No Catholics In Public Office

[Fredkrueger100]

You got it wrong on many fronts.

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church and Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. Peter was the first Pope. All Popes and Priest can trace their ordination back to Peter.

Catholic means undivided Christian Church or universal. Instead of using “Catholic”, use “Universal”. It means the same thing.

And yes, the Catholic Church has had sinful members and dark times. What religious institution has not? I bet your Preacher is a sinful man / woman. Humans are sinful. That doesn’t mean the teachings of an institution when guided Papal Infallibility is sinful.

Take a deep dive and learn the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church before you judge. Be careful though, I’ve seen several people do this and later covert to Catholic. Remember, the Apostle Paul was murdering Christians in the ancient, undivided Church, the Universal / Catholic Church. He later became a zealous member and teacher of the Christian faith.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first pope, the successor of Christ. They say he is therefore Christ's vicar and the visible and infallible head of the church, having power and authority over all the other apostles and the entire church. Catholic leaders also claim that Christ built His church upon Peter and gave him the keys to unlock and close the kingdom of heaven and hell to anyone as he chose. They assert that the popes in past history up to the present are Peter's successors, and have the same power of the keys.


These far‑reaching claims are based on the verses found in Matthew 16:18-19. Let us make a careful and critical examination of these verses and see what Jesus said and what He actually meant. Here is the text: "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


The New Testament was originally written in the Greek, from which the Latin, English, and other versions were translated. If you study the Greek text you will find that the word Peter and the word Rock on which Christ was to build His church are two separate and distinct words, each having a different meaning. The word Peter in Greek is petros, which means "a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling." The word rock is petra, which means "a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring."


The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immovable rock. In the English language the gender is not specified by the article. We say the fork, the spoon, and the knife. The three words have the same article. In the Greek, as in many of the modern languages, each noun and corresponding article is in the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender. In many cases it is an arbitrary arrangement, regardless of sex.


The article in Greek is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a masculine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine article. The text under consideration in the Greek shows that petros is in the masculine, and petra in the feminine, proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning. Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?


Let us quote the text again: "I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The text indicates clearly that the church of Christ is built on petra and not on Petros.


Now, who is this petra or rock on which Christ built His true church? Let the Holy Bible again give the answer. If the Bible gives the answer, we make no mistake in accepting it because the definition is authentic. "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra, in the Greek] was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4). Here we have evidence that petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros. Again we quote: "Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20) "He is the Rock, His work is perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:2-3) (Douay, 2 Kings 22:2-3).


If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not prevail against him. But the fact is that he was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn't he deny his Lord? This was after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome. Jesus told Peter on one occasion: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:23). Peter himself gives the answer as to who the Rock is. He says Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Again, speaking of Christ, he says: "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders" (Acts 4:10-11); so Christ, the Son of God, must be the rock on which God built His church.


If Jesus would have built His church on Peter, petros, He would have said: "Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros [or upon it] I will build My church," but such is not the case. He plainly says: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My church.” Paul tells us that the petra is Christ. He also says, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Peter is never designated by petra. Thus, Peter and Paul agree that Christ is the Rock; but the pope claims the title for himself. Which testimony should we accept? "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).


Long before Jesus was born He was considered the Rock. Isaiah declares: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation" (Isaiah 28:16). Peter applies this prophecy to Christ. He wrote: "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief Cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded" (1 Peter 2:6). David said: "Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I" (Psalm 61:2) (Douay, Psalm 60:3).



If the church was built on Peter then Peter would be the head of the church. However, Peter was not the head of the church in his day. Instead of having the disciples, apostles, and other believers call Peter pope, or Father Peter, or Holy Father Peter, Jesus said: "Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.... But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matthew 23:8‑11). "Call no man your father," could not refer to an earthly parent, but to the spiritual fathers. Jesus recommended our paying full respect to earthly parents when He quoted the commandment: "Honor thy father and thy mother" (Mark 7:10).


Sometimes 1 Corinthians 4:15 is used to prove that we may call spiritual leaders our fathers. Paul writes: "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." They were begotten through the Gospel and not through Paul. Again Paul writes: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth" (Romans 1:16). We repeat: it is through the Gospel that we are begotten, and not through Paul or some other person. It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation, and not man.


If Jesus delegated Peter as the head of the church, why did the other disciples quarrel among themselves as to who would be the greatest (Luke 9:46)? If this decision had already been made by Christ, why should the others fret about it? The other disciples would have submitted to the wish of their Master. Thus it seems evident that no such appointment had been made by Jesus. Neither Peter nor any of his successors were heads of the true church. Paul explains this when he says: “The head of every man is Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). God "gave Him to be the head over all things to the church" (Ephesians 1:22). This explains that Jesus is the head of every person and also of the church. We are responsible to the head, which is Christ, and not to men who try to circumvent the work of Christ and take His place. Christ is the head of every person, and we are responsible to Him as individuals.


There is not a trace of evidence in the Bible that Peter was a pope. What would you think of historians who would write accounts of Abraham Lincoln, yet in not a single instance mention his title as President of the United States of America? Could you imagine such an oversight? If Peter had borne some such title as "pope," don't you think that at least one inspired writer would have mentioned it? Peter wrote two epistles, but he does not use the title of pope in either. Can you imagine a pope today writing two letters to the church and forgetting his title? Peter could have mentioned it on the Day of Pentecost when he delivered that stirring sermon (Acts 2), but he did not do so. The church in the days of the apostles did not recognize Peter as pope or the head of the church. Neither does the true church today.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

May I interject and say this-Any person that says they have accepted Christ as their Savior is my brother or sister regardless of denomination. Their salvation is between them and God-not me until they prove otherwise. Denominations have done more to create friction and division in the chrch than anything i can think of-and isn't that what the old Serpant wants?

You are right about denominations. I don’t belong to one. I say something when someone is not following the gospel. I’m not doing it to act like I’m better or I’m right. I am using the text to back up what I do and say. If the text doesn’t say it I don’t do it. And if it says to do something I do. Someone just saying they have accepted Christ as their savior doesn’t mean anything. If someone hasn’t confessed Jesus is the one and only son of God, repented of sins, been baptized for the forgiveness of those sins and then vow to live life serving the lord then someone isn’t a Christian. That’s undeniable. THe problem is that many congregations have peddled the lie that all you have to do is “ask Jesus into your heart” to be saved. Nowhere in the text does it say this. But it is clear what it does say. I know I sidetracked this thread and for that I am sorry. Didn’t mean to do that so much. I just take Christianity very seriously. But you are also right about the devil wanting division. Sadly he is getting his wish.

 

[OKCHunter]

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first pope, the successor of Christ. They say he is therefore Christ's vicar and the visible and infallible head of the church, having power and authority over all the other apostles and the entire church. Catholic leaders also claim that Christ built His church upon Peter and gave him the keys to unlock and close the kingdom of heaven and hell to anyone as he chose. They assert that the popes in past history up to the present are Peter's successors, and have the same power of the keys.


These far‑reaching claims are based on the verses found in Matthew 16:18-19. Let us make a careful and critical examination of these verses and see what Jesus said and what He actually meant. Here is the text: "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


The New Testament was originally written in the Greek, from which the Latin, English, and other versions were translated. If you study the Greek text you will find that the word Peter and the word Rock on which Christ was to build His church are two separate and distinct words, each having a different meaning. The word Peter in Greek is petros, which means "a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling." The word rock is petra, which means "a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring."


The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immovable rock. In the English language the gender is not specified by the article. We say the fork, the spoon, and the knife. The three words have the same article. In the Greek, as in many of the modern languages, each noun and corresponding article is in the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender. In many cases it is an arbitrary arrangement, regardless of sex.


The article in Greek is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a masculine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine article. The text under consideration in the Greek shows that petros is in the masculine, and petra in the feminine, proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning. Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?


Let us quote the text again: "I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The text indicates clearly that the church of Christ is built on petra and not on Petros.


Now, who is this petra or rock on which Christ built His true church? Let the Holy Bible again give the answer. If the Bible gives the answer, we make no mistake in accepting it because the definition is authentic. "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra, in the Greek] was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4). Here we have evidence that petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros. Again we quote: "Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20) "He is the Rock, His work is perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:2-3) (Douay, 2 Kings 22:2-3).


If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not prevail against him. But the fact is that he was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn't he deny his Lord? This was after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome. Jesus told Peter on one occasion: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:23). Peter himself gives the answer as to who the Rock is. He says Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Again, speaking of Christ, he says: "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders" (Acts 4:10-11); so Christ, the Son of God, must be the rock on which God built His church.


If Jesus would have built His church on Peter, petros, He would have said: "Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros [or upon it] I will build My church," but such is not the case. He plainly says: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My church.” Paul tells us that the petra is Christ. He also says, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Peter is never designated by petra. Thus, Peter and Paul agree that Christ is the Rock; but the pope claims the title for himself. Which testimony should we accept? "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).


Long before Jesus was born He was considered the Rock. Isaiah declares: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation" (Isaiah 28:16). Peter applies this prophecy to Christ. He wrote: "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief Cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded" (1 Peter 2:6). David said: "Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I" (Psalm 61:2) (Douay, Psalm 60:3).



If the church was built on Peter then Peter would be the head of the church. However, Peter was not the head of the church in his day. Instead of having the disciples, apostles, and other believers call Peter pope, or Father Peter, or Holy Father Peter, Jesus said: "Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.... But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matthew 23:8‑11). "Call no man your father," could not refer to an earthly parent, but to the spiritual fathers. Jesus recommended our paying full respect to earthly parents when He quoted the commandment: "Honor thy father and thy mother" (Mark 7:10).


Sometimes 1 Corinthians 4:15 is used to prove that we may call spiritual leaders our fathers. Paul writes: "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." They were begotten through the Gospel and not through Paul. Again Paul writes: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth" (Romans 1:16). We repeat: it is through the Gospel that we are begotten, and not through Paul or some other person. It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation, and not man.


If Jesus delegated Peter as the head of the church, why did the other disciples quarrel among themselves as to who would be the greatest (Luke 9:46)? If this decision had already been made by Christ, why should the others fret about it? The other disciples would have submitted to the wish of their Master. Thus it seems evident that no such appointment had been made by Jesus. Neither Peter nor any of his successors were heads of the true church. Paul explains this when he says: “The head of every man is Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3). God "gave Him to be the head over all things to the church" (Ephesians 1:22). This explains that Jesus is the head of every person and also of the church. We are responsible to the head, which is Christ, and not to men who try to circumvent the work of Christ and take His place. Christ is the head of every person, and we are responsible to Him as individuals.


There is not a trace of evidence in the Bible that Peter was a pope. What would you think of historians who would write accounts of Abraham Lincoln, yet in not a single instance mention his title as President of the United States of America? Could you imagine such an oversight? If Peter had borne some such title as "pope," don't you think that at least one inspired writer would have mentioned it? Peter wrote two epistles, but he does not use the title of pope in either. Can you imagine a pope today writing two letters to the church and forgetting his title? Peter could have mentioned it on the Day of Pentecost when he delivered that stirring sermon (Acts 2), but he did not do so. The church in the days of the apostles did not recognize Peter as pope or the head of the church. Neither does the true church today.

Lot’s of stuff to consider and I just don’t have time to look into it all. You’ve obviously done some research and I’m impressed with your consideration of Greek translation. But, Terry’s post above basically sums up your Greek language translation with a quote from the Bible (Petra is the confession and the truth of Christ; Petros is Peter / man).

I ask this:

Was Peter the recognized administrative head of Christ’s Universal Christian Church?

Do all Catholic Popes and Priests trace their ordination to Peter?

Can preachers, clergy, etc. from any other denomination trace their ordination to Peter?

 

[TerryMiller]

I stand corrected. But, was Peter not the recognized head administrator of the church?

Actually, no he wasn't. Each of the apostles were charged with teaching and baptizing wherever they went. If I remember right, Peter was mostly working in the area of Jerusalem and Israel. Paul's ministry took him to the west, for which we can be thankful for the seeds he planted ended up with Christianity being spread to Europe, and thus, beyond to America and beyond. Thomas went to the area of India, which is where he died.

I don't know the succession in time of when each of the apostles met their death, but I want to think that Peter was fairly early on with respect to some of the others. John is the only one that I think died of a natural death, but I could be wrong on that. If Jesus were to appoint Peter to be "chief administrator," then Christianity would have lost that leader fairly early. Also, the powers that the Holy Spirit gave the Apostles could be passed on to other people of the church, but no further than that. When those early "church fathers" with powers died, their powers ended with them. So, the "keys to Heaven and Hell" ended with the last of the apostles.

 

[TerryMiller]

Lot’s of stuff to consider and I just don’t have time to look into it all. You’ve obviously done some research and I’m impressed with your consideration of Greek translation. But, Terry’s post above basically sums up your Greek language translation with a quote from the Bible (Petra is the confession and the truth of Christ; Petros is Peter / man).

I ask this:

Was Peter the recognized administrative head of Christ’s Universal Christian Church?

Do all Catholic Popes and Priests trace their ordination to Peter?

Can preachers, clergy, etc. from any other denomination trace their ordination to Peter?

From my understanding from religious studies, and even conversations with Catholics, the Catholic church "claim" some of the powers given to the apostles. With regards to other religions and denominations, I don't think any others try to trace their ordination to any of the apostles.

What study I have come across, the "church" was under persecution until the Roman emperor Constantine "kind of" granted the Christians some lenience. (Probably a bad choice of word in the work lenience.) Until then, pretty much all of the early "church" was local with what we could call elders or bishops (note the small "B") over their own congregation. It wasn't until around the year 300 or so that the catholic church was "founded."

Tony's reference to not being in a denomination is correct. While many other church denominations "follow" leaders such as Luther, Calvin, and even John the Baptist, Tony and I are "members" of the churches of Christ. Those congregations (church of Christ) have no national nor international leadership, but instead are under the guidance of elders, much as the early Christian churches were. Those elders are charged with our salvation, so they are VERY much accountable for us. Each congregation is separate and apart from all the others.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Lot’s of stuff to consider and I just don’t have time to look into it all. You’ve obviously done some research and I’m impressed with your consideration of Greek translation. But, Terry’s post above basically sums up your Greek language translation with a quote from the Bible (Petra is the confession and the truth of Christ; Petros is Peter / man).

I ask this:

Was Peter the recognized administrative head of Christ’s Universal Christian Church?

Do all Catholic Popes and Priests trace their ordination to Peter?

Can preachers, clergy, etc. from any other denomination trace their ordination to Peter?

I recommend that you get a bible that has Greek and then the English translation next to it. Very good bibles to have. I say no to all three of your questions.
Galatians 2:11-21 NIV
[11] When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. [12] For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. [13] The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. [14] When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? [15] “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles [16] know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. [17] “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn't that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! [18] If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. [19] “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. [20] I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. [21] I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

If Peter was the “pope” or head of the “universal”/Catholic Church there is no way Paul would have publicly rebuked Peter for his public sin. Another thing Paul did was rebuke different people because they followed men rather than just following the teaching of Christ. These people said they were of Peter or that they were of John or Paul. This is where the division in the church started to happen. People were choosing to follow certain apostles rather than to just follow Christ and his teachings.
1 Corinthians 1:10-14,16-17 NIV
[10] I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. [11] My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. [12] What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.” [13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? [14] I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, [16] (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) [17] For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel---not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

 

[OKCHunter]

I’ll be the first to admit that I have little knowledge of other denominations, why they split from the original Church, and how closely they follow the teachings of Christ. I’m also not the most knowledgeable in Catholic theology and not the best to defend the denomination.

I guess what is most important here is that we are Christians with a mostly common belief. Catholicism makes perfect sense to me. But, anything that brings you to a life with Christ as your guide is welcomed by me.

 

[TerryMiller]

I’ll be the first to admit that I have little knowledge of other denominations, why they split from the original Church, and how closely they follow the teachings of Christ. I’m also not the most knowledgeable in Catholic theology and not the best to defend the denomination.

I guess what is most important here is that we are Christians with a mostly common belief. Catholicism makes perfect sense to me. But, anything that brings you to a life with Christ as your guide is welcomed by me.

In my studies, I've come up with a series of questions to ask of others. It's kind of an introduction to finding the right faith. Presuming that one believes in God, these questions have a logical progression.

1. Who will judge mankind in the end? (This is why I always say that I'm not the judge, but God will be.)
2. What has God given us that indicates how he wants us to live and worship? (In this case, to me it is the Bible, considering that it is inspired.)
3. Does the Bible show us examples of punishment and reward for our actions? (Too many examples to list here.)
4. If one is in a "religion" that teaches anything other than what the Bible teaches, is that "religion" a false teacher? (Also applies to people.)

I'm sure that more questions could follow, but this gives one a quick series of questions. My beliefs are a result of being raised in the church of Christ, but also always questioning my own faith. Over the years, I've been blessed to have conversations with many people of different faiths who have provided me with insight. In honesty, I served with a gentleman from Iowa, who, at the time, was more diligent in reading his Bible than I was. That gentleman is/was(?) a Catholic.

And, in keeping with the original posting of this thread, I have no problem with a Catholic being a judge, Congress-critter, or President.

 

[John6185]

[QUOTE="TonyKane1, post: 3196110, member: 24577" Someone just saying they have accepted Christ as their savior doesn’t mean anything. If someone hasn’t confessed Jesus is the one and only son of God, repented of sins, been baptized for the forgiveness of those sins and then vow to live life serving the lord then someone isn’t a Christian. That’s undeniable. THe problem is that many congregations have peddled the lie that all you have to do is “ask Jesus into your heart” to be save.[/QUOTE]
Tony, you are exactly correct. Many churches want people to "Come down front and repeat these words." And it's a done deal. Not so, it is not a head thing, it is a heart thing and aside from the Holy Spirit there is no salvation. People are being led astray to pad the church reports and make the church look good and the preacher is accountable. It is a solemn responsibility to deal with the souls of man and too many take it lightly.