₦airaland Forum

Romans 3, verse 10 says, ", as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one.'" Yet, James 5:16 says that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. If absolutely no one is righteous, then who is James talking about? Luke chapter 1 says that Elizabeth and Zechariah were righteous before God. If absolutely no one is righteous, then how can that be? Is Scripture contradicting itself? No, it's you who interpret Romans as saying absolutely, without exception, no one is righteous, that are misinterpreting the passage. You are failing to realize that the key to understanding Romans 3:10 is the phrase, "it is written."
Here in Romans, Paul is quoting from the O.T., Psalm 14 to be exact. In Psalm 14 it says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God. They are corrupt, there is none that does good.'" But then that same psalm goes on to talk about the "righteous." Well, if none has done good, who are these righteous the psalm is talking about? Obviously, when the psalmist says that none has done good, he is talking about the fools who say there is no God. He is not talking about absolutely everyone.

Paul is not saying absolutely no one is righteous, if he was, then how do you explain all the Old and New Testament passages that refer to the righteous? In Romans 3:11 it says that no one seeks for God. Does that mean that absolutely no one is seeking God? No, to interpret it that way would be unreasonable!

Just so verse 23 which says that "all have sinned". Babies haven't sinned, have they? Little children haven't sinned, have they? No! This is not an absolute. There are exceptions. What about John the Baptist? Did he sin? Scripture says that he was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb. Can someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life ever sin? It's something to think about.

So, it is perfectly legitimate to say that these passages from Romans, when interpreted in context, in no way conflict with the Church's teaching on Mary being without sin.

It is you that said the Catholic Church is growing stronger everyday. I don't see where anyone else said that. As far as I know, the Church is dwindling in numbers in the Europe and North America but growing in Africa, Asia and is still very strong in Latin America. But is this the indication that we need to know that God is with it? No.

The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded with Peter as its head and it continues to minister to the world with the teachings of the apostles in word and in tradition. These teachings have come down to us through an unbroken line of apostolic succession from the apostles to the early church fathers to the present day priests.

That is the indication we need. God's one true church, not a 'church' that was founded by a greedy pastor just to make money or an adulterous king just to satisfy his carnal desire.

"The gates of hades will not overcome it", Jesus said 2011yrs ago.

2011 years later, the gates of hades have not overcome it - and never will. That is the indication we need.

Or was Jesus talking about RCCG, or Deeper life, or Cele or any of the other 35000 protestant shops we have in the world today?

NO!

If you blame celibacy for lustful desires, you should also blame marriage for divorce.

Should we now say that marriage is bad because many end up getting divorced?

Does the Church not have a right to decide to choose priests from those who have vowed to be celibate?

In 1Cor 7:10, Paul says: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord), "

In verse 12, he says: "To the rest I say this (I, NOT THE LORD), "

This shows that even Paul who was also a church leader gave intructions that were not "ordinances from God", as long as it wasn't sinful and is intended to help the people grow spiritually. So why can't the church leaders today do the same?

And there is scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy. Paul, writing to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).

What is the difference between this and what the Catholic Church does?

D last time you had a dream, you were somewhere, right? You saw and did things, right? Where was that? Where was the location of your dream?

When you imagine that you are in a big house, for example, where's the location of that big house?

Pray a lot. Study the scripture a lot. Be o good christian example. Always respond with love.

St. JoseMaria Escriva said "every action done with the love of God in mind is a prayer".

Like God2man pointed out, there's time for everything. A time to converse with them openly, and a time to be silent. A time to be soft, and a time to be firm. But always show love.

The scriptures will always come in handy because you'll find lots of examples to follow, and lots of fore-warnings about situations like yours.

I too encounter these things and probably even worse things from even family and friends. I tell you, those measures I listed in the beginning have worked well for me. But the one that amazes me most is when you show love to everyone, including your enemies, pray for them and forgive them even without them apologizing.

You will have more peace of mind and satisfaction. They will see the light of Christ in you, even though they don't follow it.

Even a man who has killed 100men will find it difficult to punch a man who once gave him bread when he was starving and asked for nothing in return.

plappville:
Honour thy "father" and "mother" in the lord: call no man father does not refares to your earthly father. Ephisians 6:4 or so, correct me if am wrong. But can u just admit u sin when u did not? We know when we sin. It didnt mean one is claiming perfection, after all, none is perfect except God. Nice one though!

1 John 1:8-10: "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us"

Jesus, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, has the rich man referring to Abraham as "father" several times. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, refers to Abraham as the "father" of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles. That's referring to spiritual fatherhood, not biological fatherhood.

In Acts 7:1-2, Stephen, referred to the Jewish authorities and elders who were about to stone him as brothers and "fathers," as does Paul in Acts, chapter 22. This is referring to spiritual fatherhood. So, if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you have a problem with Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit, they must have all gotten it wrong.

plappville:
I said i cant say they sinned because i ve not seen these verses that told it. Like i said befor, we learn each day from each other, i will be the last to qoute something not found in the bible, thats why i prefare not to conclude about if they sinned or not. When i said Jesus didnt rebuke them, i meant it. His death was said to happen, if Jesus shoukd ve rebuked them, he will not use the word, u will bethrey me, or u will deny me. He knew what the futere would become and yet he allowed it, it shows
his death is the fullfillment. Jesus could them for example: Judas, u must not betrey me, he has all the power to rebuke his
death but he didnt.

To the bold #1) If u do not know if the bible conderms eating egg and someone telling u so without proving the verse, wont u
deny it until u are clear? Now tgat u ve come out for the  first with a biblical verse that really point to something, why wont i accept it from u. I will take note of those verse anyway.

Bold #2) Why do u ve the habit of miss reading people and stamp them with wrong stamps? U ll read me back soon, i cant write forther, its hard with phone.

I think you should pick a dictionary and look-up the meanings of 'INIQUITY' and 'REBUKE', then read the verses again. After doing these, come back and tell me whether Judas and Peter sinned or not, and whether Jesus rebuked them or not.

If you don't know whether the bible condemns eating eggs and someone's telling you so without having proved it yet, you shouldn't deny it; you should simply say 'I DONT KNOW'. Why are you ashamed to admit weakness? Why should you be denying when you don't know?

People who don't know LISTEN and LEARN; they don't teach.

You have used the old testament to show why people can clap hands in church now, even though that was not 'church'. If it were me that brought a verse like that, you'll say 'where did they write church there?'

But since u'v brought us to the old testament, let's stay there for a while. In Jeremiah 16:1,2, God tells Jeremiah not to marry or have kids. Are you okay now?

You are saying you don't know about church marriage, that anyone can do what they like about that; because its not only Catholics that believe in or partake in that. You also believe/partake in it. If it were only Catholics, you'll start shouting "its not biblical!" "Its a sin". Does this not show that your sole agenda is to discredit the Catholic Church?

So what about the other things (out of the 7) I mentioned that are not in the bible. . . Are they sinful? Should we stop them because they were not written in the Bible?

@Hutchie,

If only you'll take the issues one after the other. But I bet you'll FLEE once the truth starts to stare you in the face.

@plappville,

I'm sorry, but before I started this argument, I asked you if it was the truth you sought. You said "yes". But your statements show to me that you have blocked your mind and that you only believe what you want to believe no matter what proof is shown you to the contrary.

If you can say that a man who cut of another's ear did not sin, then what can I show you in the Bible that will make you see the truth. This goes to show why you people commit atrocities and still say "I'm born-again" "I don't sin"

In Acts 1:18, Peter said about Judas, "now this man purchased a field with the reward of INIQUITY. . ."

In Matt 26:24: Jesus says: "the Son of man goes as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born".

In Matt 26: 52-54, Jesus said to Peter after he cut off the man's ear "put back your sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Do you think that I cannot now pray to my Father and he will give me more than 12legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be"

But you are saying that Jesus didn't rebuke them because they didn't sin.

This just shows that what you seek is not the TRUTH.

You keep shouting "where is it in the Bible" and then I take the pain to search it for you only to find out that what you believe is not what is in the Bible, you only believe what is in you head.

I didn't say I was upset. I only wanted the person/people to be called to order. I come here to discuss my religious views freely because there are rules in place to ensure freedom and decency. So I only wanted those rules to be applied. If I want to go somewhere that my religious view would not be tolerated and would bring me insults and probably even put my life at risk, I'll go to Afghanistan or Maiduguri. Unless you're saying nairaland is just an online version of those places.

I understand your point though. Thanks.

Did he say anything about 'oranges' and 'water melons' for the men?

I reported a comment once. I got no feed back and the insults on the Catholic faith continued - even intensified.

My complaint wasn't on ONE long post, but too much of them, even when you're asked something that only requires a one-word answer.

So what you want is to see a verse that says "bishops should not marry", that's all. If I don't find that then it's wrong for the Catholic Church to practise that. It doesn't matter that I have explained that it is not a doctrine but a discipline to help them carry out their apostolic duties more profoundly, or that I have shown you that Jesus and St. Paul did not marry and Paul even went on to encourage celibacy, or that the Catholic Church does not necessarily forbid Bishops from marrying, they simply choose from men who have vowed to be celibate.

And what is wrong with copying, pasting and editing from a Catholic webpage if it says what I think? Is there anybody who doesn't get information from one source or the other? Did you know all these things you are saying from your mother's womb? You see, that's the beauty of the Catholic faith. Our doctrine is one and the same all over the world so it doesn't matter where you source your information from, as long as it is in line with Catholic teaching - with a bishop's imprimatur - you know you are speaking the opinion of the whole Church.

I'm saying Paul did not marry, in those verses he was telling the unmarried and widowed to remain single as he is.

And what has celibacy got to do with the evil committed by some priests? What about all the good that Catholic bishops, priests and religious have done down the ages, do you not know of those? Or you just prefer to dwell on the negative. So can we also say that Jesus' ministry was sinful because Judas sold him out? Because Peter denied him? No! We dwell on the positives. So why is it different now?

Finally if you say because there is no prohibition on Bishops being married, that means the Church cannot decide to choose priests from only those who have vowed to stay unmarried, then should we also take it that:

1. There should not be choirs in church.
2. No ushers/wardens
3. No weddings in church
4. Pastors should not be called to pray for people at their burial.
5. No youth groups in church
6. No clapping in the church
7. Usher should not prohibit people from sleeping in church. . .

. . .And I can go on to 70, because all these things are not found in the Bible.

You have read 1Cor 7 up to verse 9. Maybe you should continue to verse 10: "and to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord. . ."; verse 12: "but to the rest I speak, not the Lord. . ."

Do you not see that there are some commands that are from the Lord, but others can come from the Church leaders as long as there are not sinful or contradictory with what God wants.

The Church hasn't lost that authority to instruct the faithful and it is on that authority that the Catholic Church decides to choose priests from among those who have made a vow of celibacy.

plappville:
The bolds are a bible qoutes, i can't recall the verse. What i am still telling u is that, the lords prayer, the part that says (and forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sinned against us, does not encourage frequent sin simply becos its a dialy prayer. Jesus taught his disciples, u will agree thet while they where with him, they were not sinners. So he didn't teach them this prayer becaus they will find themselves in sin dialy. Yes we are exposed to temptations, but that is why God gave us his seed effect from the day we got born in Christ, so that we can be able to live a sin free life.

“But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. “


(((I John 3 : 6 – 7)))

[b]Whosoever is born of God [/b]doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.1 John 3:9

Do u remember asking someone here if he/she is born of God?

First of all, there's no point telling me that 'our Lords prayer' does not encourage sinning daily. I already know that and that is not the arguement. What I am proving to you is that everybody sins; whether born-again or not, whether daily, hourly or weekly.

And did I hear you say the Apostles were not sinners while they were with him. Do yourself a favour: if you don't know something, you ask. Peter denied God three times, he cut off a man's ear, Judas sold God out for 30pieces of silver, James and John wanted to bring down thunder to kill people, Thomas doubted the Lord's ressurection, and these are not sins? Wow!

*I was asking him if he was born of God and he couldn't say YES or NO because he (and you) knew I would ask if he had ever sinned since he became born of God. And he knows he sins daily but he's ashamed to admit it (you too), that's why you refuse to answer my simple 'YES or NO' questions.

@Rich4god,

Thanks, and God bless you too. I must say that I've seen some of your posts and they inspired and encouraged me too.

It was the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen that once said "The Catholic Faith is like a caged lion; you don't need to defend it; just open the cage".

To know that Jesus is the truth, he instituted the Church, he promised that the gates of hades will not come up against it, that he would be with it until the end of time, that he promised to send the Holy Spirit to teach the Church ALL things, that the Church - not the Bible - is pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15), that the Church wrote the new testament, compiled the Bible and gave it to the world. To know all these things should be a real confidence boost for any Catholic. The Church cannot teach error. And as long as you are saying something in-line with the teaching of the Church, you cannot be wrong. You might not know how to explain it, you might not have memorized the verses to support it, but you cannot be wrong. We all just have to know more by studying about our faith a little more each day.

God bless.

I have no problems with people having a different lifestyle from mine. I have never tried to pressurize anyone to live the way I do. I have never expected anyone to please me with their lifestyle.

But, just as you recognize their right to live the way they want; can't you also recognize my right to be annoyed with what I want - especially when I'm not harming anyone with my annoyance?

This is a forum to discuss issues and if I see anything that I feel is contrary to the truth, do I not have a right to refute it vehemently?

You sound like I might have said something that really hurt you (though I can't remember anything like that), but if that's the case, I'm sorry.

Sometimes we get too passionate when it comes to matters of faith.

Though I'd like to know exactly where I went wrong, at least so I can know how to adjust.

What have I said that suggests bitterness.

Is it worse than when Jesus said "woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!", Or when John the baptist called them "brood of vipers"?

If you stand for the truth, your heart will ache at any deliberate manipulation of it.

I do not detest people who are mistaken. I only detest those who know the truth, but preach lies.

They are the HYPOCRITES

When people say a christian is susceptible to sin - including adultery, they are not advocating adultery. They are just expounding the truth. David slept with another man's wife but he was still favoured by God, but that doesn't mean adultery is okay. It is evil.

But we must say the truth as it is:

Every man sins. Born-again christian or not. Sin doesn't make you stop being a Christian, it only makes you a bad Christian.

Those of you saying a born-again cannot sin are the biggest LIARS in the world.

Paul says a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, you argue, that it's unscriptural for a Church leader (bishop) not to marry.

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify. 

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (present continuous tense), not of their having met them (past tense), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected. 

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry! That would be unreasonable. 
 
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married). 

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns). 

Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be "soldiers" of Christ must avoid "civilian pursuits": "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these "civilian pursuits." 

An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: "The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’" (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution. 

Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul. 

Some think Paul is "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, but in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9). 

It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added). 

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 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" (7:27-34). 

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38). 

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom": 

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12). 

Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some. Other people are called to marriage.

Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. "Be fruitful and multiply" is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it. 

Yet none of these passages give us an example of humanly mandated celibacy. Jeremiah’s celibacy was mandatory, but it was from the Lord. Paul’s remark to Timothy about "civilian pursuits" is only a general admonition, not a specific command; and even in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul qualifies his strong endorsement of celibacy by adding: "I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35). 

This brings us to your thinking that by requiring at least some of its clerics and its religious not to marry, the Catholic Church forbids marriage. 

In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage. 

But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12). 

This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today. 

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists (whom, ironically, some anti-Catholic writers admire in ignorance, apparently purely because they happened to have insisted on using their own vernacular translation of the Bible; see the Catholic Answers tract Catholic Inventions). 


Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life. 

In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out. 

Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring. 

Celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30). 

Finally, celibacy for priests is not a doctrine of the Church, but a discipline. You can compare it to when a Pastor says the choir members must dress in a particular way. It doesn't mean the Pastor is sinning because the Bible doesn't mention any dress code for Choirs. The Pastor is only imposing that discipline to make them look dignifying for the church. So also the Catholic Church wants Priests to be celibate to help them carry out their priestly role more effectively and profoundly.

Any comments?

Donvilo:
The reason why there exist the strange nature arising in Catholic church is because The Bible (in the book of revelations 13,14) has let us know dat the Devil will use the then political world power (Roman Empire) to corrupt the church from the inside. Rather, fulfilling the "End Times" prophecies from the Almighty God Jehovah, through his faithful servant Apostle John. That is why the world today are being misled by the deceptive nature of the Evil one

Firstly, this your post suggests that the Catholic Church is 'The Church' of the time of the Apostles. But that it will be corrupted by the devil.

Have you not read where Jesus said "on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades will not overcome it"?

So if the devil has succeded in corrupted anything in Rev 13, 14; that thing is not The Church. The Church cannot be overcome by anything.

Secondly, where in Rev 13,14 is it written that the Roman Empire will corrupt the Church?

What verse?

5solas:
I said the Catholic Church is anti-Christ , not[b] the anti-Christ[/b]. I will not be surprised though if it is the anti-Christ or out of it comes the anti-Christ.

I am surprised you are not so touchy about your spiritual family today.What's the secret?.

Whether 'anti-Christ' or 'the anti-Christ', the fact that you consider it a threat says a lot about whatever 'church' you belong to. You know its not built on rocky ground but on sinking sand.

Why I'm not touchy? You don't always give adversaries what they expect.

Sometimes you aggressively chase away a mad man. Other times, you just let him do what he knows best: display his madness and fade away.

And you haven't showed me where scripture says the Catholic Church is anti-Christ, Mr sola scriptura.

Dear Plappville,

I'm very glad that you have decided to treat these topics one by one. However I just need to clarify some very important issues.

What are you really after? Are you out to discredit the Catholic Church or you are out to ensure you don't lose this argument or you are after the TRUTH.

Is your mind already closed, thinking that the Catholic Church is everything that its detractors say it is, which would mean that you'll consider everything I say as lies from the depths of hell (since I'm a Catholic) OR are you willing to discuss this with an open mind and follow the truth wherever it leads - even if it leads to the Catholic Church?

I'll assume you are willing to follow the truth but if this is not the case, kindly let me know as soon as possible so that I can stop wasting my time.

plappville:
So what thread did i delete?

i didnt say you deleted the thread. i said "i hope you didnt delete the thread"

they are two different things.

plappville:
Christianity will be as simple as abc if this is how u see it. Yes i am a born again, i can sin at anytime and then confess my sins each time. U must do away from sin once u wear that garment of born in Christ.
Hom many time will u be confessing your sins? What makes u different from a half believer then? Half believers are people who accept Christ half way. They see no much crime in commiting sin becos they believe they will confess as many times as they can.

Do you know how many times you sin against God? In your thoughts, in your words, in what you've done and in what you've failed to do?

As a Christian, you are supposed to do all you can to avoid sin, but that doesn't mean you won't sin. You most likely will.

Everyone sins. Let God be the judge of who is a "half believer" (that one is not biblical o) and a 'full believer'.

plappville:
Can u define God's one church plz.

The Catholic Church. It might sound arrogant, but truth is truth.

proo212:
Isn't that cannibalism? Oh sorry, that is one of your transsubstantiation doctrines theories,

Thats exactly what many of Jesus' disciples thought when he said in John 6:

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."

That's why they deserted him then. Of course, many are still deserting him now, for the same reason.

So you consider the anti-Christ to be a "threat" to the Church? It just shows that whatever 'church' you belong to is not the same one Jesus was talking about when he said "on this rock I'll build my church and the gate of hades will not overcome it".

Besides what makes you say the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ? Is that what is written in the Bible? I thought you believed in 'sola scriptura'.

5solas:
The Catholic Church has been , is and ever will be, the greatest threat to Christianity, we have to give them this recognition.

Good! So you know the Catholic Church will ever be - never cease to be. That says a lot. It was Jesus that gave that assurance: "on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it." "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age"

And why is James telling them to confess their sins to each-other and pray for each-other, if they are righteous?

But according to your school of thought, righteous people cannot sin. Or can they?

Yes! It's because of our sinful nature that we go to confession.

James 5: 16 says: "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."

So what's your problem with confession?

So when did Peter become born-again? Was it before or after he was discriminating against the Gentiles (which is a sin)?

@Pastor Kun,

The doctrines of 'sale of indulgence' and 'tithes' have never existed in the Catholic church. They only exist in your head.

I suggest you first find out what a Catholic doctrine means. You can't say any meaningful thing on it until you know exactly what it is.

If after finding out, you still think you know even ONE catholic doctrine that has ever changed, please provide credible proof.

Show us evidence of where the doctrine has ever been in the catechism of the Catholic church or any relevant doctrinal document and show us evidence that it has changed.

@Joagbaje, sorry to dissappoint you. Catholic doctrine doesn't change - has never changed. Not one doctrine, in all 2011 years or existence. Sorry.