What does Roman Catholics believe in?
-
any proofs from the Scriptures?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:I have already answered this above, but i'll post it again.
Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving ChristÂ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
Noticed that your citation all comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. -
i think it's all about St Mary, lord and angels... all about bringing peace and stability to this world.
-
Sacred Scripture does not explicitly proclaim the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception (i.e. freedom from original sin from the very start of her life). The Catholic Church reflected on this question for centuries, considering biblical texts which seemed related to the topic, at least implicitly. As a result of this prolonged reflection, Pius IX issued a dogmatic definition in 1854 affirming Mary's Immaculate Conception. This declaration (Ineffabilis Deus) indicates that the teaching has been infallibly revealed by God through the living Tradition of the Church. There are also a number of scriptural passages which may be cited in support of the teaching. The angelic greeting in Lk 1:28 refers to Mary as "highly favored" or "full of grace". Both translations refer to the Greek term kecharitomene, the past perfect participle of charis which means a gift, favor or grace. In Biblical Greek, this verbal form suggests permanence and singularity. Such singular, permanent grace in Mary is essentially the same concept affirmed in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.Originally posted by fandango:any proofs from the Scriptures?
Noticed that your citation all comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Another source of biblical evidence involves the references to Mary as "Woman" (e.g. Jn 2 and Jn 19). The evangelist alludes to Eve, who is called "Woman" in Gen 2. There are other parallels between the Genesis account of Creation and its Fall and the Johannine account of the Redemption. For example, the tree of knowledge caused Adam's death in paradise. The tree of the cross caused the death of Jesus, the new Adam, in Jn 19. So there is a certain biblical parallel between Mary, the Woman of the New Creation, and Eve, the Woman formed in original justice at the first Creation (i.e. before the Fall). This parallel is stated explicitly by very early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr (d ca 160) and Irenaeus (d. ca 220). None of this is explicit proof of the doctrine. However, it is solid support from Scripture alone.
I remember that someone has already posted something like this, but was accused of twisting scriptures to suit his agenda. Now I humbly beg of you people to answer my question, Who gives authority to interpret the scriptures? Also, does the bible tell you how to interpret itself? I seriously do not know. Please enlighten me. -
How to interprete the bible ? Just read it and take the literal meaning lah ! Read it as though u r someone who do not know anything about the religion. How else do u want to read it ? God cannot phrase its words properly when it write the bible ? If u do not take the literal meaning but take the interpretation from someone, aren't u likely to be controlled in fulfilling his agenda ? If u base your religion on someone interpretation, then aren't u afraid tat it may change forms many times during such a long period of time ?
-
Many thanks for your opinion stupidissmart. Can I have some Protestants to answer my question?
-
Yes, the bible does contain verses that indicates and instructs us on how to intepret the Scriptures and understand them. But before that, remember the 6 convictions that you should hold on to before going on about interpreting:
1)The Inspiration of Scripture
All scripture is given by the inspiration of God
2)The Inerrancy of Scripture
Since the Bible is God's word, it reveals a perfect God who cannot err
3)The Authority of Scripture
Since the Bible is God's word, it speaks with ultimate and absolute authority.
4)The Unity of Scripture
It has one basic message from start to finish - the drama of redemption. All of Scripture builds around this theme.
5)The Clarity of Scripture
Scripture is perspicuous. It is clear, plain, evident, and understandable, not ambiguous and obscure.
6)The Practical Purpose of Scripture
Scripture is meant to be applied to life.
If you do not hold on to any of them, even just one, it will already place serious doubt in your attempt to understand God's Word. You may even start to doubt you faith in God. Anyhow, to answer the root question, here are 5 indications of interpretation (with the final one the most prominent and important):
1) Interpret Organically. See the verse, passage, or concept in terms of the whole. Do not take verses out of context. Definate no-no.
2) Interpret Literally - Seek the meaning of the human writer by interpreting according to the most apparent meaning.
3) Interpret Practically - Search for concrete way to apply the meaning to life.
4) Interpret in Community - Stand on the shoulders of others by consulting them for their views and learning from their experience. Read Romans 1:11-12.
5) Interpret Prayerfully - Saturate the hard work of interpretaton with a humble dependence upon God. Pray for understanding. Only the Holy Spirit can give illumination.
"Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things" [2 Tim. 2:7]
"Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law" [Ps. 119:18]
Hope this answer the question. Remember that without the 6 convictions, you will never get to reap the fruits from the 5 indications
-
You all talking about biblical hermeneutics issit?
-
5) Interpret Prayerfully - Saturate the hard work of interpretaton with a humble dependence upon God. Pray for understanding. Only the Holy Spirit can give illumination.
Ehhh... how do u know when u pray for "understanding " or "interpretation" the "holy spirit" will be around ? Don't u just read as normal people did ? "Humble dependence" = don't be critical ? Finally... where do u get these 6 convictions and 5 indications from ? Is it from the scriptures itself ?
BTW here is a question from an earlier thread in Chit Chat. Is the cross consider a statue or not ? -
It is always good to pray for help in understanding the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. This is very different from reading the Bible using your utmost human intelligence because the Word of God cannot simply be interpreted, understood using the intelligent mind. The more "intelligent" you become, the more oppose you become to God's teaching. Consider those professors, those academics who appear so clever, but just dun have the faith of a child.
"Humble dependence" - This means simply to commit the reading and understanding of the Word solely on Him.
Yup, all 6 + 5 came from the Bible.
If you meant if a cross is a graven image, then the answer lies in whether you bow down or worship the cross. If you dont, then the cross is not a graven image. If you do then it is a graven image and then this makes it really really bad.
Christians uses the cross as a symbol for the Christian faith. Something like a logo, a representation. This is like the fish sign thingie. We do not pray to it, pray using it, or whatever preposition you insert here.
Actually, i wonder if anyone else noticed that cross found in Christian churches are bare, while cross found in Roman Catholic churches always have the image of Jesus cruxified on them? Interesting eh. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
Hi there Ice
[b]then why are they always telling Catholics this is wrong, that is wrong?
Sola Scriptura. If it is not based on Scripture, then it is debatable.
[/b]
Hope you don't mind me jumping in at this late stage ... I just chanced upon this thread ... in fact, this is my first time in the room ... I'm not very religious ... was born into a family that subscribes to the belief that money, not love, makes the world go around.
Ya, I know - this is a direct clash to almost every religion eh?
Who knows why I even popped into this room?!
Anyway, I was just wondering, Sola Scriptura ... what's that? It sounds like Latin. Is this a Catholic teaching you reject? -
In some Anglican churches, they have crucifixes. That is, the cross with Jesus on it.
-
Sola Scriptura is referring to the Protestant doctrine of 'Bible alone'. They say, since the bible is the Word of God, it is the sole rule of faith. i.e 'If it is not in the bible, I do not believe in so and so.' Sacred Tradition is rejected. Sacred Tradition is as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. You must know that Sacred Tradition does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.Originally posted by Bamboozler:Anyway, I was just wondering, Sola Scriptura ... what's that? It sounds like Latin. Is this a Catholic teaching you reject?
Sola Scriptura is NOT accepted by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equally important. -
Thanks for the info.
So ... Catholics belief in Scripture and Tradition, and Protestants just Scripture.
So the problem arises because the tradition and scripture clash?
IF both of you guys all believe in Jesus ... what's the problem?? It's not as both believed in different Gods
One hardly sees Muslims fighting amonst themselves (not so much on doctrinal grounds anyway), nor do we get Hindhus and Buddhists fighting among each other ... ... what IS the deal with chrisitianity anyway? -
Haiz....it all started in 1517 AD, when an Augustinian monk Martin Luther, stressing biblical over papal authority, started the Reformation, which divided Western Christianity into the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism. At that time, much of the clergy had forgotten what it meant to serve God. Instead, they became greedy, and focused on making money. Martin Luther was angry with the abuses in the church at that time, so he broke away and formed his own church. A very comprehensive article can be found here
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm -
It is always good to pray for help in understanding the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. This is very different from reading the Bible using your utmost human intelligence because the Word of God cannot simply be interpreted, understood using the intelligent mind. The more "intelligent" you become, the more oppose you become to God's teaching. Consider those professors, those academics who appear so clever, but just dun have the faith of a child
When u read and try to interprete scripture, u just read it
Whether is there a holy spirit around u or not, no one knows. Can u say there is a holy spirit when the priest is reading the scripture while there is none when a professor is reading it ? In the end it just boils down to interpreting the scripture using human "intelligence". Maybe there is a reason why the professors have a reason for the weakening of faith..."Humble dependence" - This means simply to commit the reading and understanding of the Word solely on Him.
So tat means christians should reject all the other external evidences ?Yup, all 6 + 5 came from the Bible.
Where ?If you meant if a cross is a graven image, then the answer lies in whether you bow down or worship the cross. If you dont, then the cross is not a graven image. If you do then it is a graven image and then this makes it really really bad.
So the only difference is whether u pray to it or not
Christians uses the cross as a symbol for the Christian faith. Something like a logo, a representation. This is like the fish sign thingie. We do not pray to it, pray using it, or whatever preposition you insert here.
Actually, i wonder if anyone else noticed that cross found in Christian churches are bare, while cross found in Roman Catholic churches always have the image of Jesus cruxified on them? Interesting eh. Christian had lots of cross artifacts around them but it is okie because they do not pray to it while other religion who have a lot of statue artifacts is wrong because they pray to it. The cross symbolise christainity which means christ while a statue symbolise the deity they believe in... The form is the same. The only difference is the practise, the practise of some religion praying to it which to them means a mode of "communication" between the believers and deity. Christainity too has display different practises during certain rituals etc. Therefore IMO, there is relatively little difference between the 2. -
IF both of you guys all believe in Jesus ... what's the problem?? It's not as both believed in different Gods
Believe in Jesus is easy... a lot of religions and cults fulfilled tis requirement. The interpretation and practise becomes important as they can seperate between religion and cult.One hardly sees Muslims fighting amonst themselves (not so much on doctrinal grounds anyway)
,
Not really. They have different schools of thought for muslims too. They too fight among themselves abotu scriptures interpretation. An example is some muslim believe in jihab while others believe otherwisenor do we get Hindhus and Buddhists fighting among each other ... ... what IS the deal with chrisitianity anyway?
They believe in totally different things.... Hindus believe in many deities tat can be seen on the roofs of their temples while othodox Buddhist does not believe in much god.
If u ask me, people who believe their god is cruel and a mass murderer has a higher tendency to fight physically between themselves and on others... -
Originally posted by fandango:We will need to organise a 5 day church camp to go through the whole issue of the bible translation.
But as a laymen guide, there is some very strange history in the Roman Catholic handling of the bible. I must emphasise this is just a laymen guide, so i will just list some chronological events.
1. Rome recieved the corrupted Local Text of Alexandria, Egypt in the earliest recorded church age.
2. At the same time the other Text, the Universal Text was spreading across europe.
3. Rome wanted to gain control and asked Jerome to interpret it into Latin.
4. This version contained the Apocryphal Books (which can still be found in today Roman Catholic Bible)
5. But this had no effect on the spread of the Universal Text, so Rome shelved it.
6. At the same time, Rome was buzy persercuting bible-believing Christians. Then came Martin Luther and the Reformation.
7. Rome amasses the Council of Trent and systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that "tradition" was of equal authority with the Bible. It decreed also that justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact, it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was cursed.
8. From beginning till this point, Rome refused unauthorised people to read the Bible. Only the Pope and the Highest Priest are allowed to.
9. But seeing that all the persercution was not effective in stamping out all Christians, Rome decided that to win back the dwindling support, they have to relax on the rule about the readership of the bible.
10. So a whole lot of scripture was changed to accomodate Roman teaching like purgatory, indulgence, eucharist and many others.
11. Till today, Roman Catholic only uses the Roman Catholic Bible. However, the Roman Catholics were and still never encouraged to read the bible because the teaching is that "you don't need the teaching in the bible to get saved, you only need the Church solely."
So there you go, a short summarised history. If you are moved to know more just do some research.
Here is some interesting points, taken off a webpage. In the Roman Catholic Bible (and some modern Christian Bible translations), some scriptures are, should i said "left in the mirre of unknown." Take special note of the straining of the tenses:
- Luke 13:23 (RC & new versions), "Are there few who are being saved?" KJV, "...be saved."
- II Cor. 2:15 (RC & new versions), "are being saved." KJV, "are saved."
- I Cor. 1:18 (RC & new versions), "those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved" KJV, ...are saved."
- Acts 15:19 (RC & new versions) "are turning to God." KJV, "turned."
- Luke 15:32 (RC & new versions), "your brother was dead and has begun to live." KJV, "is alive."
- Acts 2:47 (RC & new versions), "were being saved." KJV, "should be saved."
- 2 Cor. 4:3 (RC & new versions), "are perishing." KJV, "are lost."
With all the unnatural straining of the tenses, and the teachings of the Catholic Church, no wonder the Roman Catholics never really know whether they are saved or not. The same reason goes to show why the Vatican Church can easily manupilate and control the Roman Catholics with such unclear scriptures. -
Speaking of church camp, I just returned from my ministry camp. Have to go for another one next week. Here is the Catholic perspective to what Fandango has written.
"They seem to highly emphasize on the translation of the Bible toward the buttom in saying the the KJV is clearly the more correct. But are they using a new version of the KJV or are they using the original version from 1611. Clearly through the hundreds of years some translation in language form would change even in the KJV. This person should also note that when the KJV was first printed the " Apocryphal Books " were accepted by King James as part of Biblical Scripture and they were printed in his version of the Bible.
"11. Till today, Roman Catholic only uses the Roman Catholic Bible. However, the Roman Catholics were and still never encouraged to read the bible because the teaching is that "you don't need the teaching in the bible to get saved, you only need the Church solely."
This is definitely not a teaching of the Catholic Church
Catechism of the Catholic Church
"2653 The Church "forcefully and specially exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ' (Phil 3:
by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. . . . Let them remember, however, that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that a dialogue takes place between God and man. For 'we speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles."
"10. So a whole lot of scripture was changed to accomodate Roman teaching like purgatory, indulgence, eucharist and many others."
It is not to my knowledge that any version of the Bible has changed the Gospel in which the Last Supper occurs, which is clearly where the Eucharist comes from.
Lk:22:19-20
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. (DRV)
"6. At the same time, Rome was buzy persercuting bible-believing Christians. Then came Martin Luther and the Reformation."
Catholics in Rome were and are Bible-believing Christians. And even Martin Luther after his thesis still held true to many traditions of the Catholic Church, Communion and doctines concerning the Virgin Mary. But this person should also realize that not only was there a reformation outside of the Church but there was also one within it.
"7. Rome amasses the Council of Trent and systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that "tradition" was of equal authority with the Bible. It decreed also that justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact, it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was cursed. "
Like I said previously the Church took into consideration many changes during and after the Reformation.
Concerning tradtion :
2Thes:2:15:
15 (2-14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. (DRV)
And I'll also repeat what I have already said, Martin Luther held many traditions of the Catholic Church even after the Reformation. He did not clearly deny all that the Church teaches.
" By Faith Alone "
One can have Faith in God tremendously but if one does not keep God's commandments he is doomed. And with Faith comes good works. They are connected with one another. In having Faith in God and what He teaches we see that we must do good deeds unto others.
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
38 Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
40 And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
(DRV)"
http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=12919 -
Concerning tradtion :
2Thes:2:15:
15 (2-14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. (DRV)
Can it be argued this was before the bible was given? Sola Scriptura cannot be applied during that time, since there was no Scripture. Thus, the example is not valid today.
And I'll also repeat what I have already said, Martin Luther held many traditions of the Catholic Church even after the Reformation. He did not clearly deny all that the Church teaches.
Nay, you can't convince Fandango with a monk who condemned James to be the 'Epistle of Straw'.
Luther's belief in consub theory of the Eucharist is dissimilar to Calvin and Zwingli.
That said, why not say something about Calvin and Zwingli? Or John Knox, the founder of Fandango's denomination.
One can have Faith in God tremendously but if one does not keep God's commandments he is doomed.
I assume you mean loving God and loving your neighbours (Mark 12). Is this very hard for a spiritually regenerated christian?
And with Faith comes good works. They are connected with one another. In having Faith in God and what He teaches we see that we must do good deeds unto others.
I'm constantly amused by Catholic-Protestant exchange on faith and works. What is the problem really? You said it yourself. With Faith comes good works. So Faith precedes works. Protestants shouldn't have any problem with that.
I am reminded of the Crusades carried out in the name of Christ. They massacred helpless and innocent Jews, in the name of Christ. Do you think these Catholic brethens are saved? -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
So you say it, there was no Bible during the time of the apostles. They obviously taught by oral tradition.
Concerning tradtion :
2Thes:2:15:
15 (2-14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. (DRV)
Can it be argued this was before the bible was given? Sola Scriptura cannot be applied during that time, since there was no Scripture. Thus, the example is not valid today.Nay, you can't convince Fandango with a monk who condemned James to be the 'Epistle of Straw'.
So is it correct to say that the followers of Luther and John Knox believe in different things? Luther's belief in consub theory of the Eucharist is dissimilar to Calvin and Zwingli.
That said, why not say something about Calvin and Zwingli? Or John Knox, the founder of Fandango's denomination.
I certainly hope not...
I assume you mean loving God and loving your neighbours (Mark 12). Is this very hard for a spiritually regenerated christian? I am reminded of the Crusades carried out in the name of Christ. They massacred helpless and innocent Jews, in the name of Christ. Do you think these Catholic brethens are saved?[/b]
Well, we cannot say for sure. How do you know whether they went to heaven or hell? How do you know whether they have repented or not? Erm.. may I ask what does this have to do with the questions i have asked? -
So you say it, there was no Bible during the time of the apostles. They obviously taught by oral tradition.
I hope Fandango doesn't dispute that .. haha
And here's a point related to your observation above. The Apostle Paul had no contact with the physical Christ. Neither was he taught by oral tradition received from the 12 disciples. In his own words from Gal 1, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
Remember Paul did rebuke Peter and his gang on some matters and they had to convene the Jerusalem Church Council to settle the differences. Don't you find this strange? Peter, who accompanied Jesus for 3(?) years, couldn't even get the [basic] doctrine correct.
So scary lah. 1st generation apostles already liddat liao. Paul practically rebuked or gan3 the whole Jerusalem gang. So much for your apostolic authority argument.
So is it correct to say that the followers of Luther and John Knox believe in different things?
They don't believe in the same things, at least on the issue of Eucharist.
Well, we cannot say for sure. How do you know whether they went to heaven or hell?
How come you suddenly so unsure? Earlier, didn't you say "One can have Faith in God tremendously but if one does not keep God's commandments he is doomed."
They couldn't even keep the basic commandment - love your neighours.
How do you know whether they have repented or not?
You can't be a christian if you receive salvation, ie. spiritually regenerated, but slam a plane into a building right? -
double post
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:
Ah, did you know that the 12 disciples were very imperfect people? They argued and fought amongst one another. At one point they even hated one another. Anyway, if you are trying to say that apostolic tradition doesn't work, and that there was no bible at that time, then who did the believers go to for guidance?
I hope Fandango doesn't dispute that .. haha
And here's a point related to your observation above. The Apostle Paul had no contact with the physical Christ. Neither was he taught by oral tradition received from the 12 disciples. In his own words from Gal 1, "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
Remember Paul did rebuke Peter and his gang on some matters and they had to convene the Jerusalem Church Council to settle the differences. Don't you find this strange? Peter, who accompanied Jesus for 3(?) years, couldn't even get the [basic] doctrine correct.
So scary lah. 1 generation apostles already liddat liao. Paul practically rebuked or gan3 the whole Jerusalem gang. So much for your apostolic authority argument.They don't believe in the same things, at least on the issue of Eucharist.
Thanks. I wasn't too sure, so I had to ask.How come you suddenly so unsure? Earlier, didn't you say "One can have Faith in God tremendously but if one does not keep God's commandments he is doomed."
I understand what are you trying to say. But think about it. We, weak men are subject to God's laws. But do you think that God is subject to his own law? He is God, he can do anything he likes! If he wants to save them, what do you want to do? Hence, we trust in God's mercy and have faith in him. We should say, "I am redeemed by the blood of Christ, I trust in him alone for my salvation, and, as the Bible teaches, I am ‘working out my salvation in fear and trembling’ (Phil. 2:12), knowing that it is God’s gift of grace that is working in me."
They couldn't even the basic commandment - love your neighours.
You can't be a christian if you receive salvation, ie. spiritually regenerated, but slam a plane into a building right? -
They argued and fought amongst one another. At one point they even hated one another.
Where where? Tell me leh, I'm interested to know!
Anyway, if you are trying to say that apostolic tradition doesn't work, and that there was no bible at that time, then who did the believers go to for guidance?
Erm, the decons, the ecclesiastical authority?
He is God, he can do anything he likes! If he wants to save them, what do you want to do?
Then SIS will shout - this is not fair!
Hence, we trust in God's mercy and have faith in him .... knowing that it is GodÂ’s gift of grace that is working in me."
In other words, you believe in salvation/justification by faith through grace? -
He is God, he can do anything he likes! If he wants to save them, what do you want to do?
From tat statement, I can draw a few conclusions...
Then SIS will shout - this is not fair!
1. U do not believe in a fair god. He only treats people tat bootlick him well. No matter if u r mother teresa reborn, as long as u do not believe in him, u will go to hell. No matter how vicious u r and killed how much people, as long as u r a believer u get to be saved.
2. He do not need to give anyone reasons nor justify any of his actions. He can just kill u off and throw u to hell as long as he like it. He can just end human civilisation as long as he like it. He can save any monster like hitler as long as he feels like it.
3. Despite all these facts, he still choose to believe in an unfair, cruel god who acts at his own whims. Most pious believers seems to be believe in his mercy when he never show any mercy to anyone. Happy trembling due to fear of him...