[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The Banner of Roman Catholicism  (Read 9218 times)

plowboy1534

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • I'm a llama!
The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« on: February 13, 2004, 01:35:50 AM »
Hi guys.

I'm just wondering how you deal with the fact that God allowed Christendom to spread under the banner of Catholicism for 16 centuries until the Reformation. If Catholicism is such an abomination, why did Christ allow His  gospel to be almost universally embodied in such a Church alone for 16 centuries? While it is true that the Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic before the Reformation, they have the same concept of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the role of Mary as Mediatrix, confession, etc. - the same seven sacrament system. The Bible speaks of a great apostasy near the end, not at the beginning. The pattern spoken of in Scripture seems to be one of spiritual decline approaching the judgement. Yet you guys would seem to believe Christ let His Church be full of rot for 16 centuries until the Reformation.

My reading of Scripture leads me to the inescapable view that salvation is a totally unearned by any effort of man, that it comes through God's election of certain men and women. So I would agree with those of a so-called Reformed view of grace. I think that was Augustine's view too, and Augustine was, after all, Catholic. Anyway, while I agree (or, what matters, while I think Scripture agrees) with the "Reformed" view on grace, total depravity, limited atonement, eternal security, I can't square a condemnation of Catholicism as so departing from the gospel as to be heretical with the fact of Christianity's history.

Any help there?

tornpage

Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Pilgrim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
  • Gender: Male
  • Reformed and Reforming
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2004, 06:32:35 AM »
I can't square a condemnation of Catholicism as so departing from the gospel as to be heretical with the fact of Christianity's history.

 I struggled with this issue for a while myself. But then (partly because of literature I read here) it hit me what was the difference between those who think the way you do, and those who understand the heresy of Roman Catholicism. It is that we use the scripture alone as our authority of what is right and wrong, true and not true, and you use history, church traditions, and a belief in the false doctrine of Apostalic Succession.

In other words, we have two different authorities. These are two different gospels, not one. It's either impossible that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, or that my Church is. They both cannot be. You look at the Roman Catholic Church as the one true Church (I assume) because you think history tells you that it was. While the bible tells us that a tree is known by it's fruits. Two different authorities.

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." -Matthew 1:21

plowboy1534

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2004, 12:19:53 AM »
Pilgrim,

Thanks for the reply. I didn't mean to go off topic, but it seemed pertinent in the discussion of Gibson's Catholicism and its influence on the film.

I am a brother in Christ who, again, believes firmly in sovereign grace and unconditional election (which you can find on almost every page of the New Testament). But i find Protestant condemnation of the Catholic Church as heretical practically absurd in light of history. Did God effectively abandon 16 centuries of Christians? I was looking for a response to that point, and perhaps should not have raised the issue in this thread.

I am struggling with the internecine aspect of our brotherhood, and wonder whether there is not enough room in the tent for both Catholics and Protestants. BTW, I would find laughable the claims of some fellow Catholics that Scripture loving, faithful servants of Christ like yourself are damned because "outside the Church." I would have about as much regard for Protestant claims that Catholics are damned because of their sacramental life under the Pope.

When do the distinctions in faith practices become critical in terms of salvation, and when are they more on the order of allowable differences such as the views regarding eating mentioned by Paul in Romans 14?


tornpage


Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

andreas

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
  • Gender: Male
  • Helpless, look to Thee for grace
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2004, 02:30:18 AM »
<<<I am struggling with the internecine aspect of our brotherhood, and wonder whether there is not enough room in the tent for both Catholics and Protestants>>>

The Bible is the only authority in and over the Church. It is this because it is the inspired Word of God, as II Timothy 3:16 claims:
 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
You wonder whether there is enough room under the "tent" for both.Well there is only room for the truth and nothing else."Thy word is truth" John 17:17b.If it is in the word of God,then, there is room under the "tent".If it is in the word of man and his traditions,then there is no room at all.
andreas. 8)
kai ean diabainhs dió udatos meta sou eimi kai potamoi ou sugklusousin se kai ean dielqhs dia puros ou mh katakauqhs flox ou katakausei Isaiah 43:2

Peng Bao

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2004, 05:32:41 AM »
i find Protestant condemnation of the Catholic Church as heretical practically absurd in light of history. Did God effectively abandon 16 centuries of Christians?

I am struggling with the internecine aspect of our brotherhood, and wonder whether there is not enough room in the tent for both Catholics and Protestants. BTW, I would find laughable the claims of some fellow Catholics that Scripture loving, faithful servants of Christ like yourself are damned because "outside the Church."

When do the distinctions in faith practices become critical in terms of salvation, and when are they more on the order of allowable differences such as the views regarding eating mentioned by Paul in Romans 14?

tornpage


If I might just interject here. Works Salvation is not allowable differences. You seem biased towards the Roman Catholic doctrine so that you cannot see this distinction. A very important distinction.

You're trying to put together something which both Protestants and Catholics are clear does not belong together. The question is, why? You are making a bad assumption, and I think that has driven you to the conclusion that we belong together. What you are neglecting is that when you have two different religions and salvation schemes, only one (at best) can be true. And also that God commands us not to think two diverse doctrines of Christ can coexist.

 2Jo 1:10  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

When you have two different doctrines of Christ, you have two different religions. History (as you call it) cannot change that. You cannot force two different religions to merge when they both are so miles apart that they have different doctrines regarding salvation. You must remember, Salvation is at the heart of Christianity, and if one group has it wrong, that's not something to just  brush off. Remember, Israel had it wrong and it was to God a terrible thing. Look at them today.

Also when old testament congregation of Israel went wrong, God divided it, and destroyed the 10 Northern tribes. Judgment of God's people by God is severe.

So you may find Protestant condemnation of the Roman Catholic Religion as heretical, absurd in light of history, but it is in light of the bible that we find it heretical. You've should start looking at doctrines in light of the bible, not history.

Wanda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2004, 07:01:27 AM »
You look at the Roman Catholic Church as the one true Church (I assume) because you think history tells you that it was. While the bible tells us that a tree is known by it's fruits. Two different authorities.

That is the common denominator. It always depends upon what our authority is. Is it the church, history, or the bible.

I love my Catholic friends dearly, but I make no mistake about the gospel that they believe in. It is heretical, and that's not a laughable charge. It's cryable because it's true.

"For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;" -Colossians 1:9


Bruce

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Faith Overcomes All
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2004, 03:27:26 AM »

Tornpage,
I am struggling with the internecine aspect of our brotherhood, and wonder whether there is not enough room in the tent for both Catholics and Protestants.

When do the distinctions in faith practices become critical in terms of salvation, and when are they more on the order of allowable differences such as the views regarding eating mentioned by Paul in Romans 14?

tornpage


Have you read "Pilgrimage From Rome", which is a great book by former Roman Catholic Priest Bartholomew F. Brewer? I recommend it.

Here's a man who explains why these are two different religions from the perspective of being an up and comning insider in the Roman catholic Church. Why he finally had to give in to his conscience and come out of this Church and break ties. He gave it all up for the cause of Christ because he came to realize that the Word of God was the authority of the Church, and the teachings he was under were heresy. It wasn't easy for him to come to that conclusion, as he loved the Roman Catholic Church.

I would strongly suggest that you get and read this book as this author has much courage and great faith.

"At Mission To Catholics we are convinced that it is not love to withhold the truth from those in darkness. Roman Catholics need to be challenged to think about what they believe and to study the Bible, comparing their religion with the truth of Scripture. Only then can they experience the freedom and light of God's truth. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32).

By Converted Priest Bartholomew F. Brewer


Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2004, 09:20:07 AM »
>>>
Hi guys.

I'm just wondering how you deal with the fact that God allowed Christendom to spread under the banner of Catholicism for 16 centuries until the Reformation.
<<<

Not Catholicism as we understand the term today, but the Church Catholic or Universal Church. From your previous religious background and perspective, yes you might look at the early church as being of the same "Roman Catholicism" it is today proclaiming itself the only instrument of salvation. But the term Catholic meant something entirely different than what people mean by its use today. Our perspective depends upon our upbringing, understanding of terms and the way we define Catholic. If as the Roman Catholic tradition, then you might believe the early church was today's Roman Catholicism. But if the Church Universal (Catholic), then yes, there was a roman church from the time of Christ that went forth spreading the gospel universally. But it had nothing to do with the "Roman Catholic" church we see today or its doctrines and understanding of Apostolic Succession and authority. Paul was a part of the Universal (Catholic) Church of Rome, but he was never a Roman Catholic as we understand the term today. His was a great witness to the universal church "in" Rome. Two diverse understandings of divine church authority which will "forever" separate Protestants and Roman Catholics.

Acts 23:11
  • "And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."

And so we should understand by the word of God, and by faith that the Christian church "is" one, true, holy, universal and apostolic, but not because it is the Roman Church, but because it is Christ's church.


Quote
>>>
If Catholicism is such an abomination, why did Christ allow His gospel to be almost universally embodied in such a Church alone for 16 centuries?
<<<

That's a "straw man" argument from flawed assumptions. The Universal Church was not abominable for 16 centuries, it has been the witness of the gospel from the day Christ (its Rock and foundation), was resurrected. The church ultimately is the assembly of all believers in which the gospel is taught. It's still the Universal Church today.  i.e., it is forever "the one true Holy Apostolic Church." The idea and indoctrination that the Church was always what we term today "Roman Catholicism," is a well-oiled myth.

As for why the Universal Church in Rome (which became known as "Roman Catholic") became abominable, you need look no further than the history of God's congregations before Christ's first advent and how it fell into abominations, and likewise fell as it came under God's judgment. Or the Seven Churches of Asia that strayed from the faith and ultimately fell as your example. It's not a new occurrence, it's been happening to the assembly of God again and again throughout history. A falling away and then a repenting or reformation back to faithful doctrines. A falling away, and a restoration, a return to Biblical principles. It's happened again and again. There are those who look at this as an impossibility because of prevalent ideas of church infallibility and succession? The fact is, God judged His congregation Israel by sending them into captivity in Babylon, so God's people falling into abomination is not a new adventure. Unfortunately, it's old news. God has judged His people many times, so it's not unique or "impossible" as Roman Catholicism might have its people believe.


Quote
>>>
 Yet you guys would seem to believe Christ let His Church be full of rot for 16 centuries until the Reformation.
<<<

You're being redundant, saying the same thing using slightly different language, but it's still a "straw man." The Roman Catholic church became full of rot over time.  As I've already said, the Universal Church has not been abominable for 16 centuries. But it had become abominable, and that's why there was a turning away from its unfaithfulness to the authority of God in the reformation. God will always have a people who will prevail, "Till He Come."

Matthew 16:18
  • "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The Foundation Rock was not Peter, therefore "this" Church could never not go forth conquering and to conquer. It's not what you call the "Roman Catholic Church," it's the body of Christ that goes forth under many (man-made) labels, as the true church.


Quote
>>>
So I would agree with those of a so-called Reformed view of grace. I think that was Augustine's view too, and Augustine was, after all, Catholic.
<<<

So am I. So was Martin Luther. And he was part of the Catholic Church "after" the Reformation, because Catholic means universal. We're just not of the "Roman Catholic Church," a faith bankrupt by usurping God's word for the words of men.  We're of the Catholic (universal) faith or Church, which has existed since Christ went to the cross to make that Universal Church possible. Too make us soldiers going forth defeating the gates of hell and setting men free. The gates cannot stand against the onslaught of the true church, the captives will be freed. Christ didn't die for those calling themselves Roman Catholic, or for those saying they are of the One True Roman Catholic Church. He died for the elect, who go by many man-made names.

You seem to be under the impression that the word Catholic is exclusive to a particular church. While it's true that the word today has "evolved" in modern language to imply the doctrines of "Roman Catholicism," that has not previously been the case. The Truth is that Catholic is simply the Greek word [kahollikos] meaning universal, or literally [kata] meaning "of the" and [holos], meaning "whole." In other words, it's the whole or universal church, a worldwide body consisting of people from everywhere and every nation or group. The Body (1st Corinthians 12:17) of Christ with every part having its particular job, not a demonination. In 1st Corinthians, it's the same word [Holos] or whole. Or again:

1st Corinthians 14:23
  • "If therefore the Whole Church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?"

That Greek word there translated whole is the same Greek word [holos]. That's the Universal or Catholic Church. It has nothing to do with what today is known as Catholic or "Roman Catholicism."

It's not the name (Roman, Baptist, Reformed), but what is in the church that defines its truth, legitimacy and authority. The church of Roman Catholicism is defined by the type of doctrines and mam made faith that comes out of it, not its history, name, or ceremonies. Likewise the Protestant Churches, whether Baptist Presbyterian, or anything else, is defined by doctrines and its authority. The pomp and circumstance of the name means nothing, it's the fruit that it bears that counts.

Luke 6:44
  • "For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes."

What is the real fruit of what is known as Roman Catholicism? That's the only holy truth that matters. For of thorns, men do not gather figs?


Quote
>>>
Anyway, while I agree (or, what matters, while I think Scripture agrees) with the "Reformed" view on grace, total depravity, limited atonement, eternal security,
<<<

Which is a Total condemnation of the Roman Catholic doctrines of salvation, and thus a repudiation of that church's gospel as being that of Christ.

Matthew 12:33
  • "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit."

You can't have it both ways where the tree is good, but the fruit is bad. A church of works is a bad tree, not a good one. Because salvation cannot be both grown of works and grown of the grace of Christ. That's not what I, or my church says, it's what God (the one true holy authority) says.

Romans 11:6
  • "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

Obviously, Again, we can't have it both ways. Either the Roman Catholic Church is the church of the true gospel of salvation by Grace, or it's not the true gospel. No man can privately interpret Grace. God is the only one who can define it. i.e., a tree is known by its fruits, and a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.


Quote
>>>
 I can't square a condemnation of Catholicism as so departing from the gospel as to be heretical with the fact of Christianity's history.
Any help there?
tornpage
<<<

..Yes.

Psalms 121:1-2
  • "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.
  • My help cometh from the LORD,[/b] which made heaven and earth."

This is our authority. If you can't square a condemnation of Roman Catholicism as so departing from the gospel of grace as to be heretical, then I submit that you probably don't really understand what the gospel of drace is. It's the "good news" of salvation by God's grace alone, not of man's works. Not by our works, or grace through our works, or grace because of our works. It's Grace by "The FINISHED Work of Christ."

As for the history you are so fond of, Christianity's history is full of heretical assemblies of God, congregations of God, churches of God (proving there is no infallible church), both of the Roman Catholic variety and the Protestant variety. Any Church (assembly) at any time stands or falls on its doctrines, not its title or history. The nation Israel had a wonderful history, Covenants, Prophets, and yet it fell as a congregation of God precisely because they didn't understand that "TRUTH" either.

So the real question is, are our churches of the authority of God, or of its own authority (of man)? Does God rule in the Holy Temple as ultimate authority, or does man sit in the Temp;le to rule as the Pope does? ..it's always been the "real" question down through the ages.

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

plowboy1534

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2004, 04:19:14 PM »
I posed a number of questions. The first had to do with the history of the Church, and the 16 or so centuries of there being no "protestant" alternative to Roman Catholicism, a time when all of Christendom was under the Pope. The second followed, in many ways, from the first: in light of that history, why do so many protestants believe the Roman Catholic Church to be heretical, and membership in it an insurmountable obstacle to salvation? One does not have to be Catholic to pose those questions, despite the attempts of some here to turn me into an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church. Don't make me what I ain't.  I am a fellow Christian seeking to come to an understanding of some of the contradictions and condemnations (of each other) among the various peoples who call themselves Christians, and God's divine intercession in, and superintendence over, history.

It would seem to me that before you condemn another sect of Christians with heresy or not partaking of saving grace you should have explicit Scriptural authority for doing so. We are cautioned repeatedly against doing so, an example being Romans 14:2-13:

 2.  For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
 3.  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
 4.  Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
 5.  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
 6.  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
 7.  For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
 8.  For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
 9.  For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
 10.  But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
 11.  For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
 12.  So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
 13.  Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

That is not to say that all goes, of course. What is the gospel? What is the core that all must believe in to be true followers of Christ? God is telling us in Romans 14 that dietary considerations, thoughts as to days of worship, are not enough - or should not be enough - to separate some of us from the Universal Church.

All Catholics and Protestants (or at least most) would subscribe to all the orthodox Christian statements of doctrine in the Apostle's creed. Is that not enough? If another Christian affirms everything in the Apostle's creed, is he not deserving of our acknowledgement of his brotherhood with us on the the essential gospel?

God tells us clearly what it heretical at various places in the New Testament, in no uncertain terms:

1 John 22-3:   Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

2 John 7-11:  For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

How does God, not man, define heresy here: those who believe that Jesus is not the Christ, and that He did not come in the flesh. Such are of "antichrist" - they deny the necessity of Christ's coming, the fact of His coming, His divinity, and His redemptive work. That is the gospel.

Catholics don't deny any of the above.

I just don't - perhaps it is my background - see that heaven is closed to millions of Christians because - I'm just using an example -  they revere Mary, or because they read certain Scriptures, like John 19:27 ("behold thy mother") or Revelation 12 (interpreting Mary as the "woman" spoken of in that chapter) or Luke 1:48 ("all generations shall call me blessed") as indicating that she has been given a special role in God's plan of redemption (he could have chosen another) as the new or second Eve through whom salvation - as opposed to damnation - came into the world.

You have read - and again, i think you read correctly - the Scriptures to indicate that God has done all
 
the work of our salvation, and that that is grace. But where does the Scripture say that someone who believes in Our Lord's divinity, and the necessity of His work on Calvary for humanity's salvation, is a heretic because he or she believes that one must exercise their will to make that grace effectual? That may be a wrong reading, but does believing that consign one to hell?

I ask in the spirit of seeking the truth, and without pre-judgment on the issue, although i do have my view at present.

Please don't use the "straw man" of the Catholic apologist to think that you don't have to address my questions, and can simply say "two gospels," etc. Show me Scripture that supports the view that one holding to Roman Catholic views on certain things like grace is not only wrong on a point of theology, but in danger of hell.

BTW, another point of difference in Scriptual interpretation: Roman Catholics say that the words of Jesus regarding "this is my body" and "this do in remembrance of me" directly show Scriptural support for their postion that the eucharist becomes, is , the body of Christ.  Taking that language more figuratively is acceptable, even if i think the Roman Catholic position is stronger. I would not, without Biblical warrant, say that the Protestant position is heretical and thus makes anyone believing that about the Lord's Supper a candidate for hell fire.

And, Peng Bao, just so you know that I feel deeply about the "light of the bible," and do believe all must be grounded in Scripture, you might want to look at 1 Timothy 4:1-3 in responding to me.  I have no vested interest in the truth on this issue coming out one way or the other.  I seek the light, and want to walk not in the darkness.

Tony, the remark about "straw man" - though I used your language - was not directed at you. Thank you for the thoughtful reply, and i will ponder the point you made about history, drawing on the history of old covenant Israel. Thank you.

tornpage  
Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

plowboy1534

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2004, 04:33:10 PM »
Bruce,

Thanks for the book referral. I'll check it out.

tornpage
Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2004, 12:18:54 PM »
>>>
I posed a number of questions. The first had to do with the history of the Church, and the 16 or so centuries of there being no "protestant" alternative to Roman Catholicism,
<<<

But the whole premise is fatally flawed, therefore (again) it is what is commonly called, a "straw man" argument. Protestants weren't any new people with new doctrines, they were members of the church "Protest-ing" the church doctrines that had grown to be unfaithful, another gospel that was diverse from the gospel of Christ first delivered unto the Saints. It is for this reason that they couldn't "in good conscience" remain in that church with those doctrines an that leadership.

As I already explained! The universal Church that existed for the last 2000 years is not the Roman Catholic Church. Just as the word "Protestant" is a man-made label illustrating Christians in the church "protest-ing" what was going on inside. So the term "Roman Catholoic" is a non-sequitur to themeaning of church. The Universal Church is neither Protestant, nor of Rome, it is the church of Christ. This idea of names and titles like RC and Protestant do not define God's divinely inspired church.

Mark 9:38-41
  • "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
  • But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
  • For he that is not against us is on our part.
  • For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."

Clearly, by Christ's own teaching there is no one divine group set apart from the rest, except the true Universal Church that consists of many assemblies and groups. It's not labels, it's fruits.

You're taking labels and assigning some divine construction to the groups they have come to define (e.g., R.C.). Very much like those, who because of their tradition, define Israel as the Lord's chosen people from a misapplication of history. Yes, Israel is, but it's not the nation in the Middle East, it's Universal Israel or Israel Catholic. Likewise, yes, there is a Universal Church, but it's not Roman Catholicism.

 
Quote
>>>
..why do so many protestants believe the Roman Catholic Church to be heretical, and membership in it an insurmountable obstacle to salvation?
<<<

The answer is, because of what "The scriptures" declare. We believe it because our authority is the Bible, the word of God and not our own feelings, or our own will (what we want). Roman Catholicism is antithetical to the doctrines of grace and authority of God, which is the only salvation plan that works. Without grace alone, Christ is become as ineffectual to the cause, requiring our supplemental works for salvation. You simply cannot get to heaven by the Roman Catholic merit and penance system. Nor is that at all compatible with the true gospel. What is so hard to understand about that? It's constantly repeated in hundreds of different ways.

Galatians 5:3-4
  • "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
  • Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

We've fallen from the Grace of Christ if we preach a justification by our own penance, keeping the law, works, or meritorious actions.
 
 
Quote
>>>
..One does not have to be Catholic to pose those questions, despite the attempts of some here to turn me into an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church.
<<<

With all due respect, it seems obvious to me you're doing a great job of that all by yourself. I don't know what else you would call it.

 
Quote
>>>
It would seem to me that before you condemn another sect of Christians with heresy or not partaking of saving grace you should have explicit Scriptural authority for doing so.
<<<

I'm condemning "Heretical Doctrines," and I do have explicit command to do so. But the word does not profit if it is ignored. For example the "unambiguous" scripture that salvation cannot at all be of works, and if it is, then it is no more Grace! I'd say that's pretty clear, wouldn't you? But it is totally ignored, or effectively made of non-effect. RC blatantly holds a doctrine of salvation based upon works. God said that cannot be the gospel of His grace. The question is, how explicit does He have to say it before we start receiving His word as true and authoritative?

 
Quote
>>>
2. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
<<<

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with judging the heresy of any church or its doctrine. I'm judging church doctrine, not individual salvation. Not only are we commanded to judge church doctrine, but without such judgment, we will be ripe to be carried about with every wind of doctrine. Is it agape love to warn of impending judgment, not to pat on the back saying "Peace, Peace, when there is no Peace?"

Ephesians 4:14-15
  • "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
  • But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:"

This is the job of the universal Church, each part doing its own work of faith in love, with Christ the head of the body.

 
Quote
>>>
What is the gospel?
<<<

It is the good news of getting right with God by the unconditional "unmerited favor" of God. Something that you say you believe is true in the doctrines of Grace, while in practice you appear to deny it in an implicit acceptance of Roman Catholicism as Christ's Church when it clearly denies this is true. As I said, we cannot have it both ways. Or as God says.

Romans 11:6
  • "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

You're asking "what is the gospel," and that sounds an awful lot like the sarcasm of Pilate (John 18:38) asking, "What is truth." I suppose that if he knew what it was, he wouldn't have asked, and would have known not to ignore the truth right before him.

 
Quote
>>>
What is the core that all must believe in to be true followers of Christ?
<<<

Christ! Christ is the core or root that all must believe in to be true Christians. Just believing in a name doesn't cut it. If it did, all of Israel would be saved because they believe in the Messiah as well. But was their belief in a Messiah of works, or a Messiah of grace? In truth, they held basically to the same works doctrines as Arminians and Roman Catholicism. Clearly, it was a type of gospel, but not the gospel of the true Christ. Israel didn't want the Messiah of the Bible, they served another Christ with another gospel, which required works to be righteous. You see, the more things change, the more they remain the same. There is no profit in the works of a man's own hands. Or as the Preacher declared:

Ecclesiastes 1:3
  • "What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?"
Ecclesiastes 1:9
  • "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 1:14
  • "I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit."
Ecclesiastes 2:11
  • "Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun."

The works of God's people are the fruit of Christ working within them. Their faith, the faith of Christ.


Quote
>>>
God is telling us in Romans 14 that dietary considerations, thoughts as to days of worship, are not enough - or should not be enough - to separate some of us from the Universal Church.
<<<

We're not talking about days of worship, or what foods we eat. We're talking about the "authority" of the Universal Church, and the "false Gospel" of Salvation by man's own works, the labor of his own hands. This is the crux of the matter that separates Roman Catholicism from the true gospel.

..by the way, it also separates many Protestant Churches from the true church and gospel. This isn't about Roman Catholicism, it's about the true churches, and heretical churches with doctrines that cannot save.

 
Quote
>>>
All Catholics and Protestants (or at least most) would subscribe to all the orthodox Christian statements of doctrine in the Apostle's creed. Is that not enough?
<<<

No. If that were enough, then every single person that entered a church and mouthed the creed and sinner's prayer would be saved. They are not! The devil can deliver you 100,000 people today who subscribe to all the orthodox Christian statements and doctrines in the Apostle's creed. That doesn't mean a thing regarding their true spiritual condition. Many years ago the madman Jim Jones subscribed to the great love of God, but did that mean he was a part of the universal church and was not a heretic? No, for he believed whatever he wanted and in the end he cracked and poisoned his flock. We have to understand, there are many false prophets and teachers gone out into the world (according to the authority of God's word). And they come not looking like wolves, but as wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. i.e., they come looking "JUST LIKE" sheep. It's no mystery, it should be something we expect. We were warned by Christ and His apostles.

2nd Corinthians 11:13-15
  • "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
  • And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
  • Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."

That there are Churches that look and feel as if they are of Christ, but are not, is no great mystery. Marvel not at this. Truth found in recognizing not the outward appearance and appeal (like Roman Catholicism), but the inward (Revelation 18).


 
Quote
>>>
If another Christian affirms everything in the Apostle's creed, is he not deserving of our acknowledgement of his brotherhood with us on the the essential gospel?
<<<

If we were to believe everyone who said Lord,, Lord, we'd be a pitiful bunch. If that were the case, God would not warn us to try (test) the spirits that we be not deceived by false teachings.

1st John 4:1
  • "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

Confession of the Apostles creed, or the sinners' prayer, is not the "test" of a true Church. Confession of Christ is more than mere verbal assertion. What the church is built upon will determine if the church will stand. If upon the "authority" of Christ, the WORD of God, then it cannot be moved. If upon roman church traditions (Matthew 15:3), Papal rule in the Temple and works of men, that church is not the church of solid foundation. For it is self-evident (by scripture) that obedience is the evidence of this firm foundation. He who hears the authority of the word and obeys rather than "ignores," is like building upon a stone foundation in the house of God which cannot be moved. When one teaches from the word of God, then one teaches as one having authority. Consider wisely:

Matthew 7:24-29
  • "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
  • And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
  • And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
  • And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
  • And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
  • For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."

We must be careful what we build, where we build, and upon what we build. Not upo the words of a Pope, but upon the Solid Rock.


Quote
>>>
God tells us clearly what it heretical at various places in the New Testament, in no uncertain terms:
1 John 22-3: Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
<<<

Denies verbally, or denies intellectually and from the heart? I submit to you that professed Christians deny Christ all the time, while at the same time professing that they know Him. We have had both Protestant and Roman catholic church leaders who have confessed the creed and not denied Christ verbally, yet they were/are children of Satan. We cannot understand these passages in a vacuum, the truth is gleaned from understanding God's word in the light of God's word, comparing scripture with scripture. The word of God is the "authoritative" confirmation of this truth that there are other ways to deny Christ.

Titus 1:16
  • "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."
Matthew 7:22-23
  • "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
  • And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

So clearly, anyone can profess the Apostles creed, and anyone can claim knowledge of God, but that doesn't make them the One True Universal Church.

 
Quote
>>>
How does God, not man, define heresy here: those who believe that Jesus is not the Christ, and that He did not come in the flesh. Such are of "antichrist" - they deny the necessity of Christ's coming, the fact of His coming, His divinity, and His redemptive work. That is the gospel.
<<<

Heresy is variance from the doctrines of Christ. A damnable heresy is a heresy that leads to perdition. It is a teaching in disunion with Christ. Denying Christ denies salvation. But there are many ways to deny Christ.

2nd Peter 2:1
  • "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

I can only "assume" you don't want to include people who verbally profess Christ, but who deny Him by their fruits. But people teaching salvation by works, are at variance with the doctrines of Christ, and thus deny Him by their works. A tree is known by it's fruits.

 
Quote
>>>
That is the gospel.
<<<

No, the gospel is the "good news" of the Lord's free gift of unconditional, unmerited salvation. The Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation by works is "bad news." Because if thereby, there is none, no not one, who will ever be saved. It is a perverted gospel, another gospel.

Galatians 1:6-7
  • "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
  • Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ."

No, it is not something difficult, it is something that had even begun in the days of the early Church. God doesn't define these pervert-ers of his grace as in union, but as those preaching heresy (another gospel).

 
Quote
>>>
Catholics don't deny any of the above.
<<<

I fear you don't know Roman Catholicism very well. Roman Catholicism teaches purging one's own sins in purgatory. Roman Catholicism denies salvation of God is by grace alone (unmerited favor), and teaches it is obtained through our works. Roman Catholicism denies that the word of God is the ultimate authority over the church and (incredibly) for years worked to keep Bibles out of the hands of the people of their church. You talk about history, there is much of it that testifies against 1600 years the RC being God's church. In fact, Roman Catholicism boasts that without them, man wouldn't even have the word of God. We guess God then should be grateful to them?

 
Quote
>>>
I just don't - perhaps it is my background - see that heaven is closed to millions of Christians because
<<<

There's no question that it is your church background (traditions). But people with Roman Catholic leanings are not alone in that. I debate with Baptists all the time from scripture, and they cannot get past their church traditions because of their background. I debate with the Reformed all the time from scripture, and they cannot get past their church traditions because of their background. I debate with Presbyterians all the time from scripture, and they cannot get past their church traditions because of their background. So Roman Catholicism is not unique in their bias towards their backgrounds. All these groups have one thing in common. When presented with scripture, they all deny that it's because of their church traditions that they don't believe it (won't receive it). You see, it isn't about what group we are from, it's about "surrendering" to the authority of the word of God over what seems right in our own eyes. Tradition is a hard thing to break from. As it was for the Israelites before us.

It's interesting that you say, "I just don't see that heaven is closed to millions of Christians because..." This is exactly what I am talking about. Emotionalism, sentimentality, pity, feelings. Do we believe what we want, what we think or "feel" is right, or do we believe the authority of the word?

Proverbs 21:2
  • "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts."

If God left it to every man to believe what he thinks is right, we've have a billion different doctrines and another billion exceptions. No one's family members would ever be under wrath of God, there would be no suffering in hell, and we'd allow many circumstances for divorce. But God doesn't leave it up to us to believe what we want, or follow what someone teaches us. He inspired the word of God written as the only infallible rule of faith and practice for us today unto obedience. The Pope notwithstanding.

1st John 2:3-5
  • "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
  • He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a Liar, and the truth is not in him.
  • But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him."

If we keep His commandments we know Him, not if we claim to be of Christ.


Quote
>>>
You have read - and again, i think you read correctly - the Scriptures to indicate that God has done all the work of our salvation, and that that is grace. But where does the Scripture say that someone who believes in Our Lord's divinity, and the necessity of His work on Calvary for humanity's salvation, is a heretic because he or she believes that one must exercise their will to make that grace effectual? That may be a wrong reading, but does believing that consign one to hell?

I ask in the spirit of seeking the truth, and without pre-judgment on the issue, although i do have my view at present.
<<<

If I were to ignore scripture and give you the "smooth" answers that mankind wants, I would (as a man) say you're right. If I were to ignore scripture I would say there's no way God condemned the vast majority of those of Israel, and only saved a remnant that followed Christ. If I were to ignore scripture I would tell Roman Catholics what they want to hear, and make them feel good about their delusion. But I cannot, for I am a witness to the unadulterated truth of scriptures. The truth is real compassion, not filling peoples' heads with a false sense of security. As Paul, telling them, that perhaps some may be provoked to listen, read, consider and come to their senses (Romans 11:11) in acknowledgement of the truth.

Isaiah 30:8-11
  • "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
  • That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
  • Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
  • Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us."

The true Child of God is born from above, where he has an earnest desire to do the will of God, not his own will. And therefore, we can say no more or less than what God says. And God not only says that Grace cannot be works, and works cannot be Grace, He demonstrated it's heresy by laying the nation of Israel under the curse of blindness because of it. When are we going to start learning from Biblical History, rather than secular church history? Works gospels are a heresy, a curse, and the church that practices this is under the curse.

Galatians 3:10
  • "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

There is none who can obtain Salvation by works, and it's not my word that they are accursed, but God's.

 
Quote
>>>
Please don't use the "straw man" of the Catholic apologist to think that you don't have to address my questions, and can simply say "two gospels," etc.
<<<

Where there is no "Straw Man," there is acceptance of the truth. The straw man argument is in order to avoid the truth. i.e., when you talk about the history of Roman Catholicism, are you not attempting to avoid the real issues of the Scriptures and the "DOCTRINES" of Roman Catholicism, and how they are incompatible with the true church? Is works compatible with grace? Is Purgatory compatible with the wages of sin being death and the only way being Christ? Is the authority of the church over God's own words incompatible with God being the final and ultimate authority?

..sorry, the fact is, these are two gospels. That's not rhetoric. That's the truth.


Quote
>>>
Show me Scripture that supports the view that one holding to Roman Catholic views on certain things like grace is not only wrong on a point of theology, but in danger of hell.
<<<

Which I've been doing, again and again. God says a works gospel cannot be a grace gospel, and any gospel that is not of grace, is a doctrine subjecting us to Hell. Because it's of works. How much scripture do you require to know that we're saved by grace, and cannot be saved by works? As Israel lies in bondage to those very same works doctrines. You know that, correct? So Roman Catholicism does the same and shall escape when God's first Covenaed people didn't? The only difference is in "WORDS." they both make themselves in bondage to the law.

Ephesians 2:8-9
  • "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
  • Not of works, lest any man should boast."

By grace we are saved, not by works. Roman Catholicism contradicts God. These things are not abstruse, though you seem determined to make them so. Calling oneself Roman Catholic doesn't make anyone the children of God, grace does. And Hell follows everyone not having a salvation of Grace. Abraham had a salvation of Grace, but those professing to be of him did not. As I said, it has nothing to do with the title or the name, but recognizing the work of Christ is the only thing that can make us the "Universal Church." Did Israel have the very same "work for your salvation" policy that Roman Catholicism does, and what did it profit them?

John 8:39-40
  • "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
  • But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham."

The works of Abraham were works of faith. For by grace was he saved through faith, and that not of his own works, it was the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8 ). That is what you are not comprehending.
 
nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

mozy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Gender: Female
  • I am a seeker
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2004, 11:45:24 PM »
I too was brought up in the RC Church and with its teachings.  When I started attending a small church in a very small town I was amazed to learn that the believers there were so against Catholics. They would often quote what the Catholic church believed in. They had heard it from some where.  They knew all Catholics were headed for hell.  I found that quite amusing because as a Catholic I had thought the same about a Protestant. I thank God that God has continued to work in my life even though many believes where hard to give up. I believe it was God's work in my heart and His guidence that brought me to a fuller understanding of his word. Now when I see RC
I think of Sproul not church.  Continue your walk and let God guide you.  It will come.  He saves His chosen.
How do we ever know for sure who is chosen.  As I have grown in the word I have come to realize that many of those condeming Catholics will themselves be condemed to hell.  I am afraid that as you do grow in the word you will no longer be satisfied with your church but it will be mighty hard to find a well gounded protestant church.  Most protestant church are more interested in being friendly that there doctrine.  God Bless you in your walk.  God has promised that you will find Him if you seek him with your whole inner being.  That is a promise. It is His job to save you. If He has called you, He will save you.  He has saved Catholics before.

plowboy1534

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2004, 02:52:36 AM »
Tony,

You’re setting up a false dichotomy between grace and man’s faith, when the real dichotomy is between faith and works, meaning ritual actions or other ceremonial or even moral or “good” acts as the source of one’s good standing with God. You can trot out all the “proof” texts on your faux issue  that you want - the Arminian has his “proof” on that issue too. Your issue is a false shibboleth that doesn’t, despite your belief, stand guard at the doors of heaven.  

You apparently think Catholics are on the same level as Jews when it comes to salvation. Wrong. Rather than resort to rhetoric, I’ll quote Scripture:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The Jews have rejected Christ, while Roman Catholics, despite your rhetoric about faith versus works, have not. The distinction that is drawn between believers and non-believers is “faith in Christ.” And it is the distinction Paul draws in Galatians, the text you first cite to advance your false faith/works issue.

What is going on in Galatians is Paul getting on that Church for slipping back into following the old “law” system of ritual observances, etc., when the point is faith in Christ.

Galatians 4:9-10

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Galatians 3:24-6

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Again, here’s the “point” of Galatians:

Galatians 5:6

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh love.

The true dichotomy is justification by belief, faith, or slitting the throats of animals or having a knife taken to one’s foreskin.  

Romans 10:1-4

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
 
And on the issue of faith, and whose it is, which you care deeply about, you pause and look carefully at this verse:

Galatians 3:6

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

As I said, the Calvinists (yes, I call them that, not because I’m obsessed with sectarian titles, but because I value verbal economy, and the term is commonly understood) and the Arminians (like Dave Hunt) all have their proof texts, but they are fighting about an issue that is not the core of the gospel. The whole point, as Paul said in Romans, is the “righteousness of God without the law,” and our being “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood”. Romans 3:21,24. No  salvation by works, “but by the law of faith.” Romans 3:27.

Man’s belief or faith is simply not the  “works” Paul is talking about. Man’s belief or faith is what Paul is positing against “works”! You should know that, but you’re too wrapped up in your false dichotomy, and too dependent on the same habitual reveille to get out of bed. And because your false crusade is so habitual, you also fall back on the same old arguments and . . . straw men. Like your old spin, doctrines of God and not man, what God says and not what men say, etc. Which is a valid perception, except that you’re too ready to throw that charge at people. It’s become convenient for you, not so much as a way to avoid other’s arguments, but to build a wall around your own. Like some of your other mischaracterizations.

Like, “you’re taking labels and assigning some divine construction to the groups they have come to define.” No. I’m using labels because it’s verbally economical to do so. When I say Protestant, or Roman Catholic, people know what I mean. With one word.

Like going on for a few pages about the non-issue (between you and I) of hypocrisy, and those who “mouth” the Apostles Creed without living it. Cute. It’s ridiculous that you spend so much time arguing that someone must be a doer, must turn their faith into action. Where did that come from? We were talking issues of sound doctrine, of distinguishing belief, of belief that defines the core message of the gospel, and I mentioned the doctrinal substance contained in the Creed as containing that core. The fact that you went on and on about the necessity of living one’s faith, as if I somehow missed that or suggested otherwise . . . another straw man.  

Like, “you appear to deny it [the doctrines of grace] in an implicit acceptance of Roman Catholicism as Christ’s Church.” Really? Very, very implicit apparently. So “implicit” I wasn’t even aware of it. But now, since it’s come out of the closet . . . I disavow and deny it. Explicitly. I “accept” that Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, Orthodox, any Christian who believes that heaven is entered through the Door, Jesus Christ, and only the Door, and only through faith in the Door, and who strives to make that belief a living, active thing in their lives, is part of “Christ’s Church.” And that is not an emotional, compassionate, humane argument. It is an argument based on Scripture.

Romans 10:9

That if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I, like you, believe that God, as an act of His loving sovereignity, chose some of us, elected some of us, and that Christ paid for the sins of those elect only. And that we could not have faith without that choosing. But that, as wonderful as it is to you and I, is not the point. The point is faith, belief in the necessity of Christ, and living it. Whether man has any role or not in that faith is besides the point. Heaven is big enough for both you, me and Dave Hunt. And for anyone who has that faith and lives it. To battle over whether that faith has anything to do with man’s believing on his own, which is not the type of “work” condemned by the gospel, or is solely up to God, is just stupid. Semantics. The point is faith, a faith that makes rituals, ceremonies, and the “law” irrelevant. The point is a faith in Him who fulfilled the law, and living that faith. Period.

And Israel was not rejected because it believed in “works,” but because it didn’t believe in Christ. I pray you get the importance of that critical distinction some day.          


tornpage


Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

plowboy1534

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2004, 03:10:33 AM »
Mozy,

Thank you for your thoughts. I think the pew you sit in is irrelevant, basically. At least in terms of the only denominations i know anything about. I don't know much about Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and probably a lot more. So . . . I qualify my saying that the pew is irrelevant.

Yes, He has saved "Catholics." Like Luther and Calvin, i'd imagine. :)

Anyway, thank you for the encouragement and kind words.

tornpage
Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Banner of Roman Catholicism
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2004, 05:04:53 AM »
>>>
Tony,

You're setting up a false dichotomy between grace and man's faith,
<<<

Here we go again with the obligatory "Straw Man" that I suppose we must see in every one of your posts. On the contrary, I am quite obviously contrasting God's grace with man's works. In other words, the very well know belief of Roman Catholicism (despite their objections) that they are not saved by the righteousness of God's grace alone, but by actively working toward that righteousness (an untenable combination).

Romans 11:6
  • "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

That they are working themselves into salvation, even paying their way in after they are dead by means of purging their sins in the mythical "Purgatory!" In a word, its called "Heresy!" These are the incontrovertible facts of Roman Catholicism. It's not about alleged rhetoric strewn all through this post, it's about the incompatibility of God's word with the words of Roman Catholicism. Something Roman Catholics (and their Protestant apologists) never quite seem to understand. If you want to play word games with grace/faith/works, it's your prerogative, but God is not mocked. So don't tell me I'm setting up false dichotomies, I'm well aware of what Roman Catholicism teaches, and I dare say a lot more aware than most Roman Catholics. Besides, it is self evident that Roman Catholicism speaks for itself:


"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be Anathema."  (Canon 9, Council of Trent).

"If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed," (Canon 12, Council of Trent).

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14, Council of Trent).


Is that Rhetoric or "in truth" is that the words of Roman Catholicism itself? Time to wake up. I've talked with Priests for many years, and they admit their teaching is earned through their lives, not something bestowed upon them. You work for salvation, which they deny they have until Christ returns. But what does the Scriptures say about justification by faith alone? Contrast their own words with God's words.

Romans 3:27-28
  • "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
  • Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

In Roman Catholicism (as demonstrated in their catechisms) justification cannot be by faith alone, and heaven is clearly stated to be the reward for doing good works. Which contradicts God's unadulterated word.

Ephesians 2:8-10
  • "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
  • Not of works, lest any man should boast.
  • For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

So if you want to be an apologist for Roman Catholicism, at least you should first learn their doctrines and the precepts of their Religion. Brush up on your Roman Catholic catechisms before attempting to defend its heretical church doctrines.


Quote
>>>
You can trot out all the "proof" texts on your faux issue  that you want - the Arminian has his "proof" on that issue too.
<<<

And this is Typical. All these scriptures texts (God's words) are never good enough, because it's not the "authority" of some people, tradition is. So here we go again with another round of talking about everything except the issue. The heresy of Roman Catholic doctrines.

As for the Arminian, the Arminian has no proofs, what he has is the same thing that Roman Catholicism has. A lot of denials, a few Straw Men, some scriptures out of context, and his own will. Always a poisonous combination.


Quote
>>>
You apparently think Catholics are on the same level as Jews when it comes to salvation. Wrong. ..The Jews have rejected Christ
<<<

Actually I don't think, I know that their doctrines are on the same visceral mechanisms based level. They "both" hold to a doctrine of doing works in order to get into the kingdom of heaven. No matter what or who one claims to believe in, the proof is in the actual pudding. An analogy might be that two people could both own cars, but they have different models. That doesn't mean that the cars are not at all alike or that they work on very different principles. Sure, one might be a green Chevy with a larger engine, and the other a green ford with a smaller one. But they are both automobiles, and their workings are based on the very same principles.

In other words, there are all kinds of ways to deny and reject Christ. You should know that! When we "search the scriptures," or even read the testimony given, we know that. Just saying I believe in Christ doesn't mean a thing except it brings "more judgment" upon the head of the one saying it (if he is not truly of Christ). And so to imply that Roman Catholicism is legitimate Messiah based, while the Jew's religion is not because they don't verbally deny the name Christ/Messiah, is without validation.

Titus 1:16
  • "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

Those are God's words, not mine. At judgment day, there will be a great company of professing Christians thinking their good works had proved their salvation. And they won't be Jewish people, and yer Christ will reply, He never knew them, despite their protests.

Matthew 7:22-23
  • "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
  • And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Luke 13:26-27
  • "Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
  • But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity."

So you may think there is a difference between Jews who deny Christ, and Gentiles who deny him (while all the time being called by His name), but both will be judged as those who deny Him. God said so. God judges the heart. Something many can't see, but that God can't miss.


Quote
>>>
The distinction that is drawn between believers and non-believers is "faith in Christ."
<<<

The distinction drawn between believers and non-believers is the "Faith of Christ."

Not the faith in the Roman Catholic church. Not the faith of Penance. Not the faith of Purgatory, or the faith of the Pope, or faith of works, or of Priests, etc. Abraham believed in the faithfulness of Christ long before the mystery of the Gentiles was revealed. He confessed Christ by his obedience evidencing that the righteousness of God was in him. Roman Catholicism on the other hand, is a religion based upon man made fruits and heretical teachings. What does it confess? The authority of God in His Temple evidenced by His word, or of a man sitting in the Temple "as if" he were the authority of God?


Quote
>>>
Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh love.
The true dichotomy is justification by belief, faith, or slitting the throats of animals or having a knife taken to one's foreskin. 
<<<

Is that anything like justification by purgatory, penance, or our works in this world? Because it sure sounds like it. When are you going to address these heretical doctrines, instead of posts laced with your own tradition/rhetoric? ..my guess, is never!

Romans 6:23
  • "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

The wages of sin is not purgatory, it's death. It is "heresy" for Roman Catholicism to add to God's word in declaring otherwise, no matter how apologists may choose to white-wash these facts.


Quote
>>>
And on the issue of faith, and whose it is, which you care deeply about, you pause and look carefully at this verse:

Galatians 3:6
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
<<<

I just read to you (quoted it word for word) the Roman Catholic's own catechism, the holy grail of Catholicism, which states very plainly that anyone believing that we're saved by belief (faith) alone, let him be accursed. Yet Abraham's belief (faith) was counted as righteousness. How can that be? It can only be because Roman Catholicism is antithetical to these truths, and Abraham had the faith of Christ, which "alone" saved him. Not his works, not a brief stay in Purgatory working off his sins, not a Priest forgiving his sins in God's place, but the faith of Christ alone saved Him.


Quote
>>>
As I said, the Calvinists (yes, I call them that, not because I'm obsessed with sectarian titles, but because I value verbal economy, and the term is commonly understood)
<<<

More Rhetoric. It is your verbal economy that blinds you to the myriad of scriptures upon svcriptures that illustrate Roman Catholicism a bankrupt system. You can call Calvinists whatever you want, but go and argue with them. Because I can't speak for Calvin, Calvinists or their beliefs. There are many Calvinist forums where you can argue authors, history and creeds to your hearts content. But what I bear witness to is the scriptures, and what I believe in comes "directly from those scripture." Try and deal with that, if you can.

If you want to discuss scripture, how about starting by explaining to us from the Bible how Roman Catholicism's Purgatory is not a heretical church teaching? But you see, you "already know" that's impossible to defend Biblically, don't you? ..so spare us the RC apoligies, straw men and rhetoric.


Quote
>>>
Man's belief or faith is what Paul is positing against "works"! You should know that, but you're too wrapped up in your false dichotomy, and too dependent on the same habitual reveille to get out of bed.
<<<

Habitual Reveille? You've made rhetoric an art form, haven't you? Which doesn't address any of the questions of the heresy of Roman Catholicism. I was under the impression the banner of Roman Catholicism was the topic of this thread. But as usual, all you bring to the table is more of the same distraction, slight of hand, smoke screens and mirrors. GOD was not positing belief, or man's faith, against works. He was contrasting man's works in justification against God's true justification process, which is all of grace.

Romans 11:6
  • "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

On the contrary, the Apostle Paul, or rather "GOD," is positing His grace against Man's works. He is illustrating how one cannot get to heaven by one, and how the two cannot be mixed together to come up with a compromise. i.e., "If you have a doctrine that is at all by works, it "CANNOT" anymore be God's grace." That's what God said, that's not my rhetoric. It's authoritative. Learn the difference.


Quote
>>>
Like your old spin, doctrines of God and not man, what God says and not what men say, etc. Which is a valid perception, except that you're too ready to throw that charge at people.
<<<

So I should rather say what Roman Catholicism says, that the infallible authority is of their church, not God's word, the Bible? Or that it's valid, but I should hide it in a closet, or keep it under a bed so as not to offend those who have need to hear it? Or what I have testified to was valid, but I shouldn't say it as Roman catholicism once preached? Or it's valid, but it's not valid because it addresses my own crush on Catholicism? Is that anything like Roman Catholicism's mantra that, "it's by our works, but it's still grace?"

You just don't get it. One or the other please, not both. It's either valid, or it's not valid. It's either works, or it's grace. Either the church is the ultimate authority, or the word of God is. The truth is, it is valid, but you don't like what God has to say because you "know" that to receive it means it condemns Roman Catholicism, and you are an apologist for their heresy. This is why we get all of these posts of rhetoric "in lieu of Biblical posts or evidence" of the truth within Roman Catholicism.

..for there isn't any Biblical proof, is there? That is the bottom line, one which you are desperately trying to avoid and ignore.


Quote
>>>
you're taking labels and assigning some divine construction to the groups they have come to define.

 No. I'm using labels because it's verbally economical to do so. When I say Protestant, or Roman Catholic, people know what I mean. With one word.
<<<

This is another example of your rhetoric in lieu of a legitimate "Biblical" argument. What you did was assign the term "Roman Catholicism" to the Universal Church of the living God, which existed for the 1600 years before the reformation. A claim not even relevant to whether or not its teachings are Heretical. But you talk as if that was a given and everyone should just accept it because you said so. You talk about labels here "as if" it's a fact that Roman Catholicism was the church for 1600 years from Christ's death and before the reformation. That was the whole gist of your argument. You've made the whole church from Christ to the reformation, Roman Catholicism. That is Biblically untenable and is all in your mind. It's a "Straw Man." So with one fell swoop, you've taken all the emphasis off of the "authority" of God's word, and placed it upon secular history and tradition of Roman Catholicism. Call me crazy, but I'm weary of anyone who avoids scripture and the legitimate defense of doctrines "as if" it was the plague.

It may be verbally economical for you, but it is misleading and (if you know the facts) downright spurious. As I said, I'm not playing that game. Stick to the scriptures and save the history and rhetoric for the "Calvinists."

Matthew 11:5-6
  • "The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
  • And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me."

It is a given that many will be offended by the healing gospel of Christ, those who try not to offend the world "usually" end up offending God. I guess you know by now, I'm not very politically correct. I deal with the scriptures here, not Church traditions, whether Calvinist or Roman Catholic.


Quote
>>>
It's ridiculous that you spend so much time arguing that someone must be a doer, must turn their faith into action. Where did that come from? We were talking issues of sound doctrine
<<<

That chapter I quoted about building upon the Rock of the word of God so that your house will stand when the winds blow and the rains come "WERE" specifically talking about issues of sound doctrine. You cannot have sound doctrine except your house is built upon the solid Rock of the word of God, not Pope Peter and alleged successors. That's what Christ was saying there. Contrasting those who hear the word and are not obedient to it, against those who hear the word and are obedient. That's why the house of Roman Catholicism fell, because it was built upon the alleged authority of men in the form of the Popes. It's the foolishness of having a man as the rock or foundation of the church and its infallible authority, rather than the word of God Himself. I strongly suggest you read Christ's parable again, because you "obviously" just don't get it! Those who "hear" and give evidence by works are those built upon the solid Rock of Christ, the word of God, the ultimate authority of the church.

Quote
>>>

          ---- Cut, Snip -----

<<<

..the bulk of the rest of your message is just more whining and rhetoric about how I did this, and how unfair I was in doing that, and how bad my etiquette is in doing the other, etc., etc. I've heard it all before. So then, "Where's the Beef?" Where is the Biblical backing for your contention that Roman Catholicism was not a heretical teaching--remembering, that was the topic. I guess it slipped your mind.

But if you have anything to say besides "you don't know how Roman Catholicism can be heretical," or my "habitual reveille to get out of bed," then by all means, post it with scripture evidence. But No more babbling on about nothing to avoid the issue, please.

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]