Sticking up for our Catholic Brethren

[francisdesales]

Re:

frances - forgive me for perhaps being dense here, but where does Paul say that it is a valid practice?

God's mercy is shown to us while we are on earth, and it is realized after we die. In other word's it has already been decided at the point of death. There is not effecieincy in asking for mercy after the person dies.

Read 1 Cor 15. First, Paul is defending the idea of resurrection to the Greeks. Then, after doing so, he says...

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 1 Cor 15:29

Don't you find that strange to say, to back up his teaching with the current practice of some Christians if it was NOT an acceptable practice??? You don't use an unacceptable practice to draw attention to a teaching that you believe in! That is not how normal people argue...

Regards

 

[smiling_grin]

Re:

So,

In accepting the CC as a valid spiritual 'brotherhood' should we EMBRACE their practices as well as the individuals? Should we hesitate to point out to others the practices that they follow that we KNOW to be WRONGfUL?


As we are to love EVEN our enemies we are CERTAINLY to love our Catholic brothers and sisters as well. But that does NOT alter the FACT that we should CERTAINLY 'stand up' and fight for what is RIGHTEOUS and PURE.

Bowing to a POPE and offering him WORSHIP is NOT what we have been taught in the Word. NOT EVEN the apostles would allow this type of honor to placed upon THEM, (those that were ACTUALLY IMPOWERED by Christ HIMSELF). So HOW could a 'religion' of Christianity be TRUSTED that would follow such 'man-made' teachings? And HOW could these that follow such teachings be 'trusted' to TRULY be following ONE God and ONE SON? Dangerous indeed to trust in 'man-made' teachings that DO NOT follow The Word and 'political correctness' will mean LITTLE when one is held accountable for NOT pointing out the errors that our brothers may circum to. For causing one to 'stumble' is JUST as likely to be something that we DO as something that we DO NOT DO.

I never saw/met/knew/heard of a Catholic doing all this.
Anyways bowing is showing respect. What about to audiences? In many cultures as a greeting...etc? And how do we worship the Pope? Please try to understand Catholicism better, because this ISN'T true
Conclusion: Catholics don't worship the Pope. However, many seem to think that and I'd like to make it clear.

As has been offered on NUMEROUS occasions; we are certainly NOT to persecute our brothers and sisters simply because they have followed 'false teachings', but we are CERTAINLY not to attempt to EMBRACE such either and ARE accountable to WARN those that we CLEARLY SEE following FALSE DOCTRINE. Political corrctness will NOT be 'an excuse' upon 'judgement'.

MEC

I agree with you on some parts, but as I Catholic who used to be very sceptical but now understands Catholic teachings better, I don't think it is false doctrine. Please tell me why and what is this false doctrine, because I'm interested and I'm trying to be open to others' beliefs. As I feel many people misunderstand Catholicism, I might be misunderstanding other denominations and religions.

 

[francisdesales]

Re:

Bowing to a POPE and offering him WORSHIP is NOT what we have been taught in the Word.

Which Catholic does this??? If you are going to attack our practices, at least do a slight amount of research and make valid accusations. Otherwise, your words border on libel.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Re: Re:

Read 1 Cor 15. First, Paul is defending the idea of resurrection to the Greeks. Then, after doing so, he says...

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 1 Cor 15:29

You are correct, the 1 Cor. 15 is referring to the resurrection. However, Paul does not change course for just one verse to refer to baptism. Not to mention that if "baptism for the dead" is to be a valid Christian practice, why is it not mentioned anywhere else throughout the Scriptures?

Does it not seem odd to place a doctrine solely on the backing of one verse?

Don't you find that strange to say, to back up his teaching with the current practice of some Christians if it was NOT an acceptable practice??? You don't use an unacceptable practice to draw attention to a teaching that you believe in! That is not how normal people argue...

Francis - Paul is not saying that it is acceptable! In fact, Paul is not even referring to the church at Corinth - Paul uses "those" and "they" - not "we" and "us".

Paul is arguing for resurrection - not for baptism. In other words, if the resurrection is not real - then it is insane to baptise people "here and now" for someone who is "dead" who will be "staying in the ground". In other words, Paul is showing that even the pagans believe in a resurrection.

Paul does not suggest that "baptism for the dead" is an appropiate practice for the Christian believer.

 

[francisdesales]

You are correct, the 1 Cor. 15 is referring to the resurrection. However, Paul does not change course for just one verse to refer to baptism. Not to mention that if "baptism for the dead" is to be a valid Christian practice, why is it not mentioned anywhere else throughout the Scriptures?

Does it not seem odd to place a doctrine solely on the backing of one verse?

First of all, the Scriptures clearly show Paul refering to a practice undertaken by people who are Christians - a practice that he does not condemn. Although it doesn't fall into your theological construct, you would be wise to read what is there, not what you think it says. Quite simply, Paul is refering to people, Christians, who believe in the Resurrection. These same people practice some sort of Baptism of the Dead, whatever that means. The word "else" is compelling in this situation. It is mentioned only one time - perhaps it was only a local practice. But I don't see Paul condemning it. I don't get the feeling that Paul would use a "pagan practice" to show the truth of the resurrection.

I am not arguing for some sort of doctrine centered on baptism of the dead. Apparently, the practice was not universal as it is not mentioned elsewhere, even outside of canonical writings. The fact remains, however, that theology on this point was undergoing some sort of flux or development at this point, as Paul does NOT argue against the Christian practice. We don't really know what he thinks about it, but he uses the idea to show the validity of the Resurrection of the Body.

Francis - Paul is not saying that it is acceptable! In fact, Paul is not even referring to the church at Corinth - Paul uses "those" and "they" - not "we" and "us".

Paul is refering to Christians whom the Corinthians obviously knew... Whether they were a sect within Corinth, or some other group of Christians down the road, who can say? However, I find that Paul does not usually say "we" or "us" when speaking about other Christian groups whom he is writing to. He is addressing them, generally, in the third person.

Paul is arguing for resurrection - not for baptism. In other words, if the resurrection is not real - then it is insane to baptise people "here and now" for someone who is "dead" who will be "staying in the ground". In other words, Paul is showing that even the pagans believe in a resurrection.

Ridiculous. The pagans were the LAST people to believe in resurrection. You need to do some reading on Greek beliefs during the time of Paul. They were entirely against the idea of a bodily resurrection.

Regards

 

[Guest]

francis - you have not provided any evidence that Paul was referring to Christians. This is not about fitting Scripture into my construct, but rather understanding what the totality of Scripture's teach.

Again, nowhere else is this notion of "baptism for the dead" is practiced by Christian believers. No where in Scripture is this idea taught or encouraged.

Perhaps you forget when Paui at Mars Hill used the poetry of the time to teach them about the "unknown God" that they worshipped.

While I would imagine that those who Paul was writting to in 1 Corinithians probably knew who the "they" he was referring too - that doesn't mean Paul was referring to them as Christians. In fact, by using "they" and "those" it is clear that Paul takes a shift to referr to other people who were not Christians.

 

[francisdesales]

francis - you have not provided any evidence that Paul was referring to Christians.

Can you point to some commentaries that understand Paul was speaking about pagans? Most commentaries that I am familar with don't make your claim. I am beginning to think that this conversation is just another attempt to argue just for the sake of arguing. It is pretty clear from the context that Paul is speaking about Christians. The word "else" in verse 29 and how it is tied to his discussion on resurrection makes it clear that Paul is speaking about people who practice something AND believe in the resurrection to PROVE A POINT. Tell me, which Greeks believed in bodily resurrection and were not Christian???

This is not about fitting Scripture into my construct, but rather understanding what the totality of Scripture's teach.

Both you and I can point to some strange topics found in Scriptures. Just because they are not discussed in every book of the Bible doesn't mean that some people found them useful at one point in time. Again, I am not telling you that all Christians everywhere now or ever practice "baptism of the dead". There are a number of practices that early Christians did but we no longer do, as well as practices we do and ones they did not do. My point is to say that Paul did not find it necessary to condemn the practice, using it to tie the believer's practice with the theology of bodily resurrection. That's it.

While I would imagine that those who Paul was writting to in 1 Corinithians probably knew who the "they" he was referring too - that doesn't mean Paul was referring to them as Christians. In fact, by using "they" and "those" it is clear that Paul takes a shift to referr to other people who were not Christians.

Clearly, that it not clear... They can refer to other Christians. You are making an incredible presumption not made obvious by the context. "They" can refer to Christians in Jerusalem or Rome. It can refer to other Christians in Crete or Ephesus. You don't know who "they" are. But it is nearly certain that they were Christians, as Paul uses them as an example of people practicing something AND holding to the resurrection, something the pagan Greek did NOT believe in.

We are just going to have to accept that some people in the Bible did things we don't quite understand or do any longer...

Regards

 

[Guest]

Forgive me, Francis - but didn't Vic already provide a link to a commentary that explains what I suggested?

Also, I would encourage you to look at the commentary by Warren Wiersbe on 1 Cor. or even Matthew Henry.

 

[francisdesales]

Forgive me, Francis - but didn't Vic already provide a link to a commentary that explains what I suggested?

Also, I would encourage you to look at the commentary by Warren Wiersbe on 1 Cor. or even Matthew Henry.

I haven't read Vic's post...

There are numerous commentaries that try to explain this most difficult verse. However, I do not accept the idea that Paul is speaking about non-Christians in the middle of trying to prove the resurrection. This idea is just not very good exegesis, but an attempt to twist the context so as to maintain some other belief that is not even mentioned here - WHO can be baptized. I just don't see the language that warrants such a presumption or interpretation. According to Barnes, among many other opinions that he lists, he says the following:

"By others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted."

I find this interesting that some Christians conducted "baptism of the dead", which I believe was some sort of vicarious baptism. This is not without warrant in Scriptures, as there are a number of cases where a vicarious offering, even faith, is enough for the healing of another. One primary example off the top of my head is the centurion's servant. It is thus not "un-Christian" to consider the practice at one time, although the Church NOW does not accept the practice.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Forgive me, Francis - but didn't Vic already provide a link to a commentary that explains what I suggested?

Also, I would encourage you to look at the commentary by Warren Wiersbe on 1 Cor. or even Matthew Henry.

I haven't read Vic's post...

There are numerous commentaries that try to explain this most difficult verse. However, I do not accept the idea that Paul is speaking about non-Christians in the middle of trying to prove the resurrection. This idea is just not very good exegesis, but an attempt to twist the context so as to maintain some other belief that is not even mentioned here - WHO can be baptized. I just don't see the language that warrants such a presumption or interpretation. According to Barnes, among many other opinions that he lists, he says the following:

"By others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted."

I find this interesting that some Christians conducted "baptism of the dead", which I believe was some sort of vicarious baptism. This is not without warrant in Scriptures, as there are a number of cases where a vicarious offering, even faith, is enough for the healing of another. One primary example off the top of my head is the centurion's servant. It is thus not "un-Christian" to consider the practice at one time, although the Church NOW does not accept the practice.

Regards

Believe me, I am not attempting to be a jerk here - however, if you are going to cite someone, it is proper to give them credit (forgive me, just saying Barnes doesn't mean much to me) and provide where you got the quote from.

However, the problem with your understanding is that there would be no reason to baptize someone after they have died. They are either saved or not at the point of death - being baptized after death will do nothing!

 

[francisdesales]

Forgive me, Francis - but didn't Vic already provide a link to a commentary that explains what I suggested?

Also, I would encourage you to look at the commentary by Warren Wiersbe on 1 Cor. or even Matthew Henry.

I haven't read Vic's post...

There are numerous commentaries that try to explain this most difficult verse. However, I do not accept the idea that Paul is speaking about non-Christians in the middle of trying to prove the resurrection. This idea is just not very good exegesis, but an attempt to twist the context so as to maintain some other belief that is not even mentioned here - WHO can be baptized. I just don't see the language that warrants such a presumption or interpretation. According to Barnes, among many other opinions that he lists, he says the following:

"By others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted."

I find this interesting that some Christians conducted "baptism of the dead", which I believe was some sort of vicarious baptism. This is not without warrant in Scriptures, as there are a number of cases where a vicarious offering, even faith, is enough for the healing of another. One primary example off the top of my head is the centurion's servant. It is thus not "un-Christian" to consider the practice at one time, although the Church NOW does not accept the practice.

Regards

Believe me, I am not attempting to be a jerk here - however, if you are going to cite someone, it is proper to give them credit (forgive me, just saying Barnes doesn't mean much to me) and provide where you got the quote from.

However, the problem with your understanding is that there would be no reason to baptize someone after they have died. They are either saved or not at the point of death - being baptized after death will do nothing!

Good thing you don't make the command decisions in heaven. The problem with your narrow thinking is that it eliminates the entire Hebrew race before Christ...

God can do what He wills, despite your disagreement. There are plenty of examples of vicarious salvation and healings, even in the NT. I don't think your theology takes into account what the Bible says.

Regards

 

[Rick W]

All I can say is baptism for the dead won't work. Doesn't matter that it was practiced or by who. I don't want to go off on another tangent about baptism but I believe there's only one baptism that can save you... "the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" John 1:33

Man's practice of baptism by proxy won't save the dead.

 

[stranger]

re . . .Baptising for the dead. . .

Here is a contribution that may throw some light on baptising for the dead. . .

francisdesales wrote:
Read 1 Cor 15. First, Paul is defending the idea of resurrection to the Greeks. Then, after doing so, he says...

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 1 Cor 15:29

aLoneVoice:
You are correct, the 1 Cor. 15 is referring to the resurrection. However, Paul does not change course for just one verse to refer to baptism. Not to mention that if "baptism for the dead" is to be a valid Christian practice, why is it not mentioned anywhere else throughout the Scriptures?

Baptism is mentioned elsewhere in scripture - but baptism has a few aspects which can be expressed: baptism for the dead- understood as 'in Christ's death (who died and was buried - hence dead) AND baptism in Christ's resurrection. Whether 'of Christ' and 'for Christ' or ' in Christ' have linguistic connotations - I am not sure how greek handles that which could be assumed by context but not explicitly stated in the text ??? . But baptism for the dead understood in relation to baptism in Roman 6:1-4 makes more sense than some unrelated early Christian ceremony of being baptised for the dead of which one is illegitimate.

Does it not seem odd to place a doctrine solely on the backing of one verse?

Yes, if baptism for the dead is taken as a stand alone doctrine without connections. . .

Don't you find that strange to say, to back up his teaching with the current practice of some Christians if it was NOT an acceptable practice??? You don't use an unacceptable practice to draw attention to a teaching that you believe in! That is not how normal people argue...

A Mormon practise comes to mind where the living are baptised for the dead (relatives who have physically moved on) thus conferring some benefit upon them that the dead did not attain while they had the opportunity. I don't believe in this because the benefits of baptism are thus isolated from baptism into Christ. It is useless for a sinner to be baptised into a sinner who has yet to have his/her own sins accounted for as Potluck implied- baptism by proxy.

Francis - Paul is not saying that it is acceptable! In fact, Paul is not even referring to the church at Corinth - Paul uses "those" and "they" - not "we" and "us".

Paul is arguing for resurrection . . In other words, if the resurrection is not real - then it is insane to baptise people "here and now" for someone who is "dead" who will be "staying in the ground". In other words, Paul is showing that even the pagans believe in a resurrection.

Paul does not suggest that "baptism for the dead" is an appropiate practice for the Christian believer.

I agree but the last sentence needs qualification. Paul says that IF the dead are not raised . . The arguement that follows is the same one presented earlier in the chapter. Consider the alternatives:

1. IF the dead Christ was not raised - then those who were baptised into Christ - meaning every believer - would remain dead as you (ALV) pointed out. In this sense baptism for the dead avails nothing because believers are still in their sins.

2. But Christ was raised - then those who were baptised into Christ's death WERE also baptised into the resurrection. This would be presupposed by Paul's already well developed argument. Paul was dealing with a doctrine or a group that denied the resurrection or had cease to believe in it.

So being baptised for the dead in Christ ,though cryptic, requires us to think about about our status and condition in the two aspects of baptism. Has anyone observed a distortion that leaves out the resurrection of Christ? Glorying in the cross is to no avail without the resurrection of our Lord.

 

[Rick W]

Well said stranger.
Thank you.

 

[Guest]

Good thing you don't make the command decisions in heaven. The problem with your narrow thinking is that it eliminates the entire Hebrew race before Christ...

God can do what He wills, despite your disagreement. There are plenty of examples of vicarious salvation and healings, even in the NT. I don't think your theology takes into account what the Bible says.

Regards

I believe it to be good that none of us make the command decisions in heaven!

I believe that the OT saints salvation was handled differenently (through the sacrifcial system) from us who are living under the NT (through the final sacrifice of Christ). There are two covenants - that with Israel and that with the "called out ones" (church) - basically the OT and the NT.

If there are "plenty of examples of vicarious salvation" - would you mind providing them?

I would appreciate if you did not accuse me of holding to unBiblical theologies ("I don't think your theology takes into account what the Bible says.") - I believe I have provided you that much respect.

 

[francisdesales]

I believe that the OT saints salvation was handled differenently (through the sacrifcial system) from us who are living under the NT (through the final sacrifice of Christ). There are two covenants - that with Israel and that with the "called out ones" (church) - basically the OT and the NT.

My point is that an OT saint was not prevented from entering heaven because they died BEFORE the Christ came to redeem man from his sins. My point is that it is God's will, not our pitiful understanding, that saves man. Thus, IF God desires to work through the "baptism of the dead" (whatever that means), then who is to say that God cannot do this? I have give you a precedent. If you cannot see that, sorry. God will save whom He wills, even if that means saving someone based on the prayers of another Christian and that person has died already. We just cannot limit God.

If there are "plenty of examples of vicarious salvation" - would you mind providing them?

Well, I haven't memorized the Bible, nor do I intend on it, but I can give you some examples off the top of my head.

The Centurion's servant, the invalid in Mark 2 and ANY person that Jesus raised from the dead. Here are a few more examples from Scripture...

Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. James 5:20

What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Phil 1:18-19

For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; Phil 1:29

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church. Col 1:24

Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Tim 2:10

For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present [us] with you. For all things [are] for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward [man] is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding [and] eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal. 2 Cor 4:11-18

Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Eph 3:13-14

Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. 1 Tim 4:14-16

There are also many verses such as below that tell us to pray for others...

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men; 1 Tim 2:1

It is part of Christian theology that Jesus uses suffering members of His Body to channel His redemptive love to the world. That is the main purpose of suffering - and the writers of Scriptures rejoiced in this realization! You have read Paul? Man is allowed to participate in Christ's work of redemption, just as a mother allows her child to participate in making dinner.

I would appreciate if you did not accuse me of holding to unBiblical theologies ("I don't think your theology takes into account what the Bible says.") - I believe I have provided you that much respect.

It is not disrespect, it is a recognition that some of your theology is not in tune with the Scriptures or Christian Tradition. This is not personal and has nothing to do with respecting (or disrespecting) you. If I start calling you names, please let me know that I am disrespecting you. However, attacking your theology as unbiblical is not a personal attack or a sign of disrespect.

Regards

 

[Guest]

francis - you said that there are examples of vicarious 'salvation". Of this is where I challenged you.

I understand that healing work of Christ - the physical healings - that is NOT the same thing as salvation.

Also, the verses you provided does not speak to "salvation".

It would seem that you and I disagree on what "salvation" means.

And in regards to limiting God - God limits Himself through His Holy Word - God cannot operate outside of His Word. If God does, then He violates His Word - and His Word would no longer have any authority.

Are you suggesting that God can operate outside of His Word?

 

[Imagican]

Is the Pope INFALIBLE so far as God's will is concerned? Is the Pope able to discern who will and who won't be allowed into heaven? Do Catholics bow to this man and kiss his finger? Do Catholics regard this man as THE representative of God ON EARTH?

In reference to the debate of 'prayer for the dead', I don't know that it could either help or hurt but I have found NO biblical reference to it having ANY effect on the JUDGEMENT of God. There HAVE been instances where men were able to intercede to alter God's intentions concerning the LIVING, but I have found NO instance of men being able to alter God's Intentions to the DEAD.

And fran, you PROVE your intentions when you make remarks like, 'Christian tradition'. What you REALLY mean is Catholic tradition and that Catholics are the ONLY 'true' Christians. And this is the SAME reason that the Catholic Church was ABANDONED by SO MANY. Being FORCED to worship the CC rather than God and His Son.

I find it AMAZING that so many Catholics actually OWN a Bible and STILL defend and follow it. What 'you' call tradition can be ANYTHING that the clergy has decided to ALTER since the inception of the CC. The 'claims' of tradition are accepted without ANY proof whatsoever. Just the WORD of those that introduced it.

You would 'claim' that ALL the tradtions of the CC were given directly by apostolic inspiration. Where the TRUTH of the matter is that the CC's 'claim' to being FOUNDED by an apostle can't even be substantiated EXCEPT in the minds of those that accept this statement.

Yet there is MUCH evidence and PROOF that MUCH of the 'tradition' of the CC was formulated CENTURIES after the DEATH of the LAST apostles. Formulated by the clergy in order to manipulate the congregation into following THEM instead of The Word.

We were warned against such. Those that would be 'bad sheppards', leading the people AWAY from the truth. How MANY 'good Catholics' TURNED away from these teachings ONCE they learned the TRUTH?

And YOU may deny that YOU worship the Pope. But HOW do you reacon the Pope feels about the adoration heaped upon him? Iguess it's just a matter of UNDERSTANDING exactly WHAT worship IS. For the Pope certainly IS worship by his followers. Just as there are those that attend concerts in order to WORSHIP their favorite musicians, the Pope is worshiped to an even GREATER extent.

Don't get me WRONG. There are MANY in the Protestant denominations that attend their services each week to worship their Pastor. It's NO DIFFERENT. And I am NOT saying that EVERYONE that attends church WORSHIPS the Pastor, but MANY do. Beni Hindi has MANY followers following HIM rather than God.

MEC

 

[stranger]

. . .
And in regards to limiting God - God limits Himself through His Holy Word - God cannot operate outside of His Word. If God does, then He violates His Word - and His Word would no longer have any authority.

Are you suggesting that God can operate outside of His Word?

Hi - can you clarify if by 'His Word' you mean 'scripture'?

 

[Guest]

. . .
And in regards to limiting God - God limits Himself through His Holy Word - God cannot operate outside of His Word. If God does, then He violates His Word - and His Word would no longer have any authority.

Are you suggesting that God can operate outside of His Word?

Hi - can you clarify if by 'His Word' you mean 'scripture'?

Hello - yes, I mean Scripture.