That’s so obviously false. The Bible is the Word of God, written by men inspired by God. You interpret every passage through the lens of discounting the Church, while I interpret it through the lens of those who wrote it and what they taught along with it.
You are familiar with only two sides of the argument:
the argument against the church
the argument against the rebuttal to the argument against the church
The two sides you need to study before you give another sermon :
The argument FOR the church (given by the Catholic Church itself, written by those the Apostles themselves laud hands on and ordained as their successors and protectors of the Sacred Traditions)
The argument against the rebuttal to the church
Read up! Your understanding has a 1600 year gap. All of your resources are contemporary. Why wouldn’t you want to know what the people who actually walked with the Apostles have to say? You read Strong’s like it’s not “men telling you what to think,” and discount what the direct successors of the Apostles wrote as if it’s “just men telling you what to think.” It’s silly. Cut it out 😂
Indulgences were supposed to be an offering of personal sacrifice to help people in purgatory. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Original sin is not a false teaching - Adam and Eve sinned and because of this no human was perfect except Mary, who needed to be granted grace to make her pure enough to be the Ark of the New Covenant, able to carry the Son of God having not been touched by man.
What a silly misconstrual if the passage in Ezekiel...this doesn’t mean that children are born without sin. It means that children will not be held accountable under the law (either man’s or God’s) for sins they do not commit.
Jesus Christ died so that a child can be saved - the child is not culpable as an adult is culpable, yet still is a sinner (for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory if God).
That’s so obviously false. The Bible is the Word of God, written by men inspired by God. You interpret every passage through the lens of discounting the Church, while I interpret it through the lens of those who wrote it and what they taught along with it.
You are familiar with only two sides of the argument:
the argument against the church
the argument against the rebuttal to the argument against the church
The two sides you need to study before you give another sermon :
The argument FOR the church (given by the Catholic Church itself, written by those the Apostles themselves laud hands on and ordained as their successors and protectors of the Sacred Traditions)
The argument against the rebuttal to the church
Read up! Your understanding has a 1600 year gap. All of your resources are contemporary. Why wouldn’t you want to know what the people who actually walked with the Apostles have to say? You read Strong’s like it’s not “men telling you what to think,” and discount what the direct successors of the Apostles wrote as if it’s “just men telling you what to think.” It’s silly. Cut it out 😂
Indulgences don’t buy someone out of hell
Indulgences were supposed to be an offering of personal sacrifice to help people in purgatory. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Original sin is not a false teaching - Adam and Eve sinned and because of this no human was perfect except Mary, who needed to be granted grace to make her pure enough to be the Ark of the New Covenant, able to carry the Son of God having not been touched by man.
What a silly misconstrual if the passage in Ezekiel...this doesn’t mean that children are born without sin. It means that children will not be held accountable under the law (either man’s or God’s) for sins they do not commit.
Jesus Christ died so that a child can be saved - the child is not culpable as an adult is culpable, yet still is a sinner (for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory if God).
Does Strong’s concordance not include interpretive notes/study notes?