Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Marco De Vivo Answers to My Catholic Friends

 

Why don't you evangelicals venerate images?

What most distinguishes evangelical Christians is the insistence that each one must know God in a personal way, and then that he must have a continuous relationship with him, personally, not through images. One of the major themes of the Bible is God's refusal to have images built for worship.

In the second commandment God orders: "Do not make yourself any sculpture or image ... do not bow down before such things and do not serve them" (Exodus 20: 4-6). Some say that if you were to literally keep the second commandment, you might not even have photos of loved ones. The Bible explains to us on the contrary, that the forbidden images are those to which we offer a cult of veneration: "You will not make yourself idols, you will not set up sculpted images or statues, and you will not place any stone adorned with figures in your country to prostrate yourself before it. ; for I am the LORD your God (Leviticus 26: 1).

Others say that this commandment has value only for pagan images, but instead we see that:

a) Moses explained to the Jews, the people of God of that time, and not to the pagans, that God had not shown himself when he spoke to them, precisely so that they would not make any image of him: "Watch diligently over your souls, so that you do not corrupt yourselves and make yourself some carved images "(Deuteronomy 4: 15-16; also read verses 17-19).

b) God praised the king of the Hebrews for having destroyed a copper serpent raised previously by his clear order, but not to worship it.

Many years after he had it built, God saw fit to destroy it because it had begun to be worshiped.

Still others argue that images were only prohibited during the Old Testament period, and that they are acceptable now that we live in New Testament time. To the latter we reply that the New Testament also speaks a lot about images, and always against them, just as in the Old Testament. In one of the last passages of the New Testament we read: "Little children, beware of idols" (1 John 5:21). "Therefore my dear ones, flee from idolatry" (1 Corinthians 10:14). See also 1 Corinthians 6: 9; 10: 7-14; Acts 7: 39-42; 17: 16-29; Romans 1:23; 1 Peter 4: 3; Revelation 2:14; 9:20; 21: 8; 22:15.

The early Christian church did not use images. These entered churches for ornamental use at the end of the third century. In the fifth century they were used to instruct, and later regarded as sacred. They were then accepted by the Council of Nicaea in 787 and by that of Trento in 1562 AD

The fact that the Bible contains not a few, but a great many passages prohibiting images, makes it clear that this is a subject of great importance to God.

Those who want to learn more by reading all of the following verses will realize for themselves how sinful it is to use images: Psalm 115: 4-9; Isaiah 44: 8-20: Jeremiah 10: 3-16; Exodus 23:24; 32; 34:13; Leviticus 19: 4; 26:30; Numbers 33:52; Deuteronomy 5: 8-9; 9: 12-17; 16: 21-22; 27:15; 2 Kings 17: 9-16; 2 Chronicles 33: 19,22; 34: 3-4; Psalms 78:58; 97: 7; 106: 19-20; 135: 15-18; Isaiah 8:19; 10: 10-11; 30:22; 31: 6-7; 42: 8-17; 45:20; 46: 6-7; Ezekiel 16:17; 30:13; Daniel 3: 1-18; Hosea 11: 2; 13: 2-4: Micah 1: 7; 5: 12-13; Habacuc 2: 18-20.

God loves us and wants to have our friendship, our fellowship, praise, honor, veneration and adoration. He says he is jealous of our affections. How will they feel when we turn them to a statue or image of any saint instead? It is also a great offense to claim that God is less compassionate than the saints as the example commonly used by Catholics implies.
They say: "A man wants a job in a certain factory. Not knowing the manager, he goes to his uncle who loves him and who is a close friend of the manager, obtaining the coveted job through him." In the example, the saints are compared to the uncle who loves us, while God is depicted in the director who does not even think of us. This thought is very serious. In truth it is God who loves us and knows us, and he wants us to approach him directly. The Bible states: "Because we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with us in our infirmities; but we do have one (Christ) who in everything was tempted like us, but without sinning. Let us therefore approach the throne of the grace,
The above will lead to a question:


Do evangelical Christians believe in saints?

Yes. We evangelical Christians believe in saints, but in the way the Bible speaks of them and that is completely different from the traditional Catholic concept. Precisely because we believe them we try to obey what they wrote in the Bible.

The Bible says that all believers are holy, because they are sanctified through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The word "holy" in the New Testament is used to refer to believers as a group and not to distinguish one person from others because they are purer or because they perform miracles, even if some have done them. Furthermore, we do not pray to the saints and we do not offer them veneration, because:

a) the Bible says: "Worship the Lord your God, and to Him alone you render your worship" (Luke 4: 8);

b) in the Bible we find no instance of anyone doing it, nor any indication that it should be done;

c) in the Bible we read that neither men nor God's angels allowed anyone to prostrate themselves before them, on the contrary they replied that it was necessary to prostrate themselves only before God: "And as Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet, and he adored him. But Peter raised him up saying: Get up, I too am a man! " (Acts 10: 25-26). See also Acts 14:15 and Revelation 22: 8-9;

d) the saints cannot be our mediators before God, because we have only one mediator: Jesus Christ. "For there is one God and also one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus the man, who gave himself as a ransom price for all" (1 Timothy 2: 5-6, John 16: 26-27) .

e) the apostle Paul, one of the "saints", clearly shows the Philippians that he could help them only by living (Philippians 1: 23-26).

To answer the argument that saints answer prayers by doing miracles, remember that there are two sources of spiritual power: God and the evil forces. God says we don't have to make pictures. When miracles appear to be done by saints, and push people to worship others other than God, they cannot come from God. Furthermore, miracles are still attributed to those who were formerly called saints, but who the Church itself Roman Catholic now claims that they never existed: Saint Philomena, for example, who among other things miraculously healed Pope Pius X. Recently other saints have been deposed.

How does one become a saint according to the Bible, then? Believing in Jesus Christ as Savior: "We have been sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ made once and for all" (Hebrews 10:10). See also Acts 26:18.


Where do the differences between evangelicals and the Catholic Church arise?

The main cause of the differences between us and Catholics stems from the fact that evangelical Christians accept only the Bible as the only source for establishing a doctrine, while Catholicism adds to it the tradition and various decisions of the Roman Catholic Church.
In recent years too we have witnessed changes in the context of the Roman Church. The fact of saying the Mass no longer in Latin, but in Italian; to allow meat on Fridays; to grant a light breakfast before "communion"; etc., makes it clear that this Church is susceptible to change. It cannot at all times agree with the Bible at every point.
Those who follow the tradition do not admit it, but in the past centuries there have been changes in stark contrast to the biblical teaching, and for this we cannot accept every point of Roman Catholic doctrine.

The reasons why we accept the Bible, even when it diverges from tradition by opposing it, are as follows:

a) the Bible affirms his divine inspiration. "All Scripture is inspired of God ..." (2 Timothy 3:16); inspiration also accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Much evidence shows that it is truly inspired. An obvious example is the fulfilled prophecies ;

b) the Bible claims to contain all that is necessary to make the Christian perfect. It says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful to teach, to reprove, to correct, to educate to righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3: 16-17 ). There is therefore no need to add tradition;

c) in his second letter, the apostle Peter says that the Bible is firmer than what he had seen and heard, because it was written by men "driven by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1: 16-21).
Therefore it is more reliable than the human tradition. The New Testament, it is true, speaks of tradition, but always against it. Jesus said: "You, having left the commandment of God, are attached to the tradition of men ... thus nullifying the word of God with the tradition that you have handed down to you" (Mark 7: 8-13). See also Matthew 15: 2-6; Colossians 2: 8; 2 Thessalonians 3: 6; Galatians 1:14.

d) some argue that the Roman Catholic Church is the only one capable of interpreting the Bible. The apostle Paul, on the other hand, highly praises the Christians of Berea for examining the scriptures daily to see if the things he taught were true (Acts 17:11). If the teaching of Paul, apostle and witness of Christ, was subordinated to the Scriptures (the Bible) much more should that of the Church today;

e) others, supporting the position of the Roman Catholic Church, say that the Bible does not contain all that Jesus and the apostles taught. This is true, the Bible itself affirms it; but the fact does not authorize to support things explicitly contrary to what is written (Revelation 22: 18-19; Mark 7: 3-13). We have in the Bible everything we need for our faith (John 20: 30-31; 2 Timothy 3: 16-17).

It is clear that the differences between us evangelical Christians and the Roman Catholic Church come not from different interpretations of the Bible, or from different Bibles, but from adding tradition to the Bible to form Roman Catholic doctrine.


What is the most important difference between evangelical Christians and Catholics?

We evangelicals follow God's teaching in the Bible about salvation. We are all sinners and need to be saved (Romans 3:23).
God, in his mercy, provided this salvation in his Son, as the Gospel of John says: " For God so loved the world that he gave his Only Begotten Son, so that whoever believes in him may not perish, but have eternal life."(John 3:16). Alone we cannot obtain salvation. For it is written:" For it is by grace that you were saved, by faith; and this does not come from you, it is the gift of God. It is not by virtue of works, so that no one may glory "(Ephesians 2: 8-9). No one will be saved for having done good works:" For by the works of no law will be justified in his sight "(Romans 3:20). See Galatians 2:16; 12-13; 5: 4. If it were possible to be saved by obeying the law of God, Christ's death would be in vain. The Bible says: "If justice is obtained by the law, then Christ died in vain" (Galatians 2:21).

In the letter to the Romans we read: "There is no distinction; in fact all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; which God has established as faith in its blood "(Romans 3: 22-25). Therefore repent of your sins. Christ died personally for yousacrificing himself on the cross for your salvation. He paid not only for "original" sin but for all sins. The apostle John writes: "... the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1: 7). As we can see, Christ has accomplished everything for our salvation. It is "a gift of God" (Ephesians 2: 8-9); all we have to do is accept it. Accepting it means accepting Christ, the Son of God, because salvation, that is, eternal life, is in him. The Bible states: "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:12).

Accepting Christ means believing that when he died on the cross he paid for your personal salvation. John, the apostle loved by Jesus, writes again: "To all who received him he (Christ) gave the right to become children of God; to those who believe in his name" (John 1:12 ). The apostle Paul, having experienced this great salvation in his own life, writes: "Therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 5: 1).

Today, with a simple sincere leap of faith you can be saved; Jesus says, "He who comes to me, I will not cast out" (John 6:37).


Do you have mass like the catholic church?

We have holy supper or communion, but this is not mass. The outward form of the mass recently came very close to that of the holy supper, but the doctrinal differences unfortunately remained. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass, established by the Council of Trent, states that it is a propitiatory sacrifice which is offered to atone for the sins of the living and the dead in Christ. We cannot accept this, because the Bible clearly teaches that Christ offered himself: "one sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:12; see also Romans 6: 9-10), and that there is no need for further sacrifices because "this he did once and for all when he offered himself" (Hebrews 7: 25-27; 9: 22.25-28).
Therefore we cannot renew his sacrifice to help the poor souls in purgatory. Note well that the Bible does not speak of purgatory at all. Furthermore, very importantly, the need for repeated sacrifices gives the idea that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient for the atonement of our sins, but that it needs to contribute to it with numerous other complementary sacrifices. God states, on the contrary, that Christ's sacrifice cannot be repeated because it is sufficient for all time for the remission of our sins: "And I will remember their sins and iniquities no more. Now, where is remission of these things, there is no longer a place for sin offering "(Hebrews 10: 17-18).

The Bible teaches that "The blood of Jesus ... cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1: 7). Alongside the theory of Christ's daily sacrifice, there is the Catholic tradition that the substance of the bread and wine is actually changed into the body and blood of Christ.
The miracle is called transubstantiation. This tradition was introduced into the Church around 380 AD. It became a dogma of faith in 1215 and Catholics began to kneel before the host in 1226.
The Church, accepting this tradition, tries to support it with the words of Jesus: "This is my body", but these words do not teach that the bread undergoes a change by becoming literally the flesh of Christ. Jesus, after saying "this is my body", calls bread in the same passage three times "bread" (1 Corinthians 11: 24-28). We find the same thought regarding wine, which is called "fruit of the vine" (Mark 14:25), when instead it should have already been changed into blood. So in order to literally interpret the three times it is called bread, it is necessary to interpret the words "This is the body" figuratively in the same way we interpret Christ's words: "I am the door".

In the mass there is no change, while in the miracles of Christ this was evident. For example, when Christ changed water into wine, it became clear to everyone that it was no longer water, but wine (John 2: 9-10). This so-called change is also impossible because Christ is bodily in heaven in the present age.
This is explained by Peter in Acts 3:21 and reaffirmed in Hebrews 10:12: "This one, having offered one sacrifice for sins, and for ever, sat down at the right hand of God." Christ taught his disciples to make the holy supper in remembrance of him: "Do this in remembrance of me" (1 Corinthians 11:24).


Why do evangelical pastors get married?

The Bible says very clearly that marrying is not forbidden for those who want to please God. Indeed, it specifies: "The bishop must be blameless, husband of one wife ... and keep the children in submission" (1 Timothy 3: 2).

Furthermore, the sexual act between two married people is not a sin (1 Corinthians 7: 1-5). In this passage, spouses are commanded: "Do not deprive each other" and that each donate his body to his spouse. In Ephesians 5: 22-23 God chooses the relationship between husband and wife as an example of his relationship among believers, saying that the wife must be subject to her husband as the Church is subject to Christ, and that the husband must love his wife as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her purification. Then, he adds that as the believer is a member of the body of Christ, husband and wife "will become one flesh".

It is true that the unmarried is freer to do God's work, but it is also true that God says, "It is better to marry than to burn" (1 Corinthians 7: 9).
Peter, according to the Roman Catholic Church, was a bishop and first Pope, but the Bible says he was married (Matthew 8:14; 1 Corinthians 9:15). This clearly shows that clergy celibacy is not a commandment of God. It was imposed on the clergy by some synods (Elvira, Orange, Arles, Agde, Toledo) and by the Lateran Council of 1139. It was a wrong decision because many priests fail. to live all life without sexual intercourse, and God views unmarried relationships as extremely serious sin (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10,18; Acts 15: 28-29; Revelation 21: 8). Poor priests who cannot resist and fall into sexual sins have a more severe condemnation from God and scandalize many. Today the great majority of priests would like to be free to marry, but so far this wrong decision, taken centuries ago, it has not yet been corrected. Perhaps because only the Popes have the authority to change this rule of the Roman Catholic Church, and they are usually very old!

We are not saying that all priests and pastors must marry, but that marrying or not must be a personal decision, consistent with the teaching of the Bible.

In fact, the apostle Paul was not married, but Peter was.


Do you believe in Mary?

Yes, we believe everything the Bible says about Mary, but we reject what the Catholic tradition adds. We do not pray to Mary because the Bible teaches: "Worship the Lord your God, and to Him alone do you worship" (Luke 4: 8). The supporters of the Marian cult affirm the need to pray to Mary because everything she asks of Christ is granted to her. We never find in the Bible that anyone went to Jesus or turned to God through Mary. Instead we read: "There is only one God and also one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus the man" (1 Timothy 2: 5). Jesus himself said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14: 6).

We began to pray to Mary towards the end of the fourth century AD, but certainly if she were still alive, she would not have allowed it. As a pious woman she would not have accepted the honor and adoration that belong only to God.
Each "Madonna" has particular abilities that are not those of Mary. One heals the sick, the other protects from the lava of Vesuvius and yet another protects fishermen. It is not our intention to speak of these cults that have nothing to do with Mary, who is always the same and always retains the same abilities.

We speak rather of Mary, mother of Jesus. She was not conceived without sin. Indeed, after the birth of Jesus, we find her in the temple to offer a sacrifice for his purification (Luke 2: 22-24), just as all Jewish women did (Leviticus 12). Also, in her prayer of thanks for being chosen as the mother of Jesus, Mary calls God "my Savior" (Luke 1: 46-47). If she had been conceived without sin, what need did she have for a savior?

The Roman Catholic Church still teaches to call Mary "Mother of God", an expression never used in the Bible. Finally, if Mary were "Mother of God", we would have to conclude that the creature is the mother of the Creator, that is, of the one who has always existed (Genesis 1: 1; John 1: 1-3,14). The Bible teaches that Mary is the mother of Christ's human nature, inasmuch as he, in his divine nature, exists forever (John 8: 57-58).

The Bible clearly tells us that Mary was a virgin at Christ's birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1: 18-20; Luke 1: 27-35). But we have no proof that she has always remained a virgin. Indeed, Mary, who was obedient to God's will, knew very well that God does not want married people to remain virgins. In fact, we are told in the Bible that Joseph and Mary "met" after the birth of Jesus. To say that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, is not honor, but it's like saying that Mary was not God's will.
The The Bible also often speaks of Jesus' brothers. In Matthew's Gospel we read: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? ..." (Matthew 13: 55-56).

Some Catholics use complicated reasoning and among other things say that Christ's brothers were actually cousins. This reasoning concludes by stating that one of the brothers was one of the twelve Apostles. The Bible instead says the opposite: "Even his brothers did not believe in him" (before the resurrection) (John 7: 5). Furthermore, the woman, who according to this theory is the mother of Jesus' brothers, that is, not Mary, was still alive and was a follower of Jesus at the death of the Lord. But in the whole Bible we never find brothers with this woman. Instead, we always find them with Mary, mother of Jesus (Matthew 12:46; 13: 55-56; Mark 3:31; 6: 3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12).
Other Catholics, realizing the inconsistency of the "cousin theory", argue that we are talking about spiritual brothers, and not about blood relatives. The apostle John says, however, "not even his brothers believed in him" (John 7: 5). If they did not believe, they could not be spiritual brothers. Finally, the Bible always makes a distinction between Jesus' spiritual brothers (the disciples) and his brothers by right of blood.

On the flimsy foundation of Mary's perpetual virginity, over the centuries philosophers have built a great tower of fairy tales. Of these ideas, which try to attribute to Mary the prerogatives and honor that belong only to God, there is no trace in the Bible or in other books of that period.
In the Bible, however, we find that Christ did not allow Mary to be given any honor other than that of having believed in God and having received from him the blessing of becoming the mother of Jesus: "Now it came to pass that while he was saying these things, a woman from among the multitude raised her voice and said to him: Blessed is the breast that bore you and the breasts that you suckled! But he said: Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it! " (Luke 11: 27-28). See also Matthew 12: 46-50; Mark 3: 31-35; Luke 1: 42-45.

When we give Mary what is due to God, we do not honor Mary. The only way to honor her is to believe in Jesus and obey the order she herself gave to the servants at the Cana wedding: "Do whatever he (Jesus) tells you" (John 2: 5).


Does purgatory exist?

The Bible does not speak of a place where purification from sins can be obtained outside of Christ Jesus. Whoever refuses to believe in Christ is condemned. In John's Gospel we read: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever refuses to believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:36). (See also Revelation 20:15; Luke 16: 19-31, especially verse 26).
Whoever accepts Christ is completely saved: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8: 1); and again: "I will remember their sins and iniquities no more" (Hebrews 10:17). (See John 3:18; Romans 5: 8-11; Hebrews 10: 14-18; Psalm 103: 12).

According to the common concept that Christ's sacrifice is not enough to purge us of our sins, a great sinner like the thief crucified with Christ should have suffered a long time in purgatory, but instead Christ said: "Today you will be with me in heaven" (Luke 23:43).
If purgatory existed and masses helped to bring out the souls of the suffering, the rich would have an enormous advantage by paying masses to shorten the sentence; while the poor, having nothing to pay, should entrust themselves to the mercy of the priest, hoping that every now and then he will raise a mass for them.
A former priest said: "If we truly believe that the Mass saves souls from the fire of purgatory, why get paid to get them out?". They would also help a dog, he said, if he saw him in the flames, without even thinking about the profit.

The idea of ​​purgatory evidently came from the pagans. Virgil placed the souls of the dead in three different places: Tartarus for the damned; Elysian fields for the good and a place of expiation for the less evil (Aeneid 6, 1100-1105).


On whom is the Church founded?

Peter himself explains that the head of the Church is Christ: "He is the stone which was despised by you builders, and has become the cornerstone. And in no other is salvation; for there is no other name under heaven. that it has been given to men, for which we have to be saved "(Acts 4: 10-12).

In the Gospel of Matthew we read: "And he said to them:" And you, who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus replied: Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, because not flesh and blood have revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also tell you: you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church "(Matthew 16: 14-18). The Roman Catholic Church, interpreting this asserts that" the stone ", that is, the foundation of the Church is Peter and on incorrect interpretation of this passage founds and justifies the papacy.

Evangelical Christians interpret this passage in the light of other passages in the Bible that deal with the same subject. In God's Word we read: "For no one can lay any foundation other than that already laid, that is, Christ Jesus" (1 Corinthians 3:11; see also 1 Peter 2: 4-8). Finally, Christ himself claims to be "the stone" (Mark 12: 1-11).
Returning to the passage of Matthew 16: 14-18, it is clear that "the stone" of which Christ speaks is not Peter but his confession of faith, that is, Christ himself. In fact, Peter says, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

The idea of ​​the papacy, which is based precisely on the wrong interpretation of this single biblical passage, has gradually gained importance over the centuries. As for the pope's infallibility, this dogma was sanctioned only in 1870, despite strong opposition within Catholicism itself. That Peter, the first pope according to Catholic tradition, was far from infallible, is shown by the following biblical passages, in which he was reproached because "he was to be condemned": Galatians 2: 11-14; Matthew 26: 69-75).


To whom should we confess?

When Jesus' disciples asked him: "Lord, teach us to pray", He taught them to pray directly to the Father asking Him for the forgiveness of their sins: "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom; your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors. " We know that "forgive us our debts" here means "forgive us our sins" because in the Gospel of Luke the same verse explicitly says: "forgive us our sins" (Matthew 6: 9-12; Luke 11: 1-4).

It is therefore clear that we must confess ourselves directly to God. This is what the church did in the first centuries. The doctrine of confession made to the priest was admitted into the Catholic Church only in 1225, but even before that date priests had already begun to hear confessions and, while not giving absolution, prayed to God to forgive sins.
In support of the confession to the priest, the Catholic clergy quotes the words of the Gospel of John: "To whom you forgive sins, they will be forgiven; to whom you retain them, they will be retained" (John 20: 21-23). First of all we point out that these words are not addressed to the apostles, that is, to the twelve, but to the disciples, that is, to all his followers. Therefore, the prerogative of forgiving sins is not a privilege reserved for the clergy, but is extended to all those who believe in Christ as Lord and Savior.

Moreover, very important to understand the meaning of the words of Jesus, the disciples, who had personally received this order, never heard anyone's confession, but preached the gospel, saying that only in Christ Jesus is it possible to obtain the remission of sins (Acts 2: 37-38; 10:43 and many other passages). The behavior of the disciples is a proof without the possibility of contesting that the words of Jesus referred to the redemptive power of the preaching of the gospel and not to a confession to the priest.

In addition, the evangelist Luke, narrating the same episode of John 20: 21-23, says: "... that in his name (of Christ) repentance and remission of sins would be preached" (Luke 24: 45-48) . This leaves no room for doubt; Christ never spoke of confessing sins to a man.

The above brings with it an inevitable question: "Should we confess or not?" Yes, every true Christian has the duty to confess his sins, but this confession should not be made to any man, as only God has the power to forgive sins.
The apostle John wrote: "If we confess our sins, he (God) is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all iniquity" (1 John 1: 9).


Conclusion

Dear friend, we have exposed the clear teaching of the Bible to you. God invites you to accept his salvation now. Not continuing in a system that by straying from the truth of God's Word leads those who follow it to eternal disaster.

God loves you and has provided salvation for you through Jesus Christ. He invites you to draw close to Him to receive the forgiveness of your sins and eternal life. So make the decision now, in this moment, to follow Christ and his Word. Then, and only then, will your life know Jesus' salvation and be at peace with God.


[Source : Ed. Biblical Center, Giugliano (Na) taken from apocalypsesoon.org]

No comments:

Post a Comment