The ONLY Leader is Jesus

The only leader or priest one should have is Jesus. If you kneel down to a pope or a pastor where is God in that? Why give glory to a human being that is not the reason for you being alive. The pope did not give you eternal salvation. Catholicism is a religion and Jesus broke down all religion because it took away from God. It did before and it still does now.

Jesus is our King. But every King has administrators who are given authority by the KING. Left to ourselves alone our faith/religion becomes something we ourselves invent. There is no assurance of TRUTH. If we then make the step of accepting only Scripture our Faith/religion then has a lot of Truth we still have no assurance that our own interpretation is TRUE. So once again we are left with a faith/religion that we can only rely upon ourselves for assurance of TRUTH. The Protestant theory of “the Holy Spirit will lead me into all TRUTH,” is a wonderful theory but in the 500 years of history since the Protestant Reformation, it has proven false. If it were true all Protestants would be led to unity of TRUTH because God is not a God of confusion and yet each year brings new denominations brought about by different interpretations of Scripture. Today there are thousands of different Protestant denominations.

Jesus Himself desires that we be ONE even as He and His Father are ONE.

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

So, Protestantism’s theory of being led by the HS in interpreting scripture has not proven true. Jesus desires UNITY, but Protestantism has resulted in thousands of denominations. And Protestantism encourages private interpretation of Scripture contrary to Scripture itself. This is what led to disunity and confusion.

But, Jesus Himself founded the Catholic Church on Peter and the Apostles 2000 years ago. We have the assurance of TRUTH as that which Jesus taught His apostles some of which was written and became the Bible canonized by the Catholic Church. And some of the apostolic truth was passed on orally and gradually has also been written as a witness to historic Christianity.

I will go with the Church founded by Jesus. He is our king. He gave us a pope and bishops and priests. Who am I to say He did it wrong.

6 Responses

  1. God is not a God of confusion, that must be a correct statement. But that is not to say that there will not be divisions and parties in the flock. That is because divisions and parties is carnality, and we are carnal ,and cling to different persons, some to Apollos, some to Paul and some to……the pope!

    Paul clearly depicted this evolution ( Acts 20 and 2.Kor ). So how can you deem it probable that RCC is the “one and only”? As I have written elsewhere in this blog, the first apostles clearly kept the sabbath and the Biblical feasts , and kept passover ( not Easter ! ) on the 14. Nisan. This has all gone, and the church, be it the RCC or protestant denominations, all celebrate their God on what is pagan feast days, including sunday.

    The true church of Christ, has to be the little flock, subdued and persecuted in all times. You won´t find it in the great, mainstream churches, neither protestant , nor catholic. The catholic church has been a church of worldly power from its beginning, subduing people wherever it has come, its popes and bishops reigning like worldly rulers.
    Should I search for the true church, I wold definitely not sought for the greatest denomination of all. And this denomination also has the pope – the spiritual papa of us all as he wants to be. And he calls himself the ” vicar of Christ “. Who would dare to? There is no office for å pope in the Bible. You don´t find a hint of it in the letters, and you don´t find any practice at all during the Acts that Peter was a papal figure. Whatever Jesus meant by the words he spoke on Peter, we can be confident that it did not mean a papal office as practiced in the RCC. In fact Paul rebuked Peter i Galatia for wrong practice and teaching, and even Peter must confess that there were passages in Pauls letters that were difficult to understand.
    In 1.Cor 3:11 Paul practically rules out the RCC interpretation on the function of Peter where he says: ” for no one can lay another foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ”. Upon this foundation we have the apostles ( plural, all of them ) and the prophets , nowhere do you find Peter as a special foundation on his own!

    So the contention that Jesus founded the Church on Peter 2000 years ago, simply cannot be true.
    The oral tradition you cling to, can be of no help, rather make confusion. Jesus himself rebuked the jews very strongly because they made the scriptures of no avail through their own traditions, Paul instructs clearly ” that in us ye may learn not to think above that which is written” (1.Cor 4:6). Jesus never accepted any tradition outside the scriptures, and the apostles followed the same straight practice.
    There is of course instructions given to people or congregations by Paul orally ( as in 2 Tess 2:15 and 3:6 ). But to try to make this up to be a body of teaching including several essential doctrines not written in the letters, is mere conjecture, or rather wishful thinking from people who wants to make their own dogmas. It simply doesn´t stand to reason that Paul or anyone wrote one thing in his letter, and preached different learnings by mouth!

    • The Catholic Church believes Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. Inward faith is to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. Why do you trust the New Testament, you got it from the Church which you do not trust?

      • I must confess that I do not know too much about how the new testament scriptures were compiled, though I have some notions. But one thing is the fact that the scriptures were compiled, an other thing is how they should be understood. Do you think that there is an inevitable connection between acceptance oft he compilation, and acceptance of the interpretation? I don´t see the necessary connection.

        Now , I don´t think it is correct to maintan that it is actually the roman church that gave us the bible. The canon was decided before the RCC rose ” to power “, isn´t that true?

        Then we have also one real problem with what the RCC holds on the importance of tradition. They teach that there is a body of teaching included in the traditions of the church that gives important doctrinal substance apart from the NT. This I think is unacceptable. What I see is that this alleged tradition takes even precedence over clear statements in the NT and teaches people to even twist the meaning of plain words. This is what I reject. And I reject accepting anything on the merit of just authority. I will listen to anyone, but as the believers in Berea, Paul reasonend with them and allowed them to be convinced , not for the reason that he told them, but for the reason that they saw upon studying the scriptures that what was told them did comply fully to the scriptures and nothing else.

  2. @ Arne: I was going to frame a proper answer to your other question(s) until I see this. You’re wasting the “talent” God’s given you, and should really be doing the works of mercy like serving the poor, feeding the hungry or visiting the prisoners since apologetics is surely not your forte. You lack clarity and the basic knowledge of scripture and history.

    • thanks for good advice, surkiko. Maybe I have stated my position boldly ,but I am not indifferent to solid arguments and clear reasoning. If you think I am lacking in clarity and basic knowledge of scripture ,you are welcome to teach me a truth or two. But if your explanation on the word ” until” in Matt. 1:24 is no better than what I have seen so far, you should rather not waste your energy.

      • @ Arne: That’s precisely what I was going to do. I’ve to leave the house for the rest of the day. When I return, I will give you a reasonable answer, only if you promise not to rant uncontrollably “until” then …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: