DisplacedMaritimer(Bert) wrote:
I am trying to point out the falicies of the claims of some against the Catholic Church.

You said all men have free will. You must have missed my reply. All men since Adam and Eve have free will, but the Bible teaches they do not have the ability.

Man is free to do good or evil as you say, but he does not have the ability to do good because of his fallen condition.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44

This verse tells us nobody can come to Jesus unless God the Father draws him. The problem with Romanism and others in error is they think man can come to God on their own steam.

(13)For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

(14)Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

(15)But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."
Romans ch5 vs 12 to 15

"(18)Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

DisplacedMaritimer(Bert) wrote:
Yes, God is completely soverign. However, He decided, for whatever reason, to give us free will. He wants us all to be saved but He will not impose His will on anyone.

We must not confuse "free will" with "ability". Before the fall, man was free to do good or evil and could do either. But after the fall he could do only evil. So although he has free will, he does not have the ability to do good. With the entrance of sin into the world, he lost the ability to do good, but can only do evil continually.

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5

"And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." Genesis 8:21 (after the flood)

Sinful man cannot do anything to cause his deliverance or redemption.

DisplacedMaritimer(Bert) wrote:
opened eyes,
Sorry, I got side tracked on a bunch of things
To answer your questions:
John 6:37 means exactly what it says: Jesus will not reject anyone who turns to Him. I think it says something further, though. It implies - to me at least - that the Father wants *everyone* to have eternal life.

Let me ask, do you think God is completely sovereign? If God is in complete control and "wanted" everyone to be saved, how could His will be thwarted?

DisplacedMaritimer(Bert) wrote:
Hi Wayne,
To be quite honest, I'm not sure what to think..... What are the folks at free grace radio afraid of?

I am not familiar with free grace radio. When I listen to a sermon on SA, I have sometimes made a comment on the sermon. But you might be talking about something different; I don't know. I guess they only want to use their blog for positive comments agreeing with them.

If you still have the text of your post, go ahead and put it on here.

In the important council in Acts 15, Peter was not acting as a pope at all. If he had been a Pope, he would have issued an encyclical or at least some kind of pronouncment. The apostle Paul wrote about 13 epistles and never mentioned anything about Peter being a pope.

Ministers are not to lord it over others as the Pope does. Look at all the titles the Pope has. But the humble apostle Peter said: "Neither as being lords over god's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." 1 Peter 5:3

There is nothing in the N.T. to support the papacy.

I don't recall ever seeing anybody's comment removed from a news item unless they were using foul language or abusive.

You mentioned another E mail address you were corrsponding with and they told you they had deleted something. But this has nothing to do with sermonaudio's news items which we have been commenting on; am I correct?

Are you satisfied with the reply you received from Moderator Alpha that they do not delete comments made in debate or discussion? These would be on the forum news item threads which we have been using.

I have run into the problem of leaving a comment in the comment window too long before submitting it and losing it that way. The suggestion of copying and pasting into a word processing program and saving it is a good idea. I have done that quite a few times just in case something happens to it. It is good insurance. I know from experience it is frustrating to loose a lot of work.

DisplacedMaritimer(Bert) wrote:
Hi Wayne,
Sorry I took so long to reply to your post. I needed a few days to consider what you said.
You are correct and I apologize. I did not remember reading anywhere in the NT that Jesus is Divine and the fact that His Divinity was debated for so long lead me to believe that the NT was ambiguous at best regarding His Divinity. Your reference to Hebrews Chapter 1 has shown me my error. Thank you.
On another note, I have to take some time to consider my future presence on this forum. My posts are being deleted because I present a dissenting voice.

Written in Heaven wrote:
The ferocious spirit of Rome and her daughters is alive and well. I know I should not fear, but to be honest Wayne, it's people like you who really scare me. You, and the many possessed and deceived ones like you, need serious help. Jesus will save you from your idolatry and addictions.
Well said John Paul's wife.

You have sadly been brainwashed somewhere along the line. Polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, flu vaccines, etc. have saved millions of lives in the last fifty years. Wake up and come out of the dark ages on this.

The keys that Jesus figuratively gave to Peter are representative of the authority which Jesus gave to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18. "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This was the authority to bring people into the kingdom of God by preaching the gospel. By this means lost sinners are redeemed and reconciled to God. It is a declaratory power. Not an actual power of personally admitting this person or that person to heaven by prounouncing absolution. This is shown by the great commission given near the end of Mark.

Peter was given the authority to preach the gospel on Pentecost and begin the church and with Cornelius. Other than that, he never claimed or had any more authority than the other apostles. He was an apostle to the Jews as Paul was to the Gentiles.

Possession of the keys did not give Peter any authority to determine who should be admitted to heaven or who should be excluded as the Pope and priests claim to do. It is Christ alone who has that authority.

DisplacedMaritimer(Bert) wrote:
Wayne,
Neither the Nicene Creed nor John 10 state that Jesus is Divine.

The purpose of the Nicene Creed was to correct error, especially the Arian heresy which denied the divinity of Jesus. Check this info on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed

When God the Father spoke to God the Son in Hebrews Ch1 vs 8, the Father addressed Jesus as God. This is an especially useful verse for dealing with JWs.

"(6)And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

(7)And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministes a flame of fire.

(8)But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Hebrews Ch1 vs 6 to 8.

Notice in vs (8) the Father refers addresses His Son as God and says His throne is forever and ever, etc.
Also, notice vs (7). "Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:" is a direct quote from the Old Testament, Psalm 104 vs4.

"If you consider that Peter was front and center in virtually every improtant dialogue with Jesus and that he was consulted on every major decision after Jesus' death it becomes obvious that Peter was held in high regard by the other Apostles."

It is true Peter was key in starting the church at Pentecost, but the symbol of the keys does not make Peter the chief apostle. Remember the same authority was give to the others.(Matt 18:18)

The account about the council in Acts ch6 does not mention Peter. It says the twelve (apostles) formed the council and appointed several men to look after the widows.

Secondly the council described in Acts ch15 met in Jerusalem to consider the problem of the Judaizers. James seemed to chair the meeting. Peter spoke but so did Paul and Barnabas. At the end, James gave his advice, and the council sent chosen men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch with letters from the council.

If Peter had been the Pope, there would have been no need for a council. Peter would simply have written a papal encyclical and that would have been the end of the matter. But the council decided and followed their course. Peter had no special role or authority in the council.

DisplacedMaritimer(Bert) wrote:
Wayne,
Do you believe that Jesus is Devine? If so, how can you prove it using only the NT?

Yes, of course. The N.T. is full of proof to that effect.

The Nicene Creed was a statement of the orthodox faith of the early Christian Church, in opposition to certain heresies, especially Arianism. These heresies concerned the doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Christ.

"If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." John 10:37, 38.

True, Canada is not mentioned, but the existence of Canada is not a central doctrine or practice of the Church as the papacy is. Since the papacy plays such a prominent role in the RCC, if it was really legitimate, it would be mentioned in numerous places in the N.T. If Christ really made a man the head of His Church on earth, it would be mentioned over and over. But it isn't.

DisplacedMaritimer(Bert) wrote:
Sorry, Wayne, but if you do a google search for evidence of Peter having been in Rome, you will find all kinds of it.

I looked up a little on one RC website, but some of the claims seem quite weak. For example it says "It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s."

This kind of thing is not historical evidence at all. To make the claim that something is "commonly accepted" is not proof.

Another sentence says "Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did." The claim this is some kind of evidence that Peter was in Rome. Again this is very weak and does not prove that Peter was in Rome.

But again we need to get back to the N.T. which is the only real authoritative record of the beginning of the church. The N.T. simply does not show that Peter was even a Pope, let alone that he spent any significant or even brief time in Rome.

I would like to correct a misconception.

Misconception: "The Bible came from the Roman Catholic Church (and the RCC originated with the apostle Peter)".

This is not correct. The RCC claims it existed from the time of the apostles and that Peter was the first Pope. This claim cannot be proven. The New Testament, which is the final authoritative document on the beginnings of the church, do not even mention the papacy, the RCC, or the succession of Popes. There is no historical proof that Peter ever was in Rome. The N.T. evidence is that Peter was an apostle to the Jews while Paul was an apostle to the gentiles. The N.T. mentions Paul having gone to Rome, but Paul does not mention seeing Peter there or anything about Peter being in Rome. Seems strange if Peter was really a Pope that Paul did not acknowledge him as such and pay recognition to him in Rome. None of other apostles mention a pope or recognize Peter as a pope through the N.T. Seems strange that such a central claim is not supported by the N.T.

This is not correct. The RCC claims it existed from the time of the apostles and that Peter was the first Pope. This claim cannot be proven. The New Testament, which is the final authoritative document on the beginnings of the church, do not even mention the papacy, the RCC, or the succession of Popes. There is no historical proof that Peter ever was in Rome. The N.T. evidence is that Peter was an apostle to the Jews while Paul was an apostle to the gentiles. The N.T. mentions Paul having gone to Rome, but Paul does not mention seeing Peter there or anything about Peter being in Rome. Seems strange if Peter was really a Pope that Paul did not acknowledge him as such and pay recognition to him in Rome. None of other apostles mention a pope or recognize Peter as a pope through the N.T. Seems strange that such a central claim is not supported by the N.T.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians ch2:8,9