Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Pope Benedict's fallability

I'll let you read the original press release for yourself.

Done? Good.

Did you notice anything that made, well, no sense at all? Any fundamental problems that glow in the dark? Any extra-Biblical qualifications for the presumed exclusivity of the Catholic denomination of Christianity?

This mini-article is more a of a starting point for discussion--so, if you're of a mind to do so, let's discuss.

--Mike

38 comments:

Junkster said...

NBBCOF! Closed Forum! Other blog!

There, got that out of the way ... on to discussing the topic at hand ...

Mike Bratton said...

Thank you for "running up the meter," Junkster. Hopefully, we can discuss an issue far more weighty, and far more interesting.

Hopefully, that is.

Your thoughts?

--Mike

Junkster said...

One (of many) common Catholic assumptions that strikes me in the press release is that the validity of the church is based on apostolic succession. It's a convenient doctrine for them (and easy way to claim to be the true heirs of the keys of the kingdom), but one without warant scripturally (or even historically).

Another assumption is that Christian unity is structural / organizational and visible in nature, rather than spiritual / organic and invisible. Unfortunately, Catholics aren't the only ones with that mistaken assumption.

Cakes said...

Latin certus coniecto auctorita ut stolidus logic.

Freno vestri Dogma, Ratzinger.

Junkster said...

Cakes,
Was that admonition directed at the Pope, Bratton, or me? :)

et prout vultis ut faciant vobis homines et vos facite illis similiter

solomon said...

junkster,

I just read your 'wondering' about what's next for BBC. Do you have any reason to suspect that the link you posted 'over there' is in the works for Bellevue?

Mike Bratton said...

Apologies, gents. I'm nearly thirty years removed from Latin class, Junior Classical league, and all that jazz.

--Mike

Junkster said...

Keith,
I was just joking about that coming to BBC. But you make a good point ... I just posted a clarification over there on the other side of The Island. (But I'm still not sure which side is The Losties and which side is The Others.)

Junkster said...

Mike,
Cakes first sentence was something to the effect that the certain conclude authority when dull-witted (I'm sure there's a better translation than one that literal). Then he said "Curb your dogma, Ratzinger." I figured out later that he was addressing his remark to the Pope (whose name was Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict 16.

My response was just a quote of the Golden Rule (which always applies ... you can say it in response to anything! Try it at lunch witrh a friend sometime when you have no better response; it's fun to see how they reply!)

And, no, my Latin is not good enough for me to know any of that without resorting to on-line translators.

Mike Bratton said...

Junkster said...
Mike,
Cakes first sentence was something to the effect that the certain conclude authority when dull-witted (I'm sure there's a better translation than one that literal). Then he said "Curb your dogma, Ratzinger." I figured out later that he was addressing his remark to the Pope (whose name was Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict 16.

My response was just a quote of the Golden Rule (which always applies ... you can say it in response to anything! Try it at lunch witrh a friend sometime when you have no better response; it's fun to see how they reply!)

And, no, my Latin is not good enough for me to know any of that without resorting to on-line translators.


Much obliged.

Junkster said...
Keith,
I was just joking about that coming to BBC. But you make a good point ... I just posted a clarification over there on the other side of The Island. (But I'm still not sure which side is The Losties and which side is The Others.)


Not the first time I've read someone make that analogy. There is a consensus, from what I've been told, but I won't spoil it for you. ;)

--Mike

Arminius the Troll said...

"Third Question: Why was the expression 'subsists in' adopted instead of the simple word 'is'?

"Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are 'numerous elements of sanctification and of truth' which are found outside her structure, but which 'as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity.'

"'It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.'


I wonder if he means specific Protestant denominations, or individuals who are 'accidentally' Catholic?

Cakes said...

(trans.) Latin sure infers authority to dumb logic.

Curb your dogma, R (good, junk).

You can say you are going to the bathroom in latin and it sounds authoritative--dat's me poirnt.

Mike, how about pig latin?

Mike Bratton said...

I don't know, Cakes. A Mass in Pig Latin might be going just a bit too far...

--Mike

bepatient said...

Mike,
That sounds like it might be the plot of Robin William's movie "License to Wed".... Can't you just see him performing a ceremony in Pig Latin?



As far as the rest of it goes, I know so little about Catholicism it is embarrassing, but I do know that just on a basic level I have never really understand how anyone who has read the Bible could embrace a religion/denomination that puts one man in such high esteem and basically put all their faith in him.

Arminius the Troll said...

Hey, has anyone been 'over there' and seen how they're treating that preacher who's trying to reason with them? And just because he's a pastor.

This was the plan of the so-called 'anti-Warrenites' all along. Get the hurting people so suspicious and cynical that they'll never be able to go to church again. That, and sell some books to make a few extra bucks.

I remember one post in particular from dear, sweet 'imaresistor' in which 'she' told a blogger that he shouldn't go to church or talk to his friends anymore, and also to make sure and pick up James Sundquist's latest book.

Nice.

Sol, is a conspiracy theorist still a theorist if the conspiracy comes to fruition? (I don't recall Oliver Stone ever being proven right.)

Junkster said...

Arminius the Troll said...
Hey, has anyone been 'over there' and seen how they're treating that preacher who's trying to reason with them? And just because he's a pastor.

Oh, yes, poor Jon. So reasonable, so misunderstood. That poor, poor man!

I'd say it more like this ... "Hey, has anyone been 'over there' and seen how that preacher is refusing to listen to reason? And he seems to think he knows more than others just because he's a pastor."

Mike Bratton said...

Junkster said...
Arminius the Troll said...
Hey, has anyone been 'over there' and seen how they're treating that preacher who's trying to reason with them? And just because he's a pastor.

Oh, yes, poor Jon. So reasonable, so misunderstood. That poor, poor man!

I'd say it more like this ... "Hey, has anyone been 'over there' and seen how that preacher is refusing to listen to reason? And he seems to think he knows more than others just because he's a pastor."


The Closed Forum regulars are living down to their collective reputation: Don't "reason," don't discuss, don't debate, don't brook opposing views--just attack, attack, and attack some more.

It really is a one page playbook. Which is why we have to keep praying for them.

--Mike

Junkster said...

Mike Bratton said...
The Closed Forum regulars are living down to their collective reputation: Don't "reason," don't discuss, don't debate, don't brook opposing views--just attack, attack, and attack some more.

It really is a one page playbook. Which is why we have to keep praying for them.


As one of those regulars, all I can say is one's perspective most certainly flavors one's perceptions. In this case I see much healthy debate, little, if any, personal attack ... although I do feel the debate has been rather one sided, in that the regulars are posting fact and sound scriptiral reasoning, and the responses of that "poor pastor" are what sound to me like the one page playbook. As do yours and your merry band of the banned. :) Yep, it's all about perspective ....


Word verification: etabdy. Mmmmmm!

Junkster said...

Oh, and thanks for the prayers, bro ... I need all I can get.

Mike Bratton said...

Junkster said...
Mike Bratton said...
The Closed Forum regulars are living down to their collective reputation: Don't "reason," don't discuss, don't debate, don't brook opposing views--just attack, attack, and attack some more.

It really is a one page playbook. Which is why we have to keep praying for them.

As one of those regulars, all I can say is one's perspective most certainly flavors one's perceptions. In this case I see much healthy debate, little, if any, personal attack ... although I do feel the debate has been rather one sided, in that the regulars are posting fact and sound scriptiral reasoning, and the responses of that "poor pastor" are what sound to me like the one page playbook. As do yours and your merry band of the banned. :) Yep, it's all about perspective ....


Then tell me who authored these little tidbits, quoted thusly and like so:

His Integrity left several years before he did.

the arrogance that doesn’t stop from the pulpit but also spews from the baton.

Until YOU and others who are blinded by the angel of light have your eyes opened by Jesus himself, you will not understand or even come close to having a clue.

If he isn't repentant about whatever he's done and realizes he'll repeat the same mistake again and again, there's no reason to confess and ask forgiveness at all, is there?

Your right NASS. I think Gaines falls into the latter Catagory.

Maybe, just maybe, they knew all about his greed, his love of money and his arrogance, maybe he was the man for Bellevue; at least the man for the corrupt leaders of Bellevue; of course not saying we have any.

Maybe he was the perfect man for their motives and coverups. Greed begets greed.

If they could OWN him, whatever they were hiding and have tried to keep hiddden for many years, would stay hidden. If they control the books and control the pastor, how can they ever be exposed??

The $MILLIONS$ of dollars that have left Bellevue Baptist Church will disclosed someday. Steve's reported 1/2 Million dollar a year package may be a pentance compared to what may be padding someone else's pockets.

What has happened at Bellvue is not an act of honest men but rather dishonest men who love sin and manipulate their environment to cover it up.

I am a fast talkin' sneak, my name’s Pastor Steve
Back home I took all that they gave.

"Satan doesn't spell very well..."

Trully he doesn't, does he? He couldn't in any of his previous incarnations either. For that matter he can't read too well. He has a very limited vocabulary.

Maybe SG discovered her identity and took a group of men over to her place to "reconcile"

Maybe Donna "took out the trash" and she's in a landfill trying to boot up her computer on solar power

Maybe she had a change of heart and is over at BBC constructing the newest shrine to Steve and Donna (and as a reward they're letting her wear one of Donna's tiaras)

I read an early post recently by someone from WJXBC who stated that Steve Gaines' problem was arrogance (see Nov 2,06), but I believe it is much deeper than that.
As a classic narcissist, Steve Gaines knows no fear, in his mind he knows everything, is right about the covering of his sin in order to protect his empire, and his desired end result justifies the ruthless methods he uses. If the fear of the Lord were present in the pulpit, none of this would be happening.

Pray for the goats and the poor young sheep that are not being fed.

Disclaimer for some: I concede there was nothing wrong with the sermon EXCEPT it was delivered by a fence-jumping, pedophile-harboring, sheep-beating, sinful-church-supporting pastor.


Those are just at a glance--and frankly, I get sick from even glancing at the hatred, gossip, bile, and bitterness that's pumped out of there as if there were a quota to be met.

Tell me you're not comfortable with that garbage. Tell me it bothers you--just a little--that people can't even sign their names to their obscene rants, or be bothered to voice their objections face-to-face. Tell me you're tired of the verbal Molotovs, and the overwhelming lack of responsible dialogue.

There's nothing healthy, and precious little that's factual, to be found in the Closed Forum--or in its comrades, either. When one can get banned from a site for asking that people use even a modicum of maturity in their discourse, something's deadly wrong.

And it isn't a matter of perspective: Mock the Bellevue leadership all you like, but I can't think of a single person in leadership who's openly lusted for the death of an anti-Bellevue regular and either been uncontested or openly encouraged.

--Mike

Arminius Stone said...

"So, is SG a false teacher?"

someone said
3rdside,

I'm going to answer your question on false teaching.

1. His sermon on unity. I'm not going to go back to all the threads and pull everything, that's up to you, but in synopsis, SG preached that unity meant agreeing with those in authority. If you don't agree with the leadership (not just BBC, but anywehre), then you are not right with God. NOW, please tell me in the Word, where Jesus preached this.


See, here's the problem. Show me where Gaines said it. His sermon are online, and don't give me any garbage about editting it out because I've listened to many of his sermons live and there is not much difference when they put them in the archives. The one about 'attaking the Spirit' isn't archived, but the rest are. Every time SG has said to submit to authority, he has qualified it by saying that God's precepts take precedence. Show me where he said to accept everything he does, and don't tell me to wade through all that filth on the closed forum. Satan loves for people to pitch their tents near Sodom.

I'm not going to go back to all the threads and pull everything

So which takes precedence here? The fact that the blog said that SG said something, or the fact that he actually did or didn't say it?

Here's a plain and simple fact: Steve Gaines never said to blindly submit to his or any other authority. He's done lots of bad things, but lying about what he said isn't the right way to rebuke him. He said that disobedience to godly authority is disobedience to God. That's all. To say otherwise is a lie, and it comes straight from the father of all lies. I'd be careful about passing that lie around.

Most of the regulars have been rendered unable to accept that they might be mistaken. They're like a pack of wolves. That's why that pastor is getting the 3rd degree. He won't bow down to their attacks, and he's not going to.

Jon Estes asked them to prove a statement. He used the most unfortunate example that if someone in their family were accused of child abuse, shouldn't there be proof. Somehow, in their twisted way of thinking, he's now a child molester.

Solid logic, in their minds.

Junkster said...

Mike Bratton said...
Then tell me who authored these little tidbits, quoted thusly and like so:

I appreciate the recap (not the things said, just that you took the trouble to collect them), but I wasn't referring to the "other" blog in general, I was referring to the specific debate going on at the time (thus my use of the words "in this case"), which was about whether SG could be properly described as a "false teacher". That debate was then mischaracterized by a poster here as attacks on the pastor who disagreed. As you have pointed out yourself, Mike, disagreeing with someone's position, even pointedly, is not an attack.

Tell me you're not comfortable with that garbage.

Some of what you quoted did not bother me at all, because it was factual -- just either facts you don't like or which you dispute. Some of it bothers me a lot, for I know the hearts of some of those people, and I know they want before the Lord to be better people than they are.

Tell me it bothers you--just a little--that people can't even sign their names to their obscene rants, or be bothered to voice their objections face-to-face.

I deem the term "obscene rants" an over-dramatization -- written insults, etc. do not rise to my personal definition of obscenity). But aside from that, no, I am not bothered by anonymity. And it somewhat amuses me that you find that issue to be so important ... I can't think of a sound scriptural basis for opposing anonymity. I understand concerns about the content of what was said, but a person not revealing their name is to me irrelevant. Would people say things differently if their name was attached to what they wrote? Perhaps some things ... but that only means that they are being more honest about their views when not fearing repercussion ... which doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

Tell me you're tired of the verbal Molotovs, and the overwhelming lack of responsible dialogue.

If that's how I saw it, I'd be tired of it. Some opinions given frequently by regulars, especially opinions I don't share, can get tiresome, but I suppose I get tiresome to others at times as well.

When one can get banned from a site for asking that people use even a modicum of maturity in their discourse, something's deadly wrong.

If you honestly, in your heart alone before God, and not just in defense of your personal opinions or pride, believe that is why you were banned, I can see why you'd be bothered.

And it isn't a matter of perspective:

My perspective is that it is a matter of perspective. :)

Mock the Bellevue leadership all you like,

I don't recall doing that, but if I did it was most likely in one of my sarcastic remarks, which I also often aim at myself and those with whom I feel friendly enough to be comfortable doing so (which, I'm sure you've noticed, includes you).

but I can't think of a single person in leadership who's openly lusted for the death of an anti-Bellevue regular and either been uncontested or openly encouraged.

I wouldn't know. I have seen no death lusts expressed over there, except long ago by one former participant who had been nearly killed by her ex-husband and expressed something of that sort toward him, for which she later apologized. I am not privy to other communications like those you said you received, which you also indicated those were worded ambiguously, so even there I don't know the full story.

bugsii said...

Disclaimer for some: I concede there was nothing wrong with the sermon EXCEPT it was delivered by a fence-jumping, pedophile-harboring, sheep-beating, sinful-church-supporting pastor.

That was a terrible attempt by me to be sarcastic and eliminate those arguments about the sermon which I was sure were coming. My apologies in the way that statement was used.

It's interesting that the other blog is about Bellevue and ends up discussing other things and this blog is about other things but always ends up discussing Bellevue. I was reading the Catholic stuff but before I could comment the thread turned to the Bellevue stuff.

My son is aware of the NBBCnotOF site and I told him when I go there it's like visiting a prison and being astonished that there are a bunch of murderers, rapists, and thieves. I'm not comparing those guys with prisoners but I shouldn't be suprised that I get mad when I go over there. I know what to expect. (ChuckECheese's might provide a better analogy)

After one of my first posts to point out bad behaviour I was emailed by a pastor friend of Dr. Rogers. He watched me get trashed out by the rebels. He said the site was sad, what was happening at Bellevue was sad but the site was an interesting study. I believe that is why pastors are popping up over there.

Anyways, in the last few days I've decided that reading these Bellevue related blogs is a waste of my time and energy.

I've enjoyed your site Mike and how you've attempted to make it not about Bellevue but it always draws me back into the Bellevue debate/argument/fistfight. So I'm out of here for good.

Interesting enough, as I look back I will miss cakes(aka mofocrates, trollcates, trollcakes, and sweetcakes). He was a very interesting thread throughout the whole thing.

Don't mean to be so melodramatic but I expect to be called to the carpet if I post anything else. I would post this on the other site but I've already been told to "not let the door hit me". I would also fear being tempted to look again for the loving responses it would have generated!

Good luck in Alabama Mike. There'll never be another Caiphas like you!

bugsii

solomon said...

Would people say things differently if their name was attached to what they wrote? Perhaps some things ... but that only means that they are being more honest about their views when not fearing repercussion ... which doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

Would you say that they are more open with their views, or more careless with their words?

A Christians motivation is not just to speak the truth, it's to speak the truth in love. Love is never about venting frustrations and winning arguments.

At this point I'm leaning toward following bugsii's lead and saying goodbye. I looked over some of the 'discussions' with Pastor Estes, and I can no longer visit the NBBCOF.

I've enjoyed having a 'safe place' to come to on bad days, Mike. But bugs is right, I keep wanting to change the subject back to the people who are attacking Bellevue.

Junk, bepatient, Mike, memphis, amy, karen, cakes, and yes, watchinghistory (and anyone else I missed): It's been a blessing spending time with you.

Keith

Arminius Stone said...

Keith,

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.

Junkster said...

So, how 'bout them Cath-licks, huh?

There ... we are back on topic!

Bugsii and Solomon, please don't go away from here on account of what's gone on over there. I always enjoy reading your thoughts (whether or not I agree), and there is so much more to talk about. The original topic for this thread has barely been scratched.

solomon said...

junkster,

I appreciate the thought, but this is something the I've been pondering for a while. I promised my wife I'd cut back, and I've gone back on my promise a little.

I'd feel comfortable coming here everyday if there wasn't an NBBCOF, but I keep getting dragged back into the fight.

What's going on with Pastor Estes has convinced me to stay away from there. 'All eyes' are on the blog, and he's demonstrating for all the preachers, staff members, and seminaries that Christ's love does not rule there.

I've really loved Bellevue over the years. Not just the preaching or the music, but the people. I don't think the people I've gone to church with would never say some of the things that have been said, and if they would I'd rather keep believing they wouldn't.

I think you're a class act, junk, and I've enjoyed reading your thoughts (and you can have the copyrights on that). Like I said, if there wasn't 'another' blog I'd stick around.

I don't consider the time I've spent here wasted at all, but I don't think it's best for anyone that I keep posting.

Mike Bratton said...

Sol, in the words of that great philosopher Clint Eastwood, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Having chosen not to contest the oxymornonic notion of being "banned" for encouraging people to behave themselves, I've found it liberating to spend, and then infrequently, only a sliver of my increasingly-valuable time reading messages from people who give free rein to their bitterness and hatred.

Oh, my, yes, there appears to be the occasional discussion of Scripture over there! But when it's conducted by people who otherwise either ignore Scriptural guidelines or use Scripture as a weapon, they're as bad as Pope Benedict's exclusionary bile. (How's that for tying into the topic?)

Though there's no mechanism for exercising church discipline on someone of another denomination, like Pope Benedict, it is surprising to me, honestly, that church discipline has not been used on the core anti-Bellevuers. Those that actually are members of Bellevue, that is. I'm working up something on that for an upcoming article.

If you feel led to do something else with your blogging time, that's completely understandable; however, you don't have to make an all-or-nothing choice.

--Mike

Junkster said...

From the document:
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."

By referring to "Christian Communities born out of the Reformation" as "instruments of salvation", is this an admission of sorts that it is possible for someone to be saved apart from the Catholic Church?

What about this statement?
"Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation, 'nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.' The fullness of the Catholic Church, therefore, already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners."

Since non-Catholic churches do not have the "fullness of salvation", and since on-going partaking of the sacrament of communion is considered in Catholic theology to be essential for imparting forgiveness (and thus salvation), and since Protestants are not "in communion" with the Catholic church, does this mean that no one can ever be saved apart from the Catholic church? If so, what does the first statement mean? Perhaps that God has used non-Catholic churches as instruments of salvation in the sense that they get part of the truth out, leading people to eventually become part of the Catholic church, in which is found true salvation?

Junkster said...

This response by Al Mohler to the Catholic document is worth reading.

A quote:
"I appreciate the document's clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children; it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question."

Arminius Stone said...

The thing I don't understand is that the Catholics get so much from tradition, which is really just personal preference. Whenever someone disagrees with their opinions, they're quick to label them 'anathema' and say they're unsaved.

Thank goodness the Baptists don't have a problem like that.

Mary said...

This is my first time to visit your forum. I received an email from a friend who told me of your latest topic and asked me to respond as one who spent many years (past) in the indoctrination of the Roman Catholic Church.

First of all, Benedict’s latest pronouncement, while new to many Americans, is nothing new for the official doctrine of the RCC. Everything he said has been official RCC doctrine since the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s (1545 through 1563) and it was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council (more commonly known as Vatican II) in 1962 under the pontificate of John XXIII.

It was at Trent where the RCC made its definitive determination of what would become the official doctrinal positions and teachings of the Church. Doing this was necessary to answer what the RCC called the heresies of the Protestants. But I digress…

Benedict, who as Cardinal Ratzinger, was known for years as John Paul II’s Rottweiler; however, that dog is no longer on John Paul II’s leash, but rather is structuring his own pontificate and is now free to verbalize what John Paul II spent 30+ years trying to keep under wraps while working toward making ecumenism and the Deification of Mary the primary themes of his pontificate.

Vatican II claimed to make profound changes -- modernizing the RCC by making it more evangelical, more spiritual, more biblical, more aware of her own identity, more open to every culture and to every experience. However, it changed nothing of the doctrinal positions that have been held by the Church since Trent – but for one caveat of theology that should be of vital importance and alarm to Bible-believing Christians everywhere:
Vatican II stated that the ecumenical movement is a sign of the Holy Spirit's action and said that it considered the promotion of this movement to be one of the Church’s principal tasks.

Other than that, Vatican II merely reaffirmed the long-held apostasy of the spiritual deceptions of the RCC by teaching another gospel, another way and another Jesus. It also reaffirmed the blasphemous teachings of the Catechism that states salvation is by faith plus baptism, plus the sacraments of the Church, plus good works, plus law keeping, plus the sacrifice of the Mass (including transubstantiation), indulgences, purgatory and penance. According to God's Holy Word this is another gospel.

For those who are extremely secure in their own faith in Biblical Christianity and who wish to research this or any other official position of the RCC, I refer you to the official website of the Vatican which can be found at: http://www.vatican.va/ Click on “The Holy See” and it will take you to the English version. Not all documents are available in English but a great many are, and there is a tremendous amount of official information available. I found the apostolic letters of John Paul II particularly interesting – even shocking in parts.

I hope this has been helpful.

Blessings,
Mary

Junkster said...

Arminius Stone said...
Thank goodness the Baptists don't have a problem like that.

Buuuuwwaaaaaahhahahahahahaaaaaaaa! Good one!

Aren't we glad we aren't like that old Pharisee who thought he was better than everybody else?

Junkster said...

Mary,
Excellent summary. Thanks!



On an unrelated (?) note:
Word verification: mixwoper

Arminius Stone said...

Of course, since I'm (most recently) Church of Christ, one unsaved person pretty much looks like another.

Junkster said...

Arminius Stone said...
Of course, since I'm (most recently) Church of Christ, one unsaved person pretty much looks like another.

You and the Pope could have fun telling each other "My church is real-er than your church!" and "We're the only ones." I bet he'd enjoy that as much as you.

Cakes said...

"You and the Pope could have fun telling each other 'My church is real-er than your church!" and "We're the only ones.'"

Bwahahahahahaha!

WatchingHISstory said...

Keith

I'm with Mike on this keep on posting but keep the wife happy!

Charles