer – those of whom have rejected the only way of salvation and thus are going to have to answer to the God of wrath on Judgment day or before which is why verse thirty was added [color=red:269c03yk]
30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.[/color:269c03yk]April 3, 2007 at 4:37 pm #8004AnonymousInactive
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
[color=blue:1a4lvqb7]Am I missing something,isn’t this transubstantiation??[/color:1a4lvqb7]April 3, 2007 at 5:41 pm #8005AnonymousInactive
Views of other churches on transubstantiation
The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that the bread and wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. They have in general refrained from philosophical speculation, and usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a “mystery,” something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, they prefer to say too little about the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth. However, they do speak clearly of a “change” (in Greek μεταβολή) or “metousiosis” (μετουσίωσις) of the bread and wine.
During the reign of Henry VIII, the official teaching of the Anglican Church was identical with the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine, in defence of which the king wrote a book for which the Pope rewarded him with the title of Defender of the Faith. Under his son, Edward VI, the Anglican Church accepted a more Protestant theology, and directly opposed transubstantiation. Elizabeth I, as part of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, gave royal assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, which sought to distinguish Anglican from Roman Church doctrine. The Articles, declared: “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”
Anglicans generally consider no teaching binding that, according to the Articles, “cannot be found in Holy Scripture or proved thereby.” Consequently, some Anglicans (especially Anglo-Catholics and High Church Anglicans) accept Transubstantiation, while others do not. In any case, the Articles are not considered binding on any but Church of England clergy, especially for Anglican Churches other than the Church of England. While Archbishop John Tillotson decried the “real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion”, considering it a great impiety to believe that people who attend Holy Communion “verily eat and drink the natural flesh and blood of Christ. And what can any man do more unworthily towards a Friend? How can he possibly use him more barbarously, than to feast upon his living flesh and blood?” (Discourse against Transubstantiation, London 1684, 35), official writings of the Churches of the Anglican Communion have consistently upheld belief in the Real Presence. Some recent Anglican writers explicitly accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, or, while avoiding the term “transubstantiation”, speak of an “objective presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. On the other hand, others hold views, such as consubstantiation or “pneumatic presence”, close to those of Reformed Protestant Churches.
Theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church has produced common documents that speak of “substantial agreement” about the doctrine of the Eucharist: the ARCIC Windsor Statement of 1971, and its 1979 Elucidation. Remaining arguments can be found in the Church of England’s pastoral letter: The Eucharist: Sacrament of Unity.
Lutherans believe that within the Eucharistic celebration the body and blood of Jesus Christ are objectively present “in, with, and under the forms” of bread and wine (cf. Book of Concord). They place great stress on Jesus’ instructions to “take and eat”, and “take and drink”, holding that this is the proper, divinely ordained use of the sacrament, and, while giving it due reverence, scrupulously avoid any actions that might indicate or lead to superstition or unworthy fear of the sacrament. However, Luther explicitly rejected transubstantiation, believing that the bread and wine remained fully bread and fully wine while also being fully the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Luther instead emphasized the consubstantiation.
Many Protestant denominations hold that Holy Communion merely symbolically commemorates or memorializes Jesus’ Last Supper with the disciples; this belief is known as “symbolism”, “memorialism”, or “transignification”. Some fundamentalist Protestants see any doctrine of the real presence as idolatry, worshipping mere bread and wine as if it were God. Protestant churches that hold strong beliefs against the consumption of alcohol go so far as to replace wine with grape juice during symbolic Last Supper commemorations. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also referred to as Mormons), a restorationist sect, uses bread and water to commemoratively symbolize Christ’s body and blood.
Others, such as some Presbyterian denominations, profess belief in the Real Presence, but offer explanations other than transubstantiation. Classical Presbyterianism held the Calvinist view of “pneumatic” presence or “spiritual feeding.” However, when the Presbyterian Church (USA) signed “A Formula for Agreement” with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, both affirmed belief in the Real Presence.April 4, 2007 at 1:31 am #8007AnonymousInactive
Yes Mr. Weathers you are –
[quote:2es27svc]Am I missing something,isn’t this transubstantiation??[/quote:2es27svc]
Here is my article explaining in part why you are:
[b:2es27svc]Gospel Light Ministries
Article #3 – “Take This Body…”
With Easter being so much on our minds, my thoughts turn to the Last Supper and its meaning for us. More specifically, how are we to understand what Jesus meant when “He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me,’ ” a Bible verse taken from Luke 22:19. It would seem obvious that since Jesus gave His body on the cross that very next day, what Jesus said can be taken as a two part statement. In the first part of His words, He was referring to His body as Peter wrote in his epistle: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” The second part of what Jesus said would pertain to what we do today at communion, in remembrance of Him. But what exactly do Scriptures tell us as the significant meaning behind Jesus’ words?
Looking closely at John, chapters four through six, we gain these significant insights. Here, Jesus made some very picturesque statements in an attempt to make us understand the importance of believing in Him. We also see that His words often are spoken in spiritual meanings, not to be taken as literal meanings. For instance, after Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, His disciples brought food to Him saying “Master eat.” to which Jesus replied, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Now if we take His words literally, we’d have to wonder if He had a hidden cheeseburger under His robe. But two verses later, we are given the meaning of His words: “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” Likewise in John chapter six, Jesus speaks in the same manner in verse 35 : “Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty….’ ” verse 51 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ ” …. verse 54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” and finally verse 58. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” These verses cannot be taken literally because Christians today get hungry and thirsty daily, and one only needs to look at the obituaries to see that Christians die. Thankfully, Jesus again doesn’t leave us wondering because in verse 63, He says, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
If we take these verses, we can benefit further if we add the insights given in Matthew 15: 11 and 17 where Jesus states that what goes into the mouth cannot defile anyone, because it passes through the body, but rather it is what comes from the heart that defiles a person. (Naturally this applies to what enters the mouth can’t make one holy either.)
Fortunately, we also have in Acts 7:48 and 17:24 where we see the Bible clearly telling us that, “… the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.” If the words that Jesus spoke a the Last Supper meant that the bread was literally becoming His Body, then these verses, as well as the many verses that tell us that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father would also have to be discarded.
What is the true meaning behind the words spoken at the Last Supper and what we do at communion today? Like all of Scriptures, it isn’t what we do that counts, but rather it points to the Finished work of Jesus Christ Crucified. In truth, what we celebrate today at communion is simply done totally to reflect upon what Jesus did at Calvary, to be done in remembrance of Him. And thus, we too can shout the same feelings as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:2 – “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. ” So this Easter when we partake in communion, let’s not sin by making the same mistakes that Paul referred to in Romans 1:25: They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator– who is forever praised. Amen. ” But we rather should give to glory to Jesus Christ and what HE did 2000 years ago with His death and resurrection – which really is the importance of Easter Weekend. [/b:2es27svc][/i
You can have everyone and thier brothers stand up and say that they believe in Transubstantiation but I won’t treat a hunk of bread as my God
which as Paul once said about the Gospel – even if an angel says differently -anathema!April 13, 2007 at 9:47 am #8019AnonymousInactive
PERHAPS MY LATEST ARTICLE WILL HELP EXPLAIN –
Are we living in the last days? It’s very possible as Matthew 24:24 warns us, “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible even the elect.” So with this in mind, let’s look at how Satan has many idolaters practicing this very thing of which they defend as righteous.
Nelson’s Bible dictionary tells us that idolatry is the worship of something created as opposed to the worship of the Creator Himself. I think we can safely say that idolatry is whenever we have something between God and ourselves. Now it may be taken for granted that we shall not worship another god, for God is one and there are no others. And I’m sure that people would understand that there are many religions that indeed have false gods such as Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, Jehovah Witnesses and many others. These religions have a different Jesus with a gospel that saves no one. But what about those subtle little idols that Satan has planted over the years to where many people of our time would be guilty of not only doing them, but defending them to be Scripturally acceptable? And what about those practices in which people aren’t even aware of being idolatrous in nature? Paul describes many such people as, “That they are enemies of the cross, whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly and whose glory is their shame, who set their mind on earthly things.” Now, I don’t know of anyone who worships their belly, but obviously there are those who are preoccupied with satisfying the hunger of the flesh ‚Äì making their belly their god ‚Äì which is an example of idolatry.
There are a few other examples, but let’s look at some of those in today’s mainstream religions. For instance, in Hebrews 4:16, we are told that, “We can boldly go before the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace in time of need.” Add to that other Scriptures, such as the second commandment, which tell us, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image – any likeness of anything that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” (Exodus 20:4) and “For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.” (Deuteronomy 4:24).
We can also know why God can hear and answer all of the many prayers that go to Him by His characteristics for He is omnipresent, a theological term that refers to the unlimited nature of God or His ability to be everywhere at all times; omniscient, a theological term that refers to God’s superior knowledge and wisdom, His power to know all things; and finally He is omnipotent, a theological term that refers to the all-encompassing power of God. (Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary.) Since our heavenly Father has these qualities, it makes me wonder why would anyone pray to anyone else? Wouldn’t that be considered idolatry regardless how much you loved them or they loved you?
Just as in the stomach example given above, you may not be intentionally doing such, but to pray to a dead person, you are assuming that this person has the God-like ability to hear prayers and react accordingly. And this is done despite Biblical verses such as Isaiah 8:19 that tell us, “;.should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” (Acts 4:12). “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved,” and 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Another example of idolatry is the worship of the Host as if that were the “real presence” of His body and blood, for the same type of reasons as in the praying to dead people given above. Jesus, standing before the disciples on the night before His death, was explaining that He was giving His body to die for us, and that we should partake in the communion in remembrance of that salvational point, not creating a means of eating yourself to Heaven. Again, this is verified with other Scriptures such as in Matthew 15:11, 17 where Jesus tells us, “Not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this is what defiles a man,” and “Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes to the stomach and is eliminated?” Tie this to how Jesus spiritualized the eating of John 4 as to believing when the disciples brought back food. Just look at verses 33 to 34 of John 4, “In the meantime, the disciples said to one another, ‘Has anyone brought Him something to eat?’ Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of the one who sent Me and to finish His work.'” Furthermore Scriptures tell us that, “;the most High God does not dwell in temples made with hands,” (Acts 7:48) and that, “when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:3) Both of these examples of idolatry have only been touched upon slightly, but without a doubt, they are examples of today’s idolatry in practice.
So what does the Bible say about idolatry? Fortunately, the Scriptures are very clear in how God views this sin. Colossians 3:5 tells us, “Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things, the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience.” 1 Corinthians 6:9 says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
In closing, we at Gospel Light Ministries encourage you readers to carefully consider your religious views and what God’s Word says about idolatry. And ask yourself if indeed you are guilty of idolatry because of traditions that actually do go against the Word of God. Then decide for yourself, “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts” and make that change before you die. The Bible reminds us, “among whom also we once conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others” (Hebrews 2:3) until we were born again in truth and the truth set us free. Praise God!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.